| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-01 05:56] – maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-03 06:40] – [Scenarios] 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 (identify variables) 2 holarchy questions (link variables), different POP questions (check variables) 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 |
| | * 'Have we sought out as many relevant perspectives as possible?' |
| | * 'Have we actively sought to identify (surface, objectify) the perspectives/mental models we have used in each stage of the process?' 'How might our perspectives effect what we have identified?' 'Are there others we haven't included?' 'Why not?' |
| | * 'Have we identified relationships among the different variables identified?' 'Are there other evolutionary sequences and casual chains (vertical and horizontal relationships) that might link and summarise these variables?' 'How might these sequences be meta-linked?' |
| |
| //When to use this step?// | //When to use this step?// |
| |
| From [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at The Manoa School]] by Jim Dator | From [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at The Manoa School]] by Jim Dator |
| | |
| | Another suggestion (from [[integral scenario development]] by Christ C Stewart: |
| | |
| | * Apply 6 root questions (relating to factors and actors) and the AQAL framework (four quadrants by Wilber) to deepen the scenario stories |
| |
| |
nik