Planification de scénarios et prospective stratégique
Des intervenants qui aident les organisations à anticiper l’incertitude, tester leurs hypothèses et planifier plusieurs futurs possibles
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Planification de scénarios et prospective stratégique, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, et Dean van Leeuwen.
The middle ground that organisations were built around is thinning out, and the rate at which it thins is itself accelerating. Intermediaries lose their role, the nation state loses its monopoly on power, and customers and employees move to the edges. Senior teams have to decide which structures still pay back, which have quietly stopped working, and how to plan when the cycle of change is shortening.
The rules-based order that boards built their international strategy around is no longer holding. Sanctions regimes, transatlantic alignment, China exposure and Middle East risk now move on political timelines that no corporate planning cycle was designed to track. Most leadership teams have no first-hand reference for how foreign ministries actually weigh those decisions, only the readouts that reach them once decisions are made.
Most leadership teams have too many strategic priorities and no reliable basis for choosing between them. The result is organisations that are active but not competitive – sustaining wide portfolios of initiatives while their value proposition to customers and talent quietly weakens. Deciding what to stop doing is the harder strategic question, and most frameworks leave executives without a method.
Leaders are making long-horizon bets inside democracies that look less stable than they did five years ago. Trade policy, regulation, and alliances are moving with elections, not cycles. The question is no longer whether politics affects strategy. It is how to read institutional strain before it breaks the assumptions a plan depends on.
Boards are being asked to make capital, supply chain and people decisions against a threat map that now includes state conflict, proxy terrorism, cyber and energy shocks in parallel. The intelligence that used to sit with governments is now a commercial risk input, and most executive teams are not wired to read it. The gap is between headline awareness and a working view of what a given event means for this business, this quarter.
Most large organisations still run on a set of assumptions that stopped being reliable somewhere between the financial crisis and the collapse of globalisation as a default setting. Leadership teams know the old playbook is failing, but the boards, incentive systems, and time horizons that shaped them are still in the room. The question senior leaders are stuck on is not whether to change, but how to change at the pace of disruption without losing the discipline that built the company in the first place.
Most strategy processes are built for a stable horizon. They forecast from the recent past and break down when the underlying drivers, AI capability, energy systems, demographics, shift faster than the cycle they were designed to track. Leaders need a way to think rigorously about what is actually changing, ten and twenty years out, without sliding into either denial or hype.
Leaders are being asked to make decisions faster, against opponents and systems they do not fully understand, with machines increasingly involved in the thinking. The instinct is either to defer to the model or to dismiss it. Neither works. What organisations need is a clear view of where human judgement still carries the match, and where it should step aside.
Boards are being asked to price risks that their models were never built to carry: constitutional drift in the UK, a volatile US political cycle, and the steady erosion of shared facts in public debate. The temptation is to treat each as a one-off event. The harder task is reading them as a connected pattern and deciding what it means for strategy, reputation and exposure in the next three years.
Boards now make capital, supply and workforce decisions inside a Europe whose institutional and fiscal foundations are openly contested. The euro held in 2011, but the political fractures exposed by that crisis have widened: rising populism, declining trust in government, and a sovereign debt cycle that has not closed. Leaders need a first-hand reading of how European political systems behave under acute economic stress, and what that means for the next decade of exposure.
Boards are making capital decisions inside a macro environment that has stopped behaving as the last cycle taught them. Inflation, rates, and the geopolitics of trade no longer move along familiar lines, and the cost of getting the call wrong has risen sharply. Leadership teams need a read on the global economy that goes past consensus forecasts and into the political economy now driving them.
Organisations are deploying AI capabilities faster than they are building the governance structures to manage them. The gap between what technology can do and what leadership has decided it should do keeps growing. The harder question is not whether to automate but what must remain human – and most boards do not yet have a framework to answer it.