Talk:Scenario planning: Difference between revisions
Hardyplants (talk | contribs) off topic |
Just adding my two cents on this awful Wikipedia entry on scenario planning. |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
it though, the two are a veritable yin and yang of planning. |
it though, the two are a veritable yin and yang of planning. |
||
what is contigency planning |
what is contigency planning |
||
'''New topic by a new person:''' |
|||
The article on scenario planning is ridiculously bad. I tried editing it in June, rather |
|||
naively replacing most of it because it was flat-out wrong. I have been a professional practitioner |
|||
of scenario planning for 15 years, with clients including some of the largest business and government |
|||
organizations in the world. Whoever wrote the present article has an extremely narrow and |
|||
specific and out-of-date view of what scenario planning is. |
|||
Take the phrase "The games combine known facts about the future...." THERE '''ARE''' NO "KNOWN |
|||
FACTS ABOUT THE FUTURE." That is precisely why scenarios can be so useful. Anyone who |
|||
could write such a ridiculous statement has no business writing anything about scenario planning. |
|||
Heck, it's not even logical. The section "Crafting Scenarios" begins with the words "These combinations |
|||
and permutations of fact and related social changes are called 'scenarios.' " WHAT "combinations?" |
|||
There's nothing foregoing that this sentence could possibly be referring to! |
|||
Now I realize that as a professional and someone who actually makes money at this, I could be |
|||
therefore disqualified from commenting, since I have a pecuniary interest in promoting my |
|||
type of scenario planning. But is Wikipedia supposed to be populated purely by people who |
|||
don't know their derriere from a hole in the ground with respect to the topics on Wikipedia? |
|||
I guess I will go off and keep my fifteen years of intimate working knowledge of this approach to |
|||
myself. No skin off my nose, right? Let all the people who stumble over this page think that |
|||
it's the product of "military intelligence." News to my friends in the military! They use our version |
|||
and would not recognize the disjointed methodology presented here as the only way to do |
|||
scenario planning. |
|||
Evidently it serves someone else's pecuniary interest to continue to have a raft of inaccuracies |
|||
on the "Scenario Planning" Wikipedia entry. I've tried to correct it once. I won't waste any more time |
|||
trying to keep others from being comprehensively misinformed. |
|||
Revision as of 12:32, 23 October 2008
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Systems Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Contingency Planning
It is important enough to be in Wikipedia. Good examples constrast good and bad planning. Contrast the Shackleton Antarctic Expedition's recovery from disaster, with the Donner Party's wagon train expedition and its catastrophic succession of disasters. Shackleton had contingency plans that quickly diverged from the causes of each mishap; the Donner party stubbornly tried to pursue a linear course without any contingency or escape plans. I don't know enough about it though, the two are a veritable yin and yang of planning. what is contigency planning
New topic by a new person:
The article on scenario planning is ridiculously bad. I tried editing it in June, rather naively replacing most of it because it was flat-out wrong. I have been a professional practitioner of scenario planning for 15 years, with clients including some of the largest business and government organizations in the world. Whoever wrote the present article has an extremely narrow and specific and out-of-date view of what scenario planning is.
Take the phrase "The games combine known facts about the future...." THERE ARE NO "KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE FUTURE." That is precisely why scenarios can be so useful. Anyone who could write such a ridiculous statement has no business writing anything about scenario planning.
Heck, it's not even logical. The section "Crafting Scenarios" begins with the words "These combinations and permutations of fact and related social changes are called 'scenarios.' " WHAT "combinations?" There's nothing foregoing that this sentence could possibly be referring to!
Now I realize that as a professional and someone who actually makes money at this, I could be therefore disqualified from commenting, since I have a pecuniary interest in promoting my type of scenario planning. But is Wikipedia supposed to be populated purely by people who don't know their derriere from a hole in the ground with respect to the topics on Wikipedia?
I guess I will go off and keep my fifteen years of intimate working knowledge of this approach to myself. No skin off my nose, right? Let all the people who stumble over this page think that it's the product of "military intelligence." News to my friends in the military! They use our version and would not recognize the disjointed methodology presented here as the only way to do scenario planning.
Evidently it serves someone else's pecuniary interest to continue to have a raft of inaccuracies on the "Scenario Planning" Wikipedia entry. I've tried to correct it once. I won't waste any more time trying to keep others from being comprehensively misinformed.