Differences

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

--- future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-26 05:35] – maja
+++ future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-01 05:56] – maja
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
   - 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)</blockquote>
+  - Consistency techniques: checking the consistency of scenarios (cross impact analysis, morphological field analysis)
+</blockquote>
 <blockquote>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. " </blockquote>
+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." </blockquote>
@@ Line 70: / Line 72: @@
 <html><a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png"><img src="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png" width="400"></a></html> <html><a href="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"><img src="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"></a></html>
-==== Four Generic Futures ====
+=== Four Generic Futures ===
-<blockquote> Our use of "alternative futures" (or "scenarios") is usually within the context of helping an organization or community plan for and move towards its preferred future. (...) I have chosen to explain our use of alternative futures as though I were telling an interested community or organization what the components of a futures visioning process are in our understanding and experience, and how to conduct the various parts of an overall futures visioning process.
+<blockquote> Our use of "alternative futures" (or "scenarios") is usually within the context of helping an organization or community plan for and move towards its preferred future. (...) I have chosen to explain our use of alternative futures as though I were telling an interested community or organization what the components of a futures visioning process are in our understanding and experience, and how to conduct the various parts of an overall futures visioning process.</blockquote>
 James Dator in [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at the Manoa School]]
+Dator discusses in length the process of creating four generic futures (Continue, Collapse, Discipline and Transform) - as four types of stories in which all/most future scenarios can be classified.
+<blockquote>
+) Continue: What are the ways in which the system in which we find ourselves could continue as it is?
+) Collapse: What are the ways in which it could fall apart?
+) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed?
+) Transform: What are the ways in which it could change altogether?
+Phrased this way, each generic image of the future presents a challenge to test the boundaries of one’s expectations and understanding of the system.
+</blockquote>
+From Stuart Candy in his disertation [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life#|The Futures of Everyday Life]]
 === Cone of Plausibility ===
@@ Line 102: / Line 116: @@
-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 and techniques, 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 and techniques, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]]. It's interesting to compare it to the "Four Generic Futures" method above.
 <html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html>
@@ Line 228: / Line 242: @@
 ==== Scenarios ====
-//When to use one, two, three or more axes//
+//How to construct alternative future scenarios//
   * __Two axes method__: Scenarios generated using the ‘two axes’ process are illustrative rather than predictive; they tend to be high-level (although additional layers of detail can subsequently be added). They are particularly suited to testing medium to long-term policy direction, by ensuring that it is robust in a range of environments. Scenarios developed using this method tend to look out 10-20 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)]]
+  * [[four generic futures]] by the Manoa School
   * 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
@@ Line 240: / Line 255: @@
 //How to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised)?//
+One suggestion (not sure about all of the focus on problems):
+<blockquote>
+A. General discussion of your future
+  * What will most people be doing in such a world?
+  * What economic problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor?
+  * What environmental problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor?
+  * What other problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor? What new (economic, environmental, social, health, energy or other) problems will people have to worry about that are absent or unimportant now?
+B. How probable (likely to actually occur) is the future described in your scenario?
+C. How preferable is the future described in your scenario? That is, how close is it to your own preferred future?
+D. To the extent the future described in your scenario is judged preferable by your group, what five things need to be done now to move towards those desirable aspects of that future?
+E. To the extent the future described in your scenario is judged undesirable by your group, what five things need to be done now to see that those undesirable aspects not occur?
+</blockquote>
+From [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at The Manoa School]] by Jim Dator
 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),
@@ Line 261: / Line 298: @@
 Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present.
-However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction.
+However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction. This is perhaps similar to the work of Dator, Schulz and others related to the "four generic futures" (see above in scenario examples), known as deductive forecasting or [[http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/inclassic.shtml|incasting]].