The Scenario Planning Matrix: Getting to the Matrix

The creation of the matrix is the most intellectually challenging analysis in a scenario-planning project, and also the most intuitive. Because of this dual nature, it is also the most difficult to teach, as the process draws on both implicit and tacit knowledge. This blog post aims to make implicit knowledge explicit while identifying the areas of tacit knowledge, or ‘content-dependent practical knowledge’ (Thornton 2013), in use.

The matrix development process begins with the results of voting on important and critical uncertainties. From that vote, several critical uncertainties have emerged.

Creating the Visual Uncertainty Space

Use a large sheet of paper, a whiteboard or other large surface and write down each uncertainty as a double-sided arrow with its name and labels for the poles.

This can be done on a computer using the drawing program of choice, but paper is preferred as playing with a drawing application can get in the way of the thinking while writing.

Do this for each of the uncertainties.

Identifying Convergence

It will likely become clear that some of the uncertainties are very similar in how they would drive the story, even though they might be conceptually different areas. For instance, an uncertainty “Paths to Learning” with pole titles “Linear and Gated/Traditional” and “Just-in-Time/Open-Ended” is narratively aligned with the uncertainty “Measurement,” with poles “Standardized Testing” and “Individual Assessment.” Although at the surface, these are not necessarily related, any “traditional” scenario story will likely also include standardized testing.

From the storytelling standpoint, these can be thought of as proxies. Choose either one, and the story is likely to veer along the same trajectory.

The University System of Georgia work identified four additional proxies to complement the two already mentioned. One of them, “Sources of Learning,” with polls labeled “Closed/Academy” and “Open/Open Source/Co-Created,” offers the biggest conceptual bucket for scenario development. In other words, it is the least narrow.

Two notes are important here:

First: why weren’t the similarities between uncertainties identified before the voting process, and the “duplicates” or “proxies” eliminated? A lengthy research and interview process generates uncertainty. Although it is possible to identify potential overlaps and to reduce the number of uncertainties, that isn’t the goal of this exercise. This work focuses on converging on a matrix with a strong set of narrative characteristics. The combination of uncertainties is not intended to discount or eliminate them from the stories, but to highlight similarities in narrative drive. The subtle differences between the uncertainties will be seen as important when developing out the more detailed stories.

Second, in this case, the idea of “standardized testing” does not imply any particular test form or sponsor, and therefore, it does not limit what the team can imagine as a standardized test system or systems in the future.

My usual process for this work involves drawing each key uncertainty and its poles on a whiteboard or large sheet of paper, then looking for patterns. The patterns of narrative similarity usually appear during writing. Those uncertainties that seem familiar can be grouped or clustered in the workspace. If patterns become apparent later, use lines to connect them.

These clusters then act as a secondary reflection of the vote and provide further reason to maintain the breadth of overlapping concepts. Because people bring their own experience to the vote, someone voting for measurement from an assessment team might not vote for sources of learning. Similarly, a dean might prioritize sources and paths of learning over measurement, while a vocational instructor might lean toward skills development. The clusters then act as supercategories that strengthen the underlying narrative these uncertainties suggest.

The next step is hard to explain, but can be learned through experience: identifying uncertainties that will drive great, divergent stories. Consider these two attributes:

The divergence of poles suggests that when the axes cross, the resulting quadrants will offer divergent narrative canvases.

Interesting and inclusive ideas create the basis for a good story. For instance, students co-creating their learning experiences is a more interesting idea than classes taught either in a building or online. Although the ultimate way that learning is delivered hasn’t been determined, and might never be, the extremes and their hybrids already exist in the market, so making location the major driving force for the scenarios isn’t that interesting. Co-creation of learning experiences offers a much richer canvas with many more possible storylines.

Creating the Candidate Matrices

As a rule of thumb, the clustered uncertainties tend to be higher on the matrix axis candidate, even if none of the individual items were ranked highest.

It is sometimes the case as well that the highest-ranked uncertainty doesn’t offer a good mix of divergence and storytelling. Sometimes the uncertainty that ranks highest ends up being a little too close. In the recent work at the University System of Georgia, the “Funding Source” for education was the top vote-getter. But this isn’t about the actual source of the funds; it’s about the funder’s behavior and transparency. A funder who obscures their accounting, rather than one who is transparent and disciplined, isn’t a great axis for a project focused on the future of learning. It will add some interesting color to the stories, but it would be imprudent to make it a major axis.

The first matrix is usually derived from the largest cluster, and from that cluster, the biggest umbrella idea, the one that appears most able to encompass the other ideas.

In the case of the University System of Georgia work, the cluster involved five uncertainties, with “Sources of Learning” as the largest concept. The next cluster with good storytelling potential was then selected. From this cluster, “pace of change” was adopted, as it offers a somewhat broader scope than “innovation”: it isn’t just about newness but about change, and it includes a sense of time.

This yielded the following matrix:

Using the heuristics stated above, three additional sets were created. A quick fitness test and a discussion of the stories determined that these candidate sets were viable.

The other matrices look like this:

A Quick Fitness Test

The next step involves analyzing the sets for usefulness. The quick fitness test involves looking at the following attributes of the matrix:

• Does each quadrant end up with a BIG IDEA that could represent it in shorthand form?
• Is the organization’s stated future reflected in the matrix?
• Do the futures feel related? For instance, is it possible to imagine one future transforming into the other? It isn’t necessary to describe the logic for the transformation; a sense that such a transformation is possible is enough at this stage.

Note that this test will be applied more robustly later against the selected matrix, where participants will be asked to document the big idea, refine their “vision” in light of the scenarios and document the logic and the events that might transform one future into another.

Telling Stories To Yourself

The goal of creating sketches of the future is to provide just enough information for people looking at them to vote. Notes can include:

• Statements that demonstrate how an idea diverges across the scenarios.
• Phases that hint at how good the scenario might be as a canvas for storytelling.
• Each scenario has a big idea that represents it.

Yes, that sounds like the quick fitness test, but it takes place in the mind of the scenario planner as they create a set of sets. Once the set of sets is complete, the scenario planner or team needs to create just enough narrative so that people looking at the scenarios can get a sense of which one might best serve the project’s purposes. The final step in this process, remember, is to vote on a single scenario set to develop.

Don’t go into great depth, just develop keywords and phrases that hint at what each of the futures could expand into. There is plenty of work ahead to develop the scenario stories and the logic that drives them.

It is important to note that the moment the uncertainties cross, the scenario planner should place themselves at the intersection, which is “the now.” During the selection phase, the planner should, rather than worrying about the path, quickly leap to the ultimate expression of the two ideas within the context of the focal question, which ideally includes a temporal description. In our example, “What does learning look like in 2030?” the far edge reflects speculation about what the world will look like in 2030 under the constraints imposed by the two uncertainties. That means the ideas about the future jotted down in the quadrants are 2030 attribute values, not those from 2014.

And once properly oriented, the scenario planner (or team) starts talking to themselves. Quite literally talking to themselves, as this is often the best way to understand a futures quadrant quickly. As ideas arrive, jot them down on sticky notes or just on the paper itself (or on the computer). Don’t be afraid to second-guess the initial answers, as they will evolve over time.

Timing

It is not advisable to dwell too long on the scenario sets before the vote. The longer researchers work with a set of scenarios, the more likely they are to analyze their shortcomings, reconfigure them and refine them, which is not a good use of time (or dollars for those investing in consultants). If a set of scenarios has been suggested, as noted above, each of these is viable. Adding detail to sets that will eventually be abandoned doesn’t provide value.

In an ideal engagement, the entire process described here, from analyzing the highest-ranked uncertainties to voting on the candidate matrices, should take no more than a couple of hours.

Developing deep stories, understanding causes and conducting additional research are best applied to the selected matrix.

Did We Get It Right?

For the team, right, it’s pretty simple: you don’t care which candidate set wins. Since the selection criteria have been applied and only plausible and useful sets are presented back to the client, no matter which candidate set the team selects, storytelling and imagination will create useful futures for exploring the focal question and related issues.

Domain Specifics

The horizontal nature of scenario planning makes it difficult to codify heuristics for matrix creation. The technique can be applied to any domain, but the uncertainties and eventual scenarios are very domain-specific. That means it is challenging to generalize about uncertainty selection to scenarios beyond those discussed, because domain knowledge plays a role in understanding potential narratives.

Good scenario planners have usually applied the technique to a wide range of problems and have gained domain expertise along the way, which helps them develop and propose viable candidate scenario sets.

The Vote

The last step in this process is the vote. The vote is very simple. People either view the sketches or have them presented to them. People vote for the one they feel best represents the focal question and the project’s needs.

Final Notes

Getting to a matrix requires a team effort. It is better done with at least a couple of experienced people than by one. It can also be an iterative process, taking into account different people’s lenses for categorization as they are exposed to the initial take.

References

Thornton, T. (2013). Clinical judgment, tacit knowledge, and recognition in psychiatric diagnosis. In K. W. M. Fulford, M. Davies, R. G. T. Gipps, G. Graham, J. Z. Sadler, & G. Stanghellini (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

For more serious insights on strategy and scenario planning, click here.

Did you find this post on getting to a scenario planning matrix useful? If so, please like, comment or share.