The interconnectivity of the modern world is at times a truly wonderful utility. Yesterday a tweet triggered me to reflect on Open Source; today Technorati links me to this blog on Scenario Planning, which in turn references this article by Conway both of which quote me. I now have another blog in the RSS feed!
Linda Popova, the blog author, correctly spots that while Conway quotes me on the irrationality of human decision making, he fails to see that I argue that reality exists (I remain amazed that you have to argue this with some post-modernists) and the tensions between perceptions and reality provide an important tool for thinking about the future. Linda concludes her blog by saying: I would not apply scenario planning to my national security issue as long as I’m doing a situation assessment. However, I do believe scenario planning as a technique could be a valuable addition to long-term strategic analysis, especially when used to challenge assumptions about rational choice whether on an individual or a collective level.
Now I have a lot of sympathy with that but not complete agreement, so I thought I would use the stimulus to blog some thoughts on scenario planning as a technique. I will do this in the form of a series of statements.
In any work which looks at the future, or seeks to plan for that we have three major elements
- The nature of evidence and the method by which we capture or generate it not only for what has happened in the past, but also the different perspectives on that past, and possible developments that can take place in the future. This includes the key question of granularity of source material.
- The method by which we carry out a situational assessment, how we describe the current state of affairs, and how do we generate different perspectives, including ones which are not our own.
- The method by which we determine our next actions, the immediacy of those actions, the risk/confidence level that we apply and also the way in which we monitor for weak signals which would indicate that we need to reset those actions, or even reset the situational assessment.
I am leaving out a range of issues relating to operational deployment, instead I am concentrating on the strategic elements. My overall argument is that scenario planning as traditionally understood, has some utility, but also severe dangers. I also find a lot of the hype around it dubious. So far there seem to be two good case studies: one at Shell and the other in South Africa. Given the number of scenarios created and the money made in creating them I would have expected more. I am also dubious when people say "Ah but if it is done properly" or "You have not worked with me" or variations thereof. A technique, if it has utility should not be totally dependent on the process facilitator no matter what the ego needs of said facilitator, and some of the players in this space have significant egos!
Now this is a big post, so I plan to do it in three blogs over this week, one for each of the points above and possibly a fourth as conclusion. I will also be teaching the subject in part today at a Grande École so I may create a pod cast. I am then moving on to Greece for a meeting on a major academic project using SenseMaker which links to the first point. So overall strategy is going to be on my mind this week.
Any specific questions or comments leave a comment or send an email and I will attempt to deal with them as I post through the week. I've even created a new category!
Comments (4)
Hello Dave,
Accept your comment about my paper, and I'll admit to shortening your point about reality to make my own point to the particular audience for whom I was writing. I attended one of your Masterclasses in Sydney a few years ago now, which connected me with your work. Given your response, I'll refrain from such culling in the future!
I'm not a post-modernist, at least I don't define myself as such, and I use scenarios as a way of working with people in organisations to build stronger strategic options. I support your comments about the dangers of scenario work. For me they are a tool(not an end) to help move beyond the often constrained view of 'reality' that may or may not be driven by perceptions that we, and others influencing our future, might hold. The major outcome of my work focuses not on the scenarios but on those strategic options.
And, while you have accepted the flawed assumption made by Linda in her blog that I am a male, I'm not - that ready acceptance is interesting in itself and shows that you did no further investigation about my work beyond Linda's blog (which would have shown you quickly my correct gender). So, while you have another blog in the RSS feed, I now have a dual internet persona as both male and female - that should be interesting to watch unfold!
Cheers
Maree Conway
Posted by Maree Conway | May 5, 2008 9:08 AM
Posted on May 5, 2008 09:08
Sorry about the male assumption Maree - I would normally have typed s/he but I missed it on this occasion. I wasn't sure of your position overall so I printed the paper to read before completing the blog over the rest of this week. For the moment I put a marker down to indicate I was working on the subject. The post-modernism clarification is useful and feel free to cull in future!
So thanks for the input, apologies for any false assumptions and I will be interested to see your engagement with the subsequent posts. I agreed with Linda by the way that the paper was a good one and very clearly written.
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 5, 2008 10:12 AM
Posted on May 5, 2008 10:12
I suppose I should add my own apology for making an assumption about the author M.Conway's article. As I mentioned to Maree, it is rather ironic to make such an assumption faux pas in the middle of a passage discussing rational assumptions. Without wanting to turn this into a political issue, in my experience most literature written on strategy is authored by the male gender.
A wonderful empirical example of Dave's rational assumption challenge!
Linda
Posted by Linda Popova | May 5, 2008 10:48 AM
Posted on May 5, 2008 10:48
Hi Dave,
I am looking forward to the rest of your presentation on scenarios. Services account for over 70% of world GDP (South Africa 65%) and the strategic approach in some of the contemporary literature appears to focus on scenarios as a means of strategic sence making in a context where innovation and change is the order of the day. I have my reservations on this score as in my view we need to determine the nature of emerging trends in the services marketplace and economy. To use scenarios for formulating a services strategy I would think is high risk.
The Clem Suntner High Low Road senarios were so designed that all normal folk would work towards the realisation of the high road - this makes the possibility of its realisation more of a reality - by share effort. To explore alternative futures well that is another story.
Dave I need to aslso talk to you about the Pretoria University Course and find out when you will be coming to South Africa. Theo I think has sent you an e-mail in this regards.
Best regards
Richard weeks
Posted by Richard Weeks | May 7, 2008 1:43 PM
Posted on May 7, 2008 13:43