Scenario development method. Scenario planning and its features The scenario method implies

SCENARIO METHOD

FORECASTING

Basic provisions

The scenario method is one of the possible ways of practical implementation of the ideas and principles that make up the systemic methodological concept of forecasting the development of social systems. The method arose from the practice of country and regional long-term forecasting, and its content is largely determined by the specifics of the object and the type of forecast. At the same time, we can talk about the sufficient generality of the proposed tools, which can be used to predict the evolution of a wide class of social systems.

The scenario method is a specifically organized iterative research procedure for constructing a scenario for the possible development of the predicted social system. It consists of a number of stages, the sequential passage of which allows us to solve the forecast problem.

In its most general form, the scenario method can be characterized as a method for organizing interdisciplinary forecasting studies, in which specialists of various profiles, with different training and often with very different views on the problem under consideration, participate. One of the main objectives of the method is the development by a team of researchers of a unified idea about the object of forecasting, patterns and possible ways of its development on a single methodological and methodological basis. Forms of organizing work to solve this problem constitute the organizational aspect of the scenario method.

In terms of content, the scenario method is a practical implementation of the principle of sequential resolution of uncertainty. It includes techniques and methods for a meaningful and formalized description of the predicted social system and specific methods and algorithms for constructing and studying scenarios for its development. All procedures of the method are based on a combination of meaningful logical-heuristic analysis with formal research methods, including mathematical models. It is assumed that any known private forecasting methods can be used, if necessary. A special aspect of the method is the organization of man-machine experiments on models of social systems.

The purpose of the scenario method is to provide scientifically based forecasts for decision-making in specific areas of management activity. The method is strictly focused on forecasting goals determined by the content of the decision being made. This means that the predicted social system is always viewed from the perspective of the issues that make up the solution, that is, usually from a fairly narrow perspective, which limits the description of the system. Using accepted languages ​​for describing social systems, as a rule, it is necessary to answer three main groups of questions:

1) what are the trends of one or another specific aspect of the development of the system under consideration in various possible future conditions and what factors determine these trends?

2) what problematic situations and bottlenecks may the development of the system under study encounter in the future and how will this affect the predicted state of the system?

3) how and to what extent do management decisions influence the trajectory of the future development of the projected system, what are the consequences of various alternatives to the decision under consideration, what is the range of acceptable alternatives to this decision?

The specific formulation of the listed questions together determines the target setting of the forecast and makes it possible to consistently apply the principle of purpose in the course of forecast research.

The scenario method is built on the conceptual and terminological apparatus of systems theory and systems analysis. At the same time, he also operates with a number of special concepts. First among them is the concept of “scenario”.

In the context of the scenario method under script a hypothetical picture of the sequential development in time and space of events that together constitute the evolution of the predicted system in the context of interest to the researcher is understood. The scenario explicitly records the cause-and-effect dependencies that determine the possible future dynamics of changes in the state of the system, and the conditions under which these changes will occur.

From the above definition it follows that the process of constructing a scenario implements all the main functions of scientific research - descriptive, explanatory and predictive and ultimately reflects the achieved level of empirical and theoretical knowledge about the predicted system.

A scenario is some relative, conditional assessment of the possible development of the predicted system, since it is always built within the framework of assumptions about future development conditions, which are most often fundamentally unpredictable. In other words, the scenario answers the question: “What could happen if the conditions for the development of the predicted system turn out like this...?” As we know, nothing else can be known about the future of any system, and in this sense the scenario reflects the predictive capabilities of science. Formally, the scenario can be represented by a certain trajectory in the space of parameters of the state of the system, the conditions of its existence and time. The properties of the scenario make it possible to construct methods for solving the main problem of the forecast - determining the area of ​​what is actually possible, i.e., the “tube” of possible trajectories of system development. The scenario method for predicting the development of the system is one of the possible practical ways to build such a “tube”.

The above definition contains another important point. If no special conditions are imposed on the form of presentation of the forecast, then any scientific description of the future development of the system can be interpreted as a scenario. Indeed, the requirements for both descriptions of the future are identical. In order to distinguish a scenario from the field of possible descriptions of the future, it is given a special form of representation, where its main properties given in the definition are clearly recorded and clearly structured.

When discussing the basic properties of the system, the basic concepts used in the system-theoretical analysis of objects of social nature were introduced - system, element, connection, structure, control, parameter, state, functioning, etc. Let us supplement this list with the concepts that the scenario method operates on.

Let us call the entire set of reasons that determine the functioning and development of the predicted system and its elements factors. We will distinguish between internal and external factors in the evolution of the system.

Internal factors are determined by the laws of development of individual elements and the system as an integrity, that is, they arise as a result of the process of self-development of the system.

External factors are determined by the interaction of system elements with each other and with the external environment, i.e., with a broader system into which the predicted system is included as one of the elements. We will call the influence of the external environment forecast background, and the parameters describing the influence of background factors on the system under consideration are background variables.

We will call the factors with the help of which a targeted influence is carried out on the system as a whole and on its elements departments. In the formal scheme of the system evolution process, these factors are represented control parameters.

Factors whose values ​​are objectively unpredictable and constitute a system of assumptions about the conditions for the future development of the predicted system will be called scenario parameters. Any internal and external factors, including background variables and control parameters, can act as scenario parameters.

The forecasting procedures of the scenario method are based on the use of the basic properties and patterns of system development. First of all, these are the properties of purposefulness, controllability and self-organization. In each historical period, the management of the system formulates immediate and long-term goals for the development of the system and determines the ways (in our terminology - management) to achieve them, the essence of which is the rational distribution of available material and spiritual resources. In this case, a targeted functional and structural restructuring of the system occurs as a means of adaptation to constantly changing living conditions.

Purposeful development of the system can only be carried out if the goals of the system and the ways to achieve them are consistent with the objective laws of social development. This coordination is not always carried out, and the search for rational controls can be interpreted as a process of developing a compromise between the desired and the possible. Forecasting the evolution of a system using the scenario method is based on identifying the goals of the system under consideration and finding ways to achieve them within the limits determined by objective laws of development, the finiteness of various types of resources and other factors.

It should be especially emphasized that identifying true development goals systems and their possible evolution in the future - the fundamental, fundamental point of the forecast. Without knowing the goals of the system, it is impossible to understand cause-and-effect patterns and build a mechanism for the functioning and development of the system. Only knowledge of the goals makes it possible to explain the phenomenon under study and predict possible ways of its development. This provision applies both to the system as a whole and to each of its elements.

Please remember that system control is limited. These restrictions outline the range of permissible values ​​of control parameters, exceeding the boundaries of which is either objectively impossible or is fraught with dangerous consequences for the controlled system.

The range of permissible values ​​of system control parameters is formed under the influence of two main groups restrictions.

TO first group can be attributed to the finiteness of various types of resources and the restrictions imposed by the laws of nature. For example, you cannot spend more resources than are or will be available, you cannot change the frequency of the seasons, etc. Limitations of this kind are relatively permanent and are called natural. They are almost always known and easily taken into account in forecasting and management practice.

The second group of restrictions is associated with the life processes of social systems. The purposeful development of the system is carried out with the help of management, which should ensure the preservation of the qualitative certainty of the system as it moves towards the goal, that is, under conditions of constant structural and functional restructuring. Qualitative certainty can be interpreted as the region of permissible states of the system, where the conditions of its dynamic equilibrium are preserved. Such restrictions must be imposed on the control of the system that prevent the system from leaving dynamic equilibrium, i.e. outside the range of permissible states.

We call this kind of restrictions restrictions. according to system status. In contrast to natural limitations, control restrictions on the state of the system are not always known, which is primarily due to the lack of clarity of the mechanisms of system development and the inherent uncertainty of this development. In real social systems, known restrictions on the state of the system take the form regulatory restrictions. They are enshrined in legislation, that is, they are of a legal nature or are generally accepted in a particular society by political, economic, social, ethical, cultural, religious and other norms that regulate the behavior of individuals, public organizations, government bodies, etc. With the help normative restrictions ensure one or another form of dynamic equilibrium of the system, for example, the preservation of a certain political system. Regulatory restrictions (especially legal ones) are mostly of a class nature and reflect the interests of the ruling class. These constraints change as the system evolves, and one of the most difficult tasks of social forecasting is predicting these changes.

Natural and regulatory restrictions significantly narrow the range of permissible values ​​of control parameters, i.e. remove a significant part of the uncertainty of possible future controls. At the same time, in any system there are always controls for which restrictions on the state of the system are unknown. This is explained, first of all, by the fact that many management decisions are unique in nature, that is, they have no analogues in the past. In addition, new operating conditions of the system can significantly change the possible consequences of even traditional, practice-tested solutions. An important point is that non-standardized decisions are most often the most significant for the development of the predicted system, i.e., they direct this development. Therefore, one of the tasks of social forecasting is to search for determinants that may occur in the future, irregular controls. The study of the mechanism of their influence on the functioning and development of the predicted system should ensure the determination of acceptable values ​​of control parameters.

The set of considered types of controls constitutes the control area of ​​the system under study. This region evolves in time, forming a “tube” of permissible trajectories of the values ​​of the system’s control parameters.

If the mechanism of functioning and development of the system under study were fully studied, and the development goals were fully defined, then the task of constructing scenarios could be reduced to a formal forecasting problem. In this case, the forecasting procedures would consist of selecting a control trajectory from a “tube” of admissible ones, which would correspond to the best, according to the selected criterion, path of movement of the system and development goals. Further, by purposefully varying the unpredictable conditions of the future development of the predicted system for each control trajectory under consideration, it would be possible to construct a corresponding “tube” of possible states of the system, i.e., a “tube” of scenarios.

However, in practice, such ideal forecasting conditions are very rare and only for relatively simple objects of a social nature. In most cases, one has to deal with the problems of predicting the development of a system in the third formulation, when the goals of the system are uncertain and require clarification, the area of ​​admissible controls is only partially defined, and the connection of controls with the state of the system according to these controls is very uncertain. In addition, in most cases, the mechanism of the combined influence of various factors on the development of the predicted system is unclear.

The forecasting process is further complicated by the fact that, as a rule, the boundaries of acceptable values ​​are not known for all parameters of the state of the system under study, i.e., the region of dynamic equilibrium is not completely defined. This is especially typical for complex, large-scale systems, such as political, economic and military alliances and groupings of countries, individual countries and their political and economic systems, etc.

All of the listed uncertainties inherent in real problems of forecasting the development of objects of a social nature are subject to consistent resolution within the framework of the scenario method. The final, ideal goal of the method is to reduce the forecast problem to the second formulation. Obviously, this goal is not fully achievable, however, the procedures of the scenario method significantly narrow the initial uncertainties and make it possible to construct a “tube” of acceptable scenarios for the development of the systems under study, which can be used to provide specific management decisions.

Let us introduce a few more general concepts. One of the methods for resolving the uncertainty associated with inaccurate knowledge of the boundaries of the permissible state of the predicted system is the introduction indicators condition. Indicator is a parameter critical to the limiting states of the system. As indicators, objectively measurable parameters of the state of the system with known limiting values ​​are usually chosen, going beyond which causes instability of the system and the possibility of its transition to another qualitative state or leads to its death. For example, for developing countries that do not provide themselves with food, the indicator of economic status can be the level of nutrition of the population. For industrialized countries, indicators of a limiting state can be parameters of environmental pollution or the degree of disruption of ecological balance when they reach values ​​dangerous for the existence of society.

State indicators are selected in accordance with the tasks to be solved and in economic forecasting can take the form of main integral indicators of the process under study. For example, the price of goods acts as the main general indicator of the state of the world capitalist market. The maximum price values ​​are known at which the market becomes unstable and has a critical impact on the economy of capitalist countries. Another example of an integral indicator is the rate of investment as a general indicator of economic activity.

The selected indicators must have a clear social nature and be measured quantitatively. Indicators are included among the parameters of the formal description of the system and are calculated using mathematical models of the predicted system. The introduction of indicators into system models makes it possible to organize machine experiments within the framework of meaningful procedures of the scenario method. The process of constructing scenarios using mathematical models of the system allows, based on the critical values ​​of selected indicators, to determine the boundaries of the “tube” of permissible states of the system and the boundaries of the control “tube”. This apparatus makes it possible to study problematic aspects of system development that may arise in the future and critical situations associated with them.

A very important and complex problem in constructing scenarios for the development of objects of social nature is the choice of methods for varying the values ​​of scenario parameters to ensure the minimum diameter of the “tube” of possible scenarios. This question is largely determined by the goals and objectives of specific forecasts. Let's look at the two most common approaches to this problem.

The first approach is based on the concept guaranteed forecast. At its core, it echoes the concept of a guaranteed win in mathematical game theory. A guaranteed forecast must give a maximum (highest or lowest) estimate of the possible values ​​of the parameters of the predicted state of the system. Many political, economic and military decisions are based only on a guaranteed forecast in order to eliminate the possibility of risk. The maximum possible development of the predicted system is often determined through the system's potential to achieve any goals under the most favorable conditions. In this case, the potential of the system corresponds to the boundary of what is actually possible in its development.

The procedure for determining a guaranteed forecast, i.e., the boundaries beyond which the development of the system cannot go beyond for objective reasons, is as follows. The maximum possible values ​​of the parameters characterizing the factors that positively influence the development of the system under study, and the minimum possible values ​​of the parameters of those factors that hinder its development, are set. Under these conditions, the “ideal” control, i.e., the best from the “tube” of acceptable ones, is selected, leading to the development goals of the predicted system, and the state of the system corresponding to this control is determined, which is the limit of its possible development. Else definitions of the lower limit of development do the opposite, i.e., they minimize positive and maximize negative factors while maintaining ideal control.

The big disadvantage of this methodological approach is that the result is too wide a “tube” of scenarios for the development of the predicted system. The upper limit of development turns out to be greatly overestimated, and the lower limit – underestimated. In reality, the probability of a situation in which all factors will maintain extreme values ​​throughout the entire forecast period is zero.

An alternative to the approach considered is the choice of a more realistic system of assumptions about the conditions for the future development of the forecasted system and the introduction of forecast quality indicators.

The scenario method for forecasting the development of a system allows for the implementation of both methodological approaches, depending on the set forecasting goals.

The scenario method implements in specific research and forecasting procedures the scheme of the iterative process of sequential resolution of uncertainty given in the description of the system concept of social forecasting. In the method, all the theoretical provisions of the concept discussed above find a substantive, constructive expression.

In a broader sense, the scenario method can serve as an example of the application of a systematic approach to the study and forecasting of socio-economic processes. It contains all the elements of a systematic study of complex objects of social nature, implemented taking into account the specifics of forecasting processes.

Methodology for constructing scenarios

Pre-scenario stage. It is convenient to divide the process of constructing system development scenarios into two large stages - preparatory, pre-scenario stage And scenario stage, where scenarios are synthesized and explored.

The pre-scenario stage is intended for a meaningful and formal study and description of the predicted processes, building system models and preparing all the necessary information for the synthesis of scenarios. The pre-scenario stage should perform the descriptive and explanatory functions of forecast research.

The starting point for organizing the forecasting procedure is to clarify the goals and formulate the research objectives. First of all, it is necessary to clearly define why the forecast is being made, to what depth, what questions it should answer and with what degree of detail, what parameters should describe the future state of the system under study at various points in the forecast period. If all the listed requirements are formulated in the forecast task, then you can take the next step - determine the research problem as a first approximation. However, in the practice of social forecasting, this situation is extremely rare. In most cases, forecasting goals are formulated in a very general, non-specific form. Usually only the depth of the forecast is clearly indicated. A team of researchers, as a rule, has to independently determine the requirements for the forecast and then coordinate them with the customer. The basis for determining the requirements for the forecast is the list of management decisions that the forecast is intended to support. These decisions may take the form of a plan or be operational in nature. The content of decisions and the scope of their possible alternatives are usually known. Otherwise, they are requested from the customer, since without them the subject of forecasting disappears.

The latter is determined from the condition of the criticality of the forecast for the entire list of parameters to the change of additional control alternatives. In other words, the acceptable forecast uncertainty must be determined E additional for individual parameters and for the system as a whole and the required forecast quality R tr. The procedure for determining forecast requirements is usually easily carried out using a meaningful analysis of the solutions provided and simple calculations. At the same time, it should be emphasized that this is an extremely difficult point that determines the content of subsequent forecasting studies. In the course of these studies, the requirements for the forecast are usually further refined.

A feature of social forecasting is that this process occurs on the basis of already accumulated knowledge about the system under study. This allows researchers, without special preliminary preparation, to formulate initial hypothesis about the targeted development of the system under consideration. The initial hypothesis is the first approximation (starting point) for organizing an iterative forecasting procedure. During the course of the work, the initial hypothesis is usually greatly modified or completely replaced by another, but it plays a fundamental role in the initial stage of the scenario building process.

The initial hypothesis is usually drawn up in the form of a working document, the content of which is usually as structured as possible and meets the principles of a systemic description of the forecast object. The presentation of the content of the initial hypothesis begins with the formulation of forecasting goals and requirements for the forecast. The object and subject of forecasting are determined. All further presentation is carried out from the perspective of the subject of forecasting. From the set of goals for the functioning and development of the system under consideration, only goals that correspond to the forecast tasks are selected for further research. Next, we briefly outline the hypothesis about the structure and mechanism of the functioning and development of the object in the context of the formulated goals. The current state of the predicted system, trends in its development and the main factors determining these trends are described. Possible problem situations that may occur in the future are discussed, and a system of preliminary assumptions is constructed about the internal and external conditions for the development of the predicted object. In conclusion, the results of the analysis are presented in the form of a preliminary forecast of the possible evolution of the system under consideration and their connection with the solutions provided by the forecast is discussed.

The initial hypothesis in the given structure can be developed only with a good preliminary acquaintance of researchers with the object of prediction. If factual knowledge is not enough, then they are usually limited to describing the structure of the object and presenting the idea and mechanism of its functioning and development in a general form, i.e., a rough initial approximation is formed in the iterative process of cognition of the object and predicting its evolution. The content of the initial hypothesis characterizes the state of knowledge about the system under consideration and reflects problematic issues that require resolution in the course of forecast research. Analysis of the initial hypothesis allows us to formulate the main tasks, the solution of which constitutes the forecasting process. In addition, the initial hypothesis contains information that allows you to begin direct research of the object by constructing it matrix formal scheme.

The considered stage of pre-scenario research represents, in theoretical terms, the implementation of the first cycle of the process of sequential resolution of uncertainty at the highest level of representation of the predicted system. Consistent application of the principle of goals allows at this stage to sharply narrow the area of ​​the predicted state of the object and formulate forecast problems that limit the scope of the study. The clearer and more specific the tasks are formulated, the narrower the framework and the more favorable the conditions for the application of systemic principles.

Description of the object. A systemic description of an object begins with its decomposition into elements. In its original form, the structure of the system under study is described in the initial hypothesis. Depending on the degree of study of the object, decomposition is carried out either from the position of empirical knowledge and intuitive ideas of the researcher about the mechanism of the processes occurring in it, or is based on scientific theory.

In real predictive studies of a system, as a rule, both cases occur, since different aspects of the life activity of objects are usually studied differently, and some information may be completely absent. Among other things, in a specific forecast, even an already studied object is presented from a new perspective, determined by the specific goals of the forecast. In accordance with these goals, one has to deal with structural and functional sections of the system, which most often have not been previously considered. The initial decomposition of the system is refined and detailed during the research process.

Based on the initial decomposition, the first matrix diagram of the system as an integral system is constructed. This stage of the study corresponds to the choice of the highest level language in the hierarchy of descriptions of the predicted object.

The construction of the matrix begins with the classification of the states of the system being studied relative to the goals of the forecast. In the simplest case, these can be two states. Suppose you need to make a forecast: how the price of a product will change on any product market by a certain date. Here we can consider two states – falling or rising prices.

Further, in accordance with the initial hypothesis about the functioning of the predicted system, factors that determine the direction of its evolution are selected and recorded, i.e. the possibility of transition from one state to another in the accepted classification of states. Based on the results of this work, a “state – factors” matrix is ​​constructed. For our hypothetical example, it may have the form presented in Figure 1, where factors are divided into internal and external; further classification is carried out into groups of factors, which, in turn, are divided into specific factors that together make up the group. Behind each factor or group of factors is a specific object or process, which are either elements of the system under consideration, or elements of a higher order system (external environment). This means that each content of the “state-factors” matrix corresponds to a certain decomposition of the predicted system.

Condition Factors

Group of factors

External

Domestic

economic

political

social

economic

political

social

Factors

Options

state A

state B

This circumstance allows you to check the structure of the system initially specified in the initial hypothesis and, if necessary, adjust it in accordance with the content of the matrix or build a new one. In the case when, from general considerations, it is difficult to construct the initial structure of the system under study, it is necessary to begin the procedure of object decomposition by constructing a “states - factors” matrix, and then, in accordance with it, select the elements of the system and the connections between them, focusing on the real structure of the object. The “states – factors” matrix and the corresponding structure must be presented in such a way that the initial hypothesis about the functioning and possible directions of development of the system is fully described using the introduced concepts.

After the matrix has been generated and the structure of the forecasted system has been constructed, it is necessary to select the minimum number of parameters that characterize the state of the system relative to the forecasting goals. These parameters represent a language for formally describing the system as an entity.

System state parameters can have both quantitative and qualitative forms. In the first case, for each parameter, the minimum number of values ​​that characterize a particular state of the system for this indicator is selected. The values ​​corresponding to each state are usually specified in numerical intervals and characterize the required accuracy of parameter measurement. If a parameter is not measured quantitatively, it is represented by a scale of qualitative values. If the number of state parameters is large, then indicators are selected among them, i.e., the dominant indicators, by the values ​​of which one can judge the state of the system, determine which class of states in the selected classification according to the matrix “states - factors” this state belongs to. If it is not possible to select a dominant parameter, then it is necessary to compare the states of the system for all parameter values, i.e., solve the problem of a vector criterion. In forecasting practice, this problem is most often solved by the method of expert assessments.

After the scales of system state parameters have been constructed, the parameters characterizing the factors are determined using the same scheme, and the corresponding scales for their measurement are selected. This completes the construction of the initial matrix “states – factors” and begins the stage of its sequential analysis and refinement. Let us recall that the set of parameters that describe the state of the system under study and characterize the significance of the operating factors constitutes the language of the highest level of description. In the process of analyzing and adjusting the “states - factors” matrix, this language is refined and takes on its final form.

The analysis begins with determining and fixing acceptable values ​​of the state parameters of the object under study and identifying state indicators. If at this stage of analysis there are no sufficient grounds for determining the acceptable values ​​of any state parameters, then they are specified by the domain of definition. Thus, the widest range of permissible states of the system is outlined, which will gradually narrow during the research process.

The factors are then analyzed. First of all, they are ranked according to the degree of influence on the state of the predicted object. For this purpose, a rating scale from 0 to 5 is usually used, where 0 is no influence and 5 is the greatest degree of influence. The basis for determining the degree of influence of factors on the state of the system is a hypothesis about the mechanism of operation of the object and retrospective information (if available). During this procedure, the mechanism of influence of each factor is discussed in detail. The dependence of the factor under consideration on other factors is revealed. In the “states – factors” matrix, only the “main”, relatively independent factors are left, and the rest are transferred for consideration to other levels of the system representation. The “main” determining factors are understood as those for which the degree of influence is at least 3 on the accepted five-point scale and which are weakly correlated with other factors of the matrix. When choosing the main factors, it is necessary to build a hierarchy of factors, determined by chains of cause-and-effect dependencies that explain the origin of the factor, its essence and the mechanism of influence on the state of the system. This procedure is a complex logical-heuristic analysis, during which researchers, using their knowledge of the predicted object, experience and intuition, essentially build a structured meaningful model of the phenomenon under consideration. Here the initial hypothesis is tested and a system of assumptions is formed, i.e., among the parameters describing each factor, scenario (unpredictable) parameters are identified and the ranges of their possible values ​​are outlined.

The central point of the analysis is the comparison of the values ​​of individual parameters and the set of values ​​of parameters characterizing factors with a certain state of the system. If the mechanism of influence of a factor or group of factors is known, then a mathematical model of the phenomenon can be constructed, with the help of which an unambiguous comparison of the values ​​of factors and parameters of the state of the object occurs. Otherwise, a meaningful, semi-intuitive model of the mechanism of influence, operating mainly on a qualitative scale of state assessments. In practice, both situations usually occur. It is possible to build models for the material elements of the system, and intangible phenomena are described by high-quality, meaningful models.

It should be noted that when analyzing the functioning mechanism based on the “states - factors” matrix, it is necessary to consider various structural and functional sections of the predicted object. In different sections, there are usually different mechanisms of influence of factors. The result is a multidimensional, diverse picture of the functioning of the system under study. It is quite possible that in different sections there are contradictory, non-coinciding effects of factors. Such results should be considered as a manifestation of the principle of complementarity in the description of complex systems of social nature. For some sections, it is possible to construct mathematical models that always capture only one side of the phenomenon. This is important to remember when evaluating simulation results.

As a result of the analysis of the “states - factors” matrix, a second approximation is made in the decomposition of the object under consideration and in the formation of a hypothesis about the mechanism of its functioning and development as an integrity. The classification of system states and factors, as well as the introduction of a system of assumptions, sharply narrows the initial uncertainty and makes it possible to construct at this stage an initial wide “tube” of possible trajectories of the object’s development. To do this, an analysis of scenario parameters is carried out, as a result of which the main scenario parameters are identified, which mainly determine the directions of development, and secondary scenario parameters, which can be represented, depending on the goals of the forecast, by their average or extreme values.

Among the main scenario parameters there are control parameters, with the help of which the purposeful functioning and development of the forecast object is carried out, and uncontrollable parameters, the values ​​of which are unpredictable in the future. For uncontrolled scenario parameters, a minimal classification of values ​​is constructed, where each class has its own direction of development. Then, for each such class, an “ideal” control is found that leads to achieving the goals of the system under study. Ideal control is realized through an appropriate set of values ​​of control parameters. Some of them can be determined using models of the predicted system. Most of the values ​​of scenario parameters corresponding to the “ideal” control are selected by logical-heuristic analysis of various control alternatives using a hypothesis about the mechanism of the object’s functioning formulated on the basis of the “states – factors” matrix.

In classifying the values ​​of uncontrolled scenario parameters, it is usually possible to identify the dominant class, i.e., the most likely conditions for the development of the predicted object. Then the trajectory of development of the object as a whole under these conditions is accepted as base scenario. Otherwise, you have to build several basic scenarios and carry out the entire subsequent procedure for each of them. The construction of a base scenario completes an important and critical stage of forecast research. As a result of this stage, the research team should:

Develop a unified view of goals, objectives, objects and subjects;

Formulate a general point of view on the structure of the object and the essence of the processes occurring in it;

Structurize the idea of ​​the phenomenon under consideration in the form of a decomposition of the system and its matrix “states - factors” and select parameters, i.e. synthesize a higher-level language in the hierarchy of object description languages;

Work out and formulate a unified view of the mechanism of operation of an object and describe it in terms of the chosen language;

Draw up a system of assumptions, i.e. select values ​​of scenario (including control) parameters that correspond to the forecasting goals and development goals of the object;

Determine the most probable directions of evolution of an object at the highest level of representation and build a basic scenario as the basis for further research;

To develop a system analysis technique for subsequent study of the elements of the predicted system;

Check and debug the organization of interdisciplinary systems research and formulate the principles of this organization for subsequent stages of work.

The results of this stage serve as the basis for constructing a formal diagram of the predicted process and selecting subprocesses in it, for which mathematical models of the highest level of generalization can be built. For these models, the basic requirements can be determined: the form and content of input and output information, factors taken into account, etc. In other words, the research results at this stage allow us to begin developing higher-level models of a multi-level system of models of the predicted system. Here the structure of the system of models can be presented as a first approximation.

All results of the work must be recorded in the form of working documents, the provisions of which will be the basis for further research.

Element analysis. The next stage in the pre-scenario research procedure is the development of “state-factor” matrices for the elements of the accepted decomposition of the predicted system. This process is essentially no different from describing the procedure for the object as a whole. The decomposition of each element, i.e., its presentation as a subsystem of the general system, and the construction of the “states - factors” matrix are carried out according to the scheme already discussed, but taking into account the results of the previous stage of the study listed above. The structure of each element and the matrix “states - factors” are built taking into account the hierarchy of factors synthesized at the previous stage, i.e. the matrix of each element must be coordinated “vertically” with the matrix of the highest level of description of the system by factors and their indicators. The fundamental feature of the relationship between a higher-level matrix and element matrices is that the “output” of one matrix is ​​the “input” to others, that is, the state of each element is an external factor for the elements associated with it.

If at the previous stage, when constructing the structure and matrix “states - factors” for the system as a whole, the joint work of all members of the team of forecasters is required, then the study of the elements requires the independent work of the relevant specialists. The final results of the work are brought up for general discussion after the matrix of horizontal elements has been agreed upon. It is convenient to carry out the approval procedure in pairs, each with each other, and only controversial issues should be resolved jointly.

As a result of the “horizontal” coordination of “inputs” and “outputs”, a system of connections and relationships between elements is formed, which together constitute the second level of the structural representation of the predicted system. The set of parameters for describing elements forms the second-level language of the system under consideration. In this language, within the framework of the base script of the highest level, the base scripts of the elements are built. Coordination of the basic scenarios of elements based on the formed system of their connections and relationships allows us to obtain a description of the basic scenario of the system as a whole in a second-level language. Basic scenarios of elements and the system as a whole are constructed by joint analysis of the “state-factors” matrices using the procedure worked out at the previous stage of the study. The result of the second stage of pre-scenario research is the construction of a two-level structure and a two-level matrix formal scheme of the predicted system.

Then, according to the same scheme, in accordance with the hierarchy of factors, the third level of the system structure is built, i.e., the structures of the elements of the second level are considered. For each element of the third level, a corresponding “states – factors” matrix is ​​constructed and the procedure for their “horizontal” and “vertical” coordination is carried out. The fourth and subsequent levels of object representation and the corresponding languages ​​for its description are also constructed.

Depending on the required depth of research, determined by the requirements for the forecast, the number of levels of description of the system is limited. This means that in a certain place endless chains of cause and effect are broken and in place of the cause and effect relationship, some assumptions are put forward that have objective or subjective grounds. In many cases, at lower levels of system representation, the system of assumptions is not explicitly fixed, i.e., it is accepted by default. Experience shows that the analysis of these assumptions, forming a system of assumptions, turns out to be very useful both for understanding the process itself and for understanding the relativity and conditionality of the forecast.

The multi-level matrix formal scheme of the predicted process constructed in this way should, with the help of the selected hierarchy of languages, reflect in the necessary detail the structure and mechanism of functioning and development of the system under consideration. The diagram explicitly records the variety of factors that determine the evolution of the system and its elements, the variety of connections between the elements and the environment. This allows you to build a logically consistent chain of possible events for given values ​​of scenario parameters, i.e., build scenarios for the development of the predicted system. In terms of the matrix formal scheme, i.e., the selected hierarchy of languages ​​for describing the system, it is possible to interpret any events and problem situations that may occur during the evolution of the system.

Construction of a system of models. The pre-scenario stage ends with the construction of a system of models of the predicted system. The structure of the system of mathematical models of the system reflects the formalized elements of its matrix formal scheme. If the mechanism of action and interaction of elements at all selected levels of representation of the system were known and formalizable, then it would be possible to build mathematical models of the elements and from them synthesize a model of the system as a whole. With the help of such a model, it would be possible to assign each combination of values ​​of background variables and scenario parameters to some “ideal” control, which would optimally bring the system into a state corresponding to the goals of the system. To find such an “ideal” control, it would be necessary to solve some dynamic vector optimization problem over the system model. In this case, a classification of the values ​​of factors and their corresponding states could be introduced for all elements in the adopted structure of the system, i.e., the formal matrix scheme would turn into matrix model predicted system. Building a scenario would involve only setting the values ​​of background variables and scenario parameters. Each combination of these values ​​would correspond to a very specific scenario in the matrix model of the system.

In practice, such a situation occurs extremely rarely. Usually it is not possible to construct a mathematical model that is completely adequate to the matrix formal scheme of the system. The reasons for the impossibility of complete formalization have already been discussed above. This implies the impossibility of calculating the optimal values ​​of the “ideal” control. This problem is solved with the help of the intellectual activity of researchers in the process of constructing a scenario within the framework of a matrix formal scheme.

In some cases, when non-formalizable processes are predicted, the procedure for constructing a scenario may be purely heuristic. However, most often it is possible to construct mathematical models of the life activity of the material elements of the system. In this case, the scenario is formed on the basis of objective patterns reflected in the system models. Models create an objective foundation for a meaningful intuitive-logical analysis of the predicted process. With their help, quantitative restrictions on the state of the system are determined and the values ​​of state indicators are calculated for the considered combinations of values ​​of background variables and scenario parameters. These objective quantitative indicators serve as reference points in the logical procedure for constructing scenarios.

The main problems associated with the development of mathematical models and systems of system models have already been discussed above. The formal matrix scheme of the system allows us to formulate all the requirements for the system models and serves as the basis for the synthesis of a mathematical analogue of the formal scheme as the basis for the development of models. We also note that in the practice of forecasting studies, especially country and regional ones, it is often possible to use previously developed models. However, as a rule, they have to be supplemented and changed in accordance with forecasting tasks.

So, at the pre-scenario stage of forecasting the development of the social system, all preparatory work should be carried out and the following results should be obtained:

Goals, objectives, requirements and forecast conditions are formulated;

Information was collected and a structured, meaningful description of the forecast object was compiled, a working hypothesis was formulated about the mechanism of its functioning and development;

A decomposition of the system has been carried out, which is represented by one or more structural sections in graphical form;

A matrix formal scheme for the functioning and development of the predicted system has been developed and a hierarchy of languages ​​for its description has been constructed;

The main limitations of the processes of functioning and development of the system are formulated and indicators of the state of the system are determined;

Some average values ​​of background variables and scenario parameters were selected and basic scenarios were constructed for the system as a whole and its elements at all accepted levels of system description;

The requirements were formulated and a system of mathematical models of the social system was built;

All research results are recorded in working documents.

The listed results should express the general views of the team of forecasters on the essence of the processes under consideration, methodological principles and organizational forms of scenario research. The constructed tools allow us to move on to the final stage of the forecasting process.

Building scenarios. Building scenarios for the development of a system as the final result of forecasting is a creative process that does not fit into the framework of any strict sequence of techniques and method of analysis. In each specific case, the process diagram is formed depending on the forecast object, the degree of elaboration of the problem at the pre-scenario stage, the availability of mathematical models and special software for the implementation of an effective man-machine procedure, the personal qualities of team members and other factors. Let us therefore cancel only some general points characteristic of the processes of constructing scenarios.

1) The scenario stage usually begins with calculations for all basic scenarios using a system of mathematical models. The purpose of the calculations is to check the meaningful basic scenarios for admissibility and feasibility, clarify the initial values ​​of background variables and scenario parameters, quantitative and qualitative analysis of scenarios and selections of model basic scenarios.

2) Modeling the base scenario is a very important point, since further research is based on variations in individual scenario parameters and background variables, while the main body of information that makes up the base scenario usually remains unchanged. The process of synthesizing model base scenarios is most often combined with debugging individual models and a system of system models and bringing these models to a working state using real information by specialists of various profiles who make up a team of forecasters. At the same stage, specific techniques are debugged and rules are developed for the human-machine procedure for constructing and analyzing scenarios based on a basic machine script.

It is convenient to start calculations from the bottom, i.e., on lower-level models and, as the basic scenarios of elements are worked out, move up the hierarchy of the model system. This process is iterative in nature and according to the scheme coincides with the processes of selecting accounting units in the model system. The development of a basic scenario for each element, subsystems and the system as a whole is accompanied by a meaningful interpretation within the framework of a matrix formal scheme of quantitative calculation results from the position of the accepted working hypothesis. At this stage, the working hypothesis itself is clarified. Modeling basic scenarios allows you to check the working hypothesis for logical consistency and compliance with all types of restrictions, and, if necessary, make adjustments to it.

Thus, when modeling basic scenarios, one or more iterations of clarifying the working hypothesis and a deeper understanding of the essence of the predicted processes at a quantitative level occur.

The process of constructing scenarios can be represented as researchers putting forward various alternatives for the development of the system under consideration and the subsequent testing of each of these alternatives on a system of models.

In other words, constructing a scenario is some specially organized man-machine procedure. Alternative options for the development of the system are built on the basis of the accepted working hypothesis. They are interpreted in the languages ​​of the matrix formal scheme and, at the input to the model, take the form of the corresponding values ​​of background variables, scenario and control parameters.

Models provide quantitative characteristics of the proposed alternatives. First of all, alternatives are checked for admissibility according to restrictions and limit values ​​of state indicators, and then for compliance with the development goals of the predicted system. Consistent comparison of the proposed alternatives usually makes it possible to experimentally determine the main development trends and the corresponding trajectories of control parameter values ​​that are close to optimal.

Proposing alternatives is a purely creative process in which informal knowledge, experience, scientific intuition and intelligence of the researcher play a leading role. The information generated by the researcher himself is quantified using models, and subsequent interpretation and clarification of alternatives makes it possible to recreate the possible path of development of the predicted system. The implementation of this iterative procedure is associated with solving the problem of translating qualitative concepts into quantitative values ​​of system parameters. For example, how this or that political course of the country’s top leadership is expressed in specific values ​​of control parameters, i.e. in the distribution of the state budget, tax legislation, the value of discount rates for bank loans, the introduction of various types of import restrictions and export subsidies, etc. The researcher must compare the predicted policy course with the specific values ​​of the listed control parameters. There are no strictly logical, let alone formal, ways to solve this problem. To solve this problem, they usually use historical analogy, experience, intuition and ideas about non-formalized aspects of the mechanism of the system’s functioning.

Qualitative control alternatives and their quantitative analogues formulated at the intuitive-logical level of analysis are the starting point of an iterative heuristic man-machine procedure for selecting suitable ranges of control parameter values. Such procedures can usually be constructed based on forecast problems, accepted restrictions and characteristics of the forecast object.

Sometimes it is possible to use mathematical optimization methods for this purpose. This, first of all, applies to models of systems in which management is reduced to the distribution of any material resources. In this case, high-quality control alternatives can often be associated with a multicriteria objective function and the dynamic programming problem of finding an optimal control trajectory can be formulated. Experience shows that it is often possible to obtain a satisfactory approximation of this dynamic problem by solving a sequence of static mathematical programming problems at several points in the forecast period. The problem here lies mainly in the skillful and fairly correct scalarization of the vector objective function and the possibility of meaningful interpretation of this operation from the point of view of the essence of the predicted processes and the content of a high-quality control alternative.

The problem of determining the correspondence between the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the predicted system is solved within the framework of the general procedure for constructing scenarios. The ranges of values ​​of the system's control parameters determined at any stage of this procedure can be refined and sometimes completely changed.

The forecasting process usually ends with a final document, which contains:

Goals and objectives of the forecast;

A brief structured description of the forecast object, a hypothesis about the mechanism of its functioning, the adopted system of assumptions and restrictions;

Detailed description and interpretation of the developed scenarios and the corresponding development trends, indicating and discussing possible problem situations in the future;

Related information.

Mats Lindgren
Hans Bandhold Chapter from the book “Scenario Planning. The connection between the future and strategy"
Publishing house "Olympus-Business"

What is a script? Are all descriptions of the future scenarios? And what are scripts for?

There is no single definition of scenario or scenario planning. Different experts offer their own interpretations of these concepts:

• “An internally consistent view of what the future might turn out to be” (Michael Porter, 1985).
• “A tool for organizing existing ideas about possible conditions of activity in the future in which the decision made will be correct” (Peter Schwartz, 1991).
• “That element of strategic planning that is based on methods and technologies for managing the uncertainties of the future” (Jill Ringland, 1998).
• “A rational method of presenting plausible futures in which an organization's decisions might be realized” (Paul Shoemaker, 1995).

From the above definitions it is clear that the scenario is not a forecast, that is, a description of a relatively predictable development of events in the present. Nor is it a vision—a desired future. A scenario is a carefully thought-out answer to the question: “What is expected to happen?” or: “What happens if...?” Thus, a scenario is different from both a forecast and a vision, which tend to hide risks. The scenario, on the contrary, makes it possible to manage risks.

It is also clear that scenario planning involves not only the development of scenarios, but something more, more closely related to strategic planning. We'll come back to this a little later.

We all create scenarios. The human brain always generates scenarios for the near future. He runs ahead and processes information about what is about to happen. All living organisms, such as people and organizations, need a properly functioning feedback system to know what happened. We need to learn from what we have done. But to choose a future path, information about the future is needed. We need systems of “anticipatory communication with the future” (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Feedback: results of past events, evaluation

Even if the mind constantly creates scenarios, we (individuals or organizations) are much less likely to systematically develop them. Scenario planning in companies and organizations is mainly limited to attempts to imagine or calculate the consequences of alternative decisions. We ask ourselves what the consequences might be, for example, of a certain transaction or certain actions of one of our competitors. However, systematic work on scenarios of events in the external world is undoubtedly rare. One of the reasons is that such work requires more time and knowledge. If we look at scenario planning as more than just a pleasant mental exercise, then someone in the organization should be responsible for the continuity of the process, and one or more people should be responsible for drawing conclusions from the scenarios and analyzing the possible consequences for choosing strategies, etc.

Scenarios and other futures

We have already said that a scenario is different from a forecast and a vision. Scenarios are vivid descriptions of the most plausible futures. Figure 2 illustrates the differences between the three main future categories. Typically, the further ahead we look, the more opportunities we see. For example, I don’t have such a variety of options to choose from even a week in advance. The number of possible future events limited to one week is small. But if I look five, ten or more years into the future, there are many more alternatives. Some futures seem more likely than others today; some are preferable, some are more desirable, and desirable events often differ from the most probable. At the same time, the most desirable future, my own vision of how I would like to live my life, may not even fall into the circle of “possible” options.

In planning terms, we (both individuals and organizations) are constantly making plans that include forecasts, scenarios, and visions. As organizations, we often rigidly plan our actions based on various types of forecasts. In stable conditions and short time frames, forecasts are both necessary and actionable. We need risk reduction and certainty to make decisions. And this is exactly what the forecasts provide.

Figure 2. Relationships between possible, probable and desired futures

However, the further into the future we look, and the more complex the systems whose behavior we are trying to predict, the more unreliable this type of planning becomes. As uncertainty increases, there is a need for other planning tools to detect and study future business conditions to identify potential risks and prepare for not one, but many possible future alternatives.

At the same time, we cannot explore every possible future. To cope with a complex situation, it must be simplified. This is where script development comes into play. With skillfully designed scenarios, most uncertainties can be reduced to a few most likely alternative paths that together contain the most important uncertainties.

Forecasts are usually quantitative in form. But sometimes they are presented in scenario format and are more or less vivid descriptions of what is going to happen: what we will have to come to terms with and what we will have to overcome. This is true for vision as well. He is sometimes presented as the Future, but in a different sense. A vision describes a future worth striving for. But like a forecast, a vision hides risks. Vision is uncomplicated in nature. A strong, compelling vision that is simple and easy to understand, yet vague enough to captivate many. When implementing scenario projects, forecasts can be used as initial information. At the same time, an adjusted strategic vision is often one of the results of the scenario planning process.

Table 1. Differences between scenario, forecast, and vision

Scenario
Possible, most likely future options	Likely futures	Desired future
on uncertainty	on certain connections	Value based
Shows risks	Hides risks	Hides risks
Qualitative or quantitative	Quantitative	Usually high quality
Essential to know what decision to make	Needed to dare to make a decision	Encourages action
Rarely used	Used daily	Used relatively often
Effective in the medium to long term and under medium to high uncertainty	Effective in the short term and under low uncertainty	Acts as triggers for conscious transformations

Scenario planning: a training and planning tool

As we have already seen, scenario planning is an effective tool for medium- and long-term strategic planning in uncertain environments. It helps you hone your strategies, make contingency plans for unexpected developments, and stay in the right direction on the issues that really matter. But script writing is more than just a planning tool. It is also an effective teaching tool. The habit of thinking in scenarios helps us understand the logic of events, identify driving forces, key factors, key figures and our own ability to exert any influence. Scenario planning is planning for the future in an era when traditional strategic planning has become obsolete (Mintzberg, 1994).

As we'll see later, script development techniques (scenario engineering) are in fact often used to achieve several goals. Figure 3 illustrates aspects that we have discovered over the years of using scenario techniques in various projects. Sometimes scenarios are used in planning for the obvious purpose of achieving practical results. Industrial, technological or consumer scenarios can guide R&D, business or product development. A script can function both as a source of inspiration for ideas and as a filter through which new ideas and projects are filtered. In these cases, the scripts operate within a new business process. But they are also used for evaluation, such as testing existing business concepts, strategies or products.

Figure 3. Using scenario projects for different purposes and with different focus

Scenarios are sometimes used as a learning tool or as a force for change. They are a powerful tool for testing existing paradigms and assumptions, especially for those people who generate scenarios. Scenario working groups can therefore be considered a major asset to this process and the creation of shared perspectives for the future.

Scenario planning: the link between futures exploration and strategy

As we can see, scenario planning is a planning technique used in conditions of uncertainty in the future business environment. The differences between traditional approaches to strategic planning and scenario planning are shown in Table 2.

Clearly, scenario planning allows organizations to integrate discussions about medium- and long-term futures with short- and medium-term strategic planning.

From this perspective, the scenario planning process consists of two phases, linked by the scenarios created during the first phase (see Figure 4). Each phase includes several stages, some of which are more creative and intuitive, others more analytical.

Table 2. Comparison of traditional and scenario planning methods

Characteristic	Traditional planning	Scenario planning
Perspective	Partial: “Everything else is equally possible”	General: “Nothing is equally possible”
Variables	Quantitative, objective, known	Qualitative, not necessarily quantitative, subjective, known or hidden
	Statistical, stable structures	Dynamic, emergent structures
Explanation	The past explains the present	The future is the raison d'être of the present
Picture of the future	Simple and certain	Polysyllabic and vague
	Deterministic and quantitative models (economic and mathematical)	Intention analysis, qualitative and stochastic models (cross-factor and system analysis)
Attitude to the future	Passive or adaptive Active, creative (the future will come) (the future is being created)

Figure 4. Scenario planning as a combination of scenario analysis for strategic goals and strategic planning based on the results of the scenario generation phase

When should scenarios be used as a strategic planning tool? The simple answer to this question is: “When there is a reason.” And the reason to use scenarios in the process of working with strategy arises as soon as a significant amount of uncertainty appears in the context of decision-making. Scenarios are especially valuable when it comes to paradigmatic or non-linear changes, such as when product categories reach a level of “overmaturity” and need to be replaced by something new, or when competition breaks existing rules and creates new business logic, for example (see Scenarios). Fig. 5). Traditional linear planning is not adapted to such transformations, but scenario planning seems to be created for them.

It follows that in times of uncertainty, there is a special need for higher-level strategic thinking, combining future thinking (scenarios), based on uncertainty, and more traditional methods of strategic planning, allowing one to overcome the difficulties that arise in these conditions and take advantage of emerging opportunities (see Fig. 6). In reality, scenario development has a life of its own, separate from strategic planning. This makes future thinking a purely intellectual exercise, and strategic planning (at best) planning within an existing paradigm. Sometimes, but not often, this is enough.

Figure 5. Successful application of scenario planning to paradigmatic, nonlinear change

In today's ever-changing world, operational integration or process consolidation is clearly not enough. We also need strategic integration, forcing corporations to consider synergies between different products, technologies, markets, etc. and frequently adjust the business concept (see Figure 7). However, strategic integration is primarily about restructuring and renewing the present. In addition, corporations are increasingly in need of what could be called forward-looking integration, that is, the integration of different trajectories into the future and daily business planning. This is an indispensable condition for achieving success in the future. Integrating possible futures requires not only defining a new direction, but also new skills and tools to implement it. Scenario planning is one such method.

Figure 6. Developing Paradigm-Breaking Strategies: Integrating High-Level Strategic Thinking and Future Thinking

Figure 7. Three levels of integration in modern corporations

Why is such an effective tool as a script rarely used in practice?

From the above we can conclude that scripts are indeed a serious tool for a number of reasons. Let's list some of them.

• Brain compatible format. Script thinking fits the way the human brain functions. The narrative nature of scenarios (images, stories) makes them easy to remember. A person believes in what he can imagine.
• Mastering divergent thinking. The set of scenarios should represent qualitatively different futures.

By forcing your mind to think in qualitatively different directions, you develop your ability to think about the unimaginable and thus become better at anticipating unusual events. An open format, where there is no “right” or “wrong,” also facilitates collaborative exploration of the future.

• Difficulty level reduction format. Scenarios are used to simplify complex business or general conditions to a level of uncertainty that can be realistically managed. Scripts facilitate the process of simplifying conditions without reducing them to primitiveness.
• Communication format. Scenarios are easy to tell and discuss. A common set of scenarios compiled in a given organization helps to find a common language and develop a common vision of the world, which facilitates decision-making.

But if scripts are such a powerful tool, why aren't they used more widely? There are four reasons for this.

• Uncertainty about conclusions. Scenario planning does not provide one single answer about the future. Therefore, it does not guarantee the reliability that is often needed in decision making. Scenario planning is a process that requires more effort and expense than traditional planning.
• Contradiction to the principle of ease of control. Another feature of scenarios is that scenario planning is not consistent with the principle of simplicity of management, which states that there is only one correct answer to each question, that each problem can be divided into three parts, each of which can be solved separately. Scenario planning is a more holistic, or systems, approach to planning than traditional methods.
• "Soft" methods and "soft" answers. Scenario methods are usually qualitative and rely on the recognition of logical reasoning and intuitive thinking, although careful analysis is often part of the process. Scenario results are often presented in qualitative terms, which is not well suited to traditional, numbers-oriented cultures.
• Time costs. Another reason that scenario-based projects are rarely used by senior management is that team-based methods require significant time commitment, requiring participants to spend hours or even days to obtain reliable results. To avoid this, we often recommend designs where important internal stakeholders are brought in at the climax, but the project team itself is made up of specially selected people with the necessary skills, mindset and, importantly, enough time.

What makes a good script?

This book is about scenario planning: we deal with scenarios in the context of strategic planning. But how do you determine in this context whether a script is good?

There are seven simple criteria that a good set of scenarios, written with strategic objectives, must meet.

• Potential for decision making. Each scenario in the set, and the set as a whole, should provide ideas useful to the issue at hand. Most of these kits, both for companies and industries, do not have this quality and need to be supplemented if decisions are to be made based on them.
• Realism. The scenarios developed should reflect future events that can actually happen.
• Alternatives. Every scenario should be, at least to some extent, probable, although it is not necessary to calculate its probability precisely. Ideally, all scenarios are more or less equally likely, then their entire set covers the maximum range of uncertainty. If, for example, only one of three or four scenarios is likely, then you really only have one scenario.
• No internal contradictions. Each script must be internally consistent, without which it cannot be trusted. The logic behind the script is extremely important.
• Differentiation. The scenarios must be qualitatively or structurally different from each other. Note: it is not enough for them to differ only in scale, since then these will only be variants of the basic scenario.
• Memorability. Scenarios should be such that they can be easily remembered and distinguished from each other, even after presentation. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit ourselves to three to five options, although theoretically we can remember and distinguish between seven and eight scenarios. Original names help with this.
• Examination. The final criterion is to actually test, using a scenario, the organization's future information.

Scenario development

There are numerous scripting techniques designed to achieve different goals.

There are three main types of scenarios: based on observed trends, contrasting and standard - associated with probable, possible and desirable/undesirable future options. Business decisions are formulated and tested using trend scenarios (the most likely type in a business or decision context) and standard scenarios (visions or scenarios that break existing rules). Sets of contrasting scenarios serve to explore the conditions under which a decision will be made, evaluate existing concepts and other factors, and make better decisions. It is sets of contrasting scenarios that we mean when we talk about scenario planning.

Ways to develop scenarios

There are different methods for conducting the scripting process. The simplest of them is the expert model, when the work is performed by one person or a small group of employees (see Table 3).

In the participatory model, the expert acts as a project leader and works together with a group of employees in the organization. In this case, the result belongs to the group. An employee of the organization or an external specialist can act as an expert developer. In many cases, it is desirable to invite external facilitators or even working group members at some stages of the scenario development process to provide independent input into the process.

Table 3. Three scenario design models

Characteristic
	expert	participative	organizational
The developer acts		With a group within the organization	Trains or instructs employees of the organization
Control	The developer controls the process	The developer participates in the process and leads it	The developer remains outside the process
Result	Represented by the developer	Belongs to and appears to be a group	Owned by organization
Relationship	The developer completes the tasks	The developer maintains contact with the group	The developer transfers responsibility to the group

In the organizational model, an expert trains a group of company employees who then perform the work. In this case, the result belongs entirely to the organization or its group that implemented the project.

One form of the participatory model, involving a program of workshops and dialogues with key players, is often preferred.

A Brief History of Scenario Planning

As neuroscientist David Ingvar has noted, Homo sapiens is by nature a scripting animal. Be that as it may, the modern development of the science of scripting began only in the last period of human history.

Origins of scenario planning

In short, scenario planning as it is found in business around the world has two main sources. The first is futurology, where scenario analysis has become an important method from the very beginning, and scenarios have become an effective presentation format.

The second source is strategy, where specialists and managers have been searching for new and more relevant tools to solve complex problems since the 1970s. While futurists used scenarios as a means of analyzing, discussing, and communicating “big issues,” strategists became interested in them as an effective planning tool. The questions were primarily about what should be done, not about what might happen.

A third source of scenario planning emerged in the 1990s, developing from the tradition of organizational development and learning. With the help of scholars and writers such as Peter Senge (author of The Fifth Discipline), organizational learning, shared vision and understanding of the world, and collectively developed strategies have come into the spotlight. The working group methodology was recognized as an excellent format for carrying out such activities.

Both futurology and strategy are young, immature sciences that are at the intersection of many disciplines. They have emerged and developed over the past four decades in response to the emergence of more complex global problems and transnational organizations. Strategic planning was developed in the 1960s by scholars such as Chandler, Ansoff, Lawrence, and Lorsch; During this period, a number of schools and traditions appeared in it. From the very beginning, the ability to cope with uncertainty was considered, as J. D. Thompson put it, “the essence of the administrative process.”

Futurology

Futurology dates back to ancient prophets, mystics and artists such as Thomas More (Utopia, 1516), Francis Bacon (The New Atlantis, 1626) and Edward Bellamy (“Looking Back”) (Edward Bellamy. Looking Backwards, 1888). It took its more modern form in the 1940s and 1950s, when Bertrand de Jouvenel, Robert Jungk, Hermann Kahn and others developed methodologies and perspectives for solving the problems of the future. The European School, represented by Jouvenel and Jungk, and later by institutions such as the Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies and the Swedish Secretariat for Future Studies, was more oriented towards quality and policy-making , rather than the American school of futurology. The emphasis was on possible and desirable rather than probable futures. During the heyday of futurology (1970s), a number of institutions and organizations emerged to study the future. Futurology became an academic discipline with a master's degree; associations such as the World Future Society and the World Future Studies Federation were founded. The study of the future was often comprehensive and extensive, touching on such important issues as the world's natural resources, population growth, conflict between North and South, and "The Next 200 Years" (the title of the book by Herman Kahn, published in 1978). ). Perhaps the most famous work of this period is the book Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome (1972). The works of some independent thinkers also became bestsellers, such as Alvin Toffler's Future Shock (1973) and Daniel Bell's The Post-Industrial Society (1976).

During the planning crisis of the 1980s, the focus of futurology shifted from extensive research to "pop futurology". Authors such as John Naisbitt (Megatrends) and, more recently, Faith Popcorn, became the new stars of futurology. Since about the 1990s, this science has been experiencing something of a renaissance. Foresight projects were adopted by government agencies as tools for policy-making, and scenario-building became almost a part of the everyday toolkit. At the same time, a flood of books describing new technologies, new paradigms, and a new economy poured onto the market. The most ambitious of these was Manuel Castel's seminal work, The Network Society, which has been compared to Karl Marx's work on the industrial age.

Strategy

There are a number of definitions of the concept “strategy”. The root is the Greek word strategos, meaning "general." The Greek word stratego means “to plan the destruction of one's opponents through the efficient use of resources” (Braker, 1980), implying the military skill of a general.

James Brian Quinn more precisely defined strategy as a model or plan that integrates into a single whole an organization's main goals, policies and actions. A well-formulated strategy helps align and allocate resources, creating a unique and viable position based on internal competencies and weaknesses, expected changes in the business environment and possible moves by smart competitors.

But what does the concept of “strategy” mean in practice? Are successful strategies actually planned or do they just happen (Mintzberg, 1994)? Can we tell in advance which strategy will be good, or can we only figure it out in hindsight? Although strategy as a science has existed for about 40 years, the field of strategic management is now more than ever characterized by opposing and competing paradigms (Hamel and Heene, 1994). So far, no agreement has been reached on such basic questions as “What does strategic management theory do?” or “What should she do?”

As we have already said, the beginning of strategic research in management goes back to the early work of theorists - Chandler, Ansoff, Lawrence and Lorch, Thompson and Andrews 14. The concept of strategy was to develop an optimal strategy or to formulate a strategic plan. In the 1970s, strategy became a scientific discipline with its own journals and societies, such as the Strategic Management Society, founded in 1982, where theorists and practitioners exchange experiences.

A new wave of research in the field of strategic management marked the 1980s. Following the work of Miles and Snow (1978) and Porter (1980; 1985), strategic content analysis began to develop, focusing on the distinctive features of successful strategies rather than how they were formed. In the 1990s, another revolution occurred, shifting the focus from the content of strategy to the process of strategic decision making, the hypercompetitive and hypervelocity business environment, organizational capabilities, and the evolutionary aspects of strategy 15 .

In the 1990s, even more companies and industries faced rapid and constant change. A large number of studies have focused on firms operating in such highly unstable, uncertain and hostile environments. It turns out that such conditions require the use of innovative differentiation strategies in combination with organic, specialized and integrated enterprises 16 .

Consequently, in turbulent business environments, strategy is more likely to be defined as a position or combination of activities aimed at achieving an advantage over competitors, rather than as a plan to destroy the enemy 17. Lengnick-Hall and Wolf (1999) identified three main schools of thought in the 1990s. The first comes from the logic of capabilities (capability logic), emphasizing the need for higher-level resources. The second adheres to the logic of guerrilla warfare, focusing on the importance of speed of action. The third is based on the logic of complexity (complexity logic), which emphasizes a deeper understanding of the hidden forces and attractive opportunities in given conditions. The scenario planning perspective is able to bring them all together.

Scenario planning

Let's return to scenario planning. Most authors associate the modern tradition of screenplay development with the name of Herman Kahn and the RAND Corporation, active in the 1950s. G. Kahn developed a scenario technique, which he called “future - now” thinking. He used the term scenario when it was considered obsolete in Hollywood and was officially replaced by the word screenplay. The scenarios he developed were part of military strategy research conducted at RAND for the US government. G. Kahn later extended the use of scripts to other fields after he founded the Hudson Institute in the mid-1960s. In his numerous studies and books, he actively promotes the idea that “we need to think about the unthinkable.”

In the 1970s, scenario planning spread beyond RAND and the Hudson Institute. Large companies (Royal Dutch/Shell) and consulting firms (SRI International and Batelle) have made scenarios part of their strategic arsenal, and scenario planning has thus become more closely linked to strategy. Shell is also commonly cited as a pioneer in the use of scenarios as a strategic tool to shape the business environment. Pierre Wack, Ari de Ge and Kees van der Heijden are just some of the names of the famous script development masters of the time. Back in 1967, Pierre Wack and Ted Newland suggested that thinking six years ahead was not enough, and began to plan until the year 2000. When the Arab–Israeli War broke out on the Day of Atonement, Shell was prepared. The ability to anticipate possible futures and act quickly is widely considered to be the main reason for a company's success in recent years (van der Heijden, 1996).

Scenario thinking entered business when the Stanford Research Institute began offering long-term planning to businesses and organizations like the Hudson Institute began seeking corporate sponsors for their projects. Shell's success in using scenario planning contributed greatly to the fact that most of the companies on Fortune magazine's list of the 1000 most famous American corporations began to use scenarios in one way or another during the 1970s.

In the 1970s, a number of government organizations were allocated funds to study the future. Many of them, notably the Swedish Secretariat for Futurology, have made scenario planning a central tool for studying the future.

However, the age of scenario planning in the 1970s was short-lived. The recession that followed the oil crises of the second half of the 1970s forced corporations to downsize. Overly simplified scenarios began to be criticized, often justifiably. This, along with long-established habits of rigid long-term planning and an inability to distinguish scenarios from forecasts, has caused corporations to revert to more traditional ways of planning.

The planning crises of the 1980s sparked renewed interest in how planning occurs and led many futuristic research consultancies to develop scenario planning methodologies. The upheavals of the 1990s and the renewed interest in managing uncertainty through scenario thinking and planning led all major consulting firms to create their own scenario techniques. Scenarios continue to play a vital role at Shell today, and although it is often referred to as the champion of scenarios, over the last decade scenario planning for abrupt changes in business conditions has become a more or less commonplace tool for most companies and consulting firms.

TAIDA™: algorithm for thinking about the future

As we have already seen, the brain primarily functions as a script-generating organ. In this sense, it constantly scans the environment, processes the information received, tries to understand it, determines alternative future paths, possible goals and actions, decides what to do, and ensures that the necessary steps are taken.

By transforming this process into a scenario planning framework, we can talk about the brain's inherent "TAIDA" process. In addition, TAIDA is the name of an algorithm that we have developed and used for ten years to carry out hundreds of scenario planning projects for public and private companies and organizations. Let us remind you that the abbreviation TAIDA means:

• Observation: We monitor changes and signs of threats and potential opportunities;
• analysis: we analyze the consequences and generate scenarios;
• image creation: we identify opportunities and create a vision of the desired development of events;
• decision making: we weigh information, determine alternatives and strategies;
• action: we set short-term goals, take the first steps and follow through with our activities.

If you compare the TAIDA algorithm with key organizational abilities (namely the ability to quickly notice changes, navigate, make decisions and act), you will notice that this is the same scheme. “Observation” is associated with the ability to “notice” changes, “analysis” and “image creation” - with “orientation”, “image creation” and “decision making” - with “decision making”, and “action”, naturally, with the ability to "act".

Observation: Stay alert

All living beings must be aware of the dangers lurking in their immediate environment. This statement is as true for an antelope on the savannah as it is for a teenager in the back streets of the Bronx. A temporary loss of attention can mean death.

What applies to individuals, be it people or animals, also applies to organizations, companies and countries. Just as an antelope is forced to listen to sounds and smell the air in order to notice the approach of danger in time, an organization must listen to the slightest, perhaps weak, signals from the outside. And, like an antelope, an organization must learn to catch the right signs, that is, those that warn of danger awaiting it.

However, there are other signals that are vital for antelopes, people and organizations: they indicate in which direction to move to find "greener pastures." Usually such signs are very difficult to recognize. Often there is no indication in the environment that the grass is greener 20 kilometers to the west. There is no evidence of this on earth.

In such a situation, it is necessary to find signals that will tell you where to move.

The danger lies in our inability to discover the unexpected, in our tendency to look where the light is.

Analysis: what's really happening?

When you are doing something interesting and see that the usual order is changing in a certain way, questions often arise: what will happen if events continue to develop in the same direction; what the consequences of these events will be for us and for others; What connections exist between changes in this and other areas?

If observation serves to detect changes, identify patterns, trends, threats and opportunities, then analysis is concerned with determining the future consequences of changes occurring in the present, possible interactions between various trends and tendencies. Analysis occurs at the stage following the one we called observation. It aims to answer questions such as: what is happening in what appears to be happening; Which trends are long-term and which are fleeting?

But the purpose of the analysis can also be a deeper study of creative, intuitively composed scenarios, models, visions. This raises questions: what conditions are necessary for the scenario to become reality; how valid is this model; what are its vulnerabilities; What are its strengths?

Creating an image: making a dream come true

The purpose of observation is to detect changes and make contact with them. The purpose of analysis is to understand the forces driving change and their apparent mutual influence, as well as to derive patterns and connections from the information obtained. The purpose of creating an image is more illusory. The essence of this process is a more intuitive approach to considering changes and directions of events, not only for intellectual comprehension, but also for the formation of emotional meaning. This is what happens when we implement future alternatives. Creating images in the brain allows us to establish an emotional connection with the future options we face. We can gain insight into our own intentions, desires, and attitudes, and thus lay a solid foundation for strategic choices.

Only those who actually want to create something achieve success. This is well known to sports psychologists. The key to success in sports, naturally, is action. To reach the top, an athlete must train, train, train, no matter the rain or snow. But to train hard, he must really strive for that peak. And desire is often associated with the ability to build a value system. Training makes sense because I have the prospect of success. I know I can get the results I want, such as the speed needed to win international competitions.

What most great athletes have in common is that they have made their victories a reality time after time. When Bob Beaman set his “unbreakable” record in the long jump at the Olympic Games in Mexico City (1968), the external conditions, as we know, were favorable: the air at this altitude was thin and there was a light tailwind. But few people know that he had already made this jump and knew that a record was possible. He jumped mentally.

Decision making: choice and refusal

When a person makes decisions concerning himself, participates in decision-making in meetings, or is faced with a choice of how to act in a certain situation at work or in his personal life, he does so for more or less compelling reasons, but always with a clear idea of ​​​​what he wants to achieve . A person needs a result that he clearly sees with his inner gaze.

The solution lies in the path between vision and action. The choice of direction, sometimes irrevocable, is the moment of truth. Therefore, some decisions are difficult to make, especially the decision to take a step and give up something.

Vision and decision are thought processes that occur in a social and professional context. The methods and methods for creating a vision are varied and less developed than the decision-making procedure, which is reduced to certain schemes and is well known. A vision expresses what is desirable, what is worth striving for. The decision-making process is specific; it includes assessment and verification.

The ability to make a decision and connect it to a specific action distinguishes the entrepreneur from the dreamer. A dreamer can skillfully assess the prospects of certain steps, knowing what should and what can be taken. But when the time comes to act, he is unable to make a decision. A person with well-developed intuition, focused on possibilities, often finds it difficult to decide to take action. He needs a more reliable basis for this. There are so many possibilities! And if you wait a little, there will be even more of them...

Action: presence and learning

Learning can be called mastering the art of integrating new information into old knowledge with a clear goal. For an organization to learn something, it must consist of people who can pick up signals from within and without, people who work and act, and their work is aimed at results. Thus, getting things done and taking action are key skills needed in the learning process, just like purpose and vision.

Both “doing” and “doing” are operational skills that are key to organizational success and survival. Naturally, in every organization something is done, some actions are taken, but the results vary greatly. An organization will be most effective, and likely most successful, if every employee learns to anticipate, act, and stay one step ahead of events. Then you won’t have to waste time and energy dealing with emergency situations.

In order for the activity to achieve the expected result and remain focused throughout the planned period, it is essential that it does not diverge from the vision. This “focused” activity is one of the key factors for efficiency and success. Personnel and the organization as a whole can influence and learn from such activities. This is reminiscent of the Chinese gymnastics tai chi, where you need to concentrate to the limit to perform the movement as accurately as possible and with the least amount of energy, or tennis, where the athlete is focused on fighting for every point, and not on the final result. The athlete reads the opponent's movements and can understand in advance where the ball will land. This gives him the opportunity to take the desired position and focus on the return strike. But to act like this requires vision - balance and perfection in tai chi and a winning shot and drive to win in tennis. For you and me, the essence of this issue is to maintain the vision as a guide, ignoring everything that is not relevant, learning to rely on what we understand intuitively, and doing what really matters.

Scenario planning and leadership

At what stage do scenario planning and future thinking become part of leadership and management systems? Let us end this introduction by placing scenario planning in a broader context.

Figure 8. Two “brain hemispheres” of the organization

As a starting point, you can choose a diagram of the company as a system that includes two subsystems, the goals of which are to a certain extent different. The system on the right side of Figure 8 is focused on development and learning, identifying changes in the world around us, new needs, challenges and developing responses. All actions in a given system have a qualitative expression - it is a matter of inclination, involvement and energy. The system on the left side of the figure focuses on output, efficiency and results. The indicators in this system are quantitative. The two systems are comparable to the two hemispheres of the organization's brain. In this diagram, control has three dimensions:

• creative: focused on development and renewal. The guiding principle is process and vision control;
• efficient: focused on production and results. The guiding principle is goal management;
• integrating: combines the activities of both hemispheres of the brain into a single whole. It has three aspects:

  Planning, that is, introducing structures into the creative right hemisphere of the brain and turning ideas and visions into concrete goals and plans;

  Decision making related to conflict management, knowing when new ideas are needed and when to follow a plan;

  Support that brings desire and a sense of belonging to the daily functioning of the left hemisphere of the brain.

It is clear from Figure 8 that scenario planning is a leadership tool primarily for the right hemisphere of the brain and for integrating the functions of both hemispheres. When we come to the question of applying strategies that emerged from scenario planning, we delve into the activity of the left hemisphere of the brain.

Paradoxes in scenario planning

From the above, it is clear that scenario planning is not yet a well-defined industry. Rather, it represents a variety of disciplines and methods that can be used in a variety of contexts in different ways and for different purposes. Consequently, the field of scenario planning is replete with contradictions and paradoxes that must be dealt with before and during scenario development. To summarize, we will name just a few of them.

• Planning and training. What is the main purpose of this activity?
• Complexity and simplification. Rich, complex scenario sets are useful if you want to explore alternatives or prepare for the future, but they don't provide the simplicity and reliability that most managers crave.
• Complexity and limited range of possibilities. The set of scenarios should be sufficiently comprehensive to cover the most relevant aspects of external uncertainty. However, the mind's ability to cope with a large number of scenarios is limited, and the brain can realistically process only three to five options.
• Divergent and convergent thinking. Effective scenario writing requires both divergent (alternative, creative) and convergent (analytical) thinking. However, a person is not always able to think both ways. The divergent phase of thinking should be separated from the convergent phase.
• Process and analysis. The process of creating a scenario, which aims to develop a general perspective on the conditions under which a decision will have to be made or on future prospects, does not always lead to better analysis.
• Creating uncertainty and managing uncertainty. Scenario techniques are sometimes used to find ways to create uncertainty in a business environment (for others), as well as to manage the main aspects of uncertainty.
• Innovation and evaluation. Scenario planning associated with the introduction of innovations is, of course, different from processes whose purpose is to evaluate existing concepts, strategies, etc.
• Long-term and short-term. For short periods, trend-based scenarios are often sufficient since most changes have already occurred. For the long term, uncertainty and discreteness of the business environment play a critical role. When the focus is on action, short-term assessment is appropriate. However, for the sake of relevance of arguments when making short-term decisions, it is still necessary to take into account long-term prospects.
• Forecasts for the future and analysis of the past. Scenarios can be developed either from the present to the future, or using a retrospective approach, analyzing past events.
• Thinkers and decision makers. To what extent should line managers and other decision makers be involved in the process? After all, on the one hand, there is often a risk that internal intrigues can complicate the process, but, on the other hand, the likelihood of implementing the decisions made increases.
• Internal perspectives and involvement of external participants (consultants, experts, clients). Script creation processes can take place without the participation of outside people. External experts provide useful input through new perspectives and ideas, but their presence often makes the discussion less open.
• A complete scenario and a scenario that allows for equally probable outcomes. Scenarios are most often used to make a specific decision, but they are also suitable for research purposes, for analyzing different scenarios.
• Intuition or scientific justification. At its core, scenario building is a creative and intuitive process. However, this process must be based on a careful study of past and present conditions, possible future paths and trends.
• Intellectuality and emotionality. Scenario planning is an intellectual process because it deals with what is likely to happen. However, in order for reflection to influence decision making, the heart must be involved in the process. Decision makers must be passionate, concerned or enthusiastic, and therefore emotional.
• Advocating a point of view and dialogue. Open dialogue is essential to developing good scripts. However, a reasoned defense of certain scenarios can invigorate the discussion and sharpen logic and argument, as long as the defense does not go to extremes.
• Skepticism and competence. Knowledge and experience are always necessary in scenario planning, but they are not self-sufficient. Reasonable skepticism, questioning conventional concepts and prejudices, must also be present.
• Quantitative and qualitative. Scenarios are, in principle, imaginary constructs. But in order to obtain a certain degree of reliability and persuasiveness, they must be based on quantitative facts and have a quantitative expression.
• Probability and credibility. Should scenarios reflect plausible futures (which is necessary for making short-term decisions), plausible distant future alternatives, or both?

When can you use scripting techniques?

It's time to sum up some results (draw some conclusions). Let's start with the question of when scripting techniques can be used.

In the planning cycle, from condition analysis (observation) to execution (action), scenario creation methods are used at several stages (see Figure 9). These methods are effective tools for identifying environmental changes and opportunities. Both trend-based and contrasting alternative scenarios can be used as a basis for formulating and selecting strategic issues. We will explain in more detail how this is done later. The selected issues and identified consequences of changes in the business environment are used to develop strategic alternatives. Often scripts are used directly for this purpose. When constructing composite strategies based on strategic alternatives, one cannot rely directly on scenarios, but they and scenario techniques can be used to select and evaluate new or existing strategies.

Figure 9. Various situations in the planning process in which scenarios can be used

All this is true when developing a vision. For strategic management, the fundamental (most important) is the correspondence of vision, goals, resources and competencies to the created environment. Scenario techniques are useful for formulating a strategic vision that creates the perspective and therefore the energy necessary for the organization to exist.

Implementing a strategy is just as, if not more, important than developing it. Without competent and effective implementation, creating a strategy will remain just an intellectual exercise. Practical implementation does not often use scenarios, but scenarios and vision could act as guidelines. But when developing plans for implementing a strategy “in the language” of the organization’s needs, production rules, etc. Scripting techniques are just as useful in developing corporate and business strategies. Finally, scenarios are used to evaluate the company's success and the chosen course of action. “Are we going in the right direction with scenarios of plausible changes in business conditions and their alternatives?” is a question that many organizations need to ask more often.

The translation of the novel was published under the titles “Look Back” and “Golden Age”. — Note. editor.

Research Center in Santa Monica, PC. California. One of the largest "brain trusts" in the country. — Note. translator

A research center that studies trends in economic, technological and political development in the United States and the world. — Note. translator

War of 1973. The Arabs launched an attack on Israel on October 6, coinciding with the Jewish celebration of the Day of Atonement. — Note. editor.

In the work of situation centers, the scenario method has become widely known (see, for example,), which allows one to outline the most likely course of events and the likely consequences of decisions made.

Scenarios for the development of the analyzed situation developed by specialists make it possible, with one or another level of reliability, to determine possible development trends, relationships between existing factors, and to form a picture of states. to which the situation may come under the influence of certain influences.

Professionally developed scenarios provide a more complete and clear definition of the prospects for the development of the situation both in the presence of various control influences and in their absence.

In addition, scenarios for the expected development of the situation create conditions for timely awareness of dangers that could lead to unsuccessful management actions or unfavorable developments.

Comparison and assessment of possible scenarios for the development of the situation, caused by various control influences and background factors independent of the actions of the manager, contribute to the adoption of, sometimes, the only correct decisions.

It is believed that scenarios began to be used to predict the development of complex systems Herman Kahn. The first scenarios developed were primarily descriptive. Subsequently, the scenario method was largely developed due to more accurate qualitative-quantitative models.

The scenario method involves the creation of technologies for developing scenarios that provide a higher probability of developing an effective solution in situations where this is possible, and a higher probability of minimizing expected losses in situations where losses are inevitable.

Currently, various implementations of the scripting method are known, such as:

• - obtaining a consensus opinion;
• - repeating procedure of independent scenarios;
• - use of interaction matrices, etc. (see, for example, , , ).

Method for obtaining a consensus opinion is, in essence, one of the implementations of the Delphi method, aimed at obtaining the collective opinion of various groups of experts regarding major events in a particular area in a given period of the future.

The disadvantages of this method include insufficient attention paid to the interdependence and interaction of various factors influencing the development of events, the dynamics of the situation.

Method of Iterative Combination of Independent Scenarios consists of drawing up independent scenarios for each of the aspects that have a significant impact on the development of the situation, and a repeating iterative process of agreeing on scenarios for the development of various aspects of the situation.

The advantage of this method is an in-depth analysis of the interaction of various aspects of the development of the situation.

Its disadvantages include the insufficient development and methodological support of scenario approval procedures.

Method of mutual influence matrices, developed by Gordon and Helmer, involves determining, taking into account expert assessments, the potential mutual influence of events in the population under consideration.

Estimates that connect all possible combinations of events by their strength, distribution in time, etc., make it possible to refine the initial estimates of the probabilities of events and their combinations.

The disadvantages of the method include the complexity of obtaining a large number of estimates and processing them correctly.

Paper 1271 sets out a methodology for constructing scenarios, which involves preliminary determination of the space of parameters characterizing the system.

State of the system at a point in time t is point 5(0 in this parameter space. Determining possible trends in the development of the situation makes it possible to calculate the probable direction of evolution of the position of the system in the space of identified parameters 5(d) at various points in time in the future S(t+ 1), S(t+ 2) etc.

If there are no control actions, then it is assumed that the system will evolve in the most probable direction.

Control actions are equivalent to the influence of forces that can change the direction of the trajectory S(t).

Naturally, control actions must be considered taking into account the limitations imposed by both external and internal factors.

This technology for developing scenarios involves considering the position of the system at discrete moments in time. t,t+ 1, t + 2.....

In this case, it is assumed that the point corresponding to the system 5(0 in the parameter space is located in a cone that expands with distance from the initial moment of time I.

At some point in time t + T it is expected that the system will be located in the section of the cone corresponding to the moment of time t + T.

Control actions lead to a shift in the position of the system in the parameter space. In this case, it is also advisable to consider only discrete points, paying special attention to the most probable points. With such an analysis, it is necessary to foresee the possibility of the occurrence of additional internal stresses between the elements of the system, since they can also change the position of the system in the parameter space.

To assess stress, appropriate economic or social indicators can be used, as well as threshold values ​​of indicators, above which the position of the system can change significantly.

Control actions in some cases can be aimed at preventing indicator threshold values ​​from being exceeded if the goal is to maintain stability.

In some cases, you can purposefully strive to exceed the threshold values ​​of indicators, if this corresponds to the objectives set for the system.

One of the most important results of using this type of scenario method, as well as its other varieties, is a better understanding of the analyzed situation and the main patterns and features of its development.

A variation of the scenario method proposed in . The authors emphasize that their method of developing scenarios refers to the analysis of possible rather than probable futures.

Indeed, a deeper understanding of the situation obtained in the process of developing the forecast presupposes, as a next step, the development of a system of influences that can change the considered scenarios for the development of the situation. And the probable future may turn out to be adjusted.

The method developed by the authors provides for the selection of only variables that are directly related to the development of the analyzed system, be it an environmental control system or a process control system in an existing production, etc.

Provision is made for selecting among a variety of possible scenarios that are most suitable for subsequent analysis, as well as procedures for using computers to develop undistorted scenario forecasts.

Let us consider the listed procedures in more detail. Before starting to develop a scenario, it is expected to analyze the situation, identify the main active forces, the relationships between the main factors operating in it, and perform the necessary detailing and structuring of the situation.

The selection of variables in this method is carried out by experts.

Forecasts for the development of the situation are analyzed, with the possible use of content analysis, and variables that are part of the logical reasoning of experts and their relationships are identified. The key task is to obtain a set of essential variables that sufficiently fully characterize the development of the analyzed situation.

The next step is to determine for each variable the appropriate scale within which it could be measured. Since in real situations, along with quantitative variables, qualitative ones are also used, it is planned to develop a verbal-numerical scale for each variable, containing both numerical values ​​of gradations and their meaningful description.

If the variables are continuous, then it is advisable to isolate their characteristic values ​​for use in analyzing the situation. In some cases, information about variables can be presented in the form of some kind of thesaurus, which reflects basic information, both quantitative and descriptive, allowing a fairly complete representation of the variable.

An unjustified increase in the number of variables complicates the analysis of the situation, while at the same time their excessive generalization (aggregation) also complicates the analysis.

The main purpose of the script is to provide a key to understanding the problem. When analyzing a specific situation, the variables that characterize it take on the corresponding values ​​- certain gradations of the verbal-numerical scales of each of the variables.

All values ​​of paired interactions between variables that have a mutual influence during the development of a given situation are determined. This interaction between variables is usually represented in matrix form.

After developing and presenting a scenario using variables and assessing their interaction and internal consistency, it is possible, using verbal-numerical scales, to present the scenario in the form of a meaningful description. This form often turns out to be more convenient when preparing a report on the work done.

Sometimes it is advisable to include in the script the background to the development of the situation being analyzed.

A distinctive feature of the presented method is its multivariance, i.e. consideration of several alternative options for the possible development of the situation, taking into account the basic scenarios.

By grouping scenarios into classes, it is possible to determine a rational strategy for influencing the situation.

As a rule, data on several likely scenarios for the development of a situation are more informative than one single scenario, and contribute to making more effective decisions.

Another feature of this method is that it becomes possible to estimate the value of the interaction of variables only at the boundaries of the region of acceptable values, and not over the entire region, as is assumed in the method using interaction matrices.

The use of special computer programs, as well as random number sensors, followed by cutting off impossible situations to generate alternative scenarios, expands the horizon of analysis of possible situations in the future.

The developed wide range of possible alternative options for the development of the situation allows us to more fully determine critical situations for decision-making, as well as determine the possible consequences of the proposed alternative solutions in order to compare them and select the most effective one.

What is the scripting method? Note that it can be used to assess the likely course of certain events, as well as to foresee the consequences of decisions made. For example, you can predict the feasibility of opening a children's entertainment center, calculate profits, and anticipate possible losses.

Importance of technology

The scenario method is widely used in the activities of prognostic centers. Specialists who create options for the development of a certain situation identify the final results with one or another level of reliability. They look for relationships with existing factors, form a picture, and try to select options that will help eliminate the cause of the problem. For example, you can assume the effectiveness of creating a beauty salon in a small town, and for this you should get acquainted with the prices for services, offers of competitors, etc.

Specific Features

If the scenario method is used by specialists, then it is possible to draw up a clear and complete development of the situation and identify various options for managing it.

The use of the scenario method makes it possible to timely search for and understand identified dangers that may negatively affect the development of events and lead to unsuccessful management actions. For example, some people, before starting their own business, calculate the competition for the business in order to avoid bankruptcy.

History of appearance

There is a version that the script method was first used by Herman Kahn. Kahn compared and assessed various scenarios for the development of a specific situation, trying to find the only correct way to solve the problem. At first, the method of scenario analysis was only descriptive in nature, then it began to be actively used in the compilation of quantitative and qualitative models of the situation. Today, not a single new enterprise is opened without preliminary calculations.

Efficiency of application

The scenario development method is concerned with the creation of project development technologies that will provide the most effective solution in specific situations. If possible, such technology should minimize losses in the worst-case scenario.

Implementation methods

Currently, the risk scenario method exists in several interpretations:

• obtaining a consensus opinion;
• application of interaction matrices;
• repetition of independent scenarios.

Coordination of expert opinion

Experts consider the scenario method by obtaining a consensus opinion to be one of the varieties of the Delphi technique. It is based on obtaining a consensus opinion from different groups of experienced experts regarding some important event in a certain area for a long-term period.

This method has certain disadvantages. First of all, among its disadvantages, we name insufficient attention to the relationship and interaction of various factors that influence the dynamics of the development of the situation, changing the course of events.

Repeating scenarios

The use of the scenario method involves the compilation of independent scenarios for individual aspects by different experts. This process is repeated after a certain period of time. Then the most acceptable options are agreed upon and all possible negative consequences of their implementation in practice are considered.

Among the main advantages of this approach is an in-depth analysis of the interaction of different aspects of the formation of the situation. Experts consider its main disadvantages to be insufficient provision and incomplete methodological development of the procedure for coordinating various scenarios.

Gordon and Helmer developed their own scenario method. Their technique is now called the interaction matrix method. Its essence lies in the fact that the potential relationship of events is determined taking into account all. Thanks to an analysis of the situation carried out by specialists, linking all permissible combinations of events according to their strength and change over time, it is possible to clarify the initial opinion about the likelihood of an event occurring, and search for optimal combinations for a positive resolution of the problem .

The disadvantage of this approach is the complexity of obtaining a huge number of estimates and carrying out the procedure for processing and adjusting them.

Features of calculations

You can calculate the probable directions of development of the system using mathematical formulas. In the absence of managerial influences, it is assumed that the process of system evolution will occur in the most probable direction.

Managerial influences are proportional to the action of forces that can change the direction of the development trajectory. Of course, it is important to consider them with the obligatory consideration of certain limitations that are imposed by both external and internal factors.

This technology for developing scenarios allows for determining the state of the analyzed system in discrete time intervals.

Management influences contribute to a shift in the state of the system in space and cause deviations from the planned development of the current situation. As a result of such deviation, there is a need for additional search.

In some cases, control actions are aimed at maintaining stability and protecting against the development of a scenario along a negative path.

Results of applying the technique

Among the most important results of using this method of scenarios, experts note maximum awareness of the situation under consideration, as well as the specific features of its subsequent development.

Among the latest interesting proposals related to this technique, we highlight scenario forecasts.

Before moving on to the actual creation of a scenario, the technique involves conducting a full analysis of the situation, identifying the main active forces, searching for relationships between the main factors, as well as performing the necessary detail and structuring of events.

In this method, variables are selected by experts. The key task set before them is to obtain a set of essential variables, which would be quite sufficient to fully consider the situation being analyzed.

The next step is to determine the appropriate scale for each of the selected variables. Only measurements taken within the limits imposed will be considered. Due to the fact that in specific situations, in addition to quantitative variables, the development of a verbal-numerical scale that has numerical indicators is also expected, the task of experts is clearly more complicated.

In the case of using continuous variables, it is advisable to highlight certain values ​​that will help to conduct a full analysis of the situation. In some cases, information about variables can be presented as a thesaurus (list) that captures the underlying information in a descriptive quantification.

Conclusion

The main goal of the scenario method is to find the key to understanding a specific problem. When analyzing a certain situation, it is important to use all the optimal scenarios that allow you to resolve contradictions and find the right option for the development of subsequent events.

In some cases, the scenario includes the background to the formation of the situation being analyzed.

A distinctive feature of the methodology under consideration is its multivariance, the ability to consider several alternative types of situation development at once, taking into account basic scenarios.

When grouping scenarios into classes, a rational strategy of action for a specific situation is determined. Most of the scenarios are informative, which significantly increases the chances of effectively solving the problem. Thanks to the use of modern computer equipment, the scenario method can be used with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

Recently, the scenario method (an example and types were discussed above) has become increasingly popular.

Look into the future by predicting options for the development of existing situations.

Action plan

1. Gather a group of “scriptwriters” - people who will write scenarios for the development of the situation.

2. Learn the script method.

3. Write several scenarios.

4. Choose the most appropriate option in the given situation.

Description

The Scenarios method is used to assess the development of a situation in the future; it is essentially a forecast of the development of the situation when making a particular management decision. A scenario is a version of the future that will occur if we act in a certain way, taking into account existing circumstances.

The scenario should identify the main factors that can influence the development of the situation and should indicate how they will affect it.

It would be correct to leave not one, but several options for scenarios for the development of the situation. Generally, it is recommended to do three scenarios:

— optimistic;

- pessimistic;

- realistic.

The realistic option is usually considered as the main, base scenario. Other scenarios are used if environmental conditions begin to change in one direction or the other.

Stages of development of Scenarios.

Stage 1. Posing a question or formulating a task or problem.

At this stage, you collect information as if inside the script object. Within the organization, within yourself. It is necessary to collect as much information as possible on the issue being studied. Identify internal problems, both possible and existing. After this, you will be able to clearly formulate the question or task for which the scenario is being developed.

It will be important for the organization that everyone involved in writing the script understands the essence of the problem in the same way.

Stage 2. Determination of factors influencing the scenario object.

You must study the environment, the environment of the subject of the scenario and how it may affect the development of the situation. Now and in the future.

At this stage, it is also important to take into account force majeure circumstances that may arise in any foreseeable scenario. These are accidents, natural disasters, economic and political crises and their consequences on the forecast development of the situation.

Stage 3. Determination of evaluation criteria.

At this stage, you determine the criteria for assessing the results of the development of the scenario, their quantitative and qualitative characteristics by which the results will be assessed. Those. you determine what exactly and to what extent will be an indicator of the successful development of the scenario, and what will be an indicator of failure. To work on this stage, you can seek help from the website section Assessment Methods.

Stage 4. Definition of results.

At this stage, you compare the results obtained as a result of implementing the scenarios and the desired results of your development or the activities of the organization.

Stage 5. Implementation stage.

At this stage, measures are being developed to implement the written script. To document the work at this stage, you may find the UML Deployment Diagram useful.

The organization should involve relevant specialists - experts in the field under study - to develop scenarios.

Developing predictive scenarios is an effective method for overcoming rigid thinking. Preparing a scenario forces you to pay attention to details and processes that may be missed in the current, familiar, established mode of operation.

A structured, goal-oriented look into the future that takes into account external and internal influencing factors allows you to:

- see the situation clearly, understand its further development,

- find a favorable environment and possible threats,

— identify new areas of activity or development paths.

— increase the organization’s agility in rapidly changing environmental conditions.

I invite you to coaching: