Phases of Scenario Planning

Scenario Planning is subdivided into different phases. However, the number of phases varies between different authors. In the following, the two most common models will be introduced shortly. The first model is from Ute von Reibnitz, who divided the process of Scenario Planning into eight phases. Gausemeier, Fink and Schlake on the other hand, separated their model into five phases. In this work, the model of Gausemeier, Fink and Schlake will be applied and explained in greater detail. The proceeding of Gausemeier et al. will be modified at some specific points. Those modifications are explained in the appropriate position. In the following, the eight phases of von Reibnitz will be introduced shortly but not in detail.

Ute von Reibnitz (1991, p. 30 ff.)

Reibnitz subdivided the process of scenario planning into eight phases. As Figure 2 shows, those phases were Task Analysis, Influence Analysis, Trend Projection, Bundles of Alternatives, Scenario Interpretation, Consequence Analysis, Analysis of Disruptions and the Scenario Transfer.

Figure 2: Eight steps of the Scenario Technique (Reibnitz, 1991, p. 30)

In the following, those different phases will be shortly explained:

1. Analysis of the present situation of the object of examination (company, strategic business unit, group of products, etc.)

2. Definition and evaluation of external influence factors, such as competitors, technology, economy, society, etc., that in the future might have an impact on the object of analysis

3. Development of descriptors (parameters), that describe the present condition, based on the identified influence factors from phase 2

4. Proof of consistency of the identified alternatives in phase 3. The results are consistent, but with stable different scenarios

5. Scenarios will be created and interpreted, based on the outcomes of phases 3 and 4

6. Deduction and evaluation of opportunities and threats for companies followed by the identification of suitable measures

7. Identification and evaluation of potential internal and external disturbing factors, and identification of measures to prevent those disruptions

8. Formulation of strategies and establishment of a measurement and monitoring system

Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 101)

The Scenario Planning process from Gausemeier, Fink and Schlake was subdivided into the following five phases: Scenario Preparation, Scenario Field Analysis, Scenario Prognostic, Scenario Development and Scenario Transfer. As Figure 3 shows, phases

2 to 4 were more critical and marked as Scenario Creation (Gausemeier, 2004, p. 55).

Figure 3 also gave information about the results of each phase, and the outcomes reached from the Scenario Base up to Strategies (ibid., p. 55).

Figure 3: Phases of Scenario Planning (Gausemeier/Fink/Schlake, 1997, p. 6)

Scenario Preparation (Phase 1)

According to Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 125), phase 1 was subdivided into two different parts: project description and decision-field analysis. The project description gave basic information about the scenario planning; the project definition consisted of a description the kind of scenarios that would be created (extreme or trend scenario) and how (for example, if there was a team creating the scenarios or whether the author himself created them). Additionally, this phase answered the questions on what time horizon the scenarios would be made and what the core questions were that should be answered by the scenario planning. As Gausemeier, Fink and Schlake (1998, p. 6) mentioned, the second part of the scenario preparation – the decision-field analysis – was for analyzing the particular object of the scenario. Those objects could be companies, products, societies, technologies, etc. At that point, the current situation of the object would be analyzed. According to Gausemeier et al. (1998, p. 6), “the result

of the scenario preparation is called scenario base, because it is the starting point of the scenario creation (phases 2 to 4) and transfer (phase 5).

Scenario Field Analysis (Phase 2)

As shown in Figure 3, the scenario field analysis is the first phase of the actual scenario creation. The target of the second phase is the identification of key factors forming the basis of the scenario creation. Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 167) subdivided this main phase into the following three subphases: creation of areas of influence, creation of influence factors, and identification of key factors.

Creation of areas of influence

The scenario field is subdivided into different areas (ibid., p. 167). Gausemeier et al.

(1996, p. 171) distinguished the areas of influence between steering (internal) and environment area (external). Steering areas, such as company divisions as marketing, research and development or human resources can be influenced by the scenario object/company and environment areas while technology, markets, demography, cannot be influenced by the scenario object/company.

Creation of influence factors

At this point, for each influence area different influence factors will be identified.

Those influence factors have to have the characteristic of explaining the current condition as well as the opportunities of future developments of the different areas of influence. (ibid., p. 167) After identifying the influence factors, those factors will be described without evaluation and finally verified. The result is a catalog of influence factors that describes the scenario field (ibid., p. 173). “The identification of influence factors is a creative process […]. This process can be supported by specific methods like brainstorming, brainwriting or the 6-3-5 method” (Gausemeier et al., 1998, p. 8).

Identification of key factors

The last step of phase two is the filtration of the most suitable influence factors from the rest (Gausemeier et al., 1996, p. 189). Most important for this filtration is the direct and indirect influence analysis. The difference between the direct and the indirect

influence analysis is whether it examines the direct or indirect relationship between different influence factors (ibid., p. 191).

In this work, phase two is performed differently. Instead of the following three phases according to Gausemeier et al. – creation of areas of influence, creation of influence factors and identification of key factors – the assumption is made that relevant megatrends relating to mobility are used as key factors. Megatrends are used as key factors, since certain megatrends consistently appear during literature research. For example, urbanization appears in different sources as an influencing factor of mobility (Jung, Kraft, 2017, p. 227; Popp, Schüll, 2009, p. 320; Phleps, Feige, Zapp, 2015, p.

98). Nonetheless, the more detailed explanations and answers to the question why certain megatrends were used as key factors and what their impact is on mobility will be presented in section 4.2, when the scenario field analysis is performed.

Phase two is performed in one single phase with two subsections. First, megatrends will be defined and introduced. Second, relevant megatrends that have an impact on mobility will be chosen, followed by an explanation. Afterwards, those chosen megatrends will be presented in their current situation.

Scenario Prognostic (Phase 3)

In the third phase the actual foresight happens, as Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 221) stated. During phase three, the key factors that result from phase two will be analyzed and their different future developments elaborated. Furthermore, those future prognostics – as Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 221) called them – will be mentioned and justified. This is one of the main steps during the scenario planning, given that these future prognostics constitute the basis of the subsequent future scenarios (Gausemeier, 2004, p. 56). This phase is subdivided into two different phases: preparation of key factors and creation of future projections (Gausemeier et al., 1996, p. 248).

Preparation of key factors

In the first sub phase, the dimensions or characteristics of each key factor are prepared and defined. It is essential to form those dimensions in a manner in which they are able to describe the current as well as the future situation of the key factor (ibid., p. 228).

Gausemeier et al. recommended finding two characteristics per key factor. More

characteristics would make it more difficult to comprehend and visualize the key factors (ibid., p. 229). After identifying the characteristics, each key factors’ current situation will be captured and specified. The analysis of the current situation is a crucial moment because it constitutes the starting point of the future scenario. For a later evaluation and classification of each scenario, the definition of the current situation need to be consistent and comprehensible. (ibid., p. 230)

Creation of future projections

In the second sub phase of Scenario Projection the analysis starts (ibid., p. 248).

Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 248 f.) subdivided this phase into four different steps:

• The first step is the determination of potential future projections through:

extrapolation of the evolution, hyperbolism of the development, conscious speedup of the development, conscious involvement of developments of the environment and development of future projections out of processes.

• During the second step one to three future projections will be selected. Key factors with just one projection are referred to as uncritical key factors and the rest of them as critical key factors.

• The third step assigns an occurrence probability to each critical future projection.

• The fourth and last step is the formulation and justification of each future projection. The thorough formulation of the future projections is crucial for the later understanding and confirmability of the different scenarios.

Against the approach of Gausemeier et al., the second subphase – the creation of future projections – is performed by two focus groups in two group discussions. According to Kosow, Gaßner, Erdmann and Luber from the Institute for Future Studies and Technology Assessment (2008, p. 56), trend-based scenario techniques and key factor-based scenario techniques as well as systematic-formal scenario techniques and creative-narrative scenario techniques can be mixed with each other or influence each other. In this context, the creation of future projections is conducted with a creative-narrative technique. The focus groups consist of current and future customers of transportation, like a private car, shared car, bicycle, public train and bus, etc. For the group of experts, people were consciously chosen that on the one hand have the

attitude of a “first mover” and an “early adopter”, but on the other are “normal” citizens that use different kinds of transportation vehicles every day. It was consciously decided to use people that do not have a specific connection to mobility, such as employees of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or city administrations. The purpose was to choose people that can represent the populace but also have a creative and resourceful mindset. In this context, this means the participants are willing to use new innovations right from the beginning or shortly after launch and also think about prospective developments. The opposite of a first mover is someone that is waiting until a product is made to perfection and field reports are available. For the context of this work, innovators were needed, that are willing to use creative techniques and are able to think one step further. The two groups consist of people aged 23 to 33. All participants currently use different kinds of transportation – for example, privately-owned car, bicycle, shared car and public transportation. The professions of all participants were different and a mix of business consultants, an entrepreneur, a patent attorney, a medicine student, an assistant of a Chief Executive Officer from a medium-size company, an employee of a car rental and an employee of startup for “smart parking”.

For reasons of acknowledgment and comparability, the focus group totaling eight participants will be split up and two separate workshops with four members each will be conducted. With this method the results of each workshop can be compared and verify each other. As method for the projection of each key factor the 6-3-5 method will be applied. The 6-3-5 method is a creative technique that is similar to brainstorming (Schawel, Billing, 2014, p. 301). Since the creation of future projections is a creative task – especially when thinking about extreme scenarios – this method is suitable. Typically, 6 people will be asked to create 3 solutions within 5 minutes. After five minutes the sheets will be swapped with each other. During the next five rounds, everyone has to further develop the ideas from his antecessors. After 30 minutes, 18 solutions will be created and developed by all six participants (Gausemeier et al., 1996, p. 180). Since in this work four key factors with four dimensions each form the basis of the scenario creation, this method will become adjusted to 4-4-10: That means that each participant will become one key factor and has to fill out all four dimensions.

After ten minutes each participant will pass his results over in clockwise direction to the next member and receives another key factor from another member in return. This

action will be executed until each participant had filled out each single key factor once.

After 40 minutes, 80 results or key factor outcomes and 16 future projections will be created. The advantage of this method is that within a short time period an array of future projections will be created, and each participant has to think about each single key factor – even when some of them not belong to his field of expertise (ibid., p. 185).

After the execution of the 6-3-5 method (4-4-10 method), all outcomes will be presented and discussed by the group and afterwards consolidated into one graph.

Scenario Development (Phase 4)

The goal of phase four is the creation of significant scenarios, based on the identified future projections from the previous phase (Gausemeier, 2004, p. 58). Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 251 ff.) are subdividing this phase into the following four subphases:

Bundling of projections

First, combinations of different future projections from different key factors will be made. According to Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 253), exactly one future projection from each key factor needs to be used for the bundling. These bundles need to be consistent and plausible, which will be verified by a consistency and plausibility analysis (ibid., p. 251).

Formation of raw scenarios

After the bundling of projections, the consistent bundles will be consolidated to raw scenarios, according to its similarity. This consolidation will be made by a cluster analysis. At the end of this step the raw scenarios will be specified in a raw scenario catalog (ibid., p. 217).

Future mapping

The future mapping is used to visualize the different future bundles and scenarios in a future space.

Scenario description

The description of the scenarios is the last step of the scenario creation. At this point, the different scenarios will be described and interpreted in detail. “The scenario

description can be completed by the identification of disruptive factors or events, robustness, and sensitivity analyses” (Gausemeier et al., 1998, p. 13).

Similar to the second subphase of phase 3 (creation of future projections), phase four is – contrary to Gausemeier et al. – realized in a creative-narrative approach. That means that the consistency analysis is not performed in a consistency matrix – as Gausemeier et al. describe it – but during a workshop with a focus group through brainstorming and discussion. As described in phase three, these participants will create the future projections of each key factor and, according to the fourth phase, connect these projections to create consistent scenarios. This consistency analysis is done by allocating each projection into one of four quadrants described through the axes Progression and Complexity of realization, as it can be seen in Figure 4. The value of each parameter can be high or low.

Figure 4: Consistency Analysis Diagram (own illustration)

Progression describes the degree of change that each single future projection means for the world and its mobility. Complexity of realization describes the complexity of the realization and development of each projection. Figure 4 pictures two main directions – on the one hand the present, when progression and complexity of realization are low, and on the other the future, when both axes describe a high value.

The advantage of this participative-communicative method is that different sources of

information and creative input of different people will be included. Each participant has different background knowledge and fields of interest (Kosow et al., 2008, p. 54 f.). By means of this more creative and intuitive approach the amount and the range of potential future projections will become greater than when the author would perform this himself. To ensure a high quality of outcome of the group discussions, the participants will be chosen carefully.

The result of the focus group discussions will be several possible scenarios that potentially could occur. In collaboration with the focus group, three final scenarios will be created, by allocating each projection into one quadrant. The projections, that are assigned to the quadrant of low and low value describes the trend scenario.

Contrary to that outcome, the projections that are assigned to high and high or high and low value form the extreme and visionary scenarios. Out of all potential scenarios, one trend and two extreme scenarios will be chosen. These three scenarios will be described and interpreted in detail, similar to the fourth sub phase of the approach of Gausemeier et al.

Scenario Transfer (Phase 5)

According to Gausemeier et al. (1996, p. 321), the previously created scenarios form the basis for essential decisions companies or cities have to make. Gausemeier et al.

divided this transfer from scenarios to strategic business management into three different steps:

Impact analysis

In the framework of the impact analysis the consequences of each scenario are determined. Resulting from this analysis, strengths and weaknesses of the scenarios can be identified, later leading to strategies, measures and recommendations. During this analysis, disrupting events can be included to align the strength and weakness analysis as well as the potential strategies. (ibid., p. 321)

Contingency planning

Based on the strengths and weaknesses, concrete measures will be derived, that use the strengths at its best and minimize the identified risks. The identified measures form different contingency plans for each field. (ibid., p. 339)

Robust planning

During the last step, the previously created contingency plans will become conjoined to robust plans (strategic plans), which will meet different scenarios (ibid., p. 381).

Different to the approach of Gausemeier et al., in this work the scenario transfer will be executed within one step. Recommendations will be derived from the identified scenarios. These recommendations address cities and automobile manufacturer, both as mobility provider. The target of this chapter is to form the basis for cities and manufacturer to derive future strategies from these recommendations.

4 Scenario Planning

In this chapter, the scenario planning described in the previous chapter will be performed and described. Certain steps deviate from the approach of Gausemeier et al.

according to the specific explanations in Chapter 3. The change of single steps was made to switch from a pure systematic technique to a mix of systematic and creative-intuitive techniques. Using a creative and creative-intuitive approach, a greater amount of potential future outcomes will be created and evaluated, thereby leading to a greater range of projections.

4.1 Scenario Preparation