Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Scenario(planning) - definitions “--- scenarios are a set of reasonably plausible, but structurally different futures.” 1) “--- that part of strategic planning which relates to the tools and technologies for managing the un- certainties of the future.” 2) “This technique has become relatively wide- spread as a way of visualising alternative futures, and thus of designing flexible strategies that can be developed to cope with these visions of the future.” 3) __________ 1)van der Heijden, K.: Scenarios. The Art of Strategic Con- versation. John Wiley & Sons Chichester. 1996, p 29. 2)Ringland, G.: Scenario Planning. Managing for the Future. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester. 1998, p 2. 3)Channon, D.F. (Ed.): The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Strategic Management. Blackwell Publisher. Oxford. 1997, p 225.

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Context of the scenarios Background (security policy environment) to deliberations concerning the future of the Swedish total defence. Government (primarily ministries for Foreign Affairs and Defence) Parliamentary defence committee HQ Armed Forces Civil defence agencies

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Scenarios in the Swedish defence planning. Overview. Year Comments PPBS introduced. ”Classical scenarios” (”novels”) (long term). Shorter scenarios. Emphasis on factors which could imply structural changes (long term). Scenarios of minor interest. Transformation according to 1982 defence decision prioritised. New scenarios, not including, however, the dissolution of the WP and the SU. Examples of ”civilian crisis” of importance for defence. Short term scenarios.

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR They cover important parts of possible out- comes. They are considered being possible even if not probable. The content of the scenarios make it possible to draw conclusions concerning the organis- ation you plan for. (e.g. the value of options). They contribute constructively to the dialogue between actors. (e.g. learning process, discus- sion about goals and means, uncertainties, ---). They can be part of the directives from parlia- ment/government to agencies. Criteria of ”good” scenarios (not necessarily easy/possible to combine)

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Experiences. The sixties. A detailed story from today to the distant future made it possible to say after a year that the scenario was wrong (not the way to use scenarios). The interaction between actors was initially imagined like this: –the government decides on scenarios, –the armed forces calculate the costs of the defence structure needed to manage the tasks derived from the scenarios, –the Parliament Government pays. It did not function like that. The scenarios contained much information which was of no use. At the same time much needed information was missing.

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Experiences. The seventies. Scenarios covering uncertainties. Scenarios with a suitable content for their purpose. Scenarios contributing to a dia- logue. Too much stress on scenarios for the distant future. The scenarios gave no help making the trade-off between investment/options for the future and near-term readiness.

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Experiences. The eighties. It is no good for an organisation to be too introvert. Scenarios con- cerning the environment must be dealt with more or less continuous- ly. It is problematic in itself but there are also consequences for the future. You lose a generation of officers used to thinking about uncertainties. What can be done about such un- probable scenarios like the disso- lution of the WP and SU?

Swedish Defence Research Agency Division of Defence Analysis Jan Foghelin 19 ISMOR Experiences On the civilian side: –the examples are being taken for every- thing you have to manage, –if no examples are given but only some general goals not much will be done. On the military side: –scenarios are being used to a certain extent both for near term and long term, –there is a certain scepticism towards scenarios (they are not considered probable). It is better (some say) that the politician decide which capacities they think are needed.