(FORTUNE Magazine) – ARE YOU competing to dominate your industry's future? To find out, ask yourself three questions we often ask senior managers: First, what percentage of your time is spent on external rather than internal issues -- understanding, for example, the implications of a particular new technology vs. debating corporate overhead allocations? Second, of this time spent looking outward, how much is spent considering how the world could be different in five or ten years, as opposed to worrying about winning the next big contract or how to respond to a competitor's pricing move? Third, of the time devoted to looking outward and forward, how much is spent in consultation with colleagues, where the objective is to build a deeply shared, well-tested view of the future, as opposed to a personal and idiosyncratic view? The answers typically conform to what we call the 40-30-20 rule. In our experience about 40% of senior executive time is spent looking outward, and of this time about 30% is spent peering three or more years into the future. And of the time spent looking forward, no more than 20% is spent attempting to build a collective view of the future (the other 80% is spent looking at the future of the manager's particular business). Thus, on average, senior management is devoting less than 3% (40% x 30% x 20% = 2.4%) of its energy building a corporate perspective on the future. In some companies the figure is less than 1%. Our experience suggests that to develop a prescient and distinctive point of view about the future, a senior management team must be willing to spend 20% to 50% of its time over a period of months. It must then be willing to continually revisit that point of view, elaborating and adjusting it as the future unfolds. The vital first step in competing for the future is the quest for industry foresight. This is the race to gain an understanding deeper than competitors, of the trends and discontinuities -- technological, demographic, regulatory, or lifestyle -- that could be used to transform industry boundaries and create new competitive space. Industry foresight gives a company the potential to get to the future first and stake out a leadership position. It informs corporate direction and lets a company control the evolution of its industry and, thereby, its own destiny. The trick is to see the future before it arrives. We don't believe any company can get along without a well-articulated point of view about tomorrow's opportunities and challenges. Today many companies seem convinced that foresight is the easy part; it's implementation that's the killer. We believe that creating industry foresight and achieving operational excellence are equally challenging. Many times what are described as today's implementation failures are really yesterday's failures of foresight in disguise. The quality deficit, which cost U.S. automakers so much market share in the 1970s and 1980s, was more than just "poor execution." Detroit didn't suddenly get sloppy, and Japanese carmakers didn't start out with a quality advantage. Japanese auto companies realized decades ago that new and formidable competitive weapons would be needed to beat U.S. car companies in their home market. The new weapons they set about developing were quality, cycle time, and flexibility. Twenty years later, Toyota's foresight had become GM's implementation nightmare. For a variety of reasons we prefer the word foresight to vision. Vision connotes a dream or an apparition, but there is more to industry foresight than a single blinding flash of insight. Industry foresight is based on deep insights into the trends in technology, demographics, regulation, and lifestyles that can be harnessed to rewrite industry rules and create new competitive space. While understanding the potential implications of such trends requires creativity and imagination, any "vision" that is not based on a solid factual foundation is likely to be fantastical. To get to the future first, top management must either see opportunities not seen by other top teams or be able to exploit opportunities, by virtue of preemptive and consistent capability-building, that other companies can't. We find few senior management teams that can paint an enticing picture of the new industry space their company hopes to stake out over the next decade, few that spend as much time on opportunity management as they do on operations management. Industry foresight requires a curiosity as deep as it is boundless. Gaining enough insight into potential discontinuities to actually draw conclusions about what to do -- which alliances to form, how much to invest, what kind of people to hire -- demands a significant expenditure of intellectual energy by senior management. The half-day or day-long planning review meetings that typically serve as forums to debate the future are utterly inadequate if the goal is to build an assumption base about the future that is more prescient and better-founded than the competitors'. Recently one of us spent a day with the top officers of a well-known U.S. company. The question put to these managers was simple: What are the forces already at work in this industry that have the potential to profoundly transform industry structure? A heated discussion followed, and a dozen discontinuities were identified. One of the potential drivers was picked at random, and the top team was asked, "Could you sustain a debate for a full day, among yourselves, about the implications of this trend to your company and the industry? Do you understand how fast this trend is emerging in different markets around the world, the technologies that are propelling it, the technology choices competitors are making, which companies are in the lead, who has the most to gain and to lose, the investment strategies of your competitors vis-a-vis this trend, and the variety of ways in which this trend may influence customer demands and needs?" The top team agreed that it simply didn't know enough about this critical driving force to answer these questions, and certainly couldn't keep a detailed, intelligent debate going for a full day. A few people suggested that these questions weren't really fair. They were then asked, "Could you sustain a debate for eight hours on the issue of how you allocate corporate overheads, set sales targets, and manage transfer prices?" Now this was a fair question. "On this we could keep going for eight days, no sweat," replied a senior executive. Suddenly the point hit them: This group of managers was not in control of their company's destiny. They had surrendered control of that destiny to competitors who were willing to devote the time and intellectual energy necessary to understand and influence the forces shaping the future of the industry.

THE FIRST response to this painful realization was typical: "I'll set up a couple of days when each of my divisional vice presidents can come in and pitch their view of the future." Back came our argument: It takes more than two days to develop industry foresight; building foresight is not about "pitching" and "reviewing," but about exploring and learning. To really understand the future, to have the courage to commit, top management must get more than just a fleeting glimpse of the future. The required effort is measured in weeks and months, not in hours and days. The outcome of this second painful realization was the establishment of a dozen or so "headlights" teams that worked for several months to refine and extend top management's initial list of industry drivers. The teams then proceeded to investigate each discontinuity in great depth. They sought answers to a variety of questions: How might this trend influence our current customers? How might it influence our current "economic engine"? What are the dynamics of this trend -- how fast is it developing, and what are the factors that may accelerate or decelerate the trend? Who is moving to exploit this trend, or indeed, who is causing it -- essentially, who is in the driver's seat, who is a passenger, and who is a bystander? Who has the most to lose and the most to gain from this discontinuity? What new opportunities -- products or services -- might be created by this discontinuity? What are our options for gaining further insight into this trend, influencing its direction and speed, or actually intercepting it? As tentative answers emerged, they were debated in marathon sessions involving business unit and corporate managers. At the conclusion of the exercise, top management felt confident that it had developed the most penetrating set of headlights in its industry. To see the future first, top management must have a curiosity that is as deep as it is broad. Building industry foresight demands that senior management be willing to move far beyond the issues on which it can claim expert status. It must admit that what it knows most about is the past and participate in debates about the future as equals, not as omnipotent judges. Impatient, results-oriented senior executives must be willing to come back again and again to issues that are complex and seemingly indeterminable. They must recognize that building industry foresight is, at least initially, as much about discovering as deciding. Take an issue that begs for thoughtful speculation: the impact of virtual reality (VR). Virtual reality is a technology with profound implications for almost every industry. VR is not about videogames or cybersex, but about a capacity to model and simulate just about anything. As far-reaching as virtual reality's impact may be, how many senior teams have given any thought to how VR might influence their business? We were particularly pleased when the executive committee of a company we work with allowed itself to be led, by a 20-something savant, through an intellectually challenging series of meetings where the implications of VR were debated in depth. Concluding that it needed to better understand virtual reality, the top team set up an internal monitoring function to keep it informed of VR's development and suggest novel ways of exploiting the emerging technology.

THE FUTURE is to be found in the intersection of changes in technology, lifestyles, regulation, demographics, and geopolitics. For example, the opportunity that CNN found for global, 24-hour television news grew out of changes in lifestyle (ever longer and more unpredictable work hours), changes in technology (handicams and suitcase-size satellite linkups), and changes in the regulatory environment (the licensing and growth of cable television companies).

Companies that create the future are rebels. They're subversives. They break the rules. They're filled with people who take the other side of an issue just to spark a debate. In fact, they're probably filled with folks who didn't mind being sent to the principal's office once in a while. Foresight often comes not from being a better forecaster, but from being less hide-bound. Ted Turner was a contrarian -- you don't need superstar news readers with their superstar salaries. Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, was a contrarian. She believed, contrary to much of the cosmetics industry, that trying to seduce women into buying overpackaged, overhyped, and overpriced cosmetics was an insult to their intelligence. It is much in vogue to be customer-led. From their bully pulpits, which today are likely to be worldwide satellite hookups, CEOs tell the troops that "everything begins with the customer." Companies claim to be reengineering their processes from the customer backward. Rewards and incentives are tied to measures of customer satisfaction. And it is almost impossible to check out of a hotel, pay for a restaurant meal, or hire a car without being asked to rate the vendor's customer service. While we are somewhat taken aback by the fact that some corporate leaders seem to find the idea of putting the customer first novel, we nonetheless applaud the sentiment and commend the ensuing effort. On the other hand, if the goal is getting to the future first, rather than merely preserving market share in existing businesses, a company must be much more than customer-led. Customers are notoriously lacking in foresight. Ten or 15 years ago, how many of us were asking for cellular telephones, fax machines, and copiers at home, 24-hour discount brokerage accounts, multivalve automobile engines, compact disk players, cars with on-board navigation systems, hand-held global satellite positioning receivers, automated teller machines, MTV, or the Home Shopping Network? As Akio Morita, Sony's visionary leader puts it: "Our plan is to lead the public with new products rather than ask them what kind of products they want. The public does not know what is possible, but we do. So instead of doing a lot of market research, we refine our thinking on a product and its use and try to create a market for it by educating and communicating with the public.'' The company's founder and honorary chairman, Masaru Ibuka, concurs: "Our emphasis has always been to make something out of nothing."

A DETROIT automaker introduced in 1991 a new compact that had been five years in development. The car's design and specifications grew out of the most intensive customer research ever carried out by the company. Yet when the car was launched, it turned out to be the perfect car to compete with the three- year-old models of Japanese competitors. The U.S. company was following its customers all right, but its customers were following more imaginative competitors. By way of contrast, Honda introduced in the early 1990s its mid- engine NSX sports car, which nearly matched the performance of a Ferrari but at a fraction of the price. In the print ad for the car, Honda claimed that the NSX was "not a car buyer's dream -- no car buyer could have dreamt of this car." Instead, crowed Honda, the NSX is a "carmaker's dream," which fulfilled the company's long-term ambition of producing a car that was both exotic and housebroken. Having achieved this goal, it is interesting to ask, who is Honda going to benchmark now? One gets the feeling that Honda is more interested in outpacing competitors than benchmarking them. There are three kinds of companies: Companies that try to lead customers where they don't want to go (these find the idea of being customer-led an insight); companies that listen to customers and then respond to their articulated needs (needs that are probably already being satisfied by more foresightful competitors); and companies that lead customers where they want to go but don't know it yet. Companies that create the future do more than satisfy customers, they constantly amaze them.

NONE OF THIS is to argue that existing or potential customers can't play an important role in helping the firm stretch the boundaries of its opportunity horizon. But too often the questions asked of customers by market researchers -- "Do you prefer a widget with a green strip or one with a red strip?" -- provide little scope for fundamentally challenging traditional product concepts or creating real competitive differentiation. Although market research can be helpful in fine-tuning well-known product concepts to meet the demands of a particular class of customers (such as trying to discover just what diet cola formulation will appeal to European customers, which was the goal of researchers testing PepsiCo's new Europe-targeted soft drink, Pepsi Max), it is seldom the spur for fundamentally new product concepts (such as IDV's Aqua-Libra, which created an entirely new category of sophisticated adult "health" drinks in Britain). % Listen to Hal Sperlich, father of the minivan, who took the concept from Ford to Chrysler when Ford balked at turning it into reality: "((Ford)) lacked confidence that a market existed, because the product didn't exist. The auto industry places great value on historical studies of market segments. Well, we couldn't prove there was a market for the minivan because there was no historical segment to cite. In Detroit most product-development dollars are spent on modest improvements to existing products, and most market research money is spent on studying what customers like among available products. In ten years of developing the minivan we never once got a letter from a housewife asking us to invent one. To the skeptics, that proved there wasn't a market out there.'' Insights into new product possibilities may be garnered in many ways, all of which go beyond traditional modes of market research. Toshiba has a Lifestyle Research Institute; Sony explores "human science" with the same passion it pursues the leading edge of audiovisual technology. The insights gained allow these firms to answer two crucial questions: What range of benefits will customers value in tomorrow's products, and how might we, through innovation, preempt competitors in delivering those benefits to the marketplace? Yamaha gained insights into the unarticulated needs of musicians when it established a "listening post" in London, chock-full of the latest gee-whiz music technology. The facility offered some of Europe's most talented musicians a chance to experiment with the future of music making. The feedback helped Yamaha continually push out the boundaries of the competitive space it had staked out in the music business. Yamaha's experience illustrates an important point: To push out the boundaries of current product concepts, it is necessary to put the most advanced technology possible directly into the hands of the world's most sophisticated and demanding customers. Thus arose Yamaha's London market laboratory: Japan is still not the center of the world's pop music industry. Being a perpetual follower is not the only risk from being customer-led. Being customer-led begs the whole question of who are my customers? As IBM, DEC, Xerox, and many other companies have learned, today's customers may not be tomorrow's. Folks buying Buick Roadmasters and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eights may be happy enough with GM service and quality, but if GM can't make a car that appeals to 30-something Benz and Bimmer owners, it will surrender its future. Recognizing this, GM has launched many self-proclaimed import beaters, and its latest, the Oldsmobile Aurora, may finally prove a worthy contender. Although it is important to ask how satisfied my customers are, it is equally important to ask which customers are we not even serving. Think of a simple two-by-two matrix (see diagram). On one axis are needs --those that customers are capable of articulating and those that they can't yet articulate. On the other axis are classes of customer -- those classes the company currently serves and those it doesn't. However well a company meets the articulated needs of current customers, it runs a great risk if it doesn't have a view of the needs customers can't yet articulate but would love to have satisfied. And however content a company's existing customers may be, it may find its growth stymied if it can't reach out and appeal to fundamentally new customer groups. Any company that can do no more than respond to the articulated needs of existing customers will quickly become a laggard. Many companies use an array of tools that make them think they're looking into the future: technology forecasting, market research, scenario planning, competitor analysis. Although potentially useful, none of these will necessarily yield industry foresight. The reason: None compels senior management to reconceive the corporation and the industries in which it competes. Until managers do that, they haven't begun competing for the future.

BOX: About the Authors

Gary Hamel is a professor at the London Business School. C.K. Prahalad is a professor at the University of Michigan business school. Both consult extensively with companies, and they are co-authors of influential articles, including "Strategic Intent" and "The Core Competence of the Corporation."

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE CREDIT: NO CREDIT CAPTION: THE DANGERS OF BEING CUSTOMER-LED Customers are notoriously lacking in foresight. Meeting only the articulated needs of customers you already serve cedes vast opportunities to more farsighted competitors.