To apply Scenario Planning in my organization, I would like to make use of the Analytic strategies and Synthesis Strategies suggested on the lecture note to illustrate the possibility of that to occur in different level.
Taking into consideration the uncertainties towards the future of sub-degree sector such as the changing role of sub-degree educational institution upon the implementation of 3+3+4 and the potentials of reducing number of student enrollment in the coming years with a lot of uncertainties upon university entrance examination reform, I believe that the Sensitivity/risk assessment and Strategy evaluation under ‘Analytic strategies’ would not be that appropriate in evaluating the possibility of Scenario Planning for my organization. Sensitivity/risk assessment is rather straightforward application with a clear and specific decision/outcome while Strategy evaluation is best use of application in a situation with an existing agreed strategy in an organization. None describes the current situation facing the sub-degree sector with relatively short period of development and unanticipated visions since sub-degree sector is often perceived as ‘by-product’ or derivative for non-eligible degree holders in lack of proper sense of identification.
Indeed, the Strategic development is more suitable for application in my organization. For Planning focus where a management team is formed to build a robust strategy, this is particularly feasible in my organization where there is often more than one scenario for testing and comparison with others but needs a focus one for everyone’s attention so as to create the core corporate vision that strengthen team spirits. By reviewing each scenario and select a planning focus one, it is indeed more easy for my organization to focus on strategy development. For example, making one scenario with reducing number of student enrollments compared with another scenario where number of student enrollments remains unchanged upon implementation of 3+3+4, after gathering all the facts and hypothesis gathered, the planning focus one would be screened out. By focusing on the scenario with higher probability, more resources could be allocated to support the scenario. Other scenarios used for comparison serve to further strengthen the support for the focused one.
Comparatively, the Strategic development without planning focus that takes all scenarios for discussion is less suitable for my organization because it would be too broad for discussion in the sea of uncertainties. Unlike commercial firms where decisions can change deliberately as long as they comply with local regulations, sub-degree sector is not completely autonomic. In most cases, its development path indeed is determined by the Government and Accreditation Institutions where the sector can only voice their opinions but cannot amend their policies. Therefore, it is unrealistic for my organization to consider many possible scenarios and choose the one that is most successful in the perspective of the organization. Instead, it is more realistic to consider one focus scenario that is likely to accepted by the Government and Accreditation Institutions in line with the development among other institutions within the sub-degree sector to enable its sustainable development for future.
References:
Ringland, Gill. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. 2nd ed.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
Hi Jeff
ReplyDeleteYour organization focus on comparing different scenario plan and choose the better one. It is a good method for organization development, but I am confused about how to comparing the different plan, I think no one can forecast the future things, maybe the scenario plan which fail to be chosen will bring more benefit then the chosen one in the future, no one knows.
Hi Andy:
DeleteAgree that it may indeed be the consideration of the more unlikely scenarios that actually has more of a positive impact on the organisation. I think that the most valuable aspect of scenario planning may well be forcing managers to consider possible futures that do not seem likely at present.
Of course, as suggested by Jeff, a detailed plan would only be constructed for the most likely scenario. But by at least consciously considering the unlikely scenarios, the organisation will be more likely to react in time if that unlikely scenario does start to play out.
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteI love the term 'sea of uncertainty' that you use. It goes a ,ong way to express the vast magnitude of possibilities that scenario planning can encompass. It certainly seems like an art to me.
I think that organisations need to not just have a plan for possible eventualities, but should also have a basic strategy that is linked to their corporate ethos. That way they'll have guiding principles that they can refer to in any dynamic or unplanned situation. Sort of like the codes of ethics that many professional organisations have. They can then use this as a benchmark for their actions and reactions to events. So the organisational aims and philosophy will always be there to act as a rudder in trying times.
An example would be the MEAA code of Ethics for journalists. Here:http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html
This code is for the working journalists but also applies to media organisations. By interrogating and plan or decisions against this code it helps determine a course of action and provides a framework for decision making that is testable and has a reasoned background.
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteCan Government and Accreditation Institutions be considered one of driving forces for scenario planning?
Edward (MITEChange)