Future map (organizational planning)
method for building scenarios based on the collection of anticipated events
The future map is a method for building scenarios based on the collection of anticipated events.
The concept is based on the idea that a group of people who integrate the partial visions of its members into a common, shared, discussed, large enough, collection of anticipated events it can eventually reveal its own "shared future".
Because the FutureMap methodology is dynamic and implemented on a wiki-platform the Future projected by the group is constantly under revision. By process, the community learns how to adapt to future changes and increases its ability to face "unexpected events", it improves what the author calls its future-readiness.
See also
Policy Analysis Market and Information Awareness Office FutureMap Project
References
Bill Sharpe and Kees Van Der Heijden "Scenarios for Success: Turning Insights into Action" John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Future map (organizational planning)” is method for building scenarios based on the collection of anticipated events. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Future, organizational and planning, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “method for building scenarios based on the collection of anticipated events” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Maps, plans, fabric surveys and administrative records can establish how the site’s name, extent and function changed over time. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 9, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q5510715. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2007.
Modern boundaries and familiar names can conceal earlier jurisdictions or structures that do not align with the present site. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Treat names, boundaries and functions as historically changeable. Maps, plans, inventories and administrative records can clarify what the place meant at different dates.
- Historic place names
- Jurisdictional context
- Routes into maps and plans
Contemporary maps, plans, listed-building records, estate papers and the responsible local or national archive.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Future map (organizational planning)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Future map (organizational planning) primary sources, Future map (organizational planning) archive and Future research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Future map (organizational planning)”?
- Which authority defined the place, boundary or structure at the relevant date?
- What physical evidence or contemporary plan supports the description?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Future map (organizational planning)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.