What is difficult about developing scenarios?

What is difficult about developing scenarios?

While I am not working in total isolation as I have consulted a few times generally with my head of department it is interesting that many I have spoken with seem surprised that I am distinctly interested in the topic of strategic management generally as my primary function is teaching international trade. Personally I find it liberating to occupy a space in the body and have the opportunity to examine the head.

I learned a lot from the research but I realized on reflection that even all the research can be spot on, just like a review of statistical or accounting data one can only account for a degree of certainty at this very moment and even that depends on interpretive variables, quality of input data and so on like NPV or one more expert who enters into the discussion or one more piece of relevant data.Thus trends may in fact become uncertain, certain may become trend, uncertain may become more uncertain, trend may become more trendful, or less, or any degree or shade of weak to strong or vice versa depending on input data.Again it reinforces that one could put everything in and still miss or be blinded by confirmation bias. There is always a wide array of possible outcomes or resources that may be missed, amended or inaccurate due to dynamic changes in the business environment for example stock market plunges.

Which aspects of the process might become easierfollowing this practice?

I think that the terms of selective attention as described by Percy, Rossiter and Elliot in Strategic Advertising Management(2001) comes into play as a method of discerning quality data relevant to the exercise of scenarios planning in particular in picking up the pieces of trend and uncertainties and tying it all together in an attractive package. Therefore if one is actively seeking out new ideas according to the terms of selective attention they will be perhaps easier to find or more apparently forthcoming.

Which aspects of scenarios planning might become more difficult?

If this practice project itself were extended to a full-scale team based effort as described by some the engendering of value to a non-exclusive effort would prove difficult to achieve in many organisations. One book I read recently by Fisher, Kopelman & Schnieder addresses negotiations strategies and includes the insistence that those appointed to negotiation for example opposing numbers in various disputes mirror entrenched viewpoints. There need to be clearly delineated opportunities for brainstorming sessions where and when no idea or viewpoint is critically analyzed but simply voiced to empower the creation of new ideas. Effectively organisations also need to provoke free discussion sessions where the variance between official and unofficial viewpoints, visions and necessarily competitive directions or rank are not at issue.These authors conceed that the least healthy working environments actually provoke thinkers, doers, and planners to self-censor their contributions in group discussion contexts. So regardless of the number or colour of the hats in such cases everyone is already trying to think of ideas which everyone else will accept. Under such cases there might be little colour in the contributions.

Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict by Roger Fisher, Elizabeth Kopelman, Andrea Kupfer SchneiderPenguin Books (1994)

How might you structure a scenario planning project to ensure that the scenarios developed are as relevant and as predictive as possible?

I think it would be best to attempt to learn more about scenarios group functions to understand more about data collection methods and the effectiveness of scenarios planning. Certainly the ideals of sharing data are the benefits which the organisation is said to gain such as greater facility in organisational IQ and collective intelligence. This would be the spirit to engage with and any attempt to deconstruct fixed viewpoints on the usefulness of debate especially across functions and ranks would be positive. At the point where local Koreans and foreigners interact strategically there has been development in recent years such as at Samsung and Hyundai where junior executives from western countries have joined teams to add varying perspectives. However Korea is to some degree a top-down culture so it is very hard to have anything to contribute without being specifically requested probably not unlike many organisations. As far as I have read many face similar challenges in their workplaces globally regardless of culture.

In such situations perhaps the MBI model easily applicable to cross-cultural business contexts could also be employed cross-functionally within a strictly hierarchical organisation requiring bridging models. MBI being "Map/Bridge/Integrate" through which different levels of an organisation might be able to employ identification of their differences first (map), engage communication such as preparing, decentering, and recentering (bridge) and then (integrate) manage differences to build participation, resolve conflicts and attempt to build new ideas together (Lane, Distefano & Mazanevski, 2000:58).It would appear that different cultures exist not only in different nations but perhaps in different parts of a business requiring bridging activities leading to more effective collaboration.

Lane,H.W., Distefano, J.J. & Mazanevski, M.L.(2000) International Management Behaviour, Fourth Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.