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:scenario_methods [2014-02-13 04:47] – maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-19 06:49] – [Scenario Methods] maja | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ==== Scenario Methods ==== | + | ===== Scenario Methods |
| - | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive 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 collection of different steps that can be used in scenario building, different methods that we (could) use and links to interesting people/ |
| + | 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 ' |
| + | |||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Morphological Analysis]] is a way to create one normative scenario, from which a number of critical uncertainties are selected and given a set of variables; by combining different variables several ' | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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/ | //What can we/ | ||
| Line 13: | Line 56: | ||
| * Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | * Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | ||
| * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | ||
| + | * Insight meditation | ||
| * ... | * ... | ||
| Line 29: | Line 73: | ||
| * ... | * ... | ||
| - | === Key question === | + | ==== Key question |
| //How to craft good questions?// | //How to craft good questions?// | ||
| Line 37: | Line 81: | ||
| * [[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 44: | Line 88: | ||
| - | === 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?// | ||
| Line 55: | Line 99: | ||
| //What does a ' | //What does a ' | ||
| - | + | A few ideas on [[non_predictive_strategy]] | |
| //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?// | ||
| Line 62: | Line 106: | ||
| * 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 |
| - | //How to best visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// | + | //What are different ways to visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// |
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| * " | * " | ||
| Line 72: | Line 120: | ||
| * 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 83: | Line 131: | ||
| * See various methods on the [[horizon scanning]] page | * See various methods on the [[horizon scanning]] page | ||
| - | * should we make our own STEEP (or related) cards to avoid the ' | + | * should we make our own STEEP (or related) 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? | ||
| - | === 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:// |
| + | |||
| + | ==== Scenarios | ||
| //When to use one, two, three or more axes// | //When to use one, two, three or more axes// | ||
| Line 99: | Line 149: | ||
| * __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:// | * __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:// | * __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:// | ||
| Line 109: | Line 154: | ||
| - | === From scenarios to story-worlds === | + | ==== 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? |
| - | * what elements do we need in a scenario | + | * [[https:// |
| - | * how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | + | * [[https:// |
| + | * "a day in the life of..." (a character | ||
| - | === Scenario testing === | ||
| - | |||
| - | (signals, how to get from here to there) | + | |
| - | | + | ==== 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 | ||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| * what are important things to focus on? | * what are important things to focus on? | ||
| - | === Visualising === | + | ==== Visualising |
| - | * which methods could we use to visualise | + | // |
| + | * moodboards | ||
| + | * collages | ||
| + | * storyboard | ||
| + | * newspaper with headlines | ||
| + | * video mix | ||
| + | * [[|https:// | ||
| - | === Prototyping === | + | ==== Prototyping |
| * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | ||
| - | === Prehearsals === | + | More on [[possible_futures_parallel_presents]] and [[experiential futures]] |
| + | |||
| + | ==== Prehearsals | ||
| * how to design them? | * how to design them? | ||
| Line 136: | Line 208: | ||
| * how to evaluate them? | * how to evaluate them? | ||
| - | === Follow-up === | + | continue research on [[prehearsal methods]] |
| + | |||
| + | ==== 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mapping scenarios techniques. (Source: Andrew Curry) | ||
| + | ==== Analysis, Summaries and comparisons==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Using four different scenario building methods: the 2x2 matrix approach; causal layered analysis; the Manoa approach; and the scenario archetypes approach. "This exploratory comparison confirmed that different scenario generation methods yield not only different narratives and insights, but qualitatively different participant experiences. " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Curry, Andrew and Wendy Schultz (2009), “Roads Less Travelled, | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | "The paper to review all the techniques for developing scenarios that have appeared in the literature, along with comments on their utility, strengths and weaknesses. [...] eight categories of techniques that include a total of 23 variations used to develop scenarios. There are descriptions and evaluations for each." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Bishop, Peter, Andy Hines and Terry Collins (2007), “The current state of scenario development: | ||
| + | http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | "In my experience, scenario planning is an interpretive practice – it’s really closer to magic than technique. ... Look long enough, hard enough, and the pieces will fall into place. Magic is a very difficult thing – most people spend their whole life cutting magic out.” --Napier Collyns | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
nik