Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Scenario Planning : A Tool for Strategic Thinking
Transcript of Scenario Planning : A Tool for Strategic Thinking
: 미래에 예상되는 여러 가지 시나리오를 도출하고, 시나리오별 전략적 대안을 미리 수립하는 경영 기법이다.
: 미래예측학에서의 한 분석기법이다.시나리오 플래닝은 주요 이슈를 선택한 뒤 이 이슈를 기준으로 가장 좋은 시나리오, 가장 나쁜 시나리오, 일반적인 시나리오 등의 시나리오를 작성하여 미래를 예측분석한다.
---위키백과 Introduction Introduction Scenario planning is a systematic methodology which attempts to interpret possibilities by identifying patterns and clusters among millions of possible outcomes a computer simulation might generate. It provides a 360-degree of analysis on the subject issue. Summary Among the many tools a manager can use for strategic planning, scenario planning stands out for its ability to capture a whole range of possibilities in rich detail.
By identifying basic trends and uncertainties, a manager can construct a series of scenarios that will help to compensate for the usual errors in decision making - overconfidence and runnel vision. Through case studies of Interpublic, an international advertising agency, and Anglo-American Corporation in South Africa, the author describes how to build scenarios in a step-by-step process and how to use the resulting stones to plan a company's future. 1. Define the Scope.
The first step is to set the time frame and scope of analysis (in terms of products, markets, geographic areas, and technologies) identifying the relevant issues by studying the past and its causes, especially its sources of turmoil and change. 2. Identify the
Major Stakeholders. To recognize parties that has an interest in these issues. Others that will be affected by them. Who could influence them? Identify their current roles, interests, and power positions, and ask how they have changed over time and why. 3. Identify
Briefly explain each trend, including how and why it exerts its influence on your organization. It may be helpful to list each trend on a chart or so-called influence diagram to identify its impact on your present strategy as positive, negative, or uncertain. 4. Identify Key
What events, whose outcomes are uncertain, will significantly affect the issues you are concerned with? Scenario planning is a disciplined method for imagining possible futures that companies have applied to a great range of issues. It differs from other strategic planning methods, such as contingency planning, sensitivity analysis, and computer simulations. Contingency planning offers only a linear view on the decision making process, while sensitivity analysis examines for all factors variables and give a less dynamic perspective. 5. Construct Initial
Once you identify trends and uncertainties, you have the main ingredients for scenario construction. A simple approach is to identify extreme worlds by grouping all positive elements in one and all negatives in another. Another method for finding some initial themes is to select the top two uncertainties and cross them. This technique makes the most sense if some uncertainties are clearly more important than others. 6. Check for Consistency
First examine its validity with elimination methods. Second, determine if the scenarios agree with each other. Third, are the major stakeholders placed in positions that are open to change? 7. Develop
From this process of constructing simple scenarios and checking them for consistency, some general themes should emerge. The initial scenarios provide future boundaries, but they may be implausible, inconsistent, or irrelevant. The goal is to identify themes that are strategically relevant and then organize the possible outcomes and trends around them. 8. Identify
To expand your knowledge and vision that is not yet aware in your industry, as a learning scenarios should help you find your blind spots. 9. Develop
Quantitative Models. 10. Evolve toward
Finally, in an iterative process, you must converge toward scenarios that you will eventually use to test your strategies and generate new ideas. Retrace steps one through eight to see if the learning scenarios address the real issues facing your company. Are these the scenarios that you want to give others in the organization to spur their creativity or help them appreciate better the up- and downside risks in various strategies.
after completing additional research, you should re-examine the internal consistencies of the scenarios and assess whether certain interactions should be formalized via a quantitative model. WHO IS Schoemaker, P.J.H.?
Business: Decision Strategies International, Inc.
100 Four Falls Corp. Center, Suite 604
1001 Conshohocken Drive
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: +1 (610) 525 0495
Fax: +1 (610) 525 0864
Department of Marketing
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
700 Jon M. Huntsman Hall (JMHH)
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340
Phone: +1 (215) 573 2895
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org 1978
Galbraith, J., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Technology and Organization Design: A Managerial Assessment," Chapter One in Studies in Operations Management, A. C. Hax (ed.), North Holland Publishing Co., 1978, pp. 3-40. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Context Credibility and Format Bias in Retrospective Judgment," Proceedings of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, St. Louis, October 1978, pp. 36-38.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Role of Statistical Knowledge in Gambling Decisions: Moment versus Risk-dimension Approaches," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 24, 1-17, 1979.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., and Kunreuther, H. C., "An Experimental Study of Insurance Decisions," The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 46, 4, 1979, pp. 603-618.
Schoemaker, J. A., Schoemaker, P. J. H., and Saukonnen, J. J., "Polysaccharide Accumulation in the Cell Division Defective Mutant Escherichia Coli 15T-R1," Microbios, 1980, 29, pp. 149-159.
Hershey, J. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Risk Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses: An Expected Utility Analysis," The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 47, 1, 1980, pp. 111-132.
Hershey, J. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Prospect Theory's Reflection Hypothesis: A Critical Examination," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 1980, pp. 395-410.Schoemaker, P. J. H., "On the Indeterminacy of von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions," Proceedings of the American Institute for Decision Sciences, Las Vegas, November 1980, Vol. 2, pp. 208-210.
Kunreuther, H. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Decision Analysis for Complex Systems: Integrating Descriptive and Prescriptive Components," Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilizations, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1981, pp. 389-412.
Waid, C. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "On the Fidelity of Multiattribute Preference Representations: Some Analytical Considerations," in Organizations: Multiple Agents with Multiple Criteria, J. N. Morse (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1981, pp. 447-464.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Behavioral Issues in Multiattribute Utility Modeling and Decision Analysis," in Organizations: Multiple Agents with Multiple Criteria, J. N. Morse (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1981, pp. 338-362.
Schoemaker, P. J. H, and Waid, C. C., "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, Feb. 1982, pp. 181-196.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20, June 1982, pp. 529-563.
[Reprinted in B. Caldwell (ed.), The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics, Vol. II, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, UK, 1993, pp. 395-439]
[Translated into Italian and reprinted in M. Lombardi and R. Tamborini (eds), The Contributions of Cognitive Sciences to Economic Theory, Bologna, in press]
[Translated into Russian and reprinted in A. Poletayev (ed.), THESIS: Theory and History of Social and Economic Institutions and Systems, No. 5, Moscow, 1994, pp. 29-80.]
Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 8, Aug. 1982, pp. 936-954.
[Reprinted in D. Bell, H. Raiffa and A. Tversky (eds.) Decision Making, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986]
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Optimality Principles in Science: Some Epistemological Issues" in The Quest for Optimality, J. H. P. Paelinck and P. H. Vossen (eds.), Gower PublishingCo., 1984, pp. 4-31.
Hershey, J. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Probability vs. Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?" Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 10, Oct. 1985, pp. 1213-1231.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Waid, C. C., "A Probabilistic Dominance Measure for Binary Choices: Analytic Aspects of A Multi-attribute Random Weights Model, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 32 (2), June 1988, pp. 169-191.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Preferences for Information on Probabilities versus Prizes: The Role of Risk-Taking Attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1989, 2, pp. 37-60.
Russo, J. E., and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Decision Audits," Across the Board, Dec. 1989, pp. 47-53. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Are Risk-attitudes Related Across Payoff Domains and Response Modes?", Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 12, Dec. 1990, pp. 1451-1463.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Strategy, Complexity, and Economic Rent," Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 10, Oct. 1990, pp. 1178-1192.
Russo, J. E. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Overconfidence Quiz," Harvard Business Review, Sept./Oct. 1990. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Choices Involving Uncertain Probabilities: Tests of Generalized Utility Models," Journal of Economic and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 295-317.
[Reprinted in Richard H. Day and Vernon L. Smith (eds), Experiments in Decision, Organization and Exchange, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993, Chapter 4, pp. 23-45]
Russo, J.E. and Schoemaker, P.J.H., Decision Traps and How To Avoid Them," Chemical Engineering, May 1991, pp. 181-185. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "When and How To Use Scenario Planning," Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 10, 1991, pp. 549-564.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Quest for Optimality: A Positive Heuristic of Science?", The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1991, pp. 205-215.
[Reprinted in B. Caldwell (ed.), The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics, Vol. II, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, UK, 1993, pp. 260-270]
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Strategy of Optimality Revisited," The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1991, pp. 237-246.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Hershey, J. C., "Utility Measurement: Signal, Noise and Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 1992, pp. 397-424.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Subjective Expected Utility Theory Revisited: A Reductio Ad Absurdum Paradox," Theory and Decision, Vol. 33, 1992, pp. 1-21.
Russo, J. E. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Managing Overconfidence," Sloan Management Review, Winter, 1992, pp. 7-18. *
[Translated into Dutch and reprinted in The Holland Management Review, 1992.]
[Translated into Italian and reprinted in Sviluppo &Organizzazione, Bocconi University, Milan, 1993]
Schoemaker, P.J.H. and C.A.J.M. van der Heijden, "Integrating Scenarios into Strategic Planning at Royal Dutch/Shell," Planning Review, Vol. 20 (3), 1992, pp.41-46. *
[Winner of First Prize for Best Case Study in Planning Review during 1992]
[Reprinted in Peter Lorange (ed.), Strategic Planning Process, Dartmouth Publishing Co. Aldershot, Hants, England, 1994, pp. 43-48]
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "How To Link Strategic Vision to Core Capabilities," Sloan Management Review, Fall 1992, Vol. 34 (1), pp. 67-81. *
[Translated into Dutch and reprinted in The Holland Management Review, 1993][Reprinted in Strategy: Process, Content and Context, B. de Wit and R. Meyer (eds), West Publishing Co., N.Y., 1994, pp. 252-260.]
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 (1), January 1993, pp. 33-46.
[Awarded Best Paper Prize by the Strategic Management Society - in 2000]
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Determinants of Risk-Taking: Behavioral and Economic Views", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , Vol. 6, 1993, pp. 49-73.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Strategic Decisions in Organizations: Rational and Behavioral Views," Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 (1), 1993, 107-129.
Klayman, J. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Thinking About the Future: A Cognitive Perspective," Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 12, 1993, pp. 161-186.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Multiple Scenario Development: Its Conceptual and Behavioral Foundation," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 1993, pp. 193-213.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and van der Heijden, C. A. J. M., "Strategic Planning at Royal Dutch/Shell," Journal of Strategic Change, Vol. 2, 1993, pp. 157-171. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Russo, J. E., " A Pyramid of Decision Approaches," California Management Review, Vol. 36 (1), Fall 1993, pp. 9-31. *
[Reprinted in Decision Theory and Decision Analysis: Trends and Challenges, Sixto Rios (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, MA., Norwell, pp. 53-78]
[Reprinted in German in the Harvard Business Manager, Vol. 16 (3), 1994]
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Hershey, J.C. "CE-PE Bias and Probability Level: An Anchoring Model of Their Interaction," in B. Munier and M. Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments in Risk and Rationality, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994, pp. 35-55.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Amit, R. "Investment in Strategic Assets: Industry and Firm-Level Perspectives", in P. Shrivastava, A. Huff and J. Dutton, (eds), Advances in Strategic Management, JAI Press, Inc., Vol. 10a, 1994, pp. 3-33.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. "Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 (2), Winter 1995, pp. 25-40. *
[Top Ten in terms of all-time reprint requests from the Sloan Management Review]
Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Schoemaker, J. A. "Estimating Environmental Liability: Quantifying the Unknown," California Management Review, Vol. 37 (3), Spring 1995, pp. 29-61. *
[Reprinted as Chapter 11 in Strategic Development, by R.G. Dyson and F.A. O'Brien (eds.), Wiley, NY, 1998]
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Hershey, J. C., "Maximizing Your Chance of Winning: The Long and Short of It Revisited," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 65, No. 3, March, pp. 194-200.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Marais, L., "Technological Innovation and Large Firm Inertia," in G. Dosi and F. Malerba (eds), Organization and Strategy in the Evolution of the Enterprise, London: MacMillan, 1996.
Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Amit, R. "The Competitive Dynamics of Capabilities: Developing Strategic Assets for Multiple Futures," in Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Strategy, G. Day and D. Reibstein (eds.), Wiley, pp. 368-394.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. "Disciplined Imagination: From Scenarios to Strategic Options," in International Studies of Management &Organization, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer 1997, pp. 43-70. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H. "Twenty Common Pitfalls in Scenario Planning," Chapter 25 in Learning from the Future, Chapter 25 in L. Fahey &R. Randall (eds), John Wiley &Sons, 1998, pp. 422-431. *
Day, G. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Avoiding the Pitfalls of Emerging Technologies," California Management Review, Winter Issue, 2000, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 8-33. *
Day, G. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "A Different Game," Chapter 1 in George Day and Paul Schoemaker (eds), Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies, Wiley, April 2000. *
Day, G. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Avoiding the Pitfalls of Emerging Technologies," Chapter 2 in George Day and Paul Schoemaker (eds), Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies, Wiley, April 2000. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Mavaddat, M.V., "Scenario Planning for Disruptive Technologies," Chapter 10 in George Day and Paul Schoemaker (eds), Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies, Wiley, April 2000. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Shapiro, A., "Innovative Financing Strategies for Biotechnology Ventures," Chapter 14 in George Day and Paul Schoemaker (eds), Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies, Wiley, April 2000. *
Day, G. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., "Don't Hesitate to Innovate," Financial Times, Mastering Management Series, Part Two, Oct. 9, 2000, pp. 2-4. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Russo, J. Edward., "Managing Frames to Make Better Decisions," Chapter 8 in S. Hoch and H. Kunreuther (eds), Wharton on Making Decisions, Wiley, April 2001, pp. 131-155. *
Schoemaker, P. J. H., "The Elusive Search for Integration," Chapter 8 in Rethinking Strategy, by H. W. Volberda and T. Elfring (eds.), Sage Publications, London, 2001.
Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., “Driving Through the Fog: Managing at The Edge” Long Range Planning, Vol. 37, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 127-142.*
Schoemaker, P. J. H. “Using Scenarios in Strategic Planning” Chapter 12 in R&D Meets M&A, by A. Daemmrich (ed), Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Press, 2004, pp. 81-90.*
Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Schuurmans, F. “Opportunity in Uncertainty: Techniques for Turning an Unpredictable Future to Your Advantage” Association Management, 2003, Vol. 55, pp. 49-52.*
Schoemaker, P. J. H, "Organizational Renewal: Overcoming Mental Blindspots,” Chapter 2 in The Many Facets of Leadership, M. Goldsmith, V. Govindarajan, B. Kaye and A. Vicere (eds), Financial Times - Prentice Hall, NJ, 2003.*
Schoemaker, P. J. H. “A Reply to: Huygens's Principle - A Case Against Optimality,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol., No. , 2003, pp.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., “Forecasting and Scenario Planning: The Challenges of Uncertainty and Complexity, Chapter 14 in Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, D.J. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, pp. 274-296.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. “Navigating Uncertainty: From Scenarios to Flexible Options” in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Michael A Hitt and R. Duane Ireland (eds), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. III: pp. 190-193.
Day, G. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., “Scanning the Periphery” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec. 2005.*
Hogarth, R. S. and Schoemaker, P. J. H., Book Review of Blink, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, (in press His ARTICLE 1. Define the Scope.
2. Identify the Major
3. Identify Basic Trends.
4. Identify Key Uncertainties.
5. Construct Initial Scenario
Themes. Scenario planning differs from other planning methods 1.contingency planning
2. sensitivity analysis
3.computer simulations Contingency planning Contingency planning examines only one uncerrainty, such as "What if we don't get the patent?" It presents a base case and an exception or contingency. Scenarios explore the joint impact of various uncertainties, which stand side by side as equals. Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis examines the effect of achange in one variable, keeping all other variables constant. Moving one variable at a time makes sense for small changes. For instance, we might ask whar will happen to oil demand if che gross national product increases just a fraccion of a percent, keeping everything else constant. However, if the change is much larger, other variables (such as interesr rates, money supply, and so on)will not stay consrant. Scenarios, on the other hand,change several variables at a time, without keeping others constant.
They try to capture the new states that will develop after major shocks or deviations in key variables. Computer simulations Scenarios are more than just the output of a complex simulation model. Instead they attempt to interpret such output by identifying patterns and clusters among the millions of possible outcomes a computer simulation might generate. They often include elements that were not or cannot be formally modeled, such as new regulations, value shifts, or innovations. Hence, scenarios go beyond objective analyses to include subJective interpreta In short, scenario planning attempts to capture the richness and range of possibilities, stimulating decision makers to consider changes they would otherwise ignore. At the same time, it organizes those possibilities into narratives that are easier to grasp and use than great volumes of data. Above all, however, scenarios are aimed at challenging the prevailing mind-set. Hence, scenario planning difFers from the three aforementioned techniques in its epistemic level of analysis. Using Scenarios How can you use scenarios?
In simplified form, people can use the technique to make individual decisions. A function, say, information systems, can also use scenario development to anticipate changes in its role.
But perhaps most beneficial is its use in corporate wide strategic planning and vision building. Organizations facing the following conditions will especially benefit from scenario planning: Uncertainty is high relative to managers ability co predict or adjust.
Too many costly surprises have occurred in the past.
The company does not perceive or generate new opportunities.
The quality of strategic thinking is low (i.e., too routinized or bureaucratic).
The industry has experienced significant change or is about to.
The company wants a common language and framework, without stifling diversity.
There are strong differences of opinion, with multiple opinions having merit.
Your competitors are using scenario planning. Once it develops strategic scenarios, the executive team might simply disseminate them throughout the organization to stimulate managerial thinking. Or it might use scenarios for evaluating proposals. For exampIe, corporate executives might ask the strategic business units to submit investment proposals that project cash flow in each of several scenarios.
In short, the technique is applicable to virtually any situation in which a decision maker would like to imagine how the future might unfold, In this article, I focus particularly on developing scenarios for strategic planning, but the same basic method applies to other situations of decision making under uncertainty. Conclusion: Conclusion: Dynamic, as opposed to static, scenarios help people reason through the multiple pathways an industry or company may traverse in view of the prevailing trends, the presumed rules of the game, the uncertainties that lie ahead, and the stake holders involved. Each company must decide for itself, once it constructs scenarios, whether to gamble the future on one scenario, stay flexible to exploit multiple scenarios, develop exit routes in case things sour, or hedge the risk through strategic partnering or diversification. Developing early indicators for each scenario helps you recognize, before competitors, which way the world is headed. When dealing with highly interactive situations (in which stakeholders react to events and each other), you may need to express the scenario elements not just in terms of trends and uncertainties, but also in terms of the rules of interaction. Conclusion: When contemplating the future, it is useful to consider three classes of knowledge:
1. Things we know we know.
2. Things we know we don’t know.
3. Things we don’t know we don’t know.
Good scenarios challenge tunnel vision by instilling a deeper appreciation for the myriad factors that shape the future. 부경대학교 MOT 석사과정
201255396 윤영남 EXAMPLE The advertising industry is once which has gone through significant change through the years, and an area in which following trends is of utmost importance. Thus, it makes a good business segment in which to employ scenario planning.
The Interpublic Group, a large advertising conglomerate, used strategy planning to answer the question of how the advertising industry would address globalization. They incorporated all kinds of data, including relevant issues throughout the past (things like technological advances, political events and shifts, and general demographic change in their audience), perceived trends for the future (a continuation of globalization, a decline in brand name value, and the role of the agency in business), and key uncertainties with regard to specific issues that agencies had been dealing with (fragmentation of the media, in-house advertising at companies). Using all of the above with scenario planning, they found three possible scenarios which could play out around the subject of globalization and the future of their business. EXAMPLE
The first was complete globalization in which trends continued, and agencies based in North America, Europe, Japan, and China would dominate the international business of advertising to the world. The second was a mix of globalization and local growth. In this scenario, large agencies would have an international presence and cater to the largest brands, but smaller agencies would serve local business and specialty products which are part of the local fabric, thus more difficult for large agencies to establish relationships with. The final scenario is one in which large agencies crumble somewhat beneath their size and operating costs and in a global world, smaller, sleeker agencies are able to flourish. With less operating costs they are seen as appealing by brands and are able to take a large chunk of business away from the large agencies. EXAMPLE The key to the scenario planning system is that, as above, a company like Interpublic is now prepared for a variety of outcomes and can plan ahead of time how best to react given each scenario. Being prepared for multiple outcomes is key in an area like advertising in which it is of vital importance to be ready for whatever is coming next. * 시나리오 플래닝(Scenario Planning) 6. Check for Consistency and
7. Develop Learning
8. Identify Research Needs.
9. Develop Quantitative
10. Evolve toward Decision
Scenarios. Thank you Conclusion: