Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-14 11:03] – [Scenario Methods] majafuture_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-19 01:12] maja
Line 21: Line 21:
 <html><a href=http://loganadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fig208_01_0.jpg"><img src="http://loganadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fig208_01_0.jpg"></a></html> <html><a href=http://loganadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fig208_01_0.jpg"><img src="http://loganadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fig208_01_0.jpg"></a></html>
  
 +The "Cone of Plausibility, according to [[http://www.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA231618&ei=rdUCU-3QBIeSkwWG5oCYBA&usg=AFQjCNFbeM4KuYTqsIZaZYoaNholFliILg&sig2=ipuUxnViugB2ksDibwNYHQ|Charles W. Taylor]], “serves as an enclosure that circumscribes the thought process of the players. The strength of their thought process to build these scenarios and to hold them together as they proceed outward in time is a counterforce to the pressures of wild cards to disrupt the cone. Scenarios within the cone are considered plausible if they ad|here to a logical progression of trends, events, and consequences from today to a predetermined time in the future”
  
-Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods.+<html><a href=https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"><img src="https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"></a></html>
  
-More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3310&ei=R9n9UqixEIrmkAXymIDoBA&usg=AFQjCNGaA2QdNlSF3_6roa_YCSR0ez29SA&sig2=GEyGJ_CH5qo-INVR4kz0XQ&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dGI|chapter 13]] by Jerome C. Glenn and The Futures Group International.+Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]].
  
 +<html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html>
 +
 +More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3310&ei=R9n9UqixEIrmkAXymIDoBA&usg=AFQjCNGaA2QdNlSF3_6roa_YCSR0ez29SA&sig2=GEyGJ_CH5qo-INVR4kz0XQ&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dGI|chapter 13]] by Jerome C. Glenn and The Futures Group International.
  
 +Finally, an interesting avenue to explore are remote scenario planning workshops using various online collaboration tools. Jamais Cascio describes [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2007/01/the_virtual_workshop_or_how_to.html|here]] how he conducted a virtual scenario workshop, Noah Raford describes another [[http://noahraford.com/?p=414|experiment]] in [[http://news.noahraford.com/?p=650|online scenario planning]].
  
 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. 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.
Line 133: 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://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]]   * __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://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]]
      
-  * [[http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html|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.+  * [[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://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2000/PDFs/ducz124p.pdf|Field Anomaly Relaxation]]+  * 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 188: 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 ====
 +
 +<html><a href=https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730080303002.png"><img src="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730080303002.png"></a></html>
 +
 +<html><a href=https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730120202001.png"><img src="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730120202001.png"></a></html>
 +
 +
 +From: [[https://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1558553&show=html|Identifying systems' new initial conditions as influence points for the future]]
 +
  
  • future_fabulators/scenario_methods.txt
  • Last modified: 2023-05-08 11:38
  • by nik
  • Currently locked by: 2a03:2880:27ff::face:b00c