Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

Vol. 20, No. 3, May 2008, 321–336

Corporate foresight in Europe: from trend

based logics to open foresight

Cornelia Daheim∗ and Gereon Uerz

Z_punkt GmbH The Foresight Company

The paper analyses the role of corporate foresight (CF) as a future intelligence gathering process,
which has come into widespread use in a business context where it is confronted with specific
contextual, processual and methodological challenges. The results of a 2005/2006 survey on
CF by the University of St Gallen in co-operation with Z_punkt are used as a starting point
to provide insights into the goals, methods and use of CF in large corporations. Taking into
account the challenges facing CF and the factors considered critical for its success, the paper
outlines a historical contextualisation of CF practices from the 1980s onward, identifying the
underlying assumptions – the ‘dominant logic’ – and opting for a new model of CF as ‘open
foresight’.

Keywords: corporate foresight waves; open foresight; trend research; contextual logic;
strategic foresight

For corporations, concern with the future is once again fashionable: Deutsche Telekom in the
second half of the 1990s came up with the simple, but striking slogan ‘Zukunft wird aus Ideen
gemacht’ (‘The future is made out of ideas’) with the aim of bringing together the future–ideas–
telecom triangle. Siemens in-house magazine Pictures of the Future highlights its claim to be a
leader in shaping tomorrow, focusing on infrastructure, automotive technology and traffic man-
agement, security technology or health and medical technology. Another recent example of a
large company seeking to be identified as an innovative and positive force shaping the future is
Thyssen-Krupp, which claims ‘We’re developing the future for you’. The world’s largest chemical
company BASF has not only re-branded itself at the level of corporate design, but is also aiming to
establish a firm link between the company’s chemico-technical competence and its commitment
to ‘Shaping the Future’.
The use of the future as a catchphrase and the shaping and building of the future as a positive
complement to a company’s image or brand is just one side of the coin. Another element is the
widespread use of foresight in and for businesses or corporate foresight. Futures studies, foresight,
and, especially, corporate foresight (CF), are increasingly used for providing valuable input to the

∗ Corresponding author. Email: daheim@z-punkt.de

ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09537320802000047
http://www.informaworld.com
322 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

area of strategic planning, research, technology development and innovation but also for corporate
communications and corporate identity/branding. Foresight in and for businesses has gained
importance as a decision-making tool in strategic planning as research and development (R&D)
has become ever more complex and the competitiveness in the highly dynamic global knowledge
economy has increased (Bezold 2006). CF is regarded by a growing number of corporations as
the tool of choice for preparing business for the future, whether in terms of producing a long-term
strategic vision, ideas for product innovations or a scenario for communication purposes. The
motives identified by Becker (2003) wherein most CF activities are grounded are still valid: CF
is, on the one hand, the consequence of a company’s business operation that inherently requires a
long-term orientation – in industries with long product cycles, such as the chemical and automotive
industry – and, on the other hand, a proactive step for coping with uncertainties in the business
environment. In recent years, CF has gained popularity as a tool for mainly strategy and innovation
purposes, for connecting or identifying the company (as a brand) with the future and painting
the picture of a future-proof and ‘futurising’ company, a force shaping the future, and not just
reacting to trends.

1. Recent developments in European corporate foresight

One of the main difficulties in evaluating the state of the art in CF is that its results, the methods
used and its impacts are restricted by confidentiality, as they are used for achieving competitive
advantage. Coming up with a convincing innovation is one thing, letting others know about it
and how foresight contributed is another. Therefore, CF takes place largely behind closed doors.
Nevertheless, three new studies by Müller (2006), Van der Duin (2006) and Schwarz (2006) shed
light on the actual performance of foresight for and in business.
The new quantitative study1 by Adrian Müller (University of St. Gallen) that is presented
here was realised in co-operation with Z_punkt and provides insights into the current practice in
Europe of strategic foresight in companies or CF. The survey’s design, aims and main findings
are summed up in the following section and are linked to the two previous studies on CF carried
out by Becker (2003) with a geographical focus on Europe and Z_punkt (Burmeister et al. 2002)
with a geographical focus on Germany.2

1.1. Survey sample and respondents’ foresight experience

For his study on CF in Europe, Müller (2006) contacted 152 large European companies of which
44 responded (28.9%). There were three criteria for inclusion in the survey: the company had to (1)
be large with an annual turnover of at least ¤150 million; (2) have its headquarters in Europe and
(3) have a corporate strategic foresight process.3 Businesses from nine different countries and 13
different industries (see Figure 1) took part in the survey with half the companies having an annual
turnover of more than ¤10 billion. The majority (37.5%) of the participating companies had a total
workforce of between 50,001 and 100,000; 72.5% of respondents were from German-speaking
countries.
The overwhelming majority of participants had many years’ experience with foresight (see
Figure 2), with half of all participating companies having run their own foresight process for up
to 10 years (median: 10 years), about a quarter for up to 3 years, and 8% (three companies) for
more than 30 years.
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 323

Figure 1. Distribution of participants per line(s) of business.

Figure 2. Experience with corporate foresight (in years).

324 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

Figure 3. Organisational implementation of foresight.

1.2. Diverse organisational forms

The three types of organisational forms in CF identified by Becker (2003), namely (1) the collecting
post; (2) the observatory and (3) the think-tank, were not used as classification criteria by Müller
(2006), but his findings suggest that the trend towards establishing specialised foresight units as
well as networked observatories or highly visible and renowned think-tanks within large com-
panies has continued. The results of the survey indicate that in more than half of the companies
foresight processes are run by specialised departments, called Trend Research’, ‘Global Foresight’,
‘Market Intelligence’ or ‘Issue Management’, and that responsibility for the process only seldom
rests with individual employees with a specific foresight or futurist portfolio (see Figure 3). With
the exception of one company, all participants in the survey rely on external consultants and/or
services, but 60% only do so occasionally or seldom.
Looking at these results and recent developments in CF in Europe in general, it seems appro-
priate to add a fourth type of organisational form in CF to the original Becker typology:4
namely the outsourcer (see Figure 4). This type of CF ‘unit’ identifies and defines the subject
area and goals of a foresight process from its expert perspective within the company, but often
allows the process itself or large parts of the research involved to be conducted by an external
organisation/consultancy/think-tank before ‘re-integrating’ and utilising the results in strategic
planning or other business fields within the company. The process inside the company is often
led by a project team selected in relation to the specific tasks and issues to be addressed by the
foresight process, and even though the ‘unit’ as such is rather small, it has a high visibility within
the company and outside it. The unit will have a high level of expertise in CF, but the majority of
the day-to-day work, such as trend scanning, is simply outsourced.

1.3. Understanding the objectives of corporate foresight

Foresight is primarily used to achieve ‘hard’ objectives;5 namely supporting strategic decision-
making in general, as indicated by the survey response – 87.5% of participants. The improvement
of long-term planning (77.5%), enabling an early warning system as a tool for issue management
(65%), improvement of the innovation process (57.5%) and improvement of the speed in reacting
to environmental change are ranked as key objectives of CF. These findings mirror the two internal
drivers of foresight identified by Becker (2003), namely long-range monitoring and planning as
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 325

Figure 4. Corporate foresight – four types of organisational forms.

an inevitable prerequisite to strategic RTDI (research, technology, development and innovation)

decisions in industries characterised by long product cycles and high development costs, and
firms pursuing an innovation leader strategy, which have to constantly monitor and react to the
innovation activities of their competitors.
This leaning towards ‘harder objectives’ is mirrored in a more functional approach to under-
standing CF. Instrumentally, foresight processes are regarded as an environmental information
gathering process (72.5%), as a reflection and knowledge generating process (57.5%) and as
a vision-building and direction-setting process (60%). A rather surprising result of the survey,
which is elaborated on, further below, is the fact that only 10% of all companies strongly agree
that foresight is a participative communication process. The ‘outside-in’ perspective, focusing on
environmental analysis and information gathering (see Figure 5), predominates, confirming the
same result from the Z_punkt (Burmeister et al. 2002) survey for German companies.

1.4. Overview of popular activities and methods

Trend analysis ranks highest amongst the methods used in CF with 26 of 40 companies reporting
regular use of this method, without specifying how the trend analysis is conducted, e.g. what
sources are regarded as valuable for analysis. However, 80% of participating companies are
working with internal trend databases. Media/publication analysis is the second most regularly
employed method (26 out of 40) followed by scenarios (19 out of 40), roadmapping (12) and
participatory/creative methods (11). Whereas the Delphi method is in widespread use in public
foresight, it is less important in CF, with 25 firms reporting they have never or only seldomly used
this tool, as compared to 10 companies reporting regular or sporadic use (see Figure 6). This is
mainly in line with previous surveys and publications while what may be considered surprising
is the fact that, in comparison creative and participatory methods are, rather seldom used.
326 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

Figure 5. Activities within the foresight process.

1.5. Engagement of top management and resources

In 72.5% of all companies, foresight is promoted by top management, with 75% of companies
considering foresight as an executive responsibility and top management in 60% of all companies
regularly participating in foresight. Top management involvement in CF can be regarded as one
of the crucial success factors of CF, as experience shows that the continuity and impact of CF
are much higher when a foresight process involves top management. This also increases the
chances for firmly grounding an internal foresight unit within the company. Moreover, any process
within a large corporation involving top management has a higher visibility and is regarded as
highly relevant. In addition, one may say that top management involvement also leads to the
CF process being more closely tied to current or pressing issues the company is facing, thereby

Figure 6. Application of foresight methods.

 Corporate Foresight in Europe 327

guaranteeing its relevance. Furthermore, an involvement of high-level decision-makers makes

easier the implementation of results and recommendations.
Twenty-two of the 40 companies provided details of their foresight budgets with 20% having an
annual budget of more than ¤1 million and 5% of more than ¤5 million. Altogether 26 companies
gave their insights on the changes in the foresight budgets experienced over the period 2000–2005
with 37.5% reporting an increase, 22.5% no budget changes and only two companies indicating
a decrease in their annual foresight budgets.

1.6. Implications and challenges for corporate foresight

In Müller’s survey, 70% of the participants argue that the relevance of foresight within their
company increased over the past 5 years and 60% believe that the relevance of foresight for the
business community in general has increased. As the data gathered by Müller overall suggests,
foresight is well on its way to becoming an acknowledged approach in widespread use within
large companies.
Looking at this data, it also becomes clear that in spite of obvious dominant tendencies (such as
an instrumental understanding of CF, increasing relevance of CF, rising budgets, the dominant use
of trend analysis and scenarios, etc.), the field is rather heterogeneous. CF operates with a variety
of approaches, organisational forms and tools as well as diverging aims and different kinds of
outputs. However, it is also obvious that the problems that occur and need to be resolved in any CF
activity are similar in most cases. This includes the tension between pressure for quickly achieving
outputs and a demand for methodological rigour, a lack of clarity about which types of tools are
appropriate in relation to the aims of the exercise, as well as new needs for communicating results
and linking them firmly to today’s decision-making. In addition, although 70% of respondents
stated that foresight has become more relevant (see Figure 7a), only 55% indicate that it has
become more appreciated in their company, and only 37.5% that it has become more appreciated
in general (see Figure 7b).
In Müller’s survey, participants reported the following arguments as most often used against
Foresight or participation in Foresight processes: too long-term oriented, high costs, inapplicable
results, and lack of time. Only two participants reported Foresight to be beyond controversy.
The key challenges affecting CF were identified as follows (see Figure 8):

• Organisational and political barriers

• Insufficient legitimation
• (Perceived) High Costs.

This outcome highlights the fact that although CF is becoming more and more widespread, in
many places it is still far from being firmly embedded and here it is important to take into account
the sample used (most companies having an established foresight process, etc.). One reason for
persisting problems with CF is the lack of clarity in its objectives and performance. Just three
quarters of participants (30 companies) have explicit targets for their Foresight processes,6 but
some do not even have explicit objectives or implicit success indicators (15%, six companies).
Only 37.5% of the participating companies control the implementation of the Foresight process
either formally or informally. In addition, only about one third of the companies (36.8%) overhaul
and improve their Foresight process regularly, while 79% do so only occasionally.7
Therefore, the need emerges for setting clear objectives, connecting foresight more closely
to decision-makers’ needs and for continuously reviewing, adapting and improving the process.
328 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

Figure 7. (a) Relevance of foresight in companies; (b) Appreciation of foresight in companies.

However, a closer analysis of the survey data indicates a number of contradictions. Only 10%
regard CF as a participative communication process (in terms of how CF is understood or concep-
tualised), while participation is ranked third among the critical success factors. The key critical
success factors all point in the same direction (see Figure 9):

(1) Quality of results

(2) Strategic relevance
(3) Participation
(4) Communication
(5) Culture
(6) Commitment

It is clear that apart from the obvious need for high quality results and strategic relevance,
all other factors indicated as critical for effective decision-support can be grouped together as
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 329

Figure 8. Relevant problems of foresight in the own company.

Figure 9. Critical success factors of effective decision support.

‘soft factors’. There is a tendency to focus on the ‘harder factors’ when discussing the ‘quality’
of foresight projects, for example the methods and the quality of the data and information, are
regarded as being of secondary importance. To put it very simply: what is critical for the success
and impact of any CF activity is that outcomes are highly relevant to today’s strategic questions
and of high quality, that there is a high degree of participation and involvement, an adequate
and inspiring communication within and about the process and its results, as well as a ‘foresight
culture’ and commitment to the process.8
As with any survey, the results answer many questions and simultaneously pose new ones.
In the following section, we would like to concentrate on the two key questions that the survey
results pose: ‘How does one ensure that the critical success factors are met?’ What could be the
next phase of CF?
330 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

2. Towards open foresight: linking trend research and strategic knowledge through
contextual logic
The clear leaning towards soft factors in what are being regarded as critical success factors of
CF contradicts the more instrumental understanding or conceptualisation of CF. In the following
section, the case is made that this kind of contradiction is typical of any CF process as it touches
on the key question of how foresight is being framed. In order to illustrate this point, a model
of four waves of CF is presented with each wave representing a ‘dominant logic’ of how CF is
understood.

Figure 10. Corporate foresight waves and their key characteristics.

Table 1. Corporate foresight waves and their key characteristics.

Dominant Expert-based Model-based Trend-based Context-based

CF-paradigm foresight foresight foresight ‘open’ foresight

Assumption: Known by means Calculated by Projected by means Shaped by means

Future can be . . . of expertise means of models of (scanned) of interaction
developments
Key characteristics Belief in Experts Quantitative and Trends Integrating ‘soft’ and
dominant, but: ‘subjective’ models ‘hard’ approaches
1970s: Turn to the Extrapolation Weak signals Understanding &
qualitative and interpreting/
wider environment evaluating change
Systems Early warning Opening up:
Participation,
interaction & process
First opening Dominated by Mix of qualitative Action- and
towards ‘soft ‘hard science’ and quantitative innovation-oriented
sciences’
Indicators More attention on
discontinuities
Perspective Exploring change Calculating change Reacting to change Understanding &
anticipating/shaping
change
Output Delphis, roadmaps, Models & matrixes Trend-databases, Scenarios; wild cards;
scenarios monitoring systems action plans &
innovation ideas
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 331

This dominant logic is not exclusive, rather, it is typical that in any foresight process during its
implementation, different understandings of foresight emerge and need to be integrated. There-
fore, the wave model is also meant to distinguish between different ‘poles’ of conceptualising
and implementing foresight which are often simultaneously present within an organisation or
institution (and any foresight process), sometimes even clashing and causing friction within the
foresight process. The four (rather roughly sketched) types of dominant thinking/logic should
help to clarify how CF has evolved, showing that different kinds of dominant logic have influ-
enced the way foresight is conducted, and that each dominant logic comes with certain pitfalls.
The model also encompasses what is seen as emerging in ‘the next phase’, namely Open Foresight
as a new concept and approach for addressing the above-mentioned challenges and ensuring that
the critical success factors are met.
In studying the development of CF from the mid 1970s on, three distinct (although overlapping)
phases or waves can be identified, all grounded in (hidden) assumptions, expressing the dominant
logic of futures studies/foresight and the broader socio-cultural context of the respective phase.

Wave 1: The key assumption of expert-based foresight and the dominant logic of this phase is that
the future can be foreseen by collecting and comparing the opinions of (numerous) experts. A
key pitfall here is the delegation of responsibility for the contents and outcomes of the foresight
exercise to experts, which can lead to the company losing track of interdependencies between
different developments and ignoring inter-disciplinary questions and issues as well as decisions
that need to be taken.

Wave 2: Model-based foresight is characterised by the assumption that the future can be calculated
through the use of appropriate computer models based on huge amounts of data and mathematical
finesse. As with expert-based foresight, the pitfall lies in delegating responsibility for generating
foresight knowledge to a certain group of people and losing sight of foresight’s impacts on today’s
decisions on strategy and innovation.

Wave 3: Currently, the assumption that businesses can understand the future by anticipating the
impact of trends on customers and markets seems to be the dominant logic, hereby termed trend-
based foresight. Focusing on trends in CF has the advantage of resulting in a high level of
communication of results, but poses the threat of focusing efforts on how best to scan and monitor
trends and, most importantly, of limiting CF to a reactive perspective whereby a company is
projected as merely being ‘driven’ by trends or its environment in general.
One of the central questions relates to whether CF is conceptualised merely as a coping strat-
egy, i.e. catching up with the latest trends and dealing with them, or as a proactive approach to
shape the future. What unites these first three waves is a reactive perspective, rooted in the often
hidden, implicit, but influential belief that the future can somehow be grasped, and that this is
the key to a foresight activity. As a result, the bulk of time and efforts is spent on calculations,
methodology discussion, analysis and data collection. However, the history of futures studies,
the numerous examples of predictions gone wrong as well as the state of the art of any futures-
related theoretical concepts make it clear that the future, very simply, cannot be grasped. The
key to foresight is making sense of often contradictory information, drawing conclusions on their
impact, dealing with diverging opinions, subjectivity and uncertainty, depicting future options,
and, most importantly: deciding on actions to take. Therefore, any dominant logic that centres on
the belief that the future can be grasped endangers the success of foresight as it tends to focus the
process on rather technological, detail-oriented, data-centred questions, while the key strategic
332 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

or direction-setting questions are ‘suppressed’, pushed into the background or delayed. While
recalling the fact that Müller’s survey highlighted the fact that the success and impact of CF does
not rely on methodology or data, it is clear that the ability to deal with recurring dominant logics
and keeping the process focused on the key questions is of highest importance to the future of CF.
From this perspective, the fact that the top-ranked foresight activity in Müller’s survey is
trend analysis (with creative and participatory methods being used only half as much) is rather
disturbing, together with the instrumental understanding of CF. At the same time, the critical
success factors named by participants point in another direction towards a new conceptualisation
of foresight in a more open sense.

Wave 4: Open Foresight – the next phase which is emerging, can also be regarded as an answer to
many of the current challenges of CF, being based on the assumption that businesses can shape
future contexts and markets by anticipating through an open dialogue the dynamic interaction
between social, technological and economic forces.
‘Open’foresight pays tribute to the increased socio-cultural and socio-technical dynamic result-
ing from the emergence of the networked society, where almost everything is interconnected and
the separation of spheres of life, like technology, economics, politics and culture, has come to an
end. The spheres or systems which were once ‘closed’ have now become ‘open’, in the sense that
the number of autonomous zones has decreased, as Van der Duin (2006) has noted. This needs
to be taken into account in any successful CF project – the opening up in terms of (content and
thematic) perspective, but also in terms of interaction within the process.
The term relates to the concept of ‘open innovation’, pioneered by Von Hippel (1988) and
described by Chesbrough (2003), which created a stir in the business world. Open innovation
calls for the integration/participation of (lead) users into the innovation process for developing
products and services that better meet the actual needs of customers, thereby reducing the cost
of failed innovation efforts, but the concept of ‘open’ foresight should offer something more than
just the current hype. This emerging type of CF is apparently characterised by transparency, a
methodological hybrid, context orientation and participation. Though it needs to be based on
methodological and topical expertise (and include of course methodologies associated with the
previous phases, actually integrating them, but avoiding to let methodological discussions take
centre stage), its focus lies mainly in the communication and discussion process wherein decisions
related to future strategy and innovation need to be taken. If carefully implemented, open foresight
should be able to provide outcomes that fit the companies’ needs. Although open foresight is set to
diffuse and blend into decision-making and not just prepare the way, it still needs to adopt a daring
approach and come up with creative (disruptions) irritations which are often more important for the
future development of a company than just confirming and underpinning established knowledge
through futures trends.
The term ‘open’ foresight refers to at least four criteria of openness. Open foresight should
involve relevant stakeholders from inside and outside the client’s organisation; it should be
‘environmentally’ open, by not prematurely narrowing its (thematic) perspective to just one
sector/environment and it should be organised/institutionalised as an open process that does
not end when the hard objective of one specific project has been achieved. Last but not least,
open foresight within a business context should be open to disruptive trends or open the respec-
tive organisation to disruptive factors, as it becomes increasingly important for CF not to deliver
trends and empirical evidence which confirm habits and beliefs, business models or products –
‘confirmative knowledge’ – but to ask the right questions. These disruptions or challenges of the
currently dominant beliefs, assumptions and mindsets could act as constructive perturbations –
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 333

‘perturbative or disruptive knowledge’ – forcing the ‘system’ to evolve to the next level/stage.
Therefore CF should do more than just meet a company’s need: It should identify the phenomena,
options and developments on the fringes of the company’s perception or outside its perceptive
horizon, i.e. the blind spots within the company’s environmental and horizon scanning activities
and analysis regarding the future. It should then feed the gathered information and insight back
to the respective organisation thereby providing insights enabling the company to work on ideas
and tools to meet a wide range of possible future needs, relating to its own organisational form
and business environment, including its future customers.
Furthermore, Open Foresight will need to be able to deal effectively with ‘old’ dominant think-
ing that re-emerges and to keep the process firmly focussed on its aim of taking decisions on future
actions. The dominant logic is one of the factors which most blocks change and influences per-
ceptions within any company, especially at a time when corporate identities have grown stronger
to strengthen internal company cohesion and present a powerful, fully integrated ‘unit’ image to
the market and stakeholders. Opening up perspectives to a new logic of a disruptive, intangible
type whilst instilling in a positive way an open future approach, and focusing foresight efforts on
how to shape the future will constitute the main challenge for Open Foresight.
Postulating the emergence of and need for ‘Open Foresight’, thereby emphasising the drive
to think beyond trends, does not underplay the necessity of empirical trend research nor the
importance of trend-related information for corporate strategy building. It should be emphasised
that empirical trend research and trend extrapolation in CF have always been somewhat different
to what was understood by trend gurus in the 1990s. Empirical trend analysis in CF does not
primarily or necessarily focus on the ‘novum’, i.e. spotting a new phenomenon or technology
as early as possible, although emerging phenomena – e.g. emerging issues or emerging tech-
nologies and weak signal monitoring – are important in environmental and horizon scanning
activities.
However, trend-based thinking has reached its limits. On the one hand in the majority of cases
non-operationalised trend information provided to corporations often leads to ‘trend stand-alones’,
e.g. trend reports, with very limited connection to core strategic processes. The complaint ‘we
know about the trends, but we don’t know what this means for our business’ aptly summarises
the resulting discontent stemming from the missing bridge between empirical trend information
and business strategy.
On the other hand, trends have not only become overstretched owing to trend overdoses and
trend hypes in the 1990s, but trend information is increasingly becoming a commodity. If based
on empirical evidence and monitored over a certain period of time – thereby ensuring that a
trend is a trend, and not just erratic ‘noise’ – there are only a limited number of trends to be
observed, monitored and described. As most major corporations and institutions either scan the
relevant environment (the backdrop of globalisation requires that the relevant environment now
encompasses the whole globe) themselves or outsource their trend-research. As a result the list
of relevant, empirical trends and mega-trends is very likely to look the same in all multinational
corporations.
Therefore in order for corporations to gain added value from trend analysis, it is no longer
sufficient to come up with a list of trends, but to link the sphere of strategy and strategic planning
effectively with the sphere of trends and trend research. Neef and Glockner (2006) in their model
of CF (see Figure 11) distinguish between four central parameters, grouped as poles within the
two spheres of strategy/strategic thought and trend/trend-thought. The trend sphere stretches
between the ‘customer’ and ‘environment’ poles, whereas the strategic sphere spans between the
‘corporation’ and ‘market’ poles.
334 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

Figure 11. Combining trend thinking and strategy work.

What differentiates the four parameters is their degree of entrepreneurial influence and the time
horizon within which an assessment of future developments is reasonable and possible.
Taking a closer look at the sphere of strategic thinking, it is obvious that corporations, notwith-
standing their desire to determine or foresee the future actions of their corporate environment, can
only very indirectly or collaterally affect the greater socio-cultural and economic environment in
which they are operating which is pre-determined and path-dependent. On the other hand, future
developments in this environment are relatively easy to anticipate (and ‘predict’) even within a
long time horizon, e.g. on the level of mega-trends, demographic development or urbanisation. In
contrast, changes in customer behaviour and preferences can be assessed as an input for strategic
planning only in the short- or medium-term as indicated by trends in fast-moving consumer goods.
Depending on the power of a given corporation, markets can to a certain degree be influenced, but
due to increased market dynamics, market developments can only be assessed within a medium-
term horizon. There seems to be a missing link between the much-practised trend scanning and
its results for strategic thinking which is governed by pressing present-day questions, a shorter
time horizon and the need to operationalise knowledge and insights. A contextual logic approach
within Corporate Foresight, understood as Open Foresight, is what we see as that missing link.
Corporate Foresight/Open Foresight is capable of opening up the market perspective to the
dynamics of the business environment through its concept of ‘contextual logic’. By not focusing
innovation solely on products but also analysing the actual (real world/everyday life) context of
the application of products (or services), a contextual logic framework provides the possibility
to assess the real potential for innovation, arising from the interaction of corporations and their
customers. Contextual logic thus does not isolate the corporation- customer poles but takes a closer
look at the interconnectivity of the two poles, thereby redefining the producer-consumer interfaces.
With reference to the consumer goods market, this simply means that products, technologies and
services are considered as a result parts of the actual ‘Lebenswelt’ (living sphere) of the customer,
a part of everyday life, generating new options, and complicating or easing everyday life. The
 Corporate Foresight in Europe 335

corporation (and its products and services) in this perspective is a partner and co-producer of the
customer’s ‘Lebenswelt’.
A well-defined trend concept, made operational in robust trend-research and trend-monitoring
remains an essential method within a contextually oriented Corporate Foresight approach, as
contexts do change as well. Trend research within this framework looks beyond the obvious:
detecting patterns and deep structures behind (the drivers of) change, an indispensable input for
strategic planning.
In helping decision makers to shape the future by better anticipating future changes, open
foresight’s contextual logic-oriented approach replaces the ‘trend – impact – reaction’ chain with
‘trend – context – strategy’. In this emerging practice,9 creative processes directly open up and
flow into a reflection on markets, strategic options and new business models, leading to operational
action.

Notes
1. The quoted data from Müller (2006) stems from an unpublished paper. See also http://www.strategicforesight.ch.
2. The Z_punkt (Burmeister et al. 2002) study included data from 26 German corporations, while Becker interviewed
18 European companies.
3. Finally included were 40 companies, as four failed at least one criterion for inclusion.
4. This addition is not a result of the study by Müller, but an addition by Z_punkt. It is based on our practical experience
in the field, and on discussions with Corporate Foresight experts and colleagues in Europe. For more information on
this question, please refer to Heinzelbecker (2006).
5. By ‘hard’ objectives Müller is referring to those objectives which are explicitly and functionally related to specific
strategic tasks and processes.
6. The majority of these companies (16 out of 30) work with qualitative and quantitative objectives.
7. Of these companies, 63.6% overhaul and improve their process annually, one company each does its process review
monthly and every four years, respectively, while – still surprising enough – only one company admits to ‘never’
overhauling its foresight process.
8. Although this is not elaborated on in detail here, it is important to stress the parallels between public (national,
regional, state or political body financed) and corporate foresight with respect to critical success factors. While the
characteristics or aims, the organisational structure and the degree of inclusiveness or participation tend to differ in
public foresight processes, the bottom line on success factors is the same. If a project or unit does not produce results
that can be operationalised and are helpful for decision-making, it risks losing support, credibility and justification.
The IPTS FOR-LEARN project (see 2006 Seville FTA conference paper by Olivier da Costa and Philine Warnke,
or the project’s website http://forlearn.jrc.es/) provides an analysis of how the impact of public foresight can be
strengthened.
9. Corporations considered as avant-garde in the emerging practice of context-driven Open Foresight include German
BASF AG on the one hand, with its stress on closely linking foresight to strategic decision-making as effectively
as possible, and, Philips, on the other, with its approach focussing on linking customer and context perspec-
tives to innovation and growth opportunities (see http://www.design.philips.com/about/design/newvaluebyonedesign/
section-13991/index.html).

References
Becker, P. 2003. Corporate foresight in Europe: a first overview. European Commission Community Research Working
Paper, Luxembourg.
Bezold, C. 2006. Corporate foresight in the US. Presentation at the WFS Conference, Creating Global Strategies for
Humanity’s Future, Ontario Canada, 28–30 July 2006. http://www.wfs.org/bezold06b.ppt (last accessed 2007).
Burmeister, K., A. Neef, B. Albert and H. Glockner. 2002. Zukunftsforschung und Unternehmen. Praxis, Methoden,
Perspektiven. Essen: Z_punkt The Foresight Company [available in German only; a summary of the main results in
English can be downloaded from: http://www.z-punkt.de]
336 C. Daheim and G. Uerz

Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Da Costa, O., P. Warnke, F. Scapolo, and C. Cagnin. 2006. Contribution of the FORLEARN project to the study of
foresight impact on policy-making. Paper presented at the International Seminar on ‘Future-Oriented Technology
Analysis (FTA)’, Seville, 28–29 September 2006. Brussels: European Commission.
Heinzelbecker, K. 2006. Outsourcing corporate foresight? Presentation at the WFS conference, Creating Global Strategies
for Humanity’s Future, Ontario Canada, 28–30 July 2006. http://www.wfs.org/heinzelbecker06.pdf
Müller, A. 2006. Strategic foresight in companies. An international survey on trends and futures research processes.
Unpublished paper. Results to be published soon, see http://www.strategicforesight.ch (last accessed 26 March
2008).
Neef, A., and H. Glockner. 2006. Beobachtungen und Handeln verweben. GDI Impuls Winter 2006.
Schwarz, J.O. 2006. The Future of Futures Studies: A Delphi Study with a German Perspective. Aachen: Shaker.
Van der Duin, P. 2006. Qualitative futures research for innovation. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.
Von Hippel, E. 1988. Lead users. A source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32: 791–805.