Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
the_art_of_futuring [2019-02-23 09:47] nikthe_art_of_futuring [2019-02-23 09:48] nik
Line 26: Line 26:
 Imagine a future where the most revolutionary changes in our world have not come from nanotech, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence or even space development–but from cognitive science and a deepening understanding of how humans function (or not) in groups. What would such a future look like?  Imagine a future where the most revolutionary changes in our world have not come from nanotech, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence or even space development–but from cognitive science and a deepening understanding of how humans function (or not) in groups. What would such a future look like? 
  
-Karl Schroeder in [[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/08/rewilding-etiquette.html|Rewilding Etiquette]]+Karl Schroeder in [[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/08/rewilding-etiquette.html|Rewilding Etiquette]]
 </blockquote> </blockquote>
  
  
 <blockquote> <blockquote>
-Some have assumed that key to successfully dealing with uncertainty is to take a deep dive into the long-term future. Even when the difficulty of prediction is acknowledgedeffort is still devoted to imagining alternative possible futures. This is the case of scenario planningone of the most popular of such approaches. […] There is, in facta fundamental flaw in such approaches: it assumes that we can somehow successfully imagine the central aspects of the future. There is ample evidence, however, that this is not true. We do a terrible job imagining the futuresometimes with dreadful consequences, and scenario planning (developed commercially beginning forty years ago at Shell) hasn’t helped us much.+Scenario planning is not, or rather should not be, about forecasting the future. Insteadit is a tool for collective learning; what matters is what the scenario team learns in creating it. As an exerciseit is useful; as a strategic map for outsidersit is relatively useless. Thereforeinstead of using it as a map for your organization, ignore its conclusion, ignore the scenarios themselves, and think about the trendsforces and events that the NIC identifiesand then add your ownbased on your intuition and expertise
  
-Silberzahn & Jones +Silberzahn & Jones 
 </blockquote> </blockquote>
  
Line 39: Line 39:
 <blockquote>How can you craft strategy in nonlinear environment? […] instead of putting effort into better prediction (no matter how modest), in many cases strategists must take the opposite approach and learn to focus their effort purely on a better understanding of the present. [By] mitigating the impact of surprises [and] anticipating the consequences of their own actions. <blockquote>How can you craft strategy in nonlinear environment? […] instead of putting effort into better prediction (no matter how modest), in many cases strategists must take the opposite approach and learn to focus their effort purely on a better understanding of the present. [By] mitigating the impact of surprises [and] anticipating the consequences of their own actions.
  
-Silberzahn & Jones +Silberzahn & Jones 
 </blockquote> </blockquote>
  
  • the_art_of_futuring.txt
  • Last modified: 2024-04-02 12:33
  • by nik