The cone of plausibility was a tool devised in the late 1980’s to explore geopolitical scenarios. As a tool it has since moved into other areas, enabling users to explore the variety of futures that could come from actions. It consists of a starting point in the present and radiates out – “most likely” scenarios towards the centre of the opposite wide and of the cone is a field of plausible future – or futures that are more likely to happen given key drivers. Wider still we have “possible” scenarios – where wildcards sit. These are less likely to occur and would take large shifts from the present to reach. Finally – we have Preferable futures. These are scenarios that are identified as being more desirable and so would form the basis for a strategy.
Define the question to be answered. You may be thinking about career options in your first year for example. You might ask “What are my career options based on the degree I have chosen”
Identify factors that might affect the answers to those options (key drivers) and make assumptions about how they are likely to develop. With our example you might want to consider
what technological changes might happen.
How supportive is the government of the industry – what do the opposition say?
Is it an industry facing massive change as we become more sustainable?
Models such as PEST, PESTLE, or STEEPLED can help us interpret what we find. These models help us “frame, ask, and answer important questions that identify and describe the trend or event and then determine how it will affect the focal industry”. ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader
Generate a ‘baseline’ future scenario (one that is most likely to happen) by extrapolating the assumptions made in Step 2. For example – if the career we are looking at has broadly positive factors driving it and faces little threat of change we can say that this is a very probable career focus.
In addition, generate up to three alternative scenarios based on changing one or more of the assumptions. Include at least one optimistic or ‘opportunity’ scenario and one pessimistic or ‘worst case’ scenario.
Maybe an area being researched that will massively impact the industry, it might be less probable but, is that an area you also want to explore – this might be preferable to you as a career option?
A political situation threatens an industries stability – here we have a potential wildcard.
Following these steps can very quickly build a rough picture of potential futures that, in our example can help you map out a direction for your study and potential career going forward.
Horizon scanning helps us identify emerging trends and key drivers of change and provides a foundation for risk management. It aims to identify “weak signals” of change before they become established and part of policy/strategy and is primarily an evidence gathering process and may involve desk research, expert surveys, interviews, and a review of literature. Horizon scanning is an in-depth approach at monitoring a subject that a student may wish to undergo to help develop topics for assignments. For example, a student studying computer science could monitor advances in AI or blockchain technology in order to write their assignments or theses on cutting-edge topics.
Depending on the aim and scope of the horizon scan, PEST/PESTLE/STEEPLE methodology can support scanners in ensuring a wide scope of scanning. Scanners would look for signals within each area to fully covers a topic.
|
CATEGORY |
ASK PARTICIPANTS TO… |
|
Title |
Write a 1-sentence title. To capture the essence of the signal and be memorable. |
|
Description |
Explain the content of the signal. How is this constituting a relevant future development? What change is emerging? Who is affected by it? Where do we see this change coming? Etc. |
|
Awareness |
Define if the signal is known. Is it already on the radar of the organisation? For example, is it mentioned in official documents such as reports, speeches, briefs, etc. This helps establish the novelty of the signal. |
|
Implications |
Speculate on the possible implications of the signal. Is it primarily perceived as a threat or opportunity? Is it a negative or positive development? Who is primarily affected by it? Is the change limited to the region or area under consideration, or are spillover effects anticipated? |
|
Impact |
Assess the anticipated impact of the signal. What are potential political, social, economic, technological, or environmental impacts? For prioritisation purposes, it could be useful to use a scale to assess the impact (for example, on a 1-5 scale, running from no impact to extremely high impact). |
|
Likelihood |
Estimate the probability of the signal emerging. For prioritisation purposes, it could be useful to use a 1-5 scale ranging from very probable to very unlikely. |
|
Reference |
Name the source and the publication or interview date. If applicable, link to the online place of reference (URL) |
Interpretation and filtering
After scanning, the team should review the scanning results.
Assessing the quality of the inputs: did the scanners provide all necessary information? Is it sufficiently forward-looking? Is the level of detail sufficient?
Prioritise results using a matrix. Impact vs probability or novelty vs risk (threat or opportunity) are typically used.
You might want to focus on the signals that are high impact and likely to occur. Another selection criteria can be signals that have been assessed as a ‘novel’ (something that has not yet been a factor) and high impact.
Sensemaking
This can happen at any point during the scanning process – and even multiple times. Here scanners will share their findings, discuss emerging signals and their implications.
Reporting
“A brief 1-pager per signal, outlining the ‘what’ (a brief description of the signal) and a ‘so-what?’ (Why is this a relevant development for the policy area under study? What changes could result from it?
Executive summary; Overview of the prioritised signals of change that are organised around issues/drivers of change, focusing on the critical impacts and challenges; Discussion and Conclusion (What are the main challenges that we need to tackle? What future questions have we identified? What are suggested steps forward?)
Executive summary; Overview of signals of change (categorised by drivers/themes); Policy needs and Actions; Conclusion”
Second-order thinking means thinking past just the immediate results of an action and considering long term effects. It involves having foresight into how different people, systems, and environments will react to a decision. When using second-order thinking you will consider feedback loops, where actions cause reactions that can strengthen or weaken the original effect. By thinking ahead about these reactions, we can spot new opportunities and tackle problems before they grow.
References
Dhami, M., Wicke, L. and Onkal, D. (2022) Scenario generation and scenario quality using the cone of plausibility. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning, and Future Studies, 142, article number 102995. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102995.
Engasser, F. (2021) Top Ten Toolkits for Futures. Available at: https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/top-ten-toolkits-futures/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Government Office for Science (2024) The Futures Toolkit. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c4493f057d859c0e8fa778/futures-toolkit-edition-2.pdf.
Raymond, M. (2020) The Trend Forecaster’s Handbook. 2nd edn. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Sharpe, B. (2020) Three Horizons: The Patterning of Hope. 2nd edn. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.
UN Global Pulse (2023) Foresight Project. Available at: https://foresight.unglobalpulse.net/how-tools/ (Accessed: 9 Jan 2025).
