The Generic Foresight Process Framework, pioneered by Australian futurist Joseph Voros in 2000, stands as a key reference model in strategic foresight. Developed at Melbourne’s Swinburne University of Technology, it builds upon his colleagues’ work.

Joseph Voros, a theoretical physics PhD and globally recognized futurist, actively contributes to futures studies associations and teaches at the Big History Institute. His work spans research, doctoral education, and consultancy, specializing in foresight methods and scanning techniques.

A champion of futures intelligence and advocate for futures studies, Voros has shaped a generation of futurists with his innovative and experimental approach. His “Scanning Retrospective” series, which combines scanning and backcasting techniques, showcases his versatility. Voros regularly updates this series on his blog, The Voroscope, known for its precise yet engaging, humorous style.

Voros’s contributions extend beyond the Generic Foresight Process Framework (2003) to seminal works in futures thinking, including “A Primer of Futures Studies, Foresight and the Use of Scenarios” (2001, updated 2022) and “The Futures Cone, Use and History” (2017), influencing the field significantly.

The Generic Foresight Process Framework (GFP) Explained

The Generic Foresight Process Framework (GFP) comprises elements for exploring alternative futures to inform strategic decision-making.

Its objective aligns with those of many frameworks within futures studies literature, including those from the Institute For The Future (IFTF), a leading futures studies entity since the 1960s in Silicon Valley.

What sets the GFP apart in the futures studies field is its pragmatic, strategy-oriented formation and vision. The GFP, as described in its inaugural scientific publication in the “Foresight” journal in 2003, incorporates the works of Mintzberg, Horton, and Slaughter. It emerged from the author’s efforts to integrate foresight into strategic planning at a public Australian university.

This framework, now a principal methodological pillar in strategic foresight, was initially crafted to meet specific needs that predated Joseph Voros’s later definitions. Voros revealed on his blog, Voroscope, the establishment of the Foresight and Planning Unit (FPU) at Swinburne in 1999. Its purpose was to evolve the University Planning Framework to enhance the university community’s foresight and strategic thinking capabilities for strategy development.

Key components—foresight, strategy, and framework—were the focus of futurists Richard Slaughter and Averil Horton. In 1999, Horton published “A Simple Guide to Successful Foresight,” contributing to the framework’s development. The strategic planning aspect also acknowledges Henry Mintzberg’s significant input, a noted strategy and management theorist with extensive organizational structure publications.

The University Planning Framework was crafted using Slaughter’s pragmatic foresight approach, favored in business for its ability to navigate future landscapes and identify competitive environments crucial for maximizing strategic advantage.

Joseph Voros joined Swinburne in 2000, when the framework’s initial phase was already established. Recognizing the value of his colleagues’ work, he sought to expand the Slaughter and Horton framework beyond the university’s strategic scope to a wider array of contexts.

Voros refined the framework, coining it the General Foresight Process Framework, for wider dissemination within academic circles, futures studies conferences, and leading publications.

This endeavor, aimed at applying a declared goal within Swinburne, served as a practical test for Voros’s exploration. He adhered to the belief that foresight at Swinburne embraced a pragmatic approach to address the strategic challenge of thriving in a competitive educational environment. This implementation balanced the rigorous discipline of futures studies with Swinburne’s strategic realities, a balance deemed crucial.

The synthesis of theory and practice led to the development of the GFP – Generic Foresight Process, designed to share Swinburne’s comprehensive effort widely. The framework consists of four key elements: Inputs, Foresight Work, Output, Strategy.

The Generic Foresight Process Framework Explained: Four Key Components

Joseph Voros introduced the Generic Foresight Process Framework (GFP) in 2000, encapsulated in a succinct diagram.

Here we explore its core elements as defined by Voros, who has not only updated but practically applied it across various settings to meet diverse organizational needs.

1) INPUTS

The GFP begins with collecting data from various sources, adopting a strategic intelligence approach. This stage employs numerous research methods, notably environmental scanning, often enhanced by complex tools like the Delphi method which involves expert specialists. Voros highlights the importance of competitive intelligence tools and techniques, particularly prevalent in business and pragmatic foresight.

2) FORESIGHT WORK

This phase, the foresight activity’s core, is further divided into three essential steps: analysis, interpretation, and prospection, each following a logical sequence:

– Analysis: This initial step processes input phase information to set the stage for deeper exploration. Techniques like trend analysis and forecasting are key, with forecasting in strategic foresight aimed at developing targeted knowledge for future scenario exploration.

– Interpretation: This deeper phase seeks substantial structures and insights beyond initial analysis, marking the transition to in-depth foresight work. Voros describes interpretation as engaging with critical futures studies, layered causal analysis, and comprehensive futures thinking.

– Prospection: The final stage involves creating potential alternative futures. Voros’s coined term “prospection” refers to forward-looking to generate anticipations, where scenario planning, visioning, and defining preferable futures take place within the foresight process.

Scenario planning stands out in prospection, supported by horizon scanning for trend detection and backcasting for simulating future trajectories based on historical situation analyses, focusing on understanding change drivers.

3) OUTPUTS

The Generic Foresight Process Framework’s outputs are tangible options from foresight activities, plus intangible changes in strategic thinking developed throughout the process. This includes insights from the Interpretation phase and visions from the Prospection phase.

Intangible results, though challenging for those Voros describes as “hard” thinkers who favor objective aspects, are often foresight’s most valuable contributions. They transform strategy development processes, broadening decision-makers’ perspectives.

Once outputs are defined, foresight work concludes, leading to the framework’s final component: strategy.

4) STRATEGY

The GFP culminates in strategy development and planning, aiming to achieve set objectives, such as actions to realize anticipated preferable futures scenarios.

Voros emphasizes foresight’s role over pure strategy, highlighting the synergy between foresight, strategy, and planning. Foresight concludes with providing options for strategy development and planning practitioners, such as decision-makers tasked with strategic choices and implementation actions.

Defined as strategic due to its decision-enhancing nature, the framework offers detailed visions of possible futures, ensuring foresight and strategy work in unison. Strategy outcomes are then looped back as inputs, enabling continuous re-evaluation and adjustments, as illustrated by Hardin Tibbs’ strategic landscape metaphor.

Thus, the GFP advocates for an iterative loop, dynamically updating future anticipations to keep organizational strategies aligned with evolving scenarios.