IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v6y2024i1ne165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A probabilistic cross‐impact methodology for explorative scenario analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Juho Roponen
  • Ahti Salo

Abstract

As one of the approaches to scenario analysis, cross‐impact methods provide a structured approach to building scenarios as combinations of outcomes for selected uncertainty factors. Although they vary in their details, cross‐impact methods are similar in that they synthesize expert judgments about probabilistic or causal dependencies between pairs of uncertainty factors and seek to focus attention on scenarios that can be deemed consistent. Still, most cross‐impact methods do not associate probabilities with scenarios, which limits the possibilities of integrating them in risk and decision analysis. Motivated by this recognition, we develop a cross‐impact method that derives a joint probability distribution over all possible scenarios from probabilistically interpreted cross‐impact statements. More specifically, our method (i) admits a broad range of probabilistic statements about the realizations of uncertainty factors, (ii) supports the process of eliciting such statements, (iii) synthesizes these judgments by solving a series of optimization models from which the corresponding scenario probabilities are derived. The resulting scenario probabilities can be used to construct Bayesian networks, which expands the range of analyses that can be carried out. We illustrate our method with a real case study on the impacts of three‐dimensional (3D)‐printing on the Finnish Defense Forces. The scenarios, their probabilities, and the associated Bayesian network resulting from this case study helped explore alternative futures and gave insights into how the Defence Forces could benefit from 3D‐printing.

Suggested Citation

  • Juho Roponen & Ahti Salo, 2024. "A probabilistic cross‐impact methodology for explorative scenario analysis," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:6:y:2024:i:1:n:e165
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.165
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kosow, Hannah & Gaßner, Robert, 2008. "Methods of future and scenario analysis: overview, assessment, and selection criteria," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 39, number 39, July.
    2. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    3. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    4. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    5. Roponen, Juho & Ríos Insua, David & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Adversarial risk analysis under partial information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 306-316.
    6. Edoardo Tosoni & Ahti Salo & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 755-776, April.
    7. Bunn, Derek W. & Salo, Ahti A., 1993. "Forecasting with scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 291-303, August.
    8. Riikka Siljander & Tommi Ekholm, 2018. "Integrated scenario modelling of energy, greenhouse gas emissions and forestry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 783-802, June.
    9. Seeve, Teemu & Vilkkumaa, Eeva, 2022. "Identifying and visualizing a diverse set of plausible scenarios for strategic planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 596-610.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahti Salo & Edoardo Tosoni & Juho Roponen & Derek W. Bunn, 2022. "Using cross‐impact analysis for probabilistic risk assessment," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), June.
    2. Hausken, Kjell, 2024. "Fifty Years of Operations Research in Defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(2), pages 355-368.
    3. Martin Meier & Burkhard Schipper, 2014. "Bayesian games with unawareness and unawareness perfection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 219-249, June.
    4. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2004. "Configuration of Detection Software: A Comparison of Decision and Game Theory Approaches," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 131-148, September.
    5. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    6. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    7. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco, 2021. "Classification of Delphi outputs through robust ranking and fuzzy clustering for Delphi-based scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Saten Kumar & Jane Ryngaert, 2021. "Do You Know that I Know that You Know…? Higher-Order Beliefs in Survey Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1387-1446.
    9. Hausken, Kjell & Levitin, Gregory, 2009. "Minmax defense strategy for complex multi-state systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 577-587.
    10. Yehuda Levy, 2013. "A Cantor Set of Games with No Shift-Homogeneous Equilibrium Selection," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 492-503, August.
    11. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    12. Pintér, Miklós & Udvari, Zsolt, 2011. "Generalized type spaces," MPRA Paper 34107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Arun G. Chandrasekhar & Robert Townsend & Juan Pablo Xandri, 2018. "Financial Centrality and Liquidity Provision," NBER Working Papers 24406, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Benjamin Patrick Evans & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2021. "Bounded rationality for relaxing best response and mutual consistency: The Quantal Hierarchy model of decision-making," Papers 2106.15844, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    15. Michael Müller, 2024. "Belief-independence and (robust) strategy-proofness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 443-461, May.
    16. Sundström, David, 2016. "On Specification and Inference in the Econometrics of Public Procurement," Umeå Economic Studies 931, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    17. Scandizzo, Pasquale L. & Ventura, Marco, 2010. "Sharing risk through concession contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 363-370, November.
    18. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    19. Waśniewski, Krzysztof, 2012. "Local governments’ fiscal policy as a factor of urban development – evidence from Poland," MPRA Paper 39176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Estrella Alonso & Joaquin Sanchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2015. "A parametric family of two ranked objects auctions: equilibria and associated risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 141-160, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:6:y:2024:i:1:n:e165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.