The futures wheel is a graphical method for visualizing direct and indirect consequences of a change or development. It was created in 1971 to help organize thoughts about future trends and impacts in a structured way. To create a futures wheel, an issue is defined and an event selected. Participants then identify direct, second-order, and third-order consequences in successive steps to map interrelationships and uncover unintended impacts. While it adds rigor over linear thinking, futures wheels risk becoming too complex and reflecting the biases of its creators without a diverse set of perspectives.

1. Consequence Wheel
Reporter: Jason C. Duria BEEd III-A

2. The Futures wheel is a
method for graphical
visualization of direct and indirect
future consequences of a
particular change or
development. It was invented by
Jerome C. Glenn in 1971, when
he was a student at the Antioch
Graduate School of Education
(now Antioch University New

4. Usage
The Futures wheel is usually used to
organize thoughts about a future
development or trend. Possible impacts
can be collected and put down in a
structured way. The use of interconnecting
lines makes it possible to visualize
interrelationships of the causes and
resulting changes. Futures wheels can
assist in developing multi-concepts about
possible future development by offering a
futures-conscious perspective and aiding
in group brainstorming.

5. How to do it?

6. The first step in creating a
future wheel is to select and
refine the issue statement that
will be evaluated. This is not
the specific change or event to
be mapped, but rather the
specific context of that change.
Step 1 – Define Issue

8. Burning
plastic

9. Step 2 – Identify Event(s)
Select one or more specific
trends, events, or actions you
wish to evaluate with a Futures
Wheel. Each specific trend,
event, or action would get its
own wheel.

10. Step 3 – Gather Appropriate
Participants
The process can be executed by a
single individual, Futures Wheels are
best created by a group so that
multiple perspectives and multiple
areas of expertise are
represented. Once you know what
the exact event or trend is that you
are going to investigate, the next step
is to gather the appropriate
participants to help with the creation
of the Futures Wheel.

11. Step 4 – Identify Direct
Consequences
The next step in the process is to
brainstorm / identify only the DIRECT (or
1st-order) consequences of the event or
trend being evaluated. Do not try to
identify secondary (or 2nd-order)
consequences of direct consequences at
this time, but rather keep the group
focused on thinking laterally about the
issue, rather than linearly.

12. Burnin
g
plastic

13. Step 5 – Identify Second-Order
Consequences
Once you identified all of the
direct consequences, the next
step is start with a single direct
consequence and identify any its
direct consequences. These are
dependent consequences and are
essentially the consequences of
the consequence.

14. Burnin
g
plastic

15. Step 6 – Identify Third-Order
(and further) Impacts
The next step is to continue the
process, but this time working with a
single 2nd-order consequence and
identifying any of its direct
consequences.

17. Advantages
 The Futures Wheel technique …“Adds
rigor by helping people think through
how an issue may unfold or the
consequences of an event or strategy in
a thorough fashion. Avoids one-
dimensional, linear thinking. Helps move
the mind from linear, hierarchical and
simplistic thinking to more network-
oriented, organic and complex
thinking. Helps identify relationships and
unintended consequences.”

18. Disadvantages
 A completed Futures Wheel
essentially serves as a Rorschach test
of the authoring group or the
organization that were involved in its
creation because the members of the
group are most likely to identify
impacts highlighting areas of
concern. This bias is a result of the
process and is best mitigated by
having participants with a wide-range
of concerns, responsibilities, and
expertise.

19.  “While the Futures Wheel method is
easily grasped by participants, an
undisciplined approach can result in
what is referred to as “intellectual
spaghetti” i.e. the generation of a
myriad of interactions that become so
complex that they tend to complicate
and confuse the implications of the
trend.

20.  This method is limited to the
knowledge of the participants and
while information overload can occur,
confining analysis to the primary,
secondary and tertiary rings, allows for
the visualization of a vast amount of
qualitative information that has both
depth and contextual richness.”