Phase 1 — Framing the focal question
- Define the focal question: What is the decision or challenge the scenarios will inform? The question must be specific enough to be actionable but broad enough to require thinking across multiple futures. Example: "How should our organization position itself for the next 10 years?" or "What does a just food system in our region look like in 2035?"
- Map the system: Before building scenarios, the group maps the key forces at play: social, technological, economic, environmental, political. What are the driving forces that will most shape the future of the focal question?
- Identify the critical uncertainties: From the list of driving forces, identify the 2 most important AND most uncertain. These become the axes of the scenario matrix. Forces that are important but highly predictable (demographics, for example) become fixed elements in all scenarios.
Phase 2 — Building the scenarios
- Create the scenario matrix:
- Draw a 2x2 matrix with the two critical uncertainties as axes. Each quadrant represents a scenario — a distinct combination of how the two key uncertainties could resolve.
- Example focal question: "The future of rural healthcare". Critical uncertainties: (1) national health funding — increasing vs. decreasing; (2) community organization — strong vs. fragmented. Four scenarios emerge from the four quadrant combinations.
- Develop each scenario (in small groups):
- Divide into four groups, one per scenario. Each group develops their scenario into a coherent narrative: What happened over the intervening years? What events and decisions led to this world? What does daily life look and feel like for different people in this scenario?
- Give each scenario a name that captures its essence — vivid, memorable, provocative. Good scenario names are not optimistic or pessimistic; they are descriptive. Bad names: "Best Case" and "Worst Case" (these create bias). Good names: "The Forgotten Frontier" and "Local Roots."
- Each scenario should feel plausible, internally consistent, and distinctly different from the others.
- Present and stress-test scenarios:
- Each group presents their scenario to the full group. Others challenge: Is this scenario internally consistent? Is it too optimistic or pessimistic? Is it distinct enough from the other scenarios?
- Scenarios are refined through critique until the set of four feels like a genuinely different, plausible set of futures.
Phase 3 — Identifying implications and robust strategies
- Implications for the focal question: For each scenario, the full group asks: If this future materializes, what would we need to do? What current plans or assumptions become obsolete? What becomes more important?
- Identify robust strategies: Look for actions that make sense across multiple scenarios — not strategies optimized for one future that would fail in others. These "no-regrets" actions are the most strategically secure because they provide value regardless of how uncertainty resolves.
- Identify signposts: What early indicators would tell us that a particular scenario is becoming more likely? These become monitoring signals that allow the organization to adapt its strategy over time as the future begins to reveal itself.
Materials
Large paper or whiteboard for driving forces mapping
2x2 matrix template (printed or on whiteboard)
Post-it notes and markers for brainstorming driving forces
Scenario narrative template for small group work
Summary report template for implications and signposts
Digital tools
Practical recommendations
Four scenarios is the optimal number. Two is too few (becomes a best/worst binary). Six or more is too complex to hold in mind simultaneously. Four scenarios create enough contrast without overwhelming the group.
Avoid naming scenarios by valence. "Best Case / Worst Case" or "Optimistic / Pessimistic" create emotional bias — participants unconsciously plan for their preferred scenario. Scenarios should be named for their defining quality, not their desirability.
The matrix axes must be both important AND uncertain. A common mistake is choosing an axis that is important but actually quite predictable (climate change is happening — the uncertainty is in magnitude and policy response, not in whether it happens). The uncertainty must be genuine.
Spend as much time on robust strategies as on scenario building. Groups often invest heavily in developing vivid scenarios and then rush the strategic implications. The scenarios are a tool — the robust strategies are the deliverable.
Revisit signposts regularly. The value of Scenario Planning compounds over time when organizations actively monitor the signals that would tell them which scenario is emerging. Build the signpost review into a quarterly or annual review process.
Inspiration
Notable applications:
- Shell's global energy scenarios: The original application. Shell's scenario team anticipated the 1973 oil shock through scenarios built in 1971–72, enabling the company to respond faster than competitors who were planning for a single predictable future.
- South Africa — Mont Fleur Scenarios (1991–1992): Adam Kahane facilitated a group of 22 South Africans — ANC members, Afrikaner politicians, business leaders, academics — to build scenarios for post-apartheid South Africa. The four scenarios (Ostrich, Lame Duck, Icarus, Flight of the Flamingos) became widely used in South African public discourse and contributed to the transition planning.
- Colombia — Destino Colombia (1997–1998): Similar process in the midst of civil conflict. 53 Colombians from opposing sides built four scenarios for the country's future — creating shared language for a conflict where parties had no common framework.
- Regional food systems: A regional food council brings together farmers, retailers, NGOs, and public health officials to build scenarios for the regional food system in 2040 — identifying robust investments in distribution infrastructure that make sense across multiple different futures for climate, migration, and food policy.
Consulted sources
- Kahane, A. (2012). Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future. Berrett-Koehler.
- Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 63(5), 72–89.
- Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. Doubleday.
- van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Ramirez, R. & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic Reframing: The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach. Oxford University Press.
