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 [2014-02-26 05:42] – maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-01 05:56] – maja | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| < | < | ||
| - | ==== Four Generic Futures | + | === Four Generic Futures === |
| < | < | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | 1) Continue: What are the ways in which the system in which we find ourselves could continue as it is? | ||
| + | 2) Collapse: What are the ways in which it could fall apart? | ||
| + | 3) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed? | ||
| + | 4) 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. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | From Stuart Candy in his disertation [[http:// | ||
| === Cone of Plausibility === | === Cone of Plausibility === | ||
| Line 106: | Line 116: | ||
| - | Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/ | + | Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/ |
| < | < | ||
| Line 232: | Line 242: | ||
| ==== Scenarios ==== | ==== 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:// | * __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:// | ||
| * __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:// | ||
| + | * [[four generic futures]] by the Manoa School | ||
| * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues | * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues | ||
| * Manoa approach: "the scenarios it produces are generally much longer-term, | * Manoa approach: "the scenarios it produces are generally much longer-term, | ||
| Line 244: | Line 255: | ||
| //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)?// | ||
| + | |||
| + | One suggestion (not sure about all of the focus on problems): | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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? | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | From [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| have a look at the CLA or the [[http:// | have a look at the CLA or the [[http:// | ||
| Line 265: | 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. | 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/ | + | However with retrocasting/ |
nik