MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386863447 · doi:10.1108/sl-08-2023-0090

Strategic scenario planning in practice: eight critical applications and associated benefits

2023· article· en· W4386863447 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategy and Leadership · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyStrategic planningProcess managementScenario planningFlexibility (engineering)OriginalityKnowledge managementManagement scienceProcess (computing)Strategic managementCompetitive advantageComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessMarketingEconomicsManagementQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Organizations face challenges in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environments. It is vital to manage the change’s rate and magnitude in new and different ways to stay competitive. This study focuses on the phenomenon of scenario planning that can help organizations proactively plan for, react and adapt to VUCA forces if and when they occur. Design/methodology/approach Based on an extensive academic and practitioner literature review, we posit that corporate scenario planning involves eight different practical applications and associated benefits. These include risk identification, assessing uncertainty, organizational learning, options analysis, strategy validation and testing, complex decision-making, strategic nimbleness and innovation. We offer a novel typology and propose a more complete and holistic model of the scenario planning application and its intended outcomes. Mini-case studies from various sectors illustrate the process. The model demonstrates the relationship between different benefit-driven applications - inputs, process and output benefits – and identifies opportunities for further research. Findings A previous typology study classified “what” and “why” related scenario planning research and literature. However, the why or associated benefits were not broken down at any level of detail, representing a gap in explaining the actual value of this management tool. The current study proposes a novel “why” focused typology of scenario planning benefits based on an extensive literature review. The novel typology adorned several benefits of scenario planning in an integrated model explained using systems theory. These benefits included risk, uncertainty, options analysis, strategic flexibility, complex decision-making, strategy testing and validation, innovation and organizational learning. Originality/value First time in the literature, the relationship between input, process and output benefits of scenario planning is explained using systems theory. The novel typology proposed illustrates the practical applications of scenario planning in one complete model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.551
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.085 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it