IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v151y2020ics0040162519303063.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon, Adam Vigdor

Abstract

Normative scenario planning seeks to influence and improve outcomes in the external environment. By any measure, success in this is only partially and variably achieved, and there remains great need to understand how scenarios that embrace a change agenda and seek to improve external outcomes can achieve their purpose. The Mont Fleur scenarios, created at the height of the South African transition, are considered a landmark in such success, where the future external environment was influenced: in its case, particularly steering the political transition towards market-led rather than socialist economics. This study revisits the Mont Fleur process to extract and distil understanding of how it set itself up to succeed in its future-influencing purpose, and from this draws lessons for scenario projects that today seek to influence the future external environment. A six-step template for success in this regard is uncovered.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon, Adam Vigdor, 2020. "Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:151:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519303063
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162519303063
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119851?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreescu, Liviu & Gheorghiu, Radu & Zulean, Marian & Curaj, Adrian, 2013. "Understanding normative foresight outcomes: Scenario development and the ‘veil of ignorance’ effect," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 711-722.
    2. Bourgeois, Robin & Penunia, Esther & Bisht, Sonali & Boruk, Don, 2017. "Foresight for all: Co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 178-188.
    3. Kerstin Cuhls, 2003. "From forecasting to foresight processes-new participative foresight activities in Germany," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 93-111.
    4. Mander, Sarah. L. & Bows, Alice & Anderson, Kevin. L. & Shackley, Simon & Agnolucci, Paolo & Ekins, Paul, 2008. "The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios--Part I: Development of a backcasting methodology with stakeholder participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3754-3763, October.
    5. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    6. Philippe Durance & Michel Godet, 2010. "Scenario building: Uses and abuses," Post-Print hal-02864615, HAL.
    7. Ramirez, Rafael & Wilkinson, Angela, 2014. "Rethinking the 2×2 scenario method: Grid or frames?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 254-264.
    8. Rhisiart, Martin & Störmer, Eckhard & Daheim, Cornelia, 2017. "From foresight to impact? The 2030 Future of Work scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 203-213.
    9. Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosalie Camilleri & Maria Attard & Robin Hickman, 2024. "Participatory Policy Packaging for Transport Backcasting: A Pathway for Reducing CO 2 Emissions from Transport in Malta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica & Mulders, Maartje D.G.H. & Mouritzen, Simone Lykke Tranholm, 2023. "Outside-in and bottom-up: Using sustainability transitions to understand the development phases of mainstreaming plant-based in the food sector in a meat and dairy focused economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    3. Edward J Oughton & Niccol`o Comini & Vivien Foster & Jim W Hall, 2021. "Policy choices can help keep 4G and 5G universal broadband affordable," Papers 2101.07820, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    4. Oughton, Edward J. & Comini, Niccolò & Foster, Vivien & Hall, Jim W., 2022. "Policy choices can help keep 4G and 5G universal broadband affordable," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Bruin, Jilske Olda & Kok, Kasper & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke Alberttine, 2017. "Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 269-282.
    2. Bourgeois, Robin & Penunia, Esther & Bisht, Sonali & Boruk, Don, 2017. "Foresight for all: Co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 178-188.
    3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    5. Habicher, Daria & Windegger, Felix & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Pechlaner, Harald, 2022. "Beyond the COVID-19 crisis: A research note on post-pandemic scenarios for South Tyrol 2030+," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Ramboarison-Lalao, Lovanirina & Gannouni, Kais, 2019. "Liberated firm, a leverage of well-being and technological change? A prospective study based on the scenario method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 129-139.
    7. Kishita, Yusuke & Mizuno, Yuji & Fukushige, Shinichi & Umeda, Yasushi, 2020. "Scenario structuring methodology for computer-aided scenario design: An application to envisioning sustainable futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Hansen, Meiken & Selin, Cynthia, 2021. "Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Anne Marchais-Roubelat & Fabrice Roubelat, 2019. "History, time and futures studies. Tensions from geostrategy anticipatory practices," Post-Print hal-02557600, HAL.
    10. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    11. Matt Sinclair & Leila Sheldrick & Mariale Moreno & Emma Dewberry, 2018. "Consumer Intervention Mapping—A Tool for Designing Future Product Strategies within Circular Product Service Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Leena Jokinen & Tuire Palonen & Helka Kalliomäki & Oana Apostol & Katariina Heikkilä, 2020. "Forward-Looking Sustainability Agency for Developing Future Cruise Ships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Elizabeth Gibson & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces & Marina Dabic, 2018. "Technology Foresight: A Bibliometric Analysis to Identify Leading and Emerging Methods," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 6-24.
    14. Metz, Ashley & Hartley, Paul, 2020. "Scenario development as valuation: Opportunities for reflexivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Fabio Boschetti & Elizabeth A. Fulton & Nicola J. Grigg, 2014. "Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, December.
    16. Hussain, M. & Tapinos, E. & Knight, L., 2017. "Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 160-177.
    17. Kishita, Yusuke & McLellan, Benjamin C. & Giurco, Damien & Aoki, Kazumasu & Yoshizawa, Go & Handoh, Itsuki C., 2017. "Designing backcasting scenarios for resilient energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 114-125.
    18. George Cairns & George Wright, 2019. "Making scenario interventions matter: Exploring issues of power and rationality," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    19. Derbyshire, James & Wright, George, 2017. "Augmenting the intuitive logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 254-266.
    20. Matthew J. Spaniol & Nicholas J. Rowland, 2019. "Defining scenario," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:151:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519303063. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.