Scenario Planning

Scenario planning is a structured way to consider and anticipate the future. In broad terms, scenario planning involves determining and visualising probable
future conditions or events, their likely consequences or effects, and how to respond to or benefit from them. Scenario planning is about what ‘might’ happen
in the future, rather than what will happen—essentially it provides a road map from the present to the future. There are several important benefits of scenario
planning, including thinking creatively and forward-looking, as well as questioning assumptions about the future and the drivers and forces that influence a
specific sector of activity.
For this task, the trend in focus is: “Diversity for a new decade”. Please conduct some research into this trend. I have attached some articles and reports to
help you get started as well
This section of the report will include
– Structure and scope of the report
– Scenario planning definition and framework, including the benefits of scenario planning.
– Trend descriiption
There are two key pieces to include in the introduction – an overview of scenario
planning and the chosen trend research. Make sure you use the documents attached among other
resources to study and explain the trend. Make it clear what aspect of the trend you are focusing on.
—————————————————————————–
(not included in this task but added info for the benefit of more understanding the complete picture)
The goal of this task is to be followed by a scenario plan of 9 stages
1- Determining the question
As simple as it sounds, making sure that you are asking the right question at the outset is one of the most difficult parts of the scenario planning exercise. To
be able to define the question is to know the subject, but this is exactly what many brands, businesses and organizations concerned with the future fail to do.
The correct framing of the initial question is vital to the integrity and accuracy of the outcome of any particular scenario. The question then should be
singular and clearly honed. To achieve this some planners follow a very straightforward ‘what if ’ approach. For example: ‘What if the temperature of the
planet were to rise by one degree per century?’ ‘What if one of our competitors were to create an engine that ran on electricity rather than petrol?’ ‘What if
consumers only bought products that were proven to be sustainable?’ Questions like this keep your outputs focused and reflective of the question being
asked. Another frequently used method is the big opening statement followed by the ‘little’ question that relates this statement back to how it impacts on
what it is you are trying to anticipate about the future. For example: ‘The Planet is Dying’ (the big statement) followed by ‘How does this affect my business’s
ability to sell stuff that is environmentally damaging’ (the little question). The trick is to strip the big statement down to its most basic components – subject,
object, concern – and to keep the question responding to it equally focused and strategic.
2- Contextualisation
Before you attempt to answer an agreed question, it is important to understand the context within which that question is being asked. Two factors govern
this: internal drivers (forces) and their external counterparts. Internal drivers are those factors within an organization that require a question to be asked in
the first place (for example, declining performance, slow response to competitor activities, a de-motivated workforce, inadequate budgets, poor leadership,
etc.), while external ones are those broader cultural, social, environmental and market forces that directly impact on, or indirectly create, those internal forces
in the first place. An initial probe of the key people involved in a scenario planning exercise – referred to as ‘stakeholders’ because they own a ‘stake’ or a
‘share’ in the project being undertaken – will illicit details about the nature of the internal and external drivers involved as they see them. The leader of the
scenario planning team will usually interview the stakeholders individually at the outset of the exercise, making careful notes or recording each interview as
he or she goes along. The leader will probe the concerns of each stakeholder, discussing with him or her the nature of the question being asked, why it is
being asked now, whether he or she thinks it is the right question and, more importantly, if he or she thinks it is worth asking. The leader will also ask the
stakeholders to list the external drivers, as they perceive them, which need to be considered in answering the initial question.
At this point, the team leader is attempting to identify all internal issues that are relevant, including those that are likely to lead to conflict or confusion later
on in the scenario planning process. These issues can be anything from stakeholders who are not keen on the process in the first place (and thus can
become disruptive, prejudiced or biased in their thinking), to a group of stakeholders who are not fully embracing the enormity of the internal, or for that
matter the external, forces about to swamp them. The team leader is also attempting to identify the external drivers which stakeholders deem to be most
important, so that these can be compared to those people outside the business believe to be of relevance (see stage three). This ensures that the correct
drivers impacting on the company’s performance are being measured. To make sure you are identifying these drivers, list the ones that matter internally,
getting people to rank them according to the most and least threatening, and then compare these to a list of external drivers as determined by the
independent analysts, academics and experts you interview at stage three.
3- External drivers
If stage two is about establishing the context within which the initial ‘what if ’ question is being asked from an internal perspective, at stage three you are
carrying out a very similar exercise, but doing it in a more systematic and objective way. At this point, expert input is usually required. Some organizations
refer to this as their ‘star chamber’, but in essence it is a panel of experts (see page 55) who have a thorough knowledge of the company or the sector under
review, and an equally thorough understanding of the drivers that are most likely to impact on the outcome of the question being asked. Budget permitting,
this star chamber may be on hand, or at least be available to be called on, at all stages of the exercise. They are always brought in at stage three and stage
eight to validate, challenge or to make further contributions to the scenario plan before it is finally agreed on by all stakeholders and written up. The size of a
star chamber varies, and new members can be added at any time if, and when, issues arise that require third party explanation. Depending on the nature of
the question being asked, the research carried out at this stage will encompass many disciplines and sectors, but as a default requirement most
organizations will carry out a thorough analysis of the following external drivers in relation to the question under review: __ Cultural : the prevailing climate
towards issues and matters relating to leisure, lifestyle and inner-directed activities or experiences that govern our sense of wellbeing, personal esteem,
aspiration and social position __ Economic: the prevailing climate in terms of market buoyancy, or how consumers sit economically in relation to changing
market fortunes __ Civic: the prevailing social and civic mindset of the culture generally. Are people more or less disposed towards notions of civic
engagement? Are they becoming more or less ethical or socially aware in their daily activities? __ Social: what is accepted socially among friends and
associates and in the wider community. Is our sense of what is socially acceptable changing and, if so, how?
__ Political: the state of political involvement locally and globally. Are governments, for example, more legislation prone, increasingly right wing, left wing,
concerned about health, equality or welfare issues, etc? __ Technological: the changes in technology by intention or by accident that might be imposing on a
business. The Internet, for instance, was established as an academic and military router for vast lakes of data, yet now it permeates all aspects of our
lifestyles from shopping and dating to how we consume, create and distribute media __ Environmental: our changing attitudes and outlook to sustainability, a
brand’s carbon footprint, or how a product is sourced and developed within a problematic global framework __ Ethical: the prevailing stance people are taking
on a range of civic, social, sexual, corporate and moral issues that would suggest an overall shift towards a more judgemental, fair, indifferent or concerned
public __ Competitive: competitor activity and the new and emerging products or services they are planning to bring to market that might impact on the
brand, product or service being looked at __ Known unknowns: as irrational and contradictory as it sounds, there are always ‘known unknowns’ (left-of-field
innovations, discoveries or changes in attitude) that you may not consider because they seem too wild or weird, but nevertheless should be considered for
this very reason. For example the World Wide Web, the iPhone, the Nintendo Wii and the Dyson vacuum cleaner were all considered too weird by the Late
Majority and Laggards when first mooted. The underlying principle at Le Laboratoire in Paris, is for their thinkers and designers to dream and create the
unthinkable in an atmosphere that encourages this process. Walls, rooms, even objects within them, are designed by Mathieu Lehanneur to stimulate debate,
capture thoughts and encourage visionary thinking. For each external driver, it is important to establish a true and comprehensive picture of how people are
feeling, and why they are feeling as they do. This is done by assembling all key facts, statistics and market commentary that has been published about the
sector you are focusing on in relation to your identified drivers. This is referred to as ‘desk research’ because it is usually done online, or culled from existing
documentation. Armed with this research, you will collaborate with the project stakeholders to assemble an initial list of experts who will be asked to delve
deeper into the default list of drivers and to refine them even further. Although these drivers are generic, once they have been judged in relation to the
question being asked, and discussed and debated by the star chamber (who do this with the stakeholders), they take on a new relevance and meaning as
some become more important than others and some change from being a general driver to one that is very significant or potentially more threatening than
previously believed. Much of this debate takes place in the scenario planning room, a room similar to the ideas dens and evidence walls looked at in Chapter
2 (see pages 47– 49). This room needs to contain blackboards, whiteboards, pinboards, Post-its, Internet access, projectors and break-out areas or tables
where small teams can work together. It also needs paper, pens, notebooks, reference books and a ‘base knowledge library’ where all previously researched
material is assembled, alongside the books, papers, reports, surveys, etc., put together by the scenario planning team.
4- Ranking and ranging
Having established your internal drivers and their external counterparts, it is now important to rank them all in order of relevance and immediacy, but also in
terms of the levels of uncertainty they may introduce into the scenario planning process. To get this right, and to keep things simple, it is always best to rank
the most important or influential factors first – the ones that are most likely to affect the outcome of the question. This is done by assessing all drivers with
the star chamber and the scenario planning team present, and talking them through until there is a majority agreement on how they should be ranked. Once
drivers have been assessed and ranked, it is then important to test them against the initial question to make sure that the question being asked is in fact the
right one. If it is not – and this can sometimes happen – do not hesitate to change it. After all, this is why you have asked your star chamber to take part in
the scenario planning process in the first place: to ensure you are on the right track but also to identify any gaps in your knowledge that might detrimentally
impact on your overall research. As you rank and group the drivers, you will also notice a particular pattern or emphasis emerging. If, for example, civic,
ethical, social and political drivers rank more prominently this infers that issues impacting on the question are very much the concerns of people (as opposed
to issues relating to the economy, market forces or a competitor’s activities). If this is the case, this must be factored in, or the question reframed. If, on the
other hand, economic, competitive and technological drivers are on top, you can probably infer that threats are mainly market-centric and competitor ones.
5- Naming and framing
You are now at the pivotal point of the scenario planning process. Here you begin to flesh out the scenarios that are now starting to suggest themselves from
the fog of data, evidence, drivers and star chamber quotes appearing on the mapping room wall or the work areas around you. Up to this point you have
assembled all kinds of empirical evidence and logged both an objective and subjective view of the world in relation to the opening question. Likewise you
have listened to and used your star chamber to flesh out an understanding of the key issues under review and of the drivers that are likely to impact upon
them. From now on you are trying to reach a situation where the drivers are showing you a number of ways forward: a question perhaps that proceeds along
a predominantly civic and social route; one that sees technology as a key and overriding threat or one that is dominated by environmental questions. Once
this ranking is complete – and the best way to do this is to draw up your final list of drivers as agreed by all parties and then call for a vote on the most and
least important – you will find that you now have a list of drivers that are also suggesting a list of very clear themes: a civic and social theme, a technological
theme, an environmental theme. These themes provide you with the underpinning for five basic scenarios developed by planners since the 1950s. Each
scenario is subtly different, but each has been designed to accommodate some overlap and also to move the collective work of scenario planners and
stakeholders along in a way that allows them to envision most eventualities. As Carsten Beck explains: ‘When working with scenarios we are not talking
about actual futures, but about potential ones. Ways the world may change as a consequence of other seen or unseen forces that may push a brand or
business along a route hitherto unimagined, or indeed unwelcome.’ 6 The five basic scenario frameworks used to do this are as follows: __ Scenario A: is the
‘base case proposition’ – a scenario that suggests that the future, with minor variations, will be more or less the same as the present