Search results

Scenarios that offer peeks at the future are intriguing, but critics complain that often they aren't much help in sorting out current decisions. The authors offer an alternative process that starts with a rough sketch of the main elements of several likely macroeconomic futures and then involves managers in the development of scenarios that focus on decision making. The intent is to clarify the options for operating decisions. In this case, a Latin American oil producer decides whether to buy a small and somewhat inefficient U. S. refinery.

Discusses Pierre Wack, the Frenchman credited, along with Ted Newland, as the developer of scenario planning at Royal Dutch/Shell, that then developed and used scenarios to good effect. Looks in depth at some of Wack's scenario concepts showing how many organizations have used scenarios with very different degrees of success. Concludes that many who have tried using scenarios express disappointment at their inability to achieve this goal.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the need to study sustainable futures. It provides an outline of the importance of inventing futures in the third decade of the twenty-first century. It offers conceptual tools for building sustainable futures scenarios and discusses the importance of long-term thinking in business, government and society. This chapter is divided into four sections. Section One presents the opportunities to invent futures and the role of long-term scenarios. Section Two describes the contest for reimagination and the reinvention of futures. Section Three provides the historic background of the evolution of scenario methodology. Section Four offers a concise introduction to futures studies and futurology. Finally, a short preamble on the empirical research on Sustainable Futures for Latin America and the Caribbean considers climate change.

Corporate and institutional managers don’t get the full return on investment in scenarios that they should, nor do they employ scenarios on the full range of corporate issues suited to this methodology. Most often, scenarios are used by top management to provide a better understanding of the range of possible business environments they must contend with in the future. But mid‐level managers often grumble that these big picture “strategic scenarios” don’t address the competitive issues and the critical decisions that they face in the trenches of their business. To achieve more consistently productive uses of scenarios, there are several major challenges that must be addressed for the future of the scenario method: resolve the confusion over the definitions and methods of scenarios; and clarify and enlarge the appropriate application of scenarios. Beyond the confusion caused by the different definitions and methods of scenarios lies the uncertainty about when and how to apply scenarios in the business environment. In addition to planning and forecasting, scenarios can be used for market research and new product development. A major debate revolves around whether or not scenarios have successfully developed into a tool for investment and company decision‐making. One view has been that scenarios provide context, but not direct inputs for such decisions (R&D priorities, new products, and financial investments). This approach emphasizes the role of scenarios in team building, information gathering, learning, and strategic thinking. It advocates using scenarios primarily as a tool for corporate learning and for changing corporate culture. Another view, however, holds that scenarios can and should be used for near‐term business decision‐making. Scenarios need to be applied to the numerous operational issues that companies face. As such, they are a key method of analysis, especially for highly uncertain circumstances.

The author, a veteran futurist, aims to trace the history of the scenario process, starting with those developed by the Shell team that anticipated an OPEC manipulation of oil supplies and prices that occurred in 1973. Largely on the basis of the Shell scenario's brilliant insight, the methodology initially seemed to offer organizations a chance to bet on the future before it happened.

The paper describes how the best practices in the scenario process identified in this historical review can be adopted by current leaders.

The paper reveals that, in cases where the scenarios have effectively influenced corporate decision making, it was because the scenario team stayed together to execute the foresights they reached in the scenario process.”

Scenarios encourage strategic thinking about long‐term futures and potential discontinuities in a world that obsesses about the short‐term.

The paper concludes that scenarios, to be most effective, demand a rigor that consumes time and resources. They require leaders to open conduits to information, promote group interactions, encourage disciplined imagination and demand persistent follow‐through.

The discipline of managing mental models—surfacing, testing, and improving our internal pictures of how the world works—promises to be a major breakthrough for building learning organizations.

Scenarios are cognitive aids for thinking about the future in a sustained and disciplined manner. Because scenarios must be facilitated, scenarios must be considered in the context of their practice. In the strategic management literature, there has been a considerable conversation on the practical difference between “hot” and “cold” cognition. Thinking in this conventional literature demonstrates how the facilitators of scenario planning workshops establish and channel the productive cognition of their clients away from hot cognition and toward cold cognition. But how? As a thought experiment, we examine whether the sociological concept of “emotional labor” helps explain the cognition management of clients by facilitators during scenario planning. We end by considering how a deeper practical understanding of emotional labor might help facilitators identify mechanisms and adapt their tools to better manage the cognitive-affective dimensions of scenario planning in practice.