Uncertainty, human action and scenarios

Abstract

Austrian economics, Scenario building, Analytic narratives,

Defining scenario

“…For example, Chermack and Lynham’s (, p. 376) definition—scenarios are “several informed, plausible, and imagined alternative future environments in which decisions about the future may be played out”—is included. Likewise, Aligica’s (, p. 295) definition, which includes quotations from Kahn’s work, is also included.…”

“…Perhaps no scholar is clearer about this distinction as van der Heijden (, p. 114) when stating that “[e]xternal scenarios are derived from shared and agreed upon mental models of how the external world works,” which “is the part of the environment where we have little or no influence, but which impacts on us in a major way.” Reference to events in the external environment typically render them as sequences of events, as in Kahn and Weiner’s (, p. 6) view of scenarios as “hypothetical sequences of events,” or as a course of events, as in Dyner and Larsen’s (, p. 1,152) references to dictionary definitions of scenarios as “stories about how the future could be or, as one dictionary describes it: “an outline of a natural or expected course of events.”” Reference to conditions is varied, but is always contextual, and includes “current conditions” (Swart et al, , p. 139), “test conditions” (van der Heijden, , p. 114), or, more generally, “the conditions under which the systems ... are assumed to be performing” (Brown, , p. 299‐300). Similarly, situation is varied but contextually‐oriented (Aligica, , p. 309; Durance & Godet, , p. 1,488); situations can be “anticipated” (Gordon, , p. 3), “current” (van der Heijden, , p. 153), in the “present” (Heinecke, & Schwager, , n.p. ), or “possible” (Gracht & Darkow, , p. 47).…”

“…Of course, Kahn and Wiener's (1967) repurposing of "scenario" for military and defense application dovetails with the far older metaphor of the "military theatre." For the purpose of illustration, con- (Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007), a phrase that belongs with a group of rhetorical devices in futures studies that include "artificial case histories" (Aligica, 2007), "disciplined imagination" (Schoemaker, 1997), "existence theorems" (Aligica, 2007), "future history" (Lindgren & Bandhold, 2003), "historical anecdotes" (Aligica, 2007), "memory of the future" (Ingvar, 1985), "mental maps of the future" (Wilson, 1998), "past futures" (Urry, 2016), and either "mental leaps" (Lehr et al, 2017) or "mental jumps" (Ringland, 2006) into the future.…”

“…By displacing the reader in time and space, passages like von Clausewitz’s afford opportunity for what some contemporary futures and foresight science scholars call “mental time travel” (Suddendorf & Corballis, ), a phrase that belongs with a group of rhetorical devices in futures studies that include “artificial case histories” (Aligica, ), “disciplined imagination” (Schoemaker, ), “existence theorems” (Aligica, ), “future history” (Lindgren & Bandhold, ), “historical anecdotes” (Aligica, ), “memory of the future” (Ingvar, ), “mental maps of the future” (Wilson, ), “past futures” (Urry, ), and either “mental leaps” (Lehr et al, ) or “mental jumps” (Ringland, ) into the future.…”

G.L.S. Shackle

“…The scenarios method was pioneered in the 1960s by Herman Kahn at the Hudson Institute (see Aligica, 2007) and in firms such as Royal Dutch Shell (see Jefferson, 1983). Here, we will briefly outline the nature of the scenarios approach to show its in-principle complementarity with Shackle's thinking; however, in the next chapter, Michael Jefferson provides a first-hand account of the relationship between Shackle and the scenario planners at Shell.…”