Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-11 01:21] – nik | future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-13 03:56] – nik | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| {{future_fabulators: | {{future_fabulators: | ||
| + | |||
| + | “Any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous” Dator’s 2nd Law of the Future (Dator 1995) | ||
| ==== external / rational ==== | ==== external / rational ==== | ||
| * [[: | * [[: | ||
| * can we use predictions to help separate/ | * can we use predictions to help separate/ | ||
| - | * what is the question? can it be answered | + | * what is the question? can it be answered |
| ==== internal / irrational ==== | ==== internal / irrational ==== | ||
| * divination / invocation | * divination / invocation | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== physical narratives ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Christine Wilks talking about text as a way for developing character depth; [[http:// | ||
| + | * performing text on screen | ||
| + | * Varytale | ||
| + | * "Text becomes the equivalent of subtitles" | ||
| + | * Very based around computer games. | ||
| + | * " | ||
| + | * Note: Prehearsals are first person narratives, PNs are third person. Thus a Prehearsal can have " | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====formalised decision making==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A lot of the scenario planning process has to do with [[Formalised Decision Making]] and how this is done in groups. | ||
| + | |||
| ==== present / future ==== | ==== present / future ==== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 53: | ||
| Preparation beforehand | Preparation beforehand | ||
| * what can participants prepare for a scenario workshop beforehand? | * what can participants prepare for a scenario workshop beforehand? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Commonly the people organising the workshop will "Work on identifying major drivers, trends and events should be initiated ahead of the first workshop: this is an opportunity to draw on relevant horizon scanning work and other analysis. Ideally this work will be synthesised into a format which can be accessed easily by workshop participants, | ||
| * what are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop? | * what are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Millenium project used questionnaires and interviews, then a computer analysis of answers to get to the | ||
| Key question | Key question | ||
| + | * what are good questions to ask? | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| * how to better structure/ | * how to better structure/ | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| * how can we encourage an ' | * how can we encourage an ' | ||
| * why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems? | * why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems? | ||
| + | |||
| + | "In nearly all cases it should be possible to formulate the purpose of the scenarios work as a question. If this proves difficult, this is often an indication that the work will not be taken up when completed, even if it is of a good quality." | ||
| Mapping the present situation | Mapping the present situation | ||
| * what are different ways to map-out the present situation surrounding the key question? | * what are different ways to map-out the present situation surrounding the key question? | ||
| + | * [[KPUU Framework]] | ||
| * when is this step necessary? when can it be reduced/ | * when is this step necessary? when can it be reduced/ | ||
| * does it help to talk about things that are fixed, or constraints that exist? | * does it help to talk about things that are fixed, or constraints that exist? | ||
| Line 49: | Line 77: | ||
| Key factors | Key factors | ||
| * how to best visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors | * how to best visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors | ||
| + | * " | ||
| * are we talking only about success criteria here? | * are we talking only about success criteria here? | ||
| Line 58: | Line 87: | ||
| * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? (nouns -> verbs) | * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? (nouns -> verbs) | ||
| * what are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people? | * what are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people? | ||
| + | * [[horizon scanning]] | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| * should we make our own STEEP cards to avoid the ' | * should we make our own STEEP cards to avoid the ' | ||
| * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? | * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? | ||
| Line 69: | Line 104: | ||
| Scenarios | Scenarios | ||
| * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Two axes method: Scenarios generated using the ‘two axes’ process are illustrative rather than predictive; they tend to be high-level (although additional layers of detail can subsequently be added). They are particularly suited to testing medium to long-term policy direction, by ensuring that it is robust in a range of environments. Scenarios developed using this method tend to look out 10-20 years.[[http:// | ||
| + | * Branch analysis method: The ‘branch analysis’ method is suited to developing scenarios around specific turning-points that are known in advance (e.g. elections, a referendum or peace process). This approach works best for a shorter time horizon: generally up to five years.[[http:// | ||
| + | * Cone of plausibility method: offers a more deterministic model of the way in which drivers lead to outcomes, by explicitly listing assumptions and how these might change. Of the three techniques, this approach is most suitable for shorter-term time horizons (e.g. a few months to 2-3 years), but can be used to explore longer-term time horizons. It also suits contexts with a limited number of important drivers.[[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| * how to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised? | * how to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised? | ||
| Line 141: | Line 186: | ||
| * wikipedia | * wikipedia | ||
| - | ==== reading/ | ||
| - | * various [[:scifi]] threads re. possible future cultures, shifting relation between humans & their environment, | ||
| - | * bloom, ventus, mars trilogy, incrementalists, | ||
| - | * "A History of the Future in 100 Objects " >> [[https:// | ||
| - | * 'the culture' | ||
| - | * https:// | ||
| - | * [[: | ||
| - | * https:// | ||
| - | * https:// | ||
| - | * The Hermetic Library reading room >> http:// | ||
| - | * Erwin Wagenhofer' | ||
| - | * Christine Wilks talking about text as a way for developing character depth; [[http:// | ||
| - | * performing text on screen | ||
| - | * Varytale | ||
| - | * "Text becomes the equivalent of subtitles" | ||
| - | * Very based around computer games. | ||
| - | * " | ||
| - | * Note: Prehearsals are first person narratives, PNs are third person. Thus a Prehearsal can have " | ||
nik