Embedding Strategic Foresight Into Strategic Planning: A Conversation with Professor Bert George.

In the interview, Professor Bert George explains why governments love the shiny appeal of strategic foresight yet often view traditional strategic planning as a stale, bureaucratic hammer. Planning has become a linear, reporting‑driven exercise, while foresight offers a fluid, scenario‑based approach that prepares agencies for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. This tension matters because the ability to anticipate multiple futures directly influences policy effectiveness and organizational resilience in an era of rapid technological and geopolitical change.

The research across Singapore, Flanders, the EU, and the US GAO reveals consistent patterns: effective foresight units are small, agile, and composed of two complementary roles. Scientific analysts translate macro‑level trends—AI, climate change, geopolitics—into actionable insights, while co‑production strategists act as boundary spanners, weaving together policymakers, civil servants, and external experts. Small teams avoid becoming budgetary liabilities and can cultivate extensive networks that amplify their impact. Moreover, practitioners need political astuteness to navigate the often‑unstructured, politically sensitive terrain that distinguishes foresight from conventional planning.

George proposes a house‑metaphor framework—capabilities (foundation), governance (roof), processes and practice (walls)—to embed foresight sustainably within strategic management. Clear, adaptable mandates and integration both at the top‑level strategy table and through “foresight antennas” across agencies ensure demand‑driven relevance and supply‑driven expertise. By fostering curiosity, co‑production skills, and political sensitivity, governments can transform planning from a static checklist into a dynamic learning system, better equipped to handle unexpected shocks and drive long‑term performance.