| Kingsbarns Community Council - General
Information Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents 1. Disclaimer This document was prepared as a piece of University assessment. It is not, and does not purport to be, an advice or representation in relation to any subject or matter whatsoever. No reliance whatsoever should be placed upon the content of this document by any person (including third parties). The authors do not accept liability for any damage suffered, or purported claim arising out of, any reliance placed on any part or parts of this document contrary to this disclaimer. 2. Acknowledgements We, the Kingsbarns Scenario Team would like to express our gratitude to our main contacts in Kingsbarns, Claire Wright and Peter Erskine. Their input and assistance throughout the entire process of research and scenario building has been invaluable to our understanding of the prevailing issues facing the village, as well as to the plausibility of our suggested scenarios. We also thank those residents of Kingsbarns who have kindly set aside time to speak to us about their life in the village today and the changes they anticipate in the future. In particular, we thank Michael Erskine, Reverend Peter Douglas, Mr and Mrs Ian Turnbull, and Charlotte Kirby for their thoughts on local development. We thank Sandra Phipps and A. MacKenzie for their input towards the running of the village shop/post office and school, respectively. Finally, Alan Martin at the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board has kindly provided us with extensive information about the present and future tourism development in Fife. 3. Kingsbarns Scenario Thinking Team Thomas M. Bohné Co-compiler of the workbook; wrote the Executive Summary and Analysis sections of the report and worked on the “Quicksand” Scenario. Ted A. Dillman Secondary co-ordinator and editor for the Draft report; researched issues of infrastructure; worked on interviews; wrote The Conclusion and Limitations and worked on the “Phoenix” Scenario. Christopher M. Flynn Primary coordinator and editor for the project; researched legal issues; wrote the Disclaimer, Executive Summary and Literature Review / Methodology. J. Molly Rogers Primary advocate for the group in Kingsbarns and represented the group at the town meeting; researched property and land; worked on interviews and “Phoenix” Scenario and wrote the Acknowledgements. Elisabeth Rytterager Co-compiler of the workbook; researched tourism; worked on the Acknowledgements and both Scenarios. Bryan Watson Researched population and demographics; assisted in interviews and worked on the “Phoenix” Scenario. Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents up to Top 4. Executive Summary Kingsbarns is at a turning point in its development. Like many other rural villages, Kingsbarns has seen a decline in its traditional industries over the past fifty years. Furthermore, the community has experienced a gradual decline in its population, and the remaining citizens are growing older. The community has, however, expressed concern that it may lose its local businesses, amenities and services and fail to attract new residents (in particular young families). Essentially, Kingsbarns is concerned that the unique, historic community will fade away. After extensive information gathering and analysis (the results of which are contained in the workbook appearing as an appendix), this report highlights the underlying driving forces and influences affecting Kingsbarns. From this, the identified Scenario Thinking objective for the Kingsbarns project is to initiate conversation about the factors necessitating change. The report outlines the general objectives of using Scenario Thinking as a strategic planning tool, highlighting the potential benefits and disadvantages involved in applying the technique. Further, an extensive methodology (incorporating a literary review) discusses the many components and concerns involved in a Scenario Thinking process. Using a clearly defined scenario planning methodology, the report poses two scenarios for the community, “Quicksand” and “Phoenix”. In the “Quicksand” scenario, the lack of development and initiative contributes to a further decline in population and local services, with Kingsbarns’ image gradually imitating that of a ghost town. In the “Phoenix” scenario, negative trends are successfully reversed by local rejuvenation and development, with Kingsbarns sustaining its position as a thriving community where people live, work and interact. The report illustrates the evolutionary paths and interrelationships between the two scenarios, thus providing a basis for Kingsbarns to address the forces identified initially and take the opportunities arising from them. Ultimately, the scenarios aim to assist in the understanding of a wide range of issues the community faces today, as well as into the future. Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents up to Top 5. Introduction 5.1 Objective The clients’ primary goal is to, as a minimum; retain their Kingsbarns’ community spirit. However, some local community growth is preferable, to the extent that such growth will not degrade Kingsbarns’ community ambiance. This ambiance is understood to include, but is not limited to, an overall involvement in, and commitment to, activities within the community and preservation of the existing services. The client feels this will largely stem from the diversification of the population. The objective of this Report is to provide two alternative scenarios for Kingsbarns’ future that will inspire conversation and community imagine as well as assist in decision making by illustrating the factors that necessitate change and potential options available to the community. The end result will be to foster thinking about the future of Kingsbarns and the steps that might be taken to attain the quality of life that the residents desire. 5.2 The Problem With a rich community history spanning many centuries, Kingsbarns’ residents have instructed us that they are eager to sustain and maintain their community. Indeed, the significant value of that history is widely accepted. The village has been listed as a Conservation Area for the purposes of relevant heritage legislation. This official recognition of the value of the town, it is, however, a double-edged sword, as the listing holds obvious implications for the scope of future development of the community. Additionally, Kingsbarns enjoys a picturesque location close to the major population and commercial centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow, along with regional centres such as Dundee and St Andrews. The local golf course is commonly recognised as one of the finest in the region and the local topography, especially the Fife coastline, enjoys international renown. However, as illustrated below, the population of Kingsbarns’ has steadily declined for the last 250 years. With a rapidly ageing population, declining commercial basis and falling real income base, and increasing second-home ownership, the village faces some significant challenges in the medium to long term. Most fundamentally, these challenges threaten the long-term provision of essential community services such as local postal and banking services and survival of the local school. These issues are at the centre of the community’s concerns for the future. 5.3 Scope of the Project The following report details two possible futures for Kingsbarns as a basis for developing a strategy to ensure the survival of the community. The Report uses a methodology known as Scenario Thinking to construct those two possible futures in order to provide such a basis. Given our clients’ instructions and objectives as detailed in sections 5.1 and 5.2, in designing the two scenarios, we have concentrated on the following:
with a view to mapping two possible community evolutionary paths over the next 20 years. Particular emphasis is placed on community characteristics over that time in the context of forces and influences that may buffer and buttress that development. Collectively this process will be referred to in the report as the Project. 5.4 Kingsbarns in 2020 The future of Kingsbarns is believed to go one of two ways, either life proceeds “as is” or the citizens of Kingsbarns are actively involved in moulding the town into their desired outcome. This is reflected in the two scenarios, “Quicksand” and “Phoenix”, respectively. Again, given our clients’ objectives and instructions to us, the economic and cultural trends listed in sections 5.2 and 5.3 above are crucial to Kingsbarns' future direction. If the town is allowed to coast along its current path, then it is likely that it will follow the developmental pattern of other Fife towns like Elie, which from the perspective of community life can be described as a second-home ghost town. If, however, Kingsbarns is led through the next two decades with a community of active and involved citizens, then it is believed that the outcome will closely resemble the expectations the community firmly establishes. With an increasingly diverse population, Kingsbarns in 2020 will set a precedent for similar villages to learn from worldwide. Kingsbarns will be known not only for its proximity to a beautiful golf course, but more so as a town that when threatened with the prospect of becoming a “holiday home ghost town”, instead followed its desire to foster a diverse community. 6. Literature Review By agreement with Professor Peter McKiernan, the literature review is embedded in our methodology under sections 6 and 8 below. Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents up to Top 7. Scenario Thinking 7.1 Introduction to Scenario Thinking Scenario Thinking (ST) has been defined in many, sometimes inconsistent, ways. However, for the purposes of the Report, ST is defined as a process which depicts some feasible future state of an organisation’s environment and includes the dynamic sequence of interacting events, conditions and changes that is necessary to reach that state. Approaches to ST have been evolving rapidly since it became a mainstream strategic tool in the 1970’s. ST focuses on long run developments affecting the subject of the relevant analysis (in this case, Kingsbarns). In doing so, it challenges, compliments and fortifies more traditional methods such as quantitative forecasting by providing another basis for medium term and long run managerial decision-making. ST’s ultimate objective “is to influence decision making in the mind of the decision maker” and thus deliver “better decisions” not just “better predictions.” Further, by incorporating unquantifiable short, medium and long term uncertainties into its base analysis, successfully and comprehensively framed ST provides a sound basis for long-term strategic decision-making. Some elements of ST have remained unchanged over its evolution: in order for scenarios to be effective they must be internally consistent and be based upon sound research and a comprehensive operational and historical understanding of the subject. Further the Scenario Thinking Process must remain focused on causal connections and concreteness. Sound ST is most beneficial where:
With the possible exception of (b) above, each of these characteristic is present in Kingsbarns. 7.2 The Benefits of Scenario Thinking The flexibility afforded by ST allows more complex analysis than traditional forecasting methods . This analysis, if executed correctly, will produce higher quality output whilst also providing a wider perspective. Additionally, multiple scenarios avoid reliance on forecasts based on quantitative values often taken out of the context in which they arose and out of relation to the subject of the relevant analysis. Indeed, ST compliments conventional decision analysis models, allowing decision makers to accommodate complex environmental changes and possibilities into their strategies. Given the large number of uncertainties at play (mostly unquantifiable uncertainties) in determining the future of a community (such as Kingsbarns), ST is an appropriate strategic planning tool for the Project. ST allows the investigation and subsequent comprehension of the interrelationship of the many variables. As mentioned above, forecasting often centres on analysis of some variables in isolation from some or all others; thus, reliance on forecasting alone is threatened by the possibility (and sometimes likelihood) of overlooking the connections between variables, especially if circumstances alter unpredictably. These uncertainties are the very circumstances ST seeks to capture. As a result, decision makers are not limited to basing their decisions on dangerous single point forecasts constructed against an unpredictable future. This allows focus on strategic issue identification along with the underlying forces driving Kingsbarns. ST is more than just contingency planning. Contingency planning commonly focuses on only one or a few uncertainties. ST, on the other hand, circumscribes the entire range of relevant uncertainties in a given situation. It is particularly useful to decision makers when the relevant scenarios:
Consequently, properly applied ST offers wider scope and more original perspective than other methods. In doing so, it more effectively accommodates change. 7.3 The Drawbacks of Scenario Thinking Most of the positive literature concerning ST refers to success stories. However, ST has been subject to considerable academic and practical criticism. The most common complaint about ST is that it lacks a clearly formulated methodology which is uniformly adhered to by all ST practitioners. Whilst most ST models possess some fundamental similarities, a universal approach to ST remains elusive. Martelli asserts that the most significant issue arising out of this problem is that without a disciplined and methodical approach, scenarios can multiply rapidly, loosing relevance and diverging from their objectives . In order to circumvent these problems we have developed a clear and structured process based upon academic literature and practical experience for use in the Project. ST suffers a significant reputation problem. ST is a much more complex process than simple forecasting. As a result, ST Processes are commonly not adequately executed. Further, given each client’s nuances and circumstances, no ST process will be the same as any other. Without a well structured methodology and adequate due diligence process, ST is prone to importing bias (particularly over confidence), inconsistency. P. Goodwin et al suggest that the methodological problems faced by ST are due to the lack of the theoretical and axiomatic underpinning of other tools. Goodwiyn et al suggest a Multi-Attribute Value Model to circumvent these problems. The model lists ten ways in which to achieve an optimum outcome for ST:
However, the objectives of Goodwin et al are framed in terms too general to escape the problems posed by Martelli above. In particular, the total elimination of judgmental dependencies poses particular problems for the case at hand. The position put forward by Goodwiyn et al does assist by lessening the reliance on purely mathematical data compared to other formal models. However, the paradigm itself relies on judgemental scores which are not theoretically impeccable. As indicated in section 6 above, by agreement with Professor McKiernan, this Report’s literary review and critical analysis are embedded in the Report’s Methodology in sections 7 and 8 below. When using ST, a consistent approach and framework are required Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents up to Top 8. Kingsbarns Scenario Methodology 8.1 Project Commissioning The Project’s primary client is Peter Erskine and the Kingsbarns Community Council. Interested parties include each member of the Kingsbarns community. The commissioning of the Project is fundamentally important. At the outset it is essential to ascertain the client’s goals and “the focal issue”. The focal issue is essentially the client’s central problem, from which other secondary problems and issues often hang. This issue provides the Project with its gravitas, and the client’s objective then provides the Project’s direction . At each successive stage of the ST Process the client’s objectives and the focal issue must be borne in mind. In the context of Kingsbarns, the stagnation of the community is the focal issue. The client’s objective is to arrest that stagnation and reinvigorate the community. The retaining of external advisers by Kingsbarns reflects a degree of uncertainty as to the future. As noted in paragraph 4.2 above, the community faces, inter alia, an ageing population coupled with a declining income base. Further, the impact of three tiers of conservation legislation limits the community’s ability to address these problems. Since the subject of the Project is a community rather than a corporation, gaining an insight into community attitudes is also fundamental to the entire ST process. Doing so encourages confirmation of observations, location of community sensitivities (in this case, especially those to development) and understanding relevant underlying trends. Given the extremely large number of variables facing Kingsbarns, particular emphasis has been placed on the creation of a detailed workbook (the Workbook). The collection of wide-ranging detailed data has been essential to establishing the trends, and understanding basic relevant local and regional influences on the community. Such influences are extremely important as they reveal the “unfolding of tendencies already present in the structure and motivations of society.” The Workbook is attached as an appendix to this Report. It forms an integral part of the analysis undertaken as regards the Project in respect of the CAFE principles of scenario planning as detailed in section 8.3(a)(i) below. As discussed in section 4.2 of this Report, these trends reflect a gradual decline in community life in Kingsbarns. Consequently, ST is not required simply as a flexible forecasting approach, but as a means to illustrate different options for the future than the one that simply appears most likely. In this context, a fundamental aim of ST is to create different but possible scenarios. Martelli’s approach is, therefore, a good basis for approaching ST as regards the Project. Focusing simply on one or a few aspects of Kingsbarns would be too narrow an analysis. The Project means that we must look to the stated goals of the villagers (i.e., ensuring the survival and regeneration of their community) as well as illustrating achievable and plausible goals. Given this basis, we have adopted an exploratory trend scenario approach coupled with an intuitive logic approach. 8.2 Framework In order to circumvent the potential problems of ST detailed above, a comprehensive yet flexible framework is required. Such a framework will ensure that the underlying creative processes of ST are encouraged whilst providing the intellectual discipline to ensure internal consistency, focus on objectives and relevance in the final outcome. One the most significant challenges in creating the ST framework detailed in this section centres upon the subject being a community rather than a corporation. Whilst ST can be applied to almost any subject matter, the majority of suggested frameworks and academic appraisal on ST involves corporate subjects rather than communities . This created a few challenges in formulating a ST framework for Kingsbarns in light existing frameworks. The net result, reflected in figure 7.1, is a comprehensive hybrid of a number of frameworks posited by practitioners, together with some elements drawn in from the professional experiences of team members. This section of the Report deals with each of those steps in detail, in turn. 8.3 St Andrews Approach Scenarios “provide a framework within which all the various factors and information can be more effectively and easily judged by the decision maker.” In order to fully comprehend the clients’ goals, it is essential to establish the parameters of the due diligence and data gathering processes. The scope of this process will bear greatly on the plausibility and internal consistency of the final scenarios. To give the Project a clear but flexible framework, we implemented the St Andrews approach at an early stage of the ST Process (see figure 6.1) There are a number of ways in which commentators suggest this can be done. We have adopted the St Andrews approach. In the context of a community many other models for information gathering put forward by commentators lack a comprehensive and systematic treatment of data gathering. For example, Porter concentrates heavily on identifying relevant uncertainties and gathering only necessary data in order to limit the number of potential scenarios , but offers little as regards how to actually go about doing this. Porter’s seven point model for scenario construction includes his data gathering model. That data gathering stage is much less comprehensive than that proposed by Price and adopted as the St Andrews approach. In context, Porter is dealing with a different subject. Porter focuses predominately on industry scenarios in the context of competitive strategy . Indeed, his work provides an overwhelmingly exhaustive example of the competitive factors influencing the 1980’s US casual user chain saw market . However, for the purposes of the current Project, Porter’s approach is inappropriate as a more comprehensive and incremental data and information gathering regime is required for a community. In other words, whilst Porter seeks to import flexibility into his model by formulating a less information gathering stage, the net result actually limits the frameworks potential application. The St Andrews approach places very strong emphasis on incremental information gathering at the outset of the ST Process. In this regard it is similar to an exhaustive traditional due diligence process. High quality information gleaned or gathered from a wide variety of sources is fundamental to the ST Process. The fundamental forces and influences driving the Kingsbarns community and development within Kingsbarns must also be isolated. Since future events are linked to the present, scenarios require sound information and comprehension of the focal issue to be plausible. In doing so, subject to the melding of the CAFE principles into the model at section 8.3(a)(i) below, it provides a much more suitable model for this stage of the ST process than Porter. Further, we use the St Andrews/CAFE integrated approach in preference to the first four stages of Schoemaker’s 10 stage ST formulation model . In our view, the model embedded in those four stages is good, although lacking the analytical firepower of the approach below. Grinyer, on the other hand, incorporates the St Andrews approach into his model . However, the mostly cognitive nature of Grinyer’s analysis lacks the appeal of Schoemaker’s heuristic model. Further, Schoemaker imports discipline into his heuristic model through a series of well reasoned sequential steps (with the exception of the reservations noted above). The St Andrews approach as applied here is composed of three stages:
However, given Project Framework, we have separated stage (iii) above from stages (i) and (ii). For the purposes of the Project (i) and (ii) are dealt with at the current stage of the Project whilst (iii) is dealt with at the next stage. Diagnosis Within ‘diagnosis’ there are four sub-stages: Analysing Documents Given that Kingsbarns is a community rather than a corporation, extensive external research was conducted in order to obtain relevant documentation. Rather than simply reviewing the internal documents of a corporation, our investigations extended to local government ordinance, Scottish and national legislation and European directives. Further, numerous government and industry reports and articles were reviewed in order to obtain an idea of the fundamental influences and forces at work in Kingsbarns. Further information on each of these documents appears in the Workbook. In analysing documents and evidence, we adopted the CAFE principles (CAFE). CAFE provides a comprehensive but flexible framework for identifying and investigating key data and elements of information for use later in the ST Process. Again, the incorporation of these steps is to ensure the problems indicated above in relation to Porter’s modell do not arise here. Broadly, the steps of that process involve identification and analysis of:
Settling a framework with the client Settling an agreed framework for the ST process is an extremely important part of both managing client expectations and ensuring the Project’s goals are met. It is essential that the client is both clear as to the scope of the Project and as to what the Project will actually involve . It is equally important that the entire ST process is an inclusive one so as to manage client’s expectations and avoid the emergence of an expectation and/or anxiety gap. At our initial meeting with Mr Erskine and Mrs Wright, a great deal of time was spent detailing the process by which the Project would run. The process agreed upon is detailed in this Report. Further, these discussions included the identification of key individuals in the community for participation in the interview process, setting out time frames, and agreeing to participate in a Community Council meeting at Mrs Wright’s request. Conducting Interviews The interviews aimed to gain the views of a cross-section of the community’s key stakeholders together with other community members in general. However, emphasis must be placed upon the views of Peter Erskine. As the holder of approximately 80% of property title in the community, Mr Erskine is Kingsbarns' key stakeholder. The file notes of the interviews are Appendix 2 to the Workbook. Those interviews have now been analysed and form a fundamental part of this Report. Interviews also included external actors such as Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board’s Marketing Executive and the Fife Councillor for Kingsbarns. Interview questions were formulated on the basis of Grinder’s “Seven Questions” model. Interview questions were open-ended so as to promote the development of thought and allow for the surfacing of links that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. After the synthesis of interview notes, a ‘Natural Agenda’ evolved, which when combined with our own ideas allowed us to explore issues that we deemed critical to Kingsbarns. Through numerous meetings and discussions we hypothesized and later determined which issues were ‘pre-determined’ (ageing population, increased housing prices) and those that were ‘critical uncertainties’ (certainty of school, affect of development). Analysis and Synthesis Once the above three sub-stages had been conducted, the workgroup met to consider the information obtained. From this discussion our key understanding of Kingsbarns’ circumstances was settled. Consequently, we were then able to plan the ‘exploration’ stage of the St Andrews approach by identifying what further information was required in the context of this discussion, the client’s expectations and the Project’s goals. Exploration According to Bood et al, exploration includes the following processes: “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation”. Having conducted preliminary research and interviews, we settled on eight distinct topics for further research and investigation: demographics, infrastructure, community services, property and housing, tourism, legislation, community comparisons together with a separate section for other smaller subsidiary but interrelated issues. The results of the research conducted into each of these topics are contained in the Workbook. Secondary interviews are also an important part of the exploration process. Once an accurate diagnosis of the underlying issues is made in respect of the Project, further interviews may assist in gaining a deeper understanding of the primary influences and forces at work leading to relevant root issues. Now having a comprehensive understanding of both the underlying and secondary forces affecting Kingsbarns, we were able to engage in the ‘variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation’ stages of Bood et al. This occurred at the group’s workshop over two days and played a fundamental part of the lead-up to the scenario building process. The results of this process are evident in Phoenix. 8.4 Scenario Building Schoemaker provides a comprehensive process for scenario construction. The steps of that process are as follows (paraphrased from citation):
Key uncertainties are revealed by analysing each of the relevant driving forces together with their interrelationships. These uncertainties are then made explicit and scenarios are built upon them. In the present case, we identified the following as the key uncertainties facing Kingsbarns:
Construction of two forced scenarios Once the key uncertainties were identified, we constructed two forced scenarios (one being generally a positive scenario, the other being negative). We used an exploratory approach to do so. In tracking out each scenario, we mapped out the possibilities created by key uncertainties over a timeline of 20 years. The positive scenario, “Phoenix”, resulted in achieving client’s objectives of a thriving local community through a series of incremental changes and capitalising on opportunities arising out of the key uncertainties. The negative scenario, “Quicksand”, focused less on deliberate negative actions and poor decisions, and more on maintaining the status quo and consequently, maintaining the community’s decline over the next twenty years (in other words, doing nothing). Although we have used forced scenarios to assist decision-making, it is unlikely that either scenario will occur in its entirety. Elimination of incredible or impossible variable combinations and refinement of new scenarios: As we mapped out both “Phoenix” and “Quicksand”, we reviewed our research and data in the context of the Project and the client’s objectives. On this basis, these scenarios were refined leading to the “Phoenix” scenario. However, further processes of review of “Phoenix” led to a comprehensive revision of that scenario on account of its plausibility. It was felt that “Phoenix” was defective in the following two respects:
Reassessment of refined scenarios in the context of key stakeholders’ anticipated behaviour in their context; A third review of Phoenix was conducted after:
Subject to the issue raised in relation to the first four stages of Schoemaker’s model in section 8.3 above, Schoemaker’s approach reflects provides a solid framework for the initial scenario construction stage for Kingsbarns. In our view, however, Schoemaker does underestimate the potential for bias to creep into the framework . For this reason we have incorporated as a separate stage McKay et al’s approach as a separate stage and detailed at section 8.6. Schoemaker’s model also provides a more comprehensive checklist for scenario thinking than that proffered by either Martelli or Porter . By taking a heuristic approach within a set expansive framework, Schoemaker provides for intellectual and imaginative flexibility as well as the intellectual discipline required to minimise bias and ensure internal consistency and plausibility. Porter and Martelli don’t achieve this balance to the same extent with their models . Consequently, Schoemaker’s model has been the primary guidance to our formulation of this stage of our ST framework. 8.5 Segmentation and Competitive Analysis Given that Kingsbarns is a community rather than a corporation, this stage of the ST Process is approached a little differently than otherwise would be the case. However, it is still a useful exercise for the Project in order to refine the scenarios. Again, Schoemaker’s strategic segmentation is an approach which, in its detail, is missing from Porter , Martelli and Bood et al . It is another example of how Schoemaker is generally capable of comprehensively dealing with the subject matter of a project without infringing on the underlying model’s flexibility. This is achieved primarily through his heuristic rather than strictly cognitive approach to ST processes . It is this strictly cognitive approach which made us decline using Grinyer’s model more commonly here. Bood et al offer only general guidance in this regard and consequently, also lack the attractiveness of Schoemaker’s model in the context of the Kingsbarns Project. On this basis, this step of the ST Process consists of: Surveying Competitive Landscape The competitive survey adds context to the scenarios by focusing on Kingsbarns’ ‘unique position’. There are two components to competitive analysis. orthodox economic analysis (such as threat analysis, economies of scale and the like); and non-conventional environmental analysis focusing on themes such as community attitudes, key individuals and local political concerns. With the results of the information gathering process detailed in paragraphs 8.3(a) and 8.4(d) above, we gained an understanding of Kingsbarns’ local competitors (that is, towns of similar size to Kingsbarns throughout Fife). The net result of this process was that we considered that there was an opportunity for a small community aimed at attracting day-tripping tourists. Strategic Segmentation Due to the decline of Kingsbarns’ economy over the past 60 years, the village essentially participates in two segments:
However, it is commonly acknowledged that there is significant potential for growth in regional non-golf related tourism in Fife. A third key income stream for the village comes from social security payments made to local residents. Resources and Capabilities Kingsbarns enjoys a picturesque location close to the major population and commercial centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow, along with regional centres such as St Andrews. The village possesses considerable historic significance, being listed as a Conservation Area under the relevant legislation. The local golf links is commonly recognised as one of the finest in the region and the local topography, especially the Fife coastline, enjoys international renown. Core Capabilities Applied to a community the concept of core capabilities is slightly different than in conventional ST Processes. Kingsbarns core capabilities lie in its geographical location, its size, and its atmosphere. 8.6 Bias Elimination It is odd that in light of the very heuristic approach adopted by Schoemaker, so little emphasis is placed on bias elimination . Indeed, the impact of bias is expressly understated by Schoemaker . We agree with McKay et al that bias (in various forms) can threaten the integrity of the ST process. Consequently, we have incorporated this step into a model to take account of that possibility, mitigate its likelihood and thus, ensure integrity is retained in the Project. At this stage, bias elimination is necessary. ST is vulnerable to importation of bias. There are three key biases to avoid: hindsight bias, creeping determinism and foresight bias. The objective of this stage is to ensure objectivity in the ST Process. Once each bias is eliminated the ST Process must be recalibrated by returning to the Scenario Building stage post facto and applying the relevant information without the imported bias. Objectivity is key to ST. As Goodwin et al state, ST should address uncertainties without recourse to subjective probabilities. 8.7 Strategy Evaluation Goodwin et al note a number of deficiencies in common strategy evaluation processes. These deficiencies arise out of the complex heuristics involved in the ST process. In order to circumvent these difficulties, they suggest emphasis on the following during strategy evaluation: Transparency Transparency is a key element of all credible scenarios . Each scenario and part thereof should be able to reverse-engineered. That is, the results of the ST Process should be able to be causatively traced back to their root causes. The results should then be able to be derived. In order to ensure that both “Phoenix” and “Quicksand” maintained their theoretical and practical integrity the scenarios were placed on timelines against which variables and uncertainties were added or subtracted as required. Ease of Judgment Again, the use of projected timelines together with the Project Framework manages to keep the need for decomposed judgments to a minimum. With a well structured but flexible methodology, judgments can be easily and transparently engineered and refined. Versatility Both “Phoenix” and “Quicksand” are versatile in that they address economic, environmental, and community concerns over time. Flexibility The scenarios have been designed not to be anchored in any one contingency to the possible detriment of their plausibility or integrity. Consequently, both “Phoenix” and “Quicksand” contain adequate flexibility to be as responsive as possible in various contingencies. Again, the use of projected timelines assisted this exercise. Theoretical Correctness Finally, theoretical correctness is maintained through the Project by:
8.8 Strategy Design This final stage is only mentioned for the sake of completeness. It is not within the scope of this Project to design a strategy based upon either of the scenarios below. Future of Kingsbarns - University Report - Part 1 back to Report Contents up to Top 9. Data Before embarking upon an extensive amount of primary and secondary research, the aims of the Project’s data collection were determined as follows:
The Workbook is intended to be our main tool in the scenario building process and links the past to the present on a number of relevant topics, thus enabling us to identify the main drivers of change affecting Kingsbarns, and create plausible and consistent scenarios for the future. Depending on its relevance to the Project, the gathered information was processed and presented with regards to national trends and developments, or around those factors appearing to be of a more regional (Fife) and local (Kingsbarns) significance. Although the Project’s subject is not a company, the above may nevertheless be identified as the village’s “macro-environment” and “micro-environment”. On the basis of the prevailing issues identified and expressed by our Kingsbarns clients, the information in the Workbook was divided into the following main sections:
Within each section of the Workbook, the information was structured using either various appropriate managerial frameworks, such as a PEST and SWOT analysis, or a more chronological overview of issues and developments. back to Report Contents up to Top |