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 [2014-02-19 05:57] – nik | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-19 07:23] – maja | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| An overview of the whole process written for novice scenario builders can be found in [[http:// | 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 ' | + | 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 ' |
| + | |||
| + | "Based on our review of the literature, we have discovered eight general categories (types) of scenario techniques with two to three variations for each type, resulting in more than two dozen techniques overall. There are, of course, variations of the variations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Judgment (genius forecasting, | ||
| + | - Baseline/ | ||
| + | - Elaboration of fixed scenarios (incasting, SRI) | ||
| + | - Event sequences (probability trees, sociovision, | ||
| + | - Backcasting (horizon mission methodology, | ||
| + | - Dimensions of uncertainty (morphological analysis, field anomaly relaxation, GBN, MORPHOL, OS/SE) | ||
| + | - Cross-impact analysis (SMIC PROF-EXPERT, | ||
| + | - Modeling (trend impact analysis, sensitivity analysis, dynamic scenarios) | ||
| + | |||
| + | From [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | A few techniques more in detail: | ||
| 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." | 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." | ||
| Line 24: | Line 39: | ||
| < | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[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 [[:/ | Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/ | ||
| Line 34: | Line 55: | ||
| - | ---- | + | ==== 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Scenario Building Components ==== | ||
| - | 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 |
| Line 143: | Line 179: | ||
| * __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:// | ||
| - | | ||
| - | * [[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. " | ||
| - | * More on [[Field Anomaly Relaxation]] | ||
| - | (After reading several papers about MA/FAR, 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)?// | //How to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised)?// | ||
| Line 223: | Line 255: | ||
| From: [[https:// | From: [[https:// | ||
| - | ==== Analysis, Summaries and comparisons==== | + | {{:future_fabulators:screen_shot_2014-02-19_at_17.04.07.png? |
| - | + | ||
| - | 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, | + | |
| + | Mapping scenarios techniques. (Source: Andrew Curry) | ||
nik