Inductive scenario logics
September 7, 2009 § 4 Comments
The inductive approach to scenario planning is very unsystematic and calls for a degree of creativity and imagination.
Brainstorm Different Changes
What if a change in socio-political institutions does take place? If half of the people join us for this change, that would have serious impact on the system. What might lead up to such a change? What would be a plausible chain of consequences leading from such a change?
By asking and discussing answers to these questions we can build a scenario that will have future consequences that may call for some strategic decisions in the present.
Official Future Deviations
This is a slightly more systematic variant of the inductive approach.
The “official future” is what we believe, either explicitly or implicitly, will happen. Usually we make that a plausible and relatively non-threatening scenario, featuring no surprising changes to the current environment and continued stable growth. And in some circumstances the “official future” can reflect our fears, for example that the world is a mess, or we in trouble.
Therefore, we best start by describing radically different and optimistic futures and then work backwards, exploring the Key Factors that would enable such a future to unfold. Alternatively or additionally, deductive scenario logics can be used.
Related Articles
- Rehearsing the future [Guy Rigby] (ecademy.com)
- Eating the future today (vanguardngr.com)
Serendipity 
[…] more matrices can be made with the key factors that were gathered. Alternatively or additionally, inductive scenario logics can be […]
[…] Inductive Scenario Logics (plotting a course is like an open-ended-planning-with-feedback-loops-and-obstacle-and-pitfall-avoidance) Then we focus on what the name of our game is and address the inverse question. We beef up the skeletal scenarios to discover the insights we need. […]
[…] is not to manipulate the future, yet it might, be it in positive ways, especially when using the inductive appraoch. The idea is to practice how we deal with what might happen, and raise our awareness to see it […]
[…] I really really believe that neither fundamental science nor healthcare nor art should ever become “for profit”. For profit tends to kick in already open doors, as a service to an “existing market”. We would be dreaming in circles, always seeing the same plots in a model and technology driven world, never discovering more about what it means to be human, and repeating societal mistakes over and over, never seeing different more natural and harmonious futures. […]