Abstract: The topic of scenario planning is a main one in Business Management. This article makes use of the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the knowledge structure of scenario planning. The finding of the review exercise is that its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c) Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from the scenario planning literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of scenario planning, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Scenario planning, literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Scenario planning is a main topic in Business Management. It is of academic and pedagogical interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Business Management for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his literature review findings on scenario planning using the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not particularly novel since mind mapping has been employed in literature review since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1. Render an image of the knowledge structure of scenario planning via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2. Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as scenario planning.
The findings from this literature review exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in the topics of scenario planning, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study scenario planning is presented.
On mind mapping-based literature review
The mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. The MMBLR approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Also, to conduct the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.
Mind mapping-based literature review on scenario planning: step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this is the scenario planning topic. The writer gathers some academic articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points here). The points from the scenario planning literature are then grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight the key concepts involved.
Theme 1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information
Point 1.1.“…scenarios are descriptive narratives of plausible alternative projections of a specific part of the future. They are methodically researched and developed in sets of three, four, or more to study how an organization, or one of its decisions, would fare in each future in the set” (Fahey and Randall, 1998a);
Point 1.2. “…“Scenario planning is a process of positing several informed, plausible and imagined alternative future environments in which decisions about the future may be played out, for the purpose of changing current thinking, improving decision making, enhancing human and organization learning and improving performance”…” (Chermack and Nimon, 2013);
Point 1.3. “Scenario planning is a tool used by firms to translate their organizational learning capabilities into preconceived operational responses designed to react to, and then recover from, an exogenous shock” (Worthington, Collins and Hitt, 2009);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking
Point 2.1. “…scenarios are often subjective. Caution should be taken to avoid groupthink and preconceived notions” (Hovav, 2014);
Point 2.2.“A good scenario has the following characteristics: Reasonable to a critical mass of decision-makers; Internally consistent; Relevant to the topic or issue of interest; Recognizable from early and weak signals of change; and Challenging as it contains some elements of surprise or novelty in directions where the organization’s vision needs to be stretched” (Miesing and Van Ness, 2007);
Point 2.3. “Although knowledge is often captured at the individual level before integration into the larger organizational entity …., organizations that actively utilize scenario planning as a knowledge management tool can enhance their absorptive capacity … by facilitating knowledge transfer” (Worthington, Collins and Hitt, 2009);
Point 2.4. “On the basis of perspective, scenarios are classified into descriptive and normative scenarios … Descriptive scenarios are extrapolative in nature and present a range of future likely alternative events. Normative scenarios are goal directed and respond to policy planning concerns in order to achieve desired targets” (Amer, Daim and Jetter, 2013);
Point 2.5.“The appropriate starting point for scenario formation is the clarification of the goals and purposes of scenarios. …The typical process of scenario formation can be split into three key phases. These phases are: (1) choice of participants to be involved in the scenario formation process; (2) determination of driving forces and future events (risks or uncertainties); and (3) scenario elaboration process and testing of consistency” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Point 2.6. “The industry organisation (IO) perspective …. on the other hand suggests that globalisation has gone into overdrive and so too is the dynamism of the external business environment of firms. There is complexity in the business environment making the future uncertain and unpredictable …. Firms are therefore required to engage in adaptive sense making of the environment if they are to survive and succeed” (Nyuur, 2015);
Point 2.7.“….it is necessary to examine the consistency and validity of scenarios, subject them to logic analysis and based on these scenarios to establish “Early Warning Signals” as well. Such signals indicate assumptions for their validity. On the basis of these scenarios it is possible to ensure interlinking tactical and operational plans and reinforce the flexibility of company process management” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Point 2.8.“…“Scenario planning” is a powerful instrument that guides and supports the imagination, creativity, and vision necessary for mapping a range of viable strategies for competitive success” (Miesing and Van Ness, 2007);
Point 2.9. “…scenario planning presents all complex elements together into a coherent, systematic, comprehensive and plausible manner….. Scenarios are also very useful for highlighting implications of possible future system discontinues, identifying nature and timings of these implications, and projecting consequences of a particular choice or policy decision” (Amer, Daim and Jetter, 2013);
Point 2.10. “Chermack and Lynham …. suggested five primary espoused outcome domains of scenario planning: (a) changed thinking, (b) improved decision making, (c) improved human learning and imagination, (d) plausible stories about the future, and (e) improved performance. The theoretical support for these outcome domains might include decision theory, system theory, learning theory, and performance improvement theory” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 2.11. “Pierre Wack ….presented scenario building criteria based on three main principles including, identification of the predetermined elements in the environment, the ability to change mindset in order to re-perceive reality and developing macroscopic view of the business environment” (Amer, Daim and Jetter, 2013);
Point 2.12. “Scenario planning can serve as a ‘‘time reckoning system’’ …. where sense is made forward and backward, drawing in both retrospective and prospective sensemaking iteratively” (Ramírez and Selin, 2014);
Point 2.13. “Scenario planning is an example of applied double loop … or second order learning …. While single loop learning may aid firms with incremental improvements in efficiency, double loop learning is more explorative and can lead to fundamental shifts in organizational strategy” (Worthington, Collins and Hitt, 2009);
Point 2.14. “Scenarios are applicable to the planning needs of all large public and private institutions especially at times when a critical decision has to be made in uncertain environment” (Amer, Daim and Jetter, 2013);
Point 2.15.“Scenarios can be classified according various criteria … The most important criterion is the method of their application. ….Commonly known scenario classifications include the following: by degree of their quantification (quantitative, semi quantitative, qualitative), by degree of optimism (realistic, optimistic, pessimistic and warning) or by material content” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Point 2.16.“Scenarios containing decision-making elements can be characterized by specific features since these decision-making elements are oriented towards a certain way of influencing the future. Such scenarios are designated as “transformation scenarios”..” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Point 2.17. “Sondeijker … describes three phases in the development of futures study and scenario planning, each leading to a specific type of scenarios. The first generation of scenarios that evolved after the war is strongly influenced by the work of Kahn and Diener. The approach is mainly statistical, technological and economic…… During the second phase futures studies and scenario planning entered the world of business and corporate strategic planning. The oil crisis in 1973 made businesses aware about their vulnerability to unexpected external factors …. Sondeijker … identifies a propagation of a third generation in futures studies and scenario planning …. This approach is fuelled by the notion of sustainable development and is based on the assumption that a more sustainable world can only be created by means of a structural and societal transition of society” (Postma, 2015);
Point 2.18. “The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm …. suggests that firms do not need to be overly concerned about the external environment, and read meaning into possible changes in the future, but should concentrate on developing their resources and capabilities which are critical to the survival and sustenance of competitive advantage” (Nyuur, 2015);
Point 2.19. “The usefulness of learning in a system of scenario planning is embedded in the assumption that a core goal of any planning system is to reperceive the organization and its environment” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 2.20.“This process that we call scenario learning can help an organization understand how to manage the future strategically – that is, how to lay the foundations for tomorrow’s success while competing to win in today’s marketplace” (Fahey and Randall, 1998a);
Point 2.21.“To be an effective planning tool, scenarios should be written in sets of four or five absorbing, convincing stories that describe the range of alternative futures most relevant to an organization’s success. Each scenario story should have a unique plot and each plot should be flawlessly rational” (Schwartz and Ogilvy, 1998);
Point 2.22.“When performed properly, the scenario approach offers a way of formalizing such conversation, of focusing the dialogue on the really interesting aspects of the unknown and unknowable future” (Fahey and Randall, 1998b);
Point 2.23. “Scenario building works well when it departs from the comfortable familiarity of established plausibility and/or the settling security of purported probabilities to venture into the discomfort of inquiring into the unknown” (Ramírez and Selin, 2014);
Point 2.24.“The scenario approach requires that managers first stop trying to make strategic decisions before they have done their best strategic thinking. To perform high-quality strategic thinking, they must start by learning how to have strategic conversation, or dialogues” (Fahey and Randall, 1998b);
Theme 3: Main research topics and issues
Point 3.1. “Econometric models offer a number of advantages over more informal ways of creating scenarios. First, they provide an explicit framework that clarifies which assumptions were used to develop a scenario….. Secondly, using an econometric model imposes internal consistency on the scenario process…. Third, comprehensive econometric models provide more reliable projections” (Behravesh, 1998);
Point 3.2. “Scenario planning is often promoted as a cognitive aid to overcome limitations of human judgment in long-range planning …. However, evidence of the effect of scenario planning on managerial cognition is almost nonexistent” (Phadnis, Caplice, Sheffi and Singh, 2015);
Point 3.3. “Scenario planning practices are highly personalized and hence difficult to compare …. Strategy practices used by firms are often not publicized, ruling out the use of panel analysis to test if the practice of scenario planning leads to superior firm performance” (Phadnis, Caplice, Sheffi and Singh, 2015);
Point 3.4. “The key to good scenario building is not to try and describe a predictable future but to create a set of diverse futures and analyze the drivers and consequences of each. As such, scenario building methodologies often represent the views of the researchers that use them and the state-of affairs at the time they are developed” (Hovav, 2014);
Point 3.5. “The scenario methodology in retail research was first advocated to provide an alternative approach to study the competitive dynamics of retail formats that had reached the more advanced stages of the life cycle” (Mukherjee and Cuthbertson, 2016);
Point 3.6. “….the IL [intuitive logics] method has been criticized by researchers and practitioners alike. …. scenario planning methods in general may be subject to errors that stem from poor process facilitation or a suboptimal team composition” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.7. “…it is fair to say that we know what scenario planning is, but we must rely on theory to tell us how this process works. A description of how scenario planning works is precisely what is missing” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 3.8. “…multiple studies have found that scenario-based planning can overcome negative cognitive biases in the strategy process on the group and individual levels. ….. the strategic conversation that is created inside the organization through scenario-based planning can help overcome groupthink” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.9. “Although scenarios are powerful, they are not quantitative, and this is one of the disadvantages of scenarios in practice” (Hashemkhnai Zolfani, Maknoon and Zabadskas, 2016);
Point 3.10. “Comparing the relative merits of actually deploying a probability-centered approach to scenarios with those of a plausibility-centered approach within a single scenarios situation is difficult for practical and methodological reasons” (Ramírez and Selin, 2014);
Point 3.11. “Experts suggest that there are times when it is useful for organisations to think of their contextual environment as a subject domain and to develop scenarios in reference to this domain rather than more directly to the organisation” (Mukherjee and Cuthbertson, 2016);
Point 3.12. “IL [intuitive logics] is one of the most frequently and widely used methods for developing scenarios in organizations … In fact, many authors refer to this method as the standard tool for scenario-based planning …. IL develops scenarios based on the industry’s most important and uncertain driving forces, which form the basis for a two-by-two matrix that frames the scenarios …, or by inductively using causal narratives …. These scenarios are further developed into consistent causal stories in a chronological structure. Finally, the scenarios are used to derive strategies for the respective organization” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.13. “Inayatullah develops an integrated approach to scenario planning consisting of the preferred future, the disowned future, the integrated and the outlier …. He develops causal layered analysis and demonstrates the role for causal layered analysis for transformative futures thinking” (Amer, Daim and Jetter, 2013);
Point 3.14. “Most authors agree that successful cases of scenario planning feature serious commitment of time and energy to the project …., and it is the time dedicated to conversations and exploring organizational issues that yields results” (Chermack and Nimon, 2013);
Point 3.15. “Once planning is reframed as a learning process (as in scenario planning), two immediate and logical questions are: (1) Who should be involved in the planning/learning exercise? (2) Who should facilitate the planning/learning exercise?” (Chermack and Nimon, 2013);
Point 3.16. “Research has shown that scenario planning can change participant mental models, promoting a more systemic view of organizational dynamics” (Chermack and Nimon, 2013);
Point 3.17. “Scenario planning as the research area is still developing and not yet matured. Notwithstanding, there are a number of theoretical perspectives that can be adopted to make sense of how firms prepare and act to overcome the potentially devastating effects of the unstable forces in the external environment in order to survive” (Nyuur, 2015);
Point 3.18. “Scenario planning is a heavily practiced phenomenon, with a growing body of published conceptual work and research ….. However, there is inadequate research to make predictions about scenario planning outcomes” (Chermack and Nimon, 2013);
Point 3.19. “Scenario planning is argued to mitigate the negative effects of overconfidence. The two experimental studies of scenario planning we found, which measured whether scenario use affected confidence in judgment, reached contrary conclusions” (Phadnis, Caplice, Sheffi and Singh, 2015);
Point 3.20. “Scenario-based planning has evolved into a widely used technique for strategic planning and for developing strategic foresight in corporate practice … Prior research has identified three main advantages of scenario-based planning for corporate practice. First, scenario-based planning helps organizations enhance their understanding of causal processes that shape the future. Second, it challenges conventional thinking and established mindsets. Third, it can contribute to improved decision making in the strategy process” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.21. “Some researchers regard scenario planning as a method for creating images of the future that are not directly linked with strategy development while others consider scenario planning as a combination of scenario development and strategy development” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.22.“The concept of scenarios is not perceived unanimously, differences being attributable to different typology of scenarios which the authors bear in mind” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Point 3.23. “The IL [intuitive logics] approach aims to foster strategic thinking in the strategy process in order to derive a more holistic and contingency-based strategic plan” (Meissner and Wulf, 2015);
Point 3.24. “The limited research on scenario planning in the context of SMEs is unfortunate and leaves us less knowledgeable about the challenges SMEs encounter in their attempt to use scenario planning technique as large firms; and how they co-evolve within their dynamic external environment or posture themselves for their long-term survival and superior performance” (Nyuur, 2015);
Point 3.25. “The link between business failure and the lack of perceiving or planning for future changes in the business environment through scenario planning has been acknowledged” (Nyuur, 2015);
Point 3.26. “There are three areas that have been neglected by the ‘futurists’ who developed the scenario-planning process, or three opportunities for development that exist for HRD professionals. These are 1) the construction of the theory of the scenario planning process, 2) research around the effectiveness of the process, and 3) the development of evaluative tools” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 3.27. “There is no theory of scenario planning. While many prominent scenario-planning practitioners have developed significant variety in their modes of application …, none has articulated a core set of theoretical foundations or provided efforts to develop theory” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 3.28. “To build scenarios, identifying major actors and stakeholders appears as a critical step to study how they influence matters and how they live in scenarios ….. However, to manage strategies in the scenario process has never really been achieved, as scenarios are often based on major economic and political uncertainties which do not seem to be made by any actor whose strategies are often more based on a reactive anticipation than playing projects” (Marchais-Roubelat and Roubelat, 2008);
Point 3.29. “When scenario sets leave their site of generation (the scenario workshops, the expert’s computers, the core production team, maybe the organization that spawned them) and travel to new locations (e.g. the policy milieu, the strategy process, or a public audience) the plausibility/probability debate is tied to the uptake of scenarios instead of defining how they are produced and /or negotiated” (Ramírez and Selin, 2014);
Point 3.30. “Different scenarios are suitable for developing an appropriate outlook toward different probable futures. Scenarios are not inherently quantitative, but recently different integrated quantitative methods have been incorporated with the processes in various studies” (Hashemkhnai Zolfani, Maknoon and Zabadskas, 2016);
Point 3.31. “Many HRD professionals may not see the link between HRD and scenario planning, but HRD professionals can provide much in the development and facilitation of the scenario-planning process because of their expertise in learning, performance, research, theory building and evaluative techniques” (Chermack, 2004);
Point 3.32. “Scholars consider scenario planning variously as a method …, tool …, strategic planning tool …., process …, and sometimes as an activity equated with foresight …. Yet, others refer to it as a capability, competence or skill” (Nyuur, 2015);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues related to practices
Point 4.1. “Although the development of futures studies and scenario planning dates back to the renaissance when Thomas Moore wrote Utopia in 1516 …, it was fuelled by the enlightenment that separated humankind from its environment … and gave a boost to the idea of the feasible society. The institutionalisation of futures studies and scenario planning evolved since the Second World War, a period during which the western world was characterised by recovery and reconstruction … and the maturation of the idea of the welfare state in countries such as the Netherlands … and Great Britain” (Postma, 2015);
Point 4.2. “The rise of multiple scenario analysis has been largely ascribed to the failure of traditional forecasting techniques to provide credible forecast in the past few decades…. The real problem with such analytical technique is that they produce forecasts by extrapolating the past and in doing so implicitly view the world as essentially stable” (Bood and Postma, 1997);
Point 4.3.“Attention has been paid to the concept of scenarios since the 1970s, especially in conjunction with the crude oil crisis that occurred at that time. Royal Dutch Shell, which is regarded as one of the world’s biggest crude oil companies, has been a pioneer in scenario decision making with an emphasis on the investment decision-making process. Companies have become even more aware of the need to work with scenarios. Procedures applied, however, are mainly based upon mere experience, are not supported by relevant methodology and often do not penetrate all management levels” (Fort, Špaček, Souček and Vacík, 2015);
Each of the four themes has a set of associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the scenario planning topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the scenario planning literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on scenario planning Facebook page for additional information on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2 finding, i.e., a companion mind map on scenario planning, is presented in the next section.
Mind mapping-based literature review on scenario planning: step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1 on scenario planning, the writer constructs a companion mind map shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on scenario planning, the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on scenario planning based on the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material. This mind mapping experience confirms the writer’s previous experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook page and the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.
The MMBLR approach to study scenario planning provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016). No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on scenario planning in the field of Business Management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the knowledge structure on scenario planning in the form of a mind map should also be of academic value to those who research on this topic.
1. Amer, M., T.U. Daim and A. Jetter. 2013. “A review of scenario planning” Futures 46, Elsevier: 23-40.
2.Behravesh, N. 1998. “Chapter 16: The Role of Economic Scenarios”, pp. 296-307, in Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall (editors) Learning from the future Wiley, New York.
5. Chermack, T.J. 2004. “The opportunities for HRD in scenario planning” Human Resource Development International 7(1): 117-121.
7.Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall. 1998a. “Chapter 1: What is scenario learning?” Pg. 3-21, in Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall (editors) Learning from the future Wiley, New York.
8.Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall. 1998b. “Chapter 2: Integrating strategy and scenarios” 22-38, in Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall (editors) Learning from the future Wiley, New York.
9. Fort, J., M. Špaček, I. Souček and E. Vacík. 2015. “Scenarios, their concept, elaboration and application” Baltic Journal of Management 10(1), Emerald:
12. Hovav, A. 2014. “Using scenarios to understand the frontiers of IS: Fifteen years later (a postscript)” Inf Syst Front 16: 347-352.
15. Literature on scenario planning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-scenario-planning-1502347019791069/).
16. Marchais-Roubelat, A. and F. Roubelat. 2008. “Desining action based scenarios” Futures 40, Elsevier: 25-33.
17. Meissner, P. and T. Wulf. 2015. “The development of strategy scenarios based on prospective hindsight” Journal of Strategy and Management 8(2), Emerald: 176-190.
18.Miesing, P. and R.K. Van Ness. 2007. “Exercise: Scenario Planning” Organization Management Journal 4(2), Eastern Academy of Management: 148-167.
19. Mukherjee, M. and R. Cuthbertson. 2016. “Applying the scenarios method to capture uncertainties of retail development in emerging markets” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 26(3), Routledge: 323-346.
20. Nyuur, R.B. 2015. “Unlocking the potential barriers on SMEs’ uptake of scenario planning” Journal of Strategy and Management 8(2), Emerald: 139-154.
21. Phadnis, S., C. Caplice, Y. Sheffi and M. Singh. 2015. “Effect of scenario of planning on field experts’ judgment of long-range investment decisions” Strategic Management Journal 36, Wiley: 1401-1411.
22. Postma, A. 2015. “Investigating scenario planning – A European tourism perspective” Journal of Tourism Futures 1(1): 46-52.
23. Ramírez, R. and C. Selin. 2014. “Plausibility and probability in scenario planning” Foresight 16(1), Emerald: 54-74.
24.Schwartz, P. and J.A. Ogilvy. 1998. “Chapter 4: Plotting your scenarios” pp. 58-80, in Fahey, L. and R.M. Randall (editors) Learning from the future Wiley, New York.
25. Worthington, W.J., J.D. Collins and M.A. Hitt. 2009. “Beyond risk mitigation: Enhancing corporate innovation with scenario planning” Business Horizons 52, Elsevier: 441-450.