Imagine you’re tasked with mapping out the future of your organization. You gather the same data, the same experts, and the same concerns. But what if the very tool you choose to organize those thoughts—the "method" of your foresight—completely changed the final picture you drew? In this episode, we explore a fascinating experiment that asks: do different scenario-building methods generate distinctively different futures?

This paper takes a single set of data regarding the future of civil society and re-processes it through four distinct frameworks: the corporate "gold standard" 2x2 matrix, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), the Manoa approach, and scenario archetypes. The authors move beyond theoretical debate to show how each method creates a unique "intellectual fulcrum," influencing not just the resulting narratives but the very quality of the conversation and engagement in the room.

By comparing these outputs, the study reveals that while some methods excel at generating strategic clarity and logical "audit trails," others are far more effective at "disturbing the present" and surfacing deep-seated cultural myths. The findings suggest that relying on a single method may inadvertently limit our peripheral vision, making the choice of foresight tool a critical strategic decision in itself.

Tune in as we navigate the "roads less travelled" in futures research and discover why your choice of tool might be the most important decision you make.

Ref:
Andrew Curry, Wendy Schultz. Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 13(4), 2009, 35-60.