19.02, Mulder — From forecasting to backcasting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

19.02, Mulder — From forecasting to backcasting

on

  • 2,161 views

SD Course in Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, 12-23 Febraury 2006

SD Course in Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, 12-23 Febraury 2006

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,161
Views on SlideShare
2,148
Embed Views
13

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
68
Comments
0

3 Embeds 13

http://www.slideshare.net 8
http://wdc.org.ua 4
http://www.wdc.org.ua 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    19.02, Mulder — From forecasting to backcasting 19.02, Mulder — From forecasting to backcasting Presentation Transcript

    • From forecasting to Backcasting: Developing Shared Future Visions for Sustainable Development February 21, 2007 1 Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management
    • Why forecasting? • Improves quality of debate? • Suspect: technocracy? • Control dilemma - the earlier a debate takes place, the more options there are for technological steering entrenchment February 21, 2007 2
    • Control dilemma for new technology Control dilemma with forecasting of impacts? February 21, 2007 3
    • Forecasting possible? • Fundamental problem: non-linearities • Problem of Induction • Historic empiric correlations are insufficient if there is no clear causal relationsship February 21, 2007 4
    • EXAMPLE OF A NON LINEAR PHENOMENON Who is the first to buy a telephone? Some products become more attractive as others buy similar products: especially high-tech products: (computer, fax, phone, car, video) February 21, 2007 5
    • Foresight instead of forecasting, but how? * Monitoring, trend watching * ’historic’ methods * ’expert’ methods * experiments * modelling February 21, 2007 6
    • Monitoring study of - professional journals - patents/patent trends searches - meetings - Web searches - annual reports/media February 21, 2007 7
    • ‘historic’ methods presupposition: historic parallels historic analogy diffusion curves S-curves February 21, 2007 8
    • February 21, 2007 9
    • Extrapolations • Based on hypotheses such as • Linear growth • S-curve • Envelope curve • Fisher-Prey, Gompertz diffusion models February 21, 2007 10
    • February 21, 2007 11
    • Expert judgment • If there are no reference points for extrapolation • To check a quantitative forecast February 21, 2007 12
    • experts • Are always biased • Positive in regard to technology in general IEEE onderzoek • Positive in regard to the area of expertise (nuclear fusion, self selection) The social structure of disciplines prohibits open communication regarding the future (interdependencies, prejudices, publication priorities) February 21, 2007 13
    • Delphi method Delphi: • survey among experts in several rounds • anonymous feed back of arguments & estimates • Revision of judgments • Consensus in 3-4 rounds Criticism: • group bias remains • strategic behavior by mutual contact • Only for experts within a discipline February 21, 2007 14
    • Experiences Delphi • Used since 1959 • Good results, • Not just forecasting: it is also intervention in a discipline February 21, 2007 15
    • Example: External propulsion of vehicles - 50 experts (global, 50% return, variatie) • 14 technologies • 4 technologies were promising • Many experts changed their view during Delphi process February 21, 2007 16
    • Failed Forecasts • Misjudgement of • Speed of Technological change: (1950s, flying cars) • expert assessment of technologies (eg the forecast regarding superiority of synthetics, 1970) • citizens judgments (nuclear power) • Public policy (glass recycling) February 21, 2007 17
    • Scenarios: To paint the various possible and consistent futures in a complex situation: -not: emergency scenarios -but: credible stories that stimulate the creativeness of people in thinking of future threats and opportunities - Robust options - cheap precautions February 21, 2007 18
    • During stable times, the mental model of a successful decision maker and unfol-ding reality match... In times of rapid change and increased complexity, how-ever, the manager's mental model beco-mes a dangerously mixed bag: rich detail and understanding can coexist with dubi-ous assumptions .. and illusory projec-tions (Wack, 1985) February 21, 2007 19
    • ingredients - technology - economy - demographics - culture - regulation - the (global) environment - competitors actions February 21, 2007 20
    • Scenario Results: Stimulating creative discussion - in all scenario's, the corporation meets its goals. - in all scenario's, the corporation does not meet its goals. - in a surprise free scenario, the corporation meets its goal, but not in other scenarios. - in a surprise free scenario the corporation does not meet its goals, in alternative scenarios, it does. February 21, 2007 21
    • Backcasting: Looking back from the future to design actions now • Involve various stakeholders • Start with needs, not with technology • Analyze the need, what do stakeholders really want? • Build consensus February 21, 2007 22
    • Backcasting: from vision to action Intermediate steps E Future- C oriëntation ing O Backcast E F F g I stin C k ca I B ac E N C Y 2000 TIME 2050 February 21, 2007 23
    • Why Backcasting? • Clear future visions have a strong guiding power: Man on the Moon, • Defining and clarifying an attractive sustainable future • It forces to specify norms and values • Alternative for traditional forecasting • Fit for ‘wicked problems’ • Experiences: • The Natural Step • Netherlands: Sustainable Technology Development program February 21, 2007 24
    • Backcasting: characteristics • From future vision to action by design and analysis • Organize the process carefully, the process is important, • Facilitate learning of participants • Facilitate the social embedding of the results February 21, 2007 25
    • Stakeholder Involvement INDUSTRY SCIENCE GOVERNMENT AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SOCIETAL ORGANISATIONS EDUCATION February 21, 2007 26
    • Backcasting in 5 steps Step 1 Strategic Problem orientation Analysis Step 2 Prepare a vision of a desirable future Vision Step 3 Back-casting What do we need to make this come true? Step 4 Further elaboration, detailing Step 5 Implementation, Policy implications, organizing embedding & follow-up February 21, 2007 27
    • Toolkit for Backcasting: 4 kinds of methods • Participation and interaction • workshops, visioning, creativity stimulation, brain storms • Design- and scenario-methods: modeling, forecasting • Analysis- and modeling-methods • LCA, effect analysis, stakeholder analysis • Management-methods for Process-, Project-, and Network management February 21, 2007 28
    • Step 1 Strategic Problem orientation • Which needs to fulfill? • Trends, and possible changes that are relevant for this need? • What is the problem, how is this problem perceived by various groups? • What are the unsustainabilities and what are the causes? • Who are the stakeholders? • What are potentially directions to seek solutions? Methods • Actor/Stakeholder analysis, socio-technical map • Interactive methods (interviews, workshops, etc) February 21, 2007 29
    • Example: Soy Fodder - pigs – meat products The Netherlands is importing large amounts of Soy fodder from Brazil, where it is often grown in areas that were cleared from tropical rainforest. The soy fodder is used to feed pigs in a specific region. Pigs manure creates local ammonia contamination. The pigs (or the pigs meat) is often transported to Italy. Some of the meat is afterwards returned as real ‘Parma Ham’. The proteins that are actually consumed only account for a few percent of the plant proteins in soy fodder. February 21, 2007 30
    • Strategic Problem Orientation • What is the need? • What are the current unsustainabilities? • What will probably be stakeholders? February 21, 2007 31
    • Step 2 Prepare a desirable future • Terms of Reference? • What socio/technical options are available? • Are the unsustainabilities solved? • Which technology is needed? • How does it affect culture and structure of society? • What are important trends, and events? • Could we make the future vision even more sustainable? Methods • workshops • Creativity stimulation, designing • Consensus formation • Illustrations February 21, 2007 32
    • Step 3 Back-casting What do we need? • Which changes are needed to make the future vision come true (technologic, cultural, organization/structure)? • Who can implement the changes. How could the changes be made attractive for these actors? • Could we define stepping stones? Methods • Analysis and modeling February 21, 2007 33
    • Step 4 Elaboration, analysis • A possible design of a socio-technical system • Effects of these systems for various stakeholders? • What are drivers, barriers? • What need to be in follow-up (policy, research, development, publicity)? Methods • Methods for Environmental Impact Analysis, consumer studies, economic analysis of elements of system • Technology Assessment methods (checklist, cost/benefit, etc) February 21, 2007 34
    • Step 5 Agenda, embedding & follow-up • What should be done to guarantee successful further activity after a backcasting project has been carried out? • How to embed specific projects and proposals? • Agreements on further process and conflict resolution. Methods • Communication • Management General • Project management, team building, communication • (process) evaluation February 21, 2007 35