Kees van der Heijden

First Steps: Towards Purposeful Activities in Scenario Thinking and Future Studies

Abstract In this paper, we contribute to the understanding of the field of scenario development and future studies, which has been a key debate in Futures over the past three of four years. Our contribution is less on the philosophical issues surrounding future studies, but more on the hurdles faced by those interested in practising in the area of scenario planning and future studies. The issues presented and discussed in this article arise from a number of action learning research projects that we have conducted with small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Scotland, who have embraced scenario development for the first time as part of their strategic management and learning process. Our contribution is targeted at identifying and understanding the hurdles to be overcome when (such) organisations consider adopting scenario development or future studies. The contribution is designed to first, help those in the field of scenario development and future studies be mindful of these hurdles and to build a trusting relationship between the scenario practioner and the client, and secondly, help those managers willing to engage in such activities to better understand the purpose of such work. First we identify three key hurdles: (a) organisational culture (i.e. tacit assumptions on scenario development and future studies); (b) “client” state of mind; (c) fear of engaging with the outside/fear of the future. We argue that these hurdles are a serious threat to the relevance and effectiveness of futures work. We argue that these hurdles need to be better understood as a basis for improving the impact and contribution that scenario development and future studies can make. Later in this article we propose a framework to help understand the purpose of scenario development or future studies work. This framework can be used at the outset of any engagement or study, to help the “client” to identify the purpose of such work and to understand its role and scope. We argue that this framework contributes to more purposeful, relevant and actionable scenario development and future studies in the future. Unless you changed something in the minds of managers, a scenario project had failed (Harvard Bus. Rev. 63(6) (1985) 139). Going one-step further, we would argue that unless something tangible happens as the result of the scenario development and future studies work, we have wasted our time.

Can internally generated futures accelerate organizational learning

Abstract After many years of scenario planning, this paper takes a moment to reflect on its use within, and value to, organizations. The author states that ultimately the benefit of scenario planning must result from ‘changed and more skilful action by the organization within its business environment.’ Navigating through the business environment is discussed as taking on two forms, that of strategising and learning where the former is dominated by ‘knowing by gaining control’ and the latter by ‘knowing by participation’ and reflection. Taking this logic a step further, van der Heijden sees the purpose of scenario planning as being categorisable along two dimensions content/process and thinking/action producing a matrix of four categories of purpose. Although he sees these four reasons for using scenario planning as harbouring different degrees of difficulty and likelihood of success, he advocates above all that organizations think carefully about which category is appropriate for them and ensure that the process of scenario planning is designed to support this goal.

Scenarios and Forecasting: Two Perspectives

Abstract This paper discusses scenarios based on two world views, each giving a perspective on the futurity of organizational actions. The first looks at a problematic situation as something to be clarified through rationalistic reasoning. Scenario building is examined as a way to turn intuitive knowledge of a problematic situation into clear research questions that may be explored by systems analysis and forecasting. However, a distinction must be made between the predictable and the indeterminate in a situation; in other words, a characterization of the future in terms of multiple scenarios. The scenario planner alternates intuitive exploration of the situation with rational analysis and forecasting in an iterative way until a satisfactory description of the future has been derived. An alternative processual perspective suggests that organizations construct their reality socially, in an ongoing conversation. Scenarios help organizations explore unknown territory by allowing the internal strategic conversation to be linked to other relevant conversations taking place elsewhere. In conclusion, scenarios introduce the required variety of ideas and also lead to a gradual alignment in understanding of what the new situation means for the group and what its collective response should be. Therein lies one of the fundamental dilemmas of organizational learning.

The Psychology of why organisations can be slow to adapt and change

This article discusses what can be done about bias in human decision making to make organizations adapt to change. In conclusion, individuals follow cognitive habits, seeing challenging situations through a singular frame of reference that makes assumptions about the nature of problems or opportunities that arise. Additionally, we feel that our judgment is good. Furthermore, this perception is reinforced by both the confirmation bias and the hindsight bias that underpin an inappropriate confidence in our judgment. Such over-confidence will lead to inappropriate best-guess thinking about the future--as illustrated in our earlier case studies of strategic inertia or business-as-usual thinking. Our analysis illustrated that the risks were perceived to be serious if the company did not change its current failing strategy and, also, that the risks were seen to be serious if the company did change the strategy. There was strong evidence that the senior management team attempted to shift responsibility for its adherence to the current strategy to the top level board of directors--that is, buck passing. Additionally, the management team also evidenced delay and procrastination--whilst bolstering the current failing strategy