For the Global Drivers 2030-2060 project, it became apparent that there is no clear definition for a driver nor is there a standard naming convention. As such, futurist Andy Hines set out to describe the challenges and propose a set of guidelines.
We experimented with the idea of “mega-driver” as a thematic constellation or grouping of related drivers. But we ultimately felt introducing another new term would add more confusion to an already confused landscape of how to characterize units of change. Given the overall goal of improving access to foresight work, we were reluctant to add a new term to the lexicon.
For the clusters of drivers, a high-level theme that generally extended globally was the path taken. It was apparent early in examining the reports that there is quite a range of ideas as to what constitutes a driver. Our sense was that adding another term was more likely to added to the confusion. Indeed an objective emerged to consolidate the various interpretations of driver under a common umbrella. A perhaps unexpected side benefit was that by sticking to the initial conception of a driver, we think we might help bring some consistency to how drivers are defined and named.
The definition of driver used for the study:
A driver is a thematic cluster of related inputs from scanning and research i.e., scan hits, trends, issues, that is driving or shaping change in a domain.
The definition refers to the Association of Professional Futurists (APF) Foresight competency model, which describes competencies in a process flow of six steps: [cite: Building Foresight Capacity article]
The Framework Foresight method used by the University of Houston gathers the signals of change in drivers and then uses these drivers as the fundamental building blocks for scenarios or alternative futures.
Thus, this definition includes a requirement that the drivers are crafted from a process that is based on evidence – they are not simply conjectured.
We found quite a mish-mash of what might be identified as a driver. Since our ultimate goal was to identify the full range of open foresight work, we erred on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. We will follow up on the pros and cons of this choice in the discussion section below, but here we note that it did create some challenges in generating the driver list, as we struggled with whether some of the 677 items were really drivers. Below are the some of the challenges, which we think present opportunities for future work in terms of being more deliberate in the use of the terms.
The index developed a category of Synonyms for drivers since we found so many. Among the synonyms were: macrotrend, megatrend, discontinuity, disruptor, certainties, uncertainties, and key uncertainties.
One of the more nettlesome challenges with drivers is when they are titled as categories, e.g., technology. We did find many of these. This forces the reader to read the description and make a conclusion about what is meant by technology. As one might image, a group of people doing so might have disparate interpretations, and this confusion either carries through the subsequent work or an additional work is need on the clarification of the drivers. Even a type of technology can lend itself to this same challenge. AI, for instance, is identified as a driver, but there are so many aspects of it!
In this challenge, an important factor is identified, but no change is associated with it. For example: “State of the Economy.” And even the description provided no additional help in terms of what the change is: “GDP growth per annum, national and global.” Or the factor is simply defined: “Digital and Media Literacy: The ability to access, analyze, create and use digital media.”
In this case, no specific change was indicator, but rather a suggestion of what to look for. They were more like indicators. For instance with “Level of market competition” defined as The level of competition in the economy, based on regulatory structures and the behavior of market player,” suggested the future depends on how this plays out, thus it would need to be tracked. It does not characterize change itself.
By xx, something “will” happen. This means it hasn’t happened yet, which we say means it is not a driver of change. That said, we believe that “aspirational” drivers of Inayatullah’s Futures Triangle are useful. In this case, we would frame them largely as conceptual. For instance, net zero or net plus or even the circular economy are not here yet, but that are enormously influential aspirational concept – these concepts are currently pulling us into the future. They exist as ideas today, thus meet our criteria for drivers being in the present and distinguished from forecasts or projects set in the future.
For example with driver “Cognitive technologies augment human decision-making” is described as “in a sensor-enabled, hyper-connected environment, organizations will deploy pervasive controls as part of their products, services, and business models to monitor and manage risk in real time.” It is forecasting an outcome rather than describing a change. Of course, one can imagine ways to reframe this. Increasingly pervasive and connected sensor networks are increasingly being applied to risk management.” Or something along those lines. A more blatant example of one driver framing: “vision of a world of autonomous nations working together to manage a global political economy based on a free market has begun to fray under the pressures of growing wealth inequality, a slowdown in global economic growth, the rise of online disinformation, and a need for a new global energy infrastructure.” This one would be more challenging to reframe as a driver and probably not worth the effort.
We saw trends and issues as drivers, sometimes in the form of a question. We suggest that drivers be statements of change rather than questions.
An exception is that sometimes a single input is significant enough to be a driver. Climate change, for instance, can be stated as a trend. It is such an influential factor that it is also framed as a driver, indeed being one of the most named drivers identified by this study.
Some drivers identified impacts and/or prescribed a response to the driver. For example, this drivers: “Disruption dominates the executive agenda” has this as part of the description “… will force executives to make significant strategic choices to drive organizational success.” Identifying implications is a good thing, but we would recommend doing that separately, where more than just one implication can be identified.
Sometimes drivers are written with multiple ideas, which makes it confusing which idea it is really about. For instance, this “Urbanization” notes concentration in urban centers, but then launches into an idea using and recycling non-ferrous metals in transportation and construction. We would suggest one idea per driver.
There are cases where multiple ideas can make sense as a single driver, if the driver is focused on a single idea. For example, the driver, “Multiple revolutions in health care, is described as: Over the next two decades, five major revolutions will transform how medicine is practiced and how healthcare is delivered: personalized medicine, stem-cell medicine, nano-scale medicine, gene-editing, and digital health.” While each revolution could be a driver on its own, the multiple revolutions is a single idea.
We’d avoid framing drivers in the past as well. For instance, “Employers continued reliance on traditional forms of education.” This doesn’t make it clear if the driver is still relevant, so we’d reframe in the present tense as: Employers are continuing to rely on traditional forms of education.
The utility of framing in the present is two-fold:
In this study, since we are talking about 2030-2060, it is understandable that the drivers are more like projections than a study set for the next ten years. Nonetheless, for the sake of consistency, we suggest keeping the drivers framed in the present and influencing the future.
Category: global drivers 2030 2060