Participative Methods 6: Scenario Planning

This is another in my occasional series exploring specific participative methods.  The others can be found under the category Participation and the first in the series is here.

Scenario Planning is described in full in Adam Kahane's book 'Solving Tough Problems' .  It works like this.

1. It is important to define the scenario.  So, it might be the future of a nation following a time of national conflict.  Kahane describes work in Guatemala and South Africa.  The method was used with the governments of these places following a period of conflict.
2. The stakeholders must be brought together.  Where there has been conflict, it is important that both sides are present and reconciliation between these parties is often integral to the method.
3. The question posed, and addressed in small groups, is to collectively envision how they see the future.  It is important to understand we are not seeking a future the participants want but a future that might in fact happen.
4. These scenarios are shared and people can ask questions like 'what would happen if' but are not allowed to critique the scenarios from an ideological perspective.
5. A few scenarios are selected for further work and refinement.  This may take place over several months.  The aim is to arrive at a number of credible scenarios.  These might then be shown to senior people or made available to a wider public. 

The aim is to arrive at a few credible scenarios.  Some will be positive and others negative. 

This method has potential for ecumenism.  Although serious conflict between traditions is in the main a long time ago, there are in ecumenical conversations a range of interests addressing a number of difficult intractable problems.  This method would open up a number of possible visions for the future and enable their examination.  Full visible unity is only one feasible future for the churches and it could be worth examning the assumptions behind it and other possible futures.

To go back to basics and our vision of the ecumenical future would be an interesting enterprise.  To consider the consequences for churches, where progress is not being made, alongside visions of a future where some progress has been made, would help ecumenists gain some insights into what their goals might be.