Scenario Planning: Managing the Future

When countries or companies fall apart, you often want to ask: why have unfolding events come as such a nasty surprise? Or if these weren’t a surprise, then why were attempts to mitigate the ill-effects so inadequate? Political processes, diplomatic projects or commercial ventures that do not include preparations for diverse possible scenario outcomes are at far greater risk of failure than those that do.

Was ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak surprised or merely ill-prepared when he lost power? In Damascus, did Bashar Al-Assad make too many assumptions about his regime’s authority, or was Syria’s civil war inconceivable to him? Did either president have any competent contingency plans for the smooth transition of power? After all, no one lives forever.

For captains of industry to presidents of countries, effective planning for the future is essential, but it is often constrained by Groupthink [see http://arkhonlowry.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/governance-and-groupthink.html]. Adopting Scenario Planning procedures can help to overcome this as well as improve the prospects of managing complex possible futures.

Honest and open discussions are of paramount importance for Scenario Planning to be effective. Political and business arrangements or cultures that do not enable open debate cannot expect full potentials to be attained, and may be incapable of recognising impending disasters in sufficient time to respond effectively.

At the core of the Scenario Planning process is a brainstorming SWOT Analysis of the Key Facts and Factors, as well as the Actors and Entities involved in a Scenario. These are the Drivers of the system. Categorising the Drivers’ influence on the system as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, helps identify various Possibilities within the narrative of a Logic Path that makes up a route map of a potential scenario. A note of the Motivations of the Actors and Entities may also be included in addition to noting the Parallels, Precedents and Trends relevant to the system. Where the Logic Path comes to a major Branch Point/Critical Uncertainty it may be necessary to create a separate scenario or mini-scenario.

Provided there is adequate feedback within a system, then preparations can be made to deal with various outcomes, and early warning of the unfolding of a specific scenario can be conveyed when certain Critical Events occur or Branch Points are reached. These are the Early Indicators.

Where consensus is illusive concerning the nature of Drivers, or the desirability or plausibility of a scenario, it may be prudent to draw up parallel scenarios and highlight the Branch Points where it would be possible to discount one or more Logic Paths. However, it is best to focus on only four or five scenarios, but crucially these should cover the range of possible outcomes (desirable to disastrous) rather than just those deemed the most likely to occur. The most likely scenario should be included as a base line. During the process, it is useful to note what Assumptions have been made, the Implications and the level of Certainty or Controversy concerning them.

Categorising drivers as Enablers or Inhibitors of a Scenario helps in the development of the Logic Path, and, as far as developing Action Plans are concerned, will highlight whether action is needed to Mitigate or Capitalise on a Driver’s impact on a system. This is especially true with Transformative Scenario Planning (TSP). The key to TSP is to identify what a Desirable Scenario outcome is. Next it is necessary to identify the Key Drivers required to construct a Logic Path and initiate the Critical Events needed to attain that Desirable Scenario outcome.

Scenario Planning should be an ongoing process that allows for frequent updating and reassessment so that Contingency Plans are more effective and Groupthink is avoided.

There are many ways to set out the phases of a TSP process. Here is one:

Analysis

·         Identify the Facts, Factors, Entities and Actors that are the system Drivers;

·         Undertake SWOT Analysis of the Drivers;

·         Identify Possibilities including the Assumptions made, and note the Implications of each possibility;

·         Highlight any Possibilities that are deemed Critical Events.

 

Scenario Development

·         Identify a range of Scenarios from desirable to disastrous;

·         Set out Logic Paths and note the Early Indicators/Branch Points for each Scenario.           

 

Transformative Scenario Planning

·         For each scenario, identify the Inhibitors and Enablers;

·         Develop an Action Plan that steers the system away from undesirable scenarios and towards a Desirable Outcome.

In his book Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future, (2012 San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler), Adam Kahane sets out five steps of the transformational process. These are:

·         Convene a team from across the whole system;

·         Observe what is happening;

·         Construct stories about what could happen;

·         Discover what can and must be done;

·         Act to transform the system.

Please send an email to arkhonlowry[@]gmail.com if you would like to find out more about establishing Scenario Planning for a range of settings including political, diplomatic, humanitarian, environmental, economic and business arenas. A Dynamic Transformative Scenario Planning process can also be set up to enable the easy and continuous review and updating of the process by subject-area experts and stakeholders who may even be unavailable at the same time or in the same place.

Governance and Groupthink

Ignorance undermines the efficacy of any government: ignorance of how best to determine an optimal policy and how best to implement it. The risk of poor decisions emanating from ignorance is greatly increased where issues of groupthink are not addressed.

Everybody in a democracy, oligarchy, monarchy or even a theocracy is vulnerable to groupthink. This includes the politically savvy and the religiously well-versed. To deny vulnerability is to demonstrate vulnerability. Indeed, to anyone claiming there was once a time of perfection – a golden age – to which we should aspire, then it may need pointing out that the mere fact that imperfections are present today would suggest vulnerabilities to groupthink in the past. To claim infallibility of a past or present system of government is demonstrably delusional or dishonest. To claim infallibility of a future system opens the way for groupthink dangers.

Groupthink symptoms include:

1.      The unquestioning belief in the morality of a cause leading to the disregard of the consequences of actions;

2.      The direct pressure of conformity where questioning is seen as disloyal or heretical to the group;

3.      Self-censorship which, if not discouraged, will suppress ideas that might be seen to deviate from a perceived group consensus;

4.      The illusion of unanimity where silence is interpreted as consent;

5.      The existence of mind guards who suppress dissenting and inconvenient information;

6.      The stereotyping of opponents as evil or stupid will misinform and misdirect decision-making;

7.      The illusion of invulnerability that fosters misplaced optimism and risk taking;

8.      The collective rationalisation in which group members ignore warnings of failure.

Imagine two populations with similar problems and opportunities. One population has a government that takes measures to avoid groupthink, the other does not. Which government would you expect to be best informed to make better judgments? Now consider any government, non-state actor or individual of your choice and consider how effective they are at avoiding the pitfalls of groupthink.

Those who claim to know the path to a better society, whilst stifling debate, rejecting re-evaluations, discouraging inquiry and obstructing learning, are deceiving themselves, and so too are those who only tolerate fashionable arguments.

Further reading: Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink, New York: Houghton Mifflin (1972); and Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, New York: Houghton Mifflin (1982).

Democracy, Oligarchy or Monarchy?

They each have virtues and vices…

Herodotus outlines the fundamental arguments at the very core of governance in a discussion on the merits and shortcomings of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. In The Histories (3.80-83) the eternal debate is given voice from among the seven conspirators for the throne of the Persian Empire in 522BCE.

Otanes argued for popular government. He said that monarchy fosters the vices of envy and pride; it allows a ruler to do as he pleases with little responsibility. Even the best men would be corrupted by their own power, and would no longer perceive things as they used to. Worst of all a monarch may abuse his citizens and break up the structures of law. In contrast, the rule of the people avoids the problems of monarchs, it brings equality under the law and enables open debate.

Megabyzus agreed with Otanes’s arguments against monarchy, but warned that in transferring power to the people, that power would be in the hands of the fickle, the irresponsible and the ignorant. Instead, power should be given to the best men who would naturally produce the best policy.

Darius agreed with Megabyzus’s criticisms of democracy, but said that, in having a group of men competing for distinction from within an oligarchy, rivalries would develop that would lead to violence and civil war. Even in a democracy corrupt associations will develop. The cliques of power in an oligarchy or democracy would only be broken when a people’s champion comes forward and this person will be entrusted with absolute power. And so it is, argued Darius, that the people’s freedom and best form of government is ultimately derived from monarchy.

Darius won the debate, and it was agreed that the new king would be whoever’s horse among the conspirators neighed first at dawn. Otanes withdrew from the contest. Darius used the scent of a mare to encourage his stallion to neigh; and so it was that the use of guile won power for Darius. A reported flash of lighting from a clear sky was acknowledged as a divine sign of approval. Nevertheless, the issues of effective governance remain.

ARKHON – an epic tale from the dawn of democracy

Soon to be published: ARKHON is a fast-paced thriller that follows the fate of a former mercenary who becomes entangled in the overthrow of tyranny and the emergence of democracy in Ancient Athens.

In portraying many real events and characters of the Ancient World, Arkhon explores present-day issues that include political legitimacy, foreign intervention, revenge, superstition and the manipulation of religion. The drama draws directly from the tensions and discourse that developed around the Arab uprisings of 2011-13.