The (Im)Plausibility of Scenarios in Re-Thinking the Future

In doing some preparation work for a scenario-based strategic planning project I will be undertaking in Q4/20, I decided to revisit some of the materials I have accumulated over the years in order to revise/refresh my introductory description of the basic process and why it is such a powerful tool.

My starting point was to look at the original work of Pierre Wack and the Shell oil (energy) company in the early ‘70s. This led me to the Shell website and the following quotations from the Shell Scenarios page.

“Shell has been developing possible visions of the future since the early 1970s, helping generations of Shell leaders, academics, governments and businesses to explore ways forward and make better decisions. Shell Scenarios ask “what if?” questions, encouraging leaders to consider events that may only be remote possibilities and stretch their thinking.

[Scenarios] are plausible and challenging descriptions of the future landscape. They stretch our thinking and help us to make crucial choices in times of uncertainty and transitions as we grapple with tough energy and environmental issues.”

These two statements outline the pedigree of scenario-based planning, the basic process, and the outcomes. Naturally Shell Scenarios are focused on energy and environmental issues whilst other industries, organizations, countries, etc will focus on their own issues.

           In this context, I also (re-)read an article published in October 2010 by Alan Iny and Luc de Brabandere of Boston Consulting Group. In working on scenarios with UNIFE, the trade association of the European rail industry, they developed four scenarios for use by UNIFE in planning its future strategies. These were:

World@Home – Urbanization and advances in communication enable people to work from home, giving rise to increased productivity. Environmental and nutritional concerns have increased the demand for locally sourced products. People mobility is secondary to the movement of goods.

Mission Mobility – A revolution in energy science spawns new modes of low-cost green transport, leading to the increased movement of both people and goods putting greater pressure on the rail industry to differentiate itself in terms of speed, service quality, and price. End customers come to expect seamless intermodal shipping solutions.

Divided Nations – The world economy remains in poor shape. The European Union, World Trade Organization and other regional trade blocs are breaking down. Protectionism is on the rise and transport is mostly local as a result of rising barriers between regions.

Dragon Corp – The world has bifurcated into two main regions. The West has become poorer, while China, now an industrial and financial powerhouse, dominates the global economy. Chinese rail enterprises lead the world with cutting edge technology and low costs.

           After outlining these four scenarios, Iny and Brabandere went on to write “… clearly, none of these four scenarios is likely to unfold in its entirety …”. In the second quotation from Shell Scenarios (above), the word ‘plausible’ is used to describe the future landscape. With hindsight from ten years on, the Iny/Brabandere UNIFE scenarios have proven more than plausible.