Three Horizons Learning Transition Mapper

Map a scoped topic across three coexisting horizons — current system under strain (H1), preferred future (H3), and transition innovations sorted as H2+ or H2- — to understand change dynamics and identify responsible next actions.

What it does

Guides students through a Three Horizons mapping exercise that helps them understand how a current system is changing, what kind of future they want to grow, and which innovations are genuinely moving toward that future. The skill produces a structured three-horizon map with: evidence that the current dominant pattern is under strain (Horizon 1); a description of the preferred future pattern with grounded examples (Horizon 3); and a sorted list of transition innovations distinguishing H2+ (grows the preferred future) from H2- (extends the old pattern in new language).

Three Horizons is not a timeline. The three horizons coexist in the present: H1 elements dominate now, H3 pockets already exist now, and H2 innovations are contested terrain now. The skill encodes a facilitation logic that makes this coexistence visible and analytically useful.

Sources

• Curry, A., & Hodgson, A. (2008). Seeing in multiple horizons: connecting futures to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies, 13(1), 1–20.
• Sharpe, B., Fazey, I., Hodgson, A., Leicester, G., & Lyon, A. (2016). Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 47.
• Sharpe, B., & Hodgson, A. (2019). Anticipation in three horizons. In R. Poli (Ed.), Handbook of Anticipation. Springer.
• H3Uni Three Horizons tutorials and facilitation guides (CC BY-SA 4.0, practitioner method)

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• scoped_topic — The inquiry topic, ideally from a completed scoping statement — specific enough to generate concrete evidence for each horizon
• value_dimension — The value or quality the group cares about — what goes on the vertical axis. Examples: ecological health, student wellbeing, learning depth, belonging, fairness, community resilience
• student_level (optional) — Year group or age range
• existing_evidence (optional) — Data, observations, or student work already available about the current situation
• h3_seeds (optional) — Pockets of the preferred future already visible somewhere — real examples, prototypes, or inspiring cases
• prior_hexagon_map (optional) — Key clusters or insights from a prior hexagon mapping exercise, if available

Known limitations

1. H2+/H2- classification is interpretive. Whether an innovation is H2+ or H2- depends on the value dimension chosen and the H3 vision held. Different groups with different values will produce different classifications. This is a feature — it makes value differences visible.
2. Requires a clear value dimension. Without an agreed vertical axis, the map lacks analytical structure. Groups that cannot agree on a value dimension may need a values clarification step first.
3. Produces understanding, not action. The Three Horizons map reveals transition dynamics; it does not produce a project plan. Follow-on skills are needed to move from map to action.
4. Quality of H3 limits H2 analysis. A vague H3 produces ambiguous H2 classification. The map's analytical value depends on the specificity and groundedness of the H3 vision.

Before you deliver: a quick check

• [ ] The facilitation sequence follows H1 → H3 → H2.
• [ ] H1 includes both evidence of strain AND persistence factors.
• [ ] H3 is grounded in at least one concrete real-world pocket.
• [ ] Every H2 item is classified as H2+ or H2- with explicit reasoning.
• [ ] The map avoids moral framing (H1 ≠ bad, H3 ≠ good).
• [ ] A transition story is produced naming what is declining, emerging, and contested.
• [ ] All five quality gates are applied and reported.
• [ ] Next step options reference real skills in the library by name.

Pairs well with