Abstract
The idea of the Futures Polygon (FP) stemmed from reading about the Futures Wheel (FW) (Glenn, Futures Research Methodology. Washington, DC, 1994) and realizing that the FW lacked the concept of evaluating the likelihood of the forecasted impacts, indispensable in exploring the future. Two complementary problem areas emerge from the FW approach: the evaluation of the probability of an “impact scenario” generated by the FW; the determination of a “realistic temporal horizon” for the results of the FW. The FW stimulate more questions: What is the probability that the plausible events have to happen within a certain temporal horizon? How many years does the system require to register a first reaction to the impact? How many years does the impact intensity require to get to its maximum? How long does the impact last? What is the impact consolidation level? (as in Gordon’s Trend Impact Analysis, 1994). With the FP you try to answer the previous questions. The main issue of the method proposed in this chapter derives from the use of subjective probability and, in particular, of the conditional probability. The subjectivists believe that the probability is “the degree of confidence that a coherent individual attaches to the occurrence of an event” (De Finetti, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7:1–68, 1937).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
It can be shown that this conception of probability satisfies the Kolmogorov’s axioms (Suppes 1984).
- 3.
The German philosopher Carl Gustav Hempel is known for formulating the nomologic-deductive model , in which the set of knowledge necessary for explaining a phenomenon is said explanans and includes one or more cover laws and initial conditions. Whereas the phenomenon that the explanation is to be provided is said explanandum. Following Hempel, the explanandum derives from an explanans that consists of a class of laws L1,…,Ln and some initial conditions C1,…,Ck.
- 4.
In such cases, the use of methods as the Delphi , which facilitates the convergence of probabilistic evaluations, strengthens the subjective judgements, because it reduces the dissent by generating a collective intelligence with high levels of consensus (Pacinelli 2002).
- 5.
In the exploration of the future, Bruno de Finetti distinguished between prediction and foresight . He believed that “say before” (prediction ) is something other than “see before” (foresight ), placing the subjective moment upstream in the first case and downstream in the second. In a foresight , all the available information must be taken into account, whether generated by objective or subjective data.
- 6.
For the “Desiderata Stability”, see Di Zio and Pacinelli 2009.
- 7.
Particularly, cross-impact simulates different decisions compared to different future situations, aiming to determine optimal and/or preferable strategies.
- 8.
The unanimity rule is an important point of reference for people using participatory methods (Pacinelli 2007), but it is not sufficient to make a foresight , which needs an occurrence probability for each event/i mpact.
- 9.
On this, see among others Pacinelli 2002.
- 10.
The work carried out in a focus group can generate interesting additional information if it is supported, as was the case in the present example, by its complementary technique called “debate evaluation”.
References
Brauers, J., & Weber, M. (1988). A New Method of Scenario Analysis for Strategic Planning. Journal of Forecasting, 7(1), 31–47.
Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.
De Finetti, B. (1937). La Prévision: Ses Lois, logiques, Sef Sources Subjectives. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, 7, 1–68.
Di Giandomenico, M. (2004). “L’applicazione della tecnica Futures Wheel finalizzata alla individuazione degli impatti sulla realtà chietina-ortonese dati dalla realizzazione di due soluzioni: “giornate di orientamento al lavoro presso le scuole” e “progetto coach Work.” In Fabbisogni lavorativi delle imprese dell’area chietino-ortonese, Equal-linea, edited by Cannarsa, Vasto, 56–72.
Di Zio, S., & Pacinelli, A. (2009). Desiderata Stability. Methodological Considerations. In J. Kultalahti, I. Karppi, O. kuktalahti, & E. Todisco (Eds.), Globalisation (pp. 99–118). Finland: East-West Books Helsinki.
Glenn, J. C. (1972). Futurizing Teaching vs Futures Course. Social Science Record, 9(3), 26–29.
Glenn, C. J. (1994). The Participatory Methodology. In J. C. Glenn & T. J. Gordon (Eds.), Futures Research Methodology. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project, American Council for United Nations University.
Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Trend Impact Analysis. In J. C. Glenn & T. J. Gordon (Eds.), Futures Research Methodology. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project, American Council for United Nations University.
Gordon, T. J., & Hayward, H. (1968). Initial Experiments with the Cross-Impact Matrix Method of Forecasting. Futures, 1(2), 100–116.
Kane, J. (1972). A Primer for a New Cross Impact Language- KSIM. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 4(2), 129–142.
Lévy, P. (1994). L’intelligence collective. Pour anthropologie du cyberspace. Paris: La Découverte.
Moskowitz, H., & Sarin, R. K. (1983). Improving the Consistency of Conditional Probability Assessments for Forecasting and Decision Making. Management Science, 29(6), 735–749.
Nair, K., & Sarin, R. K. (1979). Generating Future Scenarios—Their Use in Strategic Planning. Long Range Planning, 12(3), 57–61.
Pacinelli, A. (2002). Sull’uso di metodi soggettivi nella Pianificazione Sociale Partecipata: verso la Democrazia Continua. Statistica & Società, 1(2), 23–28.
Pacinelli, A. (2006). A Complementary Method to Future Wheel: The Future Polygon. Futures Research Quarterly, 22(1), 71–78.
Pacinelli, A. (2007). Metodi per la ricerca sociale partecipata. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Pacinelli, A. (2012). I metodi della previsione. In R. Poli & S. Arnaldi (Eds.), La previsione sociale. Introduzione allo studio dei futuri (pp. 149–163). Roma: Carocci editrice.
Suppes, P. (1984). La logica del probabile: un approccio bayesiano alla razionalità. Bologna: Clueb.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pacinelli, A. (2018). The Futures Polygon Development. In: Moutinho, L., Sokele, M. (eds) Innovative Research Methodologies in Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64400-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64400-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64399-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64400-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)