Defensive Future Studies

Defensive Future Studies

Providing a way to prioritize Strategic Options Extracted from the Strategic Foresight Process Based on the Opinions of the Army Experts of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Moslem Shirvani Naghani 1
Safar Fazli 2
1 Ph.D. Student, Future Studies, Imam Khomeini International University
2 Associate Professor of Future Studies, Imam Khomeini International University
Abstract
Rapid and wide-ranging environmental changes have challenged traditional systems of strategy making, and strategic foresight has been increasingly welcomed by organizations due to flexibility against alternative futures. This research seeks to develop the process of creating strategy in strategic foresight based on the opinions of the military experts of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is a developmental research in terms of purpose. The overall research method is qualitative. First, based on the analysis and interpretation of literature and research background some steps presented to prioritize strategic options in strategic foresight. Then, with the help of Delphi technique, the validity of the list of provided steps was tested. The scientific and applied acceptance of all the steps and their general goodness of fit confirmed by the convergence of academic and military experts in Delphi's second phase. In the end, based on the presented steps, it had been suggested to commanders and strategist of the military to use this method to prioritize strategic options in the process of creating strategy for military units. The innovation of this research is to provide a way to select the ultimate strategy in strategic foresight, which, with a time-integrated approach, evaluates and prioritizes strategic options simultaneously in three short, medium, and long-term horizons. In this way, in addition to the "outcomes of each option" and "the probability of collecting those outcomes", "synchronization of options" and "outcomes time", are also intertwined in the prioritization of options.
 
Keywords
The Islamic Republic of Iran Army
Strategy
Strategic Option
Strategic Foresight
Prioritization of Options
  • حافظ­نیا، محمدرضا. (1395). مقدمه­ای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
  • رضوی، سیدمصطفی. اکبری، مرتضی. جعفرزاده، مرتضی. و زالی، محمدرضا. (1392). بازکاوی روش تحقیق آمیخته، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  • شیروانی ناغانی، مسلم. و بیات، روح­الله. (1397). توسعه گزینه­های راهبردی برای سیاست‌‍گذاری در صنعت نفت ایران بر اساس آینده­نگاری راهبردی، سیاستگذاری عمومی، 4 (1): 79-63.
    • Camillus, JC. & Datta, DK. (1991). Management strategic issues in a turbulent environment, Long Range Planning, 24(2): 67-74.
    • Doran, G.T. (1981). There's a SMART way to write management's goals and objectives, AMA Forum, November, 35-36.
    • Eisenhardt, KM. & Sull, DN. (2017). Strategy as Simple Rules, Harvard Business Review, 79(1): 106-116.
    • Forster, B. & Gracht, H. (2014), Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 84: 215–229.
    • Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J. & Dator, J. (2001). Closing the deal: how to make organizations act on futures research, Foresight, 3(3): 177-89.
    • Godet, M. & Durance, P. (2011), Strategic foresight for corporate and regional development, UNESCO, Paris.
    • Grant, RM. (2013). Strategic Planning in a Turbulent Environment: Evidence from the Oill Majors, Strategic Management Journal, 24(6): 491-517.
    • Hines, A. & Bishop, P. (2006), Thinking about the Future: Guidelines for the Strategic Foresight, Social Technologies LLC, Washington.
    • Kuosa, T. (2012). The evolution of strategic foresight: Navigating public policy making, Routledge, Oxfordshire.
    • Lindlof, T. & Taylor, B. (2011). Qualitative research methods, SAGE, London.
    • Linz, M. (2012). Scenarios for the aviation industry: A Delphi-based analysis for 2025, Journal of Air Transport Management, 22: 28-35.
    • McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (1984). Research in education: A conceptual introduction, little Brown and Company, Boston.
    • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review, 72(1): 107-114.
    • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments, Journal of mixed methods research, 4(56): 145-162.
    • Rejeski, D. & Olson, R. L. (2006). Has futurism failed? The Wilson Quarterly, Wilson Institute, Washington D.C; Winter, 14-21.
    • Riedy, C. (2009). The influence of futures work on public policy and sustainability, Foresight, 11(5): 40-56.
    • Rigby, D. & Bilodeau, B. (2017). Selecting management tools wisely, Harvard Business Review, 85(12): 20-22.
    • Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science student and researcher, SAGE publications, London.
    • Rohrbeck, R. (2011). Corporate Foresight: Towards a Maturity Model for the Future Orientation of a Firm, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
    • Schwenker, B. & Wulf, T. (2013). Scenario-Based Strategic Planning: Developing Strategies in an Uncertain World, Springer, Berlin.
    • Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, fourth ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
    • Shimizu, K. (2012). The cores of strategic management. Routledge, Oxfordshire.
    • Slaughter, R. (1998), Futures studies as an intellectual and applied discipline, American Behavioural Scientist, 42(3): 372–385.
    • Slaughter, R. (2007). Why is the future still a ‘missing dimension’?, Futures, 39: 747-754.
    • Teddlie, C. & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling, Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1): 77-100.
    • Whittington, R. (1993). What is strategy and does it matter?, Routledge, London.
Defensive Future Studies
Volume 2, Issue 6 - Serial Number 6
Autumn 2017
Pages 111-131