SCW The Econ D1 Manual de usuario descargar pdf (Pagina 15)

ScenarioWizard 4.1 12

In five cases (descriptors A, B, C, E, F), the arrows indicate the maximum score of the descriptor im-

pact balance (cf. arrows in the row "Maximum"). Consider descriptor E (social cohesion) as an exam-

ple. The impact balance of “E. Social cohesion” is [+4,-1,-3], and the impact score of “social peace”

(the descriptor variant which is assumed in scenario S) is +4. There is no higher impact score within

the impact balance of this descriptor, and therefore the assumption “Social cohesion: social peace” is

rated consistent. The reason behind this technical rating is that the scenario includes two assump-

tions strongly working in favour of social peace: the dynamic economic growth and the balanced

distribution of wealth. These impacts as a whole have considerable more weight than the scenario’s

single argument against social peace (social values: meritocratic). A comparable dominance of pro-

arguments can be found in none of the other possible variants of the descriptor “Social cohesion”.

The assumptions of the scenario are not working out for every descriptor, however. In one descriptor

balance (“D: Distribution of wealth”) the arrow does not point to the maximum impact score and this

indicates an inconsistency in the scenario. Scenario S assumes the variant “balanced” for this descrip-

tor, but this assumption is supported by none of the other scenario assumptions. The typical policies

of Somewhereland’s “Prosperity party”, the dynamic economic growth and the meritocratic social

values point towards the opposite assumption of strong contrasts in the distribution of wealth (cf.

the cross-impact table). This means that the assumption “balanced” does not comply with the pros

and cons associated with the descriptor “Distribution of wealth”.

Descriptor D violates the "rules" coded in the cross-impact matrix. To avoid such violations, the

states of the descriptors must show a well-balanced configuration that reflects the dual role of each

descriptor as both impact source and impact target. The internal consistency of a scenario requires

that every variant is chosen in such a way as to ensure that no other variant of the same descriptor is

stronger preferred by the combined influences of the other descriptors. In CIB this is denoted as the

principle of consistency. In Fig. 2-3 this principle is violated and the shown scenario is inconsistent.

It should be mentioned that the switching of the inconsistent descriptor "Distribution of wealth"

doesn’t automatically result in a consistent scenario. The variant of the descriptors then would corre-

spond to the influences having an impact on them. But new inconsistencies would arise in other

places, caused by the changes in the descriptor D. Impact nets are complex systems and usually they

are not easy to understand. CIB analysis, although a qualitative method, mirrors this fact.

Exercise:

Try to guess a “Somewhereland” scenario without inconsistency before you read the next

section.

1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 109 110

Sin comentarios

SCW The Econ D1 Manual de usuario Pagina 15