| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2017-12-14 09:38] – 103.254.244.134 | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2023-05-08 11:38] (current) – nik |
|---|
| 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). | 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 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: | 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|}} |
| * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_diagram|Cluster diagram]] | * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_diagram|Cluster diagram]] |
| * [[http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm|Force Field Analysis by Kurt Lewin]], where the key question is placed in the middle, forces exerting pressure for the change on the left, and against the change on the right. | * [[http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm|Force Field Analysis by Kurt Lewin]], where the key question is placed in the middle, forces exerting pressure for the change on the left, and against the change on the right. |
| * *[[http://daniellock.com/force-field-analysis/|Force Field Analysis by Kurt Lewin]] | |
| * "interrogate anomalies: data or incidents that seem anomalous - that somehow “don’t fit”, seem weird or don’t make sense, should receive immediate attention. They could be pointers to a shift in the system as a whole" From: http://silberzahnjones.com/2012/10/04/crafting-non-linear-strategy-the-nature-of-the-problem/#more-799 | * "interrogate anomalies: data or incidents that seem anomalous - that somehow “don’t fit”, seem weird or don’t make sense, should receive immediate attention. They could be pointers to a shift in the system as a whole" From: http://silberzahnjones.com/2012/10/04/crafting-non-linear-strategy-the-nature-of-the-problem/#more-799 |
| |
103.254.244.134