Difference between revisions of "Scenario Quality Ranking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Group 1'''<br> | '''Group 1'''<br> | ||
Hi Mates, | |||
I would suggest we individually write some comments to previous scenarios and discuss by using wiki. Then, if necessary, we can plan to get together in school... What do you think??? Regards, Katsushi | |||
<Rank High> | |||
Internet Commerce: | |||
free internet service provision 2003 (1996) | |||
Clear explanation in Trend and Matrix makes Scenario convincing. | |||
<Rank Middle> | |||
Health: | |||
health in 2010 (1996) | |||
Interesting contents.But relationship between driving forces and scenarios is vague to me... | |||
<Rank Low> | |||
Telecommunications: | |||
telcoms 2003 (1996) | |||
The axis for scenarios seems unreflected... | |||
'''Group 2'''<br> | '''Group 2'''<br> |
Revision as of 21:52, 2 November 2004
Group 1
Hi Mates,
I would suggest we individually write some comments to previous scenarios and discuss by using wiki. Then, if necessary, we can plan to get together in school... What do you think??? Regards, Katsushi
<Rank High> Internet Commerce: free internet service provision 2003 (1996)
Clear explanation in Trend and Matrix makes Scenario convincing.
<Rank Middle>
Health:
health in 2010 (1996)
Interesting contents.But relationship between driving forces and scenarios is vague to me...
<Rank Low>
Telecommunications:
telcoms 2003 (1996)
The axis for scenarios seems unreflected...
Group 2
BEST
Human Relationships in 2015
Reasons: Original, easy to understand, linkage between elements
Telecommunications in 2015 Leisure in 2010 Distance Education in 2010
Reasons: Easy to read, nice framework, it goes to the point
Branding in 2005 Workspace in 2010 Food Retailing in 2006
Reasons: Focused on Alberthein in Netherlands too narrow, Difficult to read, Not very revolutionary ideas
Electronic Cash in 2010 Telecommunications in 2003 Internet in 2005
Reasons: Unoriginal, not forward looking enough, no linkage between elements, badly organized
WORST
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6