The contribution of scenario analysis to the front-end of new product development

The front-end of new product development involves the identification and analysis of product or service opportunities, idea generation, and the selection of new product and service concepts. It is often referred to as non-routine, dynamic, and highly uncertain. Authors have made attempts to improve the manageability of this phase by proposing several methods and techniques. This paper explores the possible contribution of scenario analysis to increase the quality and effectiveness of the front-end of new product development process by linking a set of functions of scenario analysis as is recognized in the literature as possible solutions to various front-end problems. Two case studies are used to explore if and how the scenario analysis functions contribute to the front-end of new product development process in an empirical setting.     

Dominance,stakeholders’ moves and leadership shifts: New directions for transforming futures

Futures literature invites researchers to investigate stakeholders’ interests, actions and reactions, as well as to introduce an analysis of power and influence in scenario thinking. The purpose of this paper is to assess how the concept of dominance can help to improve scenario building and futures thinking as dominance transforms leadership within action processes. First, we examine power at work at different levels using concepts that relate to dominance and leadership shifts. Secondly, we discuss methodological proposals to implement the concepts of weak and strong dominance in action-based scenarios design and the implications of theses concepts for refining the approach of leadership in futures thinking. We conclude that paying attention to dominance transformations in scenarios is a promising direction to develop stakeholder and leadership analysis in scenario thinking. We suggest further research on the connection between history and futures thinking.     

Scenarios and the art of worldmaking

In this exploratory paper we propose ‘worldmaking’ as a framework for pluralistic, imaginative scenario development. Our points of departure are the need in scenario practice to embrace uncertainty, discomfort and knowledge gaps, and the connected need to capture and make productive fundamental plurality among understandings of the future. To help respond to these needs, we introduce what Nelson Goodman calls worldmaking. It holds that there is no singular, objective world (or “real reality”), and instead that worlds are multiple, constructed through creative processes instead of given, and always in the process of becoming. We then explore how worldmaking can operationalise discordant pluralism in scenario practice by allowing participants to approach not only the future but also the present in a constructivist and pluralistic fashion; and by extending pluralism to ontological domains. Building on this, we investigate how scenario worldmaking could lead to more imaginative scenarios: worldmaking is framed as a fully creative process which gives participants ontological agency, and it helps make contrasts, tensions and complementarities between worlds productive. We go on to propose questions that can be used to operationalize scenario worldmaking, and conclude with the expected potential and limitations the approach, as well as suggestions for practical experimentation.     

Innovation: the classic traps

Never a fad, but always in or out of fashion, innovation gets rediscovered as a growth enabler every half dozen years. Too often, though, grand declarations about innovation are followed by mediocre execution that produces anemic results, and innovation groups are quietly disbanded in cost-cutting drives. Each managerial generation embarks on the same enthusiastic quest for the next new thing. And each generation faces the same vexing challenges- most of which stem from the tensions between protecting existing revenue streams critical to current success and supporting new concepts that may be crucial to future success. In this article, Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter reflects on the four major waves of innovation enthusiasm she's observed over the past 25 years. She describes the classic mistakes companies make in innovation strategy, process, structure, and skills assessment, illustrating her points with a plethora of real-world examples--including AT&T Worldnet, Timberland, and Ocean Spray. A typical strategic blunder is when managers set their hurdles too high or limit the scope of their innovation efforts. Quaker Oats, for instance, was so busy in the 1990s making minor tweaks to its product formulas that it missed larger opportunities in distribution. A common process mistake is when managers strangle innovation efforts with the same rigid planning, budgeting, and reviewing approaches they use in their existing businesses--thereby discouraging people from adapting as circumstances warrant. Companies must be careful how they structure fledgling entities alongside existing ones, Kanter says, to avoid a clash of cultures and agendas--which Arrow Electronics experienced in its attempts to create an online venture. Finally, companies commonly undervalue and underinvest in the human side of innovation--for instance, promoting individuals out of innovation teams long before their efforts can pay off. Kanter offers practical advice for avoiding these traps.     

Scenarios and design: Scoping the dialogue space

This paper examines the intersections between two futures-oriented domains of practice and research: scenario planning and design. Both are practice-led, with uneasy but productive relationships with theorizing. Exploring their relations offers ways to address challenges faced by interdisciplinary management research, which struggles to connect research and practice. The authors describe how they brought the two fields together. We outline how we convened, designed and facilitated the fourth Oxford Futures Forum held in May 2014. This event brought together leading practitioners and researchers in a collective inquiry based on self-organizing, generative and reflexive making and dialogue. How participants engaged, from responding to the invitation to take part, as well as their practical and discursive encounters with one another during the event, threw up similarities and differences between the two fields. We present nine themes that capture the links and spaces between design and scenarios, yet suggest that they are not a straightforward overlap or a simple relationship, but rather a range of interactions between the fields, including feeding in, bridging, tension and repulsion. The paper's contribution is to suggest how scenario planning can engage with design, resulting in new opportunities for research and projects. These modes of engagement provide a framing to explore dialogues between other management disciplines.     

Navigating in the Midst of More Uncertainty and Risk

With the steady increase in the variety and scale of uncertainties and risks, the challenges for today's executives have become ever more complex and daunting. One powerful tool for navigating among different risks and uncertainties is scenario planning. From its early days of use within Shell, scenario planning has evolved in ways that make it better suited to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, and managing various financial risks across different industries. During the last ten years, Morgan Stanley has also been using scenario planning to gain a better understanding of key risks and uncertainties facing the financial services industry, ranging from the consequences of possible changes in the dollar to the emergence of hedge funds and the remarkable growth of China and India. In discussing the benefits of scenario planning, the authors note its potential to help management in a number of ways:

• ? By challenging conventional thinking and current assumptions about its industry and world;
• ? By identifying key signals or potential direction changes ahead of time, which is especially important when lead times to invest, hedge, or change assets are limiting factors;
• ? By identifying and assessing the value of strategic or “real” options—options to invest in new opportunities or limit downside risks that may suddenly open up or disappear, and that man‐ agement must be prepared to “exercise” quickly and decisively;
• ? By reinforcing the recognition that value added comes not just from better strategic thinking and planning, but from the role of risk management in helping companies take advantage of new opportunities;
• ? By encouraging more cross‐divisional and firm‐wide conversations about strategic choices and options, thereby creating a shared understanding of and greater consensus about chosen strategies; and
• ? By forcing them to go beyond the limits of typical three‐to‐five year forecasting limitations to think hard about longer‐term strategic choices.

     

Practising the scenario-axes technique

Studying the future seems a mission impossible, since both the appearance of the future and its underlying dynamics are unknown and unknowable. Nevertheless, the future is being studied by professional futurists. So, professional futurists seem to have found ways to structure ‘the unknown’. The question is, then, how do they do this? Over the years, professional futurists have developed several types of techniques and methods to structure thinking and discussing the future. The scenario-axes technique, which aims to align divergent perspectives on how the future may unfold, is one such structuring device.In the past 2 years, we did ethnographic research at the Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB) and followed professional futurists constructing and applying scenario axes in their scenario projects. Our observations illustrate how the scenario axes are practised by professional futurists and show that the scenario axes do not function as a unifying structure fostering alignment of different perspectives in the way that scenario theorists and practitioners often suggest. Instead, not one, but three different applications and interpretations of functional meaning of the scenario axes co-existed: the scenario axes as a ‘backbone’, as a ‘building scaffold’ and as ‘foundation’.     

Policies for a complex product system

This paper examines how government policy has influenced the pattern of innovation and industrial leadership in the cellular mobile communication systems. It focuses on the US government's role in promoting the early development of the cellular concept in the 1970s, Europe's attempt to take the lead with the promotion of the GSM standard in the late 1980s, and the rise of two rival world-wide standards in the 1990s (Europe's GSM versus America's CDMA systems). The cellular mobile communications system is treated as an example of a complex product system (CoPS). CoPS are large-scale, engineering intensive products that are supplied in unit or batch production and tailored to meet the requirements of particular large users. The purpose of this paper is to show by a single case study how patterns of technological innovation in CoPS may be influenced by policies of direct and indirect government control to promote industrial leadership.     

Connected and autonomous vehicle injury loss events: Potential risk and actuarial considerations for primary insurers

The introduction of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) to the road transport ecosystem will change the manner of collisions. CAVs are expected to optimize the safety of road users and the wider environment, while alleviating traffic congestion and maximizing occupant comfort. The net result is a reduction in the frequency of motor vehicle collisions, and a reduction in the number of injuries currently seen as “preventable.” A changing risk ecosystem will introduce new challenges and opportunities for primary insurers. Prior studies have highlighted the economic benefit provided by reductions in the frequency of hazardous events. This economic benefit, however, will be offset by the economic detriment incurred by emerging risks and the increased scrutiny placed on existing risks. We posit four plausible scenarios detailing how an introduction of these technologies could result in a larger relative rate of injury claims currently characterized as tail‐risk events. In such a scenario, the culmination of these losses will present as a second “hump” in actuarial loss models. We discuss how CAV risk factors and traffic dynamics may combine to make a second “hump” a plausible reality, and discuss a number of opportunities that may arise for primary insurers from a changing road environment.     

Mapping your innovation strategy

In the complex sport of American football, teams rely on playbooks as thick as the Manhattan phone directory. But when it comes to creating innovative growth businesses-which is at least as complicated as professional football--most companies have not developed detailed game plans. Indeed, many managers have concluded that a fog enshrouds the world of innovation, obscuring high-potential opportunities. The authors believe that companies can penetrate that fog by developing growth strategies based on disruptive innovations, as defined by Clayton Christensen. Such innovations conform to a pattern: They offer an entirely new solution; they perform adequately along traditional dimensions and much better along other dimensions that matter more to target customers; and they are not initially appealing to powerful incumbents. Companies can develop customized checklists, or playbooks, by combining this basic pattern with analysis of major innovations in their markets. The key early on is to focus not on detailed financial estimates--which will always guide companies toward the markets most hostile to disruptive innovations--but on how well the innovation fits the pattern of success. It's also crucial to encourage flexibility: Companies must be willing to kill projects that are going nowhere, exempt innovations from standard development processes, and avoid burdening project teams with extra financing, which can keep them heading in the wrong direction. Companies can create competitive advantage by becoming champions at defining the pattern of successful innovations and executing against it. But as that pattern becomes obvious--and others emerge-building a sustainable advantage on innovation competencies will again prove elusive.     

Institutional evolution as an emerging focus in scenario planning

In this paper, we argue that institutional evolution should occupy a center stage in scenario development. During the last two decades, strategy models have neglected the institutional milieu, partly because analytical approaches to link institutional milieus and business contexts were underdeveloped. However, theoretical developments in institutional economics accomplished during this time period make it possible to connect the consequences of institutional evolution to strategy development. Further, with the increasing globalization of commerce, and the attendant complexity and turbulence in institutional evolution, particularly in emerging economies, significant opportunities for strategy related action may reside not in product markets but in institutional arenas. Institution-focused scenarios are therefore increasingly needed. We outline the key linkages between the institutional milieu and business contexts and illustrate how scenarios incorporating institutional parameters can shed light on the strategy context in the case of emerging economies.     

导航产品与商业银行产品创新的实践与思考

长期以来,产品易于被竞争对手模仿及保持市场优势时间短,成为制约商业银行产品创新的“瓶颈”。目前国内商业银行需要经历机制性的组织变化才能逾越产品创新的难关,因而要求在组织管理层中有能动的“导航者”。导航者的作用在于使组织的创新机制运作顺畅、培养有创新能力的团队及引入合适的创新技术,从而改善组织的产品创新效果、塑造组织的产品创新文化。有鉴于此,要求导航者要具备必要的知识、投入足够的精力及承担潜在的风险。本文通过案例银行的具体产品创新实例,分析了导航者如何导航产品创新的开展,使理论与实际结合,具有一定的应用价值。     

To boldly go where no man has gone before: integrating cognitive and physical features in scenario studies

A recent surge in the literature shows that scenario studies are very much back in vogue. The revival of the scenario approach to strategic planning, however, also shows that the method has developed rather one-sidedly both in theory and practice. The dominant trend in scenario thinking is that scenario construction is used primarily as a cognitive exercise, involving mental processes only. In this paper we aim to complement this development by arguing for a more integrated approach, involving both cognitive and “physical” features. Such an approach combines more traditional cognitive elements of scenario studies with, for example, organizational experiments, deliberately made small mistakes, and external corporate ventures. Moreover, we introduce a typology of scenario studies based on two salient assumptions that characterize the field.     

Experiences of the development and use of scenarios for evaluating Swedish environmental quality objectives

This paper presents and evaluates a method for encouraging long-term thinking and for considering a variety of scenarios in environmental policy processes. The Swedish environmental policy is based on 16 environmental quality objectives (EQOs) that national authorities are obliged to observe. These objectives are reviewed annually and evaluated in depth every four years. Here we describe and explore a futures study project for introducing more long-term thinking into work on the EQOs, which we tested in the in-depth evaluation in 2008. We found it difficult to design a collective scenario for a case with a wide variety of objectives and individuals with different backgrounds. However, this difficulty makes it even more important to incorporate futures studies into the work of the relevant authorities. Scenario work is often subcontracted, leading to a constant lack of futures studies expertise and thinking within authorities. Despite the difficulties, we found that experts within the authorities did begin to recognise the opportunities provided by futures studies. The project revealed an interest and need for futures studies within the authorities in charge of Swedish environmental quality objectives and our findings show that the authorities need to build up their own skills in futures studies.     

Imagination workshops: An empirical exploration of SFP for technology-based business innovation

This article explores the potential use of Science Fiction Prototypes (SFPs) as a vehicle to promote creative thinking and innovation in the business and technology development process. In particular, the paper describes a tool, “The Imagination Workshop”, which business people can use to drive near and far term product innovation, futuristic business and entrepreneurship. A key contribution of this article is the use of a modified evolutionary model of the Science Fiction Prototyping creation process (cyclic SFP), which, instead of being linear process (as in earlier approaches), is based around a set of feedback loops in the form of an iterative evolutionary co-creative process. In addition, the paper describes how the SFP methodology has been applied to business innovation and entrepreneurship in two small UK companies. Finally, it reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of these methods from a business perspective.     

Using signposts in future studies: Lessons from the Justice for tomorrow project

Within the field of future studies, the scenario method is frequently applied. In the literature it is often stressed that it is important to know as soon as possible which of several scenarios is closest to the course of history as it actually unfolds. However, tracking scenarios via early warning mechanisms or signposts, is not a common practice. A standard methodology seems to be absent. Within the context of the Justice for tomorrow project, a scenario project of the Dutch ministry of Justice, we developed and applied a signpost method. We used this method to answer the question of how actual developments relate to the development paths depicted in the scenarios. In this paper we evaluate our approach. We explain what lessons can be learned regarding the use of signposts in future studies.     

Island futures—Does a participatory scenario process capture the common view of local residents?

Scenarios are often developed by small groups of motivated individuals, but how representative are they of community views of desirable futures? A scenario process in the coastal community of Vega in central Norway was complemented by a survey among 200 community residents in which respondents rated a preferred development option from a series of future choices and dilemmas. While the scenario process produced novelty and diversity in thinking about the future, the common community view reflects a more traditionalistic view of the future. Tourism was identified as a key economic opportunity in the scenario process, but the larger island community has little faith in tourism as a future cornerstone of economic development and would rather rely on traditional sectors like agriculture and fisheries. The scenarios brought out richness in future development options, highlighted place identity and support for heritage conservation based on wise use of natural resources. The scenarios were less suited for making decisions about economic investments, but produced salient information about opportunities, uncertainties and complexities of the future. Findings show the need to compliment scenario processes where a small group explores “possible futures” with surveys to explore the wider populations’ views about “preferred futures”.     

Creating breakthroughs at 3M

Most senior managers want their product development teams to create break-throughs--new products that will allow their companies to grow rapidly and maintain high margins. But more often they get incremental improvements to existing products. That's partly because companies must compete in the short term. Searching for breakthroughs is expensive and time consuming; line extensions can help the bottom line immediately. In addition, developers simply don't know how to achieve breakthroughs, and there is usually no system in place to guide them. By the mid-1990s, the lack of such a system was a problem even for an innovative company like 3M. Then a project team in 3M's Medical-Surgical Markets Division became acquainted with a method for developing breakthrough products: the lead user process. The process is based on the fact that many commercially important products are initially thought of and even prototyped by "lead users"--companies, organizations, or individuals that are well ahead of market trends. Their needs are so far beyond those of the average user that lead users create innovations on their own that may later contribute to commercially attractive breakthroughs. The lead user process transforms the job of inventing breakthroughs into a systematic task of identifying lead users and learning from them. The authors explain the process and how the 3M project team successfully navigated through it. In the end, the team proposed three major new product lines and a change in the division's strategy that has led to the development of breakthrough products. And now several more divisions are using the process to break away from incrementalism.     

The why, what, and how of management innovation

For organizations like GE, P&G, and Visa, management innovation is the secret to success. But what is management innovation? Why is it so important? And how can other companies learn to become management innovators? This article from expert Gary Hamel answers those questions. A management breakthrough can deliver a strong advantage to the innovating company and produce a major shift in industry leadership. Few companies, however, have been able to come up with a formal process for fostering management innovation. The biggest challenge seems to be generating truly unique ideas. Four components can help: a big problem that demands fresh thinking, creative principles or paradigms that can reveal new approaches, an evaluation of the conventions that constrain novel thinking, and examples and analogies that help redefine what can be done. No doubt there are existing management processes in your organization that exacerbate the big problems you're hoping to solve. So how can you learn to identify them? Start by asking a series of questions for each one. For instance, Who owns the process? What are its objectives? What are the metrics for success? What are the decision-making criteria? How are decisions communicated, and to whom? After documenting these details, ask the people involved with the process to weigh in. This exploration may reveal opportunities to reinventyour management processes. A management innovation, the author says, creates long-lasting advantage when it meets at least one of three conditions: It is based on a novel principle that challenges the orthodoxy; it is systemic, involving a range of processes and methods; or it is part of a program of invention, where progress compounds over time. So far, management in this century isn't much different from management in the previous one, says Hamel. Therein lies the opportunity. You can wait for a competitor to come upon the next great management process and drive you out of business-or you can become a management innovator right now.