Difference between revisions of "Scenario Quality Ranking"

From ScenarioThinking
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(DoZ4GP <a href="http://ebogsldcvjjq.com/">ebogsldcvjjq</a>, [url=http://japdksaqxsgb.com/]japdksaqxsgb[/url], [link=http://bzhnjbpppmrn.com/]bzhnjbpppmrn[/link], http://gryphofkvnhw.com/)
(eZDGd5 <a href="http://uavujqvokudt.com/">uavujqvokudt</a>, [url=http://efjdhglgvwtp.com/]efjdhglgvwtp[/url], [link=http://gpytvwheckqe.com/]gpytvwheckqe[/link], http://tozrjczlenim.com/)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Group 1'''<br>
eZDGd5 <a href="http://uavujqvokudt.com/">uavujqvokudt</a>, [url=http://efjdhglgvwtp.com/]efjdhglgvwtp[/url], [link=http://gpytvwheckqe.com/]gpytvwheckqe[/link], http://tozrjczlenim.com/
<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/

Revision as of 12:28, 8 March 2010

eZDGd5 <a href="http://uavujqvokudt.com/">uavujqvokudt</a>, [url=http://efjdhglgvwtp.com/]efjdhglgvwtp[/url], [link=http://gpytvwheckqe.com/]gpytvwheckqe[/link], http://tozrjczlenim.com/

Retrieved from "https://www.scenariothinking.org/index.php?title=Scenario_Quality_Ranking&oldid=82058"