Talk:Scenario planning

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Wikify

A version of this article was wikified by Summsum2010, a member of WikiProject Wikify, on October 9, 2010. The project welcomes all editors with a good grasp of wiki markup to help improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please ask at our talk page.WikifyWikipedia:WIKITemplate:WikiProject WikifyWikify

Futures studies Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Scenario analysis was copied or moved into Scenario planning on June 21, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Contingency Planning

It is important enough to be in Wikipedia. Good examples constrast good and bad planning. Contrast the Shackleton Antarctic Expedition's recovery from disaster, with the Donner Party's wagon train expedition and its catastrophic succession of disasters. Shackleton had contingency plans that quickly diverged from the causes of each mishap; the Donner party stubbornly tried to pursue a linear course without any contingency or escape plans. I don't know enough about it though, the two are a veritable yin and yang of planning. what is contigency planning

"Terrible piece" Not sure about the nature of these discussions, but this is a terrible article on scenario planning. I agree with the comments below. WIth 13 years of experience in this field and having run million dollar scenario processes, I cannot recognize the practice of scenario thinking in the piece. We run a public wiki http://scenariothinking.org which is mostly for the benefit of my MBA students and there is significant material on scenario thinking (100 scenario sets -some great, some OK). It is #1 on Google, Bing et al. How to make these things work together? daniel@dtn.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.254.31 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New topic by a new person:

The article on scenario planning is ridiculously bad. I tried editing it in June, rather naively replacing most of it because it was flat-out wrong. I have been a professional practitioner of scenario planning for 15 years, with clients including some of the largest business and government organizations in the world. Whoever wrote the present article has an extremely narrow and specific and out-of-date view of what scenario planning is.

Take the phrase "The games combine known facts about the future...." THERE ARE NO "KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE FUTURE." That is precisely why scenarios can be so useful. Anyone who could write such a ridiculous statement has no business writing anything about scenario planning.

Heck, it's not even logical. The section "Crafting Scenarios" begins with the words "These combinations and permutations of fact and related social changes are called 'scenarios.' " WHAT "combinations?" There's nothing foregoing that this sentence could possibly be referring to!

Now I realize that as a professional and someone who actually makes money at this, I could be therefore disqualified from commenting, since I have a pecuniary interest in promoting my type of scenario planning. But is Wikipedia supposed to be populated purely by people who don't know their derriere from a hole in the ground with respect to the topics on Wikipedia?

I guess I will go off and keep my fifteen years of intimate working knowledge of this approach to myself. No skin off my nose, right? Let all the people who stumble over this page think that it's the product of "military intelligence." News to my friends in the military! They use our version and would not recognize the disjointed methodology presented here as the only way to do scenario planning.

Evidently it serves someone else's pecuniary interest to continue to have a raft of inaccuracies on the "Scenario Planning" Wikipedia entry. I've tried to correct it once. I won't waste any more time trying to keep others from being comprehensively misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrenp (talk • contribs) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you bring up some valid points and I agree with you this article could be written better. But the diversity and complexity of how scenario planning does make it complicated. Perhaps more caveats should be included etc, but in the formation of scenario planning, they did have "facts and knowns" such as allies and enemies. these would then translate into wargames more famously known as red vs. blue. This is because the scenarios were more short-term and used for a specific purpose. Of course, scenario planning has evolved greatly in both the military and the business realm. I believe the example and steps listed here just show the origins and how it was done in the past. I can't say and like you, shy to edit since i didn't add that contribution, but I believe that was the purpose.

Therefore I would urge you to keep trying to improve this section as well. Your 15 years would no doubt be helpful as long as it approaches scenario planning as a general process vs. a specific step-by-step methodology. Even looking at the referenced books and articles, the steps and terms they use vary greatly (e.g. STEEPA vs STEEP vs PESTLE etc). However there must be a way to present scenario planning generically so that a casual reader understands the origins of yester and the application of today. Fshen (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm - Companies Offering Scenario Planning Services

This section, with the links included, is a blatant violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read those guidelines and to me, the links are not a blatant violation. If they are a violation, that distinction would be subjective. In no way are those links spamming or advertising. Each of those organizations listed below contain copyrighted material that sheds more light into the topic. You can view and download information regarding methodology, process, and even in some case actual scenarios. Looking at "Links to Avoid," the links fit into none of those categories. Are they not pages that "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."? I didn't reinclude them, but to me they should be included to help readers learn more about scenario planning. Does the heading need to be changed? I'm not sure what the issue and violation is, but any clarification would be helpful. Fshen (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not reverting again.

It's an interesting situation, having a sourced list of consultants. What do we do with it? I'd say remove it as being overly promotional, giving undue weight to the information, and generally being unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIRECTORY (in addition to WP:NOTLINK and WP:SOAP). I'd like to get others' opinions though. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a difficult one. These are respected and recognized institutions, hence the citation. Other companies that people have tried to add have been removed since that is promotional. However, how do you point people to more resources on the topic from respected leaders in that methodology without copying and pasting (against copyright) or linking to their sites? Should it be renamed to "Noted resources for scenario planning" instead? And if links are included, should they directly go to the articles instead of the landing page? Fshen (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a third opinion? I'll make a request. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion here. I agree that these links are a violation of the aforementioned. Furthermore, the step by step guide seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. -Freqsh0 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another 3rd opinion. I agree with Freqsh0 on both counts. The links clearly do not satisfy the criteria of WP:ELYES; nor do they clearly meet the criteria in WP:ELMAYBE. I suggest a single link, as follows:

{{dmoz|Business/Management/Strategy_and_Forecasting}}

or pick your own dmoz page (maybe create one?) and use that. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. Thanks for the third op and good job Ronz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 January 2009

Thanks everyone for the comments. Yes, dmoz would be a good approach. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the Process section

IMO the process section is not too long and not descriptive enough. Particularly, the version of the 'Shell' approach should actually reflect the 8 step approach proposed in Peter Schwarz's Art of the Long View, this being THE definitive book on scenario building (and being based on the Shell approach). In addition a second category, being the 'Critical Uncertainties Approach' should be included, since these describe one of the most popular methods of scenario building for non-experts. The criticisms section in this article specifically refer to scenarios created using this appraoch, so it should be considered within the article. These are my initial thoughts on how the section should look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony F. Camilleri (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foresight and Scenario Planning

Dear colleagues, will you explain to me what the differences between the scenario planning and foresight? Vip (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Article & Foresight

This article does cover many aspects of scenario planning, unfortunately it is not very comprehensive and provides a fairly narrow and limited view of scenario planning. I will start suggesting various edits to different sections as time permits. I started with the first paragrph of the hostory section today.

What is the difference between foresight and scenario planning? Very little other than scope. In regards to business and social planning, foresight is often used to describe an oprganizations effort to anticipate the future as it relates the organizations concerns. Scenario planning is proposed as one method to anticipate the future. There are other methods such as forecasting/prediction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.253.163 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scenario planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/9780470752937. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]