| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-04 05:34] – [Scenario Methods] maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2023-05-08 11:38] (current) – nik |
|---|
| ===== 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 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). 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 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: | 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|}} | {{:future_fabulators:screen_shot_2014-03-03_at_16.43.05.png?direct|}} |
| Figure from [[Integral Scenario Development]] by Chris C Steward | 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 have a wide palette of methods that we can apply and customise for different groups with whom we co-create scenarios. | 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). | 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 | <blockquote>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))</blockquote> |
| |
| ==== Methods, comparisons ==== | ==== Methods, comparisons ==== |
| |
| An overview 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. Interesting [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, can be used as a checklist of what NOT to do in scenario building. | 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. |
| |
| <blockquote>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. [...] eight categories of techniques that include a total of 23 variations used to develop scenarios. There are descriptions and evaluations for each." "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." | <blockquote>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) | - Judgment (genius forecasting, visualization, role playing, Coates and Jarratt) |
| - Dimensions of uncertainty (morphological analysis, field anomaly relaxation, GBN, MORPHOL, OS/SE) | - Dimensions of uncertainty (morphological analysis, field anomaly relaxation, GBN, MORPHOL, OS/SE) |
| - Cross-impact analysis (SMIC PROF-EXPERT, IFS) | - Cross-impact analysis (SMIC PROF-EXPERT, IFS) |
| - Modeling (trend impact analysis, sensitivity analysis, dynamic scenarios) | - 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) </blockquote> | </blockquote> |
| |
| <blockquote>Another attempt at scenario typology is the [[http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/ScenarioRapportVer1_1b.pdf|Towards a user's guide to scenarios]] by Lena Börjeson et al classifies scenarios into three categories and six types: | 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) |
| - Predictive (Forecasts, What if) | |
| - Explorative (External, Strategic) | <blockquote>Another attempt at scenario typology by Lena Börjeson and her colleagues classifies scenarios into three categories and six types: |
| - Normative (Preserving, Transforming). | - **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: | 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) | - **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) | - **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) | - **Consistency techniques**: checking the consistency of scenarios (cross impact analysis, morphological field analysis) |
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> |
| | |
| | From: [[http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/ScenarioRapportVer1_1b.pdf|Towards a user's guide to scenarios]] by Lena Börjeson et al |
| |
| |
| <blockquote>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) made a comparison between different scenario methods: "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? | <blockquote> 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." </blockquote> | 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." </blockquote> |
| |
| | 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) |
| |
| |
| === Causal Layered Analysis === | === Causal Layered Analysis === |
| |
| "Causal layered analysis is offered as a new futures research method. It 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]] | <blockquote> 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.</blockquote> |
| | |
| | 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]] |
| |
| <html><a href="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg"><img src="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg" width="600"></a></html> | <html><a href="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg"><img src="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg" width="600"></a></html> |
| * cluster into themes | * cluster into themes |
| * after reaching the bottom layer, pick a different myth/narrative and create a scenario by moving up the other layers, up to the new events and behaviours in 'litany' | * after reaching the bottom layer, pick a different myth/narrative and create a scenario by moving up the other layers, up to the new events and behaviours in 'litany' |
| | |
| | Image Credit: [[http://thinkingfutures.net|Thinking Futures]] |
| |
| === The Manoa Approach === | === The Manoa Approach === |
| [5] develop a summary metaphor or title \\ | [5] develop a summary metaphor or title \\ |
| |
| <html><a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png"><img src="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png" width="400"></a></html> <html><a href="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"><img src="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"></a></html> | <html><a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png"><img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/9b/40/3a9b40a34e245adbfac3d91b030afac4.jpg" width="400"></a></html> <html><a href="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"><img src="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"></a></html> |
| |
| === Four Generic Futures === | === Four Generic Futures === |
| James Dator in [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at the Manoa School]] | James Dator in [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at the Manoa School]] |
| |
| 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 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: |
| |
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> |
| 1) Continue: What are the ways in which the system in which we find ourselves could continue as it is? | 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? | 2) Collapse: What are the ways in which it could fall apart?\\ |
| 3) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed? | 3) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed?\\ |
| 4) Transform: What are the ways in which it could change altogether? | 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. | 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. |
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> |
| |
| From Stuart Candy in his disertation [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life#|The Futures of Everyday Life]] | 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 === | === 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 ad|here to a logical progression of trends, events, and consequences from today to a predetermined time in the future” | 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” |
| |
| <html><a href=https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"><img src="https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"></a></html> | <html><a href=https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"><img src="https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wsufwhnz1qz8vtso1_1280.jpg"></a></html> |
| |
| <html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html> | <html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html> |
| | |
| | |
| | [[Integral Scenario Development]] by C.C. Stewart is based on the holistic integral theory of Ken Wilber and integral futures of Richard Slaughter. |
| |
| More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3310&ei=R9n9UqixEIrmkAXymIDoBA&usg=AFQjCNGaA2QdNlSF3_6roa_YCSR0ez29SA&sig2=GEyGJ_CH5qo-INVR4kz0XQ&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dGI|chapter 13]] by Jerome C. Glenn and The Futures Group International. | More methods are described in the Futures Research Methodologies [[http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3310&ei=R9n9UqixEIrmkAXymIDoBA&usg=AFQjCNGaA2QdNlSF3_6roa_YCSR0ez29SA&sig2=GEyGJ_CH5qo-INVR4kz0XQ&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dGI|chapter 13]] by Jerome C. Glenn and The Futures Group International. |
| |
| |
| Below we explore different techniques/elements of scenario building based on the method developed by Peter Schwartz and ask questions that emerged from our practice and investigate methods that might be used to improve the process. | Below we explore different techniques/elements of scenario building based on the 2x2 uncertainty method, a method that we have used in the first months of Future Fabulators' workshops. The structure of the document is based on our questions that emerged during process-debriefs. After compiling the questions, we investigated techniques that could help us improve the process. |
| |
| | |
| * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, participants) | * Collective horizon scanning (facilitators, participants) |
| * Insight meditation | * Insight meditation |
| * ... | * Collecting relevant news clippings, images and articles by all participants |
| |
| |
| //What are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop?// | //What are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop?// |
| |
| | from our experience: |
| * a large, long smooth wall or white/blackboard (at least 4-5 metres long, longer is better) | * a large, long smooth wall or white/blackboard (at least 4-5 metres long, longer is better) |
| * enough space for all participants to sit comfortably in a circle or semicircle | * enough space for all participants to sit comfortably in a circle or semicircle |
| |
| //How to craft good questions?// | //How to craft good questions?// |
| * [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/18675626/Art-of-Powerful-Questions|The art of powerful questions]] | * [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/18675626/Art-of-Powerful-Questions|The art of powerful questions]]: an excellent insight into the 'questioncraft', essential reading for any process facilitator |
| |
| //How to better structure/encourage designing the core question?// | //How to better structure/encourage designing the core question?// |
| Questions encourage an [[inquiring mind]] | Questions encourage an [[inquiring mind]] |
| |
| Why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems? | //Why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems?// |
| |
| "In nearly all cases it should be possible to formulate the purpose of the scenarios work as a question. If this proves difficult, this is often an indication that the work will not be taken up when completed, even if it is of a good quality." -[[http://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] | "In nearly all cases it should be possible to formulate the purpose of the scenarios work as a question. If this proves difficult, this is often an indication that the work will not be taken up when completed, even if it is of a good quality." -[[http://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] |
| //What are different ways to map-out the past and 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]]: | * 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? | * (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 | * 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 can it be reduced/removed? When is it more important to focus on this step (observe, then interact as permaculture teaches us) than to work on possible future scenarios? | When can it be reduced/removed? When is it more important to focus on this step (observe, then interact as permaculture teaches us) than to work on possible future scenarios? |
| | |
| | In very short workshops when participants know each other well, perhaps, but it might be better to always include at least a few minutes of it, to allow participant's to see differences in perception of the same situation. |
| |
| //What does a 'futurism without prediction' look like?// | //What does a 'futurism without prediction' look like?// |
| // What do we mean by key factors?// | // What do we mean by key factors?// |
| |
| * internal (local) drivers of change | * internal (local) variables |
| * success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) | * success criteria (what will make my question succeed or fail) |
| |
| ==== Change Drivers & Weak Signals ==== | ==== Change Drivers & Weak Signals ==== |
| |
| * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? best to decide on a case-by-case basis |
| * how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or 'fact')? | * how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or 'fact')? see [[cognitive bias]] |
| * what is the relevance of facts and data related to drivers of change in experiential futurism? | * what is the relevance of facts and data related to drivers of change in experiential futurism? TBD |
| * can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions (without too much expert analysis needed beforehand)? | * can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions (without too much expert analysis needed beforehand)? See Causal Layered Analysis, Manoa Approach, Field Anomaly Relaxation, [[horizon scanning]] |
| |
| //How do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? // | //How do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? // |
| * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_wheel|Futures Wheel]] | * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_wheel|Futures Wheel]] |
| * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_impact_analysis|Cross Impact Analysis]] | * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_impact_analysis|Cross Impact Analysis]] |
| * [[www.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3302&ei=pPsGU_XvEMilkQXExYHICQ&usg=AFQjCNGIGowNnzsRvhMCmohNKF986pAUGA&sig2=eYuhWVzgsrzKAMYkb3SXaA&bvm=bv.61725948,d.dGI&cad=rja|Trend Impact Analysis]] (quantitative) | * [[http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgee.org.br%2Fatividades%2FredirKori%2F3302&ei=Hm0VU-ODBsSikQWQzICwDw&usg=AFQjCNGIGowNnzsRvhMCmohNKF986pAUGA&sig2=bz9QES3qcTR6pZXu4Lj6Mw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.dGI|Trend Impact Analysis]] (quantitative) |
| * MA/FAR (see below) | * [[morphological analysis]] and [[field anomaly relaxation]] |
| | |
| // should we make our own STEEP (or related) cards to avoid the 'business bias'?// probably, if we have the time - and focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...). | * // should we make our own STEEP (or similar) cards to avoid the 'business bias'?// probably, if we have the time, perhaps something related to causal layered analysis or [[integral scenario development]] focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...). |
| * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? see [[horizon scanning]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] | * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? see [[horizon scanning]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] |
| |
| // How effective are these methods and how can we usefully evaluate them?// | // How effective are these methods and how can we usefully evaluate them?// |
| |
| It seems to be a big academic issue (see thesis by Mihaela Ghisa) | It seems to be a big (and unresolved) issue (see "[[http://www.academia.edu/3535967/GHISA_Mihaela_Foresight_for_Public_Policy_|Foresight for Public Policy]]" thesis by Mihaela Ghisa) |
| |
| ==== Ranking critical uncertainties ==== | ==== Ranking critical uncertainties ==== |
| |
| (this is relevant only for the 2x2 scenario method. other methods use more axes (but are equally vague about how to select them) | (this is relevant primarily for the 2x2 uncertainty scenario method. other methods use more/less axes (but are equally vague about how to select them) |
| |
| * what are different ways in which this is done by others? most approaches i could find use numbers, or conversation. | * what are different ways in which this is done by others? most approaches i could find use numbers, or conversation. therefore Tim Boykett's more relative and graphically represented [[formalised decision making]] is an interesting approach, that we have proven works well with different groups of people |
| |
| * [[http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html|Morphological Analysis]] could be a great way to work with a large number of clustered drivers, that can be combined in different ways to select a smaller set of important and/or quickly create basic scenario skeletons. The foodprints ruler from FoAM Nordica works on a similar principle. | * [[http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html|Morphological Analysis]] could be a great way to work with a large number of clustered drivers, that can be combined in different ways to select a smaller set of important and/or quickly create basic scenario skeletons. The [[http://annamariaorru.com/Foodprints|foodprints ruler]] from FoAM Nordica works on a similar principle. |
| |
| ==== Scenarios ==== | ==== Scenarios ==== |
| //How to construct alternative future scenarios// | //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)]] | <blockquote> |
| * __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)]] | * __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. |
| * __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)]] | * __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. |
| | |
| | </blockquote> |
| | |
| | From: [[http://www.eisf.eu/resources/download.asp?d=5764|The Horizon Scanning Centre (pdf)]] |
| | |
| | And also: |
| * [[four generic futures]] by the Manoa School | * [[four generic futures]] by the Manoa School |
| * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues | * CLA: probing deeper cultural foundations of core issues |
| * What economic problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor? | * 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 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? | * 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? | B. How probable (likely to actually occur) is the future described in your scenario? |
| 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 | 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. |
| | |
| | |
| have a look at the CLA or 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), | |
| |
| |
| ==== Retrocasting ==== | ==== Retrocasting ==== |
| |
| "The best kinds of stories are about how you get from here to there, not just what there looks like." --Jamais Cascio | 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." |
| |
| Searching for present signals, asking the question "how to get from here to there". Aka Backcasting [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcasting|Backcasting]]: | |
| 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/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and 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]]. | 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]]. |
| | |
| | <blockquote>"The best kinds of stories are about how you get from here to there, not just what there looks like." --Jamais Cascio</blockquote> |
| |
| |
| <html><a href="http://www.naturalstep.org/sites/all/files/Backcasting_AllBox.png"><img src="http://www.naturalstep.org/sites/all/files/Backcasting_AllBox.png" width="500"></a></html> | <html><a href="http://www.naturalstep.org/sites/all/files/Backcasting_AllBox.png"><img src="http://www.naturalstep.org/sites/all/files/Backcasting_AllBox.png" width="500"></a></html> |
| |
| * what are important things to focus on? | Theory of change model is essentially backcasting for specific goals: http://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/ |
| | |
| | //what are important things to focus on?// |
| | |
| | * (weak) signals |
| | * dependencies and bottlenecks |
| | * clear actions, policies, tactics |
| | * ... |
| |
| ==== Visualising ==== | ==== Visualising ==== |
| |
| * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? |
| | * [[http://ideodesign.com.au/images/uploads/news/pdfs/FultonSuriBuchenau-Experience_PrototypingACM_8-00.pdf|experience prototyping]] |
| | * rapid prototyping, fabbing |
| | * paper, scissors and tape |
| | * ... |
| | |
| |
| More on [[possible_futures_parallel_presents]] and [[experiential futures]] | More on [[possible_futures_parallel_presents]] [[design fiction]], [[guerrilla futures]] and [[experiential futures]] |
| |
| ==== Prehearsals ==== | ==== Prehearsals ==== |
maja