| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-01 05:29] – [Scenarios] maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-03 06:31] – [Plotting the present situation] maja |
|---|
| ===== Scenario Methods ===== | ===== Scenario Methods ===== |
| |
| This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive collection of different methods and techniques that can be used in scenario building, particularly focusing on the ones that might be useful for Future Fabulators. There are many academic papers and consultants' websites describing a myriad of approaches describing "how to build scenarios" and what different types of scenarios exist. Though possibly oversimplifying the issue, we could say that for Future Fabulators the most important difference between methods is 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 'backcasting' or 'retrocasting' as we prefer to call it (see chapter about retrocasting lower on this page). With exploratory scenarios a lot of the time is spent on creating the elements of the scenario based on the present conditions of the internal and external environment, as well as forces that can influence change in both. Most scenario methods revolve around approximately the same phases: (1) delineating the space/issue/question (2) identifying elements of the scenario (factors, drivers, trends, measures, actors, events...) 3) selecting a reasonable amount of elements 4) projecting (extrapolating, forecasting...) the elements into (different) future(s) and 5) using scenarios to (re)design decisions, strategies and actions in the present. | This page is an evolving, non-exhaustive collection of different methods and techniques that can be used in scenario building, particularly focusing on the ones that might be useful for Future Fabulators. There are many academic papers and consultants' websites describing a myriad of approaches describing "how to build scenarios" and what different types of scenarios exist. Though possibly oversimplifying the issue, we could say that for Future Fabulators the most important difference between methods is 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 'backcasting' or 'retrocasting' as we prefer to call it (see chapter about retrocasting lower on this page). With exploratory scenarios a lot of the time is spent on creating the elements of the scenario based on the present conditions of the internal and external environment, as well as forces that can influence change in both. Most scenario methods revolve around approximately the same phases: (1) delineating the space/issue/question (2) identifying elements of the scenario (factors, drivers, trends, measures, actors, events...) 3) selecting a reasonable amount of elements 4) combining (forecasting, projecting, extrapolating, visioning...) the elements into (different) scenarios and 5) using scenarios to (re)design decisions, strategies and actions in the present. Or, as Chris Stewart proposes: Input, Analysis, Interpretation and Application: |
| | |
| | {{:future_fabulators:screen_shot_2014-03-03_at_16.43.05.png?direct|}} |
| | |
| | Figure from [[Integral Scenario Development]] by Chris C Steward |
| |
| There are many different variations of scenario building flow, and we won't attempt to collect them all. Our filter is looking at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. As in Ffab we are primarily focused on creating (immersive) situations where possible futures / parallel histories or presents can be physically experienced (and then reflecting on how this experience can affect our present behaviours), it isn't extremely important for us to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures. We're more curious to uncover conscious and unconscious assumptions that the participants might have about their lives and environments and seeing how these assumptions shape and distort their images of the future. The scenario process uses these assumptions as if they were clay to create storyworlds out of them. In the process the awareness of the assumptions grows through non-judgmental observation and several waves of analysis and synthesis. The most rewarding moment in scenario building (in our experience) is when participants begin to recognise different scenarios as extreme versions or caricatures of their present, as if they have acquired a mysterious search-light, that can be used to illuminate different parts of an otherwise murky, entangled situation. Our review of existing scenario building methods is done to help us amplify these moments of clarity that spark imagination and a pro-active engagement with the futures. We're also interested how to make the whole process more fluid, creative and mindful (of self, others and the environment). | There are many different variations of scenario building flow, and we won't attempt to collect them all. Our filter is looking at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. As in Ffab we are primarily focused on creating (immersive) situations where possible futures / parallel histories or presents can be physically experienced (and then reflecting on how this experience can affect our present behaviours), it isn't extremely important for us to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures. We're more curious to uncover conscious and unconscious assumptions that the participants might have about their lives and environments and seeing how these assumptions shape and distort their images of the future. The scenario process uses these assumptions as if they were clay to create storyworlds out of them. In the process the awareness of the assumptions grows through non-judgmental observation and several waves of analysis and synthesis. The most rewarding moment in scenario building (in our experience) is when participants begin to recognise different scenarios as extreme versions or caricatures of their present, as if they have acquired a mysterious search-light, that can be used to illuminate different parts of an otherwise murky, entangled situation. Our review of existing scenario building methods is done to help us amplify these moments of clarity that spark imagination and a pro-active engagement with the futures. We're also interested how to make the whole process more fluid, creative and mindful (of self, others and the environment). |
| | |
| | "Methodology, though, is about more than the tools used: it involves careful atten- tion to the stance taken by the practitioner in the use of tools to enact knowledge and understanding." -Floyd, Burns and Ramos |
| |
| ==== Methods, comparisons ==== | ==== Methods, comparisons ==== |
| |
| |
| ==== Plotting the present situation ==== | ==== Plotting past and present ==== |
| |
| //What are different ways to map-out the present situation surrounding the key question?// | //What are different ways to map-out the past and present situation surrounding the key question?// |
| * [[KPUU Framework]] | * [[KPUU Framework]] |
| | * 6 root questions and 2 holarchy questions from [[integral scenario development]]: |
| | * (Subject of focus): When? Who/What? + (Actors and factors relating to the subject of focus): Who? Why? What/How? Where? |
| | * Who is internal to X (organisation, community, project)? What is the X internal to? - this might help in clustering and structuring the map of the context |
| |
| //When to use this step?// | //When to use this step?// |
| ==== 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://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] | * __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)]] | * __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)]] |
| | * [[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, 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 | * 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 |
nik