Abstract:Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.
“…Now, it is embedded firmly in strategic management discourse and praxis (Cummings and Daellenbach, 2009). But, its continued and increased utility will depend on continuous innovation (see, for example, Bradfield et al, 2016). In exploring a cognate field to inspire such innovation, this paper acknowledges the scholarly call for more inter-and multidisciplinary work in management studies and SP studies in particular.…”
The Intuitive Logics (IL) scenario planning process is grounded in the work of Hermann Kahn and Pierre Wack in the 1960s and 1970s. Its broad adoption and sustained use over 50 years has taken it beyond the typical management fashion or fad. It has helped shape the strategies of many types of institutions and organisations. The process encourages individuals to recall past events and to imagine future happenings. But, little is known about neither how they do this nor the contextual conditions that shape how they do it and how they might do it better. Recent developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience have had success in several management domains e.g., marketing, information systems, leadership, economics and finance. However, little attention has been paid to their application in strategic management and, in particular, in scenario planning. The paper provides a critical coverage of the pertinent cognitive sciences literature and explores opportunities for co-joint research between scenario planners and cognitive psychologists that might help to further foster and support the IL process.
“…Now, it is embedded firmly in strategic management discourse and praxis (Cummings and Daellenbach, 2009). But, its continued and increased utility will depend on continuous innovation (see, for example, Bradfield et al, 2016). In exploring a cognate field to inspire such innovation, this paper acknowledges the scholarly call for more inter-and multidisciplinary work in management studies and SP studies in particular.…”
The Intuitive Logics (IL) scenario planning process is grounded in the work of Hermann Kahn and Pierre Wack in the 1960s and 1970s. Its broad adoption and sustained use over 50 years has taken it beyond the typical management fashion or fad. It has helped shape the strategies of many types of institutions and organisations. The process encourages individuals to recall past events and to imagine future happenings. But, little is known about neither how they do this nor the contextual conditions that shape how they do it and how they might do it better. Recent developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience have had success in several management domains e.g., marketing, information systems, leadership, economics and finance. However, little attention has been paid to their application in strategic management and, in particular, in scenario planning. The paper provides a critical coverage of the pertinent cognitive sciences literature and explores opportunities for co-joint research between scenario planners and cognitive psychologists that might help to further foster and support the IL process.
“…Going back to the founders of current scenario planning practice such as Schnaars [11] and Schwartz [9], whose work has been the subject of frequent smaller refinements for example by Korte and Chermack [31] or Bradfield et al [32], a literature review allowed discerning three reasons for adopting scenarios.…”
Section: Role Of Scenario Planningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…His eight-step plan has been the subject of frequent refinements [32] and is adopted also in the present framework for its comprehensiveness and proven validity.…”
Section: Identifying Conceptual Story Blocksmentioning
Abstract:Although life cycle assessment offers insight into the long-term value of our building stock, it has become impossible to model with certainty the service life of a building. What if new lifestyles make reality diverge from the expected service life? What if the building is decommissioned very early or forced to accommodate new functions? Would the same design decisions have been made or would an alternative have been preferred? In reaction to this challenge, the present paper proposes to integrate scenario planning and life cycle assessment. Therefore, it discusses from where scenario planning originates and how it appeared hitherto in architectural design and life cycle assessment. Thereafter, it explores how assessors can profit from scenarios when raising awareness and co-creating alternatives. Subsequently, a methodological framework for effective scenario development is proposed. To illustrate the added value of scenario integrated life cycle assessments, four divergent scenarios are developed for evaluating the financial feasibility of demountable building element reuse. With this simple case study is shown how more relevant and nuanced assessment outcomes are obtained when divergent scenarios are adopted.
“…Varum and Melo () closely paraphrase Bradfield et al’s () restatement of Khakee’s () and Martelli’s () concerns, echoing Stewart (); Bradfield et al () want “resolution of the ‘methodological chaos’ of contradictory definitions, characteristics, principles and methodological ideas found throughout the literature,” Varum and Melo (, p. 356) write. A few years later, Gordon (, p. 88) adds typologies to the formula: “many academic authors have attempted to determine a classificatory system or “typology” of scenario work, to bring order to the methodological “chaos” of contested definitions.” Bradfield et al (, p. 60) stick close to Bradfield et al (), but add that the “paucity of theory” also contributes to the confusion:Scenario planning has been around for more than 50 years and during this period a multitude of techniques and methodologies have developed, resulting in what has been described by Martelli () as “methodological chaos.” The literature reveals an abundance of different and at times contradictory definitions, characteristics, principles and methodological ideas about scenarios. The consequence, according to Khakee (), is that ‘few techniques in futures studies have given rise to so much confusion as scenarios’ (p. 52 [sic]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The consequence, according to Khakee (), is that ‘few techniques in futures studies have given rise to so much confusion as scenarios’ (p. 52 [sic]). This ‘confusion’ results from the fact that there is a paucity of theory underpinning the use of scenarios as a means to consider the future, leading Chermack () to conclude that ‘the status of theory development in the area of scenario planning is dismal’ (p. 25). This is equally true of futures studies in general, which Miller () contends, lacks a coherent and commonly accepted foundation when compared to other well‐established academic disciplines.…”
Scholars claim that futures and foresight science should overcome “confusion” regarding the definition of core concepts, for example, the scenario. Admittedly, defining scenario has been a challenge. Current practice, which results in repeated attempts to clarify said confusion with yet another new definition of scenario, has apparently not advanced the field. An alternative option is not to redefine scenario, but to, instead, create a shared definition composed of component parts of pre‐existing definitions. The result is an operant or synthesized definition based on analysis of claims indicating what “a scenario is…” and “scenarios are…” in the literature on scenario planning. The authors find that scenarios have a temporal property rooted in the future and reference external forces in that context; scenarios should be possible and plausible while taking the proper form of a story or narrative description; and that scenarios exist in sets that are systematically prepared to coexist as meaningful alternatives to one another. Despite claims to the contrary, the authors find that the academic community of futures and foresight science does not seem to suffer from so‐called confusion over the definition of scenario, and thus, it is time to sunset the use of claims to this end.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
