Modern Management Science & Engineering
ISSN 2052-2576
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Original Paper
The Use and Value of Scenario Planning
Joana F. Cardoso1*and Michael R. Emes1
1
University College London UCL Mullard Space Science Laboratory Holmbury St Mary, RH5
6NT, UK
*
Joana F. Cardoso, E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract
Strategies are often approached with the assumption that uncertainty can be partially understood and
minimized to some extent by exploring plausible future events. Scenario planning addresses this
question by using scenarios to describe more than one evolution and future state of the business
environment. Throughout the years, strategists and academics have worked hard to resolve the
methodological chaos (Martelli, 2001) created by the increasing number of scenario development
methods. Aiming to contribute towards this goal, the history of scenario planning is covered in this
paper, as well as its use and value in a range of industry sectors including energy (oil and gas), defense
and space. With the insight and understanding gathered by both our research and interviews with
strategists in different organizations, we propose a framework that suggests how to select different
methods depending on different domain characteristics. We also use our findings to suggest how
scenario planning, despite having its roots in strategic decision-making, can be a valuable input to risk
management and systems design.
Keywords
scenarios, scenario planning, decision-making, systems design, risk management
1. Introduction
The purpose of strategic planning is to develop a plan of actions - or a strategy - for an organization to
meet its goals or vision within a given time frame. Due to the timescales associated with strategic
planning (time horizons greater than 10 years are common), there is considerable uncertainty associated
with the evolution and end-state (relative to the chosen time horizon) of the organization's business
environment. As strategy development requires some degree of knowledge about the future, one of the
most important challenges in strategic planning is how to evaluate a strategy, or, equivalently, how to
develop one that is robust. Robustness here means that the strategy is likely to be successful - i.e., the
organization is able to adequately respond - even if the business environment's actual evolution differs
significantly from that which was predicted. This also imposes a significant challenge for decision
makers who need to be able to make decisions under considerable uncertainty, and to recognize and
19
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
successfully adapt their decisions to shifts in the business environment.
Scenario planning is a technique that addresses these questions by considering more than one future for
the business environment. These alternative futures - or scenarios - are narratives of hypothetical, but
plausible, future states, which describe the sequences of events leading to a particular state while
highlighting the causal relationships behind key forces that affect those events (see figure 1).
Figure 1. Evolution of Different Scenarios – the Volume around a Sequence of Events
Represents the Associated Uncertainty (Growing in Time)
This paper addresses the history and use of scenario planning in several domains, namely, oil and gas,
defense and space. It analyzes the processes used in each domain to better understand and describe the
differences in methodologies, their maturity, and the value brought on by its use, and how these
processes may be related to the nature of each domain. These findings are first used to address the
so-called methodological chaos (Martelli, 2001) by describing, in general terms, the methodology that
closely resembles those used in the domains that we have analyzed. Then, we propose a framework for
the selection of the most appropriate scenario planning method given a set of domain characteristics.
Finally, we use the insights obtained from our research and interviews with domain experts to propose
applications of scenario planning to existing systems engineering processes as a way to deal with the
uncertainty that is inherent to those processes.
1.1 Origins of Scenario Planning
Scenario planning has its origins in World War II, where it was used by military strategists to develop
and evaluate war theatre strategies against what they considered possible enemy actions. After WWII,
the importance of strategic planning did not decrease — with the world entering the Cold War, the
political and technological environments became highly uncertain, and the effectiveness of any military
20
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
strategy became even more dependent on those of other nations. The United States Department of
Defense realized this fact, as well the urgency of investing in military planning, so that the right
decisions on strategies and capabilities could be made (Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der
Heijden, 2005). Thus, in 1948, the RAND Corporation, a non-profit think tank, was founded and tasked
to provide guidance and definition to the US military strategy.
It was at the RAND Corporation that war planning scenarios started to be developed as adaptations of
theatrical scenarios through the work of a military strategist named Herman Kahn (Millett, 2003). In
Kahn's view, scenarios represented a way to explore different futures through plausible combinations of
sequences of events. The purpose of Kahn's scenarios was not to be used as a prediction tool, but rather
as a way to improve people's theories and hypotheses (and, ultimately, their understanding of the
environment) by forcing them to “think about the unthinkable” (Kahn, 1985).
Even though most of the early work on scenario planning was performed in the United States, scenarios
were also being used in France, but with a different set of purposes: public policy and planning. In the
late 1950s, Gaston Berger developed a scenario approach for long-term planning, named Prospective
thinking, or La Prospective. Berger was also the founder of the Centre d' Études Prospectives, whose
aim was to develop a scenario-based approach to develop positive images of the future for use in the
political environment, providing the nation's policy makers with possible strategies for the future
(Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden, 2005).
1.2 Evolution of Scenario Planning
Herman Kahn continued to work on scenarios after he left the RAND Corporation to found the Hudson
Institute, whose aim was to think about the future in unconventional ways. The Hudson Institute also
marked the first uses of scenarios outside the military domain, since as funding for military projects
decreased, the Institute started to shift focus towards domestic, social and economic problems. Soon
after Kahn’s departure, two former RAND strategists, Helmer and Gordon, in collaboration with
Dalkey and other researchers at the California Institute of Technology and at the Stanford Research
Institute's Futures Group, began experimenting with and developing scenarios as a planning tool
(Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden, 2005).
Scenario planning saw its first use in a business environment when Ian Wilson (General Electric) and
Pierre Wack (Royal Dutch/Shell), based on Kahn's work on war game scenarios, redefined the use of
scenarios as alternative and plausible descriptions of future outcomes for a given time horizon (Millett,
2003). This transition made possible the application of scenario planning to a broader context, which
has benefited many organizations by allowing them to improve the robustness of their strategies and
their knowledge of the uncertainty associated with possible future events.
The use of scenarios at the Royal Dutch/Shell as a strategic tool, together with the work developed at
the Stanford Research Institute, resulted in a scenario planning methodology called Intuitive Logics.
The name Intuitive Logics refers to a group of techniques of which the one used by Royal Dutch/Shell
stands out as the best known example. One of the most defining characteristics of this group of
21
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
techniques is their subjective and qualitative nature: they rely on tools such as disciplined intuition (i.e.,
based on logics, facts and examples), brainstorming, stakeholder and STEEP (Social, Technology,
Economic, Environment and Political) analyses to understand the forces behind the focal issue and
their possible evolutions. The scenarios developed using these techniques are often organized as a
theme-oriented set of equally likely, plausible futures. Each scenario is usually in the form of a
narrative, supported by graphics and some limited quantification of its main parameters, describing
both the evolution and final (for the specified time-horizon) state of the environment and, in some cases,
early warning signals (indicators that a given scenario is materializing), which are of particular interest
to decision-makers. Despite the considerable number of Intuitive Logics models, the approach followed
can be simplified and summarized to what follows (Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden,
2005; Garvin & Levesque, 2006; Huss & Honton, 1987; Schwartz, 1996):
Identify the focal issue or decision to be analyzed
List all the driving forces (i.e., all the forces that affect the focal issue)
o
Separate the driving forces into predetermined (the ones whose evolution can be reasonably
predicted) and uncertain (the remaining)
o
Rank the uncertain driving forces with respect to their impact on the focal issue, and
identify their value range (i.e., extreme values)
Create the scenario space by selecting the two most important uncertain driving forces - the
critical uncertainties - using their value range as the axes of a two-dimensional graph
Develop the scenarios based on the critical uncertainties and plot them on the scenario space
(scenarios are usually characterized by a pair of extreme values of the critical uncertainties)
Develop narratives describing the evolution of the world from its present state into that described
by each of the scenarios, while considering the evolution of all the driving forces
Assess the implications of each scenario for the focal issue
Identify, for each scenario, early warning signals
Alongside the development of the Intuitive Logics methodology, another school emerged from the
work of Gordon, Helmer and others researchers at RAND — the Probabilistic Modified Trends
methodology — which includes two groups of techniques sharing the same mathematical principle of
determining the probability (and impact) associated with the occurrence of possible future events:
Trend Impact Analysis and Cross Impact Analysis.
The Trend Impact Analysis technique was developed by Theodore Gordon at The Futures Group in the
1970s as the evolution of a probabilistic forecasting tool. The technique takes as input time series data
relevant to the focal issue and a list of possible future events, which may impact it in some way. For
each of these events, its probability of occurrence (as a function of time) and its expected impacts are
defined based on expert opinion. Scenarios are then constructed by extrapolating the time series data
into the future (forecasting), obtaining the trends, and then considering the impact on those trends
caused by the occurrence of the different events at different points in time (Bishop, Hines, & Collins,
22
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
2007; Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden, 2005; Huss & Honton, 1987). Additionally,
narratives can be added to relevant forecasts to provide for a more natural description of the scenario
and its evolution.
Like the Trend Impact Analysis, the Cross Impact Analysis, developed by Theodore Gordon and Olaf
Helmer at the RAND Corporation in the 1960s, also considers a list of possible future events and their
probabilities of occurrence as defined by expert judgment. However, it differs from it by the fact that
this list is then further refined by computing the conditional probabilities associated with sets of events.
Together with a set of drivers affecting the focal issue, these probabilities can then be used as input to a
Monte Carlo simulation, which generates combinations of events and the associated probabilities of
occurrence (Bishop, Hines, & Collins, 2007; Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden, 2005;
Huss & Honton, 1987).
In the mid-1970s, Michel Godet, who had previously worked with the Prospective approach, began
using a more mathematical and computer-based probabilistic approach to develop scenarios for several
French institutions. Similarly to the Probabilistic Modified Trends School, La Prospective is mainly
quantitative, analytical and probabilistic in nature, relying on complex computer-based analysis and
mathematical modeling. The tools used, which include system, actors and morphological1 analyses as
well as key variable and probability identification, are often proprietary and highly integrated. The
scenarios developed are both qualitative and quantitative, and are organized as a set of probabilistic
scenarios (i.e., each scenario has a probability associated with its occurrence) describing alternative
futures, and supported by a mathematical model and a defining set of assumptions (Bishop, Hines, &
Collins, 2007; Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & van der Heijden, 2005; Godet, 2000; Godet &
Roubelat, 1996). The approach followed by this methodology can be summarized as:
Analyze the problem posed and define the system under examination
Diagnose of the organization, from know-how to product lines
Identify the key internal and external variables using a structural analysis
Understand the dynamics of the organization in its environment, its past development, its
strengths and weaknesses with respect to the principal actors in its strategic environment: this will point
to the key questions for the future
Reduce uncertainty surrounding the key questions for the future by consulting experts able to
highlight mega trends, wild cards, and the most likely environmental scenarios
Highlight strategic options compatible with both the organization vision and the most likely
scenarios
1
Morphological analysis is a tool used for multidimensional problem solving, where the ranges for each dimension (or parameter)
are specified, defining the state space for the problem. The analysis then lies in selecting the problem states (combinations of
values) which are of interest for the problem at hand.
23
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
Assess strategic options – this step marks the end of the reflection part of the exercise and the
beginning of the decision-making
Emphasize strategic choices and move from thinking to making a decision
Implement the plan of action
Although scenario planning techniques have developed throughout the years and many different
approaches can be found in the literature, some common steps are shared between the majority of
scenario approaches (Mietzner & Reger, 2005):
Identification of key decisions or focal issues
Identification of driving forces, pre-determined elements and critical uncertainties
Development of scenario plots, each representing a different and plausible future
Identification of key indicators for each of the scenarios
1.3 Scenario Planning at Royal Dutch/Shell
For much of its early history, Royal Dutch/Shell relied on forecasts about its business environment to
develop its strategies. During the 1960s, an increasing number of failures of its forecast-based planning
approach triggered Shell's interest in scenarios, and led some of its planners to work on a set of
scenarios that had the price of oil as its focal issue (van der Heijden, 2005).
Using Kahn's philosophy for scenario development, Royal Dutch/Shell's planners knew they had to
first identify what was predictable (the predetermined elements) and what was uncertain about the oil
prices in the coming years. Prices are driven mainly by the relationship between supply and demand,
both of which planners assumed to be predictable - demand had been growing at a constant rate since
World War II, and there were plenty of oil sources to keep up with demand. Pierre Wack, a planner at
Shell, not satisfied with this analysis, decided to look into supply and those in control of it - at the time,
oil companies and the governments of the producing countries. By doing this, he realized that supply
was, in fact, uncertain, as it may not always be the best option for producing governments to continue
to increase production at the same rate as the demand (if, for example, the production rate surpasses
their economic needs). This, in turn, led the planners to create a scenario where governments would
keep production levels below those needed to meet demand, resulting in a shortage - the Crisis scenario
(van der Heijden, 2005; Wack, 1985).
Soon after, Shell executives found in the Yom Kippur war signs that the Crisis scenario was unfolding,
and started to make their decisions in preparation for the eventuality that the crisis would indeed
materialize, namely, changing investments on their refining capacity, and stockpiling oil. By the time
the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) started an oil embargo as a response
to the United States' decision to provide supplies and replacement weapons to the Israeli military
during the Yom Kippur war, triggering an oil shortage that would result in a major oil crisis, Shell was
able to take advantage of its previous decisions and adapt immediately, maintaining profitability and
outperforming its competitors. In fact, its use of scenario planning provided Shell a competitive
advantage, as other oil industries not only failed to rapidly adapt to the crisis but, more importantly,
24
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
took years to understand that a fundamental change in the oil business had just happened — a switch
from a buyer's market to a sellers' one (van der Heijden, 2005).
The success of the application of scenario planning led to its entry into Shell's processes for corporate
strategy definition: in the beginning of the 1980s, the evaluation of projects against the set of scenarios
being used at the time (instead of a single-line forecast, which had been used until then) became
mandatory. This decade also saw the expansion of the scope of the scenarios, which started to move
beyond business-related concerns (such as oil prices) to include economic and political issues
(Cornelius, van de Putte, & Romani, 2005). By the late 1980s, the use of scenario planning had spread
throughout the company and people in different sectors and at different levels were using the concept of
equally likely alternative futures to help them in their decision-making processes.
With the beginning of the 1990s, Shell started to make publicly available a summary of the output of
their triennial scenario planning process. It was also at this time that it started to consider external
stakeholders and their perspectives, and to include geo-political and economic analyses in their
scenarios (Cornelius, van de Putte, & Romani, 2005).
In 1992, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union as a setting, Shell's scenarios addressed
the question of how countries would respond to the increasingly movements towards globalization, and
political and economic liberalization. While in New Frontiers these movements were embraced,
sparking growth and improving standards of living in developing countries, Barricades described a
world where national interest dominated, accentuating the gap between rich and poor countries (Royal
Dutch Shell, 1992).
By 1995, when Shell's next set of scenarios was issued (Royal Dutch Shell, 1995), it was obvious that
globalization, liberalization and technology advances were unstoppable, leading Shell's scenario
planners to coin the acronym TINA - There Is No Alternative - which would be a recurring theme for
years to come. For this reason, the two scenarios developed were built on 1992's New Frontiers. The
main question for Shell was now how the world was going to adopt the forces of technology,
globalization and liberalization: Just Do It! described a world driven by individualism and
libertarianism, as opposed to Da Wo ('Big Me') where a more communitarian approach was considered.
Similarly to what happened in 1995, the 1998 scenarios built on Just Do It!, as this appeared to be the
favored approach to the forces behind TINA (Royal Dutch Shell, 1998). Shell's focus was now on the
effects of these forces (TINA above: increasing globalization, liberalization and technological growth)
at the level of corporations, institutions and governments, and at the level of the individual (TINA
below: increasing choices, education and wealth), questioning which of the two - The New Game and
People Power, respectively - would dominate in the future.
The 2002 issue of Shell's scenarios looked at the recent reaction forces to TINA (such as the growing
number of protests against globalization), and which group would be the most influential in defining
the “three 'R's”: regulations for liberalization, restraints on technology and rules for globalization
(Royal Dutch Shell, 2002). Business Class, as the name suggests, describes a world ruled by the global
25
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
elite towards greater economic integration, whereas Prism looks at a more regional world, defined by
multiple cultures.
With the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Enron scandal as background, the 2005 global energy
scenarios focused on the effects of these crises on the relationships between the markets, civil society,
and the states (Royal Dutch Shell, 2005). Shell presented this issue on what it called the Trilemma
Triangle, where three forces - market incentives, communities, and state regulation - competed against
each other for three (conflicting) objectives: market efficiency, social cohesion, and national security,
respectively. Three "two wins, one loss" scenarios were developed — Low Trust Globalization
(Security and Efficiency), Open Doors (Cohesion and Efficiency) and Flags (Security and Cohesion).
While TINA had been a driving theme throughout the 1990s and part of the 2000s, 2008 saw the
introduction of its successor: TANIA (Royal Dutch Shell, 2008).TANIA came about as Shell
recognized that the global energy system was facing serious challenges, driven by the three dilemmas
identified in the previous iteration of their scenarios, and that there was no quick and easy solution to
them; thus TANIA — There Are No Ideal Answers. Still, the scenarios developed described two
alternative approaches: Scramble saw states rushing to secure their energy supplies; in Blueprints,
coalitions at many different levels formed to address the challenges to supply, demand and even climate
change.
Almost 40 years after its first scenarios, Shell's latest issue of its global energy scenarios concentrates
on globally growing energy needs and the widening gap between supply and demand (Royal Dutch
Shell, 2011). While it recognizes that the 2008 Scramble and Blueprints scenarios remain valid visions
of the future, it updates them to reflect, among other things, the ongoing financial crisis (which started
in 2008), the results of several summits and discussions on the subject of climate change and, the
insights gained with the use of three Shell-internal scenarios, in use since 2008: Severe-yet-Sharp,
Deeper-and-Longer and Depression 2.0.
1.4 The Role of Scenario Planning in Strategic Planning and Decision-Making
The use of scenario planning enables the understanding of the uncertainties affecting the business
environment, improving the understanding about the problem at hand and promoting a critical
examination of existing assumptions and mental models. Other techniques, such as forecasting, assume
that a most likely future can be anticipated by looking at past and present trends of events in the
business environment. This may work well in short-term planning situations but will most likely fail in
long-term planning activities, as the degree of uncertainty may prevent any meaningful analysis.
Furthermore, due to their reliance on trends, forecasts are usually unable to predict any significant
discontinuities or disruptive events, which have considerable value to planners due to the significant
change in strategy usually associated with them. Scenarios, on the other hand, recognize these
uncertainties as unavoidable, and address them through the exploration and understanding of the
associated events and underlying causes. Through detailed analysis of an organization’s business
environment, scenario planners are able to develop scenarios against which strategies and decisions can
26
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
be evaluated.
In order to be integrated in strategic planning activities, scenarios need to go through a set of processes:
although scenarios allow for a significant reduction of some of the uncertainties associated with the
business environment, these need to be reduced further so that a robust strategy can be defined. To
narrow down the uncertainty it is necessary to analyze, for each scenario, market demand trends – this
will indicate what the customer might be looking for under that particular scenario. From here,
competitor intelligence can be used to infer possible strategies that competitors can employ and so
highlight what can be done differently and uniquely. A comprehensive risk analysis of the business
environment projection allows further reduction of the uncertainty associated with each scenario and, in
turn, a better definition of the company’s products or services. Even though strategy definition can
accompany this progressive reduction in uncertainty, it is only at this point that a strategy can become
fully defined. As scenarios provide a description of not only the business environment but also of the
macro-economic environment, market demand can be modeled. The process of developing strategies
from a set of scenarios is illustrated in figure 2 (Cornelius, van de Putte, & Romani, 2005).
Figure 2. Strategies are Developed by Building upon the Information Contained in the Scenarios
In order to clarify the available options and think about their implications, scenario thinking should be
addressed as a continuous activity, at various levels of strategy definition and decision-making.
Understanding the scenario dynamics (i.e., its driving forces and cause-and-effect relationships) is a
key aspect of this continuous ability to understand and assess the environment — only this way it is
27
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
possible to recognize unfolding events and act accordingly. By forcing strategists and decision makers
to continuously challenge their mental models by considering multiple plausible futures, scenario
planning stimulates and encourages what is called organizational learning — a process that makes
people change their assumptions and perceptions about the organization, markets and competitors
(Schoemaker & van der Heijden, 1992).
2. Methodology
The first step of our work consisted of a thorough research and analysis of available literature on
scenario planning, which allowed us to explore its history and the main methodologies used to support
its practical implementation. This step also allowed the identification of relevant domain-specific
literature and resources for the selected domains (oil and gas, defense and space). At this point, a quick
assessment was performed in order to identify domains where there was a potential lack of information.
This revealed some gaps for the defense and space domains, which were addressed by conducting
additional research and by contacting domain experts in order to request additional information and
resources. For each of the domains, examples of the application of scenario planning in a relevant
organization were investigated, with a clear focus on the methodologies employed to develop scenarios,
and on how these are integrated into the organization's activities.
Some remarks on the choice of organizations with respect to the selected domains should be made. For
the oil and gas domain, Royal Dutch/Shell was chosen, due to its pioneering use of scenario planning
and due to the wealth of information available on both the application of scenario planning and on the
scenarios themselves. For the defense domain the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was
chosen, as it is a very important multinational organization. Similarly, for the space domain, the
European Space Agency (ESA) and the United States' National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) were chosen.
With the insight and understanding gathered thus far, we analyzed the differences on the use of scenario
planning between domains and proposed a framework of scenario planning process selection based on
two relevant domain characteristics. Finally, the relationship between scenario planning and systems
engineering is addressed.
3. Results
3.1 Global Scenario Development Approach at Shell
The scenarios in use at Shell can be described as stories about different possible futures, covering the
trends and events that lead up to them. These scenarios form the basis for strategic conversations discussions about the implications of those futures on businesses and current strategies, and on how to
best prepare for them. Shell's scenario development approach comprises five main phases: Preparation,
Pioneering, Map-making, Navigation and Reconnaissance (Royal Dutch Shell, 2008). This process,
while explorative and creative in nature, relies on analytical thinking, based on both clear facts and
28
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
informed intuition, to prepare the company for the future, and is performed every three years.
3.1.1 Preparation
The preparation phase starts with the definition of the scenario project objectives, and the nomination
of the core team of the scenario building exercise. Next, it is necessary to define and prioritize the focal
issues that the team should analyze. Interviews with Shell's decision-makers follow, in order to explore
possible factors or issues that they think are or should be a matter of concern, the clusters into which
they would group them, and finally the possible cause-and-effect links between the events. The results
of this step can be placed into two sets: a first set that relates to future trends or events in the external
environment and will have a significant impact on the organization, and a second set where concerns,
aspirations and barriers within the organization are pointed by the interviewee based on an individual
perspective.
3.1.2 Pioneering
The second phase refers to the scenario building process and starts with the research material being
brought together and cross-checked in order to highlight gaps and to broaden perspectives. Team
members then discuss a wide range of subjects, such as science and technology, social change,
economics, politics, globalization and governance, energy markets, connectivity, sustainable
development and business design, etc., presenting their findings in their particular field of research. The
intended result is to find new and critical questions about the future that can be grouped into smaller
and more focused set of themes, setting the direction of further research.
The team needs now to understand how each theme might unfold in the future and what are the critical
uncertainties associated with them. More specifically, the team has to identify the driving forces behind
each theme and how they relate, the most certain and uncertain aspects of the driving forces, and what
are the most likely certainties and the most challenging and extreme uncertainties.
The next step defines the scenario structure, which is composed by one or more focal questions (broad
definition of the major challenge(s) that the primary users are likely to face in the future), a branching
point with two or more branches for each critical uncertainty (different directions that critical
uncertainties may follow) and the scenario outlines (stories that result from the selection of a certain
path among the different branches). When outlining the scenarios, fundamental differences within and
between scenarios, that result in major implications for the primary users, should be set. This is an
iterative process that challenges and confronts the assumptions, perceptions and mental models of those
involved, and can follow different approaches:
Deductive — Two uncertainties are selected, and their ranges are drawn as the axes of a 2D graph.
Then, storylines are developed, describing how the world would evolve from its present state to that
described by each of the four quadrants. Finally, “transition” storylines are also developed describing
how each quadrant could transform into one of the others (see figure 3).
29
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
Figure 3. Deductive Approach to Scenario Development (the Transition Paths Are Not
Pictured)
Inductive — Several different chains of events (i.e., sequences with at least three events) are
created, and a storyline is developed for each chain, describing how the world would evolve from the
present day, through the chain's events, up to the defined time horizon, the point at which the (end)
scenarios are described (see figure 4).
Figure 4. Inductive Approach to Scenario Development
Normative — Unlike the two previous approaches, in the normative approach, planners already
have an idea or description of the scenario at the desired time horizon. Starting from this description, a
storyline of how the scenario could come into existence is developed by working backwards in time.
This way, any necessary major events can be identified, and the plausibility of the scenario can be
assessed (see figure 5).
Figure 5. Normative approach to scenario development
30
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
After outlining the scenarios, these have to be tested for consistency and relevance - if they fail to meet
both aspects, scenarios are reworked or disregarded. The internal consistency of scenarios ensures that
the scenario structure and the respective storyline - i.e., the key issues, their driving forces and
respective certainties or uncertainties and outcomes - are compatible. The objective is to look for
contradictions using, for instance, a consistency matrix. The relevance of the scenario set should also
be addressed considering the users or the target audience of the scenarios. Shell's approach to scenario
development does not include the assignment of probabilities to the different scenarios nor to their
constituent elements, as scenarios are intended to recognize and describe different perspectives and not
to combine the differences into quantifiable values.
3.1.3 Map-Making
Once scenarios are ready, they can be presented to the scenario builders and tested for plausibility and
challenge. The outcome of all the scenarios must be capable of happening — plausibility — and a
morphological analysis is often used for the purpose. Ideally, scenarios should also represent a clear
break with the present mental models, challenging the underlying assumptions — this is fundamental
for the scenarios to be of value. The resulting scenario set will address the same key issues and include
the same certainties - what will differ in all scenarios is the way uncertainties may unfold.
3.1.4 Navigation
Shell does not use scenarios as a one-off exercise that addresses particular situations. Instead, scenarios
are used in a systematic way over a period of time, supporting the development of the organizational
strategy, challenging assumptions and mental models, and testing plans and strategies. Therefore, it is
important that individuals connect their own perspectives with the scenarios, as an attempt to challenge
their assumptions and confront these with those of others, shaping the way they think and perceive the
future.
3.1.5 Reconnaissance
A proper reflection of scenarios' implications on future strategies follows the full understanding of
those scenarios. Shell suggests that if implications seem to be the same, regardless of the scenario, then
this may indicate that a particular set of actions can or should be implemented immediately and
securely. Still, the pursuit of other strategic options will depend on how well they will play in all the
scenarios and, obviously, on how the business environment actually evolves. At this stage, planners
also look for signals that indicate whether the dynamics explored within each scenario, and on which
potential decisions and strategies are based, are actually happening. This will help organizations
respond faster and more effectively to a changing environment.
3.2 NATO’s Long Term Defense Planning Process
With the end of the Cold War, there was a considerable shift in long term planning at NATO, as it
moved from planning against a single, dominant threat (with regular updates driven by technology
advancements and conflict developments) to a world of diverse, fast-moving threats. This led NATO to
develop its current Long Term Defense Planning Process (LTDPP), which usually looks from ten to
31
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
thirty years ahead to identify the capabilities needed to deal with future threats (RTO Studies, Analysis
and Simulation Panel, 2003). In its LTDP handbook, NATO describes some of what it considers the
best practices of conducting long term defense planning, which includes the use of scenario planning.
One of the scenario development processes used by NATO in the scope of Long Term Defense
Planning considers three phases: Framing, Mechanics and Appraisal.
3.2.1 Framing
The process begins with the definition of the key issue or problem, which, depending on the level, will
address political, military, operational or tactical challenges (in growing level of detail). Together with
the level, a detailed problem definition will help in the identification of the dimensions of the problem
space. The following are presented as typical dimensions (from (RTO Studies, Analysis and Simulation
Panel, 2003)):
General:
o
Time frame
o
Conflict scale
Security environment:
o
Area of interest (Gulf of Aden, Middle East, etc.)
o
Type of situation (crisis, peace, war fighting, etc.)
o
International relations (alliances, partnership, confrontation, etc.)
o
Alliances (NATO, etc.)
Parties:
o
Parties involved (groups, nations, etc.)
o
Political objectives
o
Strategic military objectives
Conflict:
o
Military capacities
o
Technological level
o
Geography
o
Duration
Facts:
o
Concept of Operations
o
Doctrine
o
Technology
o
Time dynamics
o
Trends
o
Threat Evolution
It is worth to note that, unlike other domains, the problem space can include several dimensions (i.e.,
more than just two or three); since each scenario represents a point in the problem space, the resulting
32
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
set of scenarios can be (very) large.
3.2.2 Mechanics
This phase covers the systematic identification of the driving forces behind the key issue and the
construction of the scenarios. While the handbook (RTO Studies, Analysis and Simulation Panel, 2003)
does not describe the process used for the identification of the driving factors, it does describe the use
of the morphological analysis to define the ranges for these, for the problem space dimensions and,
additionally, for the identification of relevant sets of values from these, from which to build scenarios.
3.2.3 Appraisal
The final phase of the process focuses on the use of two main criteria to review scenarios: credibility
and relevance. For a scenario to be credible, it needs to be plausible. This is, however, unrelated with
the scenario's probability: a scenario needs to be possible, not probable (in fact, it may even be unlikely,
as long as it is plausible). The other criterion, relevance, means that the scenario should be useful with
respect to the focal issue and the purpose of the scenario planning exercise, while also containing
enough information to be of use to its end-users, such as military analysts and decision makers. At the
end of the scenario building process it is often necessary to perform a trade-off between the number of
scenarios for analysis (a large set is often desirable so that it spans the entire uncertainty space) and the
required analytic resources (often limited). The problem of scenario selection is addressed in several
ways, by ensuring that the scenario set is:
Consistent with the issue under consideration
Appropriate to the processes for which it serves as input (e.g. mission analysis, training and
education, systems procurement, .etc.)
Covers only key dimensions (i.e., external factors, capabilities of actors and environmental
factors)
3.3 European Space Agency’s Long-Term Plan
Scenario planning has been used regularly at the European Space Agency (ESA) with the objective of
defining its Long-Term Plan (LTP) by re-evaluating ESA's programs against different political and
economic scenarios. Even though ESA's LTP is updated yearly, scenario planning is performed every
three years, in preparation for ESA's Ministerial Council (triennial), where its long term strategy (and
funding) is discussed and agreed. Within the scope of the LTP preparation, ESA develops what are
called programmatic scenarios.
The programmatic scenarios take as key uncertainties the member states' contributions and preferences
with respect to particular programs, and funding from the European Union (EU) for different programs.
The scenarios focus on assessing the high-level financial impact that possible variations on this funding
may have in the on-going and future programs of the Agency. For each scenario, the consequences on
all programs are assessed and, if applicable, some alternatives are suggested (e.g. collaborations with
other agencies in response to a decrease in funding).
These scenarios, developed by looking at the worldwide political environment and at different
33
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
European institutions, are based on regular analyses of the political and economic situation and relevant
trends provided by ESA offices located in Washington (where NASA Headquarters are located),
Moscow (location of Roscosmos headquarters) and Brussels (seat of the European Commission and
location of the European Parliament). For ESA headquarters, scenarios mainly describe different
evolutions for the EU and member-states' contributions towards both mandatory and optional programs.
These scenarios are then used to define alternative proposals — comprising funding levels, plans and
roadmaps — for each program, while trying to fulfill its short (1-2 years), medium (2-4 years) and
long-term (5-10 years) objectives. The goal is to develop a set of proposals that fits with the developed
scenarios, the evolution of Europe's space policy, and is compatible with member-state's funding levels,
as well as their expertise and industrial base.
More recently, scenario planning has also been used at the European Space Agency in the Forecast of
the European Space Sector study (4ESS). This study aims to better understand and gain insight on the
European Space sector by, as the name implies, forecasting its evolution under different scenarios so
that recommendations and suggestions for improvement can be made (European Space Agency, 2012).
Due to the fact that 4ESS is a recent study, and that there is limited information publicly available, it is
unclear how the scenarios, findings and recommendations from the study are being developed and
integrated into ESA's activities.
3.4 Scenario-Based Strategic Planning for NASA’s Aeronautics Enterprise
In 1997, the United States’ National Research Council (NRC), in cooperation with NASA, The Futures
Group (TFG) and the Systems Technology Group of the Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), conducted a scenario-based study with the goal of helping NASA define its strategy by
achieving a better understanding of how possible long-term (15 to 25 years) developments of the global
aeronautics domain would impact the US position and competitiveness, and of how to plan
appropriately (National Research Council, 1997). The study was divided into three main phases: a
pre-workshop phase, a scenario development phase and a planning phase.
The scenario building process started with the identification of the main issues and trends - past,
present and future - driving the aeronautics domain and its several branches, such as military and civil
aviation and space, air traffic management, information and communication systems, and global and
national transportation systems. This was achieved through a series of interviews with domain experts
within those branches, as well as leaders in the aeronautics field, who were asked to think about
possible issues impacting the future of the global aeronautic sector, and to identify the driving forces
behind them. These drivers were then condensed into a smaller set of drivers, which became the
dimensions of the scenario space. Considering two possible variations for each driver, several
combinations of scenarios were determined and five scenarios were selected for further analysis at the
workshop due to their challenging nature or opportunities they presented for the future of aeronautics.
After the scenarios were outline and selected, these were then taken to the workshop, where each
scenario was assigned to a group of participants that included experts from academia, government and
34
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
industry. Each group was tasked with further development and refinement of the scenario to which they
were assigned, by creating a storyline, describing how the driving forces would evolve over time up to
the defined time horizon while, at the same time, considering the effects of potential incremental and
disruptive technology developments. Once development was complete, each group looked at its
scenario to identify opportunities and needs for the aeronautics sector, their technology implications,
and to discuss if and how NASA could play a role in addressing those needs and opportunities.
Once all groups finished the development and analysis of their scenarios, a cross-checking phase
ensued, where the needs and opportunities identified for each scenario were assessed and grouped with
respect to their applicability to each of the remaining scenarios. This enabled planners to prioritize sets
of needs and opportunities to later discuss their implications in terms of science and technology. The
ultimate goal was to identify a set of areas of technological development required to maintain US
competitiveness in the aeronautics field, which would then be used by a government-industry-academia
partnership (with NASA as lead) to define a formal national R&D strategy.
4. Discussion
4.1 Use of Scenario Planning in the Selected Domains
One of the most immediate and relevant findings of our research was the difference between the
consistency and maturity associated with the use of scenario planning in the different domains. While
both Royal Dutch/Shell and NATO appear as very consistent and mature users, employing established
techniques covering different levels of the business environment, users in the space domain appeared to
be at the other end of the spectrum: other than ESA's regular use of programmatic scenarios, scenario
planning exercises seem to be sporadic and limited to large-scale, strategic applications, focusing on
the evolution of an entire sector - ESA's 4ESS and NASA's NRC studies. It is interesting to note that, in
both cases, the agencies resorted to external institutions to help them with the exercise - in line with the
maturity of in-house scenario planning expertise at that level. Also relating to maturity is the finding
that Shell's application of scenario planning has been so successful that it has been able to construct
scenarios based on those from a previous iteration, indicating that the latter have, to some extent,
materialized and, more importantly, validating Shell's process.
Another interesting finding is the fact that the programmatic scenarios in use at ESA are close to what
Wack termed “first-generation scenarios”, that is, scenarios based on the quantification of
straightforward uncertainties (Wack, 1985). Still, given that the purpose is to define proposals to be
presented to member-states, the use of first - rather than second - generation scenarios might be
sufficient.
Finally, it is worth to note that other than a mention of the potential use of the Prospective methodology
in one of the NATO's documents, most, if not all, applications seem to rely on the Intuitive Logics
group of techniques. This may be due to, on the one hand, it being a very well-known technique as
evidence by its wide use, and, on the other hand, the fact that most of the issues (and respective key
35
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
drivers) covered do not lend them to the mathematical modeling required by other techniques.
4.2 A Framework for Process Selection
The selection and application of different strategic planning processes (and of different scenario
planning processes in particular) depends on the main characteristics of an organization's business
environment, and, of course, on the available expertise on strategic planning and on the history and
maturity of those processes at the organization. Based on our results, a framework that tries to capture
this selection process and that addresses the methodological chaos (Martelli, 2001) resulting from the
many scenario planning processes available, is proposed in figure 6.
Figure 6. An Example of a Framework for Scenario Planning Process Selection
This framework relies on two domain characteristics that reflect, to some extent, important criteria
organizations use for strategic process selection: time and complexity. These dimensions are not part of
the scenario method itself and do not need to be validated as such. Instead, they are a lens we have
chosen to look through to better understand the application of the process and to distinguish between
domains and the suitable scenario planning method.
36
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
Here, time refers to the driving (or characteristic) timescales of a domain’s most important processes
and the life cycle of its products. Domains concerned with short timescales may employ strategic tools
such as forecasts, as the immediate future may not have a sufficiently high level of uncertainty to
require in-depth considerations to be made about the more distant future, unlike organizations working
mostly with long-duration projects and systems.
Whereas for the commercial aircraft industry, for instance, this could be in the order of 40 years (the
duration of the life cycle for a given aircraft model, from concept to disposal/end of support operations),
for the space industry it could be half that value (e.g., a typical earth-observation satellite project may
last for 20 years). On the other end of the spectrum is the consumer electronics sector - a very agile
industry working with extremely short life cycles (when compared with the previous examples). For
this reason, the planning horizon should also be much shorter — the case could then be made that
forecasting techniques may still be of use since, as forecasts will not be made too far into the future,
there is not considerable associated uncertainty.
Complexity, in turn, could be thought of as referring to how easy (or difficult) it is to formally describe
or model the relationships between a domain’s driving forces and uncertainties. Simple or low
complexity domains or sectors are those for which there is a clear, visible cause-and-effect relationship
between driving forces and uncertainties, and where there is also a low degree of coupling between
drivers. In contrast, complex or high complexity domains would be those in which the cause-and-effect
between driving forces and uncertainties are not fully visible and/or well understood. At the same time,
there may also be hidden couplings between key drivers, making the application of scenario
development processes harder.
In domains for which mathematical models can be obtained for some or most of the associated driving
forces and uncertainties, analytic techniques such as La Prospective or Probabilistic Modified Trends
can be used. An example of a low complexity domain would be the food industry, where key drivers
are simple, and the connections between these and the uncertainties are (arguably) straightforward.
Contrarily, in domains with high complexity, such as defense, characterized by political and diplomatic,
not always visible uncertainties, analytic techniques are less of an option, rendering applications of
strategic planning heavily reliant on expert judgment and qualitative (rather than quantitative) analysis.
It is important to say that all the domains represented were placed in the framework considering the
positioning of the other domains. For instance, climate change and defense are both high-complex
domains but the latter appears as more complex as the former. This results from the fact that even
though the driving forces behind climate change are considerably complex, these relationships tend to
be more visible than those in defense, which results, based on our description, in a more complex
environment.
Finally, it should be noted that this framework is provided as a high-level example of what a framework
for scenario planning method selection could look like and that we do not intend to look at it as a
unique picture of the industries represented. Further refinement of this framework requires both depth
37
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
and breadth in domain-specific research, that is, the use of scenario planning needs to be researched in
other domains and, for each domain, more than one organization should be considered.
4.3 Potential Use and Value of Scenario Planning for Systems Engineering
Despite being used almost exclusively as a strategic planning tool, scenario planning can also be used
to aid and add value to other activities. For instance, it can help project managers and system
development teams to manage risk, by ensuring that a more robust assessment is performed through the
consideration of multiple plausible environments. The use of scenario planning also allows for greater
confidence on the operational flexibility of a given system, as the risks of operating it in a set of
different environments are better understood. Scenario planning may also encourage a creative and
forward-looking approach to design, as it embraces uncertainty and frees the designer to contemplate
otherwise impossible trade-offs.
A successful system is one that delivers value to its stakeholders by meeting (or exceeding) their needs.
These, however, may change over time and, as a result, the same system will be delivering less value
(i.e., moving target problem). If, instead of looking at stakeholders' current needs, system designers try
to understand what are the factors driving those needs and how they may evolve over the system's life
cycle, a more meaningful and robust set of needs (and corresponding definitions of value) can be
obtained.
At the same time, as it is seldom the case - particularly for systems with long development cycles - that
the operating environment is the same as the one which was envisioned in the early stages of system
design (or, even if it is, that it stays the same over the system's lifetime), it also makes sense to use
scenarios to address the uncertainty associated with a system's future operating environment.
Applying a scenario planning approach to stakeholder needs identification and usage modeling would
help address one of the biggest challenges in systems design - requirements definition. Changes in
requirements are commonplace during system development, as stakeholder needs may change in
response to changes in the systems environment and, of course, due to the progressive maturity of the
system's design. As the design matures, however, changes in requirements become increasingly costly,
due to the amount of effort required to comply with a new requirement in an otherwise well-defined
system. The use of a scenario-based approach to the previous design phases would help designers
define a more robust set of system requirements, that is, a set of requirements that are applicable to all
the scenarios that were considered.
5. Conclusion
Current scenario planning methodologies differ considerably in their nature. While techniques such as
Trend Impact Analysis, Cross Impact Analysis and La Prospective follow a more mathematical
approach, their applicability is somewhat limited, as they often require the use of quantitative data such
as time series, which, depending on the focal issue and driving factors being considered, may not be
available. At the same time, these techniques often require the assignment of probability distributions to
38
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
the occurrence of possible future events, which may rely on the use of unjustifiable assumptions.
Intuitive Logics techniques, on the other side, have a greater range of applications, but are less
scientific in nature, relying heavily on qualitative and subjective judgment, thus making their process
less transparent and traceable.
Another important aspect in the use of scenario planning has to do with the value associated with the
scenario set, which, of course, depends on the technique used. The Intuitive Logics approach, for
instance, may use the extreme values of the two most critical uncertainties to span the so-called
problem space, which in turn defines the set of possible outcomes. Moreover, there is additional value
in the fact that this technique promotes understanding and insight about the key issue by challenging
existing mental models about the problem. Other techniques use different approaches to come up with
the scenario set, which may or may not fully represent the scenario space or improve understanding of
the problem.
The framework proposed reflects the fact that, depending on the specific characteristics of a certain
domain or application, different scenario planning processes may be better suited. The development of
an improved framework based on different criteria (including the value a technique creates), could not
only help planners choose the technique that best fits their needs, but it could possibly help address the
current issue of methodological chaos (Martelli, 2001).
Finally, a more detailed understanding of how scenario planning could contribute to other processes is
fundamental to increase the scope of its applicability and take advantage of its benefits at different
levels of organizations. This will require detailed review of existing scenario development techniques
to determine how these could be tailored to other processes.
References
Babic, M. (2011). Technical Evaluation Report. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range Forecasting of the
Security Environment, SAS-088(T), 1-24.
Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of
techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5-25.
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnvaden, G. (2005). Towards a user’s guide to
scenarios – A report on scenario types and scenario techniques. Royal Institute of Technology,
1-53.
Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & van der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution
of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37, 795-812.
Burt, G., & van der Heijden, K. (2003). First steps: towards purposeful activities in scenario thinking
and future studies. Futures, 35(10), 1011-1026.
Chermack, T. (2005). Studying scenario planning: Theory, research suggestions, and hypotheses.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(2005), 59-73.
Chermack, T., Lynham, S., & Ruona, W. (2001). A review of scenario planning literature. Futures
39
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
Research Quarterly, Summer, 7-31.
Chuka, N., & Friesen, S. (2011). Divining the force planning scenarios: Methodology, experiences and
lessons from the Canadian department of national defence. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range
Forecasting of the Security Environment, SAS-088(3), 1-14.
Cornelius, P., van de Putte, A., & Romani, M. (2005). Three decades of scenario planning in Shell.
California Management Review, 48(1), 92-109.
Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2000). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Emes, M. (2007). Strategic multi-stakeholder trade studies. INCOSE Insight, 10(1), 17-23.
European Space Agency. (2012, May 3). Forecasting the European Space Sector. Retrieved from
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/GSP/SEM47CQWJ1H_0.html
Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2006). A Note on Scenario Planning, Harvard Business School,
306(003), 1-10.
Geus, A. P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1-6.
Godet, M. (2000). The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 3-22.
Godet, M., & Roubelat, F. (1996). Creating the future: the use and misuse of scenarios. Long Range
Planning, 29(2), 164-171.
Grienitz, I. V., & Schmidt, A. M. (2011). Development and assessment of future scenarios in the
context of the security environment. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range Forecasting of the Security
Environment, SAS-088(5), 1-14.
Huss, W., & Honton, E. (1987). Scenario planning – What style should you use? Long Range Planning,
20(4), 21-29.
Kahn, H. (1985). Thinking about the unthinkable in the 1980s. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster,
Inc.
Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. (1968). The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirty-three
years. Collier Macmillan Ltd.
Martelli, A. (2001). Scenario building and scenario planning: state of the art and prospects of evolution.
Futures
Research
Quarterly.
Retrieved
from
http://www.antoniomartelli.com/html/articoli/scen_building.asp
Martinsen, P., Glærum, S., & Fridheim, H. (2011). Planning for the future – A Norwegian perspective.
RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range Forecasting of the Security Environment, SAS-088(12), 1-10.
Mietzner, D. & Reger G. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic
foresight. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220-239.
Millett, S. (2003). The future of scenarios: challenges and opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 31(2),
16-24.
National Research Council. (1997). Maintaining U.S. leadership in aeronautics: Scenario-based
40
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
strategic planning for NASA’s aeronautics enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Phelps, R., Chan, C., & Kapsalis, S. (2001). Does scenario planning affect performance? Two
exploratory studies. Journal of Business Research, 51(3), 223-232.
Ringland, G. (2006). Scenario planning: managing for the future. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
Ringland, G., & Young, L. (2006). Scenarios in marketing – From vision to decision. Chichester, West
Sussex: Wiley.
Ross , A., & Rhodes, D. (2008). Architecting systems for value robustness: Research motivations and
progress. IEEE International Systems Conference, 1-8.
Rostek, M., Gizewski, P., & Reshke, R. (2011). Futuring and force development: An interim report on
the Canadian Army 2040 project. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range Forecasting of the Security
Environment, SAS-088(4), 1-20.
Roubelat, F. (2000). Scenario planning as a networking process. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 65, 99-112.
Royal Dutch Shell. (1992). Global scenarios 1992 – 2020. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (1995). Global scenarios 1995 – 2020. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (1998). Global scenarios 1998 – 2020. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2002). People and connections – global scenarios to 2020. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2005).Shell global scenarios to 2025. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2007).Signposts – supplement to global scenarios to 2025. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2008).Shell energy scenarios to 2050. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2008). Scenarios: an explorer’s guide. [Brochure].
Royal Dutch Shell. (2011). Signals & Signposts – Supplement to Shell energy scenarios to 2050.
[Brochure].
RTO Studies, Analysis and Simulation Panel. (2003). Handbook on long term defence planning.
RTO-TR-069 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 69, i - A2-3.
Schoemaker, P. (1995). Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review,
36(2), 25-40.
Schoemaker, P. (2004). Forecasting and scenario planning: the challenges of uncertainty and
complexity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Schoemaker, P., & van der Heijden, C. (1992). Integrating scenarios into strategic planning at Royal
Dutch/Shell. Planning Review, 20(3), 41-46.
Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York,
NY: Doubleday.
Stauffer, D. (2002, June). Five reasons why you still need scenario planning. Harvard Management
Update, 1-5.
Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world.
41
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/mmse
Modern Management Science & Engineering
Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Strohmayer, A. (2001). Improving aircraft design robustness with scenario methods. Acta Polytechnica,
41(4), 68-73.
Tocher, M. (2011). Improving foresight to facilitate implementation. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range
Forecasting of the Security Environment, SAS-088(7), 1-14.
van der Heijden, K. (2005). The art of strategic conversation. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
van der Lijn, J. (2011). Recent experiences in foreseeing the future security environment in the
Netherlands. RTO-MP-SAS-088 Long Range Forecasting of the Security Environment,
SAS-088(11), 1-20.
Varum, C. A., & Melo, C. (2009). Directions in scenario planning literature – A review of the past
decades. Futures, 42, 355-369.
Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review, November-December,
139-150.
Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, September- October,
73-89.
42
Published by SCHOLINK CO., LTD