The scenario literature has limited discussion on the process of identifying the systemic conditions that could create disruption and/or discontinuity. This paper focuses on the integration of Christensen's theory of disruption and system analysis with the scenario methodology to develop a framework that provides an understanding of the underlying systemic conditions that create disruption and/or discontinuity. The framework is developed from a recent scenario case study to show the process of integrating these three theories and approaches. The case study reveals the systemic conditions inherent in the UK energy industry and how these conditions may portend discontinuity.
The recent exchange of views in this journal about discontinuities [1], [2] and [3], disruptions [4], and the ability of scenario planning as a methodology to help detect signals and conditions of discontinuity and disruption [5], [6] and [7] has raised many challenging methodological questions for those interested in this subject, including:
•
What are the implications for interactive scenario development in view of the fact that intuitive process designs offer the most possibilities for considering disruption and discontinuity?
•
What does it mean for group composition?
•
What does it mean for techniques for intuitive scenario development?
•
Is there a value in emphasising the idea of discontinuity in general and “desirable discontinuity” in particular, and how can this be facilitated?
These questions pose a number of challenges for researchers, which if they are resolved, would enhance our understanding of the scenario methodology, helping to improve its use and efficacy in practice.
This paper addresses the first of the above questions: “what are the implications for interactive scenario development in view of the fact that intuitive process designs offer the most possibilities for considering discontinuity?” The paper presents findings from a recent exploratory case study that links systems analysis with the scenario methodology [8] and [9], and applies the principles of Christensen's disruption theory [10] to help in the building of scenarios. By doing so it is possible to reveal the systemic conditions that may portend disruption and/or discontinuity. Such integration is a part of the continued development of our understanding of the scenario approach. The paper defines1 disruption as “throwing into disorder” (the current state of order) with short-term consequences for the system, which persists over time; and discontinuity as “a lack of continuity or cohesion” with past experience, bringing about a new order over time.
The contemporary contribution of scenario planning as part of strategic management in organisations has developed over many years [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. The starting point in the literature is widely recognised as Herman Kahn and his innovative work with the RAND organisation and Hudson Institute. Kahn is recognised as the founding father of scenarios or alternative futures, and scenario planning, contributing to our understanding with his books On Thermonuclear War, Thinking about the Unthinkable, and The Year 2000.
The growth of its use in business started primarily from Pierre Wack's seminal papers in Harvard Business Review (HBR) [13] and [14] where he established two key criteria for such work. First, the identification of predetermined elements in the business environment; and second, as a consequence of the first, changing the mindset of managers to bring about new action. Although Wack was primarily interested in the re-framing impact of scenario planning, it is worth noting that there are occasions where the outcome of the process affirms management thinking.
Wack was arguing that planning should be based on events and eventualities that have a greater degree of predictability e.g. predetermined elements, rather than on best guesses and unsubstantiated assumptions. The scenario process creates the opportunity for managers to assemble information, facts and opinions that can be structured in a way that produces new insights about the situation under consideration. Wack also argued that if any scenario project did not lead to a change in the mindset of the manager, which would ultimately impact decision-making, then any such work had failed.
Yet, beyond Wack's concept of “predetermined elements” there is little or no empirical or theoretical development of the utility of scenario planning in identifying systemic conditions that would result in disruptions and discontinuities. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework, by integrating Christensen's theory of disruptions [10] and systems analysis techniques with the scenario methodology to enhance the ability of those applying it to detect conditions that drive change. A recent exploratory case study [21] shows how the integration of these three approaches enhanced participant's ability to detect the circumstances portending to disruptions and discontinuities. The case is insightful as the outcomes were counter-intuitive to the participants who were well experienced within their industry.
The paper is set out in ten sections, with the next section discussing the evolution of scenario planning in the literature; Section 3 discusses on the literature on disruption and discontinuity linking these concepts to theories of change; Section 4 sets out the research context and methodology from which the empirical evidence is drawn; Section 5 presents the evidence from the case study; Section 6 discusses and applies the techniques of system analysis to the case study; Section 7 applies and discusses Christensen's theory of disruption [10] to the case study; Section 8 poses the question “why are we surprised at disruptions and discontinuities?” to draw out insights from the case study; the penultimate section draws out implications from the case study for those interested scenario planning and future studies; and the final section presents some concluding comments.
The literature constantly indicates that disruptions and/or discontinuities have antecedents, which will be known to all in the future, but too late for those that the disruption or discontinuity impacts upon. Whatever type of futures work that organisations utilize, it must help identify the possible antecedents of disruption or discontinuity, including an understanding of resource dependency, or provide a research agenda and questions for further inquiry to identify such antecedents.
All scenario project outcomes should reveal discontinuity, and the systemic sources of such discontinuity, if the project is to be deemed a success. Many scenario projects may result in the development of a “vision” of a possible future, which may or may not be appropriate for the decision-maker. Following Wack's guidance and criteria for successful scenario work, they must produce the “a-ha moment”. The moment when the decision-maker sees something, or understands something, outside of his or her current knowledge domain, which in turn leads to new action.
One final comment: in developing an integrated framework to help identify the conditions that bring about disruption and discontinuity, we have also developed an approach that will enable participants to understand the limitations of their taken-for-granted worldview.
