Scenario Quality Ranking

Group 1
Hi Mates, I would suggest we individually write some comments to previous scenarios and discuss by using wiki. Then, if necessary, we can plan to get together in school... What do you think??? Regards, Katsushi

<Rank High> Internet Commerce: free internet service provision 2003 (1996)

Clear explanation in Trend and Matrix makes Scenario convincing.

<Rank Middle> Health: health in 2010 (1996)

Interesting contents.But relationship between driving forces and scenarios is vague to me...

<Rank Low> Telecommunications: telcoms 2003 (1996)

The axis for scenarios seems unreflected...

Group 2
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 Distance Education in 2010

   Reasons: Easy to read, nice framework, it goes to the point

Branding in 2005 Workspace in 2010 Food Retailing in 2006

   Reasons: Focused on Alberthein in Netherlands too narrow, Difficult to read, Not very revolutionary ideas

Electronic Cash in 2010 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 4 - "Group For Waikiki"

Dear fellow strategists -- here are our picks:

BEST IN CLASS Distance Education 2011 (1996): 36 out of 40

WORST IN CLASS Health in 2010 (1996): 15 out of 40

The criteria and process we used for evaluating the scenarios were:

Rating scale

5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Acceptable, 2 = Meets minimum requirements 1 = Insufficient

Content Analysis

1. Relevant use and critique of theory, academic references, literature, traditional beliefs

1. Analysis of the issue with personal insight

1. Discussion and logical development of arguments

1. Quality of the section about scenarios

1. Other options/new directions for thought for the public

1. Synthesis of material

Design & Gestalt

1. Aesthetics & Consistency: Aesthetics, colors, size & font of text, choice of pictures, drawings, look & feel

1. User friendliness: Use of a site map, working links, clear navigation directions

Best possible score: 40

scenarios_ranking_final.jpg

RATINGS OF 10 SAMPLE SCENARIOS

Spencer Rosen

1. Interpersonal Communication: 23 out of 40

1. Free Internet Service Provision 2003 (1996): 20 out of 40

Claudie Chaumette

1. Relationships 2020 (1997): 29 out of 40

1. Health in 2010 (1996): 15 out of 40

Lucia Nedelcu

1. Distance Education 2011 (1996): 36 out of 40

1. Internet Banking: 18 out of 40

Eser Torun

1. Crime 2015 (1997): 25 out of 40

1. Branding 2005 (1999): 19 out of 40

Mari Smith

1. Genetic Revolution

1. Leisure 2010 (1999)

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF RATINGS

Group 3
Dear scenario-thinkers,

please explore our way of thinking and our results!

Short introduction to our evaluation process:

1. Developing criteria catalogue for assessing scenarios: five process, three quality, three presentation criteria
2. Screening all scenarios
3. Chose 5 most recent ones (4 group scenarios, 1 class scenario) to analyze in depth
4. 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)
5. 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

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

Group 5
We are: Edo Avraham, Lars Eriksen, Kentaro Kodaka, Taro Honda, Daniel Perez Whitaker Why couldn't ANYONE post this link!

Group 6