Interview: the leader's handbook to the future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Bill Ralston and Ian Wilson have written a unique resource for corporate leaders – The Scenario Planning Handbook: Developing Strategies in Uncertain Times (Thomson/Southwestern, 2006). Strategy & Leadership editor Robert M. Randall interviewed them to ask, for example, Why does scenario planning deserve special top management attention? Design/methodology/approach The interview covers such topics as: Do executives really need to get involved with the nuts and bolts of scenario development? Will that really help them with the management of strategy which is clearly their prime responsibility? Findings The authors of the Handbook believe that scenario planning is an excellent way to “rehearse the future.” By thinking continuously about the future, and how a business might react to major changes, managers will be better prepared to respond quickly to extraordinary events when they do occur. Practical implications Scenario planning can lead to true organizational learning if leaders facilitate four developments: executives, managers and staff must become convinced that long‐term, superior performance of the organization depends on anticipating and responding to future events, discontinuities, innovations and trends better than the competition; information – about internal and external developments –must flow freely so that the seeds of new businesses can grow as existing businesses compete aggressively for market share; the organization must acquire or develop competencies in external‐environment intelligence, technology innovation, planning under uncertainty, experimenting with new products and services, and executing change; and effective processes must be developed for scanning and monitoring, scenario planning, technology innovation, and decision‐making under uncertainty. Originality/value This interview taps the experience the two scenario planning consultants have accumulated from working on scenario projects over several decades.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it