Foresight Training: From Design to Evaluation

The futures field has witnessed a rise in foresight training for government and business leaders. How should the public judge the quality of foresight training they receive? This article presents practical steps that foresight firms can take to upgrade their training impact through continuous improvement, based on the Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model.

Introduction
Over the past ten years, the futures field has witnessed a rise in foresight training for government and business leaders. Where once there was only a handful of foresight graduate level and certificate programs offered by universities, today numerous stand-alone training firms are offering foresight training certificates. Foresight training (FT) may be defined as a multi-day interactive training program to equip practitioners in the use of defined foresight competencies. While the delivery of FT may be anchored in an on-site multi-day meeting, these short-courses are often enhanced by blended learning via pre-readings, virtual classrooms, and fieldwork. FT in this sense is less than a graduate degree in strategic foresight and something more than a one-day workshop offered at a futures conference.

While FT empowers practitioners to use futures methods to create alternative futures, matched to dreams, plans and solutions, the training process is not unique to futures studies. Training and development of talent, whether in public or private enterprise, is undertaken by numerous industries, including professional associations, post-secondary educational institutions, management consulting firms, and business certification programs. The 2018 Training Industry Report estimates that U.S. based institutions invest 87.6 billion in total training expenditures, with 47 billion spent on staff payroll, and 11 billion spent on outside products and services. On average, training expenditures per learner in 2018 was $986 for the year, with employees engaging in 46.7 hours of formal training per year. Government/ military organizations spend the most per learner ($1,433), followed by nonprofit organizations ($1,360). Some 69 percent of training hours were delivered via blended learning in 2018, with instructor-led training dropping 7 percent since 2017 in that blended mix.

Perhaps the most telling conclusion of the 2018 Training Industry Report is the top priorities of institutions with respect to talent development. The highest priority for training in terms of allocating budget resources for 2019 is increasing the effectiveness of training programs (34 percent) and measuring the impact of training programs (19 percent).

In this context, whether one offers a one-off custom solution or a branded professional development foresight program, futurists must pay attention to training evaluation. We must ask: How should potential participants judge the quality of foresight training? How should facilitators judge the quality of their training in reference to foresight competencies, whether that is a one-off client custom solution or a branded professional development program? How does FT demonstrate a ROI or at least reasonable ROE- or ‘return on expectations’ to our clients?

To address these questions, this article will review the history of FT, explain why FT is incomplete without evaluation, present the Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model, and conclude with practical steps that foresight firms can take to elevate their training through continuous improvement.


This concludes the Introduction. This article may be accessed in the literature: Gary, J. E. (2019, Sept.). Foresight training: Moving from design to evaluation. World Futures Review. 11(4) 351-359.

References:

Amsteus, Martin 2011. “Managerial foresight: Measurement Scale and Estimation.” Foresight 13(1), 58-76.

Bell, Wendell. 1996. Foundations of Futures Studies: History, Purposes, and Knowledge. (Human Science for a New Era, vol. 1.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Boling, Elizabeth, and Kennon M. Smith. 2018. “Changing Conceptions of Design.” In Reiser & Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 4th ed. (pp. 323-330). Pearson Education.

Cuhls, Kerstin, and Cornelia Daheim. 2017, February. “Introduction to the special issue on ‘Experiencing Futures.’” Futures 86, 92-93.

Dessinger, Joan C., Moseley, James L., & Van Tiem, Darlene M. 2012, March. “Performance Improvement/HPT model: Guiding the Process.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 51(3), 10-17.

Jungk, Robert, and Norbert R. Müllert. 1987. Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.

Gary, Jay E. and Heiko A. von der Gracht. 2015, August. “The Future of Foresight Professionals: Results from a Global Delphi study.” Futures 71, 132-145.

Grim, Terry. (2009, May). Foresight Maturity Model (FMM): Achieving Best Practices in the Foresight Field. Journal of Futures Studies 13(4), 69-80. http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/13-4/AE05.pdf

Harward, Doug, and Ken Taylor. 2014. What Makes a Great Training Organization? A Handbook of Best Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hines, Andy, and Jay Gary, Cornelia Daheim, Luke van der Lann, L. (2017, September). “Building Foresight Capacity: Toward a Foresight Competency Model.” World Futures Review 9(3), 123-141.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1994. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Kirkpatrick, James D., and Wendy K. Kirkpatrick. 2010. Training on Trial: How Workplace Learning Must Reinvent Itself to Remain Relevant. New York: American Management Association.

Rohrbeck, René and Hans Georg Gemünden, H. G. (2011). Corporate foresight: Its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 231-243. Rose, Ellen. 2004, March-April. “Instructional Design and Curriculum Development: Deconstructing the Difference.” Educational Technology 44(2), 3-12

Slaughter, Richard A. (1996, October). “Futures Studies: From Individual to Social Capacity.” Futures 28(8), 751-762.

Vidal, Rene Victor V. 2005. The Future Workshop: Democratic Problem Solving. http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/publication_details.php?id=4095

Weisbord, Marvin R., and Sandra Janoff. 1995. Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Author Biography Jay Gary, PhD is an associate professor of anticipatory leadership, and assistant dean of Online & Lifelong Learning at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is a founding member of the Association of Professional Futurists, and presently serves as their chair.

Share Button