"I really need to get in shape."

It's a common refrain, especially around birthdays and New Year's as people conjure up
self-improvement plans. Yet "getting in shape" means different things to different people and is
pursued with significantly different degrees of commitment. For example, not everyone is able to --
or would even want to -- work out for several hours a day with a personal trainer, the fitness "gold
standard" favored by Hollywood starlets and other members of the rich and famous. Instead most
people do what they can given the other demands of their lives: go for a walk with the dog after
dinner, do aerobics with a video tape at home, maybe even join a health club.

What does this have to do with the use of scenarios as a long-range planning tool? In the literature
at least, scenario-based planning is much like the Hollywood starlet approach to fitness: elaborate,
expensive and all consuming.

This is hardly surprising given that scenario-based planning was pioneered and made famous by
large, well-funded organizations with, apparently, lots of time and staff devoted to the project.
Unfortunately, this description -- large, well-funded, with lots of time and staff devoted to the project
-- applies to precious few organizations and even fewer subgroups interested in exercising their
long-range planning muscles.

For this reason, traditional scenario planning has proved impractical for the majority of groups that
recognize a need to improve their long-range planning and want to "get in shape."

As the head of a futures research consulting firm, I get many calls from groups who want to "do
scenarios." Most of these callers have no idea what this actually means, but they -- or their bosses
-- have seen mention of scenarios somewhere.

When I first started fielding these calls a number of years ago, we responded earnestly with
proposals that involved the client group in identifying drivers, drafting scenarios, discussing
probabilities and possible responses, etc. I quickly discovered, though, that this is not what was
wanted. These groups wanted help thinking about the future in a way that challenged their current
assumptions, but they wanted to walk the dog after dinner -- something both do-able and enjoyable
-- rather than spend three hours a day with a personal trainer.

In 1996 we responded to this need by developing a scenario-based workshop that encourages
participants to exercise their planning muscles in a way that is do-able, enjoyable and, as a matter
of professional integrity, robust and productive.

While I do not expect this approach is unique, it may serve as a template for others working with
groups small in resources but large in need and interest.

Developing Snapshots

I usually begin a discussion with a client by explaining that different organizations may mean
different things when talking about "scenarios." We use scenarios as a storytelling tool, as a
means of weaving disparate and often complex information about the future into a form that is
readily understood. We use scenarios to create a snapshot of a place in time. We use scenarios
not as an objective in themselves but as a launch pad for discussion about a spectrum of possible
futures and their implications for the client group.

One of the first departures we take from traditional scenario planning is that we develop the
scenarios ourselves prior to the workshop. Yes, involving the client group directly in the preparation
of the scenarios can and does yield fascinating insights and creates ownership. But it also takes
an extraordinary amount of time, can quickly bog down in shapeless, endless debates about
"what's going on out there," can suffer greatly from bad group dynamics and often lacks creative,
"outside the box" thinking. It becomes a chore for many groups that they are only too happy to
delegate.

Therefore, based on conversations with the client and our own research, we take responsibility for
becoming conversant, if we are not already, with the client's industry or profession. We do this not
to become experts on their issues but rather to identify possible "hot buttons": emerging issues,
ideas and events with the potential to disrupt business as usual over the next decade or so.

We generally prepare three scenarios for a workshop, each having a different driving force. For
example, in one scenario the primary catalyst for change may be (or have been) technological, in
another legislative, in another economic.

In developing these snapshots, we impose a certain discipline on our scenarios.


















In short, the goal is to create cogent, provocative stories about possible futures. Stories rich in
detail but also subtle enough to allow a room full of readers to pick up on different elements.
Stories with enough familiar elements to be credible but with enough "hot buttons" to create
excitement. Stories that encourage discussion.

Conducting the Workshop

We begin the workshop with a discussion of futures research. In our view, the goal of futures
research is not to predict the future but to change it: to provide organizations with the information,
tools and insights necessary to make positive futures more probable and probable futures more
positive.

We explain how we do what we do. We talk about looking for signals of change, about where
emerging issues come from and how they seek resolution, about defining an "interesting future"
that is both anticipate-able and amenable to change.

We encourage groups to think about at least four different kinds of futures: the possible future, the
probable future, the preferred future and the feared future. (It is striking how seldom the latter, the
feared future, is mentioned in futures research literature, yet the mere mention of the feared future
really resonates with most groups and spawns much useful discussion.)

We talk about scenarios and how we use them. We explain that scenarios explore possible (rather
than probable) futures and that they require us to consider -- and prepare for -- a variety of
possibilities, including some that may seem quite improbable from our present perspective. Then
we hand out the first scenario. Typically, this is the first time anyone in the client group has seen the
scenarios.

After giving the group a few minutes to read through the scenario, we ask a single question: "What
do you notice about this future?" Without exception, this question launches an energetic give and
take between participants (with occasional comment from the facilitator) that lasts anywhere from
half an hour to well over an hour. We make no attempt at this point to capture the ideas. If, as the
discussion tapers off, it appears the group has yet to discuss elements we think are important, we
might bring them up ourselves or make a mental note to weave them into later discussion.
Throughout, the style of facilitation is conversational rather than didactic. Where we curb
discussion and move onto the second scenario depends on the time allotted for the workshop
(which varies from a couple of hours to a full day).

After the group has discussed all three scenarios, we often encourage participants to think about
other possible futures, futures that were not reflected in the scenarios or that merit further or
different exploration. To do this, we break into small groups of four or five people. Each small
group has the task of coming up with a headline and lead paragraph of a newspaper story from the
year 2010, for example, that for one reason or another would be important to the organization.
These ideas are then shared and discussed.

The final step depends on the client's objective for the workshop. If the workshop was simply to
allow participants time to stretch their imaginations and planning muscles away from the everyday
demands of their jobs, we may share some concluding thoughts about the exercise and the value
of working with one eye on the future.

If the workshop was to serve as a lead in for strategic or other internal planning, we may continue
by asking participants to take a few minutes to write down one thing they think the group should do
in light of the morning's discussion. These ideas are then shared (anonymously or not as the
facilitator deems appropriate based on group dynamics). The group might then discuss, elaborate
on, add to, refine and prioritize the ideas. We have found this scenario-based approach to be a
much more engaging and meaningful lead in to strategic planning, for example, than a traditional
environmental scan which is all too easy to read and put aside.

Observations

Although I do not doubt that this approach to scenarios as a long-range planning tool may strike
some purists as heretical or insufficiently rigorous, I would argue that the true measure of a futures
research technique is not its attention to orthodoxy but rather its usefulness in encouraging
organizations to anticipate -- and capitalize on -- emerging change important to their futures.

Without exception, groups we have worked with have found this highly interactive use of scenarios
to be energizing and productive. For virtually all, traditional scenario-based planning would have
far exceeded their resources and perceived needs.

For all the hype about the benefits of working out with a personal trainer, walking the dog is still a
more accessible, enjoyable long-term fitness option for most people. If, as strategy and planning
professionals, we believe in the benefit of helping organizations "get in shape" for the future, we
may need to design "future fitness" programs that are, of course, robust and productive while also
being accessible and enjoyable. 

[A version of this article appears in the "millennial issue" (December 1999/January 2000) of Scenario & Strategy
Planning.]