Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method
In this paper we review and analyse scenario planning as an aid to anticipation of the future under conditions of low predictability. We examine how successful the method is in mitigating issues to do with inappropriate framing, cognitive and motivational bias, and inappropriate attributions of causality. Although we demonstrate that the scenario method contains weaknesses, we identify a potential for improvement. Four general principles that should help to enhance the role of scenario planning when predictability is low are discussed: (i) challenging mental frames, (ii) understanding human motivations, (iii) augmenting scenario planning through adopting the approach of crisis management, and (iv) assessing the flexibility, diversity, and insurability of strategic options in a structured option-against-scenario evaluation.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
- Orrell, David & McSharry, Patrick, 2009. "System economics: Overcoming the pitfalls of forecasting models via a multidisciplinary approach," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 734-743, October.
- John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
- Wright, George, 2002. "Game theory, game theorists, university students, role-playing and forecasting ability," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 383-387.
- Wright, George & Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Teaching scenario planning: Lessons from practice in academe and business," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 323-335, April.
- Paul Goodwin, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, 01.
- Robert Fildes & Paul Goodwin, 2007. "Good and Bad Judgment in Forecasting: Lessons from Four Companies," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 8, pages 5-10, Fall.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:25:y:2009:i:4:p:813-825. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.