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 [2014-02-19 05:03] – 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 |
| + | An overview of the whole process written for novice scenario builders can be found in [[http:// | ||
| - | === Preparation beforehand === | + | There are many descriptions of scenario planning methods, with the biggest difference being whether the scenarios are designed to be exploratory (multiple alternative scenarios for different possible futures), or normative (designing a desired scenario, then figuring out what needs to be done in order to get there). When working with normative scenarios the most important task is ' |
| - | **What can we/ | + | Joseph Coates wrote "Today the question of what scenarios are is unclear except with regard to one point-they have become extremely popular. Many people see scenarios as forecasts of some future condition while others disavow that their scenarios are forecasts. Yet looking at scenarios that do not come labeled as forecasts or non-forecasts. It is difficult to tell them apart. The purpose of the scenario is at a meta level, since the scenario usually does not speak for itself in terms of its purpose." |
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the method by Peter Schwartz in The Art of the Long View. On [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Michel Godet writes in [[http:// | ||
| + | simple tools that may be appropriated. However, these simple tools are inspired by intellectual rigor that enables one to ask the right questions. Of course, these tools do not come with a guarantee. The natural talent, | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | The "Cone of Plausibility, | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally, an interesting avenue to explore are remote scenario planning workshops using various online collaboration tools. Jamais Cascio describes [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | Below we explore different elements of scenario building, ask questions that emerged from our practice and investigate methods that might be used to improve the process. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Preparation beforehand ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | //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 46: | ||
| * 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 60: | ||
| * ' | * ' | ||
| * 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 'inquiring | + | Questions |
| 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 42: | Line 77: | ||
| - | === 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 | ||
| * on the other hand, in more open-ended workshops (say in the beginning of projects) talking about what's fixed created some discomfort (or perhaps it was just unclear what we meant by fixed) | * on the other hand, in more open-ended workshops (say in the beginning of projects) talking about what's fixed created some discomfort (or perhaps it was just unclear what we meant by fixed) | ||
| - | === Key factors === | + | ==== Key factors ==== |
| + | |||
| + | //What are different ways to visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// | ||
| - | **How to best visualise and cluster | + | |
| + | | ||
| * " | * " | ||
| - | ** What do we mean by internal | + | // What do we mean by key factors?// |
| * internal (local) drivers of change | * internal (local) drivers of change | ||
| * success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) | * success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) | ||
| - | === Change Drivers === | + | ==== Change Drivers |
| * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | ||
| Line 73: | Line 115: | ||
| * 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? | ||
| - | === Scenarios === | + | * [[http:// |
| - | * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | + | ==== Scenarios ==== |
| - | * 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: | + | //When to use one, two, three or more axes// |
| - | * Branch analysis method: The ‘branch analysis’ method is suited | + | |
| - | * 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 | + | * __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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Morphological Analysis]] | ||
| + | * More on [[Field Anomaly Relaxation]] | ||
| - | === From scenarios to story-worlds === | + | (After reading several papers about this, I wonder what is the difference between MA and FAR? |
| + | |||
| + | //How to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised)?// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== From scenarios to story-worlds | ||
| * what techniques can we use to flesh out the scenarios into interesting stories | * what techniques can we use to flesh out the scenarios into interesting stories | ||
| Line 112: | Line 153: | ||
| * how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | * how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | ||
| - | === Scenario testing | + | ==== Retrocasting ==== |
| - | + | ||
| + | "The best kinds of stories are about how you get from here to there, not just what there looks like." --Jamais Cascio | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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? | ||
| - | === Visualising === | + | ==== Visualising |
| * which methods could we use to visualise possible futures? | * which methods could we use to visualise possible futures? | ||
| - | === Prototyping === | + | ==== Prototyping |
| * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | ||
| - | === Prehearsals === | + | ==== Prehearsals |
| * how to design them? | * how to design them? | ||
| Line 133: | Line 190: | ||
| * how to evaluate them? | * how to evaluate them? | ||
| - | === Follow-up === | + | ==== Follow-up |
| * How can we follow-up what happens to the groups after we finish the workshops (especially to understand what happens to commitments to actions and preferred possible futures)? | * How can we follow-up what happens to the groups after we finish the workshops (especially to understand what happens to commitments to actions and preferred possible futures)? | ||
| * How much do we need to be involved in the follow-up? | * How much do we need to be involved in the follow-up? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Futures research methods ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | From: [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
nik