IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v124y2017icp77-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning

Author

Listed:
  • Derbyshire, James

Abstract

Despite some recent progress, scenario planning's development as an academic discipline remains constrained by the perception it is solely a practical tool for thinking about the future, with limited theoretical foundations. The paper addresses this issue by showing that G. L. S. Shackle's ‘Potential Surprise Theory’ (PST) contains much that can lend theoretical support to scenario planning - especially its use of plausibility rather than probability, and its focus on potential extreme outcomes. Moreover, PST and scenario planning share the same ontology, viewing the future as constructed by the imagination of individuals. Yet, under PST, while the future is imagined and, therefore, subjective, individuals nevertheless seek to identify the ‘best’ option through a deductive process of elimination. PST therefore assists in overcoming the divide between the constructivist and deductivist perspectives in scenario planning as it employs both. Finally, the paper shows that theoretically underpinning scenario planning with PST would place it at the heart of contemporary debates on decision making under uncertainty taking place in economics and other fields, enhancing its status and profile as a discipline.

Suggested Citation

  • Derbyshire, James, 2017. "Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 77-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:124:y:2017:i:c:p:77-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516300671
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2009. "Shackle And Modern Decision Theory," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 245-282, May.
    2. Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, 2007. "Black Swans and the Domains of Statistics," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 61, pages 198-200, August.
    3. Fortes, Patrícia & Alvarenga, António & Seixas, Júlia & Rodrigues, Sofia, 2015. "Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 161-178.
    4. G. L. S. Shackle, 1949. "A Non-Additive Measure of Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 17(1), pages 70-74.
    5. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    6. Phadnis, Shardul & Caplice, Chris & Singh, Mahender & Sheffi, Yossi, 2014. "Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm-specific Intuitive Logics scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 122-139.
    7. Frank H. Stephen, 1984. "Economics and Work Organization," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Frank H. Stephen (ed.), Firms, Organization and Labour, chapter 1, pages 3-24, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Brian J. Loasby, 2011. "Uncertainty and imagination, illusion and order: Shackleian connections," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 771-783.
    9. Carlo Zappia, 2014. "Non-Bayesian decision theory ahead of its time: the case of G. L. S. Shackle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(5), pages 1133-1154.
    10. G. L. S. Shackle, 1984. "To Cope with Time," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Frank H. Stephen (ed.), Firms, Organization and Labour, chapter 4, pages 69-79, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Barton, John & O'Grady, Áine & Ogunkunle, Damiete & Pudjianto, Danny & Robertson, Elizabeth, 2014. "Linking a storyline with multiple models: A cross-scale study of the UK power system transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 26-42.
    13. Wilkinson, Angela & Kupers, Roland & Mangalagiu, Diana, 2013. "How plausibility-based scenario practices are grappling with complexity to appreciate and address 21st century challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 699-710.
    14. Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
    15. G. L. S. Shackle, 1955. "Business Men On Business Decisions," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 2(3), pages 32-42, October.
    16. Wright, George & Bradfield, Ron & Cairns, George, 2013. "Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 631-642.
    17. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2010. "Ambiguity and uncertainty in Ellsberg and Shackle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 449-474.
    18. MacKay, Brad & Tambeau, Paul, 2013. "A structuration approach to scenario praxis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 673-686.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ansari, Dawud & Holz, Franziska & Al-Kuhlani, Hashem, 2020. "Energy Outlooks Compared: Global and Regional Insights," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 21-42.
    2. Venmathy Samanaseh & Zainura Zainon Noor & Siti Norasyiqin & Che Hafizan & Muhammad Amani Mazlan & Florianna Lendai Michael, 2023. "A review of scenario planning for emissions in environmental assessments," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 924-936, July.
    3. Bezjian, James & Stoyanova, Veselina & McKiernan, Peter & MacKay, R. Bradley, 2020. "Synthesizing scenario planning and industry recipes through an analysis of the Hollywood film industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    5. Efstathios Tapinos & Graham Leask & Mike Brown, 2023. "Perceived environmental turbulence and corporate strategy: The case of the UK recession," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    6. Charles M. Weber & Rainer P. Hasenauer & Nitin V. Mayande, 2018. "Toward a Pragmatic Theory for Managing Nescience," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1-26, October.
    7. Wright, David & Stahl, Bernd & Hatzakis, Tally, 2020. "Policy scenarios as an instrument for policymakers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Marina Bianchi & Sergio Nisticò, 2018. "Shackle: an enquirer into choice," Working Papers 2018-03, Universita' di Cassino, Dipartimento di Economia e Giurisprudenza.
    9. Kishita, Yusuke & Mizuno, Yuji & Fukushige, Shinichi & Umeda, Yasushi, 2020. "Scenario structuring methodology for computer-aided scenario design: An application to envisioning sustainable futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    10. Giulia Parola, 2020. "Escape from parents? basement? Post COVID-19 scenarios for the future of youth employment in Italy," QUADERNI DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2020(111), pages 51-71.
    11. Derbyshire, James & Morgan, Jamie, 2022. "Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    12. James Derbyshire & Mandeep K. Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science: A reply," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    13. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    14. James Derbyshire, 2019. "Use of scenario planning as a theory‐driven evaluation tool," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    15. Ilya Kuzminov & Irina Loginova & Elena Khabirova, 2018. "Stress Scenario Development: Global Challenges For The Russian Agricultural Sector," HSE Working papers WP BRP 88/STI/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    16. Annie Tubadji, 2021. "Culture and mental health resilience in times of COVID-19," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 1219-1259, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Derbyshire, James & Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2017. "Understanding the failure to understand New Product Development failures: Mitigating the uncertainty associated with innovating new products by combining scenario planning and forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 334-344.
    2. Cheng, M.N. & Wong, Jane W.K. & Cheung, C.F. & Leung, K.H., 2016. "A scenario-based roadmapping method for strategic planning and forecasting: A case study in a testing, inspection and certification company," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 44-62.
    3. Bourgeois, Robin & Penunia, Esther & Bisht, Sonali & Boruk, Don, 2017. "Foresight for all: Co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 178-188.
    4. Derbyshire, James & Wright, George, 2017. "Augmenting the intuitive logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 254-266.
    5. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    6. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    7. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    8. Ramboarison-Lalao, Lovanirina & Gannouni, Kais, 2019. "Liberated firm, a leverage of well-being and technological change? A prospective study based on the scenario method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 129-139.
    9. Kishita, Yusuke & Mizuno, Yuji & Fukushige, Shinichi & Umeda, Yasushi, 2020. "Scenario structuring methodology for computer-aided scenario design: An application to envisioning sustainable futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    10. Carlo Zappia, 2008. "Non-Bayesian decision theory ante-litteram: the case of G. L. S. Shackle," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 0408, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    11. Burt, George & Nair, Anup Karath, 2020. "Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: Strategic foresight through ‘Unlearning’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    13. Carlo Zappia, 2012. "Re-reading Keynes after the crisis: probability and decision," Department of Economics University of Siena 646, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    14. Carlo Zappia, 2015. "Daniel Ellsberg on the Ellsberg Paradox," Department of Economics University of Siena 716, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    15. Chang, Suk-Gwon, 2015. "A structured scenario approach to multi-screen ecosystem forecasting in Korean communications market," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-20.
    16. MacKay, R. Bradley & Stoyanova, Veselina, 2017. "Scenario planning with a sociological eye: Augmenting the intuitive logics approach to understanding the Future of Scotland and the UK," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 88-100.
    17. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    18. Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang & Buchgeister, Jens & Hauser, Wolfgang & Kosow, Hannah & Naegler, Tobias & Poganietz, Witold-Roger & Pregger, Thomas & Prehofer, Sigrid & von Recklinghausen, Andreas & Schippl, , 2016. "Context scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 956-970.
    19. Marina Bianchi & Sergio Nisticò, 2018. "Shackle: an enquirer into choice," Working Papers 2018-03, Universita' di Cassino, Dipartimento di Economia e Giurisprudenza.
    20. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:124:y:2017:i:c:p:77-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.