Thursday, July 31, 2008


After reading through the Fortune Sellers, I could not help think about the work that we are doing relative to predictions and the approaches that different people use. Because different people make predictions for different reasons/motives/justifications, I am further convinced that at times predictions can be seen as just noise.

Further more, I often ask myself what’s the motives when I see/hear certain predictions? Usually they are self-explanatory, but I am usually concerned when those who are well respected in certain communities make predictions that are way off in left field.  Nonetheless, I feel that predictions can serve as an impetus to get the idea (creative and otherwise) juices flowing, which can impact the outcomes of predictions. 

I feel this way, as research is one method we use to obtain valuable information about challenges, areas for further research etc., which can be linked a prediction(s). The interesting thing is that we are not always aware of the new frontiers that are being explored until they are made public. When they are made public how do we tie (associate) them to predictions?

What should be the requirements for making predictions?

Should predictions be required to have a format to ensure that there is some validity and or basis for making them?

Who gets to decide if predictions have failed or passed and how should that be determined?






No comments: