Global Discontinuity: Time for a Paradigm Shift in Global Scenario Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well written article which reviews literature on sustainability and scenario building, noting a significant absence of instances of discontinuity incorporated as a key variable. The assumption of continuity runs throughout the literature, and the authors show this clearly.  They offer as well credible explanations for this gap. This article should lead to the next step - applying discontinuity in feasible ways to scenario building work, which the authors suggest in 'Ways Forward'. I enjoyed and learned a lot from this article.

Noticed two small things:

line 136 - seems to be incomplete

line 338 - sentence needs re-write for clarity

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment which includes a response to all of the reviewers in addition to a general comment to the editor with respect to the relevance of this paper to the journals mission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article addressing the limits of anticipation and planning and the fact that modeling and simulations tend to neglect disruptions and discontinuities .

In this respect, the article addresses a relevant topic.

However, this article tends, in my view, to overlook the fact that most planners will actually seriously have in mind discontinuities and bifurcations. therefore, a few comments that may be considered by the authors, hoping that it could improve the impact of their article.

In companies, most innovation strategists will pay deep attention to the weak signals that may foretell such discontinuities. And in the scenario-building process, and the attached risk analysis matrix, the so-called unknowns and the black swans are always a concern.

As an example as well, the USA r the French armies have called teams of science-fiction writers to imagine unexpected scenarios, and what it could mean to them.

Nobody would like to repeat the KODAK fall or the Maginot-line failure, but nobody really knows how to prevent this for sure.

Remember the military saying: "No plan will survive to contact with the enemy". This is translated in corporate planning by the fact that plans will always have to adjust to a changing perception of reality.

 

The authors refer to the COVID-19 crisis: there were actually two unknowns there: the COVID crisis itself, and the rapid development of the mRNA vaccine. And in fact, epidemiologists were warning for decades that the spread of a pandemic was more than likely. Just that we (at least in the countries that did not experience the SARS) chose to ignore the warning.

What I am trying to say here is that the discussion on discontinuities could be improved.

Additionally, on methodology: the concept of scenario planning is actually supposed to address such discontinuities.

And keep in mind that the answer to this is agile management, a concept that has strings attached, and is quite difficult to implement in the public sphere, due to political constraints. The authors hint at this during their discussion, but it could be worth expanding.

All in all, the article is basically OK. It could possibly increase its potential impact by better reflecting what companies, armies, and some administrations actually do to anticipate such discontinuities.

The article has also initiated a discussion on the difficulties to bring risks of discontinuities to the public square. Maybe this part could be expanded as well.

 

The article is OK.

No breakthrough, and a bit superficial in covering topics such as planning under uncertainties and agile management.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment which includes responses to all three reviewers and a general comment to the editor regarding this articles 'fit' for the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very well written and I enjoyed reading every sentence in it perhaps because it is closely related to my field(s) of study and expertise. So in general the paper is clear, academically strong and deserves publication. However, I have a few comments before I give my final acceptance. 

First, in section 4: Institutional Challenge, the introductory statement (lines 136-138) is not clear and reads a little bit odd. Please simplify or delete.

Second, the paragraph which follows directly in the same section (paragraph 2), you start the paragraph by stating ...... "However, in this period,....." what period are you referring to exactly? please clarify.

Third, in the same section (section 4), paragraph 4, I believe you have missed to include a key study in this context. I believe if you consider this study, it will further underpin your argument. The study is: Fink et al. (2005), The future scorecard: combining external and internal scenarios to create strategic foresight", in Management Decision. Please consider.

Fourth, in the same section (section four, page 5, lines 188-190), immediately before the beginning of section 5. I agree with this conclusion, however, you are missing a key process in this context, which unfortunately was not mentioned in the entire paper, that is the "Business Continuity Management" Process (BCM). Despite the breadth of the argument in the paper, I am surprised that there was no mentioning of BCM. BCM is at the heart of continuity and discontinuity management. So please consider this.

Fifth, concerning section 5, the first 3 lines (193-195), kindly clarify how did you come to this conclusion? Any supporting facts or references??? before you start your argument of the next page. 

Finally, the paper reads a bit philosophical, which could be a bit difficult to understand by the entire spectrum of readers. I recommend adding 2 of 3 paragraphs, anywhere in the text, not necessarily in a specific location, to contextualize your argument (i.e. are you discussing these issues within an organizational settings or are they purely social). Adding a specific context will make it easier for the readers to understand.

Thank you and good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment which includes responses to all three reviewers and a general comment to the editor regarding this articles 'fit' for the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx