SCENARIO WORKING IN FUTURES STUDIES

Anita Rubin

The two meanings of "scenario"

In futures studies, there are two differing ways to use the concept of "scenario". Firstly, scenario thinking is a way of understanding the future which is based on futures studies as a field of enquiry. Scenarios are seen as shared motivational alternatives. This viewpoint considers the future not as one determined and predestined reality to become true at some time yet to come, but rather as a possibility which gives chances to several different and alternative futures to come true. The position of the viewer is strictly situated in the present. This viewpoint is given grounds by present socio-economic and cultural transition. The deeper we get into the time of transition, the faster and more intensive change becomes, and the more difficult it is to predict the future. If we build only one model of the future, based on past developments and on the information available at the moment, the understanding of the future we possess might be one-sided and erroneous and we may end up with choosing wrong strategies and choices. Scenario thinking with its alternative futures increases flexibility in making choices between strategies and thus adds to possibilities to be simultaneously prepared for many different future options. Therefore scenario thinking is the most usable tool in all futures-oriented work and decision-making, and for many futurists, futures studies per se includes the starting point of several different and alternative, possible future states.

The second meaning of the concept of "scenario" used in futures studies is more closely connected with methodology – we speak of scenario methods and scenario working. (Bell (1997a, 316) says that a scenario can be seen as a way to summarise the results of futures research, be they based on quantitative methods that base on "hard data and produce precise, though delimited, projections and forecasts, or on qualitative ones that result in sweeping alternative images of the future. Even though quantitative methods have traditionally been used to produce models of one future without alternatives, it is possible to use the produced results to build different alternative scenarios, or combine both quantitative and qualitative methods for the same purpose. On the point where quantitative methods produce forecasts that are unambiguous and punctual, but at the same time limited at some degree and inflexible, qualitative methods bring about images of the future which are more ambiguous and perhaps somewhat unpunctual, but also flexible, descriptive and wide and point at alternatives between images rather than at details within them.

The concept of scenario

Originally the scenario was a term used in theatre and making movies. This term means the functional manuscript of a play or movie. Such a manuscript is not only composed of the text to be acted with its lines and dialogue, but it also includes notes and advice for the director, actors, cameramen, editor and set decorator about actions, staging, scenery, and decorations. It also describes the movements the actors are supposed to make, their positions on the stage, and perhaps also their appearances, details of their character, etc. The idea of a scenario manuscript is to guide the crew to build a play or movie which best falls into the image the director, producers and writers have had in mind before setting it up.

Scenario thinking and the use of scenario methods have come to futures studies on one hand through operation analysis, on the other hand through the use of Delphi-methods. The first one to use the concept in futures studies was Herman Kahn in the 1950's while he was working in the research laboratories of the RAND corporation in the U.S.A. The methods and the ways of thinking of operation analysis were also developed for war research and especially for aviation research in the U.S.A. after the 2^nd World War. The Delphi-expert analysis was created around the same time. (See e.g. Wiener & Kahn 1967; Masini 1993, 90.)

Ian Miles (1986, 82) defines a futures scenario as a sequence of processes or events whereby the present state of the world, or the nation, institution, or whatever is the focus of attention develops into some future state of affairs. Eric Jantsch (1967, 180) says that "scenarios are attempts to set up a logical sequence of events in order to show how, starting from the present situation, they may evolve step by step." Herman Kahn for his part states that scenarios aim at giving answers to two basic questions: firstly, how some assumed future state develops step by step, and secondly, what are the alternatives in each moment of decision-making to divert, facilitate or stop this development. A scenario is defined as "a hypothetical sequence of events constructed for the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes and decision points". Therefore scenarios are always based on assumptions, describe events that follow each other and they have been built in order to pay attention to causal processes and moments of decision making. (Wiener and Kahn 1967, 6). Joseph Martino (1972, 267) says that a scenario is " a picture of an intensely consistent situation which, in turn, is the plausible outcome of a sequence of events."

Michel Godet (1987, 21) defines a scenario as a description of a future situation together with the progression of events leading from the base situation to the future situation". Thus scenarios are series of plausible assumptions, which are based on explanatory variables (Godet 1994, 44). Masini (1993, 90) says that scenarios can be described as instruments which aid decision-makers by providing a context for planning and programming, lowering the level of uncertainty and raising the level of knowledge. This is done in relation to the consequences of actions which have been taken or will be taken in the future .

The phases in scenario working

Scenario working can be divided into five (or six) phases. As a start, the present condition and situation of the organisation in question – be it a business company, public institution, citizen organisation, or any other organisation – will be studied. The method can be for instance a SWOT analysis, and the meaning is to see the strengths, weaknesses, possibilities and threats and analyse the resources available, as well as all the external factors which might have influence on the course of development. Also values, expectations, fears and aims are explored together with the weak signals and main trends. It should also be kept in mind that the so-called tacit knowledge – all knowledge and wisdom which cannot be learnt from books, but which has a lot to do with tradition and history, personal skills and practical experience – strongly affects on choices and value-related viewpoints.

Secondly, the futures scenarios are constructed with a method which fits in the whole set (aims of the research, needs, etc.) It would be good if there are at least three emerging scenarios in order to guarantee that there are genuine alternatives available. Mannermaa (1999, 66) says that the sensible amount of scenarios is between three and five: Two is too little, because then it is very difficult to present anything else but a dichotomic division between a preferable and bad scenarios. Actually this is nothing but the old, deterministic model idea of only one possibility, just one choice to make, or nothing but one way to go. But no one would like to see the threatening image of the future to come true, but instead tries his/her best to avoid that. On the other hand, if the scenarios are too many, their control and mastering, as well as processing them becomes harder and scenario working turns more and more difficult. It is no use to have a great number of scenarios which differ from each other only in small details instead of having four or five scenarios which differ from each other in their fundamental points and thus offer genuine and useful alternatives for decision-making. On the other hand, it also is possible to build continuities of scenarios, a sort of scenario sequences, which describe the course of development under certain external conditions (Tapio 1992).

After the construction of scenarios, the third phase is to form organisation's own vision, the description of will based in the future (Mannermaa 1999, 60). At best, the vision is a commonly constructed and shared idea of what the organisation could be. This is the way to create an objective state to be true in a certain period of time.

The fourth phase is to create a mission as a result of scenario working and based on the vision. The mission is in a way a scetch of the path, which leads towards the state expressed in the vision, i.e. the necessary actions and decisions, with which the vision becomes in reach. An important part of the mission work is to determine the interim targets as a part of strategic planning.

As the fifth phase, there is a constant dialogue between the vision and the mission. In order to be useful tools for taking the future into possession, neither one is static and stable, but dynamic and flexible along with the changing reality. This interaction should be kept in mind whenever the scenarios are used in strategic planning and decision-making.

At the same time it is good to remember that scenario process is a process at its best. Even as a one-time project, it opens up new views and alternatives to the organisation or company for strategy planning. However, it is important to understand that in our times of rapid social and economic transition also the conditions outside the influence of that organisation are in the state of change. For instance new innovations bring about new challenges all the while, networking and globalisation, as well as changes dealing with attitudes and values set up new conditions which the organisation has to react to, and economic fluctuations affect needs and goal-setting. That is why the scenario working process should be repeated, or at least its most important scenarios should be up-dated always when the environment and frame of reference have changed in order to keep organisation's vision abreast of the times. This repeated up-dating process can be understood as the sixth phase of scenario working.

Moreover, it is good now and then to go back to the contents of once prepared scenarios and think them over from the angle whether they still are wide enough and meet the needs, or have some now new elements emerged which were not that important earlier, but which have now become important together with the changing reality. In that case, if the old scenarios are still held as the guidelines, it might happen that instead of acting as usable tools for decision-making, they limit the view and stop the actors from seeing the essential social changes and thereby lessen organisation's readiness to react and be proactive

 

 

 

Picture 1: The six phases of scenario working

The advantages of scenario working to strategy work

There has been a long and thorough and also controversial discussion among the researchers in futures studies on the relationship of the scenario method to trend analysis and modelling based on time series and hard data. It has been argued that the creation of forecasts based solely on information about past development – especially forecasts on economy – is too deterministic and does not consider the changes in the environment. This leads to only a one-probability future without taking alternatives into account. This way of thinking leads to the idea that the future cannot be seen as ready-written, but it is reality which has not yet opened up, but can be revealed by merely choosing the right mathematical modelling method. That is why it has been regarded as controversial with the basic idea in futures studies, the principle of many possible and alternative futures, which scenario thinking and the scenario method are based on (e.g. Fontela 2000; Meristö 1991, 29-36).

On the other hand, the scenario method is often seen in futures studies as a helping tool in decision-making and strategy work, and thus the need of its use lies in the present. So the scenario method is used mainly to create instrumental images of the future – knowing about the future per se is not a goal. Therefore there are different ways of seeing the scenario working process: some people are interested in what the future will bring and they use scenario methods to explore the future alternatives and possibilities to know more about them. Some other people want to make some specific future, which they value as good and essential, to come true among all the other possible futures and search for knowledge as how to contribute in order to make that future happen. And still some others want to know what kind of strategies would be the best and most flexible under different boundary conditions in the future.

The advantages of scenario working in long-range strategies

It can be thought the more traditional trend forecasts and methods bring about well founded and competent information for decision-making especially when a rather short range future is under study, like for instance weather forecasts, or the future in fields and phenomena which change very slowly, like human biology, for instance. When we speak of months or a couple of years, then time series can give very accurate and reliable future forecasts – depending naturally on the object under study. When the time span grows and there is a need to create insight on the future possibilities on a longer range – we may speak for instance on several years, decades, or even longer periods – scenario methods are more useful and practical.

The time span of scenario working often is longer than that of ordinary strategy work. When the time span grows longer, also the amount of relevant information and influences grows. The possibility of unexpected changes and their effect on the nature of how the future looks like increases, while their surprising co-effects and interaction might bring about completely new phenomena. All this naturally also increases the risks. When several futures scenarios are created and a wider spectrum of possible and alternative futures are covered by them, also more flexible and versatile action plans and strategies can be created and decisions, which also consider the possibility of unexpected chances, can be made.

With the help of scenario working it is possible to plan the actions of an organisation and create effective strategies also in the times of uncertainty and risk, when the more conventional methods of strategy work, i.e. strategic planning, prove unreliable (see e.g. Meristö 1991, 55; Kaivo-oja 1996). It can be concluded that an organisation or structure (e.g. the EU, a state, a nation, a city, an enterprise, or for instance a school) always grounds its actions on some scenario – we take a stand on the future all the time without noticing. It is a completely different thing whether the actors in that organisation recognise the contents of the scenario consciously, or are they acting without being aware of it. Scenario working makes this process a conscious affair and thus helps in making better choices for the future.

References

Bell, W. 1997a. Foundations of Futures Studies. Human Science for a New Era. Volume I: History, Purposes, Knowledge. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London.

Bell, W. 1997b. Foundations of Futures Studies. Human Science for a New Era. Volume II: Values, Objectivity and the Good Society. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London.

Fahey, L. & Randall, R. M., 1998. What is scenario learning? In Fahey, L. & Randall, R. M. (toim.): Learning from the future. Competitive foresight scnenarios. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 3-21.

Fontela, E. 2000. Bridging the Gap between Scenarios and Models. Foresight Vol. 2, Feb. 00, ss. 10-14.

Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P. ja Swart, R, 1997: Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. A resource paper of the Global Scenario Group, Stockholm Environment Institute, PoleStart Series Report no. 7.

Godet, M. 1987: Scenarios and Strategic Management. Butterworth, London.

Godet, M. 1991 : From Anticipation to Action. A Handbook of Strategic Prospective. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.

Godet, M. 1995: Global Scenarios: Morphological and Probability Analysis. Kirjassa Scenario Building. Convergences and Differences. Proceedings of Profutures Workshop. Technical Report Series EUR-17298-EN, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Sevilla, ss.17-30.

Godet, M. 2000: How to be rigorous with scenario planning. Foresight Vol. 2 No. 1, February, pp. 5-9.

HS 28.7.2000: Verkossa yli 550 miljardia sivua. T. Paukun artikkeli Internetin hakukoneiden tehokkuudesta. Helsingin Sanomat.

ICIS 1999: Integrated Assessment – A Bird's-eye View. Introductory guide prepared for the European Summerschool 'Puzzle solving for policy: tools and methods for integrated assessment', 30 August–17 September 1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Internatinal Centre for Integrative Studies, Maastricht.

Jantsch, E. 1967: Technological Forecasting in Perspective. OECD, Paris.

Jungk, R. & Müllert, N., 1987: Tulevaisuusverstaat. Suom. K. Vaara, Keskinäisen sivistyksen seura Suomen Lataamo, Helsinki.

Kaivo-oja, J. 1996: Kunnan ympäristöpäättäjän työkirja. Skenaariotyöskentely kunnan ympäristö- ja kehitysstrategisessa päätöksenteossa. Skenaariotyötyhmän työkirja ja suunnitteluohjeet. Suomen Kuntaliitto, Helsinki.

Kaivo-oja J. 1999: Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen opetuskalvot: Mitä skenaariot ovat ja mitä ne eivät ole. Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskuksen kalvomateriaali.

Malaska, P. & Mannermaa, M. (toim.) 1985: Tulevaisuuden tutkimus Suomessa. Gaudeamus, Juva.

Mannermaa, M. 1991: Evolutionaarinen tulevaisuudentutkimus. Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seuran julkaisusarja Acta Futura Fennica No. 2, VAPK Helsinki, 1991.

Mannermaa, M. 1999: Tulevaisuuden hallinta. Skenaariot strategityöskentelyssä. WSOY, Porvoo.

Martino, J. 1972: Technological Forecasting for Decision-making. Elsevier, New York.

Masini, E. 1993: Why Futures Studies? Grey Seal, London.

Meristö, T. 1991: Skenaariotyöskentely yrityksen johtamisessa. Acta Futura Fennica No. 3, VAPK Helsinki.

Miles, I. 1986: Scenario analysis: contrasting visions of the future. Kirjassa WFSF, Futuribles, AMPS & UNDP: Reclaiming the future: A Manual of Futures Studies for African Planners. Tycooly, London.

Ojanen, S. 1996: Reflektion käsite opettajakoulutuksessa. Muotihulluus vai kasvatusreformin kulmakivi? Teoksessa Tutkiva opettaja 2. (S. Ojanen, toim.). Helsingin yliopiston Lahden tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus, Tampere.

Schwartz, P. & Ogilvy, J. A. 1998: Plotting Your Scenarios. Kirjassa Fahey, L. & Randall, R. M. (toim.): Learning from the future. Competitive foresight scnenarios. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 57-80.

Tapio, P. 1992: Tulevaisuuden ennustamista vai tulevaisuuden tekemistä? Ympäristöongelmien haasteet tielaitoksen tulevaisuudentutkimukselle liikenne- ja ympäristöpolitiikan näkökulmasta. Tielaitoksen selvityksiä 63/1992, Tiehallituksen tutkimuskeskus, Helsinki.

WBCSD 2000: Exploring Sustainable Development. Global Scenarios 2000-2050, Summary Brochure. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Wiener, A. & Kahn, H. 1967: The Year 2000. Macmillan, New York.