IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v86y2014icp254-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the 2×2 scenario method: Grid or frames?

Author

Listed:
  • Ramirez, Rafael
  • Wilkinson, Angela

Abstract

Is a well-accepted method widely used by practitioners unproblematic? In this study, we suggest that this is not the case. The 2×2 matrix approach has been stated by researchers to be the ‘standard’ approach in scenario planning. However, as we show in this paper, interpretations of this method vary significantly, even within the same ‘scenario school’—in this case, the intuitive logics—plausibility-based scenario tradition. We explore both the highly attractive apparent simplicity of the method and its more problematic aspects by contrasting two distinct interpretations used by scenario planners. We articulate the advantages and drawbacks of the 2×2 matrix method according to these two different interpretations. The paper makes two contributions. First, in rendering methodological conundrums explicit, it clarifies choices scenario planners can now explicitly make when choosing a scenario building method. Second, by clarifying the choices that the method offers, we contribute to make it more rigorous, debunking some of the purported ease it advertises for the unwary.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramirez, Rafael & Wilkinson, Angela, 2014. "Rethinking the 2×2 scenario method: Grid or frames?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 254-264.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:86:y:2014:i:c:p:254-264
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513002783
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.020?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. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Fabrice Roubelat, 2006. "Scenarios to challenge strategic paradigms: Lessons from 2025," Post-Print hal-02148887, HAL.
    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. Gordon, Adam Vigdor, 2020. "Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Elna Schirrmeister & Anne‐Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke, 2020. "Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    3. Ramirez, R. & Bhatti, Y. & Tapinos, E., 2020. "Exploring how experience and learning curves decrease the time invested in scenario planning interventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Fabio Boschetti & Elizabeth A. Fulton & Nicola J. Grigg, 2014. "Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, December.
    5. Carlos E. Barbosa & Yuri Lima & Matheus Emerick & Fabio Ferman & Fernanda C. Ribeiro & Jano Moreira de Souza, 2023. "Supporting distributed and integrated execution of future‐oriented technology analysis," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), March.
    6. 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.
    7. Habicher, Daria & Windegger, Felix & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Pechlaner, Harald, 2022. "Beyond the COVID-19 crisis: A research note on post-pandemic scenarios for South Tyrol 2030+," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. Bauwens, Thomas & Hekkert, Marko & Kirchherr, Julian, 2020. "Circular futures: What Will They Look Like?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Matthew J. Spaniol & Nicholas J. Rowland, 2019. "Defining scenario," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    13. Frith, David & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2020. "Opening the ‘black box’ of scenario planning through realist synthesis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Matt Sinclair & Leila Sheldrick & Mariale Moreno & Emma Dewberry, 2018. "Consumer Intervention Mapping—A Tool for Designing Future Product Strategies within Circular Product Service Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    15. Schulhof, Vera & van Vuuren, Detlef & Kirchherr, Julian, 2022. "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): What Will it Look Like in the Future?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Camille Jahel & Robin Bourgeois & Denis Pesche & Marie de Lattre‐Gasquet & Etienne Delay, 2021. "Has the COVID‐19 crisis changed our relationship to the future?," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    17. Hussain, M. & Tapinos, E. & Knight, L., 2017. "Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 160-177.
    18. 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. Wayland, Rebecca, 2019. "Three senses of paradigm in scenario methodology: A preliminary framework and systematic approach for using intuitive logics scenarios to change mental models and improve strategic decision-making in ," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 504-516.
    3. Quezada, George & Adcock, M & Bratanova, Alexandra & Ponce Reyes, R & Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2017. "Surfing the Digital Tsunami: Scenarios Report. Preliminary scenarios exploring the decade ahead for Australian business and the economy," MPRA Paper 113820, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fábio T. F. Silva & Alexandre Szklo & Amanda Vinhoza & Ana Célia Nogueira & André F. P. Lucena & Antônio Marcos Mendonça & Camilla Marcolino & Felipe Nunes & Francielle M. Carvalho & Isabela Tagomori , 2022. "Inter-sectoral prioritization of climate technologies: insights from a Technology Needs Assessment for mitigation in Brazil," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 1-39, October.
    5. Hirt, Léon F. & Sahakian, Marlyne & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "What subnational imaginaries for solar PV? The case of the Swiss energy transition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. John A. Mathews, 2020. "Schumpeterian economic dynamics of greening: propagation of green eco-platforms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 929-948, September.
    7. Marco Gallegati, 2019. "A system for dating long wave phases in economic development," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 803-822, July.
    8. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    9. Oliver Falck & Anita Dietrich & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner &, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    10. Wiegand, Julia, 2017. "Dezentrale Stromerzeugung als Chance zur Stärkung der Energie-Resilienz: Eine qualitative Analyse kommunaler Strategien im Raum Unna," Wuppertaler Studienarbeiten zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, volume 11, number 11.
    11. Oliver Wagner & Thomas Adisorn & Lena Tholen & Dagmar Kiyar, 2020. "Surviving the Energy Transition: Development of a Proposal for Evaluating Sustainable Business Models for Incumbents in Germany’s Electricity Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Alejandra Boni & Sandro Giachi & Johan Schot, 2021. "A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies [The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 431-442.
    13. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    16. Capellán-Pérez, Iñigo & Campos-Celador, Álvaro & Terés-Zubiaga, Jon, 2018. "Renewable Energy Cooperatives as an instrument towards the energy transition in Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 215-229.
    17. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Funcke, Simon & Bauknecht, Dierk, 2016. "Typology of centralised and decentralised visions for electricity infrastructure," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 67-74.
    19. Bessi, Alessandro & Guidolin, Mariangela & Manfredi, Piero, 2021. "The role of gas on future perspectives of renewable energy diffusion: Bridging technology or lock-in?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Eleftheria Vasileiadou & Boukje Huijben & Rob Raven, 2014. "Crowdfunding niches? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for financing renewable energy niches in the Netherlands," Working Papers 14-11, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Nov 2014.

    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:86:y:2014:i:c:p:254-264. 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.