Fun with scenarios

[

NEW

628

\

STRATEGYAT THE RESEARCH &CONFERENCE

LEADING EDGE REPORTS

Fun with Scenarios Enid Man te-Meijer, Pa trick van der Duin and Muriel Abeln

Introduction Scenario thinking seems to be very popular at the moment. A great many organisations are spending huge efforts in order to construct scenarios. Why this sudden interest? One possible reason is the millennium craziness, but that is not sufficient. A more convincing cause is probably the immense uncertainty within all types of organisations, about what the future will bring. Internationalisation, European unification, the growing influence of Information and Communication Technology are driving forces that might deliver the same impact as the Industrial Revolution in the 19th Century (Ling 1997).’ These factors certainly form the background for the undertaking of scenario activities within Dutch KPN four years ago. KPN, as the privatised Dutch PTT, saw itself confronted with a future with a lot of competition and very critical consumers. Uncertainty about the acceptance of innovative ways to telecommunicate made it important to develop instruments to make strategists and marketers conscious of the fact that the consumer of tomorrow might not be the innovative person that the technology driven telecom employees saw as the golden client of the future. Thus a group of social scientists within KPN Research were asked to develop socio-cultural consumer scenarios that made it possible to reflect on Information and Telecommunication behaviour of the residential user in 2015. In the scenarios, the use of technology was supposed to be the outcome, not the main driver of the way society developed.’ This article is not on the technical construction of the scenarios, but on the ways we tried to interest the people within the company in the creating of and working with scenarios. We want to share with you how it was done and what type of problems we met. We will also try to show you some of the limitations of scenario thinking within large companies. One of Pergamon PII: S0024-6301(98)00070-3

the most important aspects of our scenario endeavour was making it fun-and fun it was. Participants afterwards always had the feeling that it had been an entertaining worthwhile experience, broadening their scopes. Probably this is the main reason the scenario endeavour is still going on and gaining momentum. The article contains three broad cases, each with its own goals and its own users. In each case we will give a short description and the experiences and lessons

Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 628 to 637, 1998 Long Range Planning, 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0024-6301/98 $19.00+0.00

learned. clusions

Finally we will give some and some “dos and don’ts”.

general

con-

Case 1: Services 2015-Consumer Scenarios for Marketing Departments The Shaping

of Scenarios

In two ways, the take off was different Take Off. from the usual way scenarios are started. Firstly, the demand for them originated from a strategic marketing department, but the development was commissioned to a research department of social scientists. This meant that there was a built-in attention for the potential users of the scenarios and the ways the results could be made part of a mindset. Secondly, the demand was to develop, in particular, consumer scenarios for residential telecom users in their home environment with surpassing of technical aspects. This meant that variables affecting daily life and cultural norms and values that govern it, were given a paramount place in the scenarios. The scenarios should depict a world, populated with recognisable people-if not the Joneses next door, then the way the Joneses next door could behave within 25 years. As the demand was for long-term scenarios aimed at a time 25 years from now, all types of long-term developments had to be taken into account. Hence, the effects of demographic variables, environmental problems, and political changes played a large role in the construction. For the two axes of the scenarios, the cultural theory of Mary Douglas3 was chosen because this theory perfectly fitted the angle from which we wanted to look at consumer behaviour as a part of societal culture. The four types of cultural societies formed the backbone of our four scenario worlds. Trends and developments in society, as a reaction on today’s troubles, could lead into one of those cultural directions and would affect each type of cultural scenario differently. The purThe Intended Users of the Scenarios. pose of the scenarios was mainly educational; getting strategists from both the high and middle level hierarchy, to become conscious of societal developments and the different ways consumers would make use of the possibilities of information and communication technology. When we embarked on the research we found that something similar to scenario creation had taken place several times in the past. Those (mainly technological) scenarios, all failed. They never reached the mind-sets of the people that had to translate them into common strategy. One of our informants suggested that it would probably be better to try a bottom-

Mary Douglas, supplemented by Wildawski and Thomas, theorize that all human cultures are ordered along two main dimensions: the structure and rules dimension that form the grid of the fabric society is made of, and the group dimension that forms the dimension of belonging and social need. The structure and rules dimension contains the ways rules, norms and institutions govern society, and constrain and prescribe the behaviour of the individual. The group dimension contains the ways people are living together as social beings, have ties with other people, and feel responsible for each other. Thus four extreme types of cultures can be distinguished placed on opposite ends of the two axes. All four cultures are linked to four kinds of cultural preferences: hierarchical (the love for an orderly predictable society with a ranked relationship and restricted individual autonomy), individualistic (unlimited personal freedom and autonomy, and an opportunistic attitude to others), associative (with a rationality that stresses the importance of group belonging and fraternal cooperation and strives for voluntaristic egalitarian bonding), and fatalistic (with no feeling of social belonging or moral responsibility and a wish to withdraw from an oppressive society) (Fig. l(a)).

up strategy and to involve the users of the scenarios at an early stage, making them party to the creation. Thus we created a reference group of future users, middle level marketers who commented on the intermediate results and criticised them. They also became the guinea pigs for the first scenario sessions. This enabled us to test the outcome of our work on fitness for use. It also created a climate for follow-up sessions with others from the same target groups. Nevertheless, to get the scenarios accepted, topdown approval was necessary. Thus our second target, and first user group, was the very strategic top of the organisation. The group consisted of 15 of the top executives and strategists and it was necessary to keep them interested in this type of strategic thinking, in order that the scenarios would not fail. One of the difficulties with a user group like this is that they are busy individuals and not all of them want to become involved. On the other hand, they usually enjoy challenges and like to be surprised. Hence, the sessions needed embellishment with some surprising gadgets that should make it possible for the participants to fantasise themselves in the worlds the scenarios depicted. This was why we invented our scenario characters: Ordered Otto, Virtual Victoria, Tribal Tom and Ruthless Ruth, all living in a future world that was completely adapted to their lifestyles (Fig. l(b-e)). To make the worlds more real, we also created the 2015 Newsletter, a composition of small articles and

The First Users.

organisation’s

Long Range Planning Vol. 31

August 1998

Fun with Scenarios

headings on happenings in our time, that could easily take place in the future. This also served to make our subjects realise that the world of tomorrow is, in many ways, already here (Fig. 2). At the end of a very animated two-hour session, our CEO decided that another session was necessary in order to think about the strategic consequences for the organisation as a whole. For this, it was necessary to get the top hierarchy more involved into the changes we could see in society, within the 20-years time period depicted by the scenarios. Thus we created the think about “wheel of time”, letting the participants the changes that have taken place between 1965 and 1996, and the things that have stayed the same. This culminated in an estimation of the proportion within society of Ordered Ottos, Virtual Victorias, Tribal Toms and Ruthless Ruths in 1965,1975,1985 and the present day. A comparison of the top group’s estimation with our own educated guess, based on statistics, showed a percentage of Virtuals that was fairly exaggerated. The percentage of Ordered people was estimated far lower than in reality. This really was an eye opener, especially for the Telecom people who think in virtual scenarios! Other appetizers we used were enormous billboards with ads and headings, put together by the son of one of the participants who became mesmerised by the scenarios! To give them a feeling of the worlds of 2015, we made use of four video broadcasts read by an anchorman from Dutch Television. It was great fun to make these scripts, especially because the anchorman became so enthusiastic with the idea that he created some extra embellishments, like throwing away the papers he had read at the end of a tragic broadcast! This was what he would have liked to do in his professional life!

Reactions Learned.

and

Experiences:

Lessons

As a whole, those sessions with the top hierarchy were a great success. We got animated discussions and a lot of approval. Nevertheless, a few cautionary remarks need to be made: l

l

l

not all 15 participants were able to make the transition to 2015. Their future world seemed very like the world they have now: “why think about new things in the future, we first have to take care of making our current business excellent”. thinking about future services seems to be easier than thinking about the future shape of your organisation. It was clear to all that a virtual society asks for quite different business and organisation concepts, but when you are running a very large bulk business . . .* Although participants were very enthusiastic the sessions did not result, as far as we know, in systematic long range thinking in line with the scen-

arios, either by the top of the organisation itself or by the strategic department that had asked for the scenarios. As an educational device, however, it was successful in creating common mind-sets.

Creation of a Common Mindset and Games. As the scenarios were especially aimed at the strategists in the marketing departments of the company, a lot of time was spent on promotion at the middle level of the organisation. Generally speaking there were four types of activity: Promotion

1. Promotion

of the scenario ideas by giving short trailers to interested parties. These were one and a half hour versions of the scenario sessions with the top group: giving an idea of the worlds of 2015 and the characters populating them, and philosophising about the aspects that might be interesting.

2. Developing half-day games for marketing groups as a starter for strategic sessions around the developing of year plans, or as entertainment on department happenings. Participants were divided into groups along scenario lines and were invited to construct the scenario worlds of our four scenario characters and think about the type of products and the service those customers would need. This was followed by a presentation and a discussion about likeness and differences between scenarios and usefulness of the ideas in each scenario. Another version of this game was to divide the group into marketing and customer groups and compare the outcomes. Did the marketing group correctly assess the wishes of the customers? For these games several of the gadgets we had created were used. At one particular session our hosts even transformed the surroundings into a very futuristic sense, with us, the enablers, walking around wrapped in aluminium foil and with blinking lights on our heads. 3. Combinations of the scenario worlds with other consumer typologies we had created for marketing purposes. A question that had to be answered was: How would the telecom behaviour of Anita, a 20year-old “hesitant user”, develop within 30 years in a virtual world? This type of game was used to make marketers conscious about changes and constants in customer behaviour over time. 4. Construction of a scenario game+simulation, to be used in an educational programme for marketers. This game had five stages: (1) divining the future by drawing cards with trends and events and deciding which of our four consumer scenarios was the most likely to develop; (2) constructing society and the Long Range Planning Vol. 31

August 1998

Fun with Scenarios

consumer

within

that society;

(3) divining

con-

sumers’ communication and information patterns and the resulting needs; (4) making a strategy and a business plan to meet their demands; and (5) making investments in the business of the other the lines of their scenarios players along (adequacy), or along the line of one’s own scenario (trend resistance). A very simple computerised simulation could be used to forecast the effects of the trends on financial gains and sales.

Reactions and Experiences: Lessons LearThe game sessions described above were ned. ordered by the departments. People knew about them, due to the publicity given to the scenarios by our original backup group and from those people who attended the first sessions. They contacted us and together we constructed the type of session they wanted. The sessions were all great fun. Somebody who had participated in one of those sessions mentioned remembering me with the blinking light on my head and the fun they had had. So that is about impact . . . As a whole those sessions served for loosening the thinking about customers and business and creating a certain mind-set. Many within our organisation know what is meant with Ordered Otto and Virtual Victoria. Nevertheless the games did not result in evoking systematic strategic thinking in the business plans. One of the reasons was that those business plans were mostly short run. 2015 or even 2005 is then a very long time away. Thinking about customer types had mainly the function of becoming aware of the fact that most customers are not early adopters and hence, need to be dealt with in a different way. Thinking in scenarios made them conscious of the fact that the same type of services could be used for several purposes and by different user groups and that some types of services only serve a very specific market. Even this thinking though was not part of the dayto-day consciousness of our marketers. Developing a mind-set takes time. Nevertheless the notion that customers have different needs according to their situation and lifestyle has become now a central thought within the marketing departments. We suppose those scenario sessions have been partially responsible for that. The extended scenario game gave another problem. It turned out that devoting a whole day to strategic thinking, even in a business course of one week, is too much for marketers. Although the entire game was played a couple of times, abbreviated versions were more suitable. That meant we mostly skipped the first stage and the fifth. Starting with given or chosen scenarios, the remaining three stages could be played in a morning or an afternoon.

Case 2: Scenarios for Creating Common Mind-sets in Other Cultural Settings The Case COST248 One of the bonuses of good scenarios, as we have already said, is that they create a common mind-set for people working in different situations. This even holds in an intercultural setting. We became conscious of this when we introduced them in the activities of COST248, a European research group doing research on the residential user of telecommunication in 2005.5 After three years with the focus on today’s world, a leap to the future was asked for. As we had our scenarios ready for use, and there was not enough time to construct new ones, it was decided that they would serve as a starting point. Thus a scenario session was created, much like the sessions described above, with the main aim to give the scenarios a European flavour.

Reactions and Experiences: Lessons Learned. The exercise was both a great success and a disaster. A success because the participants showed great enthusiasm and very original ideas in building the European regulate, virtual, “tribal” and tragic worlds. A disaster, because after successful brainstorming, enormous discussions developed about the dimensions of the scenarios (were they the right ones?), the names of the scenarios (the “tribal” scenario: we are no African society . . .), the reality of the scenarios (virtual is not totally free of group feeling), the lack of technology. Although the scenarios really triggered the fantasy, they needed some reshaping to enable the creation of the common mind-set that was necessary for finishing the research job together. Thus we changed the names of “tribal” to “associative” and “virtual” to “individualistic”, entered developments in Information and Communication technology and some metaphors that had popped up in the discussion. After the necessary adjustments were made, each of the participants could recognise the scenarios as their own. As a whole they served very well as a common mind-set for depicting daily life and the use of technology in 2005. The lessons we learned from this exercise are several: The scenarios could very well serve in a European setting, as the cultural background made it possible for all participants to recognise parts of their own society in the scenarios. People have to make scenarios their own property, before they are willing to submit their thoughts to them. Names and the associations that go with those names, are very important. Long Range Planning Vol. 31

August 1998

Even when people play the game and love it, it does not mean that they accept what is in it. Dimensions for scenarios are subject to detailed discussion, especially when participants have very different backgrounds and interests, and especially when they are scientists, it is difficult to accept prefab’ dimensions. We finally persuaded the participants by showing that the main dimensions are only part of the picture, giving flavour to the scenarios. They do not exclude any other relevant aspect. It is not truth and reality that set the norm for good scenarios, but usability to depict coherent developments. For this exercise it was artificial to leave technology out. Technology however served as a consequence of and an enabler for creating this type of society.

Case 3: Customising User

Scenarios

to the

The consumer scenarios proved to be useful, but mainly for the marketing departments. For other departments an approach that is more focused on business environment, economy, products and services and technology is more useful. Thus the Network Operator Department of KPN Telecom started a scenario effort in this direction to find new ways of keeping the current market share and introducing new telco services.’ To show the employees of this department of KPN Telecom what the possible impact is of different futures, they developed a “scenario-game”. An important reason for giving the employees an idea of things to come by playing a game is that the future is “discovered”, instead of read about. The acceptance of the scenarios and of scenario thinking itself, is accelerated by the inter-activity of the game and the sense of control the players have when playing the game. The players start, after an introduction, by choosing one scenario. Then they select from a set of cards, several telecom services which they think consumers and businesses in that scenario would want. This forms the starting point to choose the types of technology that enable the realisation of these services. This means discussing, for example, which technology is used in the backbone, and what kind of information systems and processes are required. If the right services for the scenario are chosen and the right technology to implement these services is also chosen, then a higher market share is obtained. Also not too much will be spent on investments and operations, resulting in a profitable business. In this case, Fun with Scenarios

For “right” means most suitable for the scenario. example, choosing old-fashioned telco services such as fixed telephone and fax will not provide a lot of credits in the fast, virtual scenario. Choosing for investment in ADSL (a technology that makes high speed Internet possible over ordinary copper telephone lines) is overdone when fixed telephone and fax have been chosen. At the start of the game, each group of players gets a financial target, depending on the scenario they have chosen. Making the right choices means that they come closer to their target. The group who gets the closest to their target wins the game. This game was very successful but it had some flaws. It was too difficult and hence unfit for management at all levels of the organisation. Also, it did not appeal to less technical oriented people. As KPN Telecom management wanted to use the game for strategic planning at all levels, KPN Research was asked to adjust the game. This adjustment consists of several aspects. Simplification of the rules of the game: the original game was much too complicated. It took too much explanation to determine whether a choice was right or wrong. To make it fit for the whole company, it was necessary to simplify the game. Customisation of the game: although there is only one version of the game, it is suitable for different groups of employees. Depending on the different tasks within the organisation, it is possible to pay more attention to different aspects. For instance, employees who are involved in information technology may want to discuss these aspects for a more extended period. Making of a real scenario-game: the original game had much of the character of a business game. The players did not choose certain telco services which focus on the needs of consumers and businesses. Mostly they chose certain services because of the financial information, provided on the cards, that would enable them to achieve their prescribed financial target. Thus the choices became very business and technology driven. It turned out that taking away the financial information made the discussion centre more around the possible consequences of a choice in a possible future. Contribution of societal aspects: the original scenarios were very technical. To give the players the feeling for the world that the different scenarios depicted, it was necessary to also give information about the role of the government, income, labour, consumer needs and the way in which businesses communicate and organise themselves. In this way technology gets a human face. At this moment the project at KPN Research

is almost

finished. There have been a couple of tests and the provisional results were very promising. Players like to play the game, become aware of the fact that the world is changing and that they and their work will also change whether they like it or not. Last but not least, people start thinking of the future, realise that the things they do today have their consequences for the future and that they have to be prepared for the things to come. The use of a scenario game, as has been done within KPN Telecom, proves to be a very suitable tool in achieving these goals.

scenario planning, we learned some lessons concerning the use and introduction of scenarios within the organisation of the client. We differentiate between lessons learned concerning scenario games and about the use of scenario analysis in general.

Scenario Games Bring in a competitive

l

Conclusions In this last section, we will compare the different scenario methods used within KPN and draw some conclusions about our experiences with the use of scenario analysis and end by saying something about the special place of our research organisation with regard to scenario analysis. When comparing the three scenario projects undertaken at KPN, the first thing that becomes apparent is that the scenarios do not cover the relevant topics most often dealt with by potential users. When we look at these topics, we can divide them into four general concepts: society, consumers/businesses, products/services and technology. The three scenario cases can be plotted in this way along the following topics axis:

Thus, the scenarios used in COST248, focused mainly on societal and consumer aspects and the Services 2015 project mainly aimed at the relationship between consumers and business and the kind of needs they had regarding telecommunication products and services. The network scenarios started with the choice of telecommunication products and services and ended with the choice of appropriate technology. This shows that it is almost impossible to address every relevant topic in your scenarios. This is no real problem because if you take care to describe the most important issues the client has to deal with in the scenarios, you can be assured that they appeal to him, his organisation and his problems. Thus, adapting the scenarios to the situation of the client is very important. Apart from the fun we have had with all aspects of

l

l

l

l

element. Just as with any other game the players need a goal which they have to reach. The game must have winners and losers, not only to make the game more fun but to also show what the players have learned during the game. Winning and losing means that there are right and wrong actions within the game. This serves to make the participants become aware. Personalising. Make the world “the world of the neighbour next door”. Although scenarios are about the future, it is also very important that the people who are supposed to use the scenarios feel connected to them. To describe elements of the future in contemporary terms helps them to understand scenarios. Also, games are very helpful because playing with scenarios allows them to imagine the different possible futures. Duration of the game. A game should not last more than one day and even that is often longer than people have time for. Most people within an organisation only have just four hours to think about the

future! A game that takes more time becomes, for many players, very boring. Instead of an inspiring event, the game becomes very annoying. Thus the message will not reach the players. Take care to have shorter versions available. Time necessary for making a game. The creation of scenarios and making formal games take longer than imagined. Improvised games, however, suit the purpose and take only a few hours to think out, if you have the material ready! Be sure you pay a lot of attention to the fact that the game is made easy, especially when the aim is for everyone in the organisation to participate. Finishing your game. The game does not end with announcing winners and losers. It is crucial that the practical consequences of the choices made in the game are discussed thoroughly, as only through disLong Range

Planning

Vol. 31

August

1998

l

cussion can you learn and really understand the impact of different scenarios on an organisation and its employees. Give scenario thinking (I chance. Do not expect that after one session people will be ready to think in scenario terms. Not everybody is enthusiastic or able to fantasise a completely different environment, so do not force them. Sometimes it takes years to ripen! Therefore, do not stop immediately after disappointing results and comments, but hold on and look for newer and better ways to communicate your scenarios. The making of a scenario game proved to be a very good way of reaching this goal.

General Use of Scenario Planning Scenarios may be used for a great many activities,

l

for example, creation of new products and services, creating a new strategy, comparing current strategic plans with the possible futures, considering crucial events that would change the environment completely, making people conscious about necessary changes in organisational structure or personnel planning, etc. So the making of scenarios does not only depend on who you make them for, but also the purpose the scenario serves, will determine the content and direction of your scenarios. l

l

Try to make

scenario

thinking

a regular

activity.

Take care to give it a structural basis within the organisation, putting it into an educational programme initially is a good idea, and giving it a regular place in the discussions on the year plans for the department is better still. The supposed uniqueness of your scenarios. Do not give the impression that your scenarios are the only possible ones. Even the very popular Ordered Otto became a nuisance to some people (maybe because they did not want to identify with that type of per-

son)! So, present your scenarios as possible stories. The coming reality might be a strange, unknown combination of your scenarios. l Scenario building does not suffice. Scenarios only have impact when decisions or choices have to be made about them. This holds for games and is also true when they are used for real business. People need to compare their own ideas and strategy with the outcomes of the scenario thinking. l Scenarios do not need to be self invented. It saves time and effort to use already existing scenarios, but take care that they fit into the world of the user. Finally, we want to give some comment on our role as a research department in the creation of the scenarios. Mostly, scenario planning is done by planning departments in headquarters. Hence the builders of the scenarios are also the users, or are closely connected with the users. A research department has more distance. This had several advantages. Firstly, we had an objective and neutral position towards our clients and their problems. We were not bothered with their daily business and short-run problems and could keep at a distance from the turbulent developments of every day. Another advantage, closely related to the first, is that because of our relatively objective and scientific stance, we could see more clearly what kind of important explaining factors are behind the developments with which the clients are involved most of their time. Thus we were able to separate the important from the unimportant. The last advantage is the fact that a research department pays a lot of attention to knowledge management. Being involved in the scenario planning, we were able not only to build up our own experience but also to build on the knowledge we already had obtained. But apart from that, scenario-planning gave a lot of fun, which we shared with the people for whom we made them.

References 1. Richard Ling, Digital manifest density: a short note on the archeology 248 final report. 2. M. Abeln, H. van der Loo, E. A. Mante, Diensten 2015: “Speelveld “Springplank naar de Toekomst”, KPN Research (1994).

of the future. Cost

van de Toekomst”

and

3. M. Douglas, NaturalSymbols: Explorations in Cosmology, Barrie and Rockliff, London (1970); Mary Douglas ted.): Essays in Sociology of Perception, (Routledge and Kegan), London/Boston (1982); M. Douglas, How institutions Think, Syracuse University Press, NJ (1987); M. Douglas, Thought Styles, Sage, London (1996); M. Thompson, R. Ellis and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder (1990). Cultural theory assumes that the basic choice people make in their lives is the choice of the kind of environment they want to live in. Instead of starting from the individual confronting his or her basic needs, cultural theory starts from a more or less stable system in which a consumer knows that he or she is expected to play some part. Whereas conventional wisdom tells us that the preferences of persons are inherent to them as individuals, cultural theory claims that preferences can be explained by the beneficial consequences for their relationship. Preferences, in other words, can be accounted for by their consequences for social relations. According to this view, consumers are engaged in nothing less than a “cultural project”. Selecting information about new possibilities, wandering around in shops as consumers or using new technological devices means actualising a certain philosophy of life. The

Fun with Scenarios

/

637

commitment with products, services or technologies is not a private culture with which the subject has chosen to be aligned.

\ affair.

It is part of the

. As a matter of fact, according to recent research on a leading group of advanced knowledge organisations, the translation of flexible business in virtual organisation concepts seems to be difficult indeed; structures did change in the direction of more flexibility, but most hierarchical lines stayed in place. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) was used, but only sparingly and more for control and coordination than for creativity and communication. Rik Drop, De kennis intensieve organisatie van de toekomst, KPN Research (1998). COST248 is part of a European research programme in which researchers participate from universities, governmental and business organisations. In this particular programme, 27 researchers participated from 16 different countries in Europe. The aim was to extend the knowledge about the future user of Information and Communication Technology in his home environment. The research focused in the first place on the needs, values and effects on usage of ICT today (see http://web.cnlab.ch/cose248/). 6. There had been some initial contact between this department and the makers of the consumer scenarios, to share knowledge and ideas. Later on we were asked to help with the reshaping of the business game that originated from their effort.

Long Range Planning Vol. 31

August 1998