FUTURES
RESEARCH
7246 MEG96 Qualitative Research
___________________________________________________________________________
A NEW QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TECHNIQUE
FOR EXPLORING THE FUTURE
David Mercer
Open University Business School
___________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The paper describes the new qualitative research technique developed to allow investigation of future trends. Developed as part of the latest stage in a programme of research lasting more than half a decade, and tested against 17 groups containing managers from 140 organisations, it is based on the theory that the expectation of managers intimately effects the way they behave. A knowledge of these expectations may be used as a guide to their future actions, and hence to future outcomes overall.
Address for Correspondence:
D.S. Mercer
Senior Lecturer
Open University Business School
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Telephone: (44) 1908 655888
Fax: (44) 1908 655898
E-mail: d.s.mercer@open.ac.uk
A NEW QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TECHNIQUE
FOR EXPLORING THE FUTURE
Introduction
We, at the Open University Business School (OUBS), have focused - at MBA level - on strategic issues. We have also tended to focus on longer-range strategy; the key MBA course, in this context, being 'The Challenge of the Environment' - which has broken new ground in addressing the issues in the wider environment which are critical in terms of long-term (10+ years ahead) survival.
Previous formal work 'on the future' has largely been restricted to the larger think-tanks, typically using Delphi techniques - whose results have often been challenged as being too inaccurate for future planning purposes. In any case, such techniques are not available to smaller organisations. The most reported work, however, has been that of individual futurologists - usually reporting their own subjective viewpoints, based upon their readings of other commentators.
As part of our development of the teaching material involved in the MBA we have, therefore, been forced to develop new techniques - such as 'simpler scenarios' (Mercer 1995) - for strategic planning. In particular, though, we have increasingly needed to develop research techniques to identify the key forces for change emerging in the external environment. As a result, we have - for several years - been attempting to develop new, formal research techniques which may be used for this purpose. This paper reports our progress to date - with new techniques which appear to successfully produce qualitative results.
Background - Previous Research
The research described in this paper is, thus, the latest (completed) stage of a programme which has so far lasted more than half a decade. The previous stages have been, in chronological order:
1. Depth Interviews - the first element - intended to sketch out how knowledge of the wider environment over the longer term was incorporated into strategy - comprised depth interviews with 50 senior executives from multinational and government departments.
2. Computer Conferences - based on the views of these executives, a series of computer conferences - under the general title of the 'Millennium Project - were run in which 400 managers, members of The Strategic Planning Society and Demos as well as OUBS students, debated both the techniques involved in long-range planning and especially the management issues which were going to be important over the longer term.
3. Industry Scenarios - to obtain a better picture of these issues, 200 OUBS students completed detailed scenarios of the future of their own industry. These were then content analysed as the basis for statistical analysis.
4. Marketing Theory - in a parallel exercise, 500 OUBS students completed a detailed questionnaire about their organisation's approach marketing strategy and its their specific use of marketing techniques.
Most of these various pieces of research were intended to provide results in their own right. On the other hand, their main benefit has proved to be as input to our progressive development of research techniques for investigating the longer term future. This paper reports the techniques we now use to successfully address this in qualitative terms.
Background - Expectations Theory
Although the techniques involved have 'emerged' from previous stages, the key underlying assumptions behind this latest stage of the research may be said to have originated with one of the favourite theories of the later monetarists; rational expectations. Taking this concept further, and applying it in a more general sense, much of society now looks to such 'expectations' - to set the context for what will actually happen in the future. These expectations are the outcomes which they are persuaded will inevitably happen given certain inputs. Our basic assumption, therefore, is that if enough people put their weight behind the same 'expectations', and the inputs are observed to happen, they will adjust their behaviour to take account of what is expected; and, accordingly, the expected outcomes will occur! This process might be described as 'self-fulfilling expectations'.
This most obviously happened in the field of macro-economics. The rules developed by Lord Keynes provided a very workable means of predicting, and indeed of controlling, the macro-economic environment for a number of decades. Their subsequent replacement by the theories of the monetarists - which were much less than rational in that the main ingredient, money supply, was never truly measurable - also worked reasonably well for a decade or more. Now the single element of the interest rate, supported by an unconscious conspiracy with the financial markets, is also - in its turn - working well as a predictor.
Overall, then, the research set out to describe the future which will come about as a result of current expectations.
It is based, in the first instance, upon three assumptions which have only become viable in recent years:
1 - The future of humanity is, in general, no longer constrained by any significant shortage of resources.
This is almost a revolutionary assumption, but - as can be seen from the detailed findings of our research reported elsewhere - it is a fully justified one. It is revolutionary, therefore, not because it flies in the face of known facts, but because so much of current social, political and economic theory, and policy, assumes exactly the opposite!
2 - Accordingly, that future is now being progressively determined by social decisions, taken not just by a few leaders but by millions of their citizens, taking billions of small decisions as part of their daily lives.
Thus, our lives are no longer necessarily ruled by the harsh logic of economics or the whims of political ideology but are decided by our own actions.
3 - The general, longer-term, framework within which these specific, individual decisions is taken is largely provided by the individuals' expectations of what the future holds for them.
Man, and woman, has free will; he or she will ultimately make their own decision, but a major influence on that decision - and often the most important influence - is what they expect the future to be, and hence how it will generally determine the ultimate outcome of their own small decision.
In the specific context of this research, this naturally leads to the most important assumption:
4 - If you can accurately measure these 'expectations' as to future developments, to a large extent you can as accurately predict the most likely form of that future.
Even if you can just determine the expectations of the opinion-leaders, as our research did, you can still predict, with some degree of accuracy, the major elements currently shaping the future. You can, to put it crudely, see the future which is already written.
Scenario (Focus) Group Method
The key research technique, reported here as the final part of our qualitative research, was based upon techniques we have developed for simpler scenario forecasting (Mercer 1995). In the context of these 'simpler scenarios' this process comprises five main steps - all taken by the managers wishing to investigate the future of their organisations:
1. Decide The Drivers For Change
2. Bring Drivers Together Into A Viable Framework
3. Produce Initial (Seven To Nine) Mini-Scenarios
4. Reduce To Two To Three Scenarios
5. Write The Scenarios
In this global research, however, the first two steps were undertaken exclusively by our participants and the last two exclusively by ourselves. In the case of step 3 there was an overlap:
Step 1 - Decide the Drivers for Change
The first stage of our normal scenario forecasting is to examine the results of the prior environmental analysis to determine which are the most important factors that will decide the nature of the future environment within which the organisation operates. These factors are sometimes called 'variables' (because they will vary over the time being investigated). We tend to prefer the term 'drivers' (for change), since this terminology is not laden with quasi-scientific connotations and reinforces the participant's commitment to search for those forces which will act to change the future.
In the case of this global work there was no prior analysis, since the members of the groups came fresh to the work. On the other hand, they had all been exposed to a wide range of analytical inputs from the media; and this proved quite sufficient for them to productively engage in the debate - and, we would argue, for them to produce meaningful results.
In any case, perhaps the most difficult aspect is freeing the participants from the preconceptions they take into the process with them. Due to the disparate backgrounds of their members this was not a problem for our groups. Equally, the requirement that they look 30 years into the future created few objections - and posed few problems in practice.
Group Session Format
The simple technique we have come to recommend for general usage in scenario forecasting is based on the now almost universal availability of Post-It Notes. It is a very simple technique which is especially useful at this - brainstorming - stage, but we now also use it more generally for handling all scenario planning debates; and it may be used to support any form of planning process. In line with our objectives of simplicity and ease-of-use, it requires only a conference room with a bare wall and copious supplies of 3M Post-It Notes. It was, thus, ideal as the main vehicle for our research.
In this way, the six to eight people taking part in each group as part of the face-to-face debates met in a conference room environment, isolated from outside interruptions. At the start of the meeting, in order to avoid bias, the participants were deliberately given a very short briefing, with the bare minimum of information. In essence, apart from introducing the basic principles of using Post-It-Notes as the vehicle for discussion (and record), we said little more than "We want you to describe the future of the world in thirty years time." In practice this proved quite sufficient for the participants to then engage in free-form debate. Most teams were producing a flow of relevant ideas within five minutes and none took more than ten minutes to become fully involved in the debate.
The 'drivers' for (global) change they identified were written, with a thick magic marker so they could be read from a distance, on separate Post-It Notes. These Post-It Notes were then, at least in theory, randomly placed on the wall. In practice, we found that even at this early stage the participants wanted to cluster them in groups which seemed to make sense. The only requirement - which is why Post-It Notes are ideal for this approach - is that there was no bar to taking them off again and moving them to a new cluster.
As in any form of brainstorming, the initial ideas typically stimulated others and everyone was encouraged to add their own Post-It Notes to those on the wall . It should be noted, however, that the technique differed from the 'rigorous' form of brainstorming described in 'creative think)ng' texts, in that it was much slower paced and the ideas were discussed immediately. In theory, ideas could be removed, as not being relevant, as well as being added; but in practice this rarely happened. Even so, it followed many of the same rules as normal brainstorming and typically lasted the same length of time - say, an hour or two only.
The result is a very powerful form of creative decision-making for groups, which is applicable to a wide range of situations (but is especially powerful in this context). Most importantly, in view of the short time available for such groups (in academic research) to work together, it also offers a very good introduction for those who are coming to the scenario process for the first time. Since the workings were largely self-evident, participants very quickly came to understand exactly what was involved.
Important and Uncertain
As the initial flow of ideas slowed down, participants were introduced to the idea of selecting the most important variables, though many of the groups moved to this stage of their own volition. Thus, this step is also one of selection - since only the most important factors will justify a place in the scenarios. The 80:20 Rule here means that, at the end of the process, management's attention must be concentrated on a limited number of the most important issues.
In addition, as scenarios are a technique for presenting alternative futures, the factors to be developed must be genuinely 'variable'. They should be subject to significant alternative outcomes. Factors whose outcome is predictable, but important, must be spelled out in the introduction to the scenarios (since they too cannot be ignored).
Step 2 - Bring Drivers Together into a Viable Framework
The next step was to link these drivers together to provide a meaningful framework. This is usually the most (conceptually) difficult step. It is where managers' 'intuition' - their ability to make sense of complex patterns of 'soft' data which more rigorous analysis would be unable to handle - played an important role.
At this stage, therefore, the participants were asked to try and arrange the drivers, which have emerged from the first stage, into groups which seem to make sense to them. Initially there were many such small groups. The intention, in the next stage, was to gradually merge these (often having to recreate them from new combinations of drivers to make these bigger groups work). In scenario forecasting, the final aim of this stage is to lead into the creation of the 6 - 8 larger groupings; 'mini-scenarios'. This is where the Post-It Notes are almost essential - they will continue to stick no matter how many times they are moved around (and they may be moved a number of times over the length - up to two hours - of each meeting). In the case of our research, the (global) scope meant that rather more groups were identified. While this process was taking place the participants continued to add new topics - and more Post-It Notes were added to the wall. In the opposite direction, the few unimportant ones were removed (grouped as an 'audit trail' on another wall). In particular, though, the (even fewer) topics which were deemed to be 'certain' were also removed from the main area of debate - in this case they were grouped in clearly labelled area of the main wall.
As the clusters - the 'mini-scenarios' - started to emerge, the associated Post-It Notes could be stuck to each other rather than individually to the wall; which made it easier to move whole clusters around. The great benefit of using Post-It Notes is that there is no bar to changing your mind. If you want to rearrange the groups - or simply to go back (iterate) to an earlier stage - then you strip them off and put them in their new position.
Step 3 - Produce Initial (seven to nine) Mini-Scenarios
The outcome of the previous step is usually between seven and nine logical groupings of drivers. In our experience this is usually remarkably easy to achieve in the case of scenario forecasting. In practice, due to the scope of the research (covering all aspects of society) the groups tended to produce rather more clusters; typically around 10-12 in number.
This was the stage which was completed by all of the groups - and was the main basis for our subsequent analysis.
Step 4 - Reduce to Two to Three Scenarios
In theory, the main action, at the next stage, is to reduce the seven to nine mini-scenarios/groupings detected at the previous stage to just two or three larger scenarios. We found, however, that the time limitations prevented groups from fully completing the later stages of the process in the one session available; which could not last longer than two hours. Thus, in the earlier groups, the rearrangement of the drivers to produce fully-fledged scenarios was incomplete; though the results were enlightening and useful in suggesting what the final scenarios might have been. In the later groups we achieved the same results by specifically asking the groups to derive 'scenario titles' separate from the drivers - though clearly influenced by the work they had done on them.
In this 'global' research, therefore, the transformation into the final scenarios (and even the production of the overall 'mini-scenarios') was undertaken by ourselves rather than the participants. The prime input to this process, however, was all the drivers identified by the 17 research groups (covering some 140 organisations). Using the standard (Post-It-Notes) scenario forecasting technique we have developed, all these drivers were progressively clustered into our own 'mini-scenarios'; regardless of how they had been clustered by the groups. This overall clustering was, however, then compared with the separate work of the groups - to ensure that it was still meaningful in broad terms. This generally proved to be the case - there had, in any event, been some considerable convergence between the results of most of the groups.
These combined mini-scenarios were then transformed into the final scenarios. In view of the very broad scope of the investigation, covering the whole of society, it proved necessary to utilise four scenarios - rather than the two we would normally recommend. These were again compared with those suggested by the groups, and once more there were no major disagreements between them.
Testing
In the normal scenario forecasting process, having grouped the factors into these two scenarios, the next step is to examine them for consistency. In the case of this research, however, this test took the form of a comparison with the published work of a wide range of other futurologists. Here too there was a surprising degree of agreement. Though the nature of future developments is often seen to be a controversial issue, one result from the research was therefore that, at least amongst those studying the long-term future, there seems to be a remarkable degree of unanimity; a workable consensus.
Step 5 - Write the Scenarios
Conventionally the resulting scenarios are then 'written up' in the form most suitable for the target audience. In the case of this material, due to the very wide scope of the investigations, the report ran to more than 80,000 words. The initial publication is on the Internet 'World Wide Web' (WWW).
A version which also includes a critical analysis of related work by other futurologists - and accordingly runs to 150,000 words - is due for conventional publication next year.
Further Stages of Research
As has been explained, to date the results have been qualitative. They are now being quantified through a survey now being completed by OUBS students. This uses semantic differentials to determine both the importance of each of the 160 factors identified during the qualitative stages and its likely 'implementation' date.
References
Mercer, D.S. (1995), "Simpler Scenarios", Management Decision, June 1995
Mercer, D.S. (1995), "Scenarios Made Easy", Long Range Planning, August 1995
hits