Not because the plan was wrong, but because no one tested what happens to the rest of the system once the plan succeeds.
More investment. More infrastructure. More activity. All of it can look like progress on a dashboard โ while quietly weakening trust, access or resilience somewhere else in the system.
At Engaging Futures, this is the gap our Inclusive Futures Method (IFM) is built to close.
It's a five-phase way of pressure-testing a strategy before an organisation commits to it โ not by asking "will this work," but by asking "what does this strategy assume, and what happens elsewhere in the system if that assumption is wrong."
๐๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ญ โ define progress by durable wellbeing and capability, not activity or spend.
๐๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ โ establish what fairness and trust actually require, for everyone affected.
๐๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ โ bring investment, evidence and community insight into the same room.
๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ โ find where current measures reward the wrong thing, or shift the cost elsewhere.
Unicity Synthesis โ bring it all back together as one whole-system outcome, not five separate wins.
We apply this lens with clients across cities, infrastructure and leadership strategy โ and over the coming weeks, we'll be walking through a live example, phase by phase.
Follow Engaging Futures to see how it plays out.
#StrategicForesight
#SystemsThinking
#InclusiveFutures
#DecisionMaking
#IFM
Originally published on LinkedIn: Dr Colin Russo on LinkedIn | Engaging Futures on LinkedIn