Out of the box thinking involves exploring new scenarios. In our search for solutions we too often jump on the most apparent solution without giving sufficient thought to its consequences. Developing several scenarios allows further consideration of alternatives. Scenario development is a simple process. The objective is to look at several approaches to resolving the same problem but from different perspectives. Not all managers will accept the idea of preparing scenarios. Scenarios confront managers with the realities. Their judgment has served them well in the past so why bother.
Assume that you’re attempting to introduce some new activity or a product or process in the group that you manage. You know that any new idea will be met with resistance from someone in some sector of the organization. That’s a given. You also know that if the proposal lacks definition someone will find the flaws in your thinking and your approach. So why not explore possible solutions rather than take the most obvious but not necessarily the most effective solution for the long term. While this approach may add more work at the front end of a project, it pays off a large return when seeking approval and during the implementation phase.
Writing scenarios is no more than exploring alternatives, but in a more systematic manner. But those scenarios are not prepared for upper-level management. They’re your tools to make sure that you’ve made the most appropriate choice. They provide you with an opportunity to make the choice after the scenarios have been documented and analyzed. There could be a scenario developed for the quick fix; let’s get this thing out of the way and we’ll hassle it out at a later date. There may be a short-term fix that explores the roots of the problem. There may be another scenario that considers the short term but makes provisions for future enhancements. And there may be a scenario that looks at the long term. Selecting the short-term fix while providing for the long-term needs may be the appropriate scenario to follow. As I mentioned scenarios are your tools but don’t get management involved in them. But if asked what alternatives you’ve considered you should have no problem answering related questions.
Scenarios also help functional groups such as research develop more realistic proposals. For example, when research and development begins developing a new product, do they consider the impact on manufacturing facilities? Their effort can be directed toward either using existing manufacturing facilities or providing new facilities. The approach to the research would be quite different in both situations. The research time may be reduced considerably if the group is not locked into current manufacturing facilities, while it may take more time if existing facilities are to be used. Well-developed scenarios answer such questions. The process for developing scenarios is not much different from what you may be already doing but is formalized into some form of document to provide guidance. Competent professionals and managers need such a document. The process includes:
- Developing a statement of the problem
- Developing appropriate scenarios to solve the identified problem
- Analyzing the scenarios
- Identifying the common elements from the various scenarios and evaluating them
- Going through as many iterations as necessary
- Selecting the best scenario
- Stating your reasons and rationale for accepting a particular scenario
The process of scenario building is straightforward and doesn’t need any explanation except step 1, developing a statement of the problem. Unfortunately this effort seldom meets the requirements. Scenarios cannot be developed until the problem is really understood.
Here’s a real-life example from Lawrence Gibson to illustrate how much effort can be misdirected because of an inadequate statement of the problem. It involves the French subsidiary of General Mills, Biscuiterie Nantaise (BN). There were several competitors for an after-school chocolate cream-filled snack called a gouter—a cookie. BN had the most popular brand of the gouter. Prince, a fancier more expensive gouter, was an aggressive national competitor. But BN’s sales slipped for two years and then dropped significantly. BN managers attributed BN’s weakness and Prince’s strength to a lack of advertising. The solution: Increase the advertising budget. All over France competitors were gaining market share. BN’s price relative to competitors was decreasing.
Some questions were raised: What has been done to reduce product cost? Response: We started to recycle broken cookies and changed to less expensive ingredients, and the quality deteriorated. Analysis: BN faced a product problem, not an advertising problem. But something more was needed to regain market dominance. BN took a multiple-flavor strategy, testing various types of chocolate and fillings. Result: Different children preferred different flavors. BN was positioned to take advantage of these different taste requirements. The strategy yielded the expected results: The BN sales decline was reversed, market share rose, and margins improved on the volume gains despite higher product costs. Moral of the story: Don’t spin your wheels solving the wrong problem. The original statement of the problem was not defined. The problem was the reduction in quality that had been forced by making cost reductions in order to lower prices and meet sales targets. Not a very good strategy. The research to identify the real problem cannot be a guessing game.