Bruce has spent over 20 years in industry and finance before joining the academic world a decade ago to help establish the Management Centre at what is now London South Bank University. He has a Degree in Chemical Engineering; an MSc (Economics) / MBA from the London Business School and a PhD (by published work) for his work on 'The Future of Offices and Office Work: Implications for Organisational Strategy'. He is a Member of Chartered Management Institute’s 'Leadership Research Panel' 2000-1 and Panel on ‘Leading Change in the Public Sector’.

Since the late 1960's he has written extensively (about 200 published articles) on a wide range of strategy/futures related issues, including articles exploring the link between Leadership, Power and Responsibility and, more recently, the relationship between Leadership, Wisdom, Knowledge Management and Organisational Performance. He has undertaken over 30 interviews for Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, as well others for The Tomorrow Project Bulletin. He was the UK co-ordinator for 'The Millennium Project' 1999-2005; a founder member of Shaping Tomorrow and is a member of the Association of Professional Futurists. He has been active in the ‘futures industry’ since he first wrote a pamphlet on ‘UK Energy Policy’ in the 1960’s. He has been involved with the Long Range Planning Journal since the 1980’s and it’s Review Editor for over a decade.

Summary
The interview was conducted by telephone and an open discussion was held on Wild Cards, Societal Issues, Trends and Information Management. In particular, the discussion centred on how information is used and the importance of mechanisms and processes to manage such information. There were further insights into methodologies for using WI-WE, the usefulness of futures exercises and a Wild Card ‘UK media controlled by Russia’ was developed (along with associated Weak Signals). Further Weak Signals were articulated, and sources of identifying WI-WE discussed.

Can you envisage any major wild cards (positive or negative) that may occur in the next 20 years?

BL: One issue I have, which can be linked to wild cards and foresight exercises, is how issues and events are reported and how this then leads to political action. For example, if a sensitive election is coming up, certain issues can be distorted for many reasons. In the UK, the media, particularly newspapers and television, have a very strong influence on attitudes in society, and those involved in the media can be influenced their own agenda rather than being completely independent. With this in mind, what would happen if the UK media was controlled by Russians, or operators from other countries for that matter? The potential for impact on society could be huge. In this connection, it isn’t difficult to argue that Murdoch (an Australian with American citizenship?) has already too much influence within UK today.

What will be the dramatic impact of the wild card(s) you mentioned?

BL: Clearly the impacts on society would be dramatic, with potential for propaganda being reported to influence public perception of certain events.

What are the weak signals that (if detected could hint at a growing likelihood (or imminent realisation) of the wild card(s) you mentioned?

BL: There is a difference between the reality of an issue and the perception of such an issue. This is essentially, a reflection of media influence and there can be numerous consequences created for political reasons.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) was once recognised as being completely independent, but now it is also prone to sensationalise events, and cannot be considered as a reliable source of information. Indeed, traditional media sources of reliable information are often suspect and this usually due to over-sensationalising events. As such society can easily become immune to certain aspects of news, rather like a ‘crying wolf scenario’. For example, the recent SARS scare: Do we really know how serious they were? We know what was reported in the media and then this is perceived in certain ways by society. What will happen if a real epidemic occurs?

If you look at the recent Mexican Gulf oil spillage, this is a very traumatic event, but in the past when these problems have occurred they have generally been dealt with limited fuss. Today, 98%, probably 99.9%, of the population have limited knowledge of real events and rely on media coverage, and this determines their perception and interpretation of an event.

Do you have any comments regarding the usefulness of wild cards and weak signals and how these may be interconnected?

BL: The Perfect Storm Model is very interesting and there is a strong case for exploring the interconnections of possible wild cards in order to understand the risks and their potential impacts.

For me there are two issues related to wild cards; technically, what ‘can’ you do about a wild card, but also, politically/socially, what ‘should’ you do.

One major issue, indeed criticism, around futures exercises is that they are rarely part of a systematic annual review of the probabilities of an event. Typically, what happens is a one-off exercise where a wild card is identified, experts look at the probability and the potential impact is assessed. But circumstances change, driven partly by shifts in attitude of society, as well as new technology developments and new information, and this is not factored into a learning driven review process because these review processes are not embedded properly. If a review was undertaken annually then the quality could be improved and this should then lead to better decision-making.

Following on from your previous statement what do you think should be given top priority for EU research?

BL: It is difficult to assess this, but clearly what is important is to manage the priorities in terms of output impact. This is crucial, and it is a balance between high predictability and low impact, against low predictability and high impact, similar to standard risk management. However, what is not clear from within the European Commission is what is the agenda for prioritising is in terms of outputs. For example, the CERN accelerator cost billions of Euros, but how was this justified in terms of priorities of usefulness and potential or even expected outcomes? In my opinion, big decisions often get taken implicitly with vested interests have a disproportionate influence; just look at the fact that we have not been back to the moon since the first landing 30 years ago.

Are there any interesting lessons from previous studies or other unpredictable areas that the EC should look at?

BL: Demographic changes are very interesting for the EU, and there is already a lot of statistics on this subject. But what do people do with this information? For example, in the UK some people are still surprised that some schools are full or empty, although the authorities should have recognised this 10 years ago with the information and trends they should have had available.

In demographics, one area that is not sufficiently researched is the changing attitude to children. The biggest uncertainty in demographic projections is to do with birth rates and migration, and these are very hard to predict. For instance, a key question is what will happen with birth rates, and what is the effect of the shift in attitudes due to the changing role of women in the workplace and education? It seems that these factors have big impact on birth rates.

It is important with any of these studies not to lose sight of why we are tracking this information? It is crucial not to lose track of what is important, which is even more critical when faced with information overload. For example, if you look at existing trends, what will be the impact in 50 years? Obesity looks like it is on the increase, which will probably increase depression. Yet the ageing population will also increase. How do we reconcile these trends?

What are the best methods to identify WI-WEs?

BL: A well managed brainstorming session usually works well, but it is important to have experts and/or futurists who are well informed and use to thinking about making connections between the information. This will help to ensure you get the best out the session.

Do you have any further comments regarding the iKnow project?

BL: There is a conceptual organisational issue that is very important when dealing with issues such as wild cards and that is the process of managing the information that is collated. Reliable information is critical and this related to both how the information gathered and how it is utilised. For example, what do we do with the WI-WE?

On a side note, the task of asking someone to imagine wild cards without limit on its focus leaves it difficult to establish where to start, and it is hard to do the process justice. It may be beneficial to identify certain themes, and then put them into manageable categories, to help focus interviewees. Otherwise, the number of wild cards and weak signals that could be generated is almost infinite, although it is also important to recognise that much creativity comes from exploring the interaction and boundaries of previously defined categories.

Overall it is worth remembering that the key to long term success is invariably in the review process. Also, in the end the quality of the decisions taken probably depends more on the quality on the quality of the conversations that are held on the issues than on anything else, and this is the critical factor in improving the effectiveness of our learning processes – which are never as good as they should be.

Good luck with the challenging tasks you have set yourself, this is an interesting project, and please let me know if I can assist further.