them, whether to consider single or multiple visions of the future, and how to encourage creativity within the process.

There are many recommended
methods for vision development, which
tend to differ in the sequence of steps
they promote but generally agree on the
content of the process as involving the
following fundamental steps:
• Identification of stakeholders
• Analysis of the organization’s
current situation
• Identification of a desired future
vision
• Comparison of the future vision
with the current situation
• Development of action plans.

Visioning processes are often run with one or more representatives from each stakeholder group, typically during a one-off workshop or event. The group analyzes the present situation and then goes on to develop a single shared vision of the future. This shared vision is contrasted with the current situation in order to develop action plans to take the organization from the present to the future. In the design of future visions, these five steps can be considered as building blocks that help characterize the process.

 

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES: PARTICIPATION AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Successful visions must appeal to people and inspire them to work toward the realization of the vision. However, for this to happen, the visions must be widely understood and embraced. Another key issue, then, is the involvement and participation of the relevant stakeholders. Participation has multiple benefits: It provides those involved with a valuable opportunity to learn; it increases their commitment to action to realize the goals that have been articulated; and it enhances the implementability of the plans that emerge. Moreover, the more diverse the experiences of the participants, the more robust the set of visions they create.

Identifying who should be involved
in the process is clearly important,
as is the issue of how to involve them.
Stakeholders can be defined as persons
or groups that affect, or are affected
by, the organization. It would seem
logical therefore that key stakeholders
should be invited to participate in
the process. Stakeholder analysis can
identify stakeholders who will, or can
be persuaded to, actively support the
strategic intent of the organization, as
well as those who will seek to sabotage
the successful management of the
strategic intent. This reflects the
notion that there may be important
differences between stakeholders
who benefit from the organization’s
strategic intent and those who are
negatively affected by it.
Next, we consider how different
types of future can be classified and
whether it is desirable to consider more
than one view of the future.

COLLECTIVE COMPOSITION: SCENARIOS AND THE CHOICES APPROACH

Ducot and Lubben [ 4] provide a classification of different types of possible future, which they term scenario. The most common type of scenario is classed as descriptive and exploratory, often used in the assessment of future uncertainties concerning an organization’s external environment. Such scenarios typically have an external orientation and are based on people’s assessment of factual information. They are most often presented as sets of alternative views of the future external environment against which an organization should develop a robust set of plans (in contrast to the practice of visioning, where a single vision of the future is usually produced).

Frances O’Brien and Maureen
Meadows [ 5] draw a distinction
between strategic planning scenarios
and visioning scenarios. In contrast
to the former, the latter are focused
on the organization’s internal
environment and on issues over which
the organization has control. According
to Ducot and Lubben’s typology
mentioned above, they are exploratory
and also normative, meaning subjective
or values-laden, as they are intended
to address the deep concerns of
participating stakeholders. Indeed,
visioning scenarios are developed
from the initial viewpoints of the
stakeholders, in such a way that each
scenario represents a contrasting and
strongly held perspective on the issues
under consideration. The intention
is not necessarily that a particular
visioning scenario be chosen as the way
forward. Rather, the set of visioning
scenarios can act as a vehicle to
promote informed debate. For instance,
attention could be drawn to the possible
trade-offs that might exist among
different, often difficult, choices.

A further but related distinction
between strategic planning scenarios
and visioning scenarios is the
location of control [ 6]. Strategic
planning scenarios describe future
possible external environments that
are largely out of the control of the
organization, whereas visioning
scenarios describe possible future
states of the organization itself.
Future research should reflect the
difference between visioning for a
single organization (e.g., as part of
Framework of
ideas F
embodied
Methodology M
Area of
concern A in
applied
to
yields
learning
about

Figure 1. Elements relevant to any piece of research (based on [ 3]; reproduced in [ 6]).