Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

An Alternative to <strong>the</strong> Crystal Ball: Participatory
Approaches for Sustainable Management
Katja Pook 1 and Campbell Warden²
1 pook perspectives, Goettingen, Germany
²Instituto de Astr<strong>of</strong>isica de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
mail@pook-perspectives.net
campbell@iac.es
Abstract: The most reliable way to forecast <strong>the</strong> future is to try to understand <strong>the</strong> present." 1 (John Naisbitt)
Humankind has a great ability to learn by using reflection on past and present incidents, actions and perceived
cause-effect relationships for designing and optimising future behaviour. These capabilities bear an <strong>of</strong>ten
underestimated potential for business, research, (public) investment and policy making. The challenge is to
harness and focus <strong>the</strong>se latent resources by means <strong>of</strong> adequate methods. This paper discusses knowledgebased
methods <strong>of</strong> Technology Foresight (TF) and Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) and extracts
commonalities and differences. It also includes some examples and discusses concrete challenges in <strong>the</strong>
process <strong>of</strong> applying <strong>the</strong>se methods. In general, ICM/ICR and Foresight are participatory methods that endeavour
to use current knowledge for shaping future actions. They bring people toge<strong>the</strong>r in a social process to elaborate
on individual experiences and expertise, to create a common language, structure collective thought and enable
appropriation by decision-makers. They contribute to organisational and regional risk management, knowledge
management, organisational learning and instantiate democratic principles in early phases <strong>of</strong> decision-making
processes. This implies in most cases, in <strong>the</strong> private as in <strong>the</strong> public sector, a change in organisational culture,
<strong>of</strong>ten underestimated or even ignored. Too little consideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se requirements harbours a risk for <strong>the</strong>
success and <strong>the</strong> continuous application <strong>of</strong> this kind <strong>of</strong> methods. This paper extracts basic principles <strong>of</strong> TF and
ICM and elaborates on pre-requisites and practical recommendations for <strong>the</strong> successful use <strong>of</strong> knowledge-based
methods to integrate individual knowledge and multiple perspectives in management decision-making. It also
discusses some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> challenges and risks when introducing participatory methods in hierarchical, or
individualistic, cultures with established power structures.
Keywords: technology foresight, innovation foresight, intellectual capital management, intellectual capital
reporting, knowledge management, strategic decision making
1. Introduction
“The capabilities <strong>of</strong> civilization to build a better future are rich, but terribly inefficient. Improving
efficiency requires seeing <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole and its parts as objectively as possible.” These
words, introducing <strong>the</strong> 2006 State <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Future publication <strong>of</strong> UN University (Glenn & Gordon, 2006)
resemble <strong>the</strong> general notion that humankind has a great ability to learn by using reflection on past and
present incidents, actions and reactions, for designing and optimising future behaviour. At <strong>the</strong> same
time, <strong>the</strong>se capabilities are <strong>of</strong>ten insufficiently valued for improving business competitiveness and
sustainability, in research, (public) investment and policy making. However, one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biggest
challenges in this enterprise is that <strong>of</strong> balancing consistency over time (past, present, future) on <strong>the</strong>
one hand and creativity, openness and innovativeness on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r.
This paper chooses two methodological approaches for integrating individual knowledge into
corporate, or regional, decision making for future investments and strategic direction. This is not done
in an exhaustive way, but ra<strong>the</strong>r in taking <strong>the</strong>m as a starting point to evaluate <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>of</strong>
integrating a certain element <strong>of</strong> democracy into organisational and regional strategic management.
2. Intangibles in strategy management: A paradigm shift for decision making
The era <strong>of</strong> mechanistic models as analogies for organisations is supposed to be over, giving way to
metaphors taken from biology and evolution (e.g. Lazlo et al, 1992), but in practical life, many
strategic decisions are still based on <strong>the</strong> former paradigm. Systems <strong>the</strong>ory approaches and biological
analogies only slowly make <strong>the</strong>ir way into organisational decision-making. The shift in paradigm is a
shift <strong>of</strong> mental models and resulting action, such as, “The world as we know it bears <strong>the</strong> stamp <strong>of</strong> our
own conceptual activity” (Putnam; cited by Howe & Berv, 2000, S. 24). Changing world views takes
1 http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_naisbitt/2.html
333