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 06:49] – [Scenario Methods] maja | 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 40: | 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 228: | Line 258: | ||
Mapping scenarios techniques. (Source: Andrew Curry) | 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 | ||