Methoden vergleichen

	Backcasting for Policy	Policy Delphi
Fachgebiet	Public Policy	Public Policy
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	1990	1970
Urheber	John B. Robinson (building on Amory Lovins' energy work)	Murray Turoff
Typ	Normative futures and foresight method	Structured, iterative expert-deliberation technique for policy
Wegweisende Quelle	Robinson, J. B. (1990). Futures under glass: A recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, 22(8), 820–842.	Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171.
Aliasnamen	Backcasting, Policy Backcasting, Normative Scenario Backcasting	Policy Delphi Technique, Turoff Policy Delphi, Decision Delphi
Verwandt	4	3
Zusammenfassung	Backcasting is a normative futures method that starts from a desirable future end-state and works backward to determine the policies, actions and milestones needed to reach it from the present. Coined and developed by John Robinson, who set out its logic in his 1990 article 'Futures under glass', it deliberately contrasts with forecasting: rather than asking what future is likely given current trends, backcasting asks what future we want and how we could get there. It is especially suited to long-term, transformative challenges such as sustainability and decarbonisation, where prevailing trends point away from where society needs to go.	The policy Delphi is a structured, iterative technique for eliciting and organising informed opinion on contested policy issues. Unlike the classical Delphi, which seeks consensus on a forecast, the policy Delphi is explicitly designed to generate the strongest possible opposing positions on a policy question and to expose the full range of options, supporting arguments and disagreements among a panel of knowledgeable stakeholders. Introduced by Murray Turoff in 1970, it conducts several anonymous rounds in which participants rate policy statements on dimensions such as desirability and feasibility, see aggregated feedback and the reasoning behind divergent views, and revise their positions — surfacing structured intelligence for decision-makers rather than a forced agreement.