This article outlines the objectives, activities, and achievements of using intuitive logics scenarios to improve strategic decision-making in situations of discontinuity. Pierre Wack’s work at Royal Dutch/Shell illustrates the use of exploratory, reframing, and decision scenarios to change the mental models of decision-makers in advance of the 1973 oil crisis. Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions offers a promising theoretical account of paradigm shifts in science, but its application is limited by the ambiguity of the concept of paradigm. Margaret Masterman’s distinction of three senses of paradigm – introduced as construct paradigm, worldview paradigm, and action paradigm – clarifies and extends these accounts to support a preliminary framework and systematic approach. Overall, this investigation expands our understanding of strategic decision-making as guided not only by analytic achievements and developmental investigations but also by discontinuous breaks that can be explored and addressed using scenario methodology. Section 1 provides an introduction and literature review. Section 2 examines the scenarios developed at Royal Dutch/Shell. Section 3 summarizes Kuhn’s new image of science, clarified by Masterman’s three senses of paradigm in Section 4. Section 5 presents implications for scenario methodology, followed by conclusions and areas for research in Section 6.

The objectives and methods of effective intuitive logics scenarios

Intuitive logics (IL) scenarios1 are used in organizational development, strategic management, policy development, and other fields to explore the “’limits of possibility’ for the future” (Wright et al., 2013). Relying upon multiple and diverse perspectives, in-depth analysis of uncertainties, and the application of plausibility-based, “intuitive logics,” IL scenarios are designed “to overcome the limits of linear, reductionist, and deterministic thinking” by providing a way “to engage intuition, expose deeply held assumptions, and forge new and shared interpretive frames” (Wilkinson et al., 2013). Wright et al. (2013) survey the research literature on scenario methodology to identify three objectives of effective IL scenarios. According to the authors, the first objective is “enhancing understanding… of the causal processes, connections, and logical sequences underlying events – thus uncovering how a future state of the world may unfold.” The second objective, “challenging conventional thinking,” is directed toward “refram[ing] perceptions and chang[ing] the mindsets of those within organizations.” The third and final objective of effective IL scenarios is “improving decision-making… to inform strategy development” (Wright et al., 2013). The authors assert that the basic methods of IL scenarios are designed to address the first two objectives. They question the ability of scenarios to achieve the third objective, that is, …whether scenario methods in any form and in themselves have any causal connection with improved decision-making to inform strategy development? Or, do they merely offer a potential stimulus toward better decision-making?