===== 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 to "how to build scenarios". 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 interesting work is that of 'backcasting' or 'retrocasting' as we prefer to call it (see chapter below). With exploratory scenarios much time is spent on identifying constants and variables of a situation, that make up the scenarios (as characters, events, plot-lines...). These scenario components are derived from the key factors in the wider context of an issue (e.g. from the internal and external envrionment, past and present conditions), as well as the 'drivers of change' (micro and macro forces that influence change in a community, organisation or system). An overview of [[https://apf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015-SE-Compass-MethodsAnthology.pdf|scenario methods for strategy]] Most scenario methods revolve around approximately similar 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 and creating a 'scenario logic' * 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 possible answers to the question "how to build scenarios". We won't attempt to collect them all on this page. As a filter in our research we decided to look at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. In Future Fabulators 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). Therefore for FFab it isn't extremely important to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures. We are 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 raw materials in creating storyworlds. During the scenario process our awareness of assumptions grows through non-judgmental observation and several waves of analysis and synthesis. On this page we review existing scenario building methods to make available a wide palette of methods to apply and customise for different groups with whom we co-create scenarios. 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. By using appropriate scenario methods, we hope to 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 attention to the stance taken by the practitioner in the use of tools to enact knowledge and understanding." -Floyd, Burns and Ramos((https://www.zotero.org/groups/future_fabulators/items/itemKey/U7XRUQAW))==== Methods, comparisons ==== A simple description of a scenario building process can be found in [[http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html|How to Build Scenarios]] by Lawrence Wilkinson. An counter-prespective can be found in [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, which provides a checklist of what NOT to do when creating scenarios.
The paper to review all the techniques for developing scenarios that have appeared in the literature, along with comments on their utility, strengths and weaknesses. (...) Based on our review of the literature, we have discovered eight general categories (types) of scenario techniques with two to three variations for each type, resulting in more than two dozen techniques overall. There are, of course, variations of the variations." - Judgment (genius forecasting, visualization, role playing, Coates and Jarratt) - Baseline/expected (trend extrapolation, Manoa, systems scenarios, trend impact analysis) - Elaboration of fixed scenarios (incasting, SRI) - Event sequences (probability trees, sociovision, divergence mapping) - Backcasting (horizon mission methodology, Impact of Future Technologies, future mapping) - Dimensions of uncertainty (morphological analysis, field anomaly relaxation, GBN, MORPHOL, OS/SE) - Cross-impact analysis (SMIC PROF-EXPERT, IFS) - Modeling (trend impact analysis, sensitivity analysis, dynamic scenarios)From [[http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/UKHigherEducation/Futures/Documents/current_state_of_scenario_development_FORESIGHT.pdf|The current state of scenario development]] by Peter Bishop, Andy Hines and Terry Collins, Foresight, Vol. 9(1)
Another attempt at scenario typology by Lena Börjeson and her colleagues classifies scenarios into three categories and six types: - **Predictive** (Forecasts, What if) - **Explorative** (External, Strategic) - **Normative** (Preserving, Transforming). They categorise scenario techniques (all of which contribute to different scenario methods) into three kinds: - **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)From: [[http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/ScenarioRapportVer1_1b.pdf|Towards a user's guide to scenarios]] by Lena Börjeson et al
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."From: 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) Examples of (historical) scenario methods: === 2x2 Double Uncertainty === The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the 2x2 method by Peter Schwartz in The Art of the Long View. On [[http://scenariosforsustainability.org/recipes/schwartz.html|this page]] Schwartz summarises the scenario building steps.
Causal layered analysis is offered as a new futures research method. Its utility is not in predicting the future but in creating transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures. Causal layered analysis consists of four levels: **the litany, social causes, discourse/worldview and myth/metaphor**. The challenge is to conduct research that moves up and down these layers of analysis and thus is inclusive of different ways of knowing.Sohail Inayatullah in [[http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/CausalLayeredAnalysis.htm|CLA: poststructuralism as method]] and the [[http://metafuture.org/cla%20papers/Inayatullah%20%20Causal%20layered%20analysis%20-%20theory,%20historical%20context,%20and%20case%20studies.%20Intro%20chapter%20from%20The%20CLA%20Reader..pdf|CLA Reader]]
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.James Dator in [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at the Manoa School]] Dator discusses 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://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life#|The Futures of Everyday Life]] For more details see [[four generic futures]] === Cone of Plausibility === The **Cone of Plausibility**, according to [[http://www.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA231618&ei=rdUCU-3QBIeSkwWG5oCYBA&usg=AFQjCNFbeM4KuYTqsIZaZYoaNholFliILg&sig2=ipuUxnViugB2ksDibwNYHQ|Charles W. Taylor]], “serves as an enclosure that circumscribes the thought process of the players. The strength of their thought process to build these scenarios and to hold them together as they proceed outward in time is a counterforce to the pressures of wild cards to disrupt the cone. Scenarios within the cone are considered plausible if they adhere to a logical progression of trends, events, and consequences from today to a predetermined time in the future”
* __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. * __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. * __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.From: [[http://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] And also: * [[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 * 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) //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, 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?From [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at The Manoa School]] by Jim Dator Other possibilities: An option from [[integral scenario development]] by Christ C Stewart is to Apply 6 root questions (relating to factors and actors) and the AQAL framework (four quadrants by Wilber) to deepen the scenario stories. Also, the layers from Causal Layered Analysis can be used as probes in fleshing out scenarios. Finally (something we haven't explored yet): the elements of 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) might be useful. ==== From scenarios to story-worlds ==== * what techniques can we use to flesh out the scenarios into interesting stories? * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backstory|Backstory]] * [[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) * ... ==== Retrocasting ==== Aka [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcasting|Backcasting]] is about searching for present signals, asking the question "how to get from here to there". "Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present." When we practice retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as coined in the [[http://www.ideo.com/work/method-cards/IDEO Method Cards]]) we don't exclusively look at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, in an 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]].
"The best kinds of stories are about how you get from here to there, not just what there looks like." --Jamais Cascio//What tools can we use to structure scenario testing?// [[http://www.skymark.com/resources/tools/cause.asp|Cause & Effect Diagram]]: "The cause and effect diagram is used to explore all the potential or real causes (or inputs) that result in a single effect (or output). Causes are arranged according to their level of importance or detail, resulting in a depiction of relationships and hierarchy of events." In scenario testing this could be used not as 'cause and effect', but how to get there from here (note down a topic from the scenario, then work backwards to see what would have to happen to make it happen).