A Future Search Conference …. an interesting procedure … anticipating ‘quality’ and ‘realism’ through self-management?
Very interactive dynamics!
Alternatively different homogeneous stakeholder groups and mixed stakeholder groups shared lessons from the past on bad and good experiences with a specific issue (Active Inclusion in Labour Market) which generated areas of further interest. In, so called, co-creation exercises suggestions got generated and were prioritized (dotting exercise) which let through a number of steps to specific commonly agreed recommendations.
Even though at the request of the European Social Fund of Flanders, I facilitated a ‘light’ version (4 half-day sessions over 3 days), with some ‘role-played’ stakeholders and improvised at certain moments, we got an enthusiastic group of participants who came up with a good number of seemingly valid recommendations.
My question is how ‘quality’ and ‘realism’ is assured in such an event?
The steps of a ‘Future Search’ exercise are:
1. Focus on the Past
2. Focus on Present, External Trends
3. Focus on Present and Future
4. Ideal Future Scenarios and identify Common Ground
5. Confirm Common Ground
6. Action Planning and giving policy recommendations
The principles of a ‘Future Search’ conference are:
a vision shared by everyone, a concrete action plan and strategy, commitment to implement
study the whole system (explore the ‘whole elephant’)
focus on the future and common grounds
self management and responsibility for commitment
More pictures of the conference can be viewed at our Picture Gallery:
http://projectsforchange.eu/work/future-search-conference/
Want to know how you can organise such a Future Search workshop?
Leave your name and email and tick the right box of your interest and we will get back to you as soon as possible!
I really enjoyed the Future Search- ESF conference in April 2013 in Brussels. Erik played a pivotal role in facilitating a robust and comprehensive assessment of the social inclusion agenda and the relationship ESF has with it- past, present and in the future. I hope the findings are help inform the planning of the EU commission and allow delegates to share best practice in the home countries.
But to answer the question- quality and realism is assured via respect, listening, innovation and a robust and logical approach!
Today we closed another Future Search conference organized by the European Social Fund of Flanders. This time we had 36 stakeholders from all over Europe representing ‘Authorities’, ‘Information’ (media and education), ‘Expertise’ (consultancy and universities), ‘Needed’ (employees / employers), and ‘Resources’.
Following an introductory lecture on the topic, each participant introduced her/himself and after having explained a key issue related to the topic ‘career and age’, each placed the card on the age-line on the wall near the specific age where the issue was most relevant.
Then we divided the participants in 6 mixed stakeholder groups brainstormed more issues and agreed following a dotting exercise on six (the number of groups) pressing issues related to “career and age”.
The next morning we had the individual stakeholder groups rotate the tables and brainstormed and discussed on good and bad experiences from the PAST and the PRESENT related to each issue.
In the afternoon we changed the composition of the groups to generate energy and let them rotate again to focus on the FUTURE to identify possible suggestions and related risks / assumptions.
Through a dotting exercise at the end of the day we visualized the interests of the participants and the next morning we assured that newly mixed groups developed those proposals further in policy recommendations.
Although our procedure was labeled as ‘Future Search light’, the intense discussions in a shorter time actually felt like pretty ‘heavy’. It was often hard work both for me as facilitator to keep the energy high and for the participants, who experienced the conference as productive and interesting.
I am puzzled whether the process would be more productive and more interesting to discuss each topic longer and deeper during for example 1 hour, than to switch topic after 20 minutes as we did in order to have each participant contribute to each of the 6 topics? The participants made 2 rounds – one on the past and present and another one in a different group composition on the future.
Switching topics seems to be quite demanding also because the individuals need to read and absorb the observations and contributions made by the preceding groups. This ‘switching of topic’ however does trigger the brain from different perspectives more, but may limit depth in the discussions.
Can you reflect on this aspect of group dynamics?