Structured Methods for Innovation: Scenario Planning, Delphi, and Red Teaming

Think tank methods are structured approaches used by organizations to deliberately foster innovation, generate new knowledge, and influence decision-making. These methods often blend research, collaboration, and problem-solving processes that allow groups to explore complex issues and propose forward-thinking solutions. Unlike ad hoc brainstorming, think tank methods are deliberate, systematic, and designed to channel diverse expertise toward actionable insights. Understanding and applying these approaches can be valuable not only in professional research settings but also in organizational and educational environments where innovation and adaptability are essential.

One notable think tank method is scenario planning, a technique that encourages participants to imagine and develop multiple plausible futures. Scenario planning allows decision-makers to explore uncertainties, test assumptions, and prepare for alternative outcomes (Bradfield et al., 2020). This method goes beyond prediction, focusing instead on envisioning a range of possible scenarios that highlight risks and opportunities. For example, a university might use scenario planning to examine the impact of emerging technologies, demographic shifts, or regulatory changes on higher education. By developing narratives around each scenario, leaders can create adaptive strategies that remain resilient under varying conditions. A key strength of this method is its ability to reduce “future shock” by preparing organizations for unexpected disruptions (Cordova-Pozo & Rouwette, 2023).

Another widely used think tank method is the Delphi technique, which is designed to harness expert opinion through structured rounds of anonymous feedback. The Delphi method reduces the influence of dominant voices in a group setting by keeping participants’ identities confidential, thereby encouraging more balanced and honest input (Sekayi & Kennedy, 2017; Visram et al., 2025). Through multiple rounds of questioning, experts gradually converge on a consensus or refine their views. For instance, a think tank exploring cybersecurity threats might use the Delphi technique to gather insights from a panel of security professionals, government officials, and industry leaders. The iterative process helps refine collective judgment and generates more reliable forecasts than a single round of consultation (Beiderbeck et al., 2021). A major advantage of this method is its ability to systematically capture expert knowledge while minimizing biases that might otherwise distort group discussions (Arribas et al., 2025).

A third valuable method is red teaming, which involves deliberately challenging assumptions, strategies, or plans by adopting the perspective of an adversary or critical outsider. This approach is particularly useful in military and cybersecurity contexts, but it can also be applied broadly in business and policy environments (CSET, 2025). For example, a policy think tank might use red teaming to test the robustness of a proposed international trade agreement by examining how other nations could exploit loopholes or resist its provisions. Similarly, a technology company might apply red teaming to identify vulnerabilities in a new software product before release. The core strength of this method lies in its ability to reveal blind spots and vulnerabilities that insiders may overlook (Pendleton et al., 2025). By fostering constructive dissent and critical evaluation, red teaming can significantly strengthen decision-making.

In comparing these three methods, each provides a structured way to generate insights and strengthen innovation. Scenario planning broadens perspectives by imagining different futures, the Delphi technique distills expert judgment into informed consensus, and red teaming challenges prevailing assumptions to uncover hidden risks. Collectively, these approaches highlight how think tanks deliberately structure innovation rather than leaving it to chance. For organizations and researchers, adopting such methods can enhance both creativity and rigor, ensuring that strategies are informed by diverse perspectives and prepared for uncertainty.

 

References:

Arribas, C. M., Arcos, R., & Gertrudix, M. (2025). Application of the Delphi methodology to forecast competencies oriented towards AI-Driven disinformation detection in an expanded DIGCoMP framework. MethodsX, 14, 103401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103401

Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., Von Der Gracht, H. A., Schmidt, S. L., & Schweitzer, V. M. (2021). Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. MethodsX, 8, 101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101401

Bradfield, R., Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2016). The critical role of history in scenario thinking: Augmenting causal analysis within the intuitive logics scenario development methodology. Futures, 77, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.02.002

Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET). (2025). What’s next for AI red-teaming? Georgetown University. https://cset.georgetown.edu/event/whats-next-for-ai-red-teaming/

Cordova-Pozo, K., & Rouwette, E. A. (2023). Types of scenario planning and their effectiveness: A review of reviews. Futures, 149, 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103153

Pendleton, B., Gupta, A., & Majumdar, S. (2025). Red teaming is a critical thinking exercise: Part 1. AVID. https://avidml.org/blog/red-teaming-1/

Sekayi, D., & Kennedy, A. (2017). Qualitative Delphi Method: A Four Round Process with a Worked Example. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2974

Visram, S., Rogers, Y., Molyneux, G., & Sebire, N. J. (2025). Technology adoption in healthcare: Delphi consensus for the early exploration and agile adoption of emerging healthcare technology conceptual framework. BMJ Health & Care Informatics, 32(1), e101349. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101349