|
|
(565 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Group 1'''<br>
| | Vyugygduygsda ygsdbjbasdjhb asdhhasdghjasd hasdghsad http://www.zazzle.com/silverstowns#81320 mail order and viagra - viagra http://www.zazzle.com/gertenhauer#85901 pharmacy Ambien no prescrption - ambien http://www.zazzle.com/semerjan#94435 drug classification of tramadol - tramadol http://buycialis.yolasite.com#79255 cialis cost 20mg - cialis http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/none/buy-cialis-best-prices-1040299#78282 what does cialis cost - cialis http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/none/buy-viagra-best-prices-on-the-net-1040427#46777 viagra cheap viagra no prescription needed meds lo - viagra http://www.wikio.com/article/diet-pills-user-reviews-183420459#50874 not losing weight on phentermine - phentermine http://www.wikio.com/article/buy-cialis-compare-recommended-pharmacy-reviews-191761839#83323 cialis uk - cialis http://www.wikio.com/article/sildenafil-citrate-user-info-187315718#84848 order viagra over internet need no doctor - viagra http://www.wikio.com/article/tramadol-ultram-user-reviews-182981345#81957 tramadol no prescription injection - tramadol http://buycialis.yolasite.com/cialis-brand.php#73015 buy Cialis without a prescription or membership - cialis |
| <Rank High>
| |
| Internet Commerce:
| |
| free internet service provision 2003 (1996)
| |
| Good contents: Clear explanation in Trend and Matrix makes Scenario convincing.
| |
| Good presentation: Easy to follow, nice visual impression
| |
| | |
| <Rank Middle>
| |
| Health:
| |
| health in 2010 (1996)
| |
| OK contents: Interesting contents, but relationship between driving forces and scenarios is vague.
| |
| OK presentation: Easy to follow, but not so well visual impression
| |
| | |
| | |
| <Rank Middle>
| |
| Work and Organizations:
| |
| Organizations 2020 (1997)
| |
| OK contenst: The story is credible, but sometimes too complex and little techonoly implications
| |
| OK presentation: The prentation is easy to follow, could include some visuals
| |
| | |
| | |
| <Rank Low>
| |
| Industry sectors:
| |
| Leisure 2010 (1999)
| |
| OK contenst: The story is credible, but future can be a mixure of all scenarios
| |
| Not good presentation: Not easy to follow, not clear sequence of the project
| |
| | |
| | |
| <Rank Low>
| |
| Telecommunications:
| |
| telcoms 2003 (1996)
| |
| | |
| Not good contents: Overall story is not convincing. The axis for scenarios seems unreflected.
| |
| OK presentation: Easy to follow, but not so well visual impression
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| '''Group 2'''<br>
| |
| BEST
| |
| Human Relationships in 2015
| |
| :Reasons: Original, easy to understand, linkage between elements
| |
| Telecommunications in 2015
| |
| :Reasons: Well-researched, detailed, in places uncany in predicting future. Signposts were good. Crowded waters scenario especially strong.
| |
| Leisure in 2010
| |
| :Reasons: Well researched, organized and presented. | |
| Distance Education in 2010
| |
| :Reasons: Easy to read, nice framework, it goes to the point
| |
| Branding in 2005
| |
| :Reasons: easy to understand, takes into account not only marketing concepts
| |
| Workspace in 2010
| |
| :Reasons: some parts were really good, but others not. Overall, it doesn't look like an integrated document/proposal. No conclusions.
| |
| Food Retailing in 2006
| |
| :Reasons: Focused on Alberthein in Netherlands too narrow, Difficult to read, Not very revolutionary ideas | |
| Electronic Cash in 2010
| |
| :Reasons: Disorganized and not so clearly presented, there is no clear explanation how electronic cash can affect society.
| |
| Telecommunications in 2003
| |
| :Reasons: Not well thought out. Unclear. Basic assumptions left unstated. Research was very poor. Scenarios not believable--actors did things that were illogical given the scenario laid out.
| |
| Internet in 2005
| |
| :Reasons: Unoriginal, not forward looking enough, no linkage between elements, badly organized
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| '''Group 3'''<br>
| |
| Dear scenario-thinkers,
| |
| | |
| please explore our way of thinking and our results!
| |
| | |
| '''''Short introduction to our evaluation process:'''''
| |
| #Developing criteria catalogue for assessing scenarios: five process, three quality, three presentation criteria | |
| #Screening all scenarios
| |
| #Chose 5 most recent ones (4 group scenarios, 1 class scenario) to analyze in depth
| |
| #Everyone of group individually assessed these 5 scenarios according to the criteria catalogue (reasoning: everyone has same starting point for discussion, increase common understanding, learning experience of group larger)
| |
| #Merging the individual results and discussing the final ranking
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Criteria catalogue for assessing scenarios:'''''
| |
| *Process, quality and presentation (effectiveness, efficiency and presentation)
| |
| *Weighting 40% - 40% - 20% to emphasize content over lay-out
| |
| *Please also refer to the attached picture
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Ranking results'''''
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[Image:Group3-Ranking.png|thumb|Description]]
| |
| | |
| '''''Rank 1: Genetic revolution'''''
| |
| | |
| *'''Process:''' Introduction is present, good/deep structured assessment of driving forces, indicators and monitoring process missing
| |
| | |
| *'''Quality:''' very consistent in approach, detailed argumentation
| |
| | |
| *'''Presentation:''' good structure and creative presentation of the scenarios
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Rank 2: Leisure'''''
| |
| | |
| *'''Process:''' reflected on indicators and implications, chosen matrix easy to understand, causal relationship scheme missing
| |
| | |
| *'''Quality:''' no referencing present, consistent in approach, broad mindset
| |
| | |
| *'''Presentation:''' no logical structure, not attractive/boring coloring
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Rank 3: Interpersonal communication'''''
| |
| | |
| *'''Process:''' no focal issues, good causal scheme but no interpretation, indicators and monitoring process missing
| |
| | |
| *'''Quality:''' missing depth in scenarios, consistent however
| |
| | |
| *'''Presentation:''' well structured, nice layout but cold be more entertaining, no consistency in the language
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Rank 4: Childhood Freedom'''''
| |
| | |
| *'''Process:''' bad introduction, missing steps, over structured in depth of driving forces (image as a whole not present, confusing), choice of axes mysterious
| |
| | |
| *'''Quality:''' reasoning and in-depth analysis lacking, consistency good, good wrapping of ideas
| |
| | |
| *'''Presentation:''' original, logistics are hidden
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Rank 5: Information Society (Class project)'''''
| |
| | |
| *'''Process:''' no introduction, no focal issues, no reasoning behind thinking, no transparency, no causality
| |
| | |
| *'''Quality:''' no consistency, no sufficient depth of argumentation
| |
| | |
| *'''Presentation:''' no structure, no consistency in lay-out
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''''Lessons learned and take-away from this exercise'''''
| |
| | |
| *follow the right procedures and steps
| |
| *ensure clear links between the steps
| |
| *warning indicators + monitoring process have to be present
| |
| *transparency in reasoning
| |
| *goal: balance between structure & creativity
| |
| *balance between conciseness (focus/summary) and depth (and NOT volume)
| |
| *Define structure of presentation beforehand
| |
| *Properly select colors and layout for readability and usability
| |
| *'''The class presentation was the worst one due to lack of consistency and structure. It is therefore very important for the whole class that we have coordinating role to ensure a successful project'''
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| DoZ4GP <a href="http://ebogsldcvjjq.com/">ebogsldcvjjq</a>, [url=http://japdksaqxsgb.com/]japdksaqxsgb[/url], [link=http://bzhnjbpppmrn.com/]bzhnjbpppmrn[/link], http://gryphofkvnhw.com/
| |