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 [2014-02-21 01:58] – [Methods, techniques, comparisons] maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 07:26] – maja | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| Examples of (historical) scenario methods: | 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 scenario |
| - | < | + | < |
| - | The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the 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 153: | 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]] and [[http:// | * 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 182: | 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:// | ||
| + | * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues | ||
| + | * Manoa approach: "the scenarios it produces are generally much longer-term, | ||
| + | * Harman Fan: " | ||
| + | * etc (see in methods above) | ||
| Line 195: | 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 249: | 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... | ||
nik