Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 07:02] majafuture_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 07:26] maja
Line 175: 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 & Weak Signals ====
  
   * 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 'fact')?   * how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or 'fact')?
-  * what is the relevance of facts and data related to macro trends in experiential futurism?  +  * what is the relevance of facts and data related to drivers of change in experiential futurism?  
-  * 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? (nouns -> verbs)+
  
-//What are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people?// +//How do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? // 
-    See various methods on the [[horizon scanning]] page+(nouns -> verbs) 
 + 
 +  * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_wheel|Futures Wheel]] 
 +  * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_impact_analysis|Cross Impact Analysis]] 
 +  * [[www.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3302&ei=pPsGU_XvEMilkQXExYHICQ&usg=AFQjCNGIGowNnzsRvhMCmohNKF986pAUGA&sig2=eYuhWVzgsrzKAMYkb3SXaA&bvm=bv.61725948,d.dGI&cad=rja|Trend Impact Analysis]] (quantitative) 
 +  * MA/FAR (see below)
    
-  * 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]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]]   * 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)?//
  
-(the Manoa approach supposedly looks at emerging issues rather than drivers of change - ref. needed...)+  * 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 evalute them?+// How effective are these methods and how can we usefully evaluate them?// 
 + 
 +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 208: 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://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)]]
 +  * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues
 +  * Manoa approach: "the scenarios it produces are generally much longer-term, and far more divergent / transformative in their structure -- for sophisticated clients only, or to enhance creativity and innovation in R&D and product design staff. The resulting scenarios also work well as provocations in incasting exercises" From http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/sb.shtml
 +  * Harman Fan: "thinking through the multiple causalities that produce an infinite array of alternative possible futures" http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/sbharman.ppt
 +  * etc (see in methods above)
  
  
Line 221: Line 234:
     * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_fiction|Flash Fiction]]     * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_fiction|Flash Fiction]]
     * "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 275: 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...
  
  
  • future_fabulators/scenario_methods.txt
  • Last modified: 2023-05-08 11:38
  • by nik