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"

BEST

Distance Education 2011 (1996): 36 out of 40

WORST

Health in 2010 (1996): 15 out of 40

INDIVIDUAL RATINGS OF 10 SCENARIOS

Spencer Rosen

1) Interpersonal Communication: 23 out of 40

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

Claudie Chaumette

3) Relationships 2020 (1997): 29 out of 40

4) Health in 2010 (1996): 15 out of 40

Lucia Nedelcu

5) Distance Education 2011 (1996): 36 out of 40

6) Internet Banking: 18 out of 40

Eser Torun

7) Crime 2015 (1997): 25 out of 40

8) Branding 2005 (1999): 19 out of 40

Mari Smith

9) Genetic Revolution

10) 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, 3 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

Group 5

Group 6