Created 24/7/2011 07:40:09 AM

I think that we are faced with two approaches on the image of the future: Strategic Planning (Managerial Approach) & Strategic Thinking (Futurist Approach).

Morrison  mentions Mintzberg's argument that "strategic planning is about analysis, while strategic thinking is about synthesis". In other words, analysis deals with breaking down a goal into steps, designing how the steps may be implemented, and estimating the anticipated consequences of each step. On the other hand, synthesis needs using intuition and creativity to formulate an integrated perspective, a vision, of where the organization should be heading: Strategic Foresight.

The problem is that strategic planning proponents (managers) believe that analysis encompasses synthesis; that in the best practice, strategic planning, strategic thinking, and strategy making are all synonymous. The strategy analyzers (the futurists) believe that strategies can develop inadvertently, without the conscious intention of senior management. The futurists don't want to get rid of the planners. Instead, those with planning responsibilities should make their contribution around the strategy-making process rather than inside it.

In a similar manner, our understanding from the image of the future may differ in terms of our technical perspectives. Managers don't have authority to make commitments to images of the future, but they should supply the data that futurists require to realize those images. In addition, managers are under time pressure to make decisions, to act, not reflect; they may overlook important analytical information. Futurists have the time and the inclination to analyze.   

Reference:

Morrison, J. L. (1994). From Strategic Planning to Strategic Thinking, On the Horizon, 2(3), pp. 3-4. Retrieved from: http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/OTH/2-3.asp