In his blog entry for May, Jari Kaivo-oja summarised the 10 most important ideas and concepts that will have an impact on future development, as originally presented by Time magazine. Instead – or in addition to – weak signals, foresight research should also consider the super ideas that shape our future.

The 10 super ideas, as presented by Time:

1. USA’s economic and political dominance will continue.
2. Nations will re-define their borders.
3. Broadband internet will be the oil fields of the future.
4. Drop-out economy, where the youth lose their interest in education, will rise.
5. Co-operation between China and the USA will increase and impact the global economy.
6. Triumph through mistakes: we should not try to eliminate making mistakes, but allow people to experiment, learn and develop – for example, by being entrepreneurs.
7. White minority. The white population will become a minority in several countries and major cities.
8. TV saves the world. Television will still be the next mass medium in several developing areas.
9. The end of the elite. In the US, the elite, such as the Congress, major corporations and national institutions, take heavy critique and become re-evaluated.
10. Radical changes become less frequent. Technology-driven visions will not change the world overnight.

Design is not usually brought up as a theme for foresight. Design is dismissed as a superficial phenomenon related to fashion, without any relevance in societal foresight. At the same time, companies embracing the value of design utilise their knowledge of design and fashion in their foresight work. Design is seen as a tool for expressing changes that are not seen in traditional market research, at least not in quantitative studies. Therefore, the information acquired through designers’ insights has strategic significance.

Naturally, it is apparent that companies operating in the product manufacturing business have to take a stronger interest in design and fashion than, for example, public administration. Through their output, companies affect how consumers develop their preferences and how they make their choices. Increasingly shorter cycles in fashion challenge the companies to look out for weak signals instead of statistical data. In addition to gathering information, companies change the markets by actively shaping the future themselves.

Should the participants of the National Foresight Network monitor changes in consumption? Having some governmental department list consumer trends feels a cumbersome idea. This government control should not happen. Instead, they should receive overviews to the changes in citizen consumerism. I believe that many people involved in foresight follow these signals at least from the mainstream media, if not for a specific purpose, at least for their own curiosity. Could these weak signals have a stronger role in national foresight?

The role of weak signals is challenging because, by definition, they are weak. It is impossible to tell what will come out of them. Quite possibly, nothing will come out of them. Therefore, they are a weak foundation for such decision-making that avoids taking risks. Strong investments and policies cannot be based on intuition. Some of the weak signals that the designers acknowledge are so deeply in the domain of design that they do not have a societal dimension. In addition, anything that catches the designer’s eye could be presented as a weak signal.

Weak signals may be especially important when defining the new directions after the current economical crisis. It may be worthwhile to examine new topics that do not at first appear to be related to macro economy, management models or global power balance. The factors driving the change in everyday life could carry the seed for change in the entire system.

The roots of futures research are in the 1960’s, when the interest for outlining the future rose because of current environmental issues, among other things. Back then, there was a general interest to question the military rearmament and rising materialism, which could lead to the destruction of the planet. A paradigmatic change was pursued, aiming to change the foundations of the society’s activities.

This kind of futures research may have appeared too heavy a science for business and governance. Futures research is interested in looking into the future for decades at a time, whereas many actors and organisations define their strategies for two years at a time.

Foresight as a term or as a method of working came up in the 1990’s. Foresight emphasizes practicality and data applicability, and thus overlaps with planning. The risk with foresight is going so close to its subject that the future is dropped out of the picture, and only a snapshot of the situation and some defining statements are developed. Foresight activities by different sectors could also be difficult to use in other than their own specific field.

The need for systemic change poses an interesting challenge for foresight. When you take a look at the entire society and talk about change, you cannot stick to planning based on industry domains or sectors. You must have a broader and deeper view. In fact, you need to take a step back and entertain the thought of tearing down the existing models of operation. In other words, you must reach the core of the things that tie us into our current solutions. Only then things can be changed without instantly colliding with practical obstacles caused by deeply rooted conventions in management or company processes.

This need has clearly been acknowledged. Some long term scenarios have been recently produced in Finland in the name of foresight. Foresight is clearly on display. It is being discussed a lot, and foresight is a desired part of all kinds of planning. It is important to remember foresight’s close relation to futures research, so that we do not look too close.