to method uncertainties (e g. different modeling methods) using computational models as scenario generators. This paper explores the potential of EMA for FTA.
describe and visualize interesting scarcity scenarios for the client. Both objectives were achieved at first by means of traditional System Dynamics modeling and manual exploration of the influence of key assumptions, changing one assumption at a time.
At a later stage, the model was used as a scenario generator for EMA, allowing the automatic and simultaneous exploration of many uncertainties and assumptions.
a scenario generator is specified. In total, 48 different generators are possible. Each generator in turn has its own parametric ranges over
These bounds are calculated across the 48 scenario generators and their associated parameter ranges. The column‘static plan'in Table 5 shows the results of this analysis. Looking at the various outcome indicators,
and the large number of scenarios encompassing the spectrum of those uncertainties. However, no careful assessment of EMA for FTA has taken place yet.
by combining it with scenario discovery 48. In light of all this, EMA thus appears to be a useful addition to the portfolio of methods
Porter et al. 1 argued that foresight exercises could not comprehensively explore the full range of scenarios that is encompassed by the many irreducible uncertainties encountered
(2013) 419 431 scenario discovery. Another major avenue of research is on the communication of EMA that results to policy-makers and FTA practitioners.
dynamic scenario discovery under deep uncertainty, Technological forecasting and Social Change,(under review. 23 R. U. Ayres, On the practical limits to substitution, Ecol.
Rev. 15 (1999) 3 36.31 R. J. Lempert, D. G. Groves, S. Popper, S. Bankes, A general analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios, Manag.
Sci. 52 (2006) 514 528.32 D. G. Groves, R. J. Lempert, A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios, Glob.
a participatory computer assisted approach to scenario discovery, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 34 49.49 S. J. Heblij, Development of a runway allocation optimisation model.
By analyzing several scenario cases, elements of good practices and principles on how to strengthen innovation systems through future scenarios are identified.
Reflexive inquiry Innovation Scenario practice Grand challenges 1. Introduction In the context of this paper, future scenarios can be seen as narratives set in the future to explore how the society would change
, extrapolations or trends, substituting the criterion of plausibility for probability 1. Scenarios are not equivalent to images of the future,
whereas scenarios consist of a logical sequence of images of the future 2. 1. 1. Developing
or scenario specialists 3. Developing and using scenarios can contribute at various levels of society by generating appropriate inputs for planning
However, the explicit and direct uses of scenarios in predefined decision-making contexts are just part of a broader social process 5. Also important indirect and diffuse links exist between developing
and using scenarios and orienting innovation systems and research priorities 6. Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 Corresponding author.
Although the use of scenarios has gained much adherence, its subjective and heuristic nature leaves many academics
whether we have credible and salient scenarios? And how does developing and using scenarios lead to the expected direct and indirect inputs for orienting innovation systems?
These concerns are legitimate and the use of scenarios would gain in academic standing if more research were conducted on their comparative performance
and underlying theoretical premises 7. While the scenario literature makes explicit the methodological differences and similarities of various approaches,
scenarios that imaginatively represent plausible futures will meet resistance if they are used as predictions. 1. 2. Grand challenges The aim of this paper is to initiate a discussion on how scenario analysis can help to better cope with the grand challenges
and to disclose some principles by which scenario processes can inspire innovation. Today's grand challenges from climate change to unemployment and poverty go beyond economic
several scholars state that scenarios constitute a major tool for considering the future in strategic planning 18 23.
Section 2 sets out the methodology of how we use reflexive inquiry to analyze the scenario case studies.
These concepts and paradigms are used then to analyze the selected scenario case studies. For example, we look how the applied
or perceived modes of thinking about the future and multiple stakeholder values are initiating enablers or barriers for the scenario process.
In Section 5, we further discuss our findings addressing how scenario practice can orientate innovation systems in the view of the grand challenges.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 2. Material and methods How can we learn about orienting innovation systems from future scenario practice?
This means that practice, such as scenario practice, is rooted in a particular moment and place. In accordance with Cunliff 27 and to be consistent with reflexive inquiry,
we first have to deconstruct scenario practice. In order to do so, three complementary questions on policy change are applied to analyze the case studies:(
The empirical evidence is based on a sample of 17 scenario projects (see Appendix 1. for an overview of the cases.
the workshops allowed for a systematic ex-post evaluation of similarities and differences between the chosen scenario projects.
futures thinking and scenarios 3. 1. Innovation systems Innovation involves the application of new ideas or the reapplication of old ideas in new ways to develop better solutions to our needs 31.
Scenario practice and related techniques Reflecting the uncertain threats of the cold war, the development of scenario practice as a methodology for planning and decision-making probably started more than half a century ago in the field of war game analysis. The Rand Corporation in the US became a major center for scenario thinking and Herman Kahn,
who joined Rand, explored the application of systems analysis and game theory in order to encourage‘thinking the unthinkable'8. Meanwhile in France,
Gaston Berger started using scenarios to explore the long-term political and social future. He founded the Centre d'Etudes Prospectives
and his approach to scenarios was primarily normative, i e. scenarios intended to provide a guiding vision of the future for policy-makers 46.
Scenario building and planning was developed further for management purposes, for example through the works of Pierre Wack
Developing and using scenarios are professional practices to support significant decisions, and therefore it needs to be more assured of its claims to knowledge (methodology).
but it is still essentially working in terms of the same basic known unknown dichotomy 8. In contrast, explorative scenarios deal with different kinds of knowledge, ignorance and uncertainty, for example,
The identification of the motivation behind any scenario exercise appears to underpin the scenario typology described by Borjesön et al. 50,
The categories arise from the kinds of question that a scenario user might use about the future:
Each of these questions can be seen to evoke the motivation of a particular approach to scenarios.
scenarios lead to predictive scenarios, in effect, forecasts, which look at what will happen as the likely development occurs.
scenarios are concerned normative scenarios with achieving particular future objectives which lead to preserving and transforming scenarios.
Preserving scenarios are used when the target can be met within an existing structure, while transforming scenarios feature a form of backcasting, asking
what would need to be changed for the target futures to be achieved. Although most reviews of scenario techniques distinguish between quantitative and qualitative techniques,
the boundaries between approaches have become increasingly blurred by techniques that make use of both kinds of methods and information 51.
Hence, our brief overview of scenario techniques is intended not to provide a comprehensive classification or typology.
Merely its role is to describe the variety of current techniques that are relevant for this paper.
It generates four contrasting scenarios relevant to a particular area of interest, which may be geographic or thematic,
These spaces are developed then into scenario narratives reflecting the influence of other events and trends in addition to those represented on the two axes.
Backcasting scenarios explore the preconditions that could lead to this desirable future, including a palette of strategies to reach this situation 54.
All the above describe approaches to futures thinking during which (potential) inputs for scenarios can be produced.
These types of approaches are typical of those used in our analysis (see Appendix 1 for an overview of the scenario cases.
4. Results and implications The value of scenarios lies in the robustness of the claims to knowledge within the process of the scenario development.
as it will reveal significant choices underlying the presented scenarios 61. To structure our research,
the scenario cases are evaluated using the three complementary questions on policy change mentioned in Section 2 (Material and methods).
i e. window of opportunity, we looked at scenarios as a tool to support planning and decision-making.
When the motivation is oriented towards developing scenarios, the focus tends to shift towards building consensus within the scenarios,
missing the opportunity to explore the potential for innovation in conflicting views. Although legitimate for several reasons,
In addition, our analysis indicates that scenarios with a strong focus on consensus during the development are often too vague and too broad for defining tangible innovation opportunities.
By reshaping the scenarios to reach consensus, they are limited often to accepted statements about the obvious.
which scenarios are right but is oriented more to whether the scenarios delineate the range of possible futures appropriately 64.
As documented by van der Heijden 65, the strategic discussion has its origin in uncertainty, both in the external environment and within the organization.
Using inspirational scenarios (in this context, one could label them as simple in form but representing extreme uncertainties) can contribute strongly to triggering feelings of surprise and discovery.
Responding to this emotive and cognitive disruption requires participants to think in ways that produce innovative and competitive solutions in a changing environment The DP21 scenarios (see Appendix 1) are a good example.
we distinguish two groups of scenario practice. We argue that dependent on the dominance of one of the two motivations (respectively a. developing
and b. using scenarios) a different scenario process is shaped and different types of outcome are achieved. Identifying these two groups of scenario practice is neither a typology nor a comprehensive classification.
The two motivations are connected to the perspective used in the analysis (i e. window of opportunity) and can be seen as a polarized view on this element of practice.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 our analysis a better understanding of the linkages between scenario design, methods used and related outcomes.
For example, by analyzing the dominant motivation of the scenario cases we found a tension between incentives for consensus building and incentives for discovery.
and using scenarios to strengthen the sense of urgency. 4. 2. Legitimacy for action Looking at the second perspective,
i e. legitimacy for action, our analysis revealed three groups of scenario practice in the case studies from Appendix 1. The following sub-sections will describe the main characteristics for each of these three groups:
and sub-section 4. 2. 3 Backcasting from principles. 4. 2. 1. Framing boundaries A first group of scenario practice is characterized by a focus on framing boundaries.
The Prelude scenarios2 are a good example (see Appendix 1). An important input for the scenario work in this group are the comprehensive descriptions of the external drivers for change highlighting the uncertainty of future developments.
Scenarios generated using the axes'process are explorative rather than normative; they tend to focus on the strategic level
The value of the set of scenarios lays in the capacity to explore boundaries. This method is excellent for presenting a rich picture of multiple facets of a potential future:
when an experienced scenario writer or film-maker is engaged at the final stage, the set of scenarios produced can be very persuasive, even to a non-specialist audience.
Narratives are a natural, resonating way for people to communicate, and can be helpful in dealing with complexity,
Creating awareness for the unforeseen is most often an important objective and desired outcome of this group of scenario practice.
A technique underpinning these types of scenarios is described by Weiner & Brown 68 as the extremes that inform the middle.
Still, it is less obvious how these scenarios can be used for bridging today's decisions with the future images.
Most often, the scenarios are used to highlight important societal assets under threat. This links well with the concept of risk-society 69 and risk management.
Our analysis suggests that this can be contributed partly to the selected process design for developing the scenarios.
When considered from the perspective of creating legitimacy for action we also suggest that the scenarios in this group could benefit fromcomplementary techniques connecting the long-term future images to the present via stepping stones.
Using roadmaps is an example of such a complementary technique for linking scenarios with internal innovation capabilities (i e. inward reflection.
Moreover, while participatory scenario-making provides visions for multiple futures, a roadmap only operates with one vision.
Linking scenarios with technology roadmapping initiates an exploratory and creative phase to identify and understand uncertainties.
Developing a set of scenarios acknowledges multiple rather than one future, equally plausible, whereas roadmapping provides a framework for condensing all information in one map
Backcasting from targets A second group of scenario practice is characterized by a focus on backcasting from targets.
changes in the external environment are part of the scenarios. But in contrast with the first group, change is described less by framing very different long-term future worlds.
Rather, the focus of the scenarios in the second group is oriented towards a sequence of clear targets linked with short-term stepping stones,
Clearly innovation is an essential feature of the scenarios. 2 PRELUDE: PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe. 437 P. De Smedt et al./
Our analysis also suggests possible improvements for this group of scenario practice. Roadmaps directed towards a single target are likely to be inappropriate where policy intervention may direct technology towards a different trajectory altogether 70,71.
The innovation potential of the scenarios can be strengthened through broadening the system boundaries and enriching the future images.
A good example can be found with the scenario practice developed by the Natural Step3 (see for instance Givaudan case in Appendix 1). The focal points of the scenarios are sustainability concerns and criteria.
The concept of change is an implicit part of the scenarios developed in backcasting from principles
Also for the third group of scenario practice, we suggest some areas of improvement with regard to legitimizing actions by adding a planning perspective via roadmaps or similar approaches.
Comprehensive and well-designed roadmaps linking today's experiments with future images can improve the impact of the scenarios.
but the process of exchanging knowledge is recognized to overcome some limits of conventional scenario practice 61.
i e. empowering stakeholders, our analysis of the case studies from Appendix 1 revealed two groups of scenario practice:
Our analysis suggests that scenarios developed with broader stakeholder/expert participation will provide richer future images that go beyond the probable that is determined by the past and present 73,75.
As opposed to past scenario practice, we believe there is often no clear cut difference between experts and stakeholders:
Thus the scenario process can be seen as frame for dialogue, not to reach consensus but to recognize other parties'point of view.
it should not be the primary goal of scenario processes. Rather we suggest that developing
and using scenarios should be viewed as a systemized negotiation process among key stakeholders (social actors),
we argue that our reflexive inquiry of the selected cases from Appendix 1 helped disclose several representation issues in scenario practice.
and scenarios can help better cope with the grand challenges and how future scenarios can inspire innovation. 3 http://www. naturalstep. org/.
In addition, several scholars state that scenarios constitute a major tool for considering the future in strategic planning 18
Developing and using scenarios can be considered a field of applied research, i e. where particular methods are applied to‘solve'particular puzzles.
However, the commonality of scenario applications is the orientation to the future and that the knowledge produced is uncertain.
developing and using scenarios need to be more assured of its claims to knowledge 61.
Following a reflexive inquiry methodology in the analysis of the scenario cases listed in Appendix 1,
three complementary questions on policy change are applied to analyze scenario practice:(i) How can developing and using future scenarios present a window of opportunity to effectively drive decisions?;(
By questioning representation from a policy perspective and deconstructing future scenario practice, we were able to (re) construct findings to the above questions:(
By doing so, we are able to link issues of representation with groups of scenario practice.
Instead of framing practice based on theory, future scenario practice is deconstructed into seven groups. These seven groups are linked further to the most characteristic theoretical premises
For example, we argue that a strong focus on developing scenarios and consensus increases a risk of diluting a sense of urgency.
one group using scenarios as the most characteristic feature, and another group with developing scenarios as the most characteristic feature.
For these two groups, the scenario cases have been analyzed to disclose elements of theoretical premises. In the first group, we found that the scenarios are used for supporting strategic discussions about futures that are shaped by surprise and confrontation.
Examples of supportive techniques are the use of an uncertainty matrix and the multi-axes method using factors of high uncertainty and high impact.
Based on our reflexive inquiry used to analyze scenario exercises in their context we can then attribute the most characteristic mode of thinking. 4 Innovation is not only about invention, creation,
Table 2 Linking groups of future scenario practice from a policy perspective with modes of future thinking.
Policy perspective (representation) Scenario practice (most characteristic) Types of futures (main focus) Techniques (example) Modes of futures thinking Window of opportunity (sense of urgency) Using scenarios Shaped by surprise
and confrontation Uncertainty matrix Intuitive Developing scenarios Shaped by convention Consensus (Delphi) Convention Legitimacy for action
However, it is also crucial to keep in mind the limitations of the scenario methodology 80.
Clearly, scenarios do not point to simple short-cuts into a more sustainable future 64. Table 3 provides a brief description for each of the 7 dominant modes of futures thinking.
as articulations of theoretical premises, can be distinguished in future scenario practice. In addition, we abstracted different dominant modes of futures thinking linked within different groups.
To strengthen the enablers for innovation within the scenario process, the link between practice and theory,
Our analyses of the scenario case studies from Appendix 1 revealed elements of good practice and implications on how to better address innovation through future scenarios.
and using scenarios. In addition, we also identified some points of departure for further refinement of current scenario practices with respect to innovation.
Firstly, and summarizing our recommendations for future scenario practice, we suggest that representation issues (i e. what is,
and what is represented not in the scenarios, who was and who was involved not, and whether a sense of urgency was established
or was lacking) are an important feature in the design and application of future scenario practice.
In this paper we argue that the limits of current practice are to a certain extent linked with representation issues.
i e. using a policy perspective for doing an ex-post analysis of future scenario practice. Innovation systems are complex and dynamic
and scenario practice is applied more widely than our sample. Therefore, when using reflexivity in research or in scenario practice,
it is also essential to make one's perspective clear so that the claims to knowledge can be critiqued constructively and improved.
and using scenarios should be viewed as a systemized negotiation process among key stakeholders (social actors),
IPTS and different past and present foresight network initiatives such as the European foresight Platform and Forlearn for organizing creative discussion platforms on foresight and scenario initiatives.
European commission DG RTD, Directorate E Unit E. 4, Brussel. 7. Prelude EEA (2006) Prelude (PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe) scenarios.
Available at http://www. eea. europa. eu/multimedia/interactive/prelude-scenarios/prelude. 8. The world in 2025 European commission (2009
Four scenarios for Europe. UNEP/RIVM (2003. Four scenarios for Europe. Based on UNEP's third Global Environment Outlook.
Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://www. unep. org/geo/GEO3/pdfs/four scenarios europe. pdf. 16.
What is based good scenario decision-making? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70 (2003) 797 817.2 S. C. H. Greeuw, M. B. A. van Asselt, J. Grosskurth, C a m. H. Storms, N
. Rijkens-Klomp, D. S. Rothman, J. Rotmans, Cloudy Crystal Balls, An Assessment of Recent European and Global Scenario Studies And Models, Experts'Corner Report:
Prospects and Scenarios 4, European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000.3 T. Fuller, P. De Smedt, D. Rothman, Advancing foresight methodology through networked conversation, in:
Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making-Seville 28 29,september 2006, 2006.4 H. S. Becker, Scenarios: a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry, Technol.
Chang. 72 (2005) 59 73.8 A. Wilkinson, E. Eidinow, Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new scenario typology, Environ.
Res. Lett. 3 (2008. 9 M. Boden, C. Cagnin, V. Carabias, K. Haegeman, T. Konnola, Facing the Future:
R. Bradfield, G. Wright, G. Burt, G. Cairns, K. Van der Heijden, The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning, Futures
37 (2005) 795 812.19 M. Godet, Integration of scenarios and strategic management: using relevant, consistent, and likely scenario, Futures 22 (1990) 730 739.20 M. Lindgren, H. Bandhold, Scenario planning:
The Link Between Future and Strategy, Palgrave Macmillan, New york, 2003.21 M. E. Porter, Competitive advantage, Free Press, New york, 1985.22 G. Ringland, The role of scenarios in strategic foresight, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 1493 1498.23 I. Wilson, From scenario thinking to strategic action, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 65 (2000) 23 29.24 B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén, A. Rickne, Innovation systems:
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 42 42 K. H. Dreborg, Scenarios and structural uncertainty, explorations in the field of sustainable transport, Doctoral thesis, KTH Infrastructure
A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios, Futures 43 (2011) 86 98.48 P. W. F. van Notten, J. Rotmans, M. B. A
. van Assel, D. S. Rothman, An updated scenario typology, Futures 35 (2003) 423 443.49 S. Rayner, Uncomfortable knowledge:
Soc. 41 (2012) 107 125.50 L. Borjesön, M. Hojer, K.-H. Dreborg, T. Ekvall, G. Finnveden, Scenario types and techniques:
towards a user's guide, Futures 38 (2006) 723 739.51 E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, Using scenarios to make decisions about the future:
four scenarios 2015 2020, Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 6 (2004) 331 343.65 K. van der Heijden, Scenarios:
The Art of Strategic Conversation, Wiley, Chichester, 1996.66 K. Weick, Sense-Making in Organizations, Sage, London, 1995.67 S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing
12 & 13,may 2011, May 13 2011.71 O. Saritas, J. Aylen, Using scenarios for roadmapping: the case of clean production, Technol.
Schweinfort, Building scenarios with fuzzy cognitive maps: an exploratory study of solar energy, Futures 43 (2011) 52 66.76 B. Höijer, R. Lidskog, Y. Uggla, Facing dilemmas:
OECD (Ed.),Fostering Innovation to Address Social challenges, Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011, pp. 59 64.80 M. Godet, The art of scenarios and strategic planning:
offering scenarios and integrated solutions to support policy-makers. Currently Peter works at the Research centre of the Flemish Government where he is in charge of foresight and sustainability assessment.
Furthermore, he is an expert in foresight and scenario methodologies, where his interests are focused on how to handle trans-disciplinary conflicts and scientific uncertainty.
Vision Structural transformation Inductive approach Foresight methodology Innovation pattern Visualisation Scenarios Weak signals 1. Introduction Envisioning structural transformation in foresight exercises is challenging.
scenarios and roadmaps challenging today's paradigms and basic assumptions on system dynamics. A third arena where systemic change needs to be addressed is innovation itself as its very definition seems to be shifting.
It was carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the Austrian Institute of technology AIT (Austria), Fraunhofer ISI (Germany), Z punkt (Germany) and Solutioning Design Scenarios SDS (Belgium.
and print media 2. stepwise clustering of the findings into visions in interaction with innovation actors through interviews and an online survey 3. development and assessment of scenarios of future innovation landscapes 4. generation of policy implications.
but also by the distinct steps for building the scenarios or visions of the future. In the case of scenario building the model-based approach is in widespread use in Europe,
and uncertainty as the main criteria for selecting the factors to be used for actually constructing the scenarios 18.
As a consequence, in many cases the scenario logic is dominated by very general macro-level factors such as globalisation or societal values.
While this will certainly open up the scenario arena towards taking into account unexpected events and possible trend reversal,
and to create scenarios by clustering trends that are assumed to occur simultaneously. The INFU project followed a similar approach by combining the inductive scenario building concept with a weak signal scanning activity.
which is described often as the backbone of the scenario process 18. Visual inspiration turned out to be one of the main characteristics of the project.
and are designed not to sketch out a comprehensive vision or scenario encompassing structural transformation. Mapping and interpretation of weak signals is still in its infancy and thus an important challenge for further studies 31.
which has been proved to be a robust and resilient approach to develop alternative scenarios 32, p. 111.
but was integrated in the process of building visions and scenarios. Similar to approaches of participatory design 33 the story-scripts allowed peoplewith different backgrounds to imagine a situation in the future without comprehensive textual information.
Developing Policy-oriented Scenarios, Earthscan Publ. Ltd. London u. a.,2010.19 F. Liebl, Rethinking trends
and how to link them to scenarios, in: Paper Presented at SMS-Conference, San francisco, 2001.20 E. Hiltunen, Was it a wild card or just our blindness to gradual change?
Sustainable Everyday, Scenarios of Urban Life, 2003, pp. 246 255.26 F. Jégou, S. Vincent, Co-design approaches for early phases of augmented environments, in:
E. Dönitz, M. G. Möhrle, Consistency matrices within scenario technique: an empirical investigation, in: H.-D. Haasis, H. Kopfer, J. Schönberger (Eds.
Operations research Proceedings 2005, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 741 746.29 P. Warnke, E. Schirrmeister, INFU scenario assessment report (deliverable D
A Practitioner's Guide to Developing and Using Scenarios to Direct Strategy in Today's Uncertain Times, Thomson Southwestern, Mason, Ohio, 2006.33 J. Buur, B. Matthews, Participatory innovation, Int
Her scientific interests are innovative approaches of scenario and roadmap development. As a mechanical engineer she has conducted various foresight projects on future prospects for industrial production and on research and innovation patterns on behalf of government authorities
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011