When strategy teams sit down to develop scenarios, they often struggle with the same question: where do we start? The blank page problem is real. You know you need to explore different futures, but generating genuinely distinct possibilities feels overwhelming.
This is where scenario archetypes come in. These are recurring patterns that appear across industries, contexts, and time periods. Think of them as scaffolding—not finished scenarios, but structural templates that help you generate futures worth exploring.
In this guide, I'll walk you through four foundational archetypes: growth, collapse, constraint, and transformation. You'll learn what each represents, when to use them, and how to adapt them to your specific strategic context. By the end, you'll have a practical toolkit for generating scenarios that challenge assumptions and surface hidden risks.
Scenario archetypes are recurring narrative patterns that describe fundamentally different ways the future might unfold. Rather than predicting specific events, they capture the underlying logic of change—the shape of a future rather than its precise details.
The four classic archetypes are:
Growth: Continued expansion, improvement, or acceleration of current trends Collapse: System breakdown, decline, or fragmentation Constraint: Limitations that restrict options, resources, or freedom of action Transformation: Fundamental restructuring that creates new rules and possibilities
These archetypes matter because they force genuine divergence. Without them, scenario teams often produce variations on a single theme—usually optimistic extrapolations with minor adjustments. Archetypes push you toward futures that feel uncomfortable precisely because they're different from your baseline assumptions.
The distinction from other foresight tools is important. Archetypes aren't predictions (no probability attached), they aren't trends (they describe system-level change, not signals), and they aren't strategies (they describe contexts, not responses). They're generative frameworks that help you ask better questions.
Without structured divergence, scenario planning often fails in predictable ways. Teams gravitate toward comfortable futures—the ones that validate existing plans. They miss the uncomfortable possibilities that, while less likely, would require fundamentally different responses.
Archetypes address this by making divergence explicit. When you're required to develop a collapse scenario, you can't avoid asking: what would break? What would we do if it did?
The strategic value shows up in three ways:
Risk visibility: Each archetype reveals different threats. Growth scenarios surface scaling challenges and competitive pressures. Collapse scenarios expose dependencies and fragilities. Constraint scenarios highlight resource limitations. Transformation scenarios question whether your core business model remains valid.
Decision robustness: Strategies that only work in one archetype are fragile. By testing choices against multiple archetypes, you identify options that remain viable across different futures—or at least understand the conditions under which your strategy needs to change.
Stakeholder alignment: Archetypes provide a shared vocabulary for discussing uncertainty. Instead of vague debates about optimism versus pessimism, teams can discuss specific futures and their implications.
Before generating scenarios, clarify what decision you're trying to inform. A focal question like "How should we position our supply chain over the next decade?" gives archetypes purpose. Without it, you'll generate interesting futures with no clear connection to action.
Good focal questions are time-bounded, decision-relevant, and genuinely uncertain. Avoid questions where the answer is already clear or where the time horizon is too short for meaningful change.
Start with growth—it's usually the most intuitive. Ask: what does success look like if current positive trends continue and accelerate?
Key questions to explore: What tailwinds would need to persist? What capabilities would we need to scale? What new competitors might this success attract? What could break if growth outpaces our capacity?
Example: A regional healthcare provider exploring a growth scenario might imagine increased demand for services, expansion into adjacent markets, and pressure to adopt new technologies faster than their staff can adapt.
Collapse forces you to confront fragility. This isn't about pessimism—it's about understanding what could break and why.
Key questions to explore: What systems do we depend on that could fail? What chain reactions might cascade from initial disruptions? What would we prioritise in a crisis? What would recovery look like?
Example: The same healthcare provider might explore a collapse scenario where key funding is withdrawn, skilled staff leave the region, and regulatory changes make current operations unviable. The value isn't predicting this outcome—it's identifying dependencies worth monitoring.
Constraint scenarios explore futures where options narrow. Resources become scarce, regulations tighten, or external pressures limit freedom of action.
Key questions to explore: What resources might become limited? What regulations or social expectations might shift? How would we operate with significantly less flexibility? What would we stop doing first?
Example: A constraint scenario for the healthcare provider might involve reduced immigration limiting workforce supply, carbon regulations increasing energy costs, and community expectations demanding more local accountability.
Transformation is the hardest archetype because it questions whether current categories remain valid. It's not about better or worse—it's about different.
Key questions to explore: What fundamental assumptions might no longer hold? What new players, technologies, or models might emerge? What would we need to become to remain relevant? What capabilities would be most valuable in this new context?
Example: A transformation scenario might imagine healthcare delivery fundamentally restructured around AI-assisted home care, with the provider's current facilities becoming community wellness hubs rather than treatment centres.
Review your four scenarios. Do they feel genuinely different? Or are they variations on a theme? Strong archetype-based scenarios should challenge different assumptions and imply different strategic responses.
If your scenarios all point toward the same actions, push harder on the archetypes that feel most uncomfortable. The goal is to stress-test your strategy against genuinely distinct futures.
The final step is linking scenarios back to decisions. For each archetype, ask: What would we need to do differently? What capabilities would be most valuable? What signals would indicate this future is emerging?
Using tools like Portage's Scenario Generator and stress tests, you can systematically evaluate how your strategic choices perform across archetypes—identifying options that remain robust and conditions that would trigger a change in direction.
A utility company used archetypes to explore the future of distributed energy:
Growth: Accelerating adoption of solar and storage, with the utility becoming an orchestrator of distributed resources Collapse: Grid instability from unmanaged distributed generation, leading to major blackouts and public backlash Constraint: Carbon pricing and material shortages limiting expansion options while demand continues to rise Transformation: Energy-as-a-service models rendering traditional utility structures obsolete
The exercise revealed that the company's expansion plans assumed the growth scenario but had no hedges against constraint or transformation futures.
A consulting firm explored archetypes for their talent and delivery model:
Growth: Continued demand for expertise, expansion into new geographies and practices Collapse: AI tools commoditising core offerings faster than expected, leading to margin compression Constraint: Tight labour markets making talent acquisition the binding constraint on growth Transformation: Shift to hybrid human-AI delivery requiring fundamentally different skills and structures
This led to investment in AI-augmented delivery capabilities and a revised talent strategy focused on skills that complement rather than compete with automation.
A regional development authority used archetypes to stress-test their economic strategy:
Growth: Success in attracting investment, population growth, and diversification Collapse: Major employer closure triggering an economic and demographic spiral Constraint: Climate-related pressures limiting agricultural and water resources Transformation: Remote work enabling the region to attract knowledge workers previously tied to cities
The transformation scenario, initially considered unlikely, became central to their strategy following pandemic-driven shifts in work patterns.
Don't force equal probability. Some archetypes may be less likely than others. That's fine. Their value lies in revealing what you'd need to do differently, not in predicting what will happen.
Mix internal and external archetypes. Consider whether growth, collapse, constraint, or transformation applies to your organisation, your industry, or the broader environment. Different levels reveal different insights.
Use archetypes as starting points, not endpoints. A pure growth scenario is simplistic. Real futures blend elements—growth in some areas, constraint in others. Start with pure archetypes, then develop nuanced combinations.
Watch for archetype avoidance. If your team consistently resists engaging with a particular archetype, that's signal. The discomfort often points toward assumptions worth examining.
Revisit archetypes regularly. As conditions change, the relevance of different archetypes shifts. A collapse scenario that seemed remote may move closer; a transformation scenario may accelerate.
Link to monitoring. For each archetype, identify 2-3 signals that would indicate this future is becoming more likely. Build these into ongoing environmental scanning.
Scenario archetypes are one tool within a broader foresight practice. To deepen your understanding, explore these related resources:
Scenario Planning: A Complete Guide (With Examples) — Comprehensive methodology for developing and using scenarios strategically How to Create Effective Scenarios (Step-by-Step) — Detailed process for moving from archetypes to fully developed scenario narratives How to Facilitate a Scenario Workshop — Practical guidance for running sessions where teams develop and explore scenarios together Tools & Methods in Foresight (Delphi, Causal Layered Analysis, etc.) — Overview of complementary methods for exploring uncertainty
For the broader context of how foresight supports strategic decision-making, see the parent pillar: Foresight & Scenario Planning: How Strategy Leaders Prepare for Change
Archetypes are most valuable when applied to real strategic questions. Start by identifying a decision or plan that would benefit from stress-testing against different futures.
Portage's Scenario Generator can help you move from archetype frameworks to fully developed scenarios tailored to your context. The workflow is straightforward: bring in relevant trends from Trend Reports, generate scenario variations, then use stress tests to evaluate how your strategic choices perform across different futures.
Generate your first scenario set and see how archetypes can sharpen your strategic thinking.
Archetypes provide structure for divergence. Growth, collapse, constraint, and transformation force you to explore genuinely different futures rather than variations on a theme.
Each archetype reveals different risks. Growth surfaces scaling challenges, collapse exposes dependencies, constraint highlights resource limits, and transformation questions core assumptions.
Start with pure archetypes, then blend. Use clean archetypes to generate initial scenarios, then develop nuanced combinations that reflect realistic complexity.
The uncomfortable archetype is often the most valuable. Resistance to engaging with a particular future usually signals assumptions worth examining.
Link archetypes to decisions and signals. The goal isn't interesting narratives—it's better choices and early warning indicators.
Revisit regularly. As conditions shift, different archetypes become more or less relevant. Build archetype-based scenario review into your strategic rhythm.