Difference between revisions of "Scenario planning"

Revision as of 14:20, 17 June 2015

A group of analysts generate scenario planning simulation games for policy makers. The games combine known facts about the future, such as in environmental, demographics, geography, military, political, social, and science issues, industrial information (a triumph of the silicon chunk, a miracle of modern magical technology ...), and (limiting) resources such as mineral reserves, with plausible alternative trends which are key driving forces of the games.

It isn’t real. It is make-believe, pretend. But ... the scenario planning process/choreography can reveal anticipatory thinking elements that can be difficult to formalise, such as subjective experiences during its sessions, shifts in values, new regulations, guides, and/or sudden insights.

80% or more of the creativity comes during the first few hours that scenario planning teams brainstorm their story elements, implications, and responses.
If a simulation is made from a set of likely scenarios, improved response times to real threats can be expected for years after.
Can be used for decision making when organisations are facing a critical issue and implicitly look to scenarios for help in making a decision now, immediately, and is very effective at discovering 80% of the likely effects of our decisions.
This choreography comes at a price: The games are likely to conjure up that which is tacitly denied.

It can be likened to doing kata’s in martial arts: people are removed from "reality", placed in some "future" as if it is real, and then brainstorm and practice possible responses to potential threats and challenges, and interesting unexpected (counter) moves. By using our imagination we imagine the worst and best cases and come better prepared for either, and in general for "facing" that which we don’t like to see or hear or tend to be in denial about. So it is not so much a predictive tool and more like a training in decision making, threat modeling and risk management. We increase our self-confidence, an essential ingredient for being action-able when needed. It’s value builds up in the people participating in scenario planning sessions.

We can include information already gathered by traditional-for-opportunity-and-profit scenario planners: claimed "market" research data may not be that important to know, but what markets they are aiming to "penetrate" in the near future is. The so-called "Gen Z" is already a target in trend watching reports by some big corporations.

Besides including key factors found by others for purposes of further fucking us in the future, we can include sources these "futurists" have no access to, namely lots of stories and realities the grubby grabbers are in denial about. The examples given here do not include serious information on inductive paths as those are considered private. The inductive path in "Enough!" serves to illustrate the process but is not a path that its writer will take. The other example does not require induction as it is only about immediate defense from known threats.

Basic choreography focused scenario planning

Decision focus

To get to a key decision in a focused scenario planning, explore more general areas of risk and opportunities for undermining first, until you can focus.

Brainstorming key factors

The key factor brainstorming step revolves around identifying driving forces and key trends.

Pre-determining elements

Here we have a fork in the road: you can take both paths (recommended) or one of the two paths. If only taking the deductive road, you make yourself totally dependent on the moves of your adversaries. If only doing the inductive path you are likely to end up a sitting duck.

Note: The deductive approach is easier with larger groups and for people untrained in reaching consensus. The inductive path is more unsystematic and calls for degrees of creativity and imagination and making it a multiple days process to include night time dreaming (How many times did I not wake up with new insights?) And it requires a lot of patience with an open ended debate. To make it easier, there is also a more guided inductive path.

Deductive scenario logics

On the deductive path, prioritise the 'key factors' in order to find the two most critical uncertainties. Those then are placed, for example, in a 2×2 scenario matrix. The rest of the key forces come back when fleshing out the scenarios in rich compelling plots.

Inductive scenario logics

What if ...

By asking and discussing answers to these questions we can build a scenario that will have future consequences that may call for some strategic decisions in the present.

Official future deviations

This is a slightly more systematic variant of the inductive approach.

The "official future" is what we believe, either explicitly or implicitly, will happen. Usually we make that a plausible and relatively non-threatening scenario, featuring no surprising changes to the current environment and continued stable growth. And in some circumstances the "official future" can reflect our fears, for example that the world is a mess, or we in trouble.

Therefore, we best start by describing radically different and optimistic futures and then work backwards, exploring the 'key factors' that would enable such a future to unfold. Alternatively or additionally, deductive scenario logics can be used.

Name of the game

Then focus on what the name of our game is and address the inverse question. Beef up the skeletal scenarios to discover the insights we need.

Examples

Long term: Enough!

Decision focus

Is it time yet?!? ^[1]

Key factors

What are the possible futures for the globalising system?
What are our own possible futures if and when a system collapse takes place?
What do we see in the future (time frame: the next ten years)?

Social forces	Technological forces	Economic forces	Environmental forces	Political forces	Other key factors
The stigma around failure is rapidly eroding	Geoengineering research	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example

Predetermining elements

Deductive logics

Inductive logics

What if a change in socio-political institutions does take place? What if Brian Holmes' "political ecology" is possible? If 20% of the people in any location join us for this change, that would have serious impact on the (local) system. What might lead up to such a change? What would be a plausible chain of consequences leading from such a change?

Name of the game

Short term: Journalist, observer or sousveillant in europe

Decision focus

What are the threats? What can we do to protect ourselves, our sources and our data? In what order do we work on that?

Key factors

What information do we not want other people to know? (This can be anything from passwords to contacts’ details, data and documents)
Why might someone want that information? Who?
What can they do to get it?
What might happen if they do?

Predetermining elements

Deductive logics

Inductive logics

Name of the game

Resources

↑ Anonymiss(tress) Operation ENOUGH! https://vimeo.com/33208014