IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v327y2025i2p540-558.html

A structured framework for supporting the participatory development of consensual scenario narratives

Author

Listed:
  • Seeve, Teemu
  • Vilkkumaa, Eeva
  • Morton, Alec

Abstract

High levels of uncertainty faced by decision makers can be alleviated by characterizing multiple possible ways in which the future might unfold with scenario narratives. Aiming at describing alternative plausible chains of outcomes of key uncertainty factors, scenario narratives are often associated with graphical networks describing the relationships between the outcomes of the factors. We present a participatory framework for bottom-up development of such networks, the PACNAP (PArticipatory development of Consensual narratives through Network Aggregation and Pruning) framework. In this framework, relationships of influence between factor outcomes are judged by a group of scenario process participants. We develop an optimization model for pruning an aggregated graph based on these judgments. The model selects those edges of the aggregate graph that the participants most agree upon and can be tailored to identify compact graphs of varying degrees of cyclicity. As a result, a variety of graphical representations of varying structural richness can be explored to arrive at a succinct representation of a consensus view on the structure of a joint narrative. To this end, the main formal results are the representation of the participants’ agreement lexicographically in a linear objective function of a 0-1 program, and the translation of the requisites of the compactness and cyclicity of the resulting pruned graphs into a set of network flow constraints. The problem of identifying a consensus graphical representation is a general one and our graph pruning method has application potential outside the specific domain of narrative development as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Seeve, Teemu & Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Morton, Alec, 2025. "A structured framework for supporting the participatory development of consensual scenario narratives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 327(2), pages 540-558.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:327:y:2025:i:2:p:540-558
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2025.04.048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221725003510
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.04.048?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadkarni, Sucheta & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2001. "A Bayesian network approach to making inferences in causal maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 479-498, February.
    2. Tietje, Olaf, 2005. "Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 418-432, April.
    3. G Montibeller & V Belton, 2006. "Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 779-791, July.
    4. Mark D. A. Rounsevell & Marc J. Metzger, 2010. "Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 606-619, July.
    5. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Terry Williams, 1997. "Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 48-65, April.
    6. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    7. Kasper Kok & Ilona Bärlund & Martina Flörke & Ian Holman & Marc Gramberger & Jan Sendzimir & Benjamin Stuch & Katharina Zellmer, 2015. "European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 187-200, February.
    8. Robert J. Lempert & David G. Groves & Steven W. Popper & Steve C. Bankes, 2006. "A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 514-528, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Matthew J. Spaniol & Nicholas J. Rowland, 2023. "AI‐assisted scenario generation for strategic planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    12. Bunn, Derek W. & Salo, Ahti A., 1993. "Forecasting with scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 291-303, August.
    13. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    14. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    15. Lee Roy Beach, 2021. "Scenarios as narratives," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    16. 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.
    17. Johansen, Iver, 2018. "Scenario modelling with morphological analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 116-125.
    18. Sahin, Sule Onsel & Ulengin, Fusun & Ulengin, Burc, 2006. "A Bayesian causal map for inflation analysis: The case of Turkey," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 1268-1284, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Aalto, Eljas & Kuosa, Tuomo & Stucki, Max, 2025. "Generating sets of diverse and plausible scenarios through approximated multivariate normal distributions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 320(1), pages 160-174.
    3. Klerkx, Rik & Pelsser, Antoon, 2022. "Narrative-based robust stochastic optimization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 266-277.
    4. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    5. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Wiek, Arnim & Walter, Alexander I., 2009. "A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 360-370, August.
    8. Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2016. "Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 182-193.
    9. Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti & Ilmola-Sheppard, Leena, 2018. "Scenario-based portfolio model for building robust and proactive strategies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 205-220.
    10. Georgiadou, Maria Christina & Hacking, Theophilus & Guthrie, Peter, 2012. "A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 145-155.
    11. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    12. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    13. Haqq-Misra, Jacob & Profitiliotis, George & Kopparapu, Ravi, 2025. "Projections of Earth’s technosphere: Scenario modeling, worldbuilding, and overview of remotely detectable technosignatures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    14. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    15. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    16. 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.
    17. J S Edwards & B Ababneh & M Hall & D Shaw, 2009. "Knowledge management: a review of the field and of OR's contribution," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 114-125, May.
    18. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ejores:v:327:y:2025:i:2:p:540-558. 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.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.