ABSORCIÓN ATÓMICA.

Scenario Planning was first mentioned at the meeting of the Fife Partnership on 4 September 2002. During this meeting there was an agreed motion to revisit the targets and goals of the Community Plan to promote debate on how best to align national and local targets. The following item on the agenda related to a report received from the co-ordination group,

stating that it had engaged the services of the University of St Andrews in a scenario planning project which would commence in September 2002 with a view of reporting findings to the State of Fife consultation event in November. The report highlighted the process of the work and noted that “part of the aim of the project would be to develop the Partnership’s capacity for such work in the future through direct involvement” (MI/FP/1).

In November 2002, Fife Partnership set up the “Scenario Planning Steering Group”, comprising eleven senior members of the Fife Partnership and supported by scenario facilitators from the University of St Andrews and members of the Council’s POD service. The group were responsible for the organisation of the scenario planning work, and much of the analysis and issue identification prior to the generation of the scenarios. One of the first things they did was establish the focus of the work to guide the process. This took the form of the following question: “within the overall aim of a more inclusive Fife, what will be the needs and expectations for Fifers in 2013, and how might resources best be used to serve them?”

4.2.1 Analysis & Synthesis

The data collection and analysis process would comprise two main stages: desktop research and interviews. The desktop research included extant data from sources internal and external to Fife. A team of researchers from St Andrews carried out the majority of the external data gathering with POD providing the scenario facilitators the key information from within Fife, e.g. detailed population and demographic information, internal economic appraisals, transportation figures, etc. The internal data was used to develop an understanding of life in Fife and how it has evolved over the last 5-20 years. The external data drew a similar picture of the wider world, showing how the external environment may impact upon Fife. It was also intended to search for the softer signals that hint towards impending change. Whether it be in working patterns and culture, travel needs, new technologies (which may lead to new industries, and thus require new skills), or developments in the provision of health care (which may alter life expectancy), the data gathered in this stage is vital to underpinning the logic and thus plausibility of the scenarios. Consequently, a series of guidelines were followed during this stage. This particular method

of data collection is based upon the CAFE framework, developed by scenario planning consultants at Strathclyde University, and is summarised below:

Table 4.6 - CAFÉ principles

Construction of Alternative Futures Explorer (CAFÉ) Construction of Alternative Futures Explorer (CAFÉ) Construction of Alternative Futures Explorer (CAFÉ)

Principle Description Example

1 Events (or suggested events), which will _{have repercussions over a number of years.}Events which will have an impact at some point _{in the future.} 2 A puzzle for the industry. Conflicts in information or single source _puzzles.

3 Political, economic & societal change which will lead to a change in attitudes and demand characteristics.

New legislation, new regulatory systems or the creation of, or action by a powerful lobby group or coalition.

4 Technological Breakthroughs The emergence of a new or advanced _technology.

5 Changes in the volume or structure of a _market. Changes in the competitive positioning between organisations; a change in international trading conditions.

6 A major player showing signs of strategic _change. A major player may be reorganising or _{restructuring.} 7 The resolution or complication of current _{strategic issues for the industry.} Current, industry wide, strategic issues which are most talked about in the press and in the

board room.

8 Analysis of past events or deductions about _{future events.} An explanation of previous events that now shows a “lock-in” situation or an event that will definitely be a feature of the future.

The second phase of this analysis is done through individual and group interviews. All members of the Scenario Planning Steering Group were interviewed as well as other members of the Fife Partnership and other internal and external experts. For the group interviews, a selection of the “informed public” was used. In total, 20 individual interviews and three group interviews (16 people) were conducted. One of the scenario facilitators indicated that the number of interviews was restricted by the budget and resources of the Fife Partnership: “they needed to invest more money and time and resources into the whole project” (SPF 1).

Although the number of people interviewed was smaller than, for example, the Scenarios for Scotland, the interviews themselves were of equivalent depth, and followed the third stage of the “St Andrews approach” to scenario planning, as described by Grinyer (2001). This approach, like many other adherents of approaches originating from Shell, used seven questions that may be varied slightly and are designed to be:

“open ended with the interviewee setting the agenda, ‘playful’ so encouraging departure from formal, espoused theories and agreed scripts, and stimulating by

means of asking the interviewee to adopt unusual roles” (van der Heijden and Eden 1998)

In the case, the seven questions were:

Table 4.7 The seven questions

The Seven Questions

1. If you could spend time with someone who knew the outcome, what would you want to know? (i.e. what are the critical issues?)

2. If things went well for Fifers, how might Fife look and what would their needs and expectations be?

3. What could go wrong for Fifers (jobs, health, quality of life, etc.) and what, under these circumstances, would their needs and expectations be?

4. From your knowledge of the culture, communities, support systems and resources (including people) in Fife, how would these have to be changed to achieve the optimistic outcome?

5. Looking back how did Fife get where it is today?

6. Looking forward, what decisions need to be made in the near term to achieve the long-term outcome?

7. If you had a mandate, without constraints, what more would you wish to do (achieve)?

The interviews were conducted by two facilitators, one who led the interview, and the other who took verbatim notes, which were transcribed and checked for accuracy (Grinyer 2001). Each interview lasted between one and one-and-a-half hours and was made anonymous so that comments would not be attributable. The interviews were then broken down into discrete statements and organised accordingly; for example, in the interview workbook, each statement was accompanied by a number to indicate how frequently the issue arose. At this point, the data from the desk-based research was compiled together with data gathered from the interviews in the form of the data-workbook. The workbook had five headings (Politics, Infrastructure, Economy, Social Issues, and Fife Public Sector), with each topic split into more specific categories. This document would then form “the basis of information, in addition to the participants’ own knowledge and experience, on which they will be identifying the issues around which the scenarios will be developed” (ID/SP1/1).

The first of the issues workshops was held 13 January 2003. The aim of this workshop was to discuss the main issues in the draft workbook and identify the key drivers that would form part of the scenario project at the Community Planning Gathering, scheduled for 27 February 2003. Before the key issues from the workbook were presented, the group were shown some headline statistics on demographics and employment. A host of issues were discussed; some

of the messages coming from these issues were agreed upon, but there were other issues where the group disagreed with the characterisation that came through in the research. Of the 23 issues, only three had differing opinions or general disagreement. The workshop group was then split into two groups to consider six key issues emerging in the 2013 timeframe and then order them by degree of certainty and importance (see below):

Figure 4.1 - Importance and uncertainty matrices

Certain Vision in Context Least Important Economy Investing in People Funding Transportation Processes and Services Uncertain Most Important Group 1 Priorities Certain Interplay between Economy & Education

Least Important

Capacity Building Transport

Improving Quality of Life & Environment Ageing Population Impact of Commuter Belt Uncertain Most Important Group 2 Priorities

These certainty/importance diagrams were reported back to the group and were discussed further at the next workshop on 6 February, 2003.

The key issues identified at the 13 January workshop were broken-down into the key elements and then analysed as being an external issue (for which the Fife Partnership has to make a strategic response), or an internal issue (over which the Fife Partnership has control). The external issues were categorised as Fife’s Resources, Economy, Education skills, Employment, Funding, and transport.

On 21 and 23 January, the group workshops of 13 January were reviewed and analysed by the Scenario Planning Steering Group. The two matrices (above) were consolidated into one matrix that focused totally on external issues, and not on the internal factors (listed above) over which the Fife Partnership had control46_{. The consolidated issues were:}

• Fife’s Resources (Age, wealth, human capital, social structures, etc.)

• Fife’s Economy (Indigenous, commuter, activity, GDP, etc.)

• Education/Skills (Centralised, external funding, curriculum, etc.)

• Funding (Levels of external funding, private, public, flexibility, etc.)

• Mobility (Growth patterns, modes, etc.)

Although at this stage, the issues had not been placed on an importance/uncertainty matrix, each issue had already been described as being “highly important” and “uncertain”.

The next two workshops occurred on 6 and 17 February. The first, after agreeing on the consolidation of issues, explained how the issues might unfold over the next 10 years. To assist in this process, experts on the Fife and Scottish economy, and education and transportation sectors, gave short presentations to the group. Although a fresh perspective (certainly in the case of transportation) was seen as being beneficial to the future thinking process, it was thought by some to have caused mild chagrin with members of Fife’s services who weren’t involved in this process—another source of early tension in the process.

46 _{Despite the desire to exclude internal factors some issues (education / transportation) are internal as well as} external issues.

In Fife’s case, the development of the drivers began with a narrow group of people and outside expertise: “We didn’t put in the views of people like the head of transportation, the service heads—the one down from the chief execs, the head of service levels—they were not participating” (FCCP 1). Whether or not this did in fact adversely affect the process is unknown:

“I’m not aware that we had a negative reaction but there could have been. I don’t know whether we put people’s noses out of joint during that process, but we certainly didn’t engage them. That’s an issue for me. We went wide with the gathering and brought a lot of people in, but it was to present to them with something where all the thinking had been done, and getting them to prove it rather than [to] be part of thinking that goes into it.” (FCCP 1)

Regardless of whether it did offend (though perhaps it is significant that the head of the Transportation service did not plan to attend the Community Planning Gathering where the scenarios were unveiled), it does represent a difficult issue that has the potential to undermine such a process before it even truly begins:

“[T]hat was a weakness of the system, that, in trying to bring independent thinking, what you do with people who have authoritative responsibility and professional expertise within the service? And I’m not aware that we had a negative reaction but there could have been.” (FCCP 1)

This issue of conflict between involvement, engagement and independent thought, will be explored more thoroughly in the following chapter.

The second workshop (17 February) was designed to review progress and refine the importance/uncertainty matrix before exploring the issues to establish common themes to feature in the scenario generation. The issues identified by the two groups in the 17 January workshop were examined against the external issues identified on February 6. Each issue was evaluated as an internal or external factor and categorised into the corresponding external issue. For example, “Schools and Colleges”, under the heading “Interplay between Economy and Education”, is designated as being a part of the external issue, “Education and Skills”.

The external issues were then refined as the following:

Table 4.8 - Fife’s key drivers Fife's Five Key Drivers Fife's Five Key Drivers Key Issue Sub-Issue

Fife's Resources

Ageing population

Fife's Resources

Demographic change Fife's Resources

More older people Fife's Resources Fewer younger people Fife's Resources

More households Fife's Resources

Influx of key workers/knowledge workers

Fife's Economy

Economic opportunity and change Fife's Economy

Move to service sector Fife's Economy Fife's economic base Fife's Economy

Wash effects from Edinburgh Fife's Economy

Changing employment sector Fife's Economy Entrepreneurial effort Education/Skills Increased education Education/Skills Skills Education/Skills

Schools and Colleges Education/Skills

Education and Life Long Learning Funding More resources to deal with age

Mobility Accessibility Mobility Access to employment Mobility Mobility

Mobility Access to growth poles Mobility

Accessible services such as health Mobility

Improving rural and urban transport Mobility

Making a single Fife

The next task was to develop the story lines. The groups were asked to write the scenarios as a newspaper article looking back on the past 10 years (i.e. from 2013 back to 2003). They were to write one mostly positive and one mostly negative scenario, each with a ‘snappy’ title. In doing so, they were to consider the drivers, events and catalysts that would push the issues in various directions and thus understand why issues would move in particular directions, and the consequences of such movement. It was seen as an “enjoyable and stimulating” (FPM 3) opportunity for partners to engage in an exercise that involved: “talking to people in a way they’ve never done before” (FPM 6). In accordance with common scenario testing methods, the groups tested their storylines for plausibility, internal consistency, recognisability (from past to present), relevancy and importance, and their ability to challenge, interest and surprise readers.

Between 18 and 26 February, to reflect outcomes of the testing process, which was applied after each iteration of the scenarios, the scenarios were drafted by a professional storywriter, tested and redrafted in preparation of the ‘Partnership Gathering’ on 27 February.

4.2.2 The High Road in 2013—Drafts

The first draft of the ‘High Road’ was highly optimistic though not completely positive. It described Fife as “not only of the most prosperous regions in Scotland, [but] it is also being hailed as a leading example in Europe for its remarkable economic regeneration of areas formerly known for deprivation and high unemployment” (ID/SP1/2). It described the relative bleakness of 10 years ago (i.e. 2003), before explaining how Fife managed such an impressive turnaround. The key issues identified in the scenarios were vision, inspired leadership, ambition, connectivity (and some luck).

The establishment of the Fife Community Partnership as a limited company was a major factor in the financial turnaround of Fife’s public services, indicative of the Partnership’s aspirations at that time47_{. Similarly, the development of communications (broadband) and}

transport links (Kincardine Bridge, internal public transport, etc.) was significant in attracting ‘Standard Life’ to relocating their headquarters from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy’s new business park. The third major factor was a dramatic improvement in Fife’s education service and thus the quality of health and the standard of living.

The structure of the second draft remained largely unchanged, as did the key issues and most of the content. Perhaps the most significant change was the last line of the scenario. Instead of “Fife is the new Edinburgh”, the line was changed to “Fife can rightly and proudly boast the title, the ‘New Kingdom’” (ID/SP1/3). This was an important ideological change as it acknowledged Fife as an important region of Scotland that enjoys not a competitive relationship with Edinburgh but rather a complimentary one. Some members of the steering

47 _{The prospect of Fife Partnership (Ltd.) was referred to regularly at Partnership meetings and has been the subject} of numerous policy papers from as far back as 2001.

group were drawn into thinking that regional prosperity was a zero-sum game, when in fact, if you highlight the key issues in the scenarios (i.e. Edinburgh’s economic success, transport links, etc.), it is clear that Fife’s success is at least partly dependent on the success of neighbouring regions. Without an economic centre (like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, etc.), Fife will always be reliant on nearby cities for a significant portion of its economic prosperity. Consequently, the scenario was adapted to reflect the importance of an improved ‘Fife’ rather than a transition towards a city-like success story which was geographically unattainable.

4.2.3 The Low Road in 2013—Drafts

The first draft of the ‘Low Road’ was highly pessimistic but not wholly negative. It described Fife as an area of “failing industry, dwindling jobs and shrinking public funding” that had become “totally isolated from the Scottish and UK economy” (ID/SP1/4). Fife’s dire state was blamed on a “lack of vision, strategic thinking and cooperation by Fife’s lead agencies” (ID/SP1/4), with the major problems emerging in the education and transportation systems.

Fife’s education sector was in tatters, with the Scottish Executive finally abolishing the service and taking control over the schools. Poor budget planning took much-needed funds away from investment in infrastructure for transportation and communication. Consequently, the Rosyth ferry service failed; congestion charges in Edinburgh overwhelmed the public transport system; and Fife suffered “bridge-lock” at both the Forth and Tay estuaries. The internal transportation system was just as bad, with the elderly and vulnerable hit hardest by the isolation. “Pockets of prosperity existed” but Fife as a whole was losing the battle against crime and drug abuse. It is a picture of a declining Fife trapped in a depressing cycle with no end in sight.

While the second draft is structured largely the same as the first, some of the negativity was softened while other points were made more extreme. For example, “totally isolated” became “increasingly isolated”; similarly, “Fife has been officially named the least

prosperous area in the UK” became “Fife has been officially named one of the least prosperous areas in the UK” (ID/SP1/5). Fife’s early ambitions to become a financial centre by capitalising on its proximity to Edinburgh were added, as were the reasons such prosperity dwindled away. The most significant adjustment to the second draft was the change to the ‘crisis point’ of the transportation system. In the first draft, this point was reached in 2010 when a road-rage incident on the heavily congested Forth Road Bridge sparked a public riot.