IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v8y2026i1ne70036.html

A Vulnerability Lens for Intuitive‐Logic Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Guido Fioretti

Abstract

Exploration of possibilities by means of intuitive logic is hampered by a large number of scenarios, which easily exceed the limits imposed by human bounded rationality. While many practitioners constrain their scenarios within a 2 × 2 $2\times 2$ matrix by design, more structured approaches point to rationales such as eliminating contradictory possibilities, adding opposites to increase diversity, and checking the vulnerability of scenarios with respect to contingencies that are out of control. In general, vulnerability evaluation is based on the assessment of probabilities. With this paper, I propose an evaluation of scenarios' vulnerability based on the structure of connections between evoked alternatives and perceived consequences. Since this method does not require any probability assessment, it can be applied even when reliable estimates of probabilities are not available.

Suggested Citation

  • Guido Fioretti, 2026. "A Vulnerability Lens for Intuitive‐Logic Scenarios," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:8:y:2026:i:1:n:e70036
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.70036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.70036
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.70036?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kotireddy, Rajesh & Hoes, Pieter-Jan & Hensen, Jan L.M., 2018. "A methodology for performance robustness assessment of low-energy buildings using scenario analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 428-442.
    2. Robert Lempert, 2013. "Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 627-646, April.
    3. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2013. "Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 801-814.
    4. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. Kunc, Martin & O'Brien, Frances A., 2017. "Exploring the development of a methodology for scenario use: Combining scenario and resource mapping approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 150-159.
    3. Arbrie Jashari & Victor Tiberius & Marina Dabić, 2022. "Tracing the progress of scenario research in business and management," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), June.
    4. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Machani, Mahdi & Nourelfath, Mustapha & D’Amours, Sophie, 2015. "A scenario-based modelling approach to identify robust transformation strategies for pulp and paper companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 41-63.
    6. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2025. "Can Narrative‐Based Scenarios Support Quantitative Judgmental Forecasting?," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), April.
    7. 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.
    8. Fritschy, Carolin & Spinler, Stefan, 2019. "The impact of autonomous trucks on business models in the automotive and logistics industry–a Delphi-based scenario study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Ellsaesser, Florian & Fioretti, Guido, 2022. "Deciding Not To Decide," MPRA Paper 111546, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.
    12. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    13. Bowman, Gary & Parks, Ryan W., 2024. "Between episodes of strategy: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and dysfunction in a scenario planning process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Guido Fioretti, 2025. "The Structure of Scenarios," Papers 2501.09773, arXiv.org.
    16. 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.
    17. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    19. Bouhalleb, Arafet & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2023. "The impact of scenario planning on entrepreneurial orientation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    20. Yusuf Danzaria & Abdullahi S. Araga & Nnenna N. Chukwuma, 2024. "Scenario Planning and Organizational Response in Changing Business Environment," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3s), pages 3926-3939, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:fufsci:v:8:y:2026:i:1:n:e70036. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    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.