Mapping Public and Private Scenario Planning: Lessons from ...

Development, 2004, 47(4), (67–72)
r 2004 Society for International Development 1011-6370/04
www.sidint.org/development
Dialogue
Mapping Public and Private Scenario Planning:
Lessons from regional projects1
JAY OGILVY AND
ABSTRACT How different is scenario planning done for public versus
ERIK SMITH
private purposes? In asking this question, Jay Ogilvy and Erik Smith
look at regional projects done in the public interest, and distill a set
of lessons through a brief examination of regional scenario planning
projects run by Global Business Network throughout the 1990s. They
then apply these lessons to a case conducted in 2001–2002: the future
of California’s Central Valley. They argue that scenario planning in
the public domain demands greater clarity of client attention to
different constituencies – particularly in regions – even though the
art and craft of the actual practice is very similar across public and
private projects.
KEYWORDS client; funding; facilitation; turf battles; outreach;
marketing; participation; uncertainty
Introduction
Some practitioners of scenario planning believe that scenario engagements done in the
public domain2 must differ in fundamental ways from engagements in the private sec-
tor. We would suggest that the differences are not as great as they might seem. After
many years of experience in different private and public projects, we can see key distinc-
tions, particularly when it comes to defining the purpose and objectives of a given pro-
ject, identifying the client, and considering different constituencies. But when it comes
to actually doing the work ^ interviewing, workshops, drafting scenarios, drawing
implications, and communicating the work to wider audiences ^ the art and craft are
actually very similar. Indeed, work in the public interest can shed light that will better
illuminate some of the darkness that remains in private sector work.
To map these similarities and differences, we focus on scenario planning projects that
Global Business Network (GBN) has conducted for regional areas. We first give brief
highlights of several different projects, and draw some lessons for regional work in the
public interest ^ as well as for scenario planning more generally. The second section
plunges into a more detailed review of the GBN scenarios for the future of California’s
Great Central Valley, which examined a range of futures for a region 450 miles long ^
almost a nation in itself, home to some of the richest farmland in the world, and a poten-
tial hotbed of competing interests.
Development (2004) 47(4), 67–72. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100084

---

Development 47(4): Dialogue
Experience from the regions
prioritized. Finally there was a presentation to
members of the board of the Mott Foundation,
Since the1970s, scenario planners have worked on
which used the insights derived from the scenarios
many projects that serve the public interest. There
to make a clear shift in the foundation’s strategy
were, among others, projects for the Environmen-
for giving ^ henceforth the Foundation would focus
tal Protection Agency in Washington, for the Cali-
on making Flint a better place to raise children.
fornia Energy Commission, and for the city of
Although the project was undertaken in the
Austin,Texas. These projects met with varying de-
public interest, the client was clear, the process
grees of success. While the project for Austin
and schedule were very similar to what we typi-
might be hailed as partly responsible for the re-
cally do for corporations, and the results were
markable economic growth that city has enjoyed,
actionable and actually implemented. That said,
some see the inaction of bureaucrats in Washing-
conducting the workshops was not so typical
ton as hobbling project results in the public do-
because a number of community representatives ^
main.
Besides
showing
the
importance
of
who were very effective and eloquent preachers ^
understanding the federal context of regions (be-
had a habit of interrupting at odd moments with
yond simply the state), experiences in Washington
impromptu sermons on the problems of fiefdoms
produce something of a caricature of ‘government
separating different parishes in Flint. These preach-
work’ as ‘wasted effort.’ Unlike the private sector,
ers seemed less interested in cooperation for the
where there is normally a clear chain of command
greater regional good than in maintaining their
and flow from decisions to action and implemen-
own turf and position within the existing system.
tation, public scenario planning faces the classic
We draw two lessons here:
tragedy of the commons: everyone’s problems be-
come no one’s problems exactly because the chain
(1)
When conducting scenario workshops in the
of command is cloudy. Below, we look at several re-
public interest, be prepared for the facilitation
gional (not federal) scenario planning projects
challenge of dealing with people who have
conducted by GBN in the 1990s to see if this is al-
different meeting skills than those developed
ways the case.
in business school or in corporate committee
meetings.
Scenarios for the future of Flint, Michigan
(2) Insights gained from experience with turf
The Mott Foundation in Flint, Michigan, has as
battles in the community are very similar to
part of its deed of gift the mandate to improve the
human dramas in the corporate sector: fief-
lives of the citizens of Flint. During the 1980s they
doms are to be found everywhere.
poured millions of dollars into building what was
to be a tourist destination in Flint: Autoworld.
Scenarios for the future of Oklahoma
After the expensive building and its installations
were complete, they waited for tourists to flock to
After attending GBN’s public course on Develop-
Flint. But they never came ^ vacationing instead
ing and Using Scenarios, the Executive Director of
at places like Disneyworld in Orlando ^ and Auto-
The Oklahoma Academy, a non-profit association
world failed.
of movers and shakers in Oklahoma, asked for
In order to avoid another bad decision of such
help in facilitating an annual meeting involving
epic proportions, the Mott Foundation undertook
over 150 participants. After prepping a team of
scenario planning. The process was in most ways
local small group facilitators, we ran a workshop
similar to what we would do in the private sector:
that generated many fragmentary ideas for
interviews, an initial workshop to outline a set of
scenarios that were then boiled down into four
scenarios, the drafting of narrative scenarios
scenarios for the future of Oklahoma. The Oklaho-
which were circulated to workshop participants
ma Academy wrote up the scenarios and pub-
prior to a second workshop where implications
lished them in two glossy pamphlets that
68
were drawn, strategic options developed and
received wide exposure throughout the State.

---

Ogilvy and Smith: Mapping Public and Private Scenario Planning
Part of the impetus for this work, and part of the
The two lessons from this case are in the
reasoning behind the selection of scenarios as a
negative:
tool, lay in the historic rivalry between Texas and
Okalahoma. Both share the highs and lows of
(6) The constituency challenges of work in the
life largely financed by oil revenues. An intense
public interest are sometimes insurmounta-
cross-border rivalry was epitomized in annual
ble, particularly at the regional level where
football rituals. The use of scenario planning a
the number of interested players is essentially
decade earlier by Austin ^ and the success that
unlimited.
city had seen since in terms of economic diversifi-
(7) Even with what seems like a good idea at
cation, hi-tech development and job creation, all
the time, know when to cut your losses ^
of which Oklahoma lacked ^ took the form of a cer-
especially when there is no clear client.
tain ‘Austin-envy’ among members of the Okala-
homa Academy.
Scenarios for the future of South Florida3
We find three more lessons here, all of which are
also applicable to scenario planning in the private
For this project, we did have a clear client: a non-
sector:
profit group called the Collins Center. Their pro-
blem also focused on unplanned growth ^ in the
(3) Trade on success stories.
region of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
(4) Workshop design on the front end can engage
counties ^ as risking environmental and lifestyle
large groups in the process of scenario devel-
degradation. Yet the citizens of those counties did
opment.
not seem to realize that they shared large pro-
(5) Provide resources for good production values
blems in common, that is, that some of their chal-
(e.g., color printing, good graphics, etc.) in
lenges were regional, not just countywide. Finally
communicating the results of the work. Espe-
there was funding provided by the MacArthur
cially if the stories are well told, they can be
Foundation.
disseminated widely across regions or large
Stakeholders in the respective communities of
organizations.
the three counties needed convincing to contri-
bute their time and attention to the scenario plan-
Downtown Chicago
ning workshops. Rather than assuming the
Known for its great architecture, downtown
commitment of a single CEO or his/her executive
Chicago was in danger of destroying its world-class
committee, we had to meet a variety of movers
status by allowing a spate of unplanned develop-
and shakers, attend many breakfasts, lunches
ment. An inspired, enthusiastic and reasonably
and dinners, and generally talk up the project.
well-connected architect thought scenarios would
This we did, but despite all of our travels and talks
be a tool to help solve this, and convinced us to
and half-eaten meals, there remained some com-
spend many hours trying to convince others. But
munities that simply did not want to participate.
this was a case where the lack of a clear client
We completed the project, and the results were
meant that there was no one to take a lead funding
widely publicized through local newspapers,
role. Moreover, there was no one who could by
radio, and TV. But it is hard to see a clear impact
themselves implement whatever ideas might
in decisions taken or outcomes attained. Nor was
emerge from the scenario planning effort. Despite
attendance at some of the later workshops what
what seemed to some like a good idea at the time,
we had hoped. The demographics of Florida ^
eventually, the specific context of politics in
especially as Miami comes to serve as the north-
Chicago, both public and private, were such that
ern capital of Latin America ^ meant that the
no one could step forward to sponsor such a project
sheer number of communities to be affected by
lest they be accused of over-reaching their author-
the results of this exercise was so great that
ity. Nor could we create such a client simply for the
full and accurate representation would have re-
sake of carrying out a scenario planning exercise.
quired a meeting room the size of the UN General
69

---

Development 47(4): Dialogue
Assembly Hall. For lack of full representation, the
the Valley: We aimed to raise the regional con-
project lost some degree of dedication, even
sciousness to encompass the full geographic fact
among those who had been initially enthusiastic.
and intricate interdependencies of California’s
The last lesson we share is:
Central Valley.
With funding from the James Irvine Foundation,
(8) Undertake a clear-eyed assessment of the pro-
the convening client would be the Great Valley Cen-
spective constituency: Who are they, and can
ter, whose visionary president saw scenario plan-
you realistically expect to reach them? This
ning as a way to spark new kinds of discussion
question applies when embarking upon a sce-
across a broad range of Valley residents, from offi-
nario exercise in the private sector but it de-
cial policy makers to everyday citizens buying gro-
serves special thought and attention when
ceries. As Carol Whiteside stated,‘We have to find a
doing regional scenario planning in the pub-
way to bring these public policy issues into the pop-
lic interest.
ular media, making connections between today’s
actions and tomorrow’s outcomes.’
Lessons applied
Facilitation skills and turf battles
Scenarios for the future of California’s
Central Valley4
To attain these goals, we realized that we would
need an extraordinarily broad range of partici-
Given all we had learned from these and other
pants, and that we would need the same kinds of
projects we welcomed Carol Whiteside, Executive
participants for the three areas. In preparation
Director of The Great Valley Center, and her invi-
for the scenario planning workshops, we inter-
tation to develop scenarios for the future of
viewed key stakeholders from each area. Using
California’s Central Valley.
the cachet and network of the Great Valley Center
(GVC), we invited roughly 25 participants from
Clear client and obvious challenge
each area: representatives from local government,
California’s Central Valley has historically ^ and
social services, neighbourhood organizations,
most typically ^ been thought of as located in the
community groups, educators, youth, healthcare,
southern part of the state, beginning just north of
business,
economic
development,
journalism
the mountains that rim Los Angeles and running
(newspapers and television), water, air quality,
north to the outskirts of Sacramento. The Valley
transportation, the arts, environmental advo-
Futures Project, driven by Carol Whiteside and
cates, agriculture (farming and livestock), and real
the Great Valley Center, explicitly sought to
estate
developers.
Despite
a
history
of
change this, to match the mental map of Califor-
antagonisms among many of these constituen-
nia’s Central Valley to its geographic reality:
cies, the broad tent of multiple scenarios and the
instead of running from Bakersfield to Modesto,
gentle art of careful facilitation generated produc-
California’s Great Central Valley would run from
tive, new conversations.
Bakersfield through Sacramento and all the way
Throughout the project, both GBN and GVC
north to Redding. Likewise we would stretch the
were also completely clear that the groups we con-
timeframe: from the usual annual budget cycles
vened were not decision-making bodies. They
to more than two decades ^ to 2025.We would con-
were not responsible for any decisions beyond the
vene three parallel projects: One in the southern
creation of the scenarios and their implications.
San Joaquin Valley, one in the Sacramento region,
Specific decisions are more common in private
and one in the North Valley, and then conclude by
sector scenario planning projects, though cer-
synthesizing the results of all three projects. The
tainly not unique: often enough private sector
mental maps we set out to test, illuminate and
scenario projects are used to build capacity
change were therefore not only physical ones, but
through experiential training, or simply to revisit
70
more importantly those held by people living in
the contextual world and trigger new thinking.

---

Ogilvy and Smith: Mapping Public and Private Scenario Planning
Attention to constituency and area
nect the scenarios across the three areas. So we
differences
listened closely for what was critically uncertain
to all three areas. And we were rewarded in that,
Throughout the engagement, we remained atten-
of the three scenario matrices (one from each
tive to the issue of ‘radius of solidarity,’ a term
area), each shares an axis of uncertainty and each
based loosely on Frank Fukuyama’s phrase, ‘radius
has an axis that expresses the unique concerns
of trust.’ By this we mean that each area within
about that area’s future.
the Greater Central Valley region thought of itself
as a separate area, one in which solidarity held
sway along a logic of ‘us vs them.’ Part of the point
of the project, however, was to expand this radius,
Workshop design and production values
and make connections with the other two radii
To generate scenarios for each of the three areas,
more explicit (see Figure 1).
we designed the project with three separate, yet
We used the same scenario development techni-
parallel, workshop processes. At the first two-day
que for each of the three areas, but consciously paid
workshop, GBN worked with participants to cre-
more attention to the differences in terms of what
ate the scenario frameworks and begin developing
was most critically uncertain to each of the three
the scenario stories. We continued researching
areas.We allowed the space for these differences to
and writing the scenarios until the second two-
express themselves ^ and were rewarded when
day workshop, again one for each of the three
they did, particularly in terms of the ‘top-ten’ key
areas. After quickly sharing the scenarios from
factors and environmental forces that workshop
the other two areas, we focused on implications
participants saw as most important and most un-
and strategic options for their area, both within
certain for the next 25 years of the Valley.
each scenario and across their set of four. It is
On the other hand, we also realized the impor-
worthwhile noting that each of the three scenario
tance to the overall project of being able to con-
sets includes a visionary depiction of the future, a
Figure 1: Future of CA Central Valley to 2025: three regions.
71

---

Development 47(4): Dialogue
better future that citizens of the area could choose
Mapping the similarities
to work toward together. Though the issues that
surfaced in these workshops were not necessarily
So how does scenario planning compare across
new, the scenario framework offered a new way
the public domain and private sector? From our
to organize, present, and talk about them.5
experience, there are many similarities in the art
Finally, the scenarios were shared with the
and craft ^ including dissemination ^ of scenario
region, as Katherine Fulton and Diana Scearce
planning. The largest differences are found in the
(see their article in this Development issue) sum-
need for clearly establishing the client and fram-
marize in their recent publication, What If? The
ing the purposes of the engagement. In order to
Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits (available
bring legitimacy to the results of scenario plan-
online at www.gbn.com/whatif)
ning projects in the public domain, it is essential
Once the scenarios were written and the impli-
that all counties, all interests, and all constituen-
cations surfaced, the scenario work was still far
cies gain some representation in the scenario
from over. During 2003, the Great Valley Center led
planning process. They must see their fingerprints
an ambitious communications and outreach effort,
on the final results. Otherwise they will see the
using the scenarios to catalyse discussion about lo-
scenarios as mere ‘stories’ told by others.
cal public policy decisions in various parts of the re-
With so many stakeholders, extra attention
gion. The scenarios were featured prominently at
must be paid to differences in the perspective,
several conferences, including the Center’s annual
experience, and priorities of people from the par-
conference for regional leaders. The Great Valley
ticipating groups. The work of building a con-
Center staff led scenario-based discussions with
stituency is more involved, and simply takes long-
government officials, students, Rotarians, and
er, in the public domain than it does in the private
members of other civic groups. They also distribu-
sector. This is not to say that constituency build-
ted the scenarios in audio, video, DVD, and print ^
ing is not often an issue in the private sector ^ be-
in both English and Spanish ^ and created a guide,
cause it is. Nor are corporations always clearly
along with a youth curriculum, that was used
focused on a particular decision or strategy.
widely by middle and high schools in the Central
Executives can also be drawn to scenario planning
Valley. Daily newspapers in the NorthValley, the Sa-
just because of their anxiety about an uncertain
cramento Area, and the San Joaquin Valley pub-
future, and, as in the public domain, they see sce-
lished the scenarios in featured articles, exposing
nario planning as one logical way to cope with
an estimated 700,000 people to the scenarios
that uncertainty. Overall, however, we see more
(Scearce and Fulton, 2004).
similarities than differences.
Notes
1 The term ‘region’ in this article refers to a geographic area within a state in the US that crosses administrative
boundaries.
2 We use the term ‘public domain’ to include both ‘public interest’ and ‘public sector’. We understand ‘public sector’
to typically indicate government, while ‘public interest’ (which can include government) to often mean non-
government organizations and individuals.
3 We would like to acknowledge Gerald Harris, another GBN practitioner, for his work on both the Flint and South
Florida projects.
4 We would like to thank another GBN practitioner, Chris Ertel, for his significant contributions to our Great Central
Valley work.
5 For more details on these sets of scenarios, including the full narrative texts, see www.greatvalley.org/
valley_futures
Reference
Scearce, Diana and Katherine Fulton (2004) ‘What If? The art of scenario thinking for nonprofits, Emeryville: Global
72
Business Network’.

---