\I
Dialectic Methods in Forecasting "Counterplanning" is a method of challenging the world views that underlie planning and deci sion-making. This method can be used to force forecasters to examine the assumptions under lying their forecasts, and thus to lead them to make better forecasts. by Frank L. Moreland
A basic task of decision-making is the exposition and evaluation of the assumptions or world view of the decision maker, for one cannot evaluate a decision without evaluat ing its underlying assumptions. When we forecast we make decisions, but we normally do not offer our assu�ptions to adequate criticism. Indeed, we do not have established means for doing so. I would like to suggest here, however, that dialectic methods can provide such a means. In planning, the method of counterplanning is a radical f�rm of the dialectic in which the data are transformed by and c�nvincing world views into deadly enemies, d1fferent _ that 1s, conclus10ns (plans) that deny the validity of each other. In such a way, a decision maker may synthesize a better world view and, therefore, a better decision. During the First General Assembly of the World Future Society, several speakers said that forecasters need to find ways to expose to criticism the assumptions underlying thei; forecasts. Social psychologist Donald N. Michael of the University of Michigan even said that a primary function _ of forecasting 1s to confront organizations with their as sumptions. In a similar vein, Robert Jungk, the journalist and author, said that we must be mythbreakers. Both of these men feel that conflict will be required to do this, a _ made up largely of the intellectual vested interest conflict we have in secure, pat, and unexamined views of how the world works. Let me begin with a real-world story: Counterproposal Upsets Multi-Million-Dollar Decision . A �ittle over three years ago, a large industrial corpora tion in th� San Francisco Bay area made a tough, long _ range dec1s10n, involving several hundred million dollars. Shortly thereafter, a doctoral candidate at Berkeley, Richard 0. Mason, selected the study of that decision as his disserta tion topic. A specialist in operations research and informa tion science, Mason knew the company well, and was in terested in the kind and manner of expert advice that the corporation executives used to reach their decision. Mason sus�ected that the corporation had some excellent oppor tu n1t1<.:s th:it were �ystematically, but unconsciously, under played hy lwt h lht.: experts and the decision-makers. 'l'h · dct'i 1011 111111 the uxecutives had made committed the con1p1111y to th• d •v ·lopmenl of overseas metal markets. Th11t di'l 1 11111 WII I 111111111d th· initial funds were committed 111 tlH· 111111 M11 1111111111111 111 t11dy. But Mason had the full ·oopl11tlh111 1dlll 111111p111y111 11•vi·wi11 th· dceision on thc 11,11dil11111 1 li,11 1 Ii I 111 1111 Ill II lllll 11111 I,. I 'V •iii ·d'
Mason arranged for a mock, after-the-fact executive meeting to simulate what might have happened at the meet ing in which the decision was made-if a different procedure had been followed. At the mock session, two proposals were to be presented. One would be the same proposal as before; the other,_a strongly opposed alternative. The original plan may be viewed as a scenario, that is, it had a data base coupled to some forecasts of changes in that data and a plausible story of how the company might interact �ith the world implied by those forecasts to yield a profitable cor porate future. Actually, separating the original plan into these component parts proved to be an engaging and rather technical operation. Once it was accomplished, a counter proposal of a special kind was constructed. The counter proposal was special in that it was developed from the same data base and much the same data forecasts, as the original. However, the counterproposal was radically different from the already-agreed-upon proposal in the story it told about the future. The story in the counterproposal concluded that investment in a domestic rather than a foreign market 'was the best thing the corporation could do. When these scenarios were presented to the mock execu tive session, a remarkable thing occurred: the meeting be came real and the executives actually halted action on their previous decision. The executives were convinced that not only would they have to approach the decision anew but also that their ultimate decision would be the better for the conflict or debate style of decision-making. Months later the corporation adopted a strategy which was a blend of the two proposals. But why should this be so and what can this story from decision theory mean for futurists? Counterplanning Traces Back to Kant's Philosophy The intellectual tradition behind the contemporary theory of dialectical advice or counterplanning reaches back ex plicitly to Immanuel Kant two hundred years ago and in spirit at least back to Socrates. For example, much of the current work in management information systems has its roots in idealism, a philosophical direction that Kant con tributed to. An idealistic philosophy typically maintains that man plays a largely unconscious but active role in establishing
A Note on the Dialectic The dialectic, a method of thinking developed by the German philosopher Hegel, pits an idea (thesis) against its opposite in order to generate a better idea. Thesis
+
Antithesis = Synthesis
Author Moreland suggests that a similar technique can lead to better forecasts: Forecast
+
Counterforecast = Revised Forecast
169