About the Sheldon Scenarios
Building the Scenarios
The Focal Issue
After reviewing the parameters of the project we worked to create a phrase to represent the focal issue. The purpose of this statement was to focus our activity and hold the complexity of the project in a broad but clear way. This handle was needed to allow us to keep a firm grasp on our purpose and maintain contact with all of the contextual issues involved. We made our focal issue:
In the process of fine tuning this into this final form, we realized that it poetically held a broad context. i.e. it says both "How can UICA the organization move into the building on Sheldon?" and "What are the ways that UICA (its activities, people) can move in the building, once it is designed and built?" These were two primary issues. There are also a multitude of related issues that resonate around this focal issue. As a way of holding these in context, we worked these variations with subtle adjustments in words that both illuminate the project and connect it in a productive context. We composed these into a hypercontext sentence. (See hypercontext of focal issue) Replace any or all of the words in the sentence with a word from its column of possibilities.
After identifying the focal issue we began identifying "key factors". Elements of the local environment or situation that were significant to the focal issue. From these we researched and identified "driving forces" in the broader environment that effected the key factors. Driving forces are seen as external and consequently are largely out of the control of the organization. The "driving forces" are then analyzed to determine if they are "predetermined elements" (immovable and certain), or "critical uncertainties" (elements that are unpredictable and have the potential to elevate or undermine your endeavor).
One approach to constructing the scenarios is to begin by selecting the critical uncertainties that seem to have the greatest impact on the focal issue. This selection is important because of the range and scope that it sets for the consideration of the focal issue. If the scope is too broad the level of detail of the learning is not specific enough to inform useful action. If the scope is too narrow, then larger uncertainties outside this focus are not considered and the resulting scenarios are specific but not appropriately comprehensive to be effective.
Once the critical uncertainties within the desired scope are identified, combinations of variable possible outcomes of the critical uncertainties are projected to envision what that environments might be like. It takes some effort to learn and hold 4 or more scenarios in parallel, but much of the most productive learning takes place between and among the scenarios. Each scenario is a bit extreme and identifies only one point within that possible future. The set of scenarios map out an area amongst these points in which the dynamics can be played out in context to varying degrees. The function of the scenarios is to serve as a learning and planning tool.
Numerous times in our discussions we would end up at the point that much depended on "How culture is valued". We discussed many driving forces that had more dramatic effects on the focal issue, but this one kept popping up. We also exploded this into a hypercontext sentence (see hypercontext of critical uncertainties).
- From this we split out 2 critical uncertainties.
- 1. How is culture formed and valued?
- 2. How is culture supported?
- From this a bit more specificity:
- 1. What is the nature of meaningful cultural experience that people seek?
- 2. What is the nature of the economic (political, civic) climate for supporting culture?
At this point lets step back and view the problem up to the critical uncertainties in another light.
The user of the building is the community. The desired function is meaningful cultural experience.
The goal in this building project is to facilitate the optimum of meaningful cultural experiences by way of the facility.
To the extent that the permanence and survival of UICA (the organization) serves this goal, the survival of the organization should be valued in the process.
To the extent that the specific needs of current users and trustees of the mission (board, staff, volunteers) serve the main function (now and into the future) those needs should be valued.
To the extent that the design/construction/capital campaign process can serve to provide direct meaningful cultural experience (MCE), or lay a foundation for future MCE, the process should be managed to maximize this impact.
Valuations for the investment of money and time should be determined by that which is sure to be an essential element in future MCE. This is dependent upon projections about the nature of what MCE might be.
These valuations should maximize the ability to adapt to a range of possible futures in areas of critical uncertainty. The critical uncertainties can be summed up in the phrase:
This breaks out into two areas; each a separate critical uncertainty identified for consideration.
- 1. The nature of Meaningful Cultural Experience. (CULTURE) What people seek.
- 2. The nature of material support. (ECONOMY) What people support.
Integral to these are the ways that UICA structures itself:
- in relation to Meaningful Cultural Experience and
- to provide for the sustenance of the organization.
The problem is one of how to structure (for the purpose of UICA moving in Sheldon). The two critical uncertainties hold in the context the considerations of experiencing and sustaining.
The scenarios are mapped on a simple matrix of the critical uncertainties.
Matrix of Critical Uncertainties
These are both treated as environmental elements. Varied combinations of these are projected in each of the four scenarios, and a consequential environment is described. Projections are then made about how the organization might move in each of these environments. These are covered in the experiencing, sustaining, and structuring sections of each scenario.
send comments: