The main idea is that the mind of a fox is a better model for success (in business and otherwise) than the mind of a hedgehog. Suspending disbelief we are invited to consider why as we make the leap from the animal to the human kingdom. The fox strikes out into the unknown while the hedgehog sticks to the known. The fox is willing to try alternatives, get to know the rules of the game in order to get around better, and generally to optimise the use of its options. The hedgehog on the other hand knows only the traditional way, bends or breaks the rules to its own advantage with little consideration for the consequences to other players (and, so the morality tale goes, to itself at the end of the day), and ultimately can conceive of only one option and one way of doing things. The comparison between hedgehogs and foxes, incidentally, comes from a well-known essay by Isaiah Berlin, cited by the writers.
A description of the fox taken from Isaiah Berlin's essay runs as follows: "[Foxes] pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory. Their thought is often scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the vast variety of experiences." Berlin's essay promises to be a more inspiring read than the present one, which occasionally has a tendency to act like its definition of a hedgehog towards a variety of philosophical thinkers that it references at will, categorising them as hedgehogs or foxes as the case may be, as if invoking their names outside of a plausible context lends a little more weight to the argument. Really! Clem Sunter, I see, studied politics, philosophy, and economics at Oxford University. He should know better, the wily old fox ...
But to get on with it. Scenario planning tries to conceive of the main plausible scenarios that a business (or a project) can face when looking forward. Just so we're on the same page: it's all about self interest and a future orientation. Oh, and the fox is an empiricist rather than a rationalist.
What I find personally useful is the main matrix - full of stolen ideas I might add, such as those in Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. We basically have 4 qudrants in a so-called Foxy Matrix along two axes, that of degrees of control and of certainty:
1. Rules of the game (Certain but Without control);
2. (a) Key uncertainties (b) Scenarios (Uncertain and Without control);
3. Options (Uncertain but with Control)
4. Decisions (Certain and with Control)
Foxy Matrix
1. The Rules of the Game, refer to the things that are fixed and we cannot change, but can get to know. In fact it is our job to ge to know them, and getting to know them is what the fox has to do - dancing on several incongruent levels to gather his empirical data of what is out there. Or so I'm guessing, 'cause no real guidelines are given outside of a few sports anecdotes and analogies. Presumably all business people love golf and find it easy to relate Tiger Woods' approach to golf. In the other example given, that of Apollo 13, the rules of the game are those of the universe: gravity, space, and the kinds of problems that physicists grapple with. Furthermore, as the problem developed on Apollo 13, the rules became the amount of oxygen left, the power available for use, and some other things. Boundaries and forces in the environment in which the eventual scenario will play itself out. As the authors say: "Far from being prescriptive, the rules of the game should be viewed as descriptive, as they shape the parameters within which we can operate." (p. 52)
2. (a) Key uncertainties relate to the things you don't know for sure but that are absolutely necessary to know and have the highest potential impact. To put it differently, these are things you have identified as essential but don't know how they will progress in future. Right brain creative thinking is worth more here than analytical thinking, because you literally need to think the less obvious, the implausible and the impossible.
(b) Scenarios are possible futures. The authors advise to sticking to two or three main scenarios or your mind will blow up. They are really just conceptual and descriptive outlines of those futures, each revolving around an essential theme. Focusing on the main goal (eg. in the Apollo 13 example it would be getting back to earth) is not the point - all the main scenarios have to be played out in advance. Essentially you are discovering the options open to you in a given situation, so scenarios are bridges between key uncertainties and your options.
3. Options are not meant to include the infinite variety of opportunities we are faced with every day. Instead they are limited to opportunities that can be implemented and follow from the scenarios outlined. Best is to create a list of all the possible options and gradually eliminate only those that are truly unfeasible.
4. Finally decisions need to be made - which scenario will be implemented? Following the decision there is execution. But that is not all - during execution there is constant revision. Referring to the Apollo 13 mission the authors remind us that "the success of the adjusted mission to bring the astronauts safely back to earth was the result of many decisions shaped by incremental actions and the results they produced" (p. 110). Constant adaptation through feedback. Foxes are encouraged to be in constant dialogue with the environment and with other people's ideas. The end.
Whereas I am not pleased with the rough handling of the ideas put forward in the book - there are too many casual examples, and too few real ideas - the ideas are at least useful and presented in a very readable format.
No comments:
Post a Comment