IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v126y2018icp116-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenario modelling with morphological analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Johansen, Iver

Abstract

Scenarios can serve as points of reference in the future for decisions that we have to make today. Morphological analysis provides a structured method for ensuring consistency and relevance in scenario development. This paper outlines a method for characterizing the entire solution space of future outcomes in a given subject field, and suggests a process for classification of an all-encompassing and mutually exclusive set of scenario classes. The method is illustrated with an example case, taken from Norwegian defense planning, of establishing a scenario set that encompasses all external security challenges to Norway as a security actor. Four parameters are defined – Actor, Goal, Method and Means. Each parameter is defined in terms of an exhaustive set of possible states or values. A Cross Consistency Assessment is conducted to exclude solutions deemed to be impossible on either purely logical grounds (internal consistency) or based on real world assessments (external consistency). Six scenario classes are defined: Strategic Attack, Limited Attack, Coercive Diplomacy, Terrorist Attack, Criminality and Military Peace-time Operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Johansen, Iver, 2018. "Scenario modelling with morphological analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 116-125.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:126:y:2018:i:c:p:116-125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016251730656X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.016?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. 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.
    2. Kwakkel, Jan H. & Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik, 2013. "Dynamic scenario discovery under deep uncertainty: The future of copper," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 789-800.
    3. T Ritchey, 2006. "Problem structuring using computer-aided morphological analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 792-801, July.
    4. Leo J. Blanken, 2012. "Reconciling strategic studies … with itself: a common framework for choosing among strategies," Defense & Security Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 275-287, December.
    5. Cederman, Lars-Erik & Warren, T. Camber & Sornette, Didier, 2011. "Testing Clausewitz: Nationalism, Mass Mobilization, and the Severity of War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 605-638, October.
    6. Elman, Colin, 2005. "Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 293-326, April.
    7. 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.
    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. Hossein Safaei & Mohadeseh Ghanbari Motlagh & Mahmoudreza Khorshidian & Saeed Malmasi, 2022. "Introducing a process to select the appropriate dam compensation option based on ecosystem services," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 13011-13034, November.
    2. Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle & Stefan Vögele & Wolfgang Hauser & Hannah Kosow & Witold-Roger Poganietz & Sigrid Prehofer, 2020. "Socio-technical energy scenarios: state-of-the-art and CIB-based approaches," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1723-1741, October.
    3. Hoolohan, Claire & McLachlan, Carly & Larkin, Alice, 2019. "‘Aha’ moments in the water-energy-food nexus: A new morphological scenario method to accelerate sustainable transformation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Klerkx, Rik & Pelsser, Antoon, 2022. "Narrative-based robust stochastic optimization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 266-277.
    5. Culot, Giovanna & Orzes, Guido & Sartor, Marco & Nassimbeni, Guido, 2020. "The future of manufacturing: A Delphi-based scenario analysis on Industry 4.0," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. Ha, Sohee & Geum, Youngjung, 2022. "Identifying new innovative services using M&A data: An integrated approach of data-driven morphological analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    7. Anna Pernestål & Albin Engholm & Marie Bemler & Gyözö Gidofalvi, 2020. "How Will Digitalization Change Road Freight Transport? Scenarios Tested in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Marzena Kramarz & Katarzyna Dohn & Edyta Przybylska & Lilla Knop, 2020. "Scenarios for the Development of Multimodal Transport in the TRITIA Cross-Border Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-41, August.
    9. Manel Elmsalmi & Wafik Hachicha & Awad M. Aljuaid, 2021. "Modeling Sustainable Risks Mitigation Strategies Using a Morphological Analysis-Based Approach: A Real Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Marzena Kramarz & Edyta Przybylska, 2021. "Multimodal Transport in the Context of Sustainable Development of a City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-29, February.
    11. Uijin Jung & Jinseo Lee & Ji-Young Choi & Hyun Yim & Myoung-Jin Lee, 2023. "Future Service Robot Scenarios in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Panula-Ontto, Juha, 2019. "The AXIOM approach for probabilistic and causal modeling with expert elicited inputs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 292-308.
    13. Seeve, Teemu & Vilkkumaa, Eeva, 2022. "Identifying and visualizing a diverse set of plausible scenarios for strategic planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 596-610.

    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. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Parker, Andrew M. & Srinivasan, Sinduja V. & Lempert, Robert J. & Berry, Sandra H., 2015. "Evaluating simulation-derived scenarios for effective decision support," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 64-77.
    6. 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.
    7. C Ram & G Montibeller & A Morton, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 817-829, May.
    8. Alexandros Flamos, 2016. "A Sectoral Micro-Economic Approach to Scenario Selection and Development: The Case of the Greek Power Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Pereverza, Kateryna & Pasichnyi, Oleksii & Lazarevic, David & Kordas, Olga, 2017. "Strategic planning for sustainable heating in cities: A morphological method for scenario development and selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 115-125.
    10. Rowe, Emily & Wright, George & Derbyshire, James, 2017. "Enhancing horizon scanning by utilizing pre-developed scenarios: Analysis of current practice and specification of a process improvement to aid the identification of important ‘weak signals’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 224-235.
    11. Bradfield, Ron & Cairns, George & Wright, George, 2015. "Teaching scenario analysis—An action learning pedagogy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 44-52.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Malekpour, Shirin & de Haan, Fjalar J. & Brown, Rebekah R., 2016. "A methodology to enable exploratory thinking in strategic planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 192-202.
    15. Hoolohan, Claire & McLachlan, Carly & Larkin, Alice, 2019. "‘Aha’ moments in the water-energy-food nexus: A new morphological scenario method to accelerate sustainable transformation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Önkal, Dilek & Sinan Gönül, M. & Goodwin, Paul & Thomson, Mary & Öz, Esra, 2017. "Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 280-297.
    19. 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.
    20. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.

    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:126:y:2018:i:c:p:116-125. 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.