| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-19 06:32] – [Analysis, Summaries and comparisons] nik | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 01:55] – maja |
|---|
| ===== 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/project using scenarios in their work. | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive collection of different methods and techniques that can be used in scenario building, particularly focusing on the ones that might be useful for Future Fabulators. There are many academic papers and consultants' websites describing a myriad of approaches describing "how to build scenarios" and what different types of scenarios exist. Though possibly oversimplifying the issue, we could say that for Future Fabulators the most important difference between methods is 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 'backcasting' or 'retrocasting' as we prefer to call it (see chapter about this lower on this page). With exploratory scenarios a lot of the time is spent on creating the elements of the scenario based on the present conditions of the internal and external environment, as well as forces that can influence change in both. Most scenario methods revolve around approximately the same phases: (1) delineating the space/issue/question (2) identifying elements of the scenario (factors, drivers, trends, measures, actors, events...) 3) selecting a reasonable amount of elements 4) projecting (extrapolating, forecasting...) the elements into (different) future(s) and 5) using scenarios to (re)design decisions, strategies and actions in the present. Of course it is possible to work with exploratory scenarios first to get to a preferred one, then use retrocasting to flesh out how we could get from here to there. There are many different variations of scenario building flow, and we won't attempt to collect them all. |
| |
| An overview of the whole process written for novice scenario builders can be found in [[http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html|How to Build Scenarios]] by Lawrence Wilkinson. Interesting [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, can be used as a checklist of what NOT to do in scenario building. | Our filter is looking at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. As in Ffab we are primarily focused on creating (immersive) situations where possible futures / parallel histories or presents can be experienced (and then reflecting on how this experience can affect our present behaviours), it isn't extremely important for us to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures, but we're more curious to uncover conscious and unconscious assumptions that the participants might have about their lives and environments. The scenario process uses these assumptions as if they were clay, and shapes storyworlds out of them. In the process the awareness of the assumptions grows through a non-judgmental observation, through several waves of analysis and synthesis. The most rewarding moment in scenario building (in our experience) is when participants begin to recognise different scenarios as extreme versions or caricatures of their present, as if they have acquired a mysterious search-light, that can be used to illuminate different parts of an otherwise murky, entangled situation. Looking at existing scenario building methods, we'd like to amplify this moment of clarity, perhaps try to bring it forward in the scenario flow, as the whole process after it becomes more fluid, creative and mindful (of self, others and the environment. |
| |
| 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 'backcasting' or 'retrocasting' as we prefer to call it (see chapter about this lower on this page). With exploratory scenarios a lot of the time is spent on creating the elements of the scenario based on the present of the internal and external environment, as well as forces that can influence change in both. Most scenario methods revolve around approximately the same phases: (1) delineating the space/issue/question (2) identifying elements of the scenario (factors, drivers, trends, measures, actors, events...) 3) selecting a reasonable amount of elements 4) projecting the elements in the given future in the form of multiple scenarios and 5) using scenarios to (re)design decisions, strategies and actions in the present. There are many different variations of scenario building flow. We list a few below: | ==== Methods, techniques, comparisons ==== |
| | |
| | An overview a simple description of a scenario building process can be found in [[http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html|How to Build Scenarios]] by Lawrence Wilkinson. Interesting [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, can be used as a checklist of what NOT to do in scenario building. |
| | |
| | "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." "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, visualization, role playing, Coates and Jarratt) |
| | - Baseline/expected (trend extrapolation, Manoa, systems scenarios, trend impact analysis) |
| | - Elaboration of fixed scenarios (incasting, SRI) |
| | - Event sequences (probability trees, sociovision, divergence mapping) |
| | - Backcasting (horizon mission methodology, Impact of Future Technologies, future mapping) |
| | - Dimensions of uncertainty (morphological analysis, field anomaly relaxation, GBN, MORPHOL, OS/SE) |
| | - Cross-impact analysis (SMIC PROF-EXPERT, IFS) |
| | - Modeling (trend impact analysis, sensitivity analysis, dynamic scenarios) |
| | |
| | From [[http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/UKHigherEducation/Futures/Documents/current_state_of_scenario_development_FORESIGHT.pdf|The current state of scenario development]] by Peter Bishop, Andy Hines and Terry Collins, Foresight, Vol. 9(1) |
| | |
| | Another attempt at scenario typology is the [[http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/ScenarioRapportVer1_1b.pdf|Towards a user's guide to scenarios]] by Lena Börjeson et al classifies scenarios into three categories and six types: |
| | - Predictive (Forecasts, What if) |
| | - Explorative (External, Strategic) |
| | - Normative (Preserving, Transforming). |
| | They categorise scenario techniques (all of which contribute to different scenario methods) into three kinds: |
| | - Generating techniques: generation of ideas and collection of data (surveys, Delphi, workshops) |
| | - Integrating techniques: combining parts into wholes (time-series analysis, explanatory modelling, optimised modelling) |
| | - Consistency techniques: checking the consistency of scenarios (cross impact analysis, morphological field analysis) |
| | |
| | |
| | Curry, Andrew and Wendy Schultz (2009), [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/13-4/AE03.pdf|Roads Less Travelled]] in the Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 13(4) made a comparison between different scenario methods: "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. (...) There is little in the literature which attempts to evaluate the different types of futures |
| | insight which emerge when different scenarios methods are used, the way in which choice of method might influence the types of conversations which are enabled by different scenarios processes, or the benefits and risks in using one approach over another. (...) To some extent, any scenario method can be completed as a desk-top research exercise. But creating scenario processes that effectively create change means creating participatory processes: scenarios create new behaviour only insofar as they create new patterns of thinking across a significant population within an organisation. So how engaging is each method, and what kind of thinking, conversation, and energy does each method produce in participants? |
| | |
| | Each of these scenario methods appears to have distinguishing strengths. The 2x2 matrix approach produces four scenarios consistently focused on alternative outcomes for an issue at a specific scale. CLA generates conversations that dig down into the worldviews, mental models and cultural structures that inform how we perceive both issues and possible future outcomes. Manoa creates a diverse array of details across all levels of a possible future. Scenario archetypes guarantee consideration of outcomes across a specified set of worldviews. Yet none by itself is really a 'perfect', all-purpose approach. These differences underline the need for people who commission futures work to understand clearly what they are trying to achieve through scenario building, and to remain open to the methods that are most likely to be effective in reaching the desired outcome. (...) The primary lesson we have learned from this exercise as active practitioners is the value of mash-ups: combining and layering different techniques to enrich outcomes. " |
| | |
| | |
| | Examples of (historical) scenario methods: |
| |
| 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." [[http://www.josephcoates.com/pdf_files/232_Scenario_Planning.pdf|More in Scenario Planning]]. Another early in depth overview of [[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhz95g00/pdf;jsessionid=D034F49912B794C5CCE293059B4BA299.tobacco03|How Companies Use Scenarios]] was written by Mandel and Wilson. | 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." [[http://www.josephcoates.com/pdf_files/232_Scenario_Planning.pdf|More in Scenario Planning]]. Another early in depth overview of [[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhz95g00/pdf;jsessionid=D034F49912B794C5CCE293059B4BA299.tobacco03|How Companies Use Scenarios]] was written by Mandel and Wilson. |
| |
| <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> | <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> |
| | |
| | [[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 'worlds' can be created, as stepping stones for a smaller set of branching scenario timelines. See also [[Field Anomaly Relaxation]]. |
| | |
| | <html><a href=http://www.swemorph.com/graphics/z_box2.png"><img src="http://www.swemorph.com/graphics/z_box2.png"></a></html> |
| | |
| | |
| |
| 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]]. | 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]]. |
| |
| |
| ---- | ===== 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 based on the method developed by Peter Schwartz and ask questions that emerged from our practice and investigate methods that might be used to improve the process. |
| |
| | |
| * 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 'business bias'? probably, if we have the time - and focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...) | * should we make our own STEEP (or related) cards to avoid the 'business bias'? probably, if we have the time - and focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...). |
| * 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)? see [[horizon scanning]] | * 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)? see [[horizon scanning]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] |
| * 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? |
| * __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://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] | * __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://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)]] | * __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)]] |
| | |
| * [[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)?// |
| | |
| | have a look at the CLA or the [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] (Bowman & Schultz, 2005), |
| |
| |
| From: [[https://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1558553&show=html|Identifying systems' new initial conditions as influence points for the future]] | From: [[https://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1558553&show=html|Identifying systems' new initial conditions as influence points for the future]] |
| |
| ==== Analysis, Summaries and comparisons==== | {{:future_fabulators:screen_shot_2014-02-19_at_17.04.07.png?nolink}} |
| | |
| 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,” Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 13(4). http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/13-4/AE03.pdf | |
| | |
| | |
| "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: an overview of techniques,” Foresight, Vol. 9(1). | |
| http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/UKHigherEducation/Futures/Documents/current_state_of_scenario_development_FORESIGHT.pdf | |
| |
| "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 | Mapping scenarios techniques. (Source: Andrew Curry) |
| |
| |
nik