FUTRPLAY ONLINE PLATFORM
INTRODUCTION
In October 2015, UN Montenegro launched an online platform—FUTRPLAY—aimed at generating more citizen insights for its next five-year plan, which will establish strategic objectives and prioritized areas of cooperation with the Government of Montenegro from 2017-2021. Based on an enhanced survey tool used in face-to-face engagements as part of the Pogled U Budućnost campaign, FUTRPLAY utilizes simple gaming mechanics and algorithmic interactivity to create a more dynamic “foresight-driven” experience for users while accomplishing the work of traditional survey instruments. FUTRPLAY was officially launched on October 12th—one week before the Strategic Planning Retreat (SPR), which served as the first formal meeting to discuss priority areas. Within one week, over two hundred users provided inputs on the values, actions, stakeholders, challenges, and opportunities for their vision of a preferred future for Montenegro. This report provides an overview of the interface, user data, results, and recommendations for further development.
FUTRPLAY follows a simple cadence: users place a category card, users select a predefined detail card or create their own, two computer users place cards, users are asked to place two sets of tokens (likelihood first and impact second).
FUTRPLAY was made available in both English and Montenegrin, and users could switch back and forth between languages at any time. The platform is still available and open at http://montenegro2030.me
Prompts to place tokens for weighting and prioritization were intentionally kept simple and open so as not to sway the users to place the most “likely” and “impactful” token on their own card, which was more the case for Values than any other category.
After users completed all rounds by placing one card in each category, users were shown the most popular cards based on token weighting and were asked to create a “Headline from the Future� and share it on social media.
USER DATA
Users were asked to provide some basic information about age, gender, location, and education before starting. Email input was optional. In the image on the previous page, the color of the lines represent gender (purple for female and blue for male). As the visual indicates, the largest group of users were 20-29 and 30-39 year olds from Podgorica. Overall, the Central region dominated as Niksic and Danilovgrad were also well-represented. Bar was the largest nonCentral municipality with 11 users. All user data is available here: http://bit.ly/1l6ZNts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Users were asked to select, craft, and prioritize values, actions, stakeholders, challenges, and opportunities. While users could select pre-defined content in each category, they were also given the chance to create a unique response in each category. After users placed a card on the board and added some detail to their selection, they were asked to weight their answers as well as the responses given by the two “computer” users, who were programmed with outputs from workshops with citizens and UNCT staff. Users were asked to how likely all of the selections were to be realized and which will have the biggest impact by 2030. In asking users to consider the longer-term future—one beyond the scope of UN Montenegro’s next five-year plan—FUTRPLAY aims to engender greater foresight. As one cannot predict the future, these “preferred visions” provide insights on citizen perspectives on continuity and change. It is often the case that today’s problems remain tomorrow’s concerns, but this might not apply to a more distant horizon. Consequently, FUTRPLAY grants one insight as to how citizens “use the future,” or rather the degree to which they believe change is possible and/or desirable. The image on the previous page offers a look at the results from four categories— values, stakeholders, challenges, and opportunities—collated by age group: 11-19 yrs, 20-29 yrs, 30-39 yrs, 40-49 yrs, 50-59 yrs, and 60+ yrs. 41% of all users (91 out of 218) were female, and over half of this group were ages 20-29 yrs. There was significantly less variety with regards to age for female users compared to male users, which had representation in all age brackets.
This visual shows the top cards by category collated by gender. Overall, both male and female users selected Education as the to p O p p o r t u n i t y a n d Family and Culture as the top Values. Media and Elites were chosen as the top two stakeholders, and Technology, which was seen almost equally as both a Challenge and an Opportunity, is joined by t h e E u ro p e a n U n i o n , Poverty, and NATO as the top challenges.
RESULTS
The image on the previous page offers a look at the results from four categories—values, stakeholders, challenges, and opportunities—collated by age group: 11-19 yrs, 20-29 yrs, 30-39 yrs, 40-49 yrs, 50-59 yrs, and 60+ yrs. 41% of all users (91 out of 218) were female, and over half of this group were ages 20-29 yrs. There was significantly less variety with regards to age for female users compared to male users, which had representation in all age brackets. When compared with the outputs from the New Voices workshops, results from FUTRPLAY are significantly different. Whereas the top Values generated by participants in the workshops were Sustainability, Hard Work, and Equality, FUTRPLAY users overwhelmingly chose Family and Culture. Another stark difference between the workshops and FUTRPLAY results is evident in looking at the most used Stakeholder cards. Workshop participants chose Youth, the European Union, and Citizens while users continuously selected Media and Elites—the latter of which is a usergenerated card. Additional results have been broken down by category.
YOUTH VOICES
YOUTH VOICES
As over half of all users (123 of 218) were under 30 yrs old, it is worth looking at specific results from Youth Voices. The visual on the previous page shows the top cards by category given by Youth Voices. Culture was seen as the top Value. Media was seen as the top Stakeholder. Education was seen as the top Opportunity. Debt was seen as the top Challenge. In the first image, the color of the lines shows likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and the thickness of each line shows impact weighting (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact). In the second image, the color of the lines shows impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, grey = little impact)and the thickness of each line shows likelihood weighting (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely). Youth Voices were more likely to place the highest impact (purple) tokens on their own card but less likely than other users to place the highest likelihood (red) token on their own card. Youth data is available here: http://bit.ly/1MVFOEl.
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
VALUES
VALUES
As previously noted, the top two Values were Family and Culture, and these two cards also received high likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact) weightings from users. The visuals on the next two pages provide a detailed look at how users weighted all user-placed cards in this category. In the first image, the color of the lines shows likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and the thickness of each line shows impact weighting (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact). In the second image, the color of the lines shows impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, grey = little impact) and the thickness of each line shows likelihood weighting (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely). Although Solidarity was not used as frequently as other cards, it was given a high impact weighting by users, as is evidenced by the thickness of the red lines. The same dynamic also applies to Health, which was given high likelihood (red and amber) as well as impact weightings, as the thickness of the lines indicates.
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
STAKEHOLDERS
As previously noted, the top two Stakeholders were Media and Elites, but Municipalities, the Private Sector, and Student Organizations were used repeatedly. Additionally, all of these cards also received high likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact) weightings from users. The visuals on the next two pages provide a detailed look at how users weighted all user-placed cards in this category. In the first image, the color of the lines shows likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and the thickness of each line shows impact weighting. In the second image, the color of the lines shows impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, grey = little impact) and the thickness of each line shows likelihood weighting. In contrast to the workshops, Children were seen as a key stakeholder and were given both high likelihood and impact weightings. On the other hand, Professional Organizations were chosen repeatedly but not given high weightings.
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
CHALLENGES
As previously noted, the top two Stakeholders were the European Union and Poverty, but Debt, Social Inclusion, and NATO were used repeatedly. Additionally, all of these cards also received high likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact) weightings from users. The visuals on the next two pages provide a detailed look at how users weighted all user-placed cards in this category. In the first image, the color of the lines shows likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and the thickness of each line shows impact weighting. In the second image, the color of the lines shows impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, grey = little impact) and the thickness of each line shows likelihood weighting. Although Globalization and Technology were only used a few times (less than 12 each), both received high weightings. Other notable Challenge cards are Extremism, Ethnic Conflict, and Migration.
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
OPPORTUNITIES
As previously noted, the top two Opportunities were Education and Startups, but Technology, Renewable Energy, and Social Innovation were also used repeatedly. Additionally, all of these cards also received high likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, white = little impact) weightings from users. The visuals on the next two pages provide a detailed look at how users weighted all user-placed cards in this category. In the first image, the color of the lines shows likelihood (red = extremely likely, amber = somewhat likely, green = likely) and the thickness of each line shows impact weighting. In the second image, the color of the lines shows impact (purple = high impact, blue = some impact, grey = little impact) and the thickness of each line shows likelihood weighting. Globalization, which was also given as a Challenge, was listed as an Opportunity and given high weightings. The same applies to Dialogue.
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT
FUTRPLAY ought to be seen as a prototype—an initial engagement from which to learn how UN Montenegro might engage citizens in foresight using online platforms. Based on device and operating system analytics, it is clear that a designated Android application would have been easier to utilize for a majority of users. Although the web application is scalable, it might have been difficult to navigate on small screens. Some initial feedback from early users suggests that more detail about using the platform is needed. Some users might benefit from more prompts as well as a more comprehensive introduction to the platform’s gaming mechanics. Dual-language functionality was seamless, and at no point during roll out did the site experience any service disruptions. FUTRPLAY could easily be re-refined, including adjustments to various design elements, for future engagements.
CONTACT John A. Sweeney
Deputy Director Center for Postnormal Policy and Futures Studies sweeney@eastwest.edu