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 06:55] – maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-19 06:47] – [Scenarios] 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 ==== | ==== Preparation beforehand ==== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 50: | ||
| * Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | * Interviews, questionnaires for participants beforehand | ||
| * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, | ||
| + | * Insight meditation | ||
| * ... | * ... | ||
| Line 38: | Line 75: | ||
| * [[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 56: | Line 93: | ||
| //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 67: | Line 104: | ||
| //What are different ways to visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// | //What are different ways to visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors// | ||
| - | * Affinity diagram | + | * [[https:// |
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| * [[http:// | * [[http:// | ||
| * " | * " | ||
| Line 87: | Line 125: | ||
| * 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? | ||
| Line 94: | Line 132: | ||
| ==== 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:// | * [[http:// | ||
| Line 105: | Line 143: | ||
| * __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:// | ||
| Line 116: | Line 150: | ||
| ==== 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 | ||
| + | |||
| ==== Retrocasting ==== | ==== Retrocasting ==== | ||
| Line 145: | Line 182: | ||
| ==== 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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | More on [[possible_futures_parallel_presents]] and [[experiential futures]] | ||
| ==== Prehearsals ==== | ==== Prehearsals ==== | ||
| Line 156: | Line 201: | ||
| * how to host them? | * how to host them? | ||
| * how to evaluate them? | * how to evaluate them? | ||
| + | |||
| + | continue research on [[prehearsal methods]] | ||
| ==== Follow-up ==== | ==== Follow-up ==== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 208: | ||
| * 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