Кайдановский К.А., Гизатулин А.М. — The features of economic forecasting in the conditions of Ukraine

For Ukraine is typical frequent changes of political regimes and many variable factors that affect the economy. That seriously complicates the forecasting of economic processes and phenomena.

Foresight is a university human capacity which allows people to think ahead and consider, model, create and respond to, future eventualities. Foresight is, however, usually an unconscious thinking process — we all think about the future, but often do not recognize that we are engaging in foresight. In an organizational context, foresight is not necessarily recognized or universal, and overt processes generally need to be put in place, supported by specific methodologies, in order to develop an organizational capacity for foresight [1]. Methodology is an operational framework within which data are placed so that their meaning may be seen more clearly. Foresight methodologies then may be viewed as frameworks for making sense of data generated by structured processes to think about the future. In organizations, foresight methodologies have a particular role in the strategy development process. Foresight informs the thinking that occurs before strategic decisions are made by expanding the perceptions of the strategic options or choices available to the organization. This research outlines the strategy process in organizations and the use of foresight methodologies in the strategic thinking stage of this process. It then provides a broad overview of the development of foresight methodologies over time, and briefly discusses different types of methodologies that can be used in organizations. The work aims to provide a summary of foresight methodologies rather than a detailed analysis of the methodologies themselves [2].

As the futures field has developed over time, so has the range of methodologies available to futurists. When foresight work emerged in organizations around the 1960s, quantitative methods such as forecasting were common, although scenario planning, a more qualitative approach, also emerged around this time. As critical futures developed, methodologies that took into account personal, cultural and social factors as well as the external world were developed, such as causal layered analysis. In more recent times, integral futures, which is based on the four quadrant framework of Ken Wilber, is emerging as an alternative way forward for the field, and this has opened up possibilities for how methodologies can be configured and used in practice. Foresight methodologies continue to be developed and refined through their use over time in different fields has discussed the changing methodological paradigms in the futures field. The development of the integral futures perspective, with its interior/exterior, individual/collective framework, allows the integration of inner individual and collective processes with an understanding of the external, outer world within the context of many traditions and ways of knowing. The four quadrant approach also incorporates different modes of enquiry in each quadrant, and considering methods from each helps to provide a both a deeper and more holistic understanding of phenomena and issues being explored [3]. Also points out that an integral approach suggests that it is not only the depth of methodological approach that is important but also the depth within the practitioner, suggesting that foresight practitioners need to continue to be self-reflective in their own inner thoughts and consciousness and how that influences their use of methodology. In this way, methodology can be continually critiqued and adapted in use.

Interpretive methods seek to make sense of the information that has been collected and categorized in the previous two steps, in a more in-depth way. Methods at this level also seek to challenge the categories used to analyze data, by trying to identify and surface the worldview underpinning those categories. A key concept in interpretive methods is that of layers, particularly layers of depth [4]. Foresight methodologies at this level seek to move beyond categorizations of data to determine what system or structural interests are at work [5].

Foresight methodologies seek to gather data and make sense of it so that people can think in different and new ways about the future. That data might be collected from humans or from the analysis of documents and artifacts, or both. The data might be analyzed using qualitative or quantitative techniques, or both. To be used in strategy processes, however, data needs to be analyzed, interpreted and used in ways that make sense to the organization. Information emerging from this analysis and interpretation allows an organization to better understand its past and present, which provides the basis for using foresight methods to explore potential futures. Foresight methods are used to inform the thinking processes of staff in an organization so that better and wiser decisions can be made about future strategy. They seek to develop a longer term framework, outside the business-as-usual constraints of the present, within which thinking about potential strategic options can occur. They provide a way of making sense of an uncertain and complex future environment, using as wide a frame as possible, so that meaning might emerge to inform decision making. The output of good futures work is doing things differently, doing new things or social innovation. In strategy, it is about expanding the perceptions of the options available to an organization so that new and sustainable options can be discovered and considered. As such, foresight in organizations is about expanding the mindsets of people, by questioning long held assumptions and beliefs that underpin present strategy. Careful choice of methodologies is required so that people understand the process that they are experiencing, what outcomes are expected, and how those outcomes will be used. The difficulties with implementing outcomes arising from the use of foresight methodologies are no different from any traditional strategy process. It is possible, though, that the more the foresight methodology has taken into account the organizational context in its broadest, most integral sense, and the more chance there might be of successful implementation of subsequent strategy decisions [6].

For Ukraine is preferable qualitative analysis, because impossible to do a good quantitative analysis in a high variability of factors.

Литература:

1. Калинина А.В. Современный экономический анализ и прогнозирование. Учебно-методическое пособие / Калинина А.В. М.: МАУП, 2009. — 416 с.
2. Панфилов В.С. Финансовое и экономическое прогнозирование / Панфилов В.С. М.: МАКС Пресс, 2009. — 472 с.
3. Бутакова М.М. Экономическое прогнозирование / Бутакова М.М. М.: КНОРУС, 2010. — 168 с.
4. Зенкина И.В. Теория экономического анализа / Зенкина И.В. М.: Дашков и К, 2009. — 208 с.
5. Маркин Ю.П. Экономический анализ / Маркин Ю.П. М.: Омега-Л, 2011. — 450 с.
6.Орлова П.И. Бизнес-планирование / Орлова П.И. М.: Дашков и К, 2012. — 284 с.