Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-12 08:45] – maja | future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-13 03:59] – maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{future_fabulators: | {{future_fabulators: | ||
+ | |||
+ | “Any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous” Dator’s 2nd Law of the Future (Dator 1995) | ||
==== external / rational ==== | ==== external / rational ==== | ||
Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
* how can we help increase the commitment of the participants to work towards their preferred future(s)? how much follow-up is needed? | * how can we help increase the commitment of the participants to work towards their preferred future(s)? how much follow-up is needed? | ||
* how could we enable participants to use digital tools to enrich the process, while avoiding distractions and displacements of email, social media, etc? what collaborative digital tools could we use to share the same digital working surface (something like Reactable for example) | * how could we enable participants to use digital tools to enrich the process, while avoiding distractions and displacements of email, social media, etc? what collaborative digital tools could we use to share the same digital working surface (something like Reactable for example) | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | Preparation beforehand | ||
- | * what can participants prepare for a scenario workshop beforehand? | ||
- | |||
- | Commonly the people organising the workshop will "Work on identifying major drivers, trends and events should be initiated ahead of the first workshop: this is an opportunity to draw on relevant horizon scanning work and other analysis. Ideally this work will be synthesised into a format which can be accessed easily by workshop participants, | ||
- | * what are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop? | ||
- | |||
- | Millenium project used questionnaires and interviews, then a computer analysis of answers to get to the | ||
- | |||
- | Key question | ||
- | * what are good questions to ask? | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * how to better structure/ | ||
- | * [[https:// | ||
- | * how can we encourage an ' | ||
- | * 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." | ||
- | |||
- | Mapping the present situation | ||
- | * what are different ways to map-out the present situation surrounding the key question? | ||
- | * [[KPUU Framework]] | ||
- | * when is this step necessary? when can it be reduced/ | ||
- | * does it help to talk about things that are fixed, or constraints that exist? | ||
- | |||
- | Key factors | ||
- | * how to best visualise and cluster the relationships between key factors | ||
- | * " | ||
- | * are we talking only about success criteria here? | ||
- | |||
- | Macro trends | ||
- | * how much analysis is appropriate for the types of scenarios and prehearsals we’re making? | ||
- | * how can we make assumptions and guesswork more apparent (i.e. indicating how drivers can be based on an assumption, guess or ' | ||
- | * what is the relevance of facts and data related to macro trends in experiential futurism? | ||
- | * how can we have a more constructive discussion about the macro trends which results in something more meaningful than a list of assumptions? | ||
- | * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? (nouns -> verbs) | ||
- | * what are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people? | ||
- | * [[horizon scanning]] | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * should we make our own STEEP cards to avoid the ' | ||
- | * 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)? | ||
- | * is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)? | ||
- | * how effective are these methods and how can we usefully evalute them? | ||
- | * what does a ' | ||
- | |||
- | Ranking critical uncertainties | ||
- | * what are different ways in which this is done by others? | ||
- | |||
- | Scenarios | ||
- | * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | ||
- | |||
- | * 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:// | ||
- | * 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:// | ||
- | * 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:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | * [[http:// | ||
- | |||
- | * how to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised? | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | From scenarios to story-worlds | ||
- | * what techniques can we use to flesh out the scenarios into interesting stories | ||
- | * what elements do we need in a scenario database? | ||
- | * how to create rich characters and meaningful plots? | ||
- | |||
- | Scenario testing (signals, how to get from here to there) | ||
- | * how is this done by others? | ||
- | * what are important things to focus on? | ||
- | |||
- | Visualising | ||
- | * which methods could we use to visualise possible futures? | ||
- | |||
- | Prototyping | ||
- | * which methods could we use to prototype possible futures? | ||
- | |||
- | Prehearsals | ||
- | * how to design them? | ||
- | * how to host them? | ||
- | * how to evaluate them? | ||
- | |||
- | Follow-up | ||
- | * How can we follow-up what happens to the groups after we finish the workshops (especially to understand what happens to commitments to actions and preferred possible futures)? | ||
- | * How much do we need to be involved in the follow-up? | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
==== scenario database ==== | ==== scenario database ==== | ||
- | 20140205 While editing [[scenarios]] | + | 20140205 While editing [[scenarios]] it became apparent how tricky it is to keep a consistency in information and layout of the scenarios. The scenario database we're planning to make should make this easier. Components that seem to be needed in all scenarios: |
* what is the question? | * what is the question? |