Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-13 04:30] – created maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-13 06:12] – maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== Scenario Methods ==== | ==== Scenario Methods ==== | ||
- | This page is an evolving collection of different steps that can be used in scenario building, different methods that we (could) use and links to interesting people/ | + | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive |
=== Preparation beforehand === | === Preparation beforehand === | ||
- | **What can we/ | + | //What can we/ |
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, | 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, | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | * Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | ||
* Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | ||
+ | * ... | ||
- | **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?// |
* a large, long smooth wall or white/ | * a large, long smooth wall or white/ | ||
Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
* ' | * ' | ||
* easy access to outdoor spaces | * easy access to outdoor spaces | ||
+ | * ... | ||
=== Key question === | === Key question === | ||
- | **What are good questions | + | //How to craft good questions?// |
* [[http:// | * [[http:// | ||
- | **How to better structure/ | + | //How to better structure/ |
* [[https:// | * [[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? | ||
Line 44: | Line 46: | ||
=== Plotting the present situation === | === Plotting 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]] | * [[KPUU Framework]] | ||
- | **When to use this step? ** | + | //When to use this step?// |
When can it be reduced/ | When can it be reduced/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | //What does a ' | ||
+ | |||
- | **When does it help to talk about things that are fixed, or constraints that exist?** | + | |
+ | //When does it help to talk about things that are fixed, or constraints that exist?// | ||
* in a workshop where the group had a pressing need to resolve a situation, talking about what is fixed quickly gave a picture of what was still possible to change and what was the space in which the group could move to find solutions to a blockage | * in a workshop where the group had a pressing need to resolve a situation, talking about what is fixed quickly gave a picture of what was still possible to change and what was the space in which the group could move to find solutions to a blockage | ||
Line 58: | Line 64: | ||
=== Key factors === | === Key factors === | ||
- | **How to best visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors** | + | //What are different ways to visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// |
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
* " | * " | ||
- | ** What do we mean by internal | + | // What do we mean by key factors?// |
* internal (local) drivers of change | * internal (local) drivers of change | ||
Line 73: | Line 82: | ||
* how can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions? | * how can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions? | ||
* 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? | + | |
- | * [[horizon scanning]] | + | // |
- | * [[http:// | + | * See various methods on the [[horizon scanning]] |
- | * [[http:// | + | |
- | * [[http:// | + | * should we make our own STEEP (or related) |
- | * [[http:// | + | |
- | * [[http:// | + | |
- | * 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)? | ||
* is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)? | * is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)? | ||
* how effective are these methods and how can we usefully evalute them? | * how effective are these methods and how can we usefully evalute them? | ||
- | * what does a ' | ||
=== Ranking critical uncertainties === | === Ranking critical uncertainties === | ||
* what are different ways in which this is done by others? | * what are different ways in which this is done by others? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
=== Scenarios === | === Scenarios === | ||
- | * 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:// | ||
- | * 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:// | * [[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 112: | Line 119: | ||
* how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | * how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | ||
- | === Scenario testing | + | === Retrocasting |
- | + | ||
+ | Searching for present signals, asking the question "how to get from here to there" | ||
+ | Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present. | ||
+ | |||
+ | However with retrocasting/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | //What tools can we use to structure scenario testing?// | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Another interesting possibility is to abstract principles from a scenario and retrocast from them. In [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
- | (signals, how to get from here to there) | ||
- | * how is this done by others? | ||
* what are important things to focus on? | * what are important things to focus on? | ||