Scenarieplanlægning og strategisk fremtidsforskning speakers
Talere der hjælper organisationer med at forudse usikkerhed, teste antagelser og planlægge for flere mulige fremtider
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Scenarieplanlægning og strategisk fremtidsforskning, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington og Dean van Leeuwen.
Boards know they need to convert AI and automation pilots into operating advantage, but the path between policy ambition, capital allocation and a working factory or service line keeps stalling. Megatrends are easy to name. Translating them into a sequenced bet that survives a budget cycle is not. Leaders need a frame of reference built from inside the policy and standards machinery, not above it.
Customer expectations now move faster than most innovation pipelines can absorb. Strategy teams see the shifts in the data, but by the time a proposition reaches market, the reference point has moved again. The real question is not which trend to chase, but how to build a repeatable method for turning early signals into commercial bets that leaders will back.
Boards now treat geopolitical risk as a recurring agenda item, but most still rely on desk research filtered through several layers of analysis. The decisions that matter, China exposure, supply-chain rerouting, sanctions, security of overseas personnel, depend on understanding how power actually behaves on the ground in fractured states. The gap between official briefings and operational reality is where credibility, and capital, gets lost.
Every competitive advantage a company holds will eventually be copied. The strategic question is not whether to transform, but whether to do so while still ahead. Most leadership teams wait for the crisis – by then, the gap is too wide to close.
Boards are being asked to take positions on questions they were never structured to answer: sanctions, sovereign asset seizures, support for Ukraine, the future shape of the EU. The financial and geopolitical systems leaders learned to operate in are being rewritten in real time, and the wrong call carries reputational, regulatory, and capital consequences that compound for years.
Policy decisions now move faster than the institutions meant to explain them. Boards and public affairs teams are asked to price political risk in real time, yet most Westminster commentary describes personalities rather than the machinery that actually produces the outcomes. The gap between what leaders need to understand and what mainstream political coverage delivers is widening.
Boards now make capital and operating decisions inside a system where geoeconomic competition, supply shocks, technological disruption, and political fracture move faster than the institutions designed to manage them. Most leadership teams understand each risk in isolation. The harder problem is reading how they compound across regions and sectors, and what that means for growth, capital allocation, and the next decade.
Boards know AI is not optional. What they do not know is which of the dozen initiatives on the deck will compound into advantage, and which will sink six quarters of budget into pilots that never scale. The gap is not ambition, it is a repeatable way to decide where the organisation actually stands and what to do next.
Most boards now treat AI as a strategic line item, but few know how to translate it into operating advantage without tripping the regulators, the workforce, or the customer. The gap between AI ambition and AI deployment is widening, not closing. Leaders need someone who has sat on both sides: the commercial side that has to ship, and the governance side that decides what shipping looks like.
Boards are making ten-year capital decisions in a trading bloc whose rules, alignments and political direction keep shifting under them. The commentary they read is either too abstract to act on or too partisan to trust. What they need is someone who has sat in the room, drafted the cables, and can tell them which risks are real, which are theatre, and what actually happens next.
The global economic order that delivered fifty years of relatively stable growth is visibly under strain, and organisations are making long-term decisions without a reliable framework for understanding why. Conventional economic forecasting tells leaders what might happen next quarter; it does not explain why inequality, political dysfunction, and declining trust in institutions are now structural features rather than passing disruptions. Without a coherent account of how we arrived here, strategy defaults to scenario-planning around symptoms rather than causes
Boards are pricing geopolitical risk into decisions they used to make on commercial merit alone. The questions have shifted from scenario planning to alliance stability, sanctions exposure, supply routes, and defence budgets feeding back into industrial policy. Leaders need someone who has sat in the room when these calls get made, not a commentator reading the same wires they are.