Scenario Quality Ranking

Group 1

<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

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 4 - "Group For Waikiki"

Dear fellow strategists -- here are our picks from Daniel Erasmus' DTN site (go to Scenario Thinking/ Student Projects):

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

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

The eight criteria we used for evaluating the scenarios were:

Content Analysis

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

• Analysis of the issue with personal insight

• Discussion and logical development of arguments

• Quality of the section about scenarios

• Other options/new directions for thought for the public

• Synthesis of material

Design & Gestalt

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

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

Rating scale for each of the criterion

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

Total possible score: 40

RANKINGS OF 10 SAMPLE SCENARIOS, LISTED BEST TO LAST

1. Distance Education 2011 (1996): 36 out of 40 (rated by Lucia Nedelcu)

2. Genetic Revolution: 30 out of 40 (rated by Mari Smith)

3. Relationships 2020 (1997): 29 out of 40 (rated by Claudie Chaumette)

4. Crime 2015 (1997): 25 out of 40 (rated by Eser Torun)

5. Interpersonal Communication: 23 out of 40 (rated by Spencer Rosen)

6. Free Internet Service Provision 2003 (1996): 20 out of 40 (rated by Spencer Rosen)

7. Branding 2005 (1999): 19 out of 40 (rated by Eser Torun)

8. Leisure 2010 (1999): 19 out of 40 (rated by Mari Smith)

9. Internet Banking: 18 out of 40 (rated by Lucia Nedelcu)

10. Health in 2010 (1996): 15 out of 40 (rated by Claudie Chaumette)

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF RATINGS & WRITTEN REVIEW OF SCENARIOS

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!

Rank 2

telcoms 2003 (1996)

Pros: Well coverage on PEST. -Technology and industry insights such as extinction of AT&T / IP phone -Concentration of gorvernmental regulations which is the largest constrain to telecom companies Cons: -Should have been strucutured and mentioned step by step (ex. driving forces / uncertanties) -Should have researched more on IP phone services and its superiority so that conclusion may be different.

Rank 1

telecommunications 2015 (1997)

Pros: Well researched on PEST exhaustively Cons: -Should have been strucutured and mentioned step by step (ex. driving forces / uncertanties) -Less exhaustive coverage on PEST in scenario planning phase if seeing 2015, especially seamless services by mobile and ISP providers should have been mentioned.

Group 6