Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The benefits of scenario-based planning

How scenario-based strategic planning affects the behavior of managers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scenario-based Strategic Planning

Part of the book series: Roland Berger School of Strategy and Economics ((RBSE))

  • 4153 Accesses

Abstract

Scenario-based strategic planning provides a strategy framework that enables managers to better manage the uncertain environmental conditions that many industries face today. The method's greatest potential lies in the fact that it provides flexible rather than unidimensional strategies and thus potentially improves the quality of decisions in companies. However, previous research has only analyzed the impact of scenario planning implicitly. We therefore present a concept that describes how scenario-based strategic planning can be used to increase decision quality. To this end, we focus on the three key drivers of decision quality as identified and described in previous research: decisions should be comprehensive, fast and unbiased. In this chapter, we analyze these factors in depth and suggest what is necessary to achieve them in a strategic decision-making process. Furthermore, we show that scenario-based strategic planning provides a methodological foundation for implementing such a process in corporate practice as it combines quick application, which increases the speed of decision making, with open strategic thinking, which reduces bias and increases the comprehensiveness of decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amason AC. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal 39(1): 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima K., Li H. 2004. Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of Management Journal 47(4): 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman TS., Zeithaml CP. 1989a. The psychological context of strategic decisions: A model and convergent experimental findings. Strategic Management Journal 10(1): 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman TS., Zeithaml CP. 1989b. The psychological context of strategic decisions: a test of relevance to practitioners. Strategic Management Journal 10(6): 587–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum JR., Wally S. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 24(11): 1107–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH., Moore DA. 2009. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blenko WM., Mankins MC., Rogers P. 2010. The decision-driven organization. Harvard Business Review 88(6): 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradfield RM. 2008. Cognitive barriers in the scenario development process. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(2): 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley SP., Sullivan EE. 2005. AOL Time Warner, Inc. Harvard Business School Case.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braybrooke D., Lindblom CE. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF. 2000. Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chermack TJ. 2011. Scenario Planning in Organizations: How to Create, Use, and Assess Scenarios. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane E., Pratt MG. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review 32(1): 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das TK., Teng BS. 1999. Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies 36(6): 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean JW., Sharfman MP. 1996. Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 39(2): 368–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal 32(3): 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B. 1982. Debiasing. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A eds.(.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 422–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes DP. 2005. Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strategic Management Journal 26(4): 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes DP. 2007. Reconsidering the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson JW., Mitchell TR. 1984. Strategic decision processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance in an industry with an unstable environment. Academy of Management Journal 27(2): 399–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson JW. 1984. The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal 27(3): 445–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin DA., Levesque LC. 2006. Strategic planning at United Parcel Service. Harvard Business School Case.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick WH., Miller CC., Huber GP. 1993. The impact of upper-echelon diversity on organizational performance. In Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance. Huber GP, Glick WH eds.(.) New York: Oxford University Press: 178–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart S., Banbury C. 1994. How strategy making processes can make a difference. Strategic Management Journal 15(4): 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey MP., Hodgkinson GP. 2008. Troubling futures: Scenarios and scenario planning for organizational decision making. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making, Hodgkinson GP, Starbuck WH (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 565–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson CD., Bown NJ., Maule AJ., Glaister KW., Pearman AD. 1999. Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal 20(10): 977–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson GP., Sadler-Smith G., Burke LA., Claxton G., Sparrow PR. 2009. Intuition in organizations: Implications for strategic management. Long Range Planning 42(3): 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson GP., Starbuck WH. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hough JR., White MA. 2003. Environmental dynamism and strategic decision- making rationality: an examination at the decision level. Strategic Management Journal 24(5): 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge WQ., Miller A. 1991. Antecedents and outcomes of decision speed in different environmental contexts. Academy of Management Journal 34(2): 449–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Klein G. 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise A failure to disagree. American Psychologist 64(6): 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Klein G. 2010. When can you trust your gut? McKinsey Quarterly 10(2): 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Lovallo D., Sibony O. 2011. Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review 89(6): 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP. 2004. Debiasing. In Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Koehler DJ, Harvey N (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell: 316–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS., Tetlock PE. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin IP. 1987. Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25: 85–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovallo D., Sibony O. 2010. The case for behavioral strategy. McKinsey Quarterly 10(2): 30–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milkman KL., Chugh D., Bazerman, MH. 2009. How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(4): 378–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller CC. 2008. Decisional comprehensiveness and firm performance: Towards a more complete understanding. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21(5): 598–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer K. 1996. Scenario planning at British Airways - A case study. Long Range Planning 29(2): 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T., Strack F., Pfeiffer T. 2000. Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensate for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(9): 1142–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem RL., Rasheed AMA., Kotulic AG. 1996. Rationality in strategic decision processes, environmental dynamism and firm performance. Journal of Management 21(5): 913–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringland G. 2006. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH. 1995. Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review 37(2): 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH. 2002. Profiting from Uncertainty: Strategies for Succeeding No Matter What the Future Brings. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson H., Gumpert D. 1985. The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review 63(2): 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden K. 2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wack P. 1985a. Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review 63(5): 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wack P. 1985b. Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. Harvard Business Review 63(6): 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wally S., Baum JR. 1994. Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal 37(4): 932–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters BA., Bhuian SN. 2004. Complexity absorption and performance: A structural analysis of acute-care hospitals. Journal of Management 30(1): 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiltbank R., Dew N., Read S., Sarasvathy SD. 2006. What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal 27(10): 981–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright G., Goodwin P. 2002. Eliminating a framing bias by using simple instructions to ’think harder’ and respondents with managerial experience: comment on ’breaking the frame’. Strategic Management Journal 23(11): 1059–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business administration at Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Dr. Philip Meissner

Authors
  1. Dr. Philip Meissner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

    Burkhard Schwenker

  2. Chair of Strategic Management and Organization, HHL - Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Germany

    Torsten Wulf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meissner, P. (2013). The benefits of scenario-based planning. In: Schwenker, B., Wulf, T. (eds) Scenario-based Strategic Planning. Roland Berger School of Strategy and Economics. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02875-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation