ChapterPDF Available

Strategic Foresight



Chapter on the foundations of the popular Strategic Foresight class created and taught by the author within the MBA in Design Strategy at California College of the Arts, San Francisco.
Design Strategy in Action
Edited by Nathan Shedroff
A publication from the MBA in Design Strategy program
California College of the Arts
Live Exchange: Rethinking Communication
Linda Yaven
Leadership by Design
Sharon Green, PhD
Teaching Innovation
Raffi Minasian
Evoking Meaning in Business
Steve Diller
The Sustainability Imperative
Nathan Shedroff and Susan Gladwin
The Business of Delivering Experience
Nathan Shedroff and Linda Yaven
Designing New Models for Business
Naomi Stanford
New Directions for Economics
James Forcier, PhD
Accounting for Innovation
Dan Sevall
Focusing Finance on Innovation
Dan Sevall
Operations from a Systems Perspective
Timothy Smith
Embodying Negotiation and the Law
Michelle Katz
Strategic Foresight
Stuart Candy, PhD
Brand Strategy
Rana Cho
Understanding Capital and Markets Today
Steven Gilman
About the Program
© 2011 California College of the Arts
Published by the MBA in Design Strategy
Edited by Nathan Shedroff
Authored by the faculty of the MBA in Design Strategy
Designed by Mon Vorratnchaiphan
Copyedited by Sam McMillan and Lindsey Westbrook
When you take an umbrella out as clouds gather overhead,
when you stash savings in a cookie tin, when you enroll for
evening classes to improve your employment prospects: these
are all unremarkable acts of everyday foresight. But the kind of
thinking ahead that we engage in day to day is different from
the systematic and creative exploration of pathways through
possible worlds to come over years, decades, and beyond. This
is foresight in another register, for the future writ large. Futurist
scholar Richard Slaughter writes:
Strategic foresight is the ability to create and maintain a
high-quality, coherent, and functional forward view and to
use the insights arising in organizationally useful ways; for
example, to detect adverse conditions, guide policy, shape
strategy, and to explore new markets, products and ser-
vices. It represents a fusion of futures methods with those
of strategic management.1
Whatever your line of business, both it and the wider world are
changing faster than ever. For any entrepreneur or leader, look-
ing further ahead in this manner is essential for navigating, in
the phrase of the late economist-futurist Robert Theobald, “the
rapids of change.”2 The paradox of foresight is that although it is
a ubiquitous human capability, it is remarkably underdeveloped
in most of us.
“Everyone thinks about the future,” observes futures consul-
tant Jake Dunagan, “they just don’t do it very well.” Few people
ever have a formal opportunity in their education to learn how
to study the landscape of future possibilities in a strategically
relevant way. Nor, unfortunately, is this a practice modeled by
other institutions such as politics or the media. So, what could it
feel like to live in a world where the UN Millennium Goals have
been accomplished? How about one in which the impacts of
climate change are seriously felt? Or one in which “post-human”
is normal?
We have no idea. These are crucial questions about the contexts
in which we might find ourselves living and working the day
after tomorrow but, generally, we’re not in the habit of even ask-
ing them. Instead, we seem strangely willing to leave outcomes
to a combination of chance, ideology, blind hope, or successes of
the past (regardless of their applicability today). Nowhere is this
more important than in setting policy, whether in an organiza-
Strategic Foresight
Candy, PhD
tion or within the government at any level. In this domain, even
the best educated and well intentioned among us come up
Meanwhile, many of the great challenges facing today’s orga-
nizations, as well as society at large—climate change, peak
oil, increased competition for resources, and economic crisis,
to name a few—clearly suggest the need for using strategic
foresight tools and processes.3 At both the individual and the
cultural levels, we have inherited habits built on assumptions
of continuity, which serve us poorly in a world of accelerating,
disruptive change.
Cultivating Preferred Futures
In teaching strategic foresight, we expose business leaders to
some of the key concepts, theories, and methods of the field.
We teach two parallel traditions, one of scholarly, academic
thought (futures studies or futures research) and the other
in organizational strategy and consulting (such as scenario
planning), both of which have been around for close to half a
century. In addition, a large body of literature and practice has
already grown up concerning both approaches and their con-
texts.4 There are many methods in the foresight repertoire, some
rare, others more widely known. The list includes environmen-
tal and horizon scanning, trend and emerging issue analysis,
Delphi, the futures wheel and cross-impact matrices, prediction
markets, roadmapping, backcasting, SWOT analysis, statistical
modeling, systems mapping, simulation, visioning workshops,
and Causal Layered Analysis.5
Teaching these tools starts with a principled commitment to the
notion that alternative frameworks of sensemaking and story-
telling are of paramount significance when it comes to decision
making and policy. As the “black swan” argument mounted by
Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes clear,6 past observations—the
basic stuff of scientific observation—are of limited applica-
tion when it comes to the future. This is not about statistics or
quantitative modeling. As the philosopher Robert Brumbaugh
once noted, “There are no future facts. . . . That past time is a
fair sample of all time is a mistaken metaphysical assumption.”7
To come at the point in another way: The future is not predict-
able but it can, in some ways, be shaped. This is not a class
in predicting change, it’s a crash course in preparing for and
participating in change, more mindfully and effectively.
Our approach highlights the catalytic role that foresightful
individuals and groups can play within their organizations
and communities. It emphasizes the invention and pursuit of
preferred futures, the world-shaping aspects of futures narra-
tives and images, striving for a necessary balance among theory,
practice, deep understanding, and effective implementation.
Visionary people and organizations are never simply manufac-
tured according to a recipe, but this course aims to draw out and
activate the interests and potentials in this direction that each
leader brings to the table. In short, this is a sort of boot camp
for world changers and culture evolvers that complements and
enriches skills acquired elsewhere in the business programs and
career experience.
Three Dimensions of Foresight Literacy
The teaching of strategic foresight is structured into three
The first phase is about coming to grips with the unchanging
fact of continual change, a macro-historical axiom that is all too
easy to forget. Cognitively, we tend to expect continuity, which
leads to what futures educator and political scientist Jim Dator
calls the “crackpot realism of the present,” that “fully under-
standable but quite misleading belief that the world of the pres-
ent will dominate the future,” resulting in a failure to seriously
entertain genuine alternatives.8 The circumstances shaping life
may appear stable enough on a short timescale but, of course,
everything is in flux. The corollary of this realization is twofold.
First, things will continue to change (albeit at varying rates) just
as they always have. Everything that presently is, however im-
portant or central to life as we know it—from the internal com-
bustion engine to the 40-hour work week to AIDS to the Internet
and so on—began somewhere. All such elements have a history,
origins, an arc of time, and everything will go away, too, sooner
or later. Second, at any given moment at least some of the seeds
of tomorrow’s changes are visible in the present.
The practical upshot of the above is that we can cultivate the art
of perceiving (and re-perceiving9) our operating environment in
order to better understand both the way things are now and the
way they could be. Two of the tools for putting this understand-
ing into action are “environmental scanning” for trends and “ho-
rizon scanning” for emerging issues.10 These practices enable
us to read the landscape of change with more sensitivity and
discernment. An alert observer—someone who knows where
and how to look—can tune into change as it unfolds, detecting
early signals before others notice them.
The second phase builds on this understanding of the fact of
constant change, to consider alternativity. It is implicit in the un-
certainty of change that at any given moment a number of differ-
ent directions are open. The “s” in “futures” is critical, signifying
contingency and plurality. If “future” implies that tomorrow will
be different, “futures” indicates that this difference can, itself,
take a range of different forms. Multiple alternative futures are
always possible.
The core methods in this area enable us to articulate the logics
of those alternatives. There are many ways to generate future
scenarios.11 The main two addressed here are, first, the four
archetypes (generic images of the future) identified by Jim Da-
tor in the futures studies program at the University of Hawaii
at Manoa, and, second, scenario planning using the widely
replicated two-by-two matrix of critical uncertainties developed
by Jay Ogilvy and colleagues at the consultancy Global Business
Network. The archetypal approach is about mapping the widest
array of plausible futures in the fewest number of brushstrokes
as a way of interrogating the boundaries and potentials of a
system.12 The two-by-two matrix, in contrast, is about focusing
on key contextual factors thought to have a particular bearing
on the future of the organization or domain in question.13 To put
it another way, the former is about getting the broadest range
of possible changes in the external environment (usually 20 to
50 years out), while the latter is about shedding light on those
specific external uncertainties currently regarded as most sig-
nificant (usually on a 10-year time horizon). Although rarely used
or taught together, these protocols are complementary rather
than competing, which underlines the deliberately wide-ranging
course design. It also points to the fact that strategic foresight is
not merely about technical mastery of method; it depends on an
ability to select tools appropriate to the situation.
If scanning protocols help us understand how the seeds of
change are germinating, scenarios let us spin these forward into
coherent images of tomorrow’s various landscapes.
The third phase of the course addresses the development and
communication of scenarios in detail: How would a given future
“work,” and what does it mean? This includes platforms for the
collective elaboration and consideration of possible futures such
as the FogCatcher process designed by Noah Raford; the ‘Fore-
sight Engine developed at futures consultancy Institute for the
Future (IFTF); and explicitly game-based strategies of engage-
ment such as Superstruct, the world’s first massively multiplayer
foresight game (also an IFTF project). It also includes the design
and staging of “experiential scenarios,” interactions and situa-
tions provoking deeper engagement with one or more futures.14
The second and third phases, done properly, are inherently
collaborative, participatory, and synthetic. (As Superstruct’s
scenario director Jamais Cascio has put it, “With enough minds,
all tomorrows are visible.”)15 Thus, in these last phases, lead-
ers employ skills to help others envision alternative futures, in
search of more profound insights and wiser decisions. The cul-
mination of these phases helps clarify that the most significant
offer of strategic foresight resides less in the documentation and
knowledge artifacts that it produces, and more in the extent of
engagement, perceptual change, and transformative action that
the practitioner is able to bring about.
The three phases described above correspond to what I call the
three dimensions of foresight: distance, breadth, and depth.
Here, distance denotes the passage of time, and the prospective
history that unfolds toward a particular state of affairs. Breadth
refers to the range of possible futures at any given later moment
in time. Depth describes the experiential detail and specific
qualities that breathe life into a particular hypothetical future,
making it viable to entertain an otherwise abstract possibility
as a concrete proposition. Each stage builds on the one before.
Breadth can be seen as an implication of distance plus con-
tingency, and the depth of any given scenario depends on the
specific theory of change (seen in light of distance and breadth)
that it embodies. Careful consideration of all three is needed for
projections to be well conceived and to stand up to scrutiny.
Facing the Fold
Strategic foresight offers a foundation in the conceptual and
methodological basics of the foresight field, which can be
applied to deepen thought around any product, service, indus-
try, place, or policy. This augmented awareness of big-picture
change can also be useful across whatever other roles—citizen,
consumer, customer, businessperson, parent—apply in our
To date, strategic foresight has proven to fit remarkably well
with the ethos and vision of the MBA in Design Strategy pro-
gram itself, perhaps in part because of the program’s ambitions,
which move along the lines suggested by the designer Bruce
Mau in his statement that the great challenge of our time “is not
about the world of design; it about the design of the world.”16
The DMBA attracts those who see in business not merely an
opportunity to make a living, but a way to play a meaningful and
proactive part in change. Unlike many in the physical sciences
and their aspiring (read: social) counterparts, people in design
disciplines intuitively understand that purely detached intellec-
tual inquiry is not enough. In a sense, it is not even possible. As
the late political activist Howard Zinn pointed out, “You can’t be
neutral on a moving train.”
Strategic foresight also requires a combination of analysis and
creativity that constitutes, in the excellent term of foresight
consultant Riel Miller, rigorous imagining.17 This rare feat of bal-
ance appears to bear a genetic resemblance to the very notion
of design strategy.
Among the primary learning outcomes, then, over and above
the checklist of technical skills, is the cultivation in neophyte
practitioners of a certain disposition, sensibility, or attitude of
engagement. In this vein, philosopher and veteran scenarist
Jay Ogilvy—a cofounder of Global Business Network, who also
taught the scenario planning module within this class the first
year it was offered—gives us the wonderful notion of facing the
In adopting the scenaric stance, facing the fold in which
multiple futures are held simultaneously and constantly
in view, one achieves a kind of emotional and intellectual
maturity that is not available to either the simple optimist or
the simple pessimist. Yes, things could turn out badly. But
no, that is not in itself reason for inaction. Yes, things could
turn out very well, but no, that is not in itself reason for
foolish bravado. By holding in mind several different futures
at once, one is able to proceed deliberately yet flexibly;
resolutely yet cautiously.
He or she who sees no opportunities is blind. He or she who
senses no threats is foolish. But he or she who sees both
threats and opportunities shining forth in rich and vivid sce-
narios may just be able to make the choices and implement
the plans that will take us to the high road and beyond.”
Facing the fold of uncertainty, as we must, perhaps the most
powerful choice we can make is to deepen our own capacity for
imagining, articulating, and acting toward the futures we want
to inhabit.
Note: I am grateful to Jay Ogilvy for being a delight to teach with, and to guest
speakers Jamais Cascio, Napier Collyns, Dr Jake Dunagan, Erika Gregory, and
Noah Raford for their excellent contributions to the inaugural fall 2010 class. I
would like to acknowledge Nathan Shedroff and Teddy Zmrhal for providing ex-
ceptional support and freedom as I developed the Strategic Foresight syllabus,
Dr. Wendy Schultz for highly valued input during that process, and finally Profes-
sor Jim Dator for his incomparable example as a futures teacher.
Works Cited
1: Richard A. Slaughter, 2002, ‘Futures Studies as an Intellectual and Applied
Discipline’. In Advancing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Education. Westport,
CT: Praeger, 91-108. Quote p. 104.
2: Robert Theobald, 1987, The Rapids of Change: Social Entrepreneurship in
Turbulent Times. Indianapolis, IN: Knowledge Systems.
3: Jim Dator, 2011, ‘The Unholy Trinity, Plus One’, Journal of Futures Studies 13(3):
4: On the academic front see for example Wendell Bell, 2003, Foundations of Fu-
tures Studies: Human Science for a New Era, Vol. 1: History, Purposes, Knowledge.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. James A. Dator (ed.), 2002, Advanc-
ing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Education. Westport, CT: Praeger. On the
consulting side see Art Kleiner, 2008, The Age of Heretics: A History of the Radical
Thinkers Who Reinvented Corporate Management. San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-
5: For an inventory of articles introducing the main futures/foresight methods see
Jerome C. Glenn and Theodore J. Gordon, 2009, Futures Research Methodology
(version 3.0) (CD-ROM), The Millennium Project.
6: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2007, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improb-
able. New York: Random House.
7: Robert S. Brumbaugh, 1966, ‘Applied Metaphysics: Truth and Passing Time’. The
Review of Metaphysics, 19(4): 647-666. Quote p. 649 (original emphasis).
8: Jim Dator, 2006, Keynote address at ‘Securing the future: Networked policing
in New Zealand’, Symposium proceedings, 22 November.
9: Scenarios were described memorably as being about ‘the gentle art of reper-
ceiving’ by the man credited with first adapting the method for a business set-
ting. Pierre Wack, 1985a, ‘Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead’. Harvard Business
Review, 63(5): 73-89; Pierre Wack, 1985b, ‘Shooting the Rapids’. Harvard Business
Review, 63(6): 139-150. See also Art Kleiner, 2003, ‘The Man Who Saw the Future’.
Strategy + Business, 30: 26-31, Spring.
10: Sometimes these scanning terms are used interchangeably. (See for example
Wendy L. Schultz, 2006, ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Managing Change: Using
Horizon Scanning in an Evidence-Based Policy Context’. Foresight 8(4): 3-12.)
However it seems useful to differentiate environmental and horizon scanning as
search modes corresponding respectively to more established drivers of change,
trends, and inchoate ones, emerging issues. (On the distinction between trends
Brand Strategy
Once relegated to corporate identity and the graphics depart-
ment, brand has become the catchall for marketing and com-
munications. While this provides organizations the opportunity
to integrate brand across many touchpoints, it still limits the
full potential of brand strategy. When effectively, cohesively,
and consistently applied, brand strategy becomes something
larger than conventional marketing communications. It can drive
the values and cultural blueprints for organizations and even
individuals, as described by Erving Goffman in The Presenta-
tion of Self in Everyday Life. In this way, brand strategy lays the
foundation for the interaction between product/service/market
and audience/customer/participant. It can become as fiscally
compelling, as intellectual property is valued beyond the mere
physical assets and revenues of an organization. Brand strategy,
then, becomes the sum of intended communication from any
organization to any of its stakeholders.
Everyone can “relate to brand” because it is all around us, forc-
ing us to engage or disengage. In terms of reputation, in fact,
we all have our own brands. Brand is an equalizer; all views are
valid since a brand is meant to be received, interpreted, co-
opted, or discarded. Even a Luddite hermit is living and express-
ing the “Luddite hermit” lifestyle brand.
However, not everyone can articulate “brand.” Since its incep-
tion as symbols, language, and shorthand for commercial
communications, brand inherently expresses an experience, a
feeling, but often leaves the details vague. In the MBA in Design
Strategy program, we explore the structures of brand commu-
nication, looking at brand as a tool that can be wielded inten-
tionally, with consequences, for any individual or organization
(including nonprofits, governments, and political campaigns).
When understood as methods, brand moves beyond the soft
and fuzzy into strategic execution and reliable metrics for busi-
ness imperatives, such as profitability.
The New Brand World
What is now considered brand in terms of market forces is
changing, differentiating product/service innovation and
stakeholder experiences. It is necessary to analyze the brand
strategies that work so well they sometimes seem insidiously
spiritual. This helps us identify best practices that may be mod-
eled but also helps us to understand that brand engagement is
active and participatory rather than devaluing the audience as
unwitting consumers.
and emerging issues, see James Dator, 1996, ‘Futures Studies as Applied Knowl-
edge’. In Richard A. Slaughter (ed.), New Thinking for a New Millennium. London:
Routledge, 105-115.)
11: For an overview of the variety of scenario generation methods see Thomas J.
Chermack, Susan A. Lynham, and Wendy E.A. Ruona, 2001, ‘A Review of Scenario
Planning Literature’. Futures Research Quarterly, 17(2): 7-31; Peter Bishop, Andy
Hines and Terry Collins, 2007, ‘The Current State of Scenario Development: An
Overview of Techniques’. Foresight, 9(1): 5-25. For a useful qualitative compari-
son, including the two approaches covered here, see Andrew Curry and Wendy
Schultz, 2009, ‘Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures’. Journal
of Futures Studies, 13(4): 35-60.
12: Jim Dator, 2009, ‘Alternative Futures at the Manoa School’, Journal of Futures
Studies, 14(2): 1-18. See also Jim Dator, 1979, ‘The Futures of Culture or Cultures
of the Future’. In: Anthony J. Marsella, Roland G. Tharp and Thomas J. Ciboroski
(eds.), Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Academic Press,
13: Peter Schwartz and James A. Ogilvy, 1998, ‘Plotting Your Scenarios’. In Liam
Fahey & Robert M. Randall, Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight
Scenarios. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 57-80.
14: Stuart Candy, 2010, The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Ex-
periential Scenarios. Doctoral dissertation in the Department of Political Science,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
15: Jamais Cascio, n.d., Open the Future.
16: Bruce Mau and the Institute without Boundaries, 2004, Massive Change. New
York: Phaidon Press.
17: Riel Miller, 2007, ‘Futures literacy: A Hybrid Strategic Scenario Method’. Fu-
tures, 39(4): 341-362.
18: James A. Ogilvy, 2011, Facing the Fold: Essays on Scenario Planning, Bridport,
Dorset: Triarchy Press.
... The course was structured as follows. It began with a three-week introduction to key ideas and concepts in the field (for a broad-strokes sense of these foundational elements, see Candy, 2011). Over the following four weeks, students were guided through an investigation based on Ethnographic Experiential Futures (EXF) (Candy & Kornet, 2019), creating two "artifacts from the future"; the first instantiating a preferred personal future for themselves (i.e. a representative object "from" the world and the life that they would hope to find themselves in 20 years from now); and the second responding to and forming a coherent part of the preferred future of a classmate. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Change is exponential. Products and services are developed faster, hold a shorter shelf-life disrupted by new offerings, and exist in the wider environment with global challenges emerging such as climate change and sustainability. Thus, design for the 21st century requires different skills; design educators are challenged to adapt. In this paper, we compare two versions of a futures studies course developed for design students: one uses a flipped classroom pedagogy (with interactive online pre-work and in-class workshop activities, meeting for two 80-minute sessions per week); and the other uses a hybrid studio approach (making more use of in-class lectures followed by hands on-studio activities, meeting for 170 minutes once per week) focused on experiential futures practices of tangible artifact and immersive scenario creation. We use four measures: learning activity inventory, course quality with faculty course evaluations, student experience with a post-course survey, and time and feedback on final projects. We discuss design trade-offs for learning: format of reflections is linked to transfer activities, time on learning activities shapes perceptions, less (interference) is more, more (scaffolding, feedback, links to practice, active learning) is better, and timing is everything.
Full-text available
The great existential challenges facing the human species can be traced, in part, to the fact that we have underdeveloped discursive practices for thinking possible worlds ‘out loud’, performatively and materially, in the register of experience. That needs to change. In this dissertation, a methodology for ‘experiential scenarios’, covering a range of interventions and media from immersive performance to stand-alone ‘artifacts from the future’, is offered as a partial corrective. The beginnings of aesthetic, political and ethical frameworks for ‘experiential futures’ are proposed, drawing on alternative futures methodology, the emerging anti- mediumist practice of ‘experience design’, and the theoretical perspective of a Rancièrian ‘politics of aesthetics’. The relationships between these three domains -- futures, design, and politics -- are explored to show how and why they are coming together, and what each has to offer the others. The upshot is that our apparent binary choice between unthinkable dystopia and unimaginable utopia is a false dilemma, because in fact, we can and should imagine ‘possibility space’ hyperdimensionally, and seek to flesh out worlds hitherto supposed unimaginable or unthinkable on a daily basis. Developed from early deployments across a range of settings in everyday life, from urban guerrilla-style activism to corporate consulting, experiential scenarios do not offer definitive answers as to how the future will look, or even how it should look, but they can contribute to a mental ecology within which these questions may be posed and discussed more effectively than ever before.
Full-text available
Full-text available
What stories do we tell about the future? This article develops a topology of storytelling about the future, which is used to develop a definition of ‘futures literacy’. It goes on to outline a hybrid strategic scenario method for acquiring the capacities of futures literacy.
This article explores some of the reasons for the transition of Futures Studies (FS) from an insubstantial “perspective” to an applied discipline. It begins with an outline of the author's own starting points and continues with a brief account of critical futures studies. It reviews how this perspective was implemented in master's courses within three universities and describes aspects of the knowledge base of FS that emerged at the time. Finally, the article traces some of the links between the intellectual foundations of FS and emerging applications in a variety of organizations. It concludes that the kinds of knowledge and capability created will be increasingly useful throughout society in negotiating the turbulence ahead.
For an inventory of articles introducing the main futures The Millennium Project
For an inventory of articles introducing the main futures/foresight methods see Jerome C. Glenn and Theodore J. Gordon, 2009, Futures Research Methodology (version 3.0) (CD-ROM), The Millennium Project.
Plotting Your Scenarios Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios
  • Peter Schwartz
  • James A Ogilvy
Peter Schwartz and James A. Ogilvy, 1998, 'Plotting Your Scenarios'. In Liam Fahey & Robert M. Randall, Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 57-80.
A Review of Scenario Planning Literature'The Current State of Scenario Development: An Overview of Techniques For a useful qualitative comparison , including the two approaches covered hereRoads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures
  • Thomas J Chermack
  • Susan A Lynham
  • Wendy E A Ruona
For an overview of the variety of scenario generation methods see Thomas J. Chermack, Susan A. Lynham, and Wendy E.A. Ruona, 2001, 'A Review of Scenario Planning Literature'. Futures Research Quarterly, 17(2): 7-31; Peter Bishop, Andy Hines and Terry Collins, 2007, 'The Current State of Scenario Development: An Overview of Techniques'. Foresight, 9(1): 5-25. For a useful qualitative comparison, including the two approaches covered here, see Andrew Curry and Wendy Schultz, 2009, 'Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures'. Journal of Futures Studies, 13(4): 35-60.