השוואת שיטות

	Cross-Impact Balance Analysis	General Morphological Analysis
תחום	Futures Foresight Studies	Futures Foresight Studies
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	2006	1969
הוגה השיטה	Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle	Fritz Zwicky; formalized by Tom Ritchey
סוג	Semi-quantitative scenario-construction pipeline	Combinatorial problem-structuring pipeline for multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable problems
מקור מכונן	Weimer-Jehle, W. (2006). Cross-impact balances: A system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 334-361.	Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked Problems - Social Messes: Decision Support Modelling with Morphological Analysis. Springer.
כינויים	CIB Analysis, Cross-Impact Balances, Balance Algorithm Scenario Analysis, Qualitative Systems Analysis (Weimer-Jehle)	GMA, Morphological Analysis, Zwicky Box, Morphological Field Analysis
קשורות	4	3
תקציר	Cross-Impact Balance (CIB) analysis is a semi-quantitative foresight method that turns a panel of qualitative expert judgments into a small set of internally consistent scenarios. Introduced by Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle in 2006, CIB describes a system as a set of descriptors, each of which can take one of several discrete future states, and asks experts to judge, pairwise, how strongly each state promotes or restricts every other state. These judgments form a cross-impact matrix; a balance algorithm then searches the combinatorial space of state combinations for configurations in which every descriptor's chosen state is the one most strongly supported by all the others. These self-consistent combinations are the scenarios. CIB has become a standard tool for building qualitative socio-technical scenarios, including the shared socio-economic pathways used in climate research.	General morphological analysis (GMA) is a method for structuring and exploring the total set of possible configurations of a complex, multi-dimensional problem that cannot be reduced to numbers. Devised by the astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky in the mid-twentieth century and formalized for policy and futures work by Tom Ritchey, it begins by laying out a problem as a 'morphological field' — a set of parameters, each with several discrete value-states — whose combinations define every conceivable solution. Because that combinatorial space is usually enormous, the method's decisive step is cross-consistency assessment: experts judge every pair of states for internal contradiction, and contradictory pairs prune the field down to a far smaller set of internally coherent configurations that can actually be examined.