Process / pipelineFutures Foresight StudiesFutures & foresight / environmental scanning frameworksPipeline

VERGE Futures Framework

Also known as: VERGE Framework, VERGE General Practice Scanning, Define-Relate-Connect-Create-Consume-Destroy, VERGE Ethnographic Futures Framework

OriginatorRichard Lum and Michele BowmanYear2005Sources2Related methods3

The VERGE framework is a general-practice scanning ontology developed by foresight practitioners Richard Lum and Michele Bowman to organize signals of change and stimulate ideation across six fundamental domains of human experience: Define, Relate, Connect, Create, Consume, and Destroy. Rather than sorting scanning material by the conventional STEEP categories — social, technological, economic, environmental, political — VERGE organizes it by the basic ways people make sense of and act in the world: how we define reality and meaning, relate to one another, connect across distance, create and produce, consume and use, and dispose of or destroy. This human-centered ontology is designed to surface changes and cross-domain interactions that category-based taxonomies tend to fragment or miss. Catalogued among the scanning and ideation methods of the field, VERGE serves both as a way to file environmental-scanning hits and as a generative lens for thinking through the implications of change.

Key highlights

  • Organizes change by universal human activities, keeping related signals together that disciplinary taxonomies scatter.
  • Surfaces cross-domain tensions and interactions where the most consequential implications of change often arise.
  • Serves both as a filing ontology for scanning hits and as a generative lens for structured ideation.
  • Its human-centered domains travel across cultures, making it useful for cross-cultural and social foresight.

Intuition

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

How it works

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

When to use it

Use the VERGE framework when you want to organize environmental-scanning material or generate ideas about change in a way that centers human experience rather than academic categories, and when capturing cross-domain interactions matters more than neat disciplinary filing. It is well suited to scanning programs, ideation workshops, and the front end of scenario or visioning projects, especially for topics whose human and cultural dimensions are central and where STEEP-style taxonomies tend to fragment the picture. Its human-centered domains travel well across cultures, making it useful for cross-cultural and social-foresight work. It is less appropriate when stakeholders specifically need the familiar STEEP structure, when the inquiry is narrowly technical and a single discipline dominates, or when a rigorous quantitative method is required rather than a qualitative organizing lens. It is commonly paired with environmental scanning as its input and feeds emerging-issues analysis, scenario, and visioning work downstream.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Organizes change by universal human activities, keeping related signals together that disciplinary taxonomies scatter.
  • Surfaces cross-domain tensions and interactions where the most consequential implications of change often arise.
  • Serves both as a filing ontology for scanning hits and as a generative lens for structured ideation.
  • Its human-centered domains travel across cultures, making it useful for cross-cultural and social foresight.
Limitations
  • Classifying signals into domains is subjective, and many signals plausibly belong to several at once.
  • Less familiar to stakeholders than STEEP, so it may require explanation and buy-in before use.
  • As a qualitative organizing framework it structures and prompts thinking but produces no quantitative forecast.
  • Comprehensiveness depends on the quality and breadth of the underlying scanning that feeds it.

Common pitfalls

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Applications

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Frequently asked

What do the six VERGE domains stand for?

VERGE organizes change into six domains of human activity. Define is how people conceive of and give meaning to reality — ideas, beliefs, language, paradigms. Relate is how people structure their relationships and social organization. Connect is how people and things are linked across distance, including communication and transport technologies. Create is how people design, make, and produce. Consume is how people use, acquire, and experience what is created. Destroy is how people dispose of, dismantle, and end things. Together they aim to cover the fundamental ways humans act in and on the world, providing an activity-based alternative to discipline-based scanning categories.

How does VERGE differ from STEEP or PEST scanning?

STEEP and PEST sort signals of change by academic or analytical category — social, technological, economic, environmental, political. VERGE instead sorts them by the dimension of human experience they touch — how we define, relate, connect, create, consume, and destroy. The difference is more than relabeling: because a single human change often spans several STEEP buckets, those taxonomies can fragment it, whereas VERGE's activity-based domains tend to keep related changes together and make the interactions between them visible. VERGE is also explicitly generative, used to walk a topic through all six domains to prompt ideas, where STEEP is more often a passive filing scheme.

Is VERGE just for filing scanning hits, or can it generate ideas?

It does both, and its generative use is arguably its greater strength. As a filing ontology it sorts scanning signals by the human activity they concern and keeps cross-domain changes together. As a generative lens it is used to deliberately walk a focal topic through Define, Relate, Connect, Create, Consume, and Destroy, asking for each how the topic might reshape that part of human life and what new possibilities or risks follow. This structured six-domain sweep, combined with reading across the domains for tensions and reinforcements, ensures comprehensive coverage and yields implications that feed scenario, visioning, and strategy work.

Sources

  1. 1.
    Glenn, J. C., & Gordon, T. J. (Eds.). (2009). Futures Research Methodology, Version 3.0. The Millennium Project.
    ISBN 9780981894119
  2. 2.
    Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight, 5(3), 10-21.

You have read it. What now?

Cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). VERGE Futures Framework. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/futures-foresight-studies/verge-futures-framework