Planificación de escenarios y previsión estratégica speakers
Oradores que ayudan a las organizaciones a anticipar la incertidumbre, validar supuestos y planificar múltiples futuros
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Planificación de escenarios y previsión estratégica, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington y Dean van Leeuwen.
Leaders are being asked to make consequential bets on quantum, AI, and biotech without the tools to separate genuine scientific progress from marketing. Boards over-index on confident vendors and under-index on the slower, harder question of what the science can actually do. The cost of getting this wrong is years of misallocated capital and credibility lost when claims fail to land.
Most leadership teams know the pace of change has shifted, but their planning cycles, capital decisions, and org charts still assume a slower world. The cost of that mismatch is invisible until a competitor moves first, a category re-prices, or a technology curve bends. Boards need an outside voice that can name what is actually accelerating in their industry, separate signal from noise, and put a sharper time horizon on decisions already on the table.
Large organizations are built to optimize what works, not to dismantle it. Most boards are structured to hold management accountable for past results; few are designed to govern where the business must go next. When digital disruption and decarbonization mandates arrive simultaneously, the gap between boardroom oversight and strategic foresight becomes the defining organizational risk.
Most executive teams have run AI pilots. Few have moved AI into the operating core, where it changes margins, headcount and customer experience at scale. The gap between experimentation and operational advantage is where competitive position is being decided right now, and most leadership teams cannot see clearly across it.
Boards keep asking the same question and getting comfortable answers: where is the next decade of growth actually coming from, and which assumptions about America, China, and commodities will not survive it. Most of the analysis on offer comes from people who have never set foot in the markets they are forecasting. Capital allocators want a view that has been tested against the ground, not just the spreadsheet.
Boards now have to price political risk into decisions they used to treat as commercial. Exposure to China, sanctions on Russia, supply routes through the Red Sea, and cyber operations from state actors are no longer separate files for a government affairs team. They land directly on the CFO, the general counsel, and the audit committee, and most leadership teams do not have a trusted source who is read in on what the U.S. national security community actually thinks is coming.
Climate and nature risk are no longer reputational topics. They are entering disclosure regimes, capital allocation decisions and supply chain liability, and most boards lack a defensible scientific basis for the limits they are being asked to operate within. The question is not whether to commit to sustainability, but how to set targets that hold up under regulator, investor and scientific scrutiny.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into capital decisions they used to take on autopilot. Russia, China, the German economic engine, the durability of the transatlantic alliance, each is now a variable rather than a backdrop. Leaders need someone who can read the politics from inside the room, not summarise it from the headlines.
Boards are being asked to make capital, supply-chain and people decisions against a backdrop of war in Europe, US-China decoupling, and political volatility in markets that used to be dependable. The headlines move faster than the analysis, and most internal briefings rely on the same wire copy as everyone else. What leaders need is someone who has watched these countries up close, over decades, and can tell them which signals matter.
Boards are being asked to underwrite decisions on supply chains, capital allocation, and market entry while the rules underpinning the global trading system shift week to week. Most leadership teams read the same headlines as everyone else and try to translate them into operating decisions on instinct. The gap between political signal and commercial consequence is where reputations and balance sheets get damaged.
Most boards have made climate commitments their operating models cannot deliver. The gap between net-zero pledges and the capital, governance, and supply chain decisions actually being signed off is now visible to investors, regulators, and employees. Leadership teams need someone who can tell them, with authority and without flattery, where the real exposure sits and what credible action looks like.
Boards no longer treat geopolitics as background noise. The transatlantic alliance, China-US strategic rivalry, war in Europe and a fraying post-1945 order now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and supply chain decisions. Most leadership teams lack a frame for reading these shifts with any confidence.