future problem solving past topics

• Governor’s Cup
• JV Challenge
• 6th Grade Showcase

Future Problem Solving

• Composition
• General Knowledge
• Individual Quick Recall
• Pre-Season Testing
• Outreach Grants
• Certification Information
• QR Online Quiz
• Search QR Numbers
• FPS Clinics
• Search FPS Numbers
• Composition Certification Quiz
• Search Comp Numbers
• Board of Directors
• Board of Directors Information
• KAAC Hall of Fame
• Photo Galleries
• Writer/Editor Pay Request
• State Finals
• Tournaments
• Confirm Contact Info
• Competition Results
• Governor’s Cup FPS
• Start a Team
• Community Problem Solving
• Scenario Writing
• Scenario Performance
• Junior Division FPS
• Individual FPS
• Alternate FPS
• Glossary of Terms

The FPS Topics are selected for the year through the FPSPI.org Topics Committee.  Each year the Committee reviews the topic descriptors submitted by coaches, participants, futurists, affiliate directors, and other FPS key people at the international level.  After a rigorous review of the descriptors, the topics are available to be voted on for upcoming year's.  Check out the fpspi.org Topics Vote webpage if you want to cast a vote the approved topic descriptors for the upcoming years.

2023-24 FPS Topic Descriptors

See Component Events for Key Dates

Future Problem Solving

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2023
• Cite this reference work entry

• Connie Phelps 2  

21 Accesses

Future Problem Solving (FPS) engages students in futuristic thinking through annual academic competitions at local, state, regional, and international levels. Hosted through Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI), its mission develops the ability of young people globally to design and achieve positive futures through problem solving using critical and creative thinking . Founded by E. Paul Torrance in 1974, the education program uses a six-step Problem Solving Model based on the Osborne-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Model. E. Paul Torrance promoted positive futures through the construct of creative problem solving. Organized geographically as local FPSPI affiliates, participants select one of four competition components that include Global Issues Problem Solving, Community Problem Solving, Scenario Writing, and Scenario Performance. Students prepare annual topics throughout the school year with qualifying competitions leading to the next level. At the end of the school year, a four-day International Conference (IC) hosts champions during a culminating competition organized as Junior (grades 4–6), Middle (grades 7–9), and Senior (grades 10–12) divisions. Participants address a Future Scene as a hypothetical situation set 20–30 years in the future such as Antibiotic Resistance (2022) and Neurotechnology (2021), and participants receive constructive feedback from trained evaluators. The Global Issues Problem Solving (GIPS) component challenges participants to design positive futures, apply the six-step Problem Solving Model, and create a detailed Action Plan. Possible futures emerge as participants (1) Identify Challenges, (2) Select an Underlying Problem, (3) Produce Solution Ideas, (4) Generate and Select Criteria, (5) Apply Criteria, and (6) Develop an Action Plan.

• E. Paul Torrance
• Creative problem solving
• Futuristic thinking

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Center for Applied Imagination. (n.d.). History . https://bit.ly/3fZHcyw

Creative Education Foundation. (2014). Creative problem solving resource guide . https://bit.ly/3FXEW64

Firestien, R. (2017). CPS timeline . https://bit.ly/3K2zUqE

FPSPI. (n.d.). Future problem solving program international . https://www.fpspi.org/

Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). The possible as a field of inquiry. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14 (3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1725 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5 , 444–454.

Hébert, T. P., Cramond, B., Neumeister Speirs, K. L., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy (ED480289). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480289

Marland, S. P. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented – Volume I: Report to the congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education . (ED056243). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED056243.pdf

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking . Scribner.

Google Scholar  

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Ways gifted children can study the future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18 (2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627401800201 .

Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for Satori and creativity. Creative Education Foundation.

Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Guest editorial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55 (4), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346950 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA

Connie Phelps

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Connie Phelps .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Vlad Petre Glăveanu

Section Editor information

Department of Psychology, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile

Gabriel Fortes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Phelps, C. (2022). Future Problem Solving. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_262

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_262

Published : 26 January 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90912-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90913-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (1990-2013)

Future problem solving program.

Marion Rogalla University of Connecticut Storrs, CT

Imagine yourself observing an enrichment classroom. In the middle of the room, a team of four, 5th graders is arguing about the effects Virtua Tech, a virtual corporation in the year 2056, has on the mind and body of its employees. In the back corner of the room you notice a fourth grader in deep thought. It almost looks as if his head is steaming. As you get closer, he jumps up and says: “Yes! I’ll use the roaches as an endless energy supply.” While you are listening to his ideas six, 11th graders enter the classroom and present with pride business cards created for their cyberphobia group of adults. Amazed by the students’ creativity, problem solving skills, and excitement for learning, you decide to investigate the problem solving model they are using.

The Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP), started in 1974 by E. Paul Torrance, today reaches approximately 250,000 students in 43 Affiliate Programs (coordinated by the international office in Lexington, Kentucky) throughout the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and Canada. Full time staff members prepare all materials and topics: practice problems, qualifying problem, affiliate bowl, and International Conference. Teams and individuals successful in the qualifying problem advance to the affiliate bowl and bowl winners in each division (i.e., junior, grades 4 to 6; middle, grades 7 to 9; and senior, grades 10 to 12) are invited to participate at the International Conference. Trained evaluators review and compare student work of the same age division on all topics (Future Problem Solving Program Coach’s Handbook, 2001).

To best meet student interests, the selection of FPSP topics is guided by the results of a poll of the students participating in grades 4 to 12 (Torrance & Safter, 1999). Student votes overwhelmingly center around the newest cutting-edge frontiers of humankind. The topic areas of these frontiers seem to change with age. Younger students’ (grades 4 to 6, junior division) preferences center around innovative instrumentation and processes such as solar energy, computer education, pedestrian conveyor-belt travel, intelligent machines, and mass use of electric cars. These topics may be categorized as human control over the physical environment. Students in grades 10 to 12 (senior division) show more interest in psychological frontiers, such as genetics, human engineering, hypnosis, and mind-altering drugs, than younger students. Middle division students (grades 7 to 9) seem to be in transition between interests of junior and senior division students. Their interests are similar to the younger age group. They do not seem to share the introspection of the seniors (Torrance & Safter, 1999).

The wide variety of extra-curricular topics chosen every year provides students with opportunities to find their area of passion. Torrance (1981, as cited in Torrance & Sisk, 1999), found in his longitudinal studies of creative achievement, that adult creative achievement was influenced by students’ experiences of falling in love with something during their elementary school year. Most adults however, including teachers and parents, do not have much information about these frontier topics to teach the background knowledge necessary for solving problems related to these topics. The FPSP coach’s role includes facilitation of learning and the modeling of processes whereby new knowledge is acquired. Students have to be prepared for self-directed learning (Torrance & Safter, 1999). FPSP goals, therefore, center around the acquisition of problem solving skills.

Although the FPSP provides students with opportunities to enhance their awareness of everyday issues and increase their knowledge base, the main goal of the FPSP is to teach students how to think. The development of higher order thinking skills will help students use their knowledge to solve problems. The program focuses on the creative problem solving process and futuristic issues to develop the skills necessary to adapt to a changing world and shape the future (Future Problem Solving Program Coach’s Handbook, 2001). Specifically, the creative problem solving process:

• helps students to improve their analytical thinking skills
• aids students in increasing their creative thinking abilities
• stimulates students’ knowledge and interest in the future
• extends students’ written and verbal communication skills
• encourages students to develop and improve research skills
• provides students with a problem-solving model to integrate into their lives
• guides students to become more self-directed and responsible
• promotes responsible group membership (for team Future Problem Solving and Community Problem Solving)

The Future Problem Solving Program:

• provides students with unique opportunities to enhance their awareness of everyday issues
• models effective processes that can be used throughout their lives
• incorporates the basic skills taught in the classroom by extending students’ perceptions of the real world
• promotes responsible group membership
• encourages real-life problem solving experiences
• promotes continuous improvement through the evaluation process
• offers authentic assessment in the product produced (p. 11)

The FPSP also extends students’ perceptions of the real world and helps them apply the skills learned to real life issues. The experience of implementing a proposed solution is provided through the Community Problem Solving (CmPS) component. Students learn to continuously improve their problem solving skills from the feedback provided in the evaluation process.

Students are expected to apply a 6-step creative problem solving model when solving a problem in each of the three FPSP components: Team Problem Solving, Scenario Writing, and Community Problem Solving. The mastery of these 6 steps is therefore at the heart of the FPSP.

Guided instruction of the 6 steps seems to be easiest within the team problem solving component. The international office of the FPSP releases the curricular topic for all problems before the related Future Scene is given to the participating students. This allows students to conduct in-depth research to acquire a strong knowledge base on the general topic related to the Future Scene. Once the future problem solvers receive the Future Scene, they work through it using a 6-step model, based on the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process (see Figure 1). Students complete a booklet that guides them in a linear, sequential way through the creative problem solving process.

Understanding the Problem (1) Identify Challenges, (2) Select an Underlying Problem, Generating Ideas (3) Produce Solution Ideas, Planning for Action (4) Generate and Select Criteria, (5) Applying Criteria, and (6) Develop an Action Plan.

Source: Future Problem Solving Program. (2001). Future Problem Solving Program coach’s handbook. Lexington, KY: Author, p. 15.

Figure 1. The 6-step model.

During step 1, students are asked to carefully analyze a specific situation given—the Future Scene—related to the general topic. They learn how to use macro and micro analyses to gain a good understanding of the complex and ill-defined situation. Thereafter, they identify the 16 most promising challenges, issues, concerns, or problems imbedded in the situation that needs consideration. The Future Scene describes a fuzzy situation projected 20 to 30 years into the future, a time when the students might obtain leadership roles. Students are required to use the knowledge gained and project it far into the future. In step 2, the students go through the list of challenges, consider possible underlying problems, and formulate a key underlying problem that is neither too broad nor too narrow. Students are required to follow a standard format in formulating the underlying problem they intend to solve throughout the remaining steps. The standard format helps students to focus on one challenge only and proceed with further analysis of the problem as well as a uniform structure that helps evaluators make comparisons across student booklets. In step 3, students are asked to generate 16 varied and unusual solution ideas that have potential for solving the underlying problem. Students, in step 4, generate the five most appropriate criteria for judging the solutions, which they apply in a evaluation matrix to select the solution with the highest total rank (step 5). Finally, in step 6, students write an action plan based on their highest scoring solution idea. The students have to complete the whole booklet within 2 hours.

The Coach’s Handbook suggests and explains tools for generating options—using divergent thinking—such as Brainstorming, SCAMPER, and Morphological matrix. The acronym SCAMPER stands for: Substitute? Combine? Adapt/Add/Alter? Minify/Magnify/Modify? Put to Other Uses? Eliminate or Elaborate? Reverse/Rearrange/Reduce? The Morphological matrix consists of 4 columns and 10 rows. Team members identify four major aspects (people, place, obstacle, and goal) of the topic and/or future scene (one per column) and list (in the rows) 10 elements of each aspect. Then they explore random combinations and make new and interesting possibilities.

For convergent thinking, the handbook includes tools such as: Hot Spot and Paired Comparison Analysis. A Hot Spot is the common element that clusters of promising ideas share. Paired Comparison Analysis is used in comparing one possibility or idea against another idea, one pair at the time, until all possible pairs have been examined. A number is assigned to each pair as the option is chosen and rated for importance, 1, 2, or 3. The ratings for each possibility can be totaled to provide a rank ordering or prioritizing of the options.

The FPSP includes different components: Future Problem Solving (FPS), Community Problem Solving (CmPS), and Scenario Writing (SW). The primary emphasis of the academic year program (October to June) is on instruction with feedback offered to the teams. FPS asks students to solve complex scientific and social problems of the future.

An example of a future scene focusing on a virtual corporation, an approach to solving a local community problem related to the use of technology, and a response to a scenario involving the increasing need for energy are provided on the insets that follow.

One scene, for example, pertains to a virtual corporation Virtua Tech in the year 2056. The scene is based on facts and projections about virtual corporations and their organizational structure with a focus on the dynamics of a corporation existing in virtual space. The scene opens with Aluui, a programmer, who shares her excitement about her prospective work place with her mother via her Holographic Mailbox and explains that her work partners will be from all over the world. “Virtua Tech is run by an impressive executive team, a group of individuals from leading universities, governmental bodies and traditional corporations around the world,” Aluui explains. During this conversation with her mother, Aluui receives a message from Virtua Tech saying that her software program was accepted and 25,000 Digital Monetary Units have been deposited into her account. However, the scene goes on to raise concerns about the operation of this virtual corporation, including effects on the mind and body of employees that are not fully understood. Therefore, concerned nations, industry groups, and Virtua Tech representatives have created an advisory group. This group is asking the International FPS Alliance to direct its very best problem solving teams across the globe to help them examine important issues involved with the operation of this unique corporation. The FPS teams’ task is to identify possible challenges relating to Virtua Tech, formulate an underlying problem, generate solution ideas, and develop an appropriate action plan.

The goal of the project was to educate adults in the computer field and also to eliminate cyberphobia. The team did so by offering complimentary computer classes to the adults in their community because it felt that the amount of computer knowledge obtained by adults was not sufficient for the technological demands of today’s society. The team was very successful in their efforts and was asked to teach office computer skills to the clerks at the Hockley County Clerk’s office. The project brought multiple benefits to the small rural community of Whitharral, TX. Besides decreasing “cyberphobia” among the adult population, it helped to bridge the gap between generations. The CmPSers learned how to research, plan, and adjust a curriculum to fit the needs of their students—from farmers and secretaries to local business owners and senior citizens. The adults created business, cards, mailing labels, and greeting cards. They learned how to use various software applications, save hundreds of hours in documenting expenses, and safely navigate the Internet. With the aid of grant money awarded by Learn and Serve America, the CmPSers plan to expand the class offerings as well as recruit and train new teachers.

Josh sat at his desk thinking and pondering in the darkness. The only thing moving during the blackouts were the roaches. Josh knew he had to find an alternative energy fast. Why were humans so dependent on electricity? Almost everything ran on solar power or rechargeable batteries now (year 2051). Unfortunately, the ozone layer is being depleted more and more each year, which affects solar power. Rechargeable batteries became every hospital’s savior and every asthmatic person’s life improved.

Reaching for his keys, Josh went to the hovercraft. On the ride home, he swerved to miss the tow craft explosion right in front of him. Swooping to street level, he knew he had seen his share of crashes. There are no rules of the road in the air. He thought of how many times he had been here before. Falling fast and low, he wished his craft could run off the glides alone.

“Why not?” thought Josh. “Why can’t we somehow harness the power of movement? Kinetic watches have been around for over five decades. Surely there could be enough power in everyday movements to power a battery. Is it possible to reconfigure kinetic power into a battery as a source of energy? How about using a pendulum-like movement to harness the power into a battery? That way it will let us have less power plants.”

Josh went into the assembly room and found an old rechargeable unit. “I wonder if it will work?” he thought. For the next week, Josh continued to look at his belt attachment. At first, it was every few minutes, later every few hours. He was determined this would work. By the ninth day the rechargeable unit registered enough power. Over the course of the next few weeks, Josh recharged a dozen batteries. His ideas formulated like fireworks, thinking of what he could attach this device to, and how much more power he could generate.

Then the idea struck him like a rocket. YES! I’ll use the roaches. Josh constructed a large circular platform with a rotating basis. It was kind of like a hamster wheel turned on its side. Finding the roaches was not a problem. It was catching them that was difficult.

Josh placed the platform in a large, clear, round tube and added the roaches. Immediately, the roaches crawled and moved to the platform. This turned the platform, creating a way to transform movement, kinetic energy, into a stored source. The roaches ate little, and the old ones were eaten by the others. It took Josh a few more months to perfect his assignment. In the next few years, he was awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts in creating a new and virtually endless energy supply that renews itself.

Training in problem solving skills facilitates situational creativity (i.e., students can be creative within prescribed activities related to a specific topic), whereas CmPS fosters real product creativity. Students in the CmPS identify a problem they would like to solve in their school, community, or state. Then, they use the 6-step Future Problem Solving process to solve the problem, (i.e., to develop an action plan and implement the plan).

The scenario writing component encourages students to use their imagination in creating a futuristic short story based on an FPSP topic. The scenarios must be placed at least 20 years into the future and are limited to a length of 1,500 words.

Selected teams and individuals participate at regional, state, and international competitions. During the 2-hour competition of the FPS component, teams of four students or individuals analyze a Future Scene and complete a problem booklet that guides the students through the 6 steps as described above. The Future Scene relates to the topic the students were encouraged to research prior to the competition. No research materials or notes may be used during the actual competition session. Students have to be very time conscious and pace themselves at each step to complete all steps within the very limited time frame. Following this session, students are asked to persuade others of the merit of their idea. Having a good idea is not enough, one must be able to “sell” it. During a 5-minute skit presentation, students can demonstrate their creative, persuasive, and oral communication skills (Steinbach, 1991).

Scenario writers may also compete against one another. They select a topic for their story from the pool of five FPS topics for the respective academic year, research the topic, and write a short story of a maximum of 1,500 words (Shewach, 1991). Students individually write drafts of a futuristic scenario. Editing and revising occurs under the guidance of a coach, who decides whether to submit the scenario to the contest or not. Winning scenarios are awarded at the FPSP competitions and published thereafter.

Any number of students from one to a whole classroom can become a team of community problem solvers. Students identify real problem situations in their school, neighborhood, or community and use the 6-step model to develop and implement the solution idea over an extended period of time (i.e., 6 months to 3 years). The students’ report describes the full process including the area of concern, action plan, the efforts to solve the problem, and reflections. The evaluators examine the report and display at the competition and interview the students to secure their ownership of the product.

The FPSP provides educators with enrichment activities that can take place in a pullout program, after school program, resource center, or with students in a regular classroom. The high level challenge of the activities is especially appropriate for intellectually and creatively gifted students. Future Problem Solving takes students into new worlds. They gain new knowledge about cutting-edge research and use it in combination with higher order thinking to create original solutions for futuristic problems. Most gifted students love this kind of intellectual challenge. Seeing Community Problem Solvers grapple with real life problems and grow in their awareness of their capability to have a positive impact on the world around them is also gratifying to educators. The most obvious effect of Scenario Writing is improved writing skills. However, all FPSP components help students develop their written and oral communication skills. Improved communication skills and a thorough understanding of the 6-step problem solving model can greatly benefit the students far beyond the program (e.g., in other curricular activities and in their future careers).

Back to Newsletter Articles Page

   NYFPS    |           FPSONLINE    |         VOLUNTEER   |         DONATE   |         

Six Steps Demystified

The six-step approach offers a framework for creative problem solving. Although each step is critical, it is important that participants don't forget that conducting RESEARCH on a topic sets up a strong foundation. Being knowledgeable about a topic allows for better understanding of the bigger picture and is a key part of identifying problems as well as generating solutions. Successful problem solvers always have conducted research on the topic.

There are two essential Pre-Steps before starting the six-step process.

Research the topic

Read and analyze the future scene

Underlying Problem

Evaluate Solutions

Action Plan

Develop an Action Plan

The solution idea (which receives the highest total from STEP 5) is described in detail within the action plan. Develop your action plan by relating the idea back to the U.P. Demonstrate how your action plan will achieve what you set out to accomplish in STEP 2 (the KVP and Purpose).

Tips: 

Explain in detail the  who, what, how why, where,  and  when  of your action plan. Who will carry out the plan or be involved? What will be done to solve the problem? When will the results begin and will it continue? Where will the plan be implemented? Why will this idea positively impact the future scene? How will the action plan be carried out? How does it positively impact the U.P.? 

New facts to your action plan may be added, as long as each addition represents a subpart of your action plan.

Sample Format:  One approach might be to write five complete paragraphs in elaboration of your action plan.

 An overview of the plans steps and stages of implementation ( Who  and  What ).

Discuss the reasons or logic behind the solution being the best choice ( Why  and  How  the plan solves every aspect of the U.P.).

Discuss potential roadblocks or challenges that will likely confront this action plan, along with ideas or actions for overcoming these obstacles.

Highlight the strengths which Action Plan possess.

Underscore the many positive impacts that the action plan will provide to the whole situation described in the future scene. Provide a justification ( Why  and How ) for each positive impact and benefit derived from the implementation of the action plan.

Produce Solution Ideas to the Underlying Problem

Solutions are detailed plans to solve all aspects of the team’s U.P.

Elaborate by indicating  WHO  will implement the solution idea,  WHAT  will be done,  HOW  the solution idea will work, and  WHY  the solution idea will solve the KVP and Purpose of the U.P.

Elements of the future should be incorporated within these action proposals by utilizing new or special technologies, methods, or procedures that would be effective.

Solution ideas are to be stated as definite proposals (e.g. "will").

Incorporate futuristic aspects in your writing of the solution idea.

Attempt to produce solutions for every relevant category of thought for the future scene as possible.

Generate and Select Criteria to Evaluate Solution Ideas

Brainstorm criteria that question the creative potential and importance of solution ideas. Create criteria which will measure the comparative quality (relevance and/or validity) of your STEP 3 solutions.

Only identify one concern/dimension with each criterion. Avoid the use of "and" in a criterion.

It is helpful to include  superlatives words (e.g. least, most, greatest, fewest, etc.).

You can create advanced criteria by considering various aspects of the future scene or your U.P. (KVP or Purpose) within a criterion.

Include the phrase, "which solution will" and phrase each in the form of a question.

Identify Challenges Related to the Topic or Future Scene

Challenges note important concerns, problems, issues, or challenges that have a strong possibility of occurring within the future scene. 

Written in statement form.

Stated in terms of possibility (e.g. may, could, might).

Must have relation to the future scene by containing terms or phrases that describe the topic, place, and/or individuals detailed in the future scene.

Challenges may either cause the future scene or result from the future scene.

Explain WHAT the challenge is, WHY it is a challenge, and HOW it relates to the future scene.

Phrase your challenges as cause and effect logic statements.

Attempt to find as many challenges as you can for every relevant category of thought for the future scene (about 12 categories should be your goal).

Incorporate ideas or concepts found during your research when writing the selected challenges from your group’s brainstorming whenever possible.

Select an Underlying Problem

The Underlying Problem (U.P.) is a statement of the most important challenge identified in STEP 1. The selected challenge, if solved, might solve many of the other challenges identified in the Future Scene. A challenge causing other concerns to occur in the scenario is much preferred as the U.P. rather than a challenge resulting from the future scene’s situation.

How To Structure A U.P.:   A U.P. should be stated in one question containing the following five basic components.

Condition Phrase: A beginning sentence that describes the most significant challenge selected from STEP 1 that may be causing many other challenges in the future scene. The conditions should describe an effect and a cause arising from the future scene. The conditions are the impetus for the area of concern that the team has chosen for their solution finding. Since and due to (or because) could be a format used to write the condition phrase.

Stem: Phrased as "How might we" or "In what ways might we"

Key Verb Phrase (KVP): One main verb which is active, descriptive, and clear which describes the action that must be done to solve the problem.

Purpose: The what you aim to accomplish by doing the Key Verb Phrase.

Future Scene Parameters (FSP): The geographic location, time, and topic described within the future scene.

The U.P. should address only one issue (one action in the KVP and one goal in the Purpose).

The action stated in your KVP should be clear and the goal or outcome described in your Purpose should be measurable.

Evaluate Solution Ideas to Determine the Better Action Plan

Select your 8 most promising solution ideas and list them in the 8 solution idea blanks of the grid. If you have fewer than 8, list them all. Rank order your solution ideas from 8 (best) to 1 (least effective) relative to each criterion from STEP 4. Ensure that you use each number between 8 and 1 only once in each vertical column. Sum the ratings across the grid to total the ranks given to each solution. The solution with the highest total rank is the solution used to develop your action plan in STEP 6.

It is always helpful to familiarize yourself with the six steps by looking at the full blank booklet and understanding how evaluators review each step through the GIPS Evaluation Scoresheet which can also be found under at the Virtual Center . 

The GIPS Key Tips packet found under at the Virtual Center offers more in-depth explanation of each step. If you have any questions about the six steps never hesitate to reach out to our Evaluation Director, so we can offer more insight. Always remember to review the evaluators' scoresheet after each submission and read the feedback which can offer advice on how to further improve.

Explore GIPS Downloadable Resources  

REGISTER TO PARTICIPATE TODAY

Start Your Journey To Solve Future Problems 

Scenario Writing

Global issues, competitive components, register now, how to start, non-competitive option, get involved, competitions, program areas, call to action, media coverage, our commitment, discover more, about nyfps, mission & values.

Registration Form

How to get started, why be an advisor, inspire the future, on-site training, fps value-add, the classroom, integrate fps into your teaching, six-step method, create parental buy-in, parents' guide, fps pedagogy.

Team/Club Tools

Program info, virtual center, competition info and resources, annual topics, component info, quick access, scholarship.

News  >  Topic Ideas

FPSPI are accepting submissions for future FPSPI topics!

Topics with the below focus are considered:

• A global perspective – not necessarily a global impact, but accessible to a range of global participants, likely to appeal to FPSPI participants around the globe, considerate of varying views.
• Accessible to students and participants from 8 years to adult.
• Includes a future perspective – likely to sustain through next 30 years – possibilities and probabilities.
• Offers a range of themes that will lead to a variety of categories
• Descriptor provides views that are inclusive of all stakeholders – personal/political/cultural bias not obvious

To submit a topic, you’ll be required to enter the following:

• Topic Title (example: Trade Barriers, Endangered Animals)
• Topic Category (Social/Political; Business/Economics; Science/Technology)
• Topic Descriptor ( maximum 1000 characters)  The topic descriptor should be 5-6 sentences, a combination of declaratory statements and open-ended questions, and should not be in first person singular (ie. I, me).
• References/Web sites (maximum 1000 characters) Please provide any references or web sites to support your topic.

FPSPI wants to hear from You! 

Future Problem Solving Australia acknowledges the traditional owners of this land. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

Do You Understand the Problem You’re Trying to Solve?

To solve tough problems at work, first ask these questions.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem without taking time to really understand the dilemma we face, according to Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg , an expert in innovation and the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for just one root cause can be misleading.

Key episode topics include: leadership, decision making and problem solving, power and influence, business management.

HBR On Leadership curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock the best in those around you. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the original HBR IdeaCast episode: The Secret to Better Problem Solving (2016)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR on Leadership , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you.

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But even the most experienced among us can fall into the trap of solving the wrong problem.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg says that all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem – without taking time to really understand what we’re facing.

He’s an expert in innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

  In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems, by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for one root cause can be misleading. And you’ll learn how to use experimentation and rapid prototyping as problem-solving tools.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in December 2016. Here it is.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael.

Problem solving is popular. People put it on their resumes. Managers believe they excel at it. Companies count it as a key proficiency. We solve customers’ problems.

The problem is we often solve the wrong problems. Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker alike have discussed the difficulty of effective diagnosis. There are great frameworks for getting teams to attack true problems, but they’re often hard to do daily and on the fly. That’s where our guest comes in.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg is a consultant who helps companies and managers reframe their problems so they can come up with an effective solution faster. He asks the question “Are You Solving The Right Problems?” in the January-February 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review. Thomas, thank you so much for coming on the HBR IdeaCast .

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thanks for inviting me.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I thought maybe we could start by talking about the problem of talking about problem reframing. What is that exactly?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Basically, when people face a problem, they tend to jump into solution mode to rapidly, and very often that means that they don’t really understand, necessarily, the problem they’re trying to solve. And so, reframing is really a– at heart, it’s a method that helps you avoid that by taking a second to go in and ask two questions, basically saying, first of all, wait. What is the problem we’re trying to solve? And then crucially asking, is there a different way to think about what the problem actually is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I feel like so often when this comes up in meetings, you know, someone says that, and maybe they throw out the Einstein quote about you spend an hour of problem solving, you spend 55 minutes to find the problem. And then everyone else in the room kind of gets irritated. So, maybe just give us an example of maybe how this would work in practice in a way that would not, sort of, set people’s teeth on edge, like oh, here Sarah goes again, reframing the whole problem instead of just solving it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I mean, you’re bringing up something that’s, I think is crucial, which is to create legitimacy for the method. So, one of the reasons why I put out the article is to give people a tool to say actually, this thing is still important, and we need to do it. But I think the really critical thing in order to make this work in a meeting is actually to learn how to do it fast, because if you have the idea that you need to spend 30 minutes in a meeting delving deeply into the problem, I mean, that’s going to be uphill for most problems. So, the critical thing here is really to try to make it a practice you can implement very, very rapidly.

There’s an example that I would suggest memorizing. This is the example that I use to explain very rapidly what it is. And it’s basically, I call it the slow elevator problem. You imagine that you are the owner of an office building, and that your tenants are complaining that the elevator’s slow.

Now, if you take that problem framing for granted, you’re going to start thinking creatively around how do we make the elevator faster. Do we install a new motor? Do we have to buy a new lift somewhere?

The thing is, though, if you ask people who actually work with facilities management, well, they’re going to have a different solution for you, which is put up a mirror next to the elevator. That’s what happens is, of course, that people go oh, I’m busy. I’m busy. I’m– oh, a mirror. Oh, that’s beautiful.

And then they forget time. What’s interesting about that example is that the idea with a mirror is actually a solution to a different problem than the one you first proposed. And so, the whole idea here is once you get good at using reframing, you can quickly identify other aspects of the problem that might be much better to try to solve than the original one you found. It’s not necessarily that the first one is wrong. It’s just that there might be better problems out there to attack that we can, means we can do things much faster, cheaper, or better.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, in that example, I can understand how A, it’s probably expensive to make the elevator faster, so it’s much cheaper just to put up a mirror. And B, maybe the real problem people are actually feeling, even though they’re not articulating it right, is like, I hate waiting for the elevator. But if you let them sort of fix their hair or check their teeth, they’re suddenly distracted and don’t notice.

But if you have, this is sort of a pedestrian example, but say you have a roommate or a spouse who doesn’t clean up the kitchen. Facing that problem and not having your elegant solution already there to highlight the contrast between the perceived problem and the real problem, how would you take a problem like that and attack it using this method so that you can see what some of the other options might be?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right. So, I mean, let’s say it’s you who have that problem. I would go in and say, first of all, what would you say the problem is? Like, if you were to describe your view of the problem, what would that be?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I hate cleaning the kitchen, and I want someone else to clean it up.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: OK. So, my first observation, you know, that somebody else might not necessarily be your spouse. So, already there, there’s an inbuilt assumption in your question around oh, it has to be my husband who does the cleaning. So, it might actually be worth, already there to say, is that really the only problem you have? That you hate cleaning the kitchen, and you want to avoid it? Or might there be something around, as well, getting a better relationship in terms of how you solve problems in general or establishing a better way to handle small problems when dealing with your spouse?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Or maybe, now that I’m thinking that, maybe the problem is that you just can’t find the stuff in the kitchen when you need to find it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right, and so that’s an example of a reframing, that actually why is it a problem that the kitchen is not clean? Is it only because you hate the act of cleaning, or does it actually mean that it just takes you a lot longer and gets a lot messier to actually use the kitchen, which is a different problem. The way you describe this problem now, is there anything that’s missing from that description?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That is a really good question.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Other, basically asking other factors that we are not talking about right now, and I say those because people tend to, when given a problem, they tend to delve deeper into the detail. What often is missing is actually an element outside of the initial description of the problem that might be really relevant to what’s going on. Like, why does the kitchen get messy in the first place? Is it something about the way you use it or your cooking habits? Is it because the neighbor’s kids, kind of, use it all the time?

There might, very often, there might be issues that you’re not really thinking about when you first describe the problem that actually has a big effect on it.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I think at this point it would be helpful to maybe get another business example, and I’m wondering if you could tell us the story of the dog adoption problem.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Yeah. This is a big problem in the US. If you work in the shelter industry, basically because dogs are so popular, more than 3 million dogs every year enter a shelter, and currently only about half of those actually find a new home and get adopted. And so, this is a problem that has persisted. It’s been, like, a structural problem for decades in this space. In the last three years, where people found new ways to address it.

So a woman called Lori Weise who runs a rescue organization in South LA, and she actually went in and challenged the very idea of what we were trying to do. She said, no, no. The problem we’re trying to solve is not about how to get more people to adopt dogs. It is about keeping the dogs with their first family so they never enter the shelter system in the first place.

In 2013, she started what’s called a Shelter Intervention Program that basically works like this. If a family comes and wants to hand over their dog, these are called owner surrenders. It’s about 30% of all dogs that come into a shelter. All they would do is go up and ask, if you could, would you like to keep your animal? And if they said yes, they would try to fix whatever helped them fix the problem, but that made them turn over this.

And sometimes that might be that they moved into a new building. The landlord required a deposit, and they simply didn’t have the money to put down a deposit. Or the dog might need a $10 rabies shot, but they didn’t know how to get access to a vet.

And so, by instigating that program, just in the first year, she took her, basically the amount of dollars they spent per animal they helped went from something like $85 down to around $60. Just an immediate impact, and her program now is being rolled out, is being supported by the ASPCA, which is one of the big animal welfare stations, and it’s being rolled out to various other places.

And I think what really struck me with that example was this was not dependent on having the internet. This was not, oh, we needed to have everybody mobile before we could come up with this. This, conceivably, we could have done 20 years ago. Only, it only happened when somebody, like in this case Lori, went in and actually rethought what the problem they were trying to solve was in the first place.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, what I also think is so interesting about that example is that when you talk about it, it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would have been thought of through other kinds of problem solving methods. There wasn’t necessarily an After Action Review or a 5 Whys exercise or a Six Sigma type intervention. I don’t want to throw those other methods under the bus, but how can you get such powerful results with such a very simple way of thinking about something?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That was something that struck me as well. This, in a way, reframing and the idea of the problem diagnosis is important is something we’ve known for a long, long time. And we’ve actually have built some tools to help out. If you worked with us professionally, you are familiar with, like, Six Sigma, TRIZ, and so on. You mentioned 5 Whys. A root cause analysis is another one that a lot of people are familiar with.

Those are our good tools, and they’re definitely better than nothing. But what I notice when I work with the companies applying those was those tools tend to make you dig deeper into the first understanding of the problem we have. If it’s the elevator example, people start asking, well, is that the cable strength, or is the capacity of the elevator? That they kind of get caught by the details.

That, in a way, is a bad way to work on problems because it really assumes that there’s like a, you can almost hear it, a root cause. That you have to dig down and find the one true problem, and everything else was just symptoms. That’s a bad way to think about problems because problems tend to be multicausal.

There tend to be lots of causes or levers you can potentially press to address a problem. And if you think there’s only one, if that’s the right problem, that’s actually a dangerous way. And so I think that’s why, that this is a method I’ve worked with over the last five years, trying to basically refine how to make people better at this, and the key tends to be this thing about shifting out and saying, is there a totally different way of thinking about the problem versus getting too caught up in the mechanistic details of what happens.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What about experimentation? Because that’s another method that’s become really popular with the rise of Lean Startup and lots of other innovation methodologies. Why wouldn’t it have worked to, say, experiment with many different types of fixing the dog adoption problem, and then just pick the one that works the best?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: You could say in the dog space, that’s what’s been going on. I mean, there is, in this industry and a lot of, it’s largely volunteer driven. People have experimented, and they found different ways of trying to cope. And that has definitely made the problem better. So, I wouldn’t say that experimentation is bad, quite the contrary. Rapid prototyping, quickly putting something out into the world and learning from it, that’s a fantastic way to learn more and to move forward.

My point is, though, that I feel we’ve come to rely too much on that. There’s like, if you look at the start up space, the wisdom is now just to put something quickly into the market, and then if it doesn’t work, pivot and just do more stuff. What reframing really is, I think of it as the cognitive counterpoint to prototyping. So, this is really a way of seeing very quickly, like not just working on the solution, but also working on our understanding of the problem and trying to see is there a different way to think about that.

If you only stick with experimentation, again, you tend to sometimes stay too much in the same space trying minute variations of something instead of taking a step back and saying, wait a minute. What is this telling us about what the real issue is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, to go back to something that we touched on earlier, when we were talking about the completely hypothetical example of a spouse who does not clean the kitchen–

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Completely, completely hypothetical.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yes. For the record, my husband is a great kitchen cleaner.

You started asking me some questions that I could see immediately were helping me rethink that problem. Is that kind of the key, just having a checklist of questions to ask yourself? How do you really start to put this into practice?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I think there are two steps in that. The first one is just to make yourself better at the method. Yes, you should kind of work with a checklist. In the article, I kind of outlined seven practices that you can use to do this.

But importantly, I would say you have to consider that as, basically, a set of training wheels. I think there’s a big, big danger in getting caught in a checklist. This is something I work with.

My co-author Paddy Miller, it’s one of his insights. That if you start giving people a checklist for things like this, they start following it. And that’s actually a problem, because what you really want them to do is start challenging their thinking.

So the way to handle this is to get some practice using it. Do use the checklist initially, but then try to step away from it and try to see if you can organically make– it’s almost a habit of mind. When you run into a colleague in the hallway and she has a problem and you have five minutes, like, delving in and just starting asking some of those questions and using your intuition to say, wait, how is she talking about this problem? And is there a question or two I can ask her about the problem that can help her rethink it?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, that is also just a very different approach, because I think in that situation, most of us can’t go 30 seconds without jumping in and offering solutions.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Very true. The drive toward solutions is very strong. And to be clear, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that if the solutions work. So, many problems are just solved by oh, you know, oh, here’s the way to do that. Great.

But this is really a powerful method for those problems where either it’s something we’ve been banging our heads against tons of times without making progress, or when you need to come up with a really creative solution. When you’re facing a competitor with a much bigger budget, and you know, if you solve the same problem later, you’re not going to win. So, that basic idea of taking that approach to problems can often help you move forward in a different way than just like, oh, I have a solution.

I would say there’s also, there’s some interesting psychological stuff going on, right? Where you may have tried this, but if somebody tries to serve up a solution to a problem I have, I’m often resistant towards them. Kind if like, no, no, no, no, no, no. That solution is not going to work in my world. Whereas if you get them to discuss and analyze what the problem really is, you might actually dig something up.

Let’s go back to the kitchen example. One powerful question is just to say, what’s your own part in creating this problem? It’s very often, like, people, they describe problems as if it’s something that’s inflicted upon them from the external world, and they are innocent bystanders in that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Right, or crazy customers with unreasonable demands.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Exactly, right. I don’t think I’ve ever met an agency or consultancy that didn’t, like, gossip about their customers. Oh, my god, they’re horrible. That, you know, classic thing, why don’t they want to take more risk? Well, risk is bad.

It’s their business that’s on the line, not the consultancy’s, right? So, absolutely, that’s one of the things when you step into a different mindset and kind of, wait. Oh yeah, maybe I actually am part of creating this problem in a sense, as well. That tends to open some new doors for you to move forward, in a way, with stuff that you may have been struggling with for years.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, we’ve surfaced a couple of questions that are useful. I’m curious to know, what are some of the other questions that you find yourself asking in these situations, given that you have made this sort of mental habit that you do? What are the questions that people seem to find really useful?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: One easy one is just to ask if there are any positive exceptions to the problem. So, was there day where your kitchen was actually spotlessly clean? And then asking, what was different about that day? Like, what happened there that didn’t happen the other days? That can very often point people towards a factor that they hadn’t considered previously.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: We got take-out.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: S,o that is your solution. Take-out from [INAUDIBLE]. That might have other problems.

Another good question, and this is a little bit more high level. It’s actually more making an observation about labeling how that person thinks about the problem. And what I mean with that is, we have problem categories in our head. So, if I say, let’s say that you describe a problem to me and say, well, we have a really great product and are, it’s much better than our previous product, but people aren’t buying it. I think we need to put more marketing dollars into this.

Now you can go in and say, that’s interesting. This sounds like you’re thinking of this as a communications problem. Is there a different way of thinking about that? Because you can almost tell how, when the second you say communications, there are some ideas about how do you solve a communications problem. Typically with more communication.

And what you might do is go in and suggest, well, have you considered that it might be, say, an incentive problem? Are there incentives on behalf of the purchasing manager at your clients that are obstructing you? Might there be incentive issues with your own sales force that makes them want to sell the old product instead of the new one?

So literally, just identifying what type of problem does this person think about, and is there different potential way of thinking about it? Might it be an emotional problem, a timing problem, an expectations management problem? Thinking about what label of what type of problem that person is kind of thinking as it of.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That’s really interesting, too, because I think so many of us get requests for advice that we’re really not qualified to give. So, maybe the next time that happens, instead of muddying my way through, I will just ask some of those questions that we talked about instead.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That sounds like a good idea.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, Thomas, this has really helped me reframe the way I think about a couple of problems in my own life, and I’m just wondering. I know you do this professionally, but is there a problem in your life that thinking this way has helped you solve?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I’ve, of course, I’ve been swallowing my own medicine on this, too, and I think I have, well, maybe two different examples, and in one case somebody else did the reframing for me. But in one case, when I was younger, I often kind of struggled a little bit. I mean, this is my teenage years, kind of hanging out with my parents. I thought they were pretty annoying people. That’s not really fair, because they’re quite wonderful, but that’s what life is when you’re a teenager.

And one of the things that struck me, suddenly, and this was kind of the positive exception was, there was actually an evening where we really had a good time, and there wasn’t a conflict. And the core thing was, I wasn’t just seeing them in their old house where I grew up. It was, actually, we were at a restaurant. And it suddenly struck me that so much of the sometimes, kind of, a little bit, you love them but they’re annoying kind of dynamic, is tied to the place, is tied to the setting you are in.

And of course, if– you know, I live abroad now, if I visit my parents and I stay in my old bedroom, you know, my mother comes in and wants to wake me up in the morning. Stuff like that, right? And it just struck me so, so clearly that it’s– when I change this setting, if I go out and have dinner with them at a different place, that the dynamic, just that dynamic disappears.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Thomas, this has been really, really helpful. Thank you for talking with me today.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thank you, Sarah.  

HANNAH BATES: That was Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on the HBR IdeaCast. He’s an expert in problem solving and innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about leadership from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

We’re a production of Harvard Business Review. If you want more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos like this, find it all at HBR dot org.

This episode was produced by Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Karen Player, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener.

See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about leadership.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Power and influence
• Business management

Partner Center

Future Problem Solving Program of California

PAST TOPICS

Problem #1: E-Waste

Problem #2: Digital Realities

Qualifying Problem: Robotic Workforce

Affiliate Competition: Throw Away Societies

Problem #: Water Supply

Problem #2: Building Green

Qualifying Problem: Insects

Affiliate Bowl: Mining

International Conference: TBA in March.

Problem #: Youth in Competitive Sports

Problem #2: Wearable Technology

Qualifying Problem: Human Environmental Impact

Affiliate Bowl: Personalized Medicine

International Conference: Neurotechnology

Problem #1 International Travel

Problem #2 Sleep Patterns

Qualifying Problem: Gamification

Affiliate Bowl: Living in PovertyInternational Conference: Terraforming

Problem #1 Mission to Moon, Mars, and Beyond

Problem #2 Drones

Qualifying Problem: Food Loss & Waste

Affiliate Bowl: Coping with Stress

International Conference: De-Extinction

Problem #1 Spread of Infectious Disease

Problem #2 Toxic Materials

Qualifying Problem: Philanthrocapitalism

Affiliate Bowl: Cloud Storage

International Conference: Criminal Justice Systems

Problem #1 Educational Disparities

Problem #2 It's All in the Genes

Qualifying Problem: 3D Printing

Affiliate Bowl: Identity Theft

International Conference: Biosecurity

Problem #1 Treatment of Animals

Problem #2 Disappearing Languages

Qualifying Problem: Recovering from Natural Disaster

Affiliate Bowl:The Global Workplace

International Conference: Energy of the Future

Problem #1 The Impact of Social Media

Problem #2 Processed Foods

Qualifying Problem: Propaganda

Affiliate Bowl: Enhancing Human Potential

International Conference: Intellectual Property

Problem #1 Social Isolation

Problem #2 Desertification

Qualifying Problem: Surveillance Society

Affiliate Bowl: Land Transportation

International Conference: Space

Problem #1 Culture of Celebrity

Problem #2 The Robotic Age

Qualifying Problem: Megacities

Affiliate Bowl: Ocean Soup

International Conference: Global Status of Women

Problem #1 All in a Day's Work

Problem #2 Coral Reefs

Qualifying Problem Human Rights

Affiliate Bowl Trade Barriers

International Conference Pharmaceuticals

Problem #1 Healthy Living

Problem #2 Air Transport

Qualifying Problem Genetic Testing

Affiliate Bowl Water Quality

International Conference Emergency Planning

Problem #1 Sensory Overload

Problem #2 Invasive Species

Qualifying Problem: Orphaned Children

Affiliate Bowl: Food Distribution

International Conference: Green Living

Problem #1 Olympic Games

Problem #2 Cyber Conflict

Qualifying Problem: Space Junk

Affiliate Bowl: Counterfeit Economy

International Conference: Pandemics

Problem #1 Body Enhancement

Problem #2 Simulation Technology

Qualifying Problem: Neurotechnology

Affiliate Bowl: Debt in Developing Countries

International Conference: Child Labor

Problem #1 Fundraising/Charity Giving

Problem #2 Protection of National Treasures

Qualifying Problem: Cultural Prejudice

Affiliate Bowl: Caring for Our Elders

International Conference: Privacy

Problem #1 Climate Change/Climate Threat

Problem #2 Freedom of Speech

Qualifying Problem: Nutrition

Affiliate Bowl: Healthcare Access

International Conference: Redistribution of Wealth

Problem #1 Entertainment

Problem #2 Terrorism/Security

Qualifying Problem: Agriculture of the 21st Century

Affiliate Bowl: Depletion of Oceanic Species

International Conference: Business Crime

Problem #1 Smart Clothes

Problem #2 Rage and Bullying

Qualifying Problem: Artificial Intelligence

Affiliate Bowl: Media Impact

International Conference: Immigration

Problem #1 Sports Medicine

Problem #2 E-Commerce

Qualifying Problem Nanotechnology

Affiliate Bowl DNA Identification

International Conference Worldwide Communication

Problem #1 Alternative Energy

Problem #2 Educational Options

Qualifying Problem Organ Donations

Affiliate Bowl Environmental Law

International Conference Virtual Corporations

Problem #1 Tourism

Problem #2 World Population

Qualifying Problem: Water

Affiliate Bowl: Habitats

International Conference Global Interdependence

Problem #1 Fads

Problem #2 Amateur Sports

Qualifying Problem: The Internet

Affiliate Bowl: Financial Security

International Conference: Genetic Engineering

Scenario Writing (SW)

Get creative while refining your writing skills..

Scenario Writing is an individual competition in which students develop short stories related to one of FPS’s four annual topics. The story should be 1500 words or less and set at least 20 years in the future. It is an imagined but logical outcome of actions or events taking place in the world. For students who participate in Global Issues Problem Solving and/or Scenario Performance, Scenario Writing can serve as an excellent complement to their work on any of the annual topics. Scenario Writing can be used as a standalone activity by an FPS coach, an English teacher, a parent, or any instructor with students interested in creative writing. Students who are enthusiastic about stories of the future may also be interested in Scenario Performance, which is an oral storytelling experience.

Why Scenario Writing?

To prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century, FPS teaches students to think critically, creatively, and futuristically. The Scenario Writing component of FPS strives to help students enlarge, enrich, and make their images of the future more precise while honing their creative writing skills. This competition provides students with greater awareness and imaginings about possible futures. Participation in Scenario Writing provides opportunities for students to meet and exceed educational standards as they refine their writing skills. A rubric-based authentic evaluation is provided, giving students tools for continuous growth.

Do students need to know the six step problem solving process for Scenarios?

Both the Global Issues Problem Solving and Community Problem Solving components use the six step problem solving process. Although knowing the process can help students think about the future and organize a story line, it is not a prerequisite for Scenario Writing. Since Scenarios must relate to one of the annual topics, it is imperative that students complete background reading and research on their chosen topic.

How much help should a coach give?

The student’s writing must be original. As a coach, you may provide direct instruction on creative writing, read the student’s work, ask questions that occur to you as a reader, and make general suggestions for improvement. Authors may receive assistance to correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Peer revision is a beneficial process. Automated writing tools (including AI) should only be used for proofreading or to spark ideas; all submitted work should be fully student-created.

FPS Students from more than 37 states and 14 countries .

Over 250,000 students globally have participated in the last decade!

Promotes both Written and Verbal communication skills