FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE最新文献

Large-scale Delphi surveys on technology foresight started in the 1960s and involve an average of about 2000 participants answering, potentially, up to about 450 items. This contrasts sharply with the participation and content of the more common, smaller-scale Delphi surveys. Previously, Belton et al. developed “six steps” to underpin a well-founded and defensible Delphi process and we apply these steps in a novel evaluation of the quality of 42 large-scale technology foresight surveys. Using a detailed analysis of two exemplar studies and a content analysis of all 42 surveys, we explore whether such surveys differ systematically from “traditional” smaller-scale Delphi surveys and, if so, why this may be and what it may mean for the quality of data produced. We conclude that there are some problematic issues within these surveys—to do with (i) data quality in both the numerical summarizing of participant's between-round feedback and in the reporting of final round numerical responses, (ii) the infrequent elicitation of rationales to justify participants' proffered numerical responses, and, when such rationales are elicited, (iii) the between-round summary and presentation of the rationales. We speculate on the reasons for these design differences in the extant large-scale surveys and conclude that extra-survey political influences, such as differing objectives and the need to demonstrate wide-ranging expert participation, may be the underlying cause. We conclude with considerations and recommendations for the design of future large-scale Delphi surveys to enable the underlying process to become better-founded and more defensible to procedural evaluation.

This commentary revisits an early book review by the author of Kees van der Heijden's influential book, Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, highlighting the continuing neglect of the role of forecasting in scenario construction. In addition, there still remains considerable ambiguity as to whether scenarios offer more than plausible stories. The review highlights the need to resolve these ambiguities in the scenario research literature through a better understanding of the links between forecasting and scenario construction. The benefit of success would be a greater understanding of long-term uncertainty.

This paper builds on four qualitative backcasting scenarios that illustrate sustainable futures in a Swedish setting. The paper complements the originally qualitative scenarios by developing an eight-step modified and expanded IPAT model—originally describing environmental impact as a product of population, affluence, and technology—that also enables quantitative descriptions of the scenarios. The modified and expanded IPAT model is used to show how the scenarios can stay within the climate aspect of sustainability. The result is quantified descriptions of the development paths of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, working hours, man-made capital stocks, recycled and nonrecycled materials used, and different types of energy used in the four scenarios. The four main findings are (a) the back-bone instrument in making the energy system fossil-free will, in all scenarios, substitute fossil energy with renewable energy; (b) however, to succeed with that it is necessary to use different mixes of many complementary climate policy instruments; (c) IPAT models can be modified and expanded in many different ways to act as quantitative descriptions of different technological developments and social changes in scenario exercises; (d) by disregarding gross domestic product as a proxy for affluence, and replacing it with labor and capital, behavioral concepts like sharing and prolonged product lifetimes can more easily be introduced as climate policy options in a modified and expanded IPAT model.

The integration of theory and practice is a significant aspect of modern academia. Prompted by Rowland and Spaniol's review and celebration of Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, I reflect briefly on the impact of Kees van der Heijden and his contribution to the theoretical and practical development of scenario planning research.

Working with Kees as his apprentice scenario planner, I have been fortunate to have participated in many scenario workshops, both on the Strathclyde MBA program and with organizations. Alongside these workshops, I am also very privileged to have been an assistant to Kees on a number of scenario projects with organizations in a range of countries. I have learned many things in the time spent with Kees, and consider his book, “Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation” to be the definitive field guide to the art and craft of scenario planning, albeit there have been a plethora of books on the subject since. The objective of this commentary is to discuss from a practical perspective, three things I have learned from my years of experience with Kees which have proved useful in my scenario work with client organizations, namely the elicitation of client views and insights, the value of the “Business Idea” and the scenario development timescale