Traditional Business Forecasting vs Scenario Planning

Attempting to forecast a business’s future is the right thing to do in order to maintain relevance or at the least stay in business.  More times than not, long-term planning is actually an extrapolation of the future based upon the present (Wade, 2012).  Even while implementing genuine predictive analytics whereby a correlation is quantified based upon a dependent variable and multiple independent variables, said business or enterprise is still just forecasting the future based upon the present (Wade, 2012).

This type of forecasting creates an illusion that the business or enterprise controls their own future (Wade, 2012).  In fairness to this hypothetical organization, it is unwise to allow the future to become the present without any attempt to predict that future.  The illusion, however, is based upon adjusting independent variables that this business or enterprise can already foresee (Wade, 2012).  This type of planning or forecasting presumes a future that is very similar to the present with quantified correlations that represent the best-case future, worst case future, and most likely future but not including variables that could drastically change that future and/or force a paradigm shift obviously because such variables are unknown.

Woody Wade (2012) offers what he terms scenario planning as an alternative to traditional forecasting.  He concedes that planning for a future such that a business or enterprise is to remain relevant if not competitive is no small task but is vitally important.  His methodology recommends planning for a range of plausible alternative futures he refers to as scenarios (Wade, 2012).  Scenario planning challenges the idea that any one future is the most likely to emerge but instead plans for an array of possibilities.

The result of scenario planning is a portfolio of future scenarios.  Each scenario is a predicted future based upon the trends of today (Wade, 2012).  Each scenario comprehensively illustrates the landscape of the given business domain.  Competitors, customers, suppliers, employees, and stakeholders would all be represented in each scenario (Wade, 2012).  The scenarios are intended to differ one from the others but nonetheless be realistic and plausible given the realities of same business domain in the present day.  Given this portfolio of possible scenarios, the organization’s planning team should be able to formulate strategies that address each possible scenario (Wade, 2012).  As tomorrow becomes today, at the very least, any enterprise or business that went through the rigor of scenario planning is not starting over or behind a power curve relative to its competitors.

References

Wade, W.  (2012).  Scenario Planning:  A Field Guide to the Future.  Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley & Sons.

Penicillin:  From Accidental Innovation to Timeless Impact

Introduction

Innovation is considered the process of transforming an opportunity into a fresh idea that becomes a widely used practice (Zawawi, Wahab, Al-Mamun, Yaacob, Samy, & Fazal, 2016).  An innovation is an idea, practice, or product that is perceived as new and is expected to make a positive impact (Zawawi et al, 2016).  An adopted innovation covers a niche space and is always the catalyst or primary ingredient to change.

Some innovation has occurred by accident.  They were recognized rather than intended.  The discovery of penicillin is considered one such accidental innovation (Gaynes, 2017).  Today, penicillin is a well-recognized anti-bacterial agent (Derderian, 2007).  It is used to treat bacterial infections such as meningitis, syphilis, and streptococci (Etebu & Arikekpar, 2016).  It is mass produced globally and was a prized commodity during World War II which began approximately a decade and a half after penicillin was discovered.  Its discovery, however, was an unexpected phenomenon resulting from a culture left to grow for a month (Derderian, 2007)..

The Discovery of Penicillin

            Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming in London, England as he was researching the properties of staphylococci because of its particular type of cell wall (Derderian, 2007).  In July of 1928, Fleming left a culture plate smear of the staphylococci on his lab bench while he went on vacation.  Upon his return in late August or early September, Fleming noticed that many of the culture plates were contaminated with a mold that was inhibiting bacterial growth (Derderian, 2007).  After isolating the mold and identifying it as belonging to the Penicillium genus, he obtained an extract from the mold and called it penicillin after the extract’s active agent (Gaynes, 2017).  

The Forces that Drove this Innovation

            Fleming had been a bacteriologist, and with World War I in the recent past prior to the discovery of bacterial growth-inhibiting capabilities of penicillin, Fleming had been researching chemical cures to infection (Derderian, 2007).  It was already understood that soldiers were dying on or near the battlefield from causes aside from battle wounds such as blood poisoning and pneumonia (Derderian, 2007).  Fleming, himself, had been a member of the Army Medical Corps at the beginning of World War I in 1914.  It is likely that he witnessed sicknesses and death due to infection first hand.

            In light of the deaths due to infectious diseases during World War I, it is fair to say that the forces that drove the need for an innovation to cure infection were political at the very least.  This is further proven by the fact the United States government took authority over all production of penicillin in 1941 when the United States entered World War II (Gaynes, 2017).  The objective was to build a stock sufficient enough to satisfy demand from the Allied Forces.  There were even efforts made by the British government during World War II to prevent the production of penicillin from falling into enemy hands (Gaynes, 2017).

            During World War II, the death rate from pneumonia dropped from 18% to 1% (Gaynes, 2017).  With these types of statistics, the forces driving the use of penicillin easily became more global over time.  When Fleming discovered penicillin, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth due to postnatal infections (Derderian, 2007).  Similarly, infections such as diphtheria, syphilis, gonorrhea, tonsillitis, and rheumatic fever, illnesses easily cured in the present-day, were also causing many deaths.  In 1900, pneumonia and influenza were global killers.  By 1996, their high death rates had been replaced by that of heart disease (Derderian, 2007).

Conclusion

It is reasonable to conclude that when an innovation is discovered even by accident that the discoverer would have to have some type of expertise by which to recognize the phenomenon occurring in front of him/her.  Even Fleming concluded his observation had very likely been gleaned before but that perhaps due to a lack of interest in naturally-growing antibacterial substances, even other bacteriologists may have witnessed the same or similar phenomenon and simply discarded the cultures (Derderian, 2007).  In similar fashion as a researcher who proves his/her expertise in or mastery of the knowledge domain by writing a literature review, so did Fleming’s bacteriological education and expertise sharpen his ability to recognize the bacterial growth-inhibiting properties of the Penicillium mold.  As a result, Sir Alexander Fleming’s discovery has saved an unknown number of lives.  His impact in the realm bacteriology will be timeless.

References

Derderian, S. L.  (2007).  Alexander Fleming’s miraculous discover of penicillin.  Rivier Academic Journal, 3(2), 1 – 5. 

Etebu E. & Arikekpar, I.  (2016).  Antibiotics:  Classification and mechanisms of action with emphasis on molecular perspectives.  International Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Research, 4, 90 – 101.

Gaynes, R.  (2017).  The discovery of Penicillin – new insights after more than 75 years of clinical use.  Emerging Infectious Diseases, 23(5), 849 – 853.

Zawawi, N., Wahab, S., Al-Mamun, A., Yaacob, A., Samy, N. K., & Fazal, S. A.  (2016).  Defining the concept of innovation and firm innovativeness:  A critical analysis from resource-based view perspective.  International Journal of Business and Management, 11(6), 87 – 94.