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 [2014-02-14 05:24] – nik | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-18 06:13] – 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:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[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 ==== | ==== Preparation beforehand ==== | ||
Line 105: | Line 138: | ||
* __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:// | + | * [[Morphological Analysis]] could be a great way to work with a large number of clustered drivers, that can be combined in different ways to select a smaller set of important and/or quickly create basic scenario skeletons. The foodprints ruler from FoAM Nordica works on a similar principle. |
- | * [[http:// | + | * More on [[Field Anomaly Relaxation]] |
+ | (After reading several papers about this, I wonder what is the difference between MA and FAR?-maja) | ||
//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 160: | Line 194: | ||
* 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:// | ||
+ | |||