Organizational persistence in the use of war gaming and scenario planning

Mie Augier, Nicholas Dew*, Thorbjørn Knudsen, Nils Stieglitz

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Even though war gaming and scenario planning are widely used in business contexts, there is little evidence that either practice is associated with superior performance. Why, then, spend the costs? In this paper we address this puzzle and suggest why the extant empirical findings have so far proven limited. We consider the development of these practices and find that they have a substantially entangled and overlapping history, particularly at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Despite shared historical roots, the treatment of war gaming and scenario planning in the scholarly literature branched out into different streams. This separation is unfortunate because it obscures a better understanding of the premises under which these practices are effective. We propose an analysis of the overlaps and contrasts of war gaming and scenario planning that sets out clear boundary conditions for their use and efficacy. We find that each practice is tailored to provide strategic guidance in a context where the organization is facing different forms of uncertainty. This suggests they may be effective, and thus improve organizational performance, where the relevant uncertainties are operative. Such benefits would be apparent over longer time scales, and only if the relevant boundary conditions are met. However, to the best of our knowledge, no longitudinal empirical test of either war gaming or scenario planning is available. We therefore conclude that more research is needed to ascertain the true relationship between these popular practices and their performance outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
JournalLong Range Planning
Volume51
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)511-525
ISSN0024-6301
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

persistence
scenario
planning
boundary condition
uncertainty
performance
corporation
timescale
Scenario planning
Persistence
Gaming
organization
history
cost
costs
evidence
Uncertainty
Boundary conditions

Cite this

Augier, Mie ; Dew, Nicholas ; Knudsen, Thorbjørn ; Stieglitz, Nils. / Organizational persistence in the use of war gaming and scenario planning. In: Long Range Planning. 2018 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 511-525.
@article{24c4b586fbfc4b028c9e063e002d8aed,
title = "Organizational persistence in the use of war gaming and scenario planning",
abstract = "Even though war gaming and scenario planning are widely used in business contexts, there is little evidence that either practice is associated with superior performance. Why, then, spend the costs? In this paper we address this puzzle and suggest why the extant empirical findings have so far proven limited. We consider the development of these practices and find that they have a substantially entangled and overlapping history, particularly at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Despite shared historical roots, the treatment of war gaming and scenario planning in the scholarly literature branched out into different streams. This separation is unfortunate because it obscures a better understanding of the premises under which these practices are effective. We propose an analysis of the overlaps and contrasts of war gaming and scenario planning that sets out clear boundary conditions for their use and efficacy. We find that each practice is tailored to provide strategic guidance in a context where the organization is facing different forms of uncertainty. This suggests they may be effective, and thus improve organizational performance, where the relevant uncertainties are operative. Such benefits would be apparent over longer time scales, and only if the relevant boundary conditions are met. However, to the best of our knowledge, no longitudinal empirical test of either war gaming or scenario planning is available. We therefore conclude that more research is needed to ascertain the true relationship between these popular practices and their performance outcomes.",
author = "Mie Augier and Nicholas Dew and Thorbj{\o}rn Knudsen and Nils Stieglitz",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1016/j.lrp.2017.12.005",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "511--525",
journal = "Long Range Planning",
issn = "0024-6301",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",
number = "4",

}

Organizational persistence in the use of war gaming and scenario planning. / Augier, Mie; Dew, Nicholas; Knudsen, Thorbjørn; Stieglitz, Nils.

In: Long Range Planning, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2018, p. 511-525.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Organizational persistence in the use of war gaming and scenario planning

AU - Augier, Mie

AU - Dew, Nicholas

AU - Knudsen, Thorbjørn

AU - Stieglitz, Nils

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Even though war gaming and scenario planning are widely used in business contexts, there is little evidence that either practice is associated with superior performance. Why, then, spend the costs? In this paper we address this puzzle and suggest why the extant empirical findings have so far proven limited. We consider the development of these practices and find that they have a substantially entangled and overlapping history, particularly at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Despite shared historical roots, the treatment of war gaming and scenario planning in the scholarly literature branched out into different streams. This separation is unfortunate because it obscures a better understanding of the premises under which these practices are effective. We propose an analysis of the overlaps and contrasts of war gaming and scenario planning that sets out clear boundary conditions for their use and efficacy. We find that each practice is tailored to provide strategic guidance in a context where the organization is facing different forms of uncertainty. This suggests they may be effective, and thus improve organizational performance, where the relevant uncertainties are operative. Such benefits would be apparent over longer time scales, and only if the relevant boundary conditions are met. However, to the best of our knowledge, no longitudinal empirical test of either war gaming or scenario planning is available. We therefore conclude that more research is needed to ascertain the true relationship between these popular practices and their performance outcomes.

AB - Even though war gaming and scenario planning are widely used in business contexts, there is little evidence that either practice is associated with superior performance. Why, then, spend the costs? In this paper we address this puzzle and suggest why the extant empirical findings have so far proven limited. We consider the development of these practices and find that they have a substantially entangled and overlapping history, particularly at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Despite shared historical roots, the treatment of war gaming and scenario planning in the scholarly literature branched out into different streams. This separation is unfortunate because it obscures a better understanding of the premises under which these practices are effective. We propose an analysis of the overlaps and contrasts of war gaming and scenario planning that sets out clear boundary conditions for their use and efficacy. We find that each practice is tailored to provide strategic guidance in a context where the organization is facing different forms of uncertainty. This suggests they may be effective, and thus improve organizational performance, where the relevant uncertainties are operative. Such benefits would be apparent over longer time scales, and only if the relevant boundary conditions are met. However, to the best of our knowledge, no longitudinal empirical test of either war gaming or scenario planning is available. We therefore conclude that more research is needed to ascertain the true relationship between these popular practices and their performance outcomes.

U2 - 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.12.005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 51

SP - 511

EP - 525

JO - Long Range Planning

JF - Long Range Planning

SN - 0024-6301

IS - 4

ER -