The Backwards Logic Method of Constructing Extreme Scenarios

Until now, our focus in this book has been on using the intuitive logics method of scenario construction as the sole way of constructing our set of scenarios. Recall that the steps include brainstorming the generation of critical uncertainties and predetermined driving forces that will have varying degrees of impact on the focal issue — often, the viability of the organization itself. Recall, also, that the two scenario dimensions are selected from those cluster headings that are judged by scenario team members to be situated in the high-impact low-predictability quadrant of the impact/uncertainty matrix. In earlier chapters, we have demonstrated how each of the relatively independent, high-impact/high-uncertainty clusters is resolved into one of two plausible sets of outcomes: A1 and A2, and B1 and B2. In earlier chapters, we also advocated that each of the two resolutions within a cluster should, in simple terms, be either negative or positive. But does this step-by-step process produce a sufficiently wide range of plausibility in the subsequent four scenarios? Recall our discussion of the retail bank case in Chapter 3. Here, the context of ever-increasing residential housing prices meant that the bank’s 2007 scenario thinking workshop did not consider the possibility of the housing market crash in the USA and, later, in many parts of Europe. Can scenario method be adapted to aid the anticipation of high-impact rare events such as this?