The future is coming. Most governments are still just taking notes — Ahmad Ibrahim

November 12 — Every few years, governments release comprehensive reports on the future that are filled with fancy charts, expert opinions, and predictions about emerging technologies. Yet, once these reports find their way to a shelf, they rarely translate into meaningful action. This is the peculiar state of "technology foresighting" worldwide.

While countries acknowledge the importance of constantly evolving technology, they often end up with a mountain of reports without any tangible change. The primary issue lies in the fundamental misunderstanding of what foresight is meant to achieve. Many believe the purpose is to predict the future accurately, identifying which technologies will matter most and investing in them accordingly.

However, as the European Union's policy lab acknowledges, foresight cannot provide a definitive prediction. Instead, its value lies in mapping out potential future scenarios, identifying early warning signs of change, and equipping nations with the flexibility to adapt to unforeseen developments. Governments that view foresight as a guessing game end up funding a list of fashionable technologies without the agility to respond to reality's unexpected twists.

Another limitation is the age-old tools employed in government foresight, such as the "Delphi method," which has been used since the 1950s. This method involves assembling a panel of experts, asking them questions, collecting their responses anonymously, and repeating the process until a consensus emerges. While the Delphi method is slow and expensive, its biggest drawback is that experts often converge on conventional wisdom, overlooking the disruptive factors that could significantly impact the future.

Interestingly, a 2026 study suggests that large language models—AI chatbots—could outperform human experts in this process, reaching similar conclusions faster and more cost-effectively. Yet, automating this process does not address the core problem of foresight exercises being disconnected from critical decisions like budgets, laws, and regulations.

The United Kingdom's experience demonstrates this disconnect. After launching a national foresight program in 1993, the UK made significant investments but failed to sustain its approach over three decades, resulting in frequent shifts in priorities. In contrast, Finland—a nation of just 5.5 million inhabitants—integrated foresight directly into its political system by establishing a permanent parliamentary committee and issuing a government futures report every four years.

The key difference is that Finland made foresight an integral part of the government's functioning rather than a standalone project. To improve the effectiveness of foresight efforts, three essential changes are necessary, none of which demand a complete overhaul of existing methods. First, foresight should become an ongoing process rather than an annual report produced every five years.

Establishing dedicated teams whose primary responsibility is to monitor weak signals and relay them to decision-makers in real-time is crucial. Countries like Singapore and the United Kingdom have taken steps in this direction, while most nations have not followed suit. Second, governments should recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to foresight.

A small country with limited resources might benefit more from a focused study of a critical industry than a broad national exercise. Regional cooperation initiatives, such as the Asean Foresight Alliance, can assist smaller nations in avoiding duplication of efforts and tailoring the approach to their specific needs. Lastly, and perhaps most challenging, governments must acknowledge that foresight involves political considerations.

Every decision about which technologies to prioritize, which scenarios to explore, and whose perspectives to consider is ultimately a decision about values and power. Treating these choices as purely technical matters disregards the fact that they directly affect citizens' lives. Countries that manage technological change most effectively will not be those with the most impressive reports or the largest panel of experts.

Instead, they will be the ones that have developed a habit of responding to early warnings, possess the courage to confront uncomfortable possibilities, and show humility in admitting that the future cannot be controlled but only prepared for. Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Ibrahim, affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya, emphasizes these points.