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 06:32] – [Analysis, Summaries and comparisons] nik | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 07:26] – maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Scenario Methods ===== | ===== Scenario Methods ===== | ||
- | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive collection of different | + | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive collection of different |
- | An overview of the whole process written for novice scenario builders | + | 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 |
- | 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 ' | + | ==== Methods, comparisons ==== |
- | Joseph Coates wrote "Today the question | + | An overview a simple description |
- | < | + | "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." |
- | The scenario building exercise | + | - Judgment |
+ | | ||
+ | - Elaboration | ||
+ | - 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:// |
+ | |||
+ | Another attempt at scenario typology is the [[http:// | ||
+ | - Predictive (Forecasts, What if) | ||
+ | - Explorative (External, Strategic) | ||
+ | - Normative (Preserving, | ||
+ | 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:// | ||
+ | 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, | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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 ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Examples of (historical) scenario methods: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the 2x2 method by Peter Schwartz in The Art of the Long View. On [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | CLA simplified: | ||
+ | * define the issue (or question) | ||
+ | * discuss each layer separately | ||
+ | * cluster into themes | ||
+ | * after reaching the bottom layer, pick a different myth/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The [[http:// | ||
+ | [1] choose 3-5 significant emerging issues of change ('weak signals' | ||
+ | [2] brainstorm or mindmap the potential impact cascades of each, working one by one; \\ | ||
+ | [3] consider the cross-impacts arising from the 3-5 drivers and their impacts working together; \\ | ||
+ | [4] doublecheck the depth of detail using an ethnographic inventory; \\ | ||
+ | [5] develop a summary metaphor or title \\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 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 79: | ||
< | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[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 95: | ||
- | ---- | + | ===== Scenario Techniques ==== |
- | 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 |
Line 114: | Line 175: | ||
* success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) | * success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) | ||
- | ==== Change Drivers ==== | + | ==== Change Drivers |
* how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | ||
* how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or ' | * how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or ' | ||
- | * what is the relevance of facts and data related to macro trends | + | * what is the relevance of facts and data related to drivers of change |
- | * how can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions? | + | * can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions (without too much expert analysis needed beforehand)? |
- | * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? | + | |
- | //What are existing ways of discussing | + | //How do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends |
- | * See various methods on the [[horizon scanning]] page | + | (nouns -> verbs) |
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[www.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3302& | ||
+ | * MA/FAR (see below) | ||
- | * 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)? 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:// |
- | * 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 | + | //Is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)?// |
+ | |||
+ | * weak signals, emerging issues, historical analogues | ||
+ | * the Manoa approach says looks at emerging issues rather than drivers of change - ref. needed... | ||
+ | |||
+ | // How effective are these methods and how can we usefully | ||
+ | |||
+ | It seems to be a big academic issue (see thesis by Mihaela Ghisa) | ||
==== Ranking critical uncertainties ==== | ==== Ranking critical uncertainties ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | (this is relevant only for the 2x2 scenario method. other methods use more axes (but are equally vague about how to select them) | ||
* what are different ways in which this is done by others? most approaches i could find use numbers, or conversation. | * what are different ways in which this is done by others? most approaches i could find use numbers, or conversation. | ||
Line 143: | Line 217: | ||
* __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 | + | * Manoa approach: "the scenarios it produces are generally much longer-term, and far more divergent |
- | * More on [[Field Anomaly Relaxation]] | + | * Harman Fan: "thinking through the multiple causalities that produce an infinite array of alternative possible futures" |
+ | * etc (see in methods above) | ||
- | (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:// | ||
Line 158: | Line 234: | ||
* [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
* "a day in the life of..." (a character in a scenario, or one character in different scenarios) | * "a day in the life of..." (a character in a scenario, or one character in different scenarios) | ||
+ | * ... | ||
Line 212: | Line 289: | ||
* 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? | ||
+ | |||
+ | It all depends on the purpose of the workshop... | ||
Line 223: | Line 302: | ||
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, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | "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 | + | Mapping scenarios techniques. (Source: Andrew Curry) |