scenario analysis - ulisboa analysis (methodological ... •environmental scanning ... the...

17/11/2015

1

SCENARIO ANALYSIS(Methodological tools and a language for learning and

strategic dialogue)

António Alvarenga

1st SEMESTER, 2015/2016 DECISION SUPPORT MODELS, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Note: These slides are just a tool supporting the lectures. Not all slides will be necessarily used.

[email protected]://pt.linkedin.com/in/antonioalvarenga

SCENARIO ANALYSISForesight, Horizon Scanning and Scenarios:

methodological toolbox

António Alvarenga

1st SEMESTER, 2015/2016 DECISION SUPPORT MODELS, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Note: These slides are just a tool supporting the lectures. Not all slides will be necessarily used.

[email protected]://pt.linkedin.com/in/antonioalvarenga

17/11/2015

2

1st SEMESTER, 2015/2016 DECISION SUPPORT MODELS, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT 3

5. Scenario analysisW9

• Foresight, Horizon Scanning and Scenarios: origins, principles and key concepts. (T11 x2)

W10• Key concepts in action – “The future of manufacturing”. (P03)• Foresight, Horizon Scanning and Scenarios: methodological toolbox. (T12 x2)

W11• Key concepts in action – “The future of manufacturing” (cont.). (P03)• The Intuitive Logics School of Scenario Building: objectives, applications and key features. (T13 x2)

W12• Experimentation of a crucial stage of the process: choosing key uncertainties. (P04)• Morphological Analysis: introduction and cases. (T14 x2)

W13• Using Morphological Analysis to build Scenarios: hands-on application. (L05)

4António Alvarenga

STRATEGIC

FORESIGHTDesign

Organization

Scanning

Interpretation

Anticipation

Visioning

Planning

Action

Adapte

d f

rom

Hin

es,

Bis

hop,

2006

•Attitudes towards the future

• Audience (client(s); Decision

makers, stakeholders, ...)

• Rationales and objectives

• Focus and Time Horizon(s)

• Team and Experts

• Work Environment

•Structure and System

• Retrospective

• Actors vs Factors

• Scanning the

Environment

• Mobilization

(colleagues and

outsiders)

• Drivers and Uncertainties

• Diverge - Generate ideas

• Converge - Rank ideas

• Alternative Futures

• Identify Implications

• Challenge Mental Models

• Think in a Visionary Way

• Appropriation

• Think Strategically

• Develop Strategic Options

• Report results

• Agenda for Action

• Intelligence and Monitoring System

• "Institutionalize" Strategic Thinking

17/11/2015

3


Methods and Tools: more flexible, intuitive and lighter

ForesightScenario Planning/Thinking (intuitive-logics: SHELL, GBN, SRI, etc; Porter) • Trend Analysis• Environmental Scanning• Futures Wheels• Futures Accelerator© • Visions Competition©• Incasting• Future Workshops (future conferences)

Actors • Stakeholder Analysis• Strategic Groups (workshop version; adaptation)• Role Plays

Innovation and Creativity • Strategic Deep Dives (IDEO)• Mind Mapping• Brainstorming• Brainwriting• Focus Groups• Storytelling

Competitive Intelligence• Competitive Blindspots• War Games• Competitive Benchmarking & Tactical Analysis• Early Warning (Weak signals) Management Systems• Benchmarking Studies

Methods and Tools: more formal, analytic and “heavy”

• Scenario Planning (La Prospective, Mathematic/Probabilistic Modeling)• Delphi• Structural Analysis (MICMAC)• Analysis of the “Actors’ Game” (MACTOR)• Morphological Analysis (MORPHOL)• Smic-Prob-Expert / Cross Impact Analysis (CIA)• Trend Impact Analysis (TIA)• Causal Layered Analysis (CLA)• Patent Analysis

Strategy and Management

• SWOT analysis• Balanced Scorecard• Core Competencies• Activity System• Business Idea• 5 Forces• Strategic Groups• Value-chain• End Game Analysis• Key Strategic Factors / Internal Factors of Competitiveness

• Gap Analysis• Wind Tunneling• Implications and options• Finantial Analysis• Strategic Conversation• Strategic Choice Structuring• Real Options• Enterprise Value Map• Strat Bridge• Viable Firm Matrix• Resource Analysis• Force Field Analysis

• Ideas Combat©• Innovators Solution• Six Hats (de Bono)• Po (de Bono)• Mobility Vip Cards• Idea Boxes• Random Word

Alvarenga, Carvalho, 2009, updated

6António Alvarenga

TOOLS ORGANIZED AROUND 4 TOPICS -

CHALLENGES

Scenarios

Scanning &

Sensing “Factors”

Creativity and

Innovation

Scanning &

Sensing “Actors”

17/11/2015

4

7António Alvarenga

ScenariosScanning

andSensing“Factors”

Creativity andInnovation

Scanningand

Sensing“Actors”

Brainstorming Brainwriting

Future Workshops

Futures Wheel

Deep Dive

Mindmapping

Mobility VIP Cards

Knowledge Cafe

https://www.youtube.com

/watch?t=317&v=2Dtrkrz

0yoU

8António Alvarenga

CREATIVE THINKING

CRITICAL vs CREATIVE THINKING

Creative Thinking is usually associated with the creation

and generation of ideas, processes, experiences or objects;

Critical Thinking focuses more on assessing those.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=317&v=2Dtrkrz0yoU

17/11/2015

5

9António Alvarenga

CRITICAL THINKING CREATIVE THINKING

analytic generative

convergent divergent

vertical lateral

probability possibility

judgment suspended judgment

focused diffuse

objective subjective

answer an answer

left brain right brain

verbal visual

linear associative

reasoning richness, novelty

yes but yes and

Fonte

: Robert

Harr

is:I

ntr

oduction t

o C

reative T

hin

kin

g (

vers

ion 1

July

1998),

htt

p:/

/ww

w.v

irtu

als

alt.c

om

/cre

book1.h

tm

10António Alvarenga

“Creativity is about divergent thinking.

Innovation is about convergent thinking.”

Ikujiro Nonaka

17/11/2015

6


Fonte: InnovationPoint, 2005.


BRAINSTORMING

Brainstorming is a technique / approach appropriate to tackle specific problems (rather

than general) being indicated in situations where new or "fresh" ideas are required (and

not decisional or evaluation analysis)

Main objectives:

1) free us from the limits of the “natural habitat” of our thinking;

2) produce a set of ideas from which one can make choices;

Brainstorming sessions should be conducted in groups of 2-10 people (between 2 and 7 people

is the optimal number).

17/11/2015

7


BRAINSTORMING

GUIDELINES

1. Defer judgment

2. Daring thoughts and wild-ideas

3. Tag on - build on the ideas of others

4. Go for quantity

5. Be visual

6. One conversation at a time

7. Keep the focus on the topic

8. Write everything (choose who notes » does not participate)

9. Organize chaos (moderator)

Source: IDEO, adapt.


BRAINSTORMING

Practical Questions

1. Keep the session relaxed and enjoyable

2. Set a time limit for the session

3. Make copies

4. Add and Evaluate:

- ideas for immediate use

- areas for further exploration

- new approaches to the problem

5. Integration in processes (eg integration in a Scenario building process)

17/11/2015

8

15António AlvarengaSource: IDEO.com


up2you

BRAINSTORMING

“Normal”

(How to turn a florist into a successful business?)

1/3 of the room

17/11/2015

9


BRAINSTORMING

Stop & Go

(How to differentiate an hotel?)

up2you

1/3 of the room


BRAINSTORMING

Sequencing

(What can influence the future of the clothing industry?)

up2you

1/3 of the room

17/11/2015

10


BRAINWRITING

Brainwriting is the silent version where the generation of ideas in a group is made in writing.

There are two basic types of Brainwriting:

• Nominal Brainwriting - people are nominally in a group but mostly work on their own; the ideas of each participant are not shared with others (during the process of generating ideas);

• Interactive Brainwriting - Interaction of ideas that are shared in order to enhance additional stimuli.


up2you

BRAINWRITING

Nominal “w/rose”

- Ideas for new Master degrees at IST?

17/11/2015

11


BRAINWRITING

Interactive

- How to transform Lx?

up2you


FUTURES WHEEL

Futures Wheel is a method for identifying and organizing secondary and tertiary consequences of trends, events or actions.

Is a way of organizing thinking and questioning about the future - a kind of structured brainstorming (Glenn, 2003).

Invented in 1971 by Jerome C. Glenn.

One of the methods that can be used to perform a trend analysis.

Bibliography

Glenn, Jerome Gordon, Theodore (Ed.) (2003), "Futures Research Methodology - Version 2.0", The Millennium Project, American Council for The United Nations University (ACUNU).

17/11/2015

12


FUTURES WHEEL

» Definition [of the focus (organization, territory, country, etc.) and] of the central trend, event, decision or action to explore [CIRCLE IN THE CENTER]

» 1st ORDER: identification of the 1st order effects [CIRCLES LINKED TO THE CENTRAL CIRCLE WITH A TRACE]

» 2nd ORDER: Identification of the 2nd order effects, ie arising from the 1st order effects (from only one of them or from a combination) [CIRCLES CONNECTED TO THE 1st ORDER CONSEQUENCES WITH 2 TRACES]

(...)

» Possible identification of implications for policy / strategies / projects [RECTANGLES LINKED TO THE CIRCLES FROM WHICH THEY DIRECTLY ARISE]

[USE DIFFERENT COLORS IN EACH LEVEL]

[IDENTIFY THE GROUP]


For some

users

enhanced

security

Information availability

depends on network

Price increases

due to less

efficiencies

Growth in

regional telcos

Complex billing

Restrictions in

real-time

opportunity

Growth in no.

of agents

Business will need

to be multiple

subscribers

Loss of

ubiquitous

connections

Substantial lessening of

business confidence

More

marketing and

special deals

Investment in network

border management more

important

More uncertain investment

climate for new entrants

Variance quality of

service

Increased risk of

transactional

failure

Portal

bundlers

Potential non-transportability of

hardware between providers

Direct intervention for

access (potential

investment

uncertainty)

Adds to digital divide

because some users

better off, other are

worse off

More divisions

between information

communities

Industry codes as

big as paper

Britannica

Information

rations

Fragmentalisation of

services (eg health,

education, etc) – less

service to citizens as a

result

Formation of

virtual

communities

Frustrated

consumers

More emphasis

on consumer

awareness and

education

More competition

initially, tips to re-

monopolisation

Loss of social

cohesionLack of

trust

Lack of clarity for

legal liability

Balkanisation of

networks – end of

universal connectivity

Source: ACA, 2004

17/11/2015

13


Source: Saskatchewan Learninghttp://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/history10/activity/unit1/u1act9tis.html


Sourc

e: G

lenn, G

ord

on, 2

003.

17/11/2015

14


MINDMAPPING

Mind mapping is a graphical technique for creative exploration of questions that strongly

depend on the ability of the mind to establish associations and relationships.

The technique was developed by Tony Buzan.

Bibliography:

Buzan, T. (1991) "The Mind Map Book", New York, Penguin.


Mindmapping

Source: InnovationNetwork - www.thinksmart.com

http://www.thinksmart.com/

17/11/2015

15


Scenarios

Creativity and

Innovation

Scanning and

Sensing “Factors”Scanning

andSensing“Actors”

Structural Analysis

(T13)

Trend Impact Analysis

(T13)

Cross-Impact Analysis

(T13)

Morphological Analysis

(T14 + L05)

Trend Analysis

(T11 + P03 + P04)

Delphi

Focus Groups

Env. Scanning(T11)

Technology Road-

mapping


FOCUS GROUPS

Fonte: MSP

17/11/2015

16


Goal

Use a group discussion to collect information, clarify

details and seek views on an issue / problem from a small

group of selected people who should represent different

points of view. They can also be used to build consensus.

FOCUS GROUPS


• Determine the participants (4-8)

• Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity

• Heterogeneity within the group vs. heterogeneity between groups

• Representativity?

• Focused vs. broad discussion question

• Notes vs. record

• Replies vs. discussions / behaviours / attitudes / language / emotions

• Can generate focused insights more quickly and generally more cheaply

than through a series of key informants or formal social surveys.

FOCUS GROUPS - Process

17/11/2015

17


References

MSP Resource Portal (Wageningen University and Research

Centre) – http://portals.wi.wur.nl/msp/

Mycoted – Creativity&Innovation / Science&Technology -

http://www.mycoted.com

FOCUS GROUPS


THE DELPHI

METHOD

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/msp/

http://www.mycoted.com/

17/11/2015

18


Structured process for group communication in which experts that

maintain anonymity opine, in several rounds, about uncertain issues,

characterized by limited information. Through processes of response

and feedback, simple statistics analyzes and special attention to

"eccentric" responses, the Delphi method leads to a set of anticipations

(subjective and intuitive) about the future, endowed with a significant

group consensus.

THE DELPHI METHOD

Sourc

e: Alv

are

nga, Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007),

adapt.


THE DELPHI METHOD

• RAND (Olaf Helmer, Nicholas Rescher, Norman Dalkey) – Beginning of the 60’s.

• "just how much could be known about the future?" (Helmer and Rescher, 1959).

• Use of expert panels to explore the future.

• Remove the impediments and constraints of face-to-face meetings, allowing you to reach a

consensus among experts.

• Anonymity and feedback.

• IFTF (application of a range of futures methodologies, including Delphi, to social and

technological problems) » Futures Group

• For many years associated with the subject of Technological Foresight.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Gordon, T. J. and Helmer, Olaf, Report on a Long Range Forecasting Study, R-2982, 1964.

• Linstone, H., and Turoff, M. (ed.), The Delphi Method, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1975.

• Woudenberg, Fred, "An Evaluation of Delphi“, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Sept. 1991.

Sourc

e:

Lin

stone, Turo

ff, 1975

17/11/2015

19


THE DELPHI METHOD

Hypothetical example: suppose we want to establish a forecast for the date by which a manned Mars

landing would occur.

1. Identification and invitation to experts from different fields. Explanation of the method to the experts. It is

ensured the anonymity of statements.

2. Launch of the first questionnaire. Participants are asked to provide their judgment on a date at which a

manned landing might take place. The analysis would identify the range of opinions about the date.

3. Launch of a second questionnaire. The range of responses is presented to the group. Persons holding

opinions at the extremes of the range would be asked to reassess their opinion in view of the group's range

and provide reasons for their positions (for the maintenance or modification of their answer). At the end of

round two these reasons are synthesized by the researchers.

4. Launch of the third questionnaire. The new group judgment on a date is presented to the participants, along

with reasons for the extreme opinions. Each member of the group is asked to reassess his or her position in

view of the reasons presented. They might also be asked to refute, if appropriate, the extreme reasons with

any facts at their disposal.

5. In a fourth and final round, these arguments are presented, along with the evolving group consensus, and a

reassessment is requested.

Sourc

e: Lin

sto

ne, T

uro

ff, 1975, adapt.


THE DELPHI METHOD

General notes

• In a sense, the Delphi method is a controlled debate.

• More often than not, experts groups move toward consensus; but even when this

does not occur, the reasons for disparate positions become crystal clear.

• Because the number of respondents is usually small, Delphis do not (and are not

intended to) produce statistically significant results. They represent the synthesis

of opinion of the particular group, no more, no less.

• The value of the Delphi method rests with the ideas it generates, both those that

evoke consensus and those that do not. The arguments for the extreme positions

also represent a useful product.

Sourc

e: Lin

sto

ne, T

uro

ff, 1975

17/11/2015

20


WHY THE DELPHI?

• To highlight the areas that are more plausible to generate consensus but taking into account that the difference of opinion is valuable information (» uncertainties);

• To prepare policy/strategy recommendations based on:

• transdisciplinary visions;

• experts’ assumptions, judgments and expectations;

• To identify interconnections between topics;

• To conceive roadmaps based on the horizon or occurrence date;

• In preparation for the construction of scenarios.

THE DELPHI METHOD

Sourc

e:

Popper,

2006.


THE DELPHI METHODPRINCIPLES AND CHARACTERISTICS

• expert panels » experts, especially when they agree and regarding matters of their specialty, are more likely to be correct than

non-experts (Gordon, 2003);

• calls for "informed intuition" of the participants and their positioning in relation to uncertain issues, characterized by limited

information;

• it is interactive in the sense that organizes the sharing of responses and feedback between participants in the successive

rounds, fostering mutual learning;

• it involves ensuring the anonymity of responses;

• implies non face-to-face confrontation;

• presents qualitative in the form of reports, findings, etc., and quantitative (subjective probabilities, means, medians, etc.)

results;

• the statistical treatment implies that, after each round, a set of statistical measures are applied to the subjective forecasts

associated with each statement individually considered: median, mode, arithmetic mean and interquartile range (median and

interquartile range are the most used). It can be prepared a graphical representation of this process;

• its final product should be a prediction that contains the point of view of the majority. However, it may also contain a minority

result if a given minority is convicted with respect to a particular statement (Massaud, s / d).

• encompasses exploratory and, possibly, normative elements;

• it is based on the positioning of experts towards the statements in a context of uncertainty and on the elaboration of

subjective forecasts;

• it is boosted by the idea that the future can be "moulded" / "built“;

• emphasizes the psychological processes involved in communication to the detriment of mathematical models.

Sourc

e:

Alv

are

nga,

Carv

alh

oand E

scária

(2007),

adapt.

17/11/2015

21


THE DELPHI METHOD

PROCESS

Development

and testing of

the

questionnaire

1st round

Processing /

analysis of

results

2nd round

(modification

or confirmation

of opinions)

Report and /

or other final

outputs

Preparation of

the process

and selection

of participants

Sourc

e: Alv

are

nga, Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007),

adapt.


THE DELPHI METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

• Setting up a group of experts in a given field of knowledge, which respond to a series of questions

about the future (of a predictive nature);

• It is based on structured surveys and uses information coming from the responses;

• The choice, motivation and monitoring of the panel participants is critical and sensitive;

• There is no minimum or maximum number of components of the panel;

• The choice of the panel used in an exploratory research may be intentional, probabilistic (with a

random factor in the choice) or a combination of both.

• The diversity of the participants should be taken into account and explained

• The participation is characterized by the guarantee of anonymity and by the fact that the

participants do not talk with each other during the answering process;

• In the second, and in an eventual third round of the method, it may or may not be kept be same

number of participants.

Sourc

e: Alv

are

nga, Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007),

adapt.

17/11/2015

22


THE DELPHI METHOD

QUESTIONNAIRE

• The core questionnaire of the Delphi is structured with foresight-related

questions;

• The questionnaire is the centerpiece in the preparation of a Delphi, and it may

be structured as a "scoreboard" of the whole process.

Sourc

e: Alv

are

nga, Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007),

adapt.


Period in which the event

will occur

Ro

un

d o

fth

eq

ue

sti

on

na

ire

Nr

of

an

sw

ers

Ex

pe

rtis

e le

ve

l o

f th

e

res

po

nd

en

t (%

)

To

pic

/ e

ve

nt

imp

ort

an

ce

Ex

pe

cte

de

ffe

ct

(%)

Rela

tive

po

sit

ion

(o

f th

e

co

un

try,

org

an

iza

tio

n,

...)

Me

as

ure

s t

o b

e t

ak

en

(b

y t

he

co

un

try,

org

an

iza

tio

n,

....

)

Topic /

statement

number

Topic / statement description

Statement1

Statement2

StatementN

...

2016 2020 2025 2030 2035

Illustration of a Delphi "scoreboard"

Sourc

e:

Alv

are

nga,

Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária,

2007;

adapt.

fro

mN

ISTEP,

2001;

EuRenD

el, F

inal Report

2004,

adapt.

17/11/2015

23


FORMULATION OF DELPHI STATEMENTS

Clear and concise expression of the event. Short sentence (20-30 words), unambiguous and

reducing the possibility of multiple interpretations. Direct expressions;

Avoid including two or more questions in a topic or statement;

It can be used a small panel to assist in the formulation of the questions and, if appropriate, in the

typification of the answers;

The questions to include in a Delphi can be very varied but must involve judgments;

Different types of questions may require different types of experts;

When we are dealing with questions relating to the values of independent variables used in

quantitative simulation models, a consensus may not be required (or useful).

THE DELPHI METHOD

Sourc

es:

Lin

stone, Turo

ff(1

975);

Popper

(2006);

Alv

are

nga,

Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007)


An old silent pond...

A frog jumps into the pond,

splash! Silence again.

Bashô Matsuo

17/11/2015

24


Consistent (uniform) use of language. The Japanese Delphi formed the basis for standardizing

the terminology used. Some examples:

• Elucidation: scientifically and theoretically identify principles or phenomena;

• Development: to attain a specific technological goal or complete a prototype;

• Practical use: first practical use of an innovative product or service;

• Widespread use: significant use or market penetration of a product or service.

Where possible, use of quantitative representations is encouraged. Examples:

• 50% of vehicles are electric in Portugal;

• 70% of the electricity is generated from renewable sources in the EU.

THE DELPHI METHOD

Sourc

es:

Popper

(2006);

Alv

are

nga,

Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007),

adapt.



Examples of statements of the UK Transport Delphi

(subsector: Air Traffic Systems)

THE DELPHI METHOD

Sourc

es:

PREST:

Case

Stu

dy

1:

Exp

lora

tory

–U

K T

ransp

ort

Delp

hi; A

lvare

nga,

Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária,

2007

• Widespread use of large (>300 seats) subsonic aircraft which are quiet enough to take off and land at

night from airports in populated areas;

• International development of new air traffic management methods, technologies and standards to

greatly increase safely the throughput capacity of European airspace;

• Commercial introduction of a quiet form of air transport for passengers or freight which does not

require large scale airports or ground based facilities;

• The direct operating cost per passenger aircraft is halved by measures which increase aircraft

productivity and reduce aircraft first cost, and the cost of fuel, maintenance and crew;

In this case, these and other statements included in the project were then analyzed by experts who had to, for each of the statements, rank their own

level of knowledge of the subject (“expert”, “knowledgeable”, “familiar”, “casually acquainted” or “unfamiliar”), predict the period in which the event /

development would occur ("before 2010", "between 2010 and 2019", "2020 or beyond" or "never"), analyze the impact on wealth creation (“highly

beneficial”, “beneficial”, “neutral” or “harmful”) and quality of life (“highly beneficial”, “beneficial”, “neutral” or “harmful”), the need for collaboration

(“none”; “within UK”; “with EU” or “global”), and to provide their view on any limitations on its occurrence in the UK (hypotheses available: “social /

ethical acceptability”; “technological feasibility”; “industrial / commercial capability”; “lack of funding”; “economical viability”; “regulatory / policy /

standards”; and “educational / skill base”).


17/11/2015

25


EXAMPLE 1 – UK TRANSPORT DELPHI SCOREBOARD


EXAMPLE 2

JAPAN - TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT SURVEYS

(NISTEP)

17/11/2015

26


Ano de Implementação N.º de Domínios Tecnológicos

N.º de Tópicos

Horizonte temporal

Respostas efectivas

1º Questionário 1970-1971 5 644 1971-2000 2482

2º Questionário 1976 7 656 1976-2005 1316

3º Questionário 1981-1982 13 800 1981-2010 1727

4º Questionário 1986 17 1071 1986-2015 2007

5º Questionário 1991 16 1149 1991-2020 2385

6º Questionário 1996 14 1072 1996-2025 3586

7º Questionário 2000 16 1065 2001-2030

Alterações na Cobertura dos Questionários de Prospectiva

Tecnológica (NISTEP) no Japão

Seya, 2000.

Scoreboard of the 7th Technology Foresight Survey - NISTEP

Source: NISTEP, 2001.

17/11/2015

27


Interpretation of graphs relating to the period of expected realization

Source: NISTEP, 2001.


EXAMPLE 3THE “EurEnDel”

PROJECTSourc

e:

EurE

nD

el, F

inal Report

2004

17/11/2015

28


Research

focus

Brainstorming: what will be the

main drivers of future energy

demand in Europe - 2030

15 “problem fields”

Formulation of possible drivers

for each “problema field”

(literature review)

Cross impact analysis:

identification of drivers of

change

Proposal of Delphi questionnaire: statements definition

Analysis of Foresight and

Delphi Surveys

Technological trends and

trajectories

THE “EURENDEL” PROJECTWORK SCHEME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DELPHI STATEMENTS

Sourc

e:

Alv

are

nga,

Carv

alh

o a

nd

Esc

ária

(2007) –

ela

bora

ted

base

don

EurE

nD

el, F

inal Report

(2004),

adapt.

1. Future Energy Demand . increase vs.

efficiency gains

2. Transport and mobility

3. Spatial movements

4. Grid development

5. Renewables’ fate

6. Carrier fuels and storage technologies

7. Hydrocarbon Bottleneck

8. Nuclear power

9. Power play in the energy market

10. Energy price and taxes

11. Future social relations

12. The future of work

13. Demographic trends

14. Technological progress

15. Environmental Restraints and

Objectives


up2you

DELPHI METHOD

» elaborate 2 statements (in groups) and

bring them to next week’s practical class(focus of the exercise: “the future of manufacturing)

17/11/2015

29


TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING


”A Roadmap is an extended look at the future for a chosen field of enquiry composed from the

collective knowledge and imagination of the brightest drivers of change in that field.

Roadmaps communicate visions, attract resources from business and government, stimulate

investigations and monitor progress. They become the inventory of possibilities for a particular

field…”

Robert GALVIN, Chairman and CEO of Motorola, “Science Roadmaps”, Science, Vol.280, p. 803, May 8 1998

TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING

17/11/2015

30


“Technology roadmapping is a flexible technique that is widely used within

industry to support strategic and long-range planning.

The approach provides a structured (and often graphical) means for exploring and

communicating the relationships between evolving and developing markets,

products and technologies over time.

It is proposed that the roadmapping technique can help companies survive in

turbulent environments by providing a focus for scanning the environment and a

means of tracking the performance of individual, including potentially disruptive,

technologies.

Technology roadmaps are deceptively simple in terms of format, but their

development poses significant challenges. In particular the scope is generally

broad, covering a number of complex conceptual and human interactions.”

(Phaal, Farrukh, Probert, 2004)


Elements of a Roadmap

Nodes and connections...

... ... with quantitative or qualitative attributes.

Sourc

e: S

ari

tas, 2006

17/11/2015

31


Roadmaps formats

One picture explains

more than 1000

words

Sourc

e: S

ari

tas, 2006


Investment in low carbon technologies in the EU 27: the Technology Roadmap

Sou

rce:

Eu

rop

ean

Co

mis

sio

n, S

ET P

lan

–A

Tec

hn

olo

gyR

oad

map

, 200

9

- - .

17/11/2015

32


Sourc

e: P

haal, F

arr

ukh, P

robert

, 2004

TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING: FUNCTIONS AND FORMATS


Scenarios

Creativity and

Innovation

Scanning and

Sensing “Factors”

Scanning and Sensing “Actors”

StakeholderAnalysis

RolePlays

Strategic Groups

IdeasCombat

Actors’ Game

WarGames

17/11/2015

33


STRATEGIC GROUPS


STRATEGIC GROUPS

Definition

Group of companies in an industry following the same strategy or a similar strategy along the strategic dimensions (Porter, 1980, p.129).

Key historical references: Hunt, M. (1972) "Competition in the Major Home Appliance Industry", doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1972.Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, 1980.

17/11/2015

34


Handicraft / local

Flexibilized

No definedstrategy

Cost / Qualitystrategies

Differentiationstrategies:

product

Differentiationstrategies:- concept

- distribution

Massified

Focused(Niche)

S

U

P

P

L

Y

STRATEGY

Structural and

decorative

Structural and floors

Decorative

Horeca

Floors

Structural,

Floors

Utilitarian

Floors

Utilitarian,

and

decorative

Sanitary

Technical

and

refractory

Floors

Utilitarian

and

decorative

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ceramics industry in Portugal Strategic Groups

Sourc

e: In

ofo

r, 2

000.


1

24

3

5

6

7

Ceramics industry in Portugal Strategic Groups – Scenario "Network Ceramics"

7

Handicraft / local

Flexibilized

Massified

Focused(Niche)

S

U

P

P

L

Y

No definedstrategy



product


- distribution

STRATEGY

Structural,

Floors

Utilitarian

Technical

and

refractory

Floors

Utilitarian

and

decorative

Structural and

decorative


Decorative

Horeca

Floors

Floors

Utilitarian,

and

decorative

Sanitary

Sourc

e: In

ofo

r, 2

000.

17/11/2015

35


1

24

Ceramics industry in Portugal Strategic Groups – Scenario "Weak Strategic Movements"

3

5

6

7

Handicraft / local

Flexibilized

Massified

Focused(Niche)

S

U

P

P

L

Y

No definedstrategy



product


- distribution

STRATEGY

Structural,

Floors

Utilitarian

Technical

and

refractory

Floors

Utilitarian

and

decorative

Structural and

decorative


Decorative

Horeca

Floors

Floors

Utilitarian,

and

decorative

Sanitary

Sourc

e: In

ofo

r, 2

000.


MACTOR

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTOR’S GAME

17/11/2015

36


» Méthode ACTeurs, Objectifs, Rapports de force» Método ACTores, Objetivos, Relações de Força

(MACTOR)


The MACTOR Method

Aim

The MACTOR method of analyzing actors' games seeks to gauge the balance of power between actors and study their convergences and divergences

when faced with a certain number of associated stakes and objectives.

By means of this analysis, the MACTOR method aims to assist in making decisions so that actors can implement their alliances and conflicts policies.

Description of the method

The MACTOR method comprises seven phases:

• Phase 1 : Constructing the table of actors' strategies

The construction of this table involves the actors who control the key variables generated from the structural analysis. The interaction of these driving

force actors explains the evolution of the variables ordered. The ideal number of actors is between 10 and 20.

The information gathered about the actors is set out in the following way:

•First, an identity card for all actors is made : their objectives, goals, projects under way and maturing (preferences), their motivations, constraints and

internal means of action (coherence), their past strategic behaviour (attitude);

•Second, the means of action that actors have at their disposal to use on others to achieve their objectives is examined.

Sourc

e: htt

p:/

/en.lapro

spective.f

r/, consult. 2015

17/11/2015

37


The MACTOR Method

• Phase 2 : Identifying strategic stakes and associated objectives

The meeting of actors according to their goals, projects and means of action brings out a certain number of strategic stakes on which actors have

convergent or divergent aims.

• Phase 3 : Positioning the actors in relation to objectives and identifying convergences and divergences (simple position)

During this phase, the attitude of each actor in respect to each objective must be described in a actors x objectives matrix by indicating agreement (+1),

disagreement (-1) or neutrality (0).

In order to compile a list of sets of possible alliances and conflicts, the MACTOR method specifies the number and objectives over which the actors, in

pairs, converge or diverge.

First, two complete diagrams of convergences followed by possible divergences are made. They enable one to visualize the groups of actors that have a

convergence of interest, to assess the degree of apparent freedom, to identify those actors who are potentially the most threatened and to analyze the

stability of the system. The following diagram therefore illustrates the absence of common objectives between the Paris Airport, for example, and its

administrator, the State.

• Phase 4 : Ranking the objectives for each actor (valued positions)

The previously constructed diagrams remain fairly elementary since they take into account only the number of convergences and divergences of

objectives between actors. To bring the model nearer to reality, one must also take into account the hierarchy of objectives for each actor. The intensity

of each actor's positioning is thus evaluated using a specific scale.

• Phase 5 : Evaluating the balance of power between actors

A matrix of direct influences between actors is constructed using a strategic table of actors by analysing each actor's means of action. Balance of power

is calculated by the MACTOR software package, taking both direct and indirect means of action into account, e.g., an actor being able to have an

influence on another through a third person.

An influence-dependence plan of the actors is then made. Analysis of the balance of power between actors represents the strengths and weaknesses of

each actor, their blocking possibilities, etc.

Sourc

e: htt

p:/

/en.lapro

spective.f

r/, consult. 2015


The MACTOR Method

• Phase 6 : Incorporating the balance of power into the analysis of convergences and divergences between actors

To say that an actor has twice as much weight as another in overall balance of power implicitly gives double weight to his/her involvement in the

objectives that interest him/her. Indeed the goal of this stage consists in incorporating all the actors balance of power into the intensity of their positioning

in relation to the objectives.

New diagrams of possible convergences and divergences between all actors can thus be obtained. The comparison between the series of diagrams

enables one to observe how potential alliances and conflicts become deformed by taking account of the hierarchy of objectives and the balance of power

among actors.

• Phase 7 : Formulating strategic recommendations and key questions for the future

The MACTOR method brings to light the interplay of potential alliances and conflicts among actors and in this way helps formulating key questions for

prospective and strategic recommendations. For example, the method helps to question the evolution of the relationships between actors, the

emergence and disappearance of actors, role changes, etc...

Usefulness and limitations

One advantage of the MACTOR method is that it works for a wide range of strategies involving several actors using a series of stakes and associated

objectives. In this, it is different from research coming from game theory which often results in the construction of models which can be applied but are

not applicable. Nevertheless, significant progress may be made through a closer relationship between the concepts of game theory and the MACTOR

method.

The MACTOR method contains a certain number of limitations concerning the gathering of necessary information. A certain reticence on the part of the

actors may be observed when they are asked to reveal their strategic projects and external means of action. There is the insurmountable element of

confidentiality (one can nevertheless cross-check the data). Furthermore, representing an actor game on the basis of this method presupposes

consistent behaviour on the part of each actor in relation to the outcome, which is often contradicted in reality. In terms of tools, MACTOR software

currently requires only two tables of data from which several pages of result listing and diagrams can be obtained. Yet, this is the main danger that lies in

wait for MACTOR’s users seduced, even carried away by the tide of results and comments generated, they forget that everything depends on the quality

of the input data as well as the ability to pick out the most relevant results.

Sourc

e: htt

p:/

/en.lapro

spective.f

r/, consult. 2015

17/11/2015

38


MACTOR

Actors strategy table (projects and means of action) » power relations and positions;

Support / opposition to certain scenarios (» MORPHOL);

MACTOR «» MORPHOL(definition of the questions “to be asked" to the actors » definition of the resulting configurations of the key variables).

La Prospective ToolsAn Integrated and Modular Method


MACTOR SOFTWARE – A QUICK GUIDED TOUR

(MACTOR FILE available in fénix - “save link as…” » open MACTOR » open file)

17/11/2015

39


STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS


Stakeholders

Parties whose interests are affected, positively or

negatively, by the implementation of the project.

They are able to influence, positively or

negatively, the implementation of the project

17/11/2015

40


Stakeholders positioning

Mitchell e

t al.

(1997),

quot.

in K

eenan

& S

arita

s,

2006


Asia Consumer

s

Lagger

s

Major

carriers

Squea

ky

wheels Employe

rs

Europe

Content

providers Venture

capitalists

Early

adopters

Disabled

access

groups

Defence/natio

nal security Regulat

ors Medi

a

United

States Standards

bodies

Employee

s

National

Governm

ent

Aged

Criminal

element

Environmen

t lobby

Law

enforceme

nt

Consumer

representativ

e groups

Trade

unions

Yout

h

Service

aggregat

ors

Parliament

Vendors

Broadcaster

s

Research

institution

s

Niche

players

(carrier) Followers

2004a L e s s s u b j e c t t o p r e s s u r e f r o m o t h e r s S u b j e c t t o p r e s s u r e f r o m o t h e r s

Infl

ue

nti

al

Le

ss

In

flu

en

tia

l

Luddit

es

ACA,

2004,

adapt.


Dominant Actors Relay Actors

Autonomous ActorsDominated Actors

17/11/2015

41


Asia Consumer

s

Lagger

s

Major

carriers

Squea

ky

wheels Employe

rs

Europe

Content

providers Venture

capitalists

Early

adopters

Disabled

access

groups

Defence/natio

nal security Regulat

ors Medi

a

United

States Standards

bodies

Employee

s

National

Governm

ent

Aged

Criminal

element

Environmen

t lobby

Law

enforceme

nt

Consumer

representativ

e groups

Trade

unions

Yout

h

Service

aggregat

ors

Parliament

Vendors

Broadcaster

s

Research

institution

s

Niche

players

(carrier) Followers

2004a L e s s s u b j e c t t o p r e s s u r e f r o m o t h e r s S u b j e c t t o p r e s s u r e f r o m o t h e r s

In

flu

en

tia

l

Le

ss

In

flu

en

tia

l

Luddit

es


Sourc

e:

AC

A, 2004


Communities

of interest

Brands

Terrorists

Major

carriers

Europe

Content

providers

Venture

capitalists

Disabled

access groups

Defence/national

security

Broadcasters

Media

United

States

National

government

Aged

Parliament

Virtual

entities

Environment

lobby

Virtual

identities

Trade

unions

Research

institutions

Virtual

regulations

Self regulation

Employers

Consumers

Pacific

Global

Business

Tech savvy

Asia

regional

alliances

Opt outs

Niche

Business

Peer-to-peer

network

Middle

aged

International

fora

Certifiers

Communications

service providers

Information

services agents

Regulators

Standards

bodies

Utilities

Youth

Legal

systems

Vendors

Devices

Industry

representative

organisations

Service

aggregators

2020a L e ss subj e ct t o pr e ssur e f r o m ot he r s Subj e ct t o pr e ssur e fr om ot he r s

In

flu

en

tia

l

Le

ss

In

flu

en

tia

l


Sourc

e:

AC

A, 2004

17/11/2015

42


Virtual

identities

Brands

Terrorists

Major

carriers

Squeaky

wheels

Vendors

Europe

Content

providers

Venture

capitalists

Early

adopters

Disabled

access groups

Defence/national

security Broadcasters

Media

United

States Standard

s bodies

National

government

Youth/Aged

Service

aggregators

Parliament

Asia

Virtual

entities

Private

Media

Criminal

element Environment

lobby

Law

enforcement

Consumer

representative

groups

Trade

unions

Research

institutions

Niche players

(carrier)

Laggers

Employees

Employers

Consumers Followers

2004b L e ss subj e ct t o pr e ssur e f r o m ot he r s Subj e ct t o pr e ssur e fr om ot he r s

In

flu

en

tia

l

Le

ss

In

flu

en

tia

l

Luddites


Sourc

e:

AC

A, 2004


Brands

Terrorists Major carriers

Europe

Content

providers

Venture

capitalists

Disabled

access groups

Broadcasters

(FTA)

Media

United

States

National

government

Aged Parliament

Environment

lobby

Research

institutions

Virtual

regulations

Self regulation

Pacific

Consumers

Generation Y

Global

Business Tech savvy

Private

media

Defence/national

security

Niche

Business

Non-influential

communities

of interest

International

fora

Certifiers Communications

service providers

Information

services agents

Regulators

Standards

bodies

Utilities

New Youth

Legal

systems

Vendors

Devices

Industry

representative

organisations

Service

aggregators

Asia

Trade

unions

Peer-to-peer

network

Opt outs

Employees

Employers

Regional

alliances

2020b L e ss sub j e ct t o pr e ssur e f r o m o t he r s Subj e ct t o pr e ssur e f r o m o t he r s

In

flu

en

tia

l

Le

ss

In

flu

en

tia

l


Sourc

e:

AC

A, 2004

17/11/2015

43


References

• Wageningen University and Research Centre, International Centre for Integrated assessment

& Sustainable development, Multi-stakeholder Processes resource Portal, MSP Resource

Portal, http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/.

• Vision 20/20: Communications Futures - Implications for Regulation, Final Report, Australian

Government – Australian Communications Authority; International Road Test 2004,

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib306/vision%202020%20final%20report.pdf.



SCENARIOS (Planning and Thinking)

Scenarios (T13)

Scanningand

Sensing“Factors”

Creativityand

Innovation

Scanningand

Sensing“Actors”

http://www.wageningenportals.nl/msp/

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib306/vision 2020 final report.pdf

17/11/2015

44


MAIN “SCHOOLS” AND SCENARIOS METHODS

• The Intuitive-Logics School (T13 + P04)

• Michael Porter’s Industry Scenarios (T13)

• The Probabilistic Modified Trends School (T13)

• La Prospective ( T12 + T13 + T14 + L05)


STRATEGIC

FORESIGHTDesign

Organization

Scanning

Interpretation

Anticipation

Visioning

Planning

Action

Adapte

d f

rom

Hin

es,

Bis

hop,

2006

•Attitudes towards the future

• Audience (client(s); Decision

makers, stakeholders, ...)

• Rationales and objectives

• Focus and Time Horizon(s)

• Team and Experts

• Work Environment

•Structure and System

• Retrospective

• Actors vs Factors

• Scanning the

Environment

• Mobilization

(colleagues and

outsiders)

• Drivers and Uncertainties

• Diverge - Generate ideas

• Converge - Rank ideas

• Alternative Futures

• Identify Implications

• Challenge Mental Models

• Think in a Visionary Way

• Appropriation

• Think Strategically

• Develop Strategic Options

• Report results

• Agenda for Action

• Intelligence and Monitoring System

• "Institutionalize" Strategic Thinking

scenario analysis - ulisboa analysis (methodological ... •environmental scanning ... the...

Documents