Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
future_fabulators:field_anomaly_relaxation [2014-02-18 05:47] – maja | future_fabulators:field_anomaly_relaxation [2014-02-19 06:43] – maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== Field Anomaly Relaxation ==== | ==== Field Anomaly Relaxation ==== | ||
- | [[http:// | + | See also [[morphological analysis]] |
- | -Guy A. Duczynski | + | |
- | + | < | |
- | [Scenarios] provide a relatively unbounded forum for creative thoughts and ideas regarding organisational renewal such that novel concepts and imperatives for change could be expressed within a broadened perspective of the future. * page 2 | + | |
Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
To make the future believable it is necessary to string the transitions into a plausible history that marks out how a future world could evolve from the present. * page 8 | To make the future believable it is necessary to string the transitions into a plausible history that marks out how a future world could evolve from the present. * page 8 | ||
- | Having constructed the Faustian tree and, thereby, creating a series of pathways through which the single future trajectory may travel, a set of rich narratives are called for. These narratives link the present to the future in a manner that adds substance, depth and most importantly breadth, effectively putting 'flesh on the bones' of the earlier, more structured thinking stages. * page 9 | + | Having constructed the Faustian tree and, thereby, creating a series of pathways through which the single future trajectory may travel, a set of rich narratives are called for. These narratives link the present to the future in a manner that adds substance, depth and most importantly breadth, effectively putting 'flesh on the bones' of the earlier, more structured thinking stages. * page 9</ |
+ | |||
+ | From [[http:// | ||
+ | -Guy A. Duczynski | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | FAR is a four-stage process: | ||
+ | * Step 1 requires one to develop some kind of imaginative view of the future into which the decision must unfold (this can be done by several people in the team, guided by one or more questions) | ||
+ | * Step 2 requires one to identify the critical uncertainties and their ranges of possibility, | ||
+ | * Step 3 eliminates the anomalies (‘could I imagine a world like that?’ eliminate if the answer is no, then cluster combinations to get to a smaller amount of ' | ||
+ | * Step 4 strings the surviving configurations (cluster) together to form time lines (‘Can I see this world leading to that one?’). This process may take a week or so, not of full-time effort but of sessions looking at the board and intervals of other work while the ideas filter through the minds of the study team. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | As a rough guide, one might say that a one-cycle FAR ought to be able to be done with about 20 person-weeks of effort, with a second cycle, if it is necessary, requiring somewhat less. (…) We have to live in the real world and accept that, manifestly unsatisfactory as it might be in theory, it is often necessary to do the best one can in much less time. We therefore turn to a simplified version of FAR which has been found to work better than one might have expected and is certainly better than doing nothing at all to think about the future. | ||
+ | |||
+ | One of the attributes of a good analyst is the ability to produce at least some kind of results by the time at which they are needed and not to pursue rigorous perfection which will be too late to be of practical use. A complementary skill is, of course, to explain the caveats attached to a ‘quick and dirty’ study in such a way as to give the user a sensible understanding of the trustworthiness of those results. In terms of FAR, this may mean that a rough study has to be carried out within a few days as opposed to the ideal of some months. No one suggests that such an approach is fully satisfactory; | ||
+ | |||
+ | Simplified FAR (~2 days) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Simplified FAR depends on building outline time lines from a few consistent futures, as opposed to eliminating all the inconsistencies and forming scenarios from the remaining consistent configurations. Simplified FAR uses the following steps: | ||
+ | * [0. maja’ addition: make a mind map of a normative future and select several ' | ||
+ | * 1. Form a Sector/ | ||
+ | * 2. Find a consistent configuration representing the current situation. (In any FAR, simplified or full-scale, if none of the configurations represents the present, there is a fundamental flaw in the Sector/ | ||
+ | * 3. Find at least two consistent configurations that are believable, in the gestalt sense, as conditions for the end of the time horizon being used. In practice three are often easily found. Again, write short descriptions on a yellow sticker and put them on the board. Space them apart across the board from ‘worst’ to ‘best’; the yellow sticker should state clearly why they are bad, good or in between. In between does not necessarily mean half way between good and bad. It might, for instance, mean ‘pretty good’ or ‘rather worrying’. | ||
+ | * 4. If time allows, find a few more consistent, believable, configurations as end points on the time scale, and perhaps for some intermediate states, and record them as before. | ||
+ | * 5. It should now be easy to connect these six to eight stickers into credible time lines. If it is not, revisit steps 3 or 4.</ | ||
+ | From [[http:// | ||