Dr. Ahmad_Origin Ontology of Future Scenario's Idea

Origin Ontology of Future Scenario's Idea1 Ahmad Mahdeyan2 Abstract: Environmental changes coupled with the impact on globalization leading to increasing complexity in many developing strategies, especially on the foresight and futures studies. These trends pose a fundamental question, what is the chalenges of future’s complexity? It seems before understanding the origin of Future Scenario's idea and laws governing the Future Time, we've gone into the application of Scenarios to build better stories about future. In this paper we deeply investigated following issues in order to demonstrate the effects of the origin of idea's ontology on Future Scenarios; 1. Idea ontology, 2. The origin of creative thinking, 3. Idea nurturing in organizations, 4. Shaping the future time, 5. Scenario planning, 6. Ideas social network (global brain). This paper is a fundamental research type that makes theory for an applied science. In fact, we seek to bridge an ontology base with an applied knowledge. According to qualitative approach this study because of its data references to valid resources is valid and due to expert's continuous supervisions is reliable. Conceptual Model that have been emerged from this investigation, shows how we can improve scenario planning ability and what actually should be done to have good scenarios. Keywords: Future Scenarios, Idea's Origin, Mind's Cognitive map, Future Time Structure. 1 Although an abstract of this study previously has been accepted for presentation by SCENARIO 2015 Conference (Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory and Practice, 14–15 December 2015, Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK). But due to not attending, after some edition also presented at India (International Conference on Multilateral Cooperation: Emerging Global Scenario, 22-24 February 2016). 2 Ph.D. of Futures Studies (Strategic Foresight and Scenarios), mahdeyan@iraneservice.com 1 1. Introduction: Environmental changes coupled with the impact on globalization leading to increasing complexity in many developing strategic plans, especially on the new generation of an interdisciplinary thinking called foresight and futures studies. These trends pose a fundamental question, what is the problem of this complexity? It seems before understanding the origin of the creative’s ideas of future scenarios and laws governing the future time, we've gone into the application of Scenarios to build better stories for future. Life is not going to be easy in the 21st century for people who insist on black-and-white descriptions of reality (Chermack T. J., 2011). Various future oriented practices and techniques have been developed to support strategic planning. Scenario planning, in particular, has been started using more than 40 years ago and rapidly emerged as one of the most popular and effective foresight technique (Vecchiato & Favato, 2015) to more clearly appreciate a world clouded by information overload, rapid change, irreconcilable certitudes and/or persistent uncertainty (Oxford Scenarios Programme, 2015). Popper (2008) by hundreds of foresight projects shows that the three qualitative methods include; Literature Review, Expert panel and Scenarios are dominant in the methods of Futures Studies. These represents mix of Normative and Exploratory approaches in this field of studies. Futures Studies qualitative approach, largely based on expert’s intuition through Delphi or the Scenario writing methods (Mahdeyan, 2017). Human's epistemological basis shows natural scenario building ability to tell stories about human life in the future (Rhisiart, Scenario Building, 2006) and a cognitive link to time oriented structure of brain for understanding. Our decisions about the future depend on how we think the world works. Scenarios are based on intuition, but crafted as analytical structures. We use Scenario planning artful via learning process to overcome barriers of creative thinking (Chermack T. J., 2011) by changing mental model for decision making. Future Scenarios are just different ideas about future. We use scenarios to guide us in exploring the future, widening perspectives (Bentham, 2008), confronting assumptions, reshaping mental maps, recognizing degrees of uncertainty for avoiding Uncertainty and Ambiguity, addressing dilemmas and conflicts, etc. 1 The concept of an innovation hub as a powerful place for the creation of innovations through the interaction of science, education and the economy in combination with matching living and cultural life conditions forms the starting point for a comprehensive scenario study (Mietzner, 2015). Scenario generation is typically an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or even transdisciplinary activity, drawing on diverse bodies of knowledge. This is certainly true of scenarios, which involve integrating diverse forms of information relating to complex systems comprising multiple actors (McDowall & Hughes, 2015). Hence how we can improve the ability of Scenario planning in order to make enough potential in facing alternative future? For this regard, we deeply investigated following issues in order to demonstrate the fundamental effects of the origin of idea's ontology on Future Scenarios; 1. Idea ontology, 2. The origin of creative thinking, 3. Idea nurturing in organizations, 4. Shaping the future time, 5. Scenario planning, 6. Ideas social network (global brain). 2. Methodology This paper is a fundamental research type that makes theory for an applied science. Its analysis approach has been based on intuitionrational philosophy to explore new area of an interdisciplinary science by descriptive manner. According to qualitative approach this study because of its data references to valid resources will be valid and due to experts continuous supervisions will be reliable. According to Nonaka KM spiral model (Keenan, 2007, p. 20) (Eerola & Jørgensen, 2002, p. 12) this research is going to extract tacit knowledge from literatures and expert's intuition then combine as explicit knowledge in order to socialize it to benefit all players especially policy makers and business mans (Mahdeyan, 2012). This research aims to study the impact of Idea philosophical foundation on Future Scenarios, in other words, we seek to bridge an ontology base with an applied knowledge. The paper also benefits by complementing underrepresented fields of scientific curriculum. 3. literature Discussion 2.1. Idea Ontology Ideas are conceptions in the mind, they are a product of mental activity expressing “A thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011, p. 707). Ideas generally may serve to improve existing structures, prevent anticipated problems, or take advantage of specific opportunities (Deichmann, 2012, p. 14). In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke (16321704) argues that all ideas are derived from sense experience. The mind is a ‘tabula rasa’, empty at birth. He begins his argument by attacking the opposite view, which some ideas are not derived from sense experience, but are ‘innate’. He defines an idea as “whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks”. This is supposed to include all types of “thinking”, including perception and feeling as well as contemplation. So our ideas include thoughts and sensations, and also “internal” ideas such as feelings. Hume (17111776) thinks Locke’s usage is too broad, so he adopts different terminology (Millican, 2011):    An impression is a sensation (e.g. from seeing a blue sky or smelling a flower) or a feeling (e.g. being angry, or feeling pain); An idea is a thought (e.g. about the sky, or about a pain, or about the existence of God); A perception is either an impression or an idea. ( So Hume uses the word perception to cover everything that Locke calls an idea.) Hume’s version of Locke’s empiricism is expressed in what is commonly known as his Copy Principle: “that all our simple ideas in their first appearance are derived from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent.” (Jacovides, 2003). Do all concepts derive from experience? Birds sing the song of their species after hearing just a small part of it. This refers to something existing independently of experience, in objective space and time. So cognitive capacities have genetic base, but develop in response to experience (e.g. language). If experience must ‘trigger’ the idea, then are innate ideas just the capacity to acquire the idea? CAUSALITY is the concept that events happen in a necessary order. Without this concept, I cannot distinguish between the order of my perceptions (my perceptions changing) and the order of events (objects changing). But this distinction is needed to experience objects at all. So Causality is necessary for experience (Lacewing, 2015). One of the major themes in Cognitive Science is the way in which analogy serves as a psychological mechanism for learning that underlies causal learning, and deduction of knowledge (Holyoak, 2015). How does our visually perceived world differ from the physical world? We selectively amplify certain details in the world and ignore others. We organize these important perceptual details into categories and encode them into memory so that we can recognize objects effortlessly including face recognition. (Liu, 2015). So the origin of mental representations can divide into two parts (Cheng, 2015); I. II. The first is causal induction. How do people come to know that one thing causes another? The second issue is category formation. Objects in the world can be partitioned in an indefinitely large number of ways (e.g., objects that move in the wind, objects that have legs, objects to be avoided, and so on). 2.2. The Origin of Creative Thinking The life cycle can begin with the concept of a new product, a new process, a new service. It can begin with a request for proposal (RFP) to design and also write a scientific paper. To be successfully carried out, however, they all require creativity. But if the project is to construct an office building, and if we have already constructed a dozen or so similar buildings, the need for creativity is not obvious. But those with experience in construction know that buildings are like fingerprints no two are quite alike. Each one presents unique problems to be solved and requires creative solutions. Therefore all projects, call for creativity, but some call for more than others (Meredith & Mantel, 1995). Discussions about ideas are often made difficult because people are unclear about the exact meanings of some key terms. In particular there is confusion about the difference between creativity, innovation and invention. Let us start with some definitions (Sloane, 2010) I. II. III. Creativity is the capability or act of conceiving something original or unusual. Innovation is the implementation of something new. Invention is the creation of something that has never been made before and is recognized as the product of some unique insight. Humans are innovative and good at creative thinking due to the ability of our brains to blend two or more ideas and create a new idea. Blending is the pivotal feature of the human mind and innovation will be a necessary product of the blending mind (Turner, 2015). So creativity can be better understood if it is studied in the context of cognitive science. (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995). The study of human intelligence was once dominated by symbolic approaches, but over the last 30 years an alternative approach has arisen. Symbols and processes that operate on them are often seen today as approximate characterizations of the emergent consequences of sub or nonsymbolic processes, and a wide range of constructs in cognitive science can be understood as emergent (McClelland, 2010). In 1908 mathematician Henri Poincare described the creative process as a collision of ideas rising into consciousness. Soon after, some psychologist, behaviorist and others began studying how ideas and behaviors combined, and in the 1980s, in laboratory research with both animals and people, it showed that the combinatorial process was orderly and predictable and that it could be modeled on a computer (Turner, 2015). So by cognitive science we could characterize the mind as the interdisciplinary study of an information processor. Theories about how the brain operates portray it as basically divided into two hemispheres that control different functions (Meredith & Mantel, 1995) I. The left hemisphere controls analytic thinking such as verbal, numerical, logical, and judgmental thought. This side is said to be "anchored in time" and seeks control, optimization, and planning. Factual memory is also based here. II. The right side is the creative, imaginative side where intuition, imagination, pictorial thinking, and synthesis occur. Symbols and abstract representation are lodged here. This half is said to be "anchored in space" rather than in time. This side is the part of the brain we are trying to stimulate because it appears to be the source of creativity. Steven (2013) discusses how ideas are formed. He argues against “lone scientists”, and eureka moments where a single person sitting along is the whole source of an idea. Instead he favors the coffee houses and team meeting environments where a number of different people can discuss and improve each other’s ideas. In this way, innovation is more organic, happening over a long time period. He goes into detail about the discovery of GPS from a few curious researchers listening to sputnik, then one of them using Doppler to work out speed, then someone using the signal to work out its location, then their boss asking them to ‘reverse’ their calculations and develop a system to find ground locations from a satellite. There are several creative problem-solving techniques. All of these methods have one common element: They attempt to utilize the creative potential. They increase the output of ideas by individuals and groups. Skill in creative problem solving can be acquired and developed. It requires training and the application of effort, but it does not require special mental endowments or "gifts of nature." (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995). However what can I do to increase my creativity? To increase the creativity and innovativeness of companies not only ideas are to be produced, they need to be exploited. There are a broad spectrum of evaluation methods and techniques, applicable in very broad areas of a company life such as Group Creativity Techniques (Antoni, Canal, Cardama, & Coderch, 2015). There are also many idea evaluation software programs. All of them are of commercial nature and idea evaluation phase is usually only a (minor) part of the features they provide (Rebernik & Bradač, 2008). 2.3. Idea Nurturing in Organizations Successful startups are all about turning ideas into action quickly and efficiently. Taking action is the hard part. Entrepreneurs often come with their ideas asking for help and input on the next steps. This always seems strange, since the steps are the same for every business. Launching a startup requires the willingness to fail and learn. Avoiding failure is not a sign that you’re smart and being smart is not about knowing all the answers; it’s about being able to find them. While knowledge is about knowing the right answer, the intelligence is about asking the right questions. Even though it's common for startups to say that ideas mean nothing and execution is everything, the reality is more nuanced. Even the world’s best entrepreneurs with incredible execution will fail if their idea is fundamentally flawed, or if the assumed market is too small (Mohout, 2015). It has been repeatedly shown that groups are more effective in generating creative solutions to unstructured (poorly understood) problems than individuals. It is also clear that if the problem is structured (well understood), then individuals do a better job of problem solving than groups. (If you doubt this generality, consider the case of using a committee to add a column of numbers a well-structured problem) Thus, the fundamental reason for seeking creativity through a group process is that the problem structure is ambiguous (Meredith & Mantel, 1995). The burden of producing ideas is great. And it’s better handled with the help of others than trying to fly solo. But too often, people get hung up on the ownership of ideas. And this produces narrow thinking that limits the source of ideas. And narrow thinking is just as deadly to an idea as surface thinking. The truth is that if you’re worried about whose idea it is, you’ll be left behind in the search for an original idea. “I believe that great ideas are individual acts of inspiration, but that great advertising programs result from a team effort which builds upon an original idea and expands it” Keith Reinhardt, former chairman of advertising behemoth DDB Worldwide, said. There will certainly be ideas that are not as complete or as well-thought out compared to others. It can be a painful process to choose to leave behind ideas but it is a necessary part of the process. Developing ideas is a process that requires choice. Ideas are kinda like us when we wake up in the morning. They’re not really themselves at first. Ideas are living things that are born. They grow and reproduce. They adapt and respond, depending on the people that rub up against them. Ideas are born into a cold, hard world with very limited chances of survival. If we want our ideas to survive, thrive even, there are specific steps to help them on their way (Heronime, 2007); 1. 2. 3. 4. First of all, we have to make sure it’s really an idea. Make sure it’s really an idea we believe in. If we want to be successful at defending or promoting our idea, we need to have an intimate understanding of its essence. Examine it. Strip it down to its bare essentials. What problem is it solving? What purpose does it serve? What parts of the idea are necessary? Unnecessary? What makes it good? What makes it dangerous? Helpful? What do we call it? Can its very name explain everything about it? Know every aspect of the idea inside and out. And then share it. We cannot afford to be cavalier about sharing ideas. Knowing who to share our ideas with and when to share our ideas can drastically change the fate of an idea. We have to involve others. We need a variety of perspectives and opinions. We need to let an idea take on a life of its own separate from its origin. When we include people that we trust, that we know have the appropriate respect for the process of developing ideas, then we give our idea its best chance to become great. Finally, we need to be as objective about our idea as possible. The worst thing that can happen is that we move forward with a half-baked idea and in the process of trying to sell it to a client, it becomes an abortion. One of the best approaches to gaining buy in to an idea is to help the party we want to influence to arrive at the conclusion that our idea is really their idea. Talk about commitment. Talk about emotional transaction. Now they’re not just members of our idea club, they’re the president. NOW MAKE IT A GREAT IDEA. The difference between good and great is a harsh mile. We must now begin the arduous task of refining our idea for its final implementation. Maybe the biggest mistake we make at this point comes out of a fear of ruining our idea. Because good is our enemy. Ordinary and expected won’t cut it. It’s a big job, executing ideas. Making them great. We shouldn’t try it alone. There are always people who are inspired by ideas and ready to throw themselves into the storm because they know they will achieve greatness only when they accept risk. Ideas are the key ingredient in the innovation process but without a mechanism for managing them, it is difficult to prioritize innovation efforts and to channel innovation activity into the areas it is needed most. A classic form of these management programs is a suggestion box (Deichmann, 2012). An ideas management system (IMS) is a formal process by which ideas can be recorded, filtered and selected for implementation. Idea management programs are based on voluntary contributions of employees. Vandenbosch, Saatcioglu, and Fay (2006) define idea management as “the process of recognizing the need for ideas, and generating and evaluating them”. Idea management schemes are considered under the umbrella of highperformance human resources practices that are aimed at achieving organizational excellence through increasing employee involvement. Employees who suggest ideas take a consultative role to management on issues they consider important as well as where they possess more information and expertise than their leaders. Idea management is a structured process for the collection, handling, selection and distribution of ideas. It may include support for gathering, storing, improving, evaluating and prioritizing ideas by providing methods and tools, such as templates and guidelines. Collaborative Idea Management is a Driver of Continuous Innovation, it’s a way to engage all the employees in your organization to drive innovation (Karlsson, 2010). Collaboration is important not just because it's a better way to learn. The spirit of collaboration is penetrating every institution and all of our lives. To instill an engaged participants, the organization has to reward participation. The reward mix has to be strategically composed of both tangible and intangible awards to attract participation from all areas of the workforce (Bank & Raza, 2014). 2.4. Shaping the Future Time As discussed before, it seems before understanding the laws governing the future time, we've gone into the application of scenarios to build better stories for future. Futures Studies (FS) or Foresight as its synonym is an interdisciplinary new generation of scientific attitude includes continuum from physical and biological issues to social and humanities subjects with most focus on technology’s future and social studies. Although some assume that FS is just a methodology, but based on more than thousands projects that successfully have been done in this field to represent a better understanding of future situations and taking appropriate actions in the present (e.g., RAND and Shell (Borch, Dingli, & Jørgensen, 2013, p. 143)), we can demonstrate FS in 6 dimensions; Futures Studies dimensions (Mahdeyan, 2017) When various aspects of the concept of time’s geometry reflect on multi-dimensional model of main features of futures studies, then the time assumed like the farm, which based on the power of current practices and vision orientation we can plant the past as a core capabilities in order to produce the future; Shaping the Future Time (Mahdeyan, 2017) Today, human and social scientists are asking themselves whether they should turn their sciences upside down and reshape them from primarily past-oriented sciences to primarily future-oriented ones? First and foremost, anticipation is a feature characterizing the behavior of complex systems (Poli, 2015). Many biological and social systems appear to increase their complexity in time. Natural selection offers a mechanism for the evolution of intelligence, acting through the environmental landscape (Complexity , 2015). By understanding the processes at society, we may learn to design systems that maximize beneficial outcomes and frustrate unwanted ones (Kallus, 2015). But what governing natural selection? Is the World Floundering or Has She a Vision (Natarajan, 2015) ? In deeper investigation, history of communities or individuals raises the question, why some societies have survived despite historical events? Driving Force of Life makes a deal with external environmental factors and help increase the life of the person or society acts. This power to implement its function uses Gene pool. Although the performance of Genes with respect to food, sports and psychological factors can be increased, but the Gene pool itself can be strengthened with the mixing of genes in human societies. Marriage between two powerful sides can make people more resistant than former relatives. 2.5. Scenario Planning Scenario development is one of the most widely used tools and a established method in futures research and foresight which is a structured discourse about possible future developments in order to plan strategic actions in the present (Kayser, 2015) (Minkkinen, 2015). Scenario Planning after a spectacular success at Royal Dutch/Shell in the early 1970s, have been in commercial use for several decades (McKiernan, 2015) (Kaner, 2003). Scenarios are stories about the future, but their purpose is to make better decisions in the present (Bentham, 2008). They are not predictions. Nor are they strategies. Instead they are more like hypotheses of different futures to highlight the risks and opportunities (Schwartz & Ogilvy, 2004). Scenarios are “a tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative future environments” said Schwartz (1996) (Rhisiart, 2006). Scenario planning focuses on situations where managers need to gain a better understanding of the external environment and how different uncertainties interact together (Kunc & O'Brien, 2015). Scenario exercises may have a range of tangible and intangible benefits, for example in supporting strategic decisionmaking, setting priorities, challenging assumptions and promoting learning (Rhisiart, 2015). Figure 1 : Why we use Scenarios? (Tapinos, 2015) (Minkkinen, 2015) (Hodgkinson & Healey, 2015) (Schwarz, 2015) (Önkal & Dhami, 2015) (Vecchiato & Favato, 2015) (Scheele, 2015) “Scenarios are not conceived of one at a time. You develop a range of two or three possible futures, allowing you to address an array of possibilities and rehearse your responses to each of them. At the same time, more than four scenarios tend to be too complex: you cannot keep track of their ramifications in your mind” said Schwartz (Rhisiart, Scenario Building, 2006). The structure of using three scenarios is highly debated. There is a clear tendency that using three scenarios is a temptation to have a ‘best-case’, ‘worst case’, and ‘status quo’ structure to the scenario set. This approach requires little thought, and is not likely to generate novel insights (Chermack T. J., 2011). Many scenario users have followed the ‘scenario matrix’ approach. From here, the two chosen variables can be plotted on a 2 × 2 matrix, thus generating four scenario structures (Chermack & Coons, 2012). Figure 2 : Think Scenarios: Four Is The Magic Number Figure 3 : Four scenarios European social platform in 2050 by two critical uncertainties (Hicks, 2012) There is a wide variety of scenario methods (Minkkinen, 2015). In the book entitled: Scenario Planning in Organizations: How to Create, Use, and Assess Scenarios, Chermack (2011) based on real scenario projects introduced a comprehensive five phase scenario planning system. A variety of techniques currently exist to help individuals and groups generate scenarios. Three scenario-generation techniques commonly that used in strategic intelligence analysis include; cone of plausibility, simple scenarios, and individual brainstorming (Önkal & Dhami, 2015). Basically The Process of Scenario Creating include (Mason, 1999); 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identify the focal issue or decision Identify the driving forces Predetermined elements Critical uncertainties Writing the scenarios The decision of scenario practitioners on which factors to choose to outline a complex problem for modeling purposes, is generally made rather intuitively and cannot be solved satisfactory by common scenario methods. Tools like PEST analysis, STEEP, PESTLED or similar taxonomies, are widely applied in different research fields and are meant to provide such guidance, however, often are considered to be of limited use. To give practitioners alternative tools at hand, we can use two conceptual tools to improve scenario factor definition and selection in scenario construction processes (Prehofer, 2015); I. In cases where ‘society’ is assumed to be the adequate scope of problem consideration, like for energy system transitions, I propose to put social system theory at the outset of the scenario study, for example, the ‘AGIL’ scheme by Talcott Parsons. Therewith, scenario practitioners should be enabled to think out of the (current practice) box and think more systematically and detailed about societal structures and relevant drivers. II. In cases where the contextual environment of a specific object under study needs to be taken into account, like the context of the energy system, I propose to explicitly distinguish between context and focus factors and integrate both in the scenario study. Applying the ‘contextfocus scheme’; guides and structures the selection and definition of scenario factors for further analysis and enhances learning and understanding for the object under study in its specific context. I furthermore assume to facilitate linking a qualitative scenario with e.g. a quantitative energy model. Causal layered analysis (CLA) (Heinonen, Minkkinen, & Inayatullah, 2015), Real-Time Spatial Delphi (Zio & Lamelza, 2015), Reflective practices of the Oxford Scenarios Programme (OSP) (Bhatti, 2015), work on explicit theories of social change and stability (TOCS) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa futures studies program (Lum, 2015), Simulation modeling (Trujillo-Cabezas, 2015) are just some new development of scenario planning. In addition research on human perception and cognition, with an emphasis on visual perception of objects, involves psychophysical experimentation and computational modeling aimed at understanding how perceivers extract information from their environment and derive representations of objects (Kellman, 2015) has four advantages include (Duijne, 2015); Visualization to speed up the thinking process, Open up sensory modalities beyond our analytical reasoning, Visualization to make the future tangible, Build an integral framework, combining pictures, numbers and words. 2.6. Ideas Social Network (Global Brain) The Global Brain can be defined as the self-organizing network formed by all people on this planet together with the information and communication technologies that connect and support them. It increasingly links its users into a single information processing system, which functions like a nervous system for the planet Earth. The intelligence of this system is collective and distributed. Such a distributed intelligence may be able to tackle current and emerging global problems that have eluded more traditional approaches (Elsevier, 2015). As Nikola Tesla (1926) describing a cell phone back 'When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole" (Boevink, 2015) (Kennedy, 1926). Understanding the collective intelligence that arises in schools, flocks and swarms may yield solutions to many technological and social challenges (Berdahl, 2015). Understanding how institutions affect dynamics of beliefs and of norms could help us build more sustainable societies (Dumas, 2015). Burt (2002) studied social structure to define an advantage in creating good ideas, and people reproducing the social structure as they discuss their ideas. Beyond the individual are external factors, qualities of the social context around the individual that constitute an advantage in generating good ideas. Studies instructs more powerful social resources management that aims to activate the right type of relationships in ever-changing networks and thereby trigger creativity in employees without exhausting their potential. Opening up the innovation agenda to more people could stimulate the formation of new relationships and hence a new inflow of knowledge into an idea network (Deichmann, 2012). In recent years discussions about social trends or desirable and possible futures have increasingly been taking place in the so-called social media. Many users do not merely consume content, they also debate, rate and create content for the general public. With access to this content new perspectives are opened up for scenario methodology. Weblogs may not only be used as a monitoring instrument for scenario studies but can also serve as a source of inspiration during the creation of such studies. Researchers who intend to use weblogs may challenged to identify high quality blogs and distinguish between content replicated from other sources and original content (Moehrle, 2015). Foresight crowdsourcing often focusses on identifying trends and weak signals of change via internet-based platforms. Crowdsourcing scenarios presents a greater challenge, requiring synthesis of plausible and coherent narratives describing alternative futures (Schultz, 2015). There is an awful lot of information in the world (Oppenheimer, 2015). Social networks, website traffic, cellphone usage data, academic collaboration networks, health records, power grids, and observations of ecosystem food webs yield abundant data, and promise great insights into the patterns of interaction they record. The insights that stands to gain from understanding big data brings powerful theory and algorithms to bear on datasets in ecology, economics and anthropology etc. (Big Data, 2015). Humans often paradoxically succeed in making inferences from inadequate data. How can an intelligent system cope? (Lu, 2015). However, the epistemic value of big data for foresight should be evaluated. For example by social media we can use Twitter in scenario development and applies web and text mining. Twitter as widely used social media platform covers a broad spectrum of content that might be used as information base for the scenario process. Text mining delivers a fast overview on aspects describing the scenario field to capture the topic and derive influence areas and factors (Kayser, 2015). Scenario planning is a tool which captures multiple futures that an organization may face. The scenario planning process is often participative and conducted in a facilitated workshop setting, requiring people to be physically present in order to participate. A variety of social media exist which allow people to interact with each other virtually, and in real time. Media, and in particular Twitter, have a potential to be used to facilitate and encourage engagement with workshops, beyond those physically attending the workshop. In future social media can be used for several purposes; as well as supporting wider engagement in the project itself, it can facilitate communication between interested activists (Meadows & O’Brien, 2015). 4. Conclusion As you can see, Conceptual Model that have been emerged from investigation the Origin of Future Scenario's Idea, shows basic fundamental of Future Scenarios. Scenarios are just stories about what if. This paper efforts was focused on how we can improve scenario planning ability? To this regards this paper explained what actually should be done to have good scenarios. Based on Copy Principle our brain gets ideas from Environmental Experiences and Dreams, these inputs could trigger innate ideas which stored in our genome base. They can understand via mental map shaped by past experiences and future visions. The process of understanding begins with making information from data to get wisdom as well as described in Knowledge Management. Here, there is two ways to follow; one by individual efforts, given that good idea needs social discussion, if we can assume that there is just one person at one island, so this person will not be able to make a word for talking! This person only could copy what observe in the wild nature and make a little change in them. So we should focus on the second way that is based on society network which today by internet facilities we are going to have a Global Brain. Personal intelligence techniques can help us to use the best social advantages. Working with others needs Group Creativity techniques. We need to get benefits from others because individual thinking process takes too much time, so by sharing problems we can reduce time’s cost and improve quality. Nurturing ideas via organization needs to social network in order to facilitate thinking in decoding problem’s structures as well as experts should think outside their field box. Then by causality our brain blends this inputs by categorizing and based on future time’s structure, new ideas comes by intuition as Future Scenarios. In Scenario planning we are going to solve future ambiguity by what if, similar to other creative problem-solving techniques that trying to make decisions about current issues. Actually this techniques similarly trying to take actions in the present to make better futures. There is also a question that from where this process could begin? Innate sense of perfection, force us to take action on the present to have better futures. This comes from differences between human and other creation in natural environment, which is related to time oriented structure of our mind for understanding concurrent causality and chain of events. Here we can indicate that more awareness on time makes more power to create future. This emphasizes the power of vision in top people. Hence we can identify the origin of human authority to change the world from inside the absolute structure of time, because the time acceptance in phenomena is comparative. In this research we tried to provide some theoretical evidence from literature discussion to make a conceptual model in order to benefit an applied science entitled scenario planning. This success can open players’ minds to make better futures. For further researches we can work on answering questions include; 1. How Global Brain could benefit problem solving by gathering different people’s collaboration on the specific issues? 2. How Cognitive Science strategies could benefit scenario planning by reshaping mental models? 3. How we could make some developments in brain performance by biotechnology, genome enrichment, food and exercises, etc. to benefit next generation even present people? And studying; 1. Futures Studies (Foresight) Science and discussing how is the creation' structure of Future Times. 2. Future Scenarios of the World's Mega Trends that will affect human life in different aspects. In future we hope some other scholars via this studies introduce the Business Forecasting Model of Future Scenario's Idea by reflective practices of real done projects that can help individuals alone and in groups to learn by doing. Conceptual Model of the Origin of Future Scenario's Idea Experiences from Environment Genetic base of innate ideas Dreams outside the physical nature Copy Principle Group Perception via Network Collaboration Cognitive Map of Brain based on Past Experiences and Future Visions Individual Structural Perception by Effort Personal Intelligence Global Brain Categories Blending by CAUSALITY Enthusiasm to Solve Present Problem Innate Sense of Perfection New Idea Intuition (Future Scenarios) The power of act in the present based on past potential and future vision New Futures 5. References Antoni, E., Canal, F., Cardama, A., & Coderch, M. (2015). Critical Thinking and Creativity. Retrieved from MASTER'S DEGREE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING (Syllabus 2013): Department of Signal Theory and Communications Bank, J., & Raza, A. (2014, February). Collaborative Idea Management: A Driver of Continuous Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11-16. Bentham, J. B. (2008). Scenarios: An Explorer's Guide. Shell International BV. Berdahl, A. (2015). collective behavior . Retrieved from berdahl@santafe.edu Bhatti, Y. (2015). Using Live Cases to Learn Scenario Planning. Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory and Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Big Data. (2015). Retrieved from Social networks, big data, and physics-powered inference: http://www.santafe.edu/research/networks-data/detail/ Boevink, M. (2015). Retrieved from Oxford, United Kingdom: linkedin.com Borch, K., Dingli, S. M., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2013). Participation and Interaction in Foresight: Dialogue, Dissemination and Visions. Edward Elgar Publishing. Burt, R. (2002). Social Origins of Good Ideas. University of Chicago. Cheng, P. (2015). REASONING LAB. Retrieved from reasoninglab.psych.ucla.edu Chermack , T. J. (2011). Scenario Planning in Organizations: How to Create, Use, and Assess Scenarios. Berrett-Koehler Organizational Performance. Chermack, T., & Coons, L. (2012). Exploring the arts of crafting and delivering scenarios. Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, 8(3), 233-253. Complexity . (2015). Retrieved from Information, thermodynamics, and the evolution of complexity in biological systems: http://www.santafe.edu/research/ecosystemssocialsystems/detail/ Concise Oxford English Dictionary. (2011). Oxford Dictionaries. Deichmann, D. (2012). Idea Management Perspectives from Leadership, Learning, and Network Theory. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Duijne, F. v. (2015, October 16). Four advantages of using visualization in foresight. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com Dumas, M. (2015). social behavior. Retrieved from marion@santafe.edu Eerola, A., & Jørgensen, B. (2002). Technology Foresight in the Nordic Countries. Denmark: Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde. Elsevier. (2015). Retrieved from The Global Brain: A Model of the Future Information Society: elsevier.com Heinonen, S., Minkkinen, M., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Testing Transformative Energy Scenarios through CLA gaming. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Heronime, M. (2007). THE EXECUTION OF AN IDEA. Numantra. Hicks, C. (2012). SPREAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050. Wuppertal. Germany: UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). Hodgkinson, G., & Healey, M. (2015). Exploring the Social, Political and Cognitive Dynamics of Scenario Planning Interventions: A Critical Incident Study. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Holyoak, K. (2015). Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from holyoak@psych.ucla.edu Jacovides, M. (2003). Locke’s Construction of the Idea of Power. Elsevier. Johnson, S. (2013, 10 30). Steven Johnson: Where good ideas come from. Retrieved from http://tedsummaries.com Kallus, Y. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.santafe.edu/about/people/group/omidyar-fellow Kaner, C. (2003). An Introduction to Scenario Testing. Florida Tech. Karlsson, M. (2010). COLLABORATIVE IDEA MANAGEMENT. APPLIED INNOVATION MANAGEMENT(1). Kayser, V. (2015). Web-based Scenario Development: Process Improvements. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Keenan, M. (2007). Combining Foresight Methods for Impacts. 3rd International Conference on Foresight. Tokyo. Kellman, P. (2015). Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from Applications of Perceptual and Adaptive Learning to Learning Technology: kellman@psych.ucla.edu Kennedy, J. (1926). WHEN WOMAN IS BOSS (An interview with Nikola Tesla). Colliers, tfcbooks.com. Kunc, M., & O'Brien, F. (2015). Integrating Scenarios with the Resource-based View of the Firm: An Exploratory Study. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Lacewing, M. (2015). Innate ideas. enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk. Liu, Z. (2015). Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from Associate Professor in UCLA College: zili@psych.ucla.edu Lu, H. (2015). The Computational Vision and Learning (CVL) Lab. Retrieved from http://cvl.psych.ucla.edu/index.htm Lum, R. (2015). Theory-driven Scenario Development: Using Theories of Change and Stability to Anchor and Differentiate Alternative Futures. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School Uk. Mahdeyan, A. (2012). Measures and economic dimensions of Knowledge Management. Report. (In Persian). Mahdeyan, A. (2017). Ontological analysis of the time concept and designing a theoretical model of its. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies of strategic knowledge, Supreme National Defense University, Teh, IR. (In Persian). Mason, M. (1999). Future Scenarios: The Art of Storytelling. Retrieved from moyak.com McClelland, J. (2010). Emergence in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 751–770. McDowall, W., & Hughes, N. (2015). Exploring Constructive Conflict in Scenario Development. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. McKiernan, P. (2015). Scenario Planning and its Future: what’s missing and does it matter? Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory and Practice. Warwick Business School in collaboration with the British Academy of Management and the Operational Research Society UK. Meadows, M., & O’Brien, F. (2015). Reflecting on the use of social media within a scenario planning project. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Meredith, J., & Mantel, S. (1995). Creativity and Idea Generation. University of Cincinnati. Mietzner, D. (2015). Anticipation and Visualisation of Regional Developments – How Scenarios can be Supportive in Strategic Decision Making. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Millican, P. (2011). Hume’s Central Principles. Hertford College, Oxford. Minkkinen, M. (2015). Process Tracing as a Basis for Issue-based Scenarios: The Case of the General Data Protection Regulation. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Moehrle, M. (2015). What Weblogs Reveal about Qualitative Key Factors in Scenario Studies. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Mohout, O. (2015). Genesis: Idea Stage. slideshare. Natarajan, A. (2015, April). Is the World Floundering or Has She a Vision? CADMUS, 2(4), 48-56. Önkal, D., & Dhami, M. (2015). Testing the Effectiveness of Scenario Generating Techniques: Forecasting Outcomes of the Refugee Crisis. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Oppenheimer, D. (2015). Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from Associate Professor in UCLA College: daniel.oppenheimer@anderson.ucla.edu Oxford Scenarios Programme. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/programmes/execed/scenarios Poli, R. (2015). The Three Levels of Futures Studies: Forecast, Foresight and Anticipation. Retrieved from UNESCO Chair in Anticipatory Systems, University of Trento: roberto.poli@unitn.it Popper, R. (2008). Foresight Methodology. Bonn, Germany: The Univercity of Manchester. Prehofer, S. (2015). Theory-based and (more) Systematic Scenario Factor Definition and Selection. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Rebernik, M., & Bradač, B. (2008). Idea evaluation methods and techniques. Retrieved from http://www.creativetrainer.eu/fileadmin/template/download/module_idea_evaluati on_final.pdf Rhisiart, M. (2006). Scenario Building. Cardiff Business School. Rhisiart, M. (2015). From Foresight to Impact? The 2030 Future ofWork Scenarios. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Scheele, R. (2015). Rethinking Plausibility: Empirically Analysing External Judgments on Different Qualitative Scenario Formats. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Schultz, W. (2015). Stitching Scenarios from Distributed Fragments: a Crowdsourced Approach to Scenario-building. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Schwartz, P., & Ogilvy, J. (2004). Plotting Your Scenarios. GBN Global Business Network. Schwarz, J. O. (2015). Adding the Competitive Dimension to Scenario Planning: Combining Scenarios with BusinessWar Gaming. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Sloane, P. (2010). What is the Difference Between Innovation and Creativity? . Retrieved from http://www.innovationexcellence.com Smith, S., Ward, T., & Finke, R. (1995). Paradoxes, principles, and prospects for the future of creative cognition. In The creative cognition approach. Cambridge. Tapinos, E. (2015). Sensemaking in Scenario Planning. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Trujillo-Cabezas, R. (2015). Using Hybrid Simulation Approach to Develop a Regional Behavioral Analysis (RBA) Framework to Improve the Scenario Design Methodology. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Turner, M. (2015). The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. Oxford University Press. Vecchiato, R., & Favato, G. (2015). Embedding Real Options in Scenario Planning: A New Methodological Approach. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK. Zio, S., & Lamelza, L. (2015). The Real-Time Spatial Delphi: Fast Convergence of Expert Opinions on the Territory. Scenario 2015, Improving Scenario Methodology: Theory & Practice. Warwick Business School UK.