Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

 

When companies buyback shares and pay dividends rather than investing in new capacity, it leads to low economic growth and low aggregate demand.

Central Banks respond by cutting interest rates.  Yet Businesses do not invest in new capacity.

Many studies attribute this to short term thinking dominant in corporate investment decisions.  Pressures from shareholders push corporate managers to be short term oriented.

Many economists and thinkers have criticized this recently as advanced economies are suffering from anemic growth.

Larry Summers has invoked Secular Stagnation.  He says one of the reason for Secular Stagnation is short term thinking.

Andy Haldane of Bank of England has criticized short term thinking as it prevents investments and causes low economic growth.

Key Terms:

  • Quarterly Capitalism
  • Secular Stagnation
  • Short Term Thinking
  • Low Economic Growth
  • Business Investments
  • Real Interest Rates
  • Monetary Policy
  • Income and Wealth Inequality
  • Aggregate Demand
  • Productive Capacity
  • Productivity growth
  • Long Term Investments
  • Share Buybacks
  • Dividends
  • Corporate Cash Pools

 

Capitalism for the Long Term

The near meltdown of the financial system and the ensuing Great Recession have been, and will remain, the defining issue for the current generation of executives. Now that the worst seems to be behind us, it’s tempting to feel deep relief—and a strong desire to return to the comfort of business as usual. But that is simply not an option. In the past three years we’ve already seen a dramatic acceleration in the shifting balance of power between the developed West and the emerging East, a rise in populist politics and social stresses in a number of countries, and significant strains on global governance systems. As the fallout from the crisis continues, we’re likely to see increased geopolitical rivalries, new international security challenges, and rising tensions from trade, migration, and resource competition. For business leaders, however, the most consequential outcome of the crisis is the challenge to capitalism itself.

That challenge did not just arise in the wake of the Great Recession. Recall that trust in business hit historically low levels more than a decade ago. But the crisis and the surge in public antagonism it unleashed have exacerbated the friction between business and society. On top of anxiety about persistent problems such as rising income inequality, we now confront understandable anger over high unemployment, spiraling budget deficits, and a host of other issues. Governments feel pressure to reach ever deeper inside businesses to exert control and prevent another system-shattering event.

My goal here is not to offer yet another assessment of the actions policymakers have taken or will take as they try to help restart global growth. The audience I want to engage is my fellow business leaders. After all, much of what went awry before and after the crisis stemmed from failures of governance, decision making, and leadership within companies. These are failures we can and should address ourselves.

In an ongoing effort that started 18 months ago, I’ve met with more than 400 business and government leaders across the globe. Those conversations have reinforced my strong sense that, despite a certain amount of frustration on each side, the two groups share the belief that capitalism has been and can continue to be the greatest engine of prosperity ever devised—and that we will need it to be at the top of its job-creating, wealth-generating game in the years to come. At the same time, there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results.

Most important, the dialogue has clarified for me the nature of the deep reform that I believe business must lead—nothing less than a shift from what I call quarterly capitalism to what might be referred to as long-term capitalism. (For a rough definition of “long term,” think of the time required to invest in and build a profitable new business, which McKinsey research suggests is at least five to seven years.) This shift is not just about persistently thinking and acting with a next-generation view—although that’s a key part of it. It’s about rewiring the fundamental ways we govern, manage, and lead corporations. It’s also about changing how we view business’s value and its role in society.

There are three essential elements of the shift. First, business and finance must jettison their short-term orientation and revamp incentives and structures in order to focus their organizations on the long term. Second, executives must infuse their organizations with the perspective that serving the interests of all major stakeholders—employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, communities, the environment—is not at odds with the goal of maximizing corporate value; on the contrary, it’s essential to achieving that goal. Third, public companies must cure the ills stemming from dispersed and disengaged ownership by bolstering boards’ ability to govern like owners.

When making major decisions, Asians typically think in terms of at least 10 to 15 years. In the U.S. and Europe, nearsightedness is the norm.

None of these ideas, or the specific proposals that follow, are new. What is new is the urgency of the challenge. Business leaders today face a choice: We can reform capitalism, or we can let capitalism be reformed for us, through political measures and the pressures of an angry public. The good news is that the reforms will not only increase trust in the system; they will also strengthen the system itself. They will unleash the innovation needed to tackle the world’s grand challenges, pave the way for a new era of shared prosperity, and restore public faith in business.

1. Fight the Tyranny of Short-Termism

As a Canadian who for 25 years has counseled business, public sector, and nonprofit leaders across the globe (I’ve lived in Toronto, Sydney, Seoul, Shanghai, and now London), I’ve had a privileged glimpse into different societies’ values and how leaders in various cultures think. In my view, the most striking difference between East and West is the time frame leaders consider when making major decisions. Asians typically think in terms of at least 10 to 15 years. For example, in my discussions with the South Korean president Lee Myung-bak shortly after his election in 2008, he asked us to help come up with a 60-year view of his country’s future (though we settled for producing a study called National Vision 2020.) In the U.S. and Europe, nearsightedness is the norm. I believe that having a long-term perspective is the competitive advantage of many Asian economies and businesses today.

Myopia plagues Western institutions in every sector. In business, the mania over quarterly earnings consumes extraordinary amounts of senior time and attention. Average CEO tenure has dropped from 10 to six years since 1995, even as the complexity and scale of firms have grown. In politics, democracies lurch from election to election, with candidates proffering dubious short-term panaceas while letting long-term woes in areas such as economic competitiveness, health, and education fester. Even philanthropy often exhibits a fetish for the short term and the new, with grantees expected to become self-sustaining in just a few years.

Lost in the frenzy is the notion that long-term thinking is essential for long-term success. Consider Toyota, whose journey to world-class manufacturing excellence was years in the making. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s it endured low to nonexistent sales in the U.S.—and it even stopped exporting altogether for one bleak four-year period—before finally emerging in the following decades as a global leader. Think of Hyundai, which experienced quality problems in the late 1990s but made a comeback by reengineering its cars for long-term value—a strategy exemplified by its unprecedented introduction, in 1999, of a 10-year car warranty. That radical move, viewed by some observers as a formula for disaster, helped Hyundai quadruple U.S. sales in three years and paved the way for its surprising entry into the luxury market.

To be sure, long-term perspectives can be found in the West as well. For example, in 1985, in the face of fierce Japanese competition, Intel famously decided to abandon its core business, memory chips, and focus on the then-emerging business of microprocessors. This “wrenching” decision was “nearly inconceivable” at the time, says Andy Grove, who was then the company’s president. Yet by making it, Intel emerged in a few years on top of a new multi-billion-dollar industry. Apple represents another case in point. The iPod, released in 2001, sold just 400,000 units in its first year, during which Apple’s share price fell by roughly 25%. But the board took the long view. By late 2009 the company had sold 220 million iPods—and revolutionized the music business.

It’s fair to say, however, that such stories are countercultural. In the 1970s the average holding period for U.S. equities was about seven years; now it’s more like seven months. According to a recent paper by Andrew Haldane, of the Bank of England, such churning has made markets far more volatile and produced yawning gaps between corporations’ market price and their actual value. Then there are the “hyperspeed” traders (some of whom hold stocks for only a few seconds), who now account for 70% of all U.S. equities trading, by one estimate. In response to these trends, executives must do a better job of filtering input, and should give more weight to the views of investors with a longer-term, buy-and-hold orientation.

If they don’t, short-term capital will beget short-term management through a natural chain of incentives and influence. If CEOs miss their quarterly earnings targets, some big investors agitate for their removal. As a result, CEOs and their top teams work overtime to meet those targets. The unintended upshot is that they manage for only a small portion of their firm’s value. When McKinsey’s finance experts deconstruct the value expectations embedded in share prices, we typically find that 70% to 90% of a company’s value is related to cash flows expected three or more years out. If the vast majority of most firms’ value depends on results more than three years from now, but management is preoccupied with what’s reportable three months from now, then capitalism has a problem.

Roughly 70% of all U.S. equities trading is now done by “hyperspeed” traders—some of whom hold stocks for only a few seconds.

Some rightly resist playing this game. Unilever, Coca-Cola, and Ford, to name just a few, have stopped issuing earnings guidance altogether. Google never did. IBM has created five-year road maps to encourage investors to focus more on whether it will reach its long-term earnings targets than on whether it exceeds or misses this quarter’s target by a few pennies. “I can easily make my numbers by cutting SG&A or R&D, but then we wouldn’t get the innovations we need,” IBM’s CEO, Sam Palmisano, told us recently. Mark Wiseman, executive vice president at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, advocates investing “for the next quarter century,” not the next quarter. And Warren Buffett has quipped that his ideal holding period is “forever.” Still, these remain admirable exceptions.

To break free of the tyranny of short-termism, we must start with those who provide capital. Taken together, pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, and sovereign wealth funds hold $65 trillion, or roughly 35% of the world’s financial assets. If these players focus too much attention on the short term, capitalism as a whole will, too.

In theory they shouldn’t, because the beneficiaries of these funds have an obvious interest in long-term value creation. But although today’s standard practices arose from the desire to have a defensible, measurable approach to portfolio management, they have ended up encouraging shortsightedness. Fund trustees, often advised by investment consultants, assess their money managers’ performance relative to benchmark indices and offer only short-term contracts. Those managers’ compensation is linked to the amount of assets they manage, which typically rises when short-term performance is strong. Not surprisingly, then, money managers focus on such performance—and pass this emphasis along to the companies in which they invest. And so it goes, on down the line.

Only 45% of those surveyed in the U.S. and the UK expressed trust in business. This stands in stark contrast to developing countries: For example, the figure is 61% in China, 70% in India, and 81% in Brazil.

As the stewardship advocate Simon Wong points out, under the current system pension funds deem an asset manager who returns 10% to have underperformed if the relevant benchmark index rises by 12%. Would it be unthinkable for institutional investors instead to live with absolute gains on the (perfectly healthy) order of 10%—especially if they like the approach that delivered those gains—and review performance every three or five years, instead of dropping the 10-percenter? Might these big funds set targets for the number of holdings and rates of turnover, at least within the “fundamental investing” portion of their portfolios, and more aggressively monitor those targets? More radically, might they end the practice of holding thousands of stocks and achieve the benefits of diversification with fewer than a hundred—thereby increasing their capacity to effectively engage with the businesses they own and improve long-term performance? Finally, could institutional investors beef up their internal skills and staff to better execute such an agenda? These are the kinds of questions we need to address if we want to align capital’s interests more closely with capitalism’s.

2. Serve Stakeholders, Enrich Shareholders

The second imperative for renewing capitalism is disseminating the idea that serving stakeholders is essential to maximizing corporate value. Too often these aims are presented as being in tension: You’re either a champion of shareholder value or you’re a fan of the stakeholders. This is a false choice.

The inspiration for shareholder-value maximization, an idea that took hold in the 1970s and 1980s, was reasonable: Without some overarching financial goal with which to guide and gauge a firm’s performance, critics feared, managers could divert corporate resources to serve their own interests rather than the owners’. In fact, in the absence of concrete targets, management might become an exercise in politics and stakeholder engagement an excuse for inefficiency. Although this thinking was quickly caricatured in popular culture as the doctrine of “greed is good,” and was further tarnished by some companies’ destructive practices in its name, in truth there was never any inherent tension between creating value and serving the interests of employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, communities, and the environment. Indeed, thoughtful advocates of value maximization have always insisted that it is long-term value that has to be maximized.

Capitalism’s founding philosopher voiced an even bolder aspiration. “All the members of human society stand in need of each others assistance, and are likewise exposed to mutual injuries,” Adam Smith wrote in his 1759 work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. “The wise and virtuous man,” he added, “is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest,” should circumstances so demand.

Smith’s insight into the profound interdependence between business and society, and how that interdependence relates to long-term value creation, still reverberates. In 2008 and again in 2010, McKinsey surveyed nearly 2,000 executives and investors; more than 75% said that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives create corporate value in the long term. Companies that bring a real stakeholder perspective into corporate strategy can generate tangible value even sooner. (See the sidebar “Who’s Getting It Right?”)

Creating direct business value, however, is not the only or even the strongest argument for taking a societal perspective. Capitalism depends on public trust for its legitimacy and its very survival. According to the Edelman public relations agency’s just-released 2011 Trust Barometer, trust in business in the U.S. and the UK (although up from mid-crisis record lows) is only in the vicinity of 45%. This stands in stark contrast to developing countries: For example, the figure is 61% in China, 70% in India, and 81% in Brazil. The picture is equally bleak for individual corporations in the Anglo-American world, “which saw their trust rankings drop again last year to near-crisis lows,” says Richard Edelman.

How can business leaders restore the public’s trust? Many Western executives find that nothing in their careers has prepared them for this new challenge. Lee Scott, Walmart’s former CEO, has been refreshingly candid about arriving in the top job with a serious blind spot. He was plenty busy minding the store, he says, and had little feel for the need to engage as a statesman with groups that expected something more from the world’s largest company. Fortunately, Scott was a fast learner, and Walmart has become a leader in environmental and health care issues.

Tomorrow’s CEOs will have to be, in Joseph Nye’s apt phrase, “tri-sector athletes”: able and experienced in business, government, and the social sector. But the pervading mind-set gets in the way of building those leadership and management muscles. “Analysts and investors are focused on the short term,” one executive told me recently. “They believe social initiatives don’t create value in the near term.” In other words, although a large majority of executives believe that social initiatives create value in the long term, they don’t act on this belief, out of fear that financial markets might frown. Getting capital more aligned with capitalism should help businesses enrich shareholders by better serving stakeholders.

3. Act Like You Own the Place

As the financial sector’s troubles vividly exposed, when ownership is broadly fragmented, no one acts like he’s in charge. Boards, as they currently operate, don’t begin to serve as a sufficient proxy. All the Devils Are Here, by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, describes how little awareness Merrill Lynch’s board had of the firm’s soaring exposure to subprime mortgage instruments until it was too late. “I actually don’t think risk management failed,” Larry Fink, the CEO of the investment firm BlackRock, said during a 2009 debate about the future of capitalism, sponsored by the Financial Times. “I think corporate governance failed, because…the boards didn’t ask the right questions.”

What McKinsey has learned from studying successful family-owned companies suggests a way forward: The most effective ownership structure tends to combine some exposure in the public markets (for the discipline and capital access that exposure helps provide) with a significant, committed, long-term owner. Most large public companies, however, have extremely dispersed ownership, and boards rarely perform the single-owner-proxy role. As a result, CEOs too often listen to the investors (and members of the media) who make the most noise. Unfortunately, those parties tend to be the most nearsighted ones. And so the tyranny of the short term is reinforced.

The answer is to renew corporate governance by rooting it in committed owners and by giving those owners effective mechanisms with which to influence management. We call this ownership-based governance, and it requires three things:

Just 43% of the nonexecutive directors of public companies believe they significantly influence strategy. For this to change, board members must devote much more time to their roles.

More-effective boards.

In the absence of a dominant shareholder (and many times when there is one), the board must represent a firm’s owners and serve as the agent of long-term value creation. Even among family firms, the executives of the top-performing companies wield their influence through the board. But only 43% of the nonexecutive directors of public companies believe they significantly influence strategy. For this to change, board members must devote much more time to their roles. A government-commissioned review of the governance of British banks last year recommended an enormous increase in the time required of nonexecutive directors of banks—from the current average, between 12 and 20 days annually, to between 30 and 36 days annually. What’s especially needed is an increase in the informal time board members spend with investors and executives. The nonexecutive board directors of companies owned by private equity firms spend 54 days a year, on average, attending to the company’s business, and 70% of that time consists of informal meetings and conversations. Four to five days a month obviously give a board member much greater understanding and impact than the three days a quarter (of which two may be spent in transit) devoted by the typical board member of a public company.

Boards also need much more relevant experience. Industry knowledge—which four of five nonexecutive directors of big companies lack—helps boards identify immediate opportunities and reduce risk. Contextual knowledge about the development path of an industry—for example, whether the industry is facing consolidation, disruption from new technologies, or increased regulation—is highly valuable, too. Such insight is often obtained from experience with other industries that have undergone a similar evolution.

In addition, boards need more-effective committee structures—obtainable through, for example, the establishment of a strategy committee or of dedicated committees for large business units. Directors also need the resources to allow them to form independent views on strategy, risk, and performance (perhaps by having a small analytical staff that reports only to them). This agenda implies a certain professionalization of nonexecutive directorships and a more meaningful strategic partnership between boards and top management. It may not please some executive teams accustomed to boards they can easily “manage.” But given the failures of governance to date, it is a necessary change.

More-sensible CEO pay.

An important task of governance is setting executive compensation. Although 70% of board directors say that pay should be tied more closely to performance, CEO pay is too often structured to reward a leader simply for having made it to the top, not for what he or she does once there. Meanwhile, polls show that the disconnect between pay and performance is contributing to the decline in public esteem for business.

Companies should create real risk for executives.Some experts privately suggest mandating that new executives invest a year’s salary in the company.

CEOs and other executives should be paid to act like owners. Once upon a time we thought that stock options would achieve this result, but stock-option- based compensation schemes have largely incentivized the wrong behavior. When short-dated, options lead to a focus on meeting quarterly earnings estimates; even when long-dated (those that vest after three years or more), they can reward managers for simply surfing industry- or economy-wide trends (although reviewing performance against an appropriate peer index can help minimize free rides). Moreover, few compensation schemes carry consequences for failure—something that became clear during the financial crisis, when many of the leaders of failed institutions retired as wealthy people.

There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution to this complex issue, but companies should push for change in three key areas:

• They should link compensation to the fundamental drivers of long-term value, such as innovation and efficiency, not just to share price.

• They should extend the time frame for executive evaluations—for example, using rolling three-year performance evaluations, or requiring five-year plans and tracking performance relative to plan. This would, of course, require an effective board that is engaged in strategy formation.

• They should create real downside risk for executives, perhaps by requiring them to put some skin in the game. Some experts we’ve surveyed have privately suggested mandating that new executives invest a year’s salary in the company.

Redefined shareholder “democracy.”

The huge increase in equity churn in recent decades has spawned an anomaly of governance: At any annual meeting, a large number of those voting may soon no longer be shareholders. The advent of high-frequency trading will only worsen this trend. High churn rates, short holding periods, and vote-buying practices may mean the demise of the “one share, one vote” principle of governance, at least in some circumstances. Indeed, many large, top-performing companies, such as Google, have never adhered to it. Maybe it’s time for new rules that would give greater weight to long-term owners, like the rule in some French companies that gives two votes to shares held longer than a year. Or maybe it would make sense to assign voting rights based on the average turnover of an investor’s portfolio. If we want capitalism to focus on the long term, updating our notions of shareholder democracy in such ways will soon seem less like heresy and more like common sense.

While I remain convinced that capitalism is the economic system best suited to advancing the human condition, I’m equally persuaded that it must be renewed, both to deal with the stresses and volatility ahead and to restore business’s standing as a force for good, worthy of the public’s trust. The deficiencies of the quarterly capitalism of the past few decades were not deficiencies in capitalism itself—just in that particular variant. By rebuilding capitalism for the long term, we can make it stronger, more resilient, more equitable, and better able to deliver the sustainable growth the world needs. The three imperatives outlined above can be a start along this path and, I hope, a way to launch the conversation; others will have their own ideas to add.

The kind of deep-seated, systemic changes I’m calling for can be achieved only if boards, business executives, and investors around the world take responsibility for bettering the system they lead. Such changes will not be easy; they are bound to encounter resistance, and business leaders today have more than enough to do just to keep their companies running well. We must make the effort regardless. If capitalism emerges from the crisis vibrant and renewed, future generations will thank us. But if we merely paper over the cracks and return to our precrisis views, we will not want to read what the historians of the future will write. The time to reflect—and to act—is now.

 

Please see my other related posts.

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

 

 

Key sources of Research:

Secular stagnation and low investment: Breaking the vicious cycle—a discussion paper

McKinsey

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/europe/secular-stagnation-and-low-investment-breaking-the-vicious-cycle

Case Still Out on Whether Corporate Short-Termism Is a Problem

Larry Summers

http://larrysummers.com/2017/02/09/case-still-out-on-whether-corporate-short-termism-is-a-problem/

Where companies with a long-term view outperform their peers

McKinsey

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/long-term-capitalism/where-companies-with-a-long-term-view-outperform-their-peers

How short-term thinking hampers long-term economic growth

FT

https://www.ft.com/content/8c868a98-b821-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de

Anthony Hilton: Short-term thinking hits nations as a whole, not just big business

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-short-term-thinking-hits-nations-as-a-whole-not-just-big-business-10427294.html

Short-termism in business: causes, mechanisms and consequences

EY Poland Report

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_Poland_Report/$FILE/Short-termism_raport_EY.pdf

Overcoming the Barriers to Long-term Thinking in Financial Markets

Ruth Curran and Alice Chapple
Forum for the Future

https://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/project/downloads/long-term-thinking-fpf-report-july-11.pdf

Understanding Short-Termism: Questions and Consequences

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Understanding-Short-Termism.pdf

Ending Short-Termism : An Investment Agenda for Growth

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Ending-Short-Termism.pdf

The Short Long

Speech by
Andrew G Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Richard Davies

Brussels May 2011

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/historicpubs/speeches/2011/speech495.pdf

Capitalism for the Long Term

Dominic Barton

From the March 2011 Issue

https://hbr.org/2011/03/capitalism-for-the-long-term

Quarterly capitalism: The pervasive effects of short-termism and austerity

https://currentlyunderdevelopment.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/quarterly-capitalism-the-pervasive-effects-of-short-termism-and-austerity/

Is Short-Term Behavior Jeopardizing the Future Prosperity of Business?

http://www.wlrk.com/docs/IsShortTermBehaviorJeopardizingTheFutureProsperityOfBusiness_CEOStrategicimplications.pdf

Andrew G Haldane: The short long

Speech by Mr Andrew Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Mr Richard
Davies, Economist, Financial Institutions Division, Bank of England,
at the 29th Société
Universitaire Européene de Recherches Financières Colloquium,
Brussels, 11 May 2011

http://www.bis.org/review/r110511e.pdf

THE UNEASY CASE FOR FAVORING LONG-TERM SHAREHOLDERS

Jesse M. Fried

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17985223/Fried_795.pdf?sequence=1

The fringe economic theory that might get traction in the 2016 campaign

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/02/the-fringe-economic-theory-that-might-get-traction-in-the-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.932bc0b97758

FCLT Global:  Focusing Capital on the Long Term

Publications

http://www.fcltglobal.org/insights/publications

Finally, Evidence That Managing for the Long Term Pays Off

Dominic Barton

James Manyika

Sarah Keohane Williamson

February 07, 2017 UPDATED February 09, 2017

https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off

Focusing Capital on the Long Term

Dominic Barton

Mark Wiseman

From the January–February 2014 Issue

Is Corporate Short-Termism Really a Problem? The Jury’s Still Out

Lawrence H. Summers

February 16, 2017

Yes, Short-Termism Really Is a Problem

Roger L. Martin

October 09, 2015

Long-Termism or Lemons

The Role of Public Policy in Promoting Long-Term Investments

By Marc Jarsulic, Brendan V. Duke, and Michael Madowitz October 2015

Center for American Progress

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/21060054/LongTermism-reportB.pdf

 

Overcoming Short-termism: A Call for A More Responsible Approach to Investment and Business Management

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/11/overcoming-short-termism-a-call-for-a-more-responsible-approach-to-investment-and-business-management/

 

 

Focusing capital on the Long Term

Jean-Hugues Monier – Senior Parter – McKinsey & Company

Princeton University – November 2016

http://jrc.princeton.edu/sites/jrc/files/jean-hugues_j._monier_slides_final.pdf

Hierarchy Theory in Biology, Ecology and Evolution

Hierarchy Theory in Biology, Ecology and Evolution

 

I have always been intrigued by multi-level thinking whether it is in organizations, biology, ecology, and evolutionary theory.

  • Plant – Division – Corporate – Industry – Macro-economy
  • Molecules – Organelles – Cells – Tissue – Organs – Whole body
  • Organism – Populations – Communities – Ecosystem –  Bio-Sphere

 

How does human body forms from Molecules?  Is it all evolutionary?  or is there a role for Vitalism?

How to integrate decision making in organizations at multi levels?  From Corporate level to Plant Level.

How does an Individual fits in Groups, Communities, Society, and Ecosystem?

What is the role of fractals thinking in Evolutionary Biology?

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY

The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.

Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A set of definitions and principles follows immediately:

Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.

Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.

The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of – lower levels.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his “Ghost in The Machine” referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question “How?” and the upper level answers the question, “So what?”

Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.

Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.

Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.

Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.

A SHORT ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HIERARCHY THEORY.

This bibliography is in chronological order, so that the reader can identify the early classics as opposed to the later refinements. If you must choose just one book to read, turn to the last reference in this bibliography, Ahl and Allen, 1996. Simon, H.. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American philosophical society 106: 467-82. This is the foundation paper of hierarchy theory originating from an economist. It was a re-published in “Sciences of the Artificial” by Simon. It introduces the idea of near-decomposability. If systems were completely decomposable, then there would be no emergent whole, because the parts would exist only separately. The “near” in near-decomposable allows the upper level to emerge from the fact that the parts anre not completely separate.

Koestler, Arthur. 1967. The ghost in the machine. Macmillan, New York. This is a long hard look at human social structure in hierarchical terms. The notion of holon first occurs in this work. This is a classic work, but is easily accessible to the lay public.

Whyte, L.. L.., A. G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds.). 1969. Hierarchical structures. American Elsevier, New York. This is a classic collection of early scholarly works by some of the founders of hierarchical thinking.

Pattee, H.. H. (ed.) 1973. Hierarchy theory: the challenge or complex systems. Braziller, New York. This edited volume has some classic articles by Pattee, Simon and others.

Allen, T. F. H. and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University Chicago Press. This book has a significant ecological component but is much more generally about hierarchical structure. It is abstract and a somewhat technical treatment but has been the foundation work for the application of hierarchy theory in ecology and complex systems theory at large.

Salthe, S. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: their structure and representation. Columbia University Press, New York. This book has a strong structural bias, in contrast to the process oriented approach of Allen and the other ecologists in this bibliography. Salthe introduces the notion of the Triadic, where there is a focus on 1) the system as both a whole above the levels below and 2) a part belonging to another level above, 3) not forgetting the level of the structure itself in between. While much biological hierarchy theory takes an anti-realist point view, or is at least reality-agnostic, wherein the ultimate reality of hierarchical arrangement is left moot, Salthe’s version of hierarchy theory is concerned with the ultimate reality of structure. The anti-realist view of structure is that it is imposed by the observer, and may or may not correspond to any ultimate reality. If structure does correspond to ultimate, external reality, we could never know that to be so. Salthe’s logic is consistent but always takes a structural and ontological position.

O’Neill, R. V., D. DeAngelis, J. Waide and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press. This is a distinctly ecological application of hierarchy theory, making the critical distinction between process functional ecosystem approaches as opposed to population and community relationships. It is an application of hierarchy theory to ecosystem analysis.

Allen T. F. H. and T. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press. This book turns on hierarchy theory, but is principally a book about ecology. It goes beyond the O’Neill et al book, in that it makes the distinction between many types of ecology (landscape, ecosystem, community, organism, population, and biomes) on the one hand, and scale of ecology on the other hand. It ends with practical applications of hierarchy theory and ecological management.

Ahl, V. and T. F. H. Allen. 1996. Hierarchy theory, a vision, vocabulary and epistemology. Columbia University Press. This slim a volume is an interdisciplinary account of a hierarchy theory, and represents the shallow end of the pool. It is the primer version of Allen and Starr 1982. It is full of graphical images to ease the reader into a hierarchical perspective. It makes the distinction between levels of organization and levels of observation. It takes a moderate anti-realist point of view, wherein there may be an external reality, but it is not relevant to the discourse. We only have access to experience, which must of necessity involve observer values and subjectivity. There are examples from a wide discussion of many disciplines. Included are examples from psychology, ecology, the law, political systems and philosophy. It makes reference to the global and technological problems facing humanity, and offers hierarchy theory as one tool in the struggle. The summary of hierarchy theory in the opening paragraphs above comes from this book.

This summary was compiled by

Timothy F. Allen, Professor of Botany,
University of Wisconsin Madison,
Madison Wisconsin 53706 — 1381.
Email – tfallen@facstaff.wisc.edu

 

 

Key People:

  • James Grier Miller
  • Howard Pattee
  • Stanley Salthe
  • T F Allen
  • Herbert Simon
  • NILES ELDREDGE
  • CS Holling

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY

T Allen

http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm

http://www.botany.wisc.edu/allenlab/AllenLab/Hierarchy.html

 

 

Hierarchy Theory

Paweł Leśniewski

 

http://www.uni-kiel.de/ecology/users/fmueller/salzau2006/ea_presentations/Data/2006-06-28_-_Hierarchy_Theory.pdf

 

 

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

S.N. Salthe

 

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Summary_of_the_Principles_o.pdf

 

 

HOWARD PATTEE’S THEORETICAL BIOLOGY:

A RADICAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCE TO APPROACH LIFE, EVOLUTION ANDCOMPLEXITY.

Jon Umerez

 

http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/pattee/umerez.pdf

 

 

 

Hierarchy Theory as the Formal Basis of Evolutionary Theory

 

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/StephenWood/Publications/HierarchyTheoryastheFormalBasisofEvolutionaryTheory.pdf

 

 

The Concept of Levels of Organization in the Biological Sciences

 

PhD Thesis Submitted August 2014 Revised June 2015

Daniel Stephen Brooks

 

http://d-nb.info/1082033960/34

 

 

A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications

Jianguo Wu , John L. David

 

http://leml.asu.edu/jingle/Web_Pages/Wu_Pubs/PDF_Files/Wu_David_2002.PDF

 

 

What is the Hierarchy Theory of Evolution?

 

http://hierarchygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/What-Is-The-Hierarchy-Theory.pdf

 

 

HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION OF ECOSYSTEMS

Jackson R. Webster

 

http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/274.pdf

 

 

Ecological hierarchies and self-organisation – Pattern analysis, modelling and process integration across scales

Hauke Reutera,, Fred Jopp, José M. Blanco-Morenod, Christian Damgaarde, Yiannis Matsinosf, Donald L. DeAngelis

 

http://izt.ciens.ucv.ve/ecologia/Archivos/ECO_POB%202010/ECOPO1_2010/Reuter_etal_BAAE%202010.pdf

 

 

Levels of organization in biology: on the nature and nomenclature of ecology’s fourth level

William Z. Lidicker, Jr

 

http://www.uff.br/ecosed/Artigo4.pdf

 

 

Chapter 24

Hierarchy Theory: An Overview

Jianguo Wu

 

http://izt.ciens.ucv.ve/ecologia/Archivos/ECO_POB%202016/ECOPO7_2016/Jorgensen%20et%20al%202016.pdf

 

 

Heterarchies: Reconciling Networks and Hierarchies

Graeme S. Cumming

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303508940_Heterarchies_Reconciling_Networks_and_Hierarchies

 

 

Evolutionary Theory

A HIERARCHICAL PERSPECTIVE

EDITED BY NILES ELDREDGE, TELMO PIEVANI, EMANUELE SERRELLI, AND ILYA TEMKIN

 

 

Holons, creaons, genons, environs, in hierarchy theory: Where we have gone

Timothy Allen, Mario Giampietro

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014002993

 

 

The Evolutionary Foundations of Hierarchy: Status, Dominance, Prestige, and Leadership

Mark van Vugt & Joshua M. Tybur

http://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/Handbook_of_Evolutionary_Psychologymvv2014rev.pdf

 

 

The Microfoundations of Macroeconomics: An Evolutionary Perspective

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh

John M. Gowdy

 

https://papers.tinbergen.nl/00021.pdf

 

 

Understanding the complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems

C S Holling

http://www.esf.edu/cue/documents/Holling_Complexity-EconEcol-SocialSys_2001.pdf

 

 

Hierarchical Structures

Stanley N. Salthe

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salthe_Stanley/publication/257522907_Hierarchical_Structures/links/5768411408ae7f0756a2248c.pdf

 

 

Two Frameworks for Complexity Generation in Biological Systems

Stanley N. Salthe

 

http://www.nbi.dk/natphil/salthe/A-life_Conf_paper_Word.pdf

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/_publ_classified_by_topic.pdf

 

 

Spatial scaling in ecology

J. A. WIENS

 

http://www.functionalecology.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/fec/file/Spatial%20scaling%20in%20ecology%20v3%20n4.pdf

 

 

The Spirit of Evolution

by Roger Walsh

An overview of Ken Wilber’s book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (Shambhala, 1995).

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Walsh_on_Wilber_95.html

Jay W. Forrester and System Dynamics

Jay W. Forrester and System Dynamics

 

 

Jay Forrester passed away at the age of 98 on November 16, 2016

The link below will take you to JWF memorial webpage.

Jay W Forrester Memorial Web Page at the System Dynamics Society

I admire Jay W Forrester greatly.  I was introduced to Operational Research and System dynamics back in early 1980s after I graduated from IIT Roorkee Engineering undergraduate degree in India.  I had bought a book on Operations Research at a road side book seller in Dariya Ganj, Old Delhi, India.

I met Jay on three occasions.  I attended Business Dynamics Executive Education program at MIT Sloan School of Management back in 2002.  Jay was one of the Instructor.  Then I again met Jay at 2003 SDS International Conference at New York City.  Last time I met Jay was in Washington DC at the Club of Rome Symposium celebrating 40 yrs anniversary of publication of The Limits to Growth book.

Jay will be missed greatly.

– Mayank Chaturvedi

 

Jay Forrester’s vision of future of Economics and System Dynamics.

Traditional mainstream academic economics, by trying to be a science, has failed to answer major questions about real- life economic behavior. Economics should become a systems profession, such as management, engineering, and medicine. By closely observing the structures and policies in business and government, simulation models can be constructed to answer questions about business cycles, causes of major depressions, inflation, monetary policy, and the validity of descriptive economic theories. A system dynamics model, as a general theory of economic behavior, now endogenously generates business cycles, Kuznets cycles, the economic long wave, and growth. A model is a theory of the behavior that it generates. The economic model provides the theory, thus far missing from economics, for the Great Depression of the 1930s and how such episodes can recur 50–70 years apart. Simpler system dynamics models can become the vehicle for a relevant and exciting pre-college economics education.

 

From PHD thesis of I David Wheat

Within the interdisciplinary system dynamics (SD) community, the motivation to improve understanding of economic systems came nearly fifty years ago with Jay W. Forrester’s seminal call for a new kind of economics education, a call that he has renewed in the K-12 education setting in recent years. John Sterman’s encyclopedic Business Dynamics is a symbol not only of the breadth of his own economic policy and management research and teaching but also the range of work done by others in this field.

Teaching the economics of resource management with system dynamics tools has been the devotion of Andrew Ford and Erling Moxnes. James Lyneis took his management consultant’s expertise into the university classroom and developed an SD-based microeconomics course. Economists Michael Radzicki and Kaoru Yamaguchi have developed complete graduate-level economics courses on a system dynamics foundation. An informal survey produced this list of others who have used SD as a teaching tool in economics courses: Glen Atkinson, Scott Fullwiler, John Harvey, Steve Keen, Ali Mashayekhi, Jairo Parada, Oleg Pavlov, Khalid Saeed, Jim Sturgeon, Linwood Tauheed, Pavlina Tcherneva, Scott Trees, Eric Tymoigne, Lars Weber, and Agnieszka Ziomek, and that is surely just a fraction.

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Economic theory for the new millennium

Jay W. Forrester

2003

 

System Dynamics Review vol 29, No 1 (January-March 2013): 26–41

 

 

 

Three slices of Jay Forrester’s general theory of economic behavior: An interpretation

 

Khalid Saeed

Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA

February 13, 2013

 

http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2013/proceed/papers/P1018.pdf

 

 

System Dynamics: A disruptive science

A conversation with Jay W. Forrester, founder of the field

Khalid Saeed Worcester Polytechnic Institute Sept. 2013

 

http://static.clexchange.org/ftp/ISDC2013_forresterchat.pdf

http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ssps-papers&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D40%26q%3Djay%2Bw%2Bforrester%2Bsystem%2Bdynamics%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C47%26as_ylo%3D2013#search=%22jay%20w%20forrester%20system%20dynamics%22

 

 

Unintended Consequences

Jay Forrester

http://simgua.com/documents/SB_Forrester.pdf

 

 

A dynamic synthesis of basic macroeconomic theory : implications for stabilization policy analysis

Nathan Forrester

PHD THESIS

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15739

 

 

SYSTEM DYNAMICS: PORTRAYING BOUNDED RATIONALITY

 

John D.W. Morecroft

1982

 

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/49181/systemdynamicspo00more.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

THE SYSTEM DYNAMICS NATIONAL MODEL:  MACRO BEHAVIOR FROM MICRO STRUCTURE

JAY W FORRESTER

 

http://systemsmodelbook.org/uploadedfile/1470_0a924c5b-b909-42fa-be9b-932588278f36_forre004.pdf

 

 

1976 Economic Forecast Report including studies by Jay W Forrester and Nathial Mass

US congress Joint Economic Review of US Economy

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/gdoc/hearings/7/76603310f/76603310f_1.pdf

 

 

Backround Material for a Meeting on Long Waves, Depression and Innovation –

IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Jay W. Forrester, Alan K.Oraham, Peter M.Senge, John D Sterman

 

Siena/Florence, October 26-29, 1983

Bianchi, G., Bruckmann, G. and Vasko, T.

 

http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/2338/1/CP-83-044.pdf

 

 

 

Industrial Dynamics-After the First Decade

Author(s): Jay W. Forrester

Management Science, Vol. 14, No. 7, Theory Series (Mar., 1968), pp. 398-415

 

http://www.sfu.ca/~vdabbagh/Forrester68.pdf

 

 

Systems Analysis as a Tool for Urban Planning

JAY W. FORRESTER, FELLOW, IEEE

1970

 

http://web.boun.edu.tr/ali.saysel/ESc59M/forrester.pdf

 

 

IS ECONOMETRIC MODELING OBSOLETE?

AUTHOR: Mr. Oakley E. Van Slyke

 

https://www.casact.org/pubs/dpp/dpp80/80dpp650.pdf

 

 

Money and Macroeconomic Dynamics : Accounting System Dynamics Approach

 

Kaoru Yamaguchi

Ph.D. Japan Futures Research Center

Awaji Island, Japan

November 11, 2016

 

http://muratopia.org/Yamaguchi/macrodynamics/Macro%20Dynamics.pdf

 

 

The Feedback Method : A System Dynamics Approach to Teaching Macroeconomics

I. David Wheat, Jr.

Dissertation for the degree philosophiae doctor (PhD)

System Dynamics Group, Social Science Faculty University of Bergen

 

http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/2239/Introduction_David_Wheat.pdf?sequence=46

 

 

Disequilibrium Systems Representation of Growth Models—Harrod-Domar, Solow, Leontief, Minsky, and Why the U.S. Fed Opened the Discount Window to Money-Market Funds

Frederick Betz

2015

 

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ME_2015120814432915.pdf

 

 

Cyclical dynamics of airline industry earnings

Kawika Piersona and John D. Sterman

System Dynamics Review vol 29, No 3 (July-September 2013): 129–156

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Sterman2/publication/259542762_Cyclical_dynamics_of_airline_industry_earnings/links/5550ead108ae739bdb9202a9.pdf

 

 

 

Modeling Financial Instability

Steve Keen

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Keen2014ModelingFinancialInstability.pdf

 

 

Harvey, J.T.,

2013.

Keynes’s trade cycle: a system dynamics model.

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 36(1), pp.105-130.

 

 

ECONOMICS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Jay Forrester

 

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2197/SWP-1983-18213738.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment. Industrial Management Review (now Sloan Management Review), 9(2), 83-105.

 

 

Forrester, J. W 1971). Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. Collected Papers of J.W. Forrester. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.

 

 

Forrester, J. W (1976). Business Structure, Economic Cycles, and National Policy. Futures, June.

 

 

Forrester, J. W (1979). An Alternative Approach to Economic Policy: Macrobehavior from Microstructure. In Kamrany & Day (Eds.), Economic Issues of the Eighties. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

 

Forrester, J. W., Mass, N. J., & Ryan, C. (1980). The System Dynamics National Model: Understanding Socio-economic Behavior and Policy Alternatives. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 9, 51-68.

 

 

Forrester, N. B. (1982). A Dynamic Synthesis of Basic Macroeconomic Theory: Implications for Stabilization Policy Analysis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

 

 

Low, G. (1980). The Multiplier-Accelerator Model of Business Cycles Interpreted from a System Dynamics Perspective. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

 

Mass, N. J. (1975). Economic Cycles: An Analysis of Underlying Causes. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press, Inc.

 

 

Mass, N. J.(1980). Stock and Flow Variables and the Dynamics of Supply and Demand. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method. (pp. 95-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

 

Meadows, D. L., Behrens III, W. W., Meadows, D. H., Naill, R. F., & Zahn, E. (1974). Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.

 

 

Morecroft, J. D. W. & Sterman, J. D. (Eds.). (1994). Modeling for Learning Organizations. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

 

 

Radzicki, M. (1993). A System Dynamics Approach to Macroeconomics (Guest lecture at the Department of Information Science, University of Bergen.).

 

 

Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications, Inc.

 

 

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

 

 

Sterman, J. D. (1985). A Behavioral Model of the Economic Long Wave. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 6, 17-53.

 

 

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

 

Longstanding IS-LM macroeconomic framework says that low interest rates should result in higher investment (as the cost of capital for investments declines).  However, in practice it is not true.  Business Investment also depends on many other factors such as projections for economic growth, market growth,  and Industry/sector growth (in which a company operates).  Low Interest rates also indicate low economic growth environment.  In a low growth environment, having poor projections of future cash flows from new investments, companies can not justify domestic Investments if financial hurdle rates are not met.  

Corporations also may have attractive options for investment outside the country.  Free Trade agreements allow for business investments to move overseas for getting access to growing markets or for cost cutting reasons such as labor costs.

Instead of Investing in new capacity, companies are paying dividends, and buying back shares to boost share prices and doing acquisitions. Companies are using their own cash retained from earnings to pay dividends, buyback shares, and in some cases doing acquisitions. Debt-financed acquisitions are done through raising capital from capital markets.

Companies do not need to grow by new fixed investments when they can grow by acquiring other companies. Organic growth is the process of business expansion by increased output, customer base expansion, or new product development, as opposed to mergers and acquisitions, which is inorganic growth. Organic growth typically excludes the impact of foreign exchange.  

There has been spectacular M&A activity in 2014, 2015 and is continuing in 2016.  

In low economic growth and low interest rate environment, it may make more sense to grow by inorganic growth.  The justification for M&A is usually the combination of reduced costs of doing business and increased revenue from greater market share.   After completion of acquisition, acquiring company management may decide to rationalize business units – closing inefficient plants, laying off employees, combining overlapping internal corporate services departments.  These decisions depend on the type of M&A strategy.

Economists need to pay attention to these trends as well.  At present, there is no discussion of M&A activity in Economic Policy discourse among Economists and Policy makers.

 

Wall street data charts showing trends in Business Investments

na-cm077_resear_16u_20161026161806na-ck534_bizinv_16u_20160615183306

 

From  Jeff Cox / CNBC.com November 17 2016

Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues for quite some time have been bemoaning the low levels of business investment.

Pressed Thursday to explain why this has been the case, the central bank chief told Congress she wasn’t sure, but she denied it had anything to do with the Fed’s cheap-money policies of the past eight years.

“It’s not clear in my mind why it is that investment spending has been as weak as it is,” she told the Joint Economic Committee. “Initially, we had an economy with a lot of excess capacity. Firms were clearly operating without enough sales to justify a need to invest in additional capacity, and more recently with the economy moving toward full employment, we would expect to see investment spending pick up, and it’s not obvious exactly why it hasn’t picked up.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., suggested that the fault may lie in what the Fed has done. Specifically, he pointed to the central bank’s quantitative easing measures that saw the Fed’s balance sheet surge to $4.5 trillion largely on three rounds of bond buying.

Faced with the uncertainty of returns from capital expenditures and the near-certainty of returns on assets like stocks and bonds during what Cassidy called “easy money” QE programs, businesses opted for the latter, he said.

“I wouldn’t agree that the Fed’s monetary policy has hampered business investment or been a negative factor,” Yellen responded. “I’m not aware of any evidence that suggests that it is.”

She explained that productivity has been on the decline since companies started reversing bare-bones employment levels during the financial crisis. However, that has not been met with business investment, in part because companies don’t believe it “will produce returns that justify those investments,” Yellen said.

 

From Moody.com

Moody’s: US non-financial corporates’ cash pile increases to $1.68 trillion, tech holding the lead

Global Credit Research – 20 May 2016

New York, May 20, 2016 — US non-financial companies rated by Moody’s held $1.68 trillion in cash at the end of 2015, up 1.8% from $1.65 trillion the year prior, Moody’s Investors Services says in a new report. The top 50 holders of cash account for $1.14 trillion of the total cash pile, and entry to the top 50 list now requires $6.12 billion in cash.

“The top four cash-heavy US industries remain technology, healthcare/pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and energy,” says Richard Lane, a Moody’s Senior Vice President. These four industries currently hold a record $1.3 trillion, or 77% of total corporate cash and have accounted for more than 72% of the total every year since 2007.

The top five cash holders are Apple, Microsoft, Google, Cisco Systems and Oracle, Moody’s says in “US Non-Financial Companies: Cash Pile Grows 1.8% to $1.68 Trillion; Tech Extends Lead Over Other Sectors.”

Apple held $215.7 billion in total cash for the period. The company has held the top spot as cash king since 2009.

“While the concentration of cash among the top-rated cash holders continues to grow, so too has the portion held by the technology sector, which accounted for a record 46% of total cash in 2015, up from 41% in 2014,” Lane says.

Moody’s expects the technology sector cash concentration will grind higher over the next year because of the sector’s strong cash flow generation and despite stronger returns of capital to shareholders. The technology sector generated 63% of the total rated non-financial free cash flow in 2015, up from 37% in 2007.

For the top 50, capital spending fell by 3% to $885 billion, and net share buybacks fell 7% to $269 billion. Dividends increased by 4% to a record high of $404 billion, while acquisition spending increased 43%, to a record $401 billion.

For the first time since 2012, cash coverage of aggregate debt maturities over the next five years fell below 100% to 93% at the end of 2015.

In 2016, Moody’s expects aggregate spending on capital investments, dividends, acquisitions and share buybacks to again approximate $1.9 trillion.

 

From Wall Street Journal

mi-cp973_divide_16u_20160603184210

 

From DealLogic

mw-dn118_ma_acq_20150602090958_mg

 

From M&A experts weigh in on deals for 2017

manda3manda2017

 

From  US M&A market on a high

us-ma-2015

From IMAA

usmabestusmabest2

 

Key ideas/issues for M & A:  

Why grow through M & A activities ?

  • Limited organic growth options
  • Need to address the transformation in the marketplace/existing business models
  • Availability of credit on favorable terms
  • Large Cash reserves/commitments
  • Shifting consumer demands
  • Improving Equity markets
  • Opportunities in emerging markets

What are concerns?

  • Slow growth environment
  • Lack of suitable targets
  • Record stock prices
  • Geopolitical risks
  • Others
  • Constrained Consumer Demand
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • Rising Interest Rates

 

 

Key terms:

  • Return on Investment (ROI)
  • Return on Invested Capital ( ROIC)
  • Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
  • Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
  • Economic Value added (EVA)
  • Return on Assets (ROA)
  • Return on Equity (ROE)
  • Net Present Value (NPV)
  • Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
  • Capital Expenditures ( CAPEX)
  • Corporate Savings Glut
  • Business Fixed Investments
  • Share Buybacks
  • DIvidends
  • Acquisitions
  • NAFTA
  • TPP
  • TTIP
  • International Investment Position (IIP)
  • Free Trade
  • Direct Investment Position (FDI)
  • Trade Flows
  • Current Account
  • Capital Account
  • Organic Growth
  • Inorganic Growth

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Business Investment in the United States: Facts, Explanations, Puzzles, and Policies

Remarks by Jason Furman Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

September 30, 2015

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20150930_business_investment_in_the_united_states.pdf

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015.09.30-Jason-Furman_Business-Investment-in-US-Facts-Explanations-Puzzles-Policies.pdf

 

 

Firms’ Investment Decisions and Interest Rates

Kevin Lane and Tom Rosewall

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2015/jun/pdf/bu-0615-1.pdf

 

 

Investing when interest rates are low

By Timothy M. Koller, Jiri Maly, and Robert N. Palter

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/investing-when-interest-rates-are-low

 

 

Are low-interest rates contributing to low business investment?

By Nick Bunker

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/are-low-interest-rates-contributing-to-low-business-investment/

 

 

Why isn’t Investment More Sensitive to Interest Rates: Evidence from Surveys

Steve A. Sharpe and Gustavo A. Suarez

2014

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/201402r.pdf

 

 

Why Aren’t Low Rates Working? Blame Dividends

Since the Federal Reserve took rates to near zero, companies have boosted buybacks 194%

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-arent-low-rates-working-blame-dividends-1465119005

 

 

Low Interest Rates Are Hurting Growth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/10/04/low-interest-rates-are-hurting-growth/#5e9ccf813a2b

 

 

Secular Stagnation and Returns on Capital

Paul Gomme,  B. Ravikumar, Peter Rupert,

https://files.stlouisfed.org/research/publications/es/15/ES_19_2015-08-18.pdf

 

 

The Return to Capital and the Business Cycle

Gomme, Paul, B. Ravikumar, and Peter C. Rupert, 2006.

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Working Paper no. 06-03.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/newsroom-and-events/publications/working-papers/working-papers-archives/2006-working-papers/wp-0603-the-return-to-capital-and-the-business-cycle.aspx

 

 

Long-term investment, the cost of capital and the dividend and buyback puzzle

Adrian Blundell-Wignall and Caroline Roulet

https://www.oecd.org/finance/Long-term-investment_CapitalCost-dividend-buyback.pdf

 

 

The “Search for Yield” and Business Investment

By Jason M. Thomas

https://www.carlyle.com/sites/default/files/market-commentary/productivity_slowdown_may2016_final.pdf

 

 

Infrastructure versus other investments in the global economy and stagnation hypotheses: What do company data tell us?

Adrian Blundell-Wignall and Caroline Roulet*

https://www.oecd.org/investment/Infrastructure-versus-other-investments-Global-economy-Stagnation-hypotheses.pdf

 

 

(Why) Is investment weak?

Ryan Banerjee Jonathan Kearns Marco Lombardi

http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503g.pdf

 

 

The Fed Has Hurt Business Investment

by Michael Spence, Kevin Warsh

http://www.hoover.org/research/fed-has-hurt-business-investment

 

 

FRED data series on Savings and Investments

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/112

 

 

Weak Business Investment, Lower Neutral Rate Impacting Each Other

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2160321-weak-business-investment-lower-neutral-rate-impacting-each-other/

 

 

The Corporate Saving Glut in the Aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis

Joseph W. Gruber and Steven B. Kamin

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ifdp/2015/files/ifdp1150.pdf

 

 

Rising Intangible Capital, Shrinking Debt Capacity, and the US Corporate Savings Glut

Antonio Falato Dalida Kadyrzhanova Jae W. Sim

November 2012. This version: June 2013

http://www.cepr.org/sites/default/files/events/papers/5599_KADYRZHANOVA_Cover%20-%20Rising%20Intangible%20Capital,%20Shrinking%20Debt%20Capacity%20and%20the%20US%20Corporate%20Savings%20Glut.pdf

 

 

Corporate Profits and Business Fixed Investment: Why are Firms So Cautious about Investment?

Naoya Kato and Takuji Kawamoto

April 2016

https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/rev_2016/data/rev16e02.pdf

 

 

The Evolution of Corporate Cash

John R. Graham
Mark T. Leary

Draft: February 2015

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/files/Documents/Departments/Finance/seminarspring2015/graham.pdf

 

 

Adverse Effects of Ultra-Loose Monetary Policies on Investment, Growth and Income Distribution

Andreas Hoffmann & Gunther Schnabl

http://www.savings-banks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Savings%20and%20Investment%20During%20the%20Great%20Depression%20and%20the%20Recent%20Global%20Crisis.pdf

 

 

NAFTA at 20

AFL-CIO

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/121921/3393031/March2014_NAFTA20_nb.pdf

 

 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

 

M. Angeles Villarreal

Ian F. Fergusson

April 16, 2015

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf

 

 

 

NAFTA Revisited

PIIE

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NAFTA_Revisited_Text.pdf

 

Direct Investment Positions for 2015 Country and Industry Detail

 

By Derrick T. Jenniges and James J. Fetzer

July 2016

 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/07%20July/0716_direct_investment_positions.pdf

 

 

Activities of U.S. Multinational Enterprises in the United States and Abroad

Preliminary Results From the 2014 Benchmark Survey

 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/12%20December/1216_activities_of_us_multinational_enterprises.pdf

 

 

2015: A Merger Bonanza
Nearly $5 trillion worth of deals were announced last year. Why do so many big companies want team up?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/2015-mergers-acquisitions/423096/

 

 

M&A experts weigh in on deals for 2017

https://info.kpmg.us/ma-survey-2017.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAkO7CBRDeqJ_ahuiPrtEBEiQAbYupJaJUqUI61s1m-kFVDnT112-3ocH1SdVfcCxiBiNX614aAuvj8P8HAQ

 

 

 

The Federal Reserve’s Impact on the US M&A Market: An Empirical Examination

Sebastian v. Boetticher

Spring 2015

 

http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/undergrad/files/2015/09/Boetticher.pdf

 

 

M&A Statistics

IMAA offers extensive and up-to-date information, data, research on M&A and Mergers & Acquisitions statistics

https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

 

 

Hearing: The Economic Outlook

Janet Yellen on November 16 2016 speaking at Joint Economic Committee

Listen/view at 1:33:00 her comments on Business Investments

Low Interest Rates and Banks Profitability: Update – December 2016

Low Interest Rates and Banks Profitability: Update – December 2016

 

This post is an update to my previous post published in May 2016.  You can access it below.

Impact of Low Interest Rates on Bank’s Profitability

There have been several developments in this research area since my post.  I list them below.

 

Sources of Research:

BIS Annual Report released in 2015 discussed causes and concequenses of Persistent Low Interest rates.

BIS Annual Report 2014-15

 

IMF released Global Financial Stability Report in October 2016 which discussed in Chapter 1 causes and effects of Low interest rates.

Global Financial Stability Report October 2016

 

The Office of Financial Research of the USA Department of Treasury released its Annual report 2015 in which it warned of impact of low interest rates on Banks and other financial Institutions.

US Office of Financial Research Annual Report 2015

 

European Central bank released its Financial Stability Review report in November 2016 in which low interest rates environment was discussed.

ECB Financial Stability Review November 2016

 

Deutsche bank had issued its research note in 2013 detailing how Japanese Financial Institutions have coped with Low Interest Rates Environment.

Deutche Bank Research: Ultra Low Interest Rates: How Japanese Banks have coped?

 

Deutsche bank had issued its research note in 2012 on how low interest rates are pressuring US banks net interest margins.

DB Research: Low Interest rates Pressuring US Banks Margins

 

Stanley Fischer Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve Board gave his remarks recently on the Long Term Challenges for the US Economy in which he commented on impact of low interest rates on financial stability.

FRB/Stan Fischer: Longer-Term Challenges for the U.S. Economy

 

Stanley Fischer Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve Board gave his remarks recently on the causes of Low interest rates and Implications.

FRB/Stan Fischer: Why Are Interest Rates So Low? Causes and Implications

 

Stanley Fischer Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve Board gave his remarks recently on the Low interest rates.

FRB/Stan Fischer: Low Interest Rates

 

Riksbank of Sweden published paper on how do low and negative interest rates affect banks’ profitability.

MONETARY POLICY REPORT APRIL 2016

To push inflation up, the Riksbank and several other central banks have introduced negative interest rates. Critics say that negative rates counteract their purpose in that they are said to squeeze banks’ profitability, which could then lead to higher lending rates and lower credit supply. This discussion has arisen in the euro area in particular, where banks are already burdened with low profitability. The Riksbank’s assessment is that the overall effect of negative interest rates on banks’ profitability is limited and may even be positive, and that the function of Swedish banks in the monetary policy transmission mechanism is maintained even at a negative policy rate level.

Riksbank/Sweden: How do low and negative interest rates affect banks’ profitability?

 

Central Bank of Columbia has recently published article

The risks of low interest rates

Leonardo Gambacorta

 

The risks of low interest rates

 

European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

Karl Whelan, University College Dublin

The ECB’s QE announcement has made it clear they intend to keep interest rates in the euro area at very low levels for a long period of time. This policy should help to boost economic growth and move inflation back towards the ECB’s target. However, every economic policy produces winners and losers and certain sectors of the economy will be negatively affected by this policy. This paper presents evidence on sectoral balance sheets and household asset holdings to explain how low interest rates affect various groups. It also discusses the impact a prolonged period of low interest rates has on different types of financial institutions. The paper concludes that, at present, the risks of low interest rates provoking a new financial crisis are low.

Low Interest Rates and Financial Stability

 

Interesting Blog on Bruegel

Eurozone QE and bank profitability: Why it is too early to taper

In the eyes of the critics, the quantitative easing programs have been of little help to growth and inflation and have instead been an attack on savers, undermining the profitability of banks and insurances. Do these arguments stand scrutiny?

Eurozone QE and bank profitability: Why it is too early to taper

 

Interesting Blog on Bruegel

What impact does the ECB’s quantitative easing policy have on bank profitability?

This Policy Contribution shows that the effect of the ECB’s QE programme on bank profitability has not yet had a dramatically negative effect on bank operations.

What impact does the ECB’s quantitative easing policy have on bank profitability?

 

At the first ECB ESRB ( European Systemic Risk Board) conference Elena Carletti gave a overview of the work of the task force on Low Interest Rates and Financial Stability.

September 2016

Low interest rates and implications for financial stability – A discussion

 

See the Youtube video of conference presentations at the ECB/ESRB on Low Interest Rates and Implications for Financial Stability.

ECB: First ESRB annual conference – Low interest rates and the implications of financial stability

 

See Youtube video of Welcome Address by Mario Draghi, Chair of the ESRB

ECB: First ESRB annual conference – Welcome address: Mario Draghi, Chair of the ESRB

 

ECB/ESRB Taskforce report on Macro-prudential Policy issues arising from Low Interest rates and Structural changes in the EU Financial System.

November 28, 2016

ECB/ESRB: Macro prudential Policy Issues Arising from Low Interest Rates and Structural Changes in the EU Financial System

 

ECB/ESRB Taskforce report on Macro-prudential Policy issues arising from Low Interest rates and Structural changes in the EU Financial System.

There are several Annex of the report which can be downloaded from the link below.

The ESRB publishes a report on the macroprudential policy issues arising from low interest rates and structural changes in the EU financial system

 

Mario Draghi gave his remarks at the EU Parliament about the work of ESRB and the Taskforce report.

November 28, 2016

Introductory statement by Mario Draghi, Chair of the ESRB, Brussels, 28 November 2016

Hierarchical Planning: Integration of Strategy, Planning, Scheduling, and Execution

Hierarchical Planning: Integration of Strategy, Planning, Scheduling, and Execution

In Manufacturing environments, there are hierarchical levels of planning and analysis.

  • Strategic – Tactical – Operational
  • Long Term – Medium Term – Short Term
  • Corporate – Business – Functional
  • Aggregate Plans – Detailed Schedules – Execution Results
  • Time Buckets – Gantt Charts – Plan Vs Actuals
  • Forecasts – Plans – Schedules – Results
  • Strategy – Planning – Execution
  • Time Series – Optimization-Simulation-Statistics
  • Structural – Cyclical – Sequential

 

slide_18

Beyond this, there are other analytical approaches:

  • Industry Analysis,
  • Scenario Planning,
  • Environmental Scanning,
  • Sectorial Analysis
  • Macro-Economics

 

From Integration of multi-scale planning and scheduling problems

A supply chain may be defined as an integrated process wherein various entities work together in an effort to meet the objectives of each entity as well as the common objectives of the overall supply chain. It is theoretically possible and preferable to build mathematical models for entire supply chains including all interacting strategic and operational decisions throughout the supply chain. Such monolithic models will not be consistent with the nature of the managerial decision process or practical due to computational complexity of models, data and solution techniques. Mathematical programming is most commonly used to formulate planning and scheduling problems within the process industry. The problems are combinatorial in nature which makes them very difficult to solve and it is vital to develop efficient modelling strategies, mathematical formulations and solutions methods. One of the major difficulties in building mathematical programming models is to keep the size within reasonable limits without sacrificing accuracy. To solve full-scale real-world planning and scheduling problems efficiently, simplification, approximation or aggregation strategies are most often necessary (Grunow et al., 2002, Engell et al., 2001).

It is widely recognized that the complex problem of what to produce and where and how to produce it is best considered through an integrated, hierarchical approach which also acknowledges typical corporate structures and business processes (Shah, 1999). Production planning and scheduling in a typical enterprise involves managers at various echelons within the organization and the decisions that need to be made differ by scope and time horizon and the underlying input information differs by its degree of certainty and aggregation. The decisions also need to be made with different timing and frequency and according to the correct sequence which even further makes the case for an integrated hierarchical approach.

The literature often describes problems solved individually but less often the integration of different problems or the integration of different detail levels of the same problems. An example of an integrated strategic and operational planning problem is described by Kallrath (2002) and an investigation on the integration of long-term, mid-term and short-term planning operations through a common data model is reported by Das et al. (2000). Some typical economical benefits of integrated decision making are listed by Shobrys and White (2002) who conclude that the major challenges in integrating planning, scheduling and control systems are involved in issues like changing human and organizational behavior rather than technical issues. The general conclusion made in the literature is that the integration of decisions with synchronized models is desirable but at the same time it is very difficult to solve such models efficiently.

 

Key Sources of Research:

Bodington, Charles E., and Thomas E. Baker.

“A history of mathematical programming in the petroleum industry.”

Interfaces 20.4 (1990): 117-127.

 

Baker, Thomas E., and Leon S. Lasdon.

“Successive linear programming at Exxon.”

Management science 31.3 (1985): 264-274.

 

Baker, Thomas E.

“Petro-chemical industry.”

Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Springer US, 2001. 612-614.

 

Baker, Thomas E., and Donald E. Shobrys.

“The integration of planning, scheduling and control.”

Natl. Pet. Refiners Assoc.,(Tech. Pap.);(United States) 200.CONF-8510288- (1985).

 

Baker, Thomas E.

“A hierarchical/relational approach to modeling.”

Computer Science in Economics and Management 3.1 (1990): 63-80.

 

Jones, Chris, and Thomas E. Baker.

“MIMI/G: A graphical environment for mathematical programming and modeling.”

Interfaces 26.3 (1996): 90-106.

 

 

Cleaves, Gerard W., and Thomas E. Baker.

“Chesapeake R&D sponsor groups.”

Interfaces 20.6 (1990): 83-87.

 

A RELATIONAL MODELING SYSTEM FOR LINEAR AND INTEGER PROGRAMMING

A.ATAMTU RK,E.L.JOHNSON,J.T.LINDEROTH,andM.W.P.SAVELSBERGH

http://www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~atamturk/pubs/_published/or48-2000.pdf

 

A bibliography for the development of an intelligent mathematical programming system

Harvey J. Greenberg

http://www.math.ucdenver.edu/~hgreenbe/papers/Greenberg96impsBib.pdf

 

Supply Chain Planning Optimization 

http://www74.homepage.villanova.edu/sohail.chaudhry/MBA8503/Readings/Supply%20Chain/AMR%20Supply%20Chain.pdf

 

MIMI Brings OR Tools Together

http://www.eudoxus.com/mp-in-action/software/mpac9712

 

INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTION PLANNING AND SCHEDULING: OVERVIEW, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Christos T. Maravelias and Charles Sung

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christos_Maravelias2/publication/220341953_Integration_of_production_planning_and_scheduling_Overview_Challenges_and_Opportunities/links/004635251c8f0cd8fd000000.pdf

 

HIERARCHICAL INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTION PLANNING AND SCHEDULING

Arnoldo C. Hax and Harlan C. Meal

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.2470&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Discrete Optimization Methods and their Role in the Integration of Planning and Scheduling

Ignacio E. Grossmann , Susara A. van den Heever and Iiro Harjunkoski

March 1, 2001

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.12.1826&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Planning and scheduling models for refinery operations

J.M. Pinto , M. Joly , L.F.L. Moro

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcel_Joly2/publication/242817901_Planning_and_Scheduling_Models_for_Refinery_Operations/links/5686be3508ae1e63f1f5aa45.pdf

 

MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING MODELS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCTION PLANNING AND SCHEDULING

by Jeremy F. Shapiro

January, 1989

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5082/OR-191-89-24512977.pdf?sequence

 

Supporting supply chain planning and scheduling decisions in the oil and chemical industry

Winston Lasschuit, Nort Thijssen

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nort_Thijssen/publication/222406596_Supporting_Supply_Chain_Planning_and_Scheduling_Decisions_in_the_Oil_and_Chemical_Industry/links/5516aa990cf2f7d80a383c39.pdf

 

Planning and Scheduling in Supply Chains: An Overview of Issues in Practice

Stephan Kreipl • Michael Pinedo

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Pinedo/publication/240271728_Planning_and_Scheduling_in_Supply_Chains_An_Overview_of_Issues_in_Practice/links/0c96052de86f847e9b000000.pdf

 

Hierarchical approach for production planning and scheduling under uncertainty

Dan Wu, Marianthi Ierapetritou

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.9977&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Supply chain management and advanced planning––basics, overview and challenges

Hartmut Stadtler

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hartmut_Stadtler/publication/223817098_Supply_chain_management_and_advanced_planning_-_Basics_overview_and_challenges/links/00b7d53327c5cd6d44000000.pdf

 

Integration of multi-scale planning and scheduling problems

Hlynur Stefanssona, Pall Jenssonb, Nilay Shah

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hlynur_Stefansson/publication/251469193_Integration_of_multi-scale_planning_and_scheduling_problems/links/00b7d53aa958d6f7ba000000.pdf

 

Bitran, Gabriel R., and Arnold C. Hax.

“On the design of hierarchical production planning systems.”

Decision Sciences 8.1 (1977): 28-55.

 

Bitran, Gabriel R., Elizabeth A. Haas, and Arnoldo C. Hax.

“Hierarchical production planning: A single stage system.”

Operations Research 29.4 (1981): 717-743.

 

Bitran, Gabriel R., Elizabeth A. Haas, and Arnoldo C. Hax.

“Hierarchical production planning: A two-stage system.”

Operations Research 30.2 (1982): 232-251.

 

Bitran, Gabriel R., and Devanath Tirupati.

“Hierarchical production planning.”

Handbooks in operations research and management science 4 (1993): 523-568.

 

Axsäter, Sven, and Henrik Jönsson.

“Aggregation and disaggregation in hierarchical production planning.”

European Journal of Operational Research 17.3 (1984): 338-350.

 

Gfrerer, Helmut, and Günther Zäpfel.

“Hierarchical model for production planning in the case of uncertain demand.”

European Journal of Operational Research 86.1 (1995): 142-161.

 

Hax, Arnoldo C., and Gabriel R. Bitran.

“Hierarchical planning systems—a production application.”

Disaggregation. Springer Netherlands, 1979. 63-93.

 

THE CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

Arnoldo C.:,Hax and Nicolas S. Majluft

1983

 

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2031/SWP-1396-09362356.pdf?..

 

A hierarchical decision support system for production planning (with case study)

 

Linet Ozdamar *, M. Ali Bozyel, S. Ilker Birbi

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linet_Ozdamar/publication/261592155_Hierarchical_planning_approach_for_a_production-distribution_system/links/55f3fdbf08ae63926cf26516.pdf

Gelders, Ludo F., and Luk N. Van Wassenhove.

 

“Hierarchical integration in production planning: Theory and practice.”

Journal of Operations Management 3.1 (1982): 27-35.

Gabbay, Henry.

 

A Hierarchical Approach to Production Planning.

No. TR-120. MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH CAMBRIDGE OPERATIONS RESEARCH CENTER, 1975.

 

Axsäter, Sven.

“Technical note—On the feasibility of aggregate production plans.”

Operations Research 34.5 (1986): 796-800.

 

Gabbay, Henry.

“Optimal aggregation and disaggregation in hierarchical planning.”

Disaggregation. Springer Netherlands, 1979. 95-106.

 

Fleischmann, Bernhard, and Herbert Meyr.

“Planning hierarchy, modeling and advanced planning systems.”

Handbooks in operations research and management science 11 (2003): 455-523.

 

Liberatore, Matthew J., and Tan Miller.

“A hierarchical production planning system.”

Interfaces 15.4 (1985): 1-11.

 

Nam, Sang-jin, and Rasaratnam Logendran.

“Aggregate production planning—a survey of models and methodologies.”

European Journal of Operational Research 61.3 (1992): 255-272.

 

Hierarchical mathematical programming for operational planning in a process industry 

W.G.M.M. Rutten

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1423171/394701.pdf

 

Saad, Germaine H.

“Hierarchical production-planning systems: extensions and modifications.”

Journal of the Operational Research Society 41.7 (1990): 609-624.

 

Omar, Mohamed K., and S. C. Teo.

“Hierarchical production planning and scheduling in a multi-product, batch process environment.”

International Journal of Production Research 45.5 (2007): 1029-1047.

 

Kistner, Klaus-Peter, and Marion Steven.

“Applications of operations research in hierarchical production planning.”

Modern Production Concepts. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991. 97-113.

 

Shobrys, Donald E., and Douglas C. White.

“Planning, scheduling and control systems: why cannot they work together.”

Computers & chemical engineering 26.2 (2002): 149-160.

 

Stadtler, Hartmut.

“Hierarchical production planning: Tuning aggregate planning with sequencing and scheduling.”

Multi-stage production planning and inventory control. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1986. 197-226.

 

McKay, Kenneth N., Frank R. Safayeni, and John A. Buzacott.

“A review of hierarchical production planning and its applicability for modern manufacturing.”

Production Planning & Control 6.5 (1995): 384-394.

 

Combined Strategic and Operational Planning – An MILP Success Story in Chemical Industry

Josef Kallrath

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.506.4194&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Das, B. P., et al.

“An investigation on integration of aggregate production planning, master production scheduling and short-term production scheudling of batch process operations through a common data model.”

Computers & Chemical Engineering 24.2 (2000): 1625-1631.

Art of Long View: Future, Uncertainty and Scenario Planning

Art of Long View: Future, Uncertainty and Scenario Planning

 

Key Concepts:

  • Fundamental Uncertainty
  • Knightian Uncertainty
  • Long term Thinking
  • Possibility Space
  • Probabilistic Space
  • Plausibility
  • Anticipation
  • Strategic Conversations
  • Strategic Narratives
  • Strategic Scenarios
  • Normative Scenarios
  • Causal Layered Analysis
  • Strategic Learning
  • Integral Futures
  • Multiple Futures
  • Multiple Horizons

 

Key People:

  • Peter Schwartz
  • Stewart Brand
  • Jay Ogilvy
  • Kees Van Der Heijden
  • Michel Godet
  • Pierre Wack
  • Herman Kahn
  • P J H Schoemaker
  • Arie De Gues
  • Napier Collyns
  • Eric Best
  • Art Kleiner
  • Thomas J Chermack
  • Gill Ringland
  • Angela Wilkinson
  • Adam Kahane
  • Ged Davis
  • Russell Ackoff
  • Jay Forrester
  • Peter Senge
  • Andy Hines
  • Peter Bishop
  • R Slaughter
  • Sohail Inayatullah
  • Rafael Ramirez
  • Roberto Poli
  • Riel Miller
  • George Wright
  • Eamonn Kelly
  • Katherine Fulton

 

From How plausibility-based scenario practices are grappling with complexity to appreciate and address 21st century challenges

The tighter interconnections of natural, social and economic systems lead to increased uncertainty and greater complexity. The growing list of today’s significant concerns, whether focused on fixing the financial crisis or progressing socio-ecological sustainability highlights the urgency to look forward and manage large scale, system transformations [1] and challenges the conventional western economic wisdom of continuous, linear or exponential growth. Failure to engage with irreducible uncertainty is more widely appreciated and attempts to tame uncertainty can make matters worse [2].

Scenarios were introduced over 50 years ago as a means to overcome the limits of linear, reductionist and deterministic thinking that underpinned the then dominant practices of forecast-based planning. Scenario builders reject the notion of wholly predictable futures and instead seek to construct alternative futures which explore not only the paths to each, but do so in a way that emphasizes the need to attend to disruptive change as normal. Scenarios work is conducted in different sectors – public, private, civil and academia – and for a wide range of purposes, such as learning [7], strategy [8], or conflict avoidance [9].

Scenario practices have evolved from a “hypothetical sequencing of events constructed with the purpose of focusing attention on causal structures and decision points” [10] to attendance to the dynamic interactions that create disruptive and turbulent change as organizations co-evolve with their wider contexts [11]. At the same time, continuous innovation and diversity of scenario practices result in methodological confusions and misunderstandings [12]. To avoid contributing to further confusion we first define and then justify our interest in one particular tradition of practice.

Bradfield et al. [13] highlight three different scenario ‘schools’. In this paper we focus on what those authors refer to as Intuitive Logics, with its emphasis on plausible alternative futures, in contrast with the normative French School and the probabilistic USA School. Our choice to focus on the intuitive logics school is justified by evidence of its growing dominance in non-probabilistic scenario work [14].

Schoemaker [15] describes how plausibility-based scenarios are useful approaches in situations characterized by increasing uncertainty and complexity. He notes the effectiveness of scenarios as a psychological basis for addressing biases due to cognitive limits and overcoming ‘group think’ resulting from consensus building processes in social organizations.

In the intuitive logics tradition, the future is a fiction. Scenarios are ‘open stories’ [16] and stories and storytelling are deployed as a means to engage intuition, expose deeply held assumptions and forge new and shared interpretative frames. The assumption is that the emerging future cannot be forecasted but can be imagined and “lived in” and offers a different perspective to learning about the present than history alone provides. In effect, plausibility-based scenarios offer reframing devices rather than forecasting tools [17,18]. Scenarios are not populated with facts but with perceptions, assumptions and expectations.

Quality of a good scenario is not determined by its predictive accuracy but by its impact which can be evaluated in different ways — cognitive shift, enhancing judgment, leading to more and better strategic options and/or motivating change [19].

Despite the extensive and continued use of intuitive logics scenarios in the public and private sectors, the diversity of methods can lead to a wholesale dismissal of these practices by empiricist traditions of inquiry and evidence-based decision making cultures [20,21]. At the same time organizations, such as Shell, which have sustained the practice of plausibility-based, intuitive logics scenarios for over 50 years, appreciate the added value in terms of enabling decision makers to engage with uncertainty, enabling systemic insights and contributing to the adaptive capacity of the firm [21].

In contrast with the objectivist and positivist ontologies of probabilistic scenario practices, constructivism, nominalism and post-normal science are the mainstays of the plausibility-based, intuitive logics tradition [10,12,48,49]. As Burrell and Morgan [50] noted, a realist sees the nature of reality as ‘out there’, hard and concrete, while the nominalist sees the social world as the result of individual cognition and made up of names, labels and concepts. Wilkinson and Eidinow [12] note the objectivist– constructivist dichotomy between probable and plausible scenario traditions. Scenarios are pragmatic rather than positivistic: events and behaviors are explained from the perspective of the individuals involved and thus reflect equally valid understandings from multiple points in a system. A central challenge is thus to navigate plurality [51] (Table 1).

For many complexity practitioners, the science of multi- level interconnected systems is extending the boundary of uncertainty where quantitative analysis is applicable. Agent- based modeling is one of the new techniques being used to undertake quantitative assessment of the probability of the collapse of system resilience [52], enabling a statistical forecast of the transition between various regimes of the system. Such approach proved relevant in addressing in- stabilities in financial markets and the role of contagion of norms as proposed by Axelrod [53], or Gintis [54] in the reframing obesity as an epidemic [55] rather than induced by the marketing of dubious foods.

Paul Cilliers [56] reflects on the ontology of complexity as follows: “The argument from complexity thus wants to move beyond the objective/subjective dichotomy”. He goes on to say that complexity science is in some ways an extension of the traditional scientific approach, but the ontological issues are shifted to the problem of boundaries. Since complex systems are open systems that interact with other systems, the choice of boundary is arbitrary. He quotes the notion of ‘operational closure’ as a useful approach, rooted in pragmatism. The uncertainty on the state of the system in the future is therefore objectively bound by formal mathematical modeling, but at the same time subjectively framed through the (explicit or implicit) choices concerning critical systems heuristics e.g. definition of the system boundaries.

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Scenario Planning and Strategic Forecasting

Jay Ogilvy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/01/08/scenario-planning-and-strategic-forecasting/print/

 

Living in the futures

Angela Wilkinson

https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures

 

Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead

Pierre Wack

https://hbr.org/1985/09/scenarios-uncharted-waters-ahead

 

Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids

Pierre Wack

https://hbr.org/1985/11/scenarios-shooting-the-rapids/ar/1

 

Planning As Learning

https://hbr.org/1988/03/planning-as-learning&cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-End%20of%20Page%20Recirculation

 

The Living Company

https://hbr.org/1997/03/the-living-company

 

The Use and Misuse of Scenarios

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-use-and-abuse-of-scenarios

 

Scenario Planning

http://www.economist.com/node/12000755

 

WHAT IF? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits

 

http://monitorinstitute.com/downloads/what-we-think/what-if/What_If.pdf

 

Shell Scenarios

http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios.html

 

A Review of Scenario Planning Literature

https://scienceimpact.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Scenario%20PlanningA%20Review%20of%20the%20Literature.PDF

 

The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning

Ron Bradfielda, George Wrightb, George Burt, George Cairns, Kees Van Der Heijden

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.703&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Directions in Scenario Planning Literature – A Review of the Past Decades

Celeste Amorim Varuma, Carla Melo

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Celeste_Varum/publication/229173845_Directions_in_scenario_planning_literature__A_review_of_the_past_decades/links/0a85e53c946a22d99c000000.pdf

 

A review of scenario planning

 

Muhammad Amer, Tugrul U. Daim *, Antonie Jetter

2012

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad_Amer8/publication/256712985_A_review_of_scenario_planning._Futures/links/53dbe98c0cf2a76fb667b0b3.pdf

 

The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques

Peter Bishop, Andy Hines and Terry Collins

 

https://nctc.fws.gov/courses/alc/alc3194/resources/publications/scenario-planning/Bishop_et_al_2007.pdf

 

Integrating organizational networks, weak signals, strategic radars and scenario planning

Paul J.H. Schoemaker ⁎, George S. Day, Scott A. Snyder

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Schoemaker/publication/256859401_Integrating_organizational_networks_weak_signals_strategic_radars_and_scenario_planning/links/0a85e5352fd617b0f6000000.pdf

 

Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight

Dana Mietzner and Guido Reger

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.3984&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

PLAUSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY IN SCENARIO PLANNING

 

Rafael Ramirez  & Cynthia Selin

 

http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4754/1/ACCEPTED__Plausibility_and_Probability_in_Scenario_Planning_March_24_2013.pdf

 

Scenario building: Uses and abuses

Philippe Durance, Michel Godet

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.663.568&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

The Role of System Theory in Scenario Planning

 

Thomas Chermack

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.529.95&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and Pitfalls

MICHEL GODET

http://en.laprospective.fr/dyn/anglais/articles/art_of_scenarios.pdf

 

A Scenario-based Approach to Strategic Planning – Integrating Planning and Process Perspective of Strategy

Torsten Wulf, Philip Meißner, Stephan Stubner

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Meissner/publication/267786604_A_Scenario-based_Approach_to_Strategic_Planning__Integrating_Planning_and_Process_Perspective_of_Strategy/links/553b7c780cf2c415bb093eb0.pdf

 

An Introduction to the Ontology of Anticipation

Roberto Poli

 

http://cspo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/read_Poli-An-Introduction-to-the-Ontology-of-Anticipation.pdf

 

Being Without Existing: The Futures Community at a Turning Point? A Comment on Jay Ogilvy’s “Facing the Fold”

By Riel Miller

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riel_Miller2/publication/243995158_Being_without_existing_the_futures_community_at_a_turning_point_A_comment_on_Jay_Ogilvy’s_Facing_the_fold/links/53f70d4d0cf22be01c452fae.pdf

 

Riel Miller, Roberto Poli and Pierre Rossel

The Discipline of Anticipation: Exploring Key Issues

 

 

Towards an ontology of the present moment

 

Anthony Hodgson

 

Augmenting the intuitive logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation

James Derbyshire , George Wright

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207016300152

 

Plotting Your Scenarios

Jay Ogilvy and Peter Schwartz

http://www.meadowlark.co/plotting_your_scenarios.pdf

 

When and How to Use Scenario Planning: A Heuristic Approach with Illustration

Paul J.H. Schoemaker

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Schoemaker/publication/220040372_When_and_How_to_Use_Scenario_Planning_A_Heuristic_Approach_with_Illustration/links/0c9605325c140d52e9000000.pdf

 

Futures literacy: A hybrid strategic scenario method

Riel Miller

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riel_Miller2/publication/222053294_Futures_literacy_A_hybrid_strategic_scenario_method._Futures_39_341-362/links/54783ef50cf293e2da287b54.pdf

 

From Forecasting and Scenarios to Social Construction: Changing Methodological Paradigms in Futures Studies

Richard A. Slaughter

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.9425&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Developing and Applying Strategic Foresight

Richard A. Slaughter

http://www.forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/2002slaughter_Strategic_Foresight.pdf

 

 

What difference does ‘integral’ make?

Richard A. Slaughter

http://integralfutures.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/What_Diff_Integral.pdf

 

Framework foresight: Exploring futures the Houston way

Andy Hines , Peter C. Bishop

http://www.andyhinesight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/93-Framework-Foresight.pdf

 

BRINGING FORESIGHT INTO SYSTEMS THINKING – A THREE HORIZONS APPROACH –

Anthony Hodgson and Gerald Midgley

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings58th/article/viewFile/2278/770

 

Seeing in Multiple Horizons: Connecting Futures to Strategy

Andrew Curry

Anthony Hodgson

 

http://networkingaction.net/wp-content/uploads/Curry-three-time-horizons.pdf

 

Introduction to Strategic Foresight : A Resource Bibliography

Dr. Peter Bishop

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.952&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

40 Years of Shell Scenarios

Shell International

http://s05.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corporate/corporate/downloads/pdf/shell-scenarios-40yearsbook080213.pdf

 

Scenarios as a Tool for the 21st Century

Ged Davis

Shell International

 

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2005/talks/0921/leemans/literature/davis_how_does_shell_do_scenarios.pdf

 

The Evolution of Integral Futures: A Status Update

Terry Collins & Andy Hines

 

http://integralfutures.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Collins_Hines_Evo_of_Integral_Futs_2011.pdf

 

integral futures

by Richard A. Slaughter

http://integralfutures.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Integral_Futures_APF_Overview_2012.pdf

 

Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming

Sohail Inayatullah

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510.9662&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

How plausibility-based scenario practices are grappling with complexity to appreciate and address 21st century challenges

Angela Wilkinson, Roland Kupers , Diana Mangalagiu

http://www.rolandkupers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Link-16.pdf

 

Scenario Method: Current developments in theory and practice

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages 561-838 (May 2013)

Edited by George Wright, George Cairns and Ron Bradfield

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625/80/4