Site Tools

EXPLORE
By Tag By Geographic focus By Time Horizon By Topic By Publication Year By Document Type Index of Tags
By Section Library Encyclopedia Futures Hub Users
Social Newsletter About Us Slack Linkedin Twitter
EDITORS
Learn to Edit User Guide Policies Playground
Contribute Tasks Board Library Additions Contributor Slack
Tools Recent Changes Media Manager Sitemap
ACCOUNT
RegisterLog In


Follow on

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
futures:defining_driver [2023/06/26 01:42] – created davidpjonkerfutures:defining_driver [2023/06/28 15:43] (current) – elizabethherfel
Line 11: Line 11:
 The definition of driver used for the study:  The definition of driver used for the study: 
    
-<defn>A driver is a thematic cluster of related inputs from scanning and research i.e., scan hits, trends, issues, that is driving or shaping change in a domain.</defn>+<span #example_box>A driver is a thematic cluster of related inputs from scanning and research i.e., scan hits, trends, issues, that is driving or shaping change in a domain.</span>
  
 The definition refers to the Association of Professional Futurists (APF) Foresight competency model, which describes competencies in a process flow of six steps: [cite: Building Foresight Capacity article] The definition refers to the Association of Professional Futurists (APF) Foresight competency model, which describes competencies in a process flow of six steps: [cite: Building Foresight Capacity article]
Line 43: Line 43:
  
 By xx, something “will” happen. This means it hasn’t happened yet, which we say means it is not a driver of change. That said, we believe that “aspirational” drivers of Inayatullah’s Futures Triangle are useful. In this case, we would frame them largely as conceptual. For instance, net zero or net plus or even the circular economy are not here yet, but that are enormously influential aspirational concept – these concepts are currently pulling us into the future. They exist as ideas today, thus meet our criteria for drivers being in the present and distinguished from forecasts or projects set in the future.  By xx, something “will” happen. This means it hasn’t happened yet, which we say means it is not a driver of change. That said, we believe that “aspirational” drivers of Inayatullah’s Futures Triangle are useful. In this case, we would frame them largely as conceptual. For instance, net zero or net plus or even the circular economy are not here yet, but that are enormously influential aspirational concept – these concepts are currently pulling us into the future. They exist as ideas today, thus meet our criteria for drivers being in the present and distinguished from forecasts or projects set in the future. 
- 
-On a similar note, we’d avoid framing them in the past as well. For instance, “Employers continued reliance on traditional forms of education.” This doesn’t make it clear if the driver is still relevant, so we’d reframe in the present tense as: Employers are continuing to rely on traditional forms of education. 
  
 For example with driver “Cognitive technologies augment human decision-making” is described as “in a sensor-enabled, hyper-connected environment, organizations will deploy pervasive controls as part of their products, services, and business models to monitor and manage risk in real time.” It is forecasting an outcome rather than describing a change. Of course, one can imagine ways to reframe this. Increasingly pervasive and connected sensor networks are increasingly being applied to risk management.” Or something along those lines. A more blatant example of one driver framing: “vision of a world of autonomous nations working together to manage a global political economy based on a free market has begun to fray under the pressures of growing wealth inequality, a slowdown in global economic growth, the rise of online disinformation, and a need for a new global energy infrastructure.” This one would be more challenging to reframe as a driver and probably not worth the effort.   For example with driver “Cognitive technologies augment human decision-making” is described as “in a sensor-enabled, hyper-connected environment, organizations will deploy pervasive controls as part of their products, services, and business models to monitor and manage risk in real time.” It is forecasting an outcome rather than describing a change. Of course, one can imagine ways to reframe this. Increasingly pervasive and connected sensor networks are increasingly being applied to risk management.” Or something along those lines. A more blatant example of one driver framing: “vision of a world of autonomous nations working together to manage a global political economy based on a free market has begun to fray under the pressures of growing wealth inequality, a slowdown in global economic growth, the rise of online disinformation, and a need for a new global energy infrastructure.” This one would be more challenging to reframe as a driver and probably not worth the effort.  
  
-The utility of framing in the present is two-fold: 
-  * Consistency makes it easier to understand 
-  * It keeps space open for projecting the drivers forward. Stating the drivers as a project puts forth on possible outcome. But there are many. The FF process projects drivers into the future using four or five archetypes to create scenarios.  
- 
-In this study, since we are talking about 2030-2060, it is understandable that the drivers are more like projections than a study set for the next ten years. Nonetheless, for the sake of consistency, we suggest keeping the drivers framed in the present and influencing the future. 
  
 ===Confusing drivers with inputs=== ===Confusing drivers with inputs===
Line 71: Line 64:
 There are cases where multiple ideas can make sense as a single driver, if the driver is focused on a single idea. For example, the driver, “Multiple revolutions in health care, is described as: Over the next two decades, five major revolutions will transform how medicine is practiced and how healthcare is delivered: personalized medicine, stem-cell medicine, nano-scale medicine, gene-editing, and digital health.” While each revolution could be a driver on its own, the multiple revolutions is a single idea.  There are cases where multiple ideas can make sense as a single driver, if the driver is focused on a single idea. For example, the driver, “Multiple revolutions in health care, is described as: Over the next two decades, five major revolutions will transform how medicine is practiced and how healthcare is delivered: personalized medicine, stem-cell medicine, nano-scale medicine, gene-editing, and digital health.” While each revolution could be a driver on its own, the multiple revolutions is a single idea. 
  
 +===Defining Drivers in the Present===
 +We’d avoid framing drivers in the past as well. For instance, “Employers continued reliance on traditional forms of education.” This doesn’t make it clear if the driver is still relevant, so we’d reframe in the present tense as: Employers are continuing to rely on traditional forms of education.
 +
 +The utility of framing in the present is two-fold:
 +  * Consistency makes it easier to understand
 +  * It keeps space open for projecting the drivers forward. Stating the drivers as a project puts forth on possible outcome. But there are many. The FF process projects drivers into the future using four or five archetypes to create scenarios. 
 +
 +In this study, since we are talking about 2030-2060, it is understandable that the drivers are more like projections than a study set for the next ten years. Nonetheless, for the sake of consistency, we suggest keeping the drivers framed in the present and influencing the future.
 +
 +<span #categories_box>Category: {{tag>global_drivers_2030_2060}}</span>
  
 ~~DISCUSSION~~ ~~DISCUSSION~~
  
Last modified: 2023/06/26 01:42 by davidpjonker