Scenario Quality Ranking

Group 1
<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
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
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

DoZ4GP <a href="http://ebogsldcvjjq.com/">ebogsldcvjjq</a>, [url=http://japdksaqxsgb.com/]japdksaqxsgb[/url], [link=http://bzhnjbpppmrn.com/]bzhnjbpppmrn[/link], http://gryphofkvnhw.com/