When UPS starting the scenario planning for Horizon 2017, they decided to limit the number of participants from the 1997 scenarios. The purpose of this was to steer clear of similarities between the two scenario-planning sessions. But as an end result, they ended up with scenarios still biased towards the 1997 scenarios. To assist UPS in avoiding this bias would be to have two different scenario-planning sessions. One session would include the participants of the Horizon 2017 session, one with limited 1997 scenario bias. The second session would only include members who did not participate in the 1997 session at all. For this second session the members can get a grip on issues/barriers of the future with a non-bias way of thinking. Their results can be compared and contrasted with the first session, so UPS can see the vision of the company’s future from both sides of the road.
Along with the new scenario designing, there were participants who didn’t even truly believe that these meetings were even affecting how UPS does business. UPS is planning for all of these external forces but yet they are not recognizing the internal issue that not everyone is even accepting these meeting as helpful. This can greatly affect the company when external/worldwide forces cause barriers for UPS.
In this article, UPS implements SWOT analysis’s but in a more in-depth manner with the scenario planning to improve UPS’s competitiveness. They combined all of the aspects to paint a clearer picture for the company’s position. Any scenarios on the top half incorporated their strengths, while left-hand side dealt with weaknesses. Scenarios on the bottom half handled threats, while the right-hand side brought attention to opportunities. Strengths include deregulation, globalization, scope economies and customization. Weaknesses include strong regulations/restrictions, with customers of a traditional sense. Opportunities include online shopping and emergence of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document