Pianificazione degli scenari e previsione strategica speakers
Relatori che aiutano le organizzazioni ad anticipare l’incertezza, mettere alla prova le assunzioni e pianificare scenari futuri alternativi
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Pianificazione degli scenari e previsione strategica, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, e Dean van Leeuwen.
Boards and investment committees are being asked to make capital decisions inside a global economy that no longer behaves the way it did for thirty years. Trade is fragmenting, inflation paths are diverging across regions, emerging markets are pricing in political risk that used to be assumed away, and monetary policy is being run with one eye on geopolitics. The question executives keep returning to is the same: which of these shifts are noise, and which are structural enough to rewrite the operating assumptions behind a five-year plan.
Leadership teams keep missing the things that, in hindsight, were obvious. The pressure to look certain, to forecast, and to optimise for efficiency makes organisations slower to register weak signals and quicker to silence the people raising them. The harder question is how to build a leadership culture that hears uncomfortable information early and acts on it before it becomes a crisis.
Most organisations now run two AI agendas in parallel and neither one is working. The compliance agenda is ahead of the strategy agenda, and the strategy agenda is ahead of the operating model. Boards need a coherent way to think about AI as economic infrastructure, not as a procurement question, while the technology is still moving faster than their policies, their hiring, and their planning cycles can absorb.
Most large companies still organise around the playbook that built them. The world they compete in now rewards faster cycles, ecosystem partners, and growth engines that sit outside the core. The hard question is no longer whether to transform, but how to run the existing business at full performance while building the next one alongside it.
Most strategic frameworks were built for a more orderly world. Boards are now making capital decisions across climate, geopolitics, technology and the loss of trust in institutions, and these have stopped behaving as separate items on a risk register. The harder problem is no longer choosing the right answer to any one of them, but holding a workable stance when the variables move together and feeding the wrong assumptions into the rest of the strategy carries real cost.
Boards are being asked to make ten-year commitments on technologies that change every six months. Most leadership teams lack a decision architecture for this: they either freeze, or they pilot endlessly without operational deployment. The unresolved question is how to commit capital and reorganise work around AI without betting the firm on a single forecast.
European political risk is rarely as simple as reading election results. Governments form and fall through coalition mechanics that most business advisers, and most executives, cannot reliably read from the outside. For organisations operating across EU markets, the question is how to build genuine political intelligence into strategic planning before regulatory or institutional disruption arrives.
Boards keep hearing that frontier AI is either an existential threat or an inevitable productivity engine, and neither framing helps them set policy. Inside the firm, the practical question is sharper: which capabilities are safe to deploy, what governance is credible to regulators, and how do you tell hype from a real shift in the technology. Most leadership teams have no independent technical voice they trust to answer that.
Climate, fire and resource pressure are now physical risks to property, supply chains and operating sites, not abstract sustainability commitments. Most boards still treat them as reporting categories rather than design constraints on the buildings, campuses and cities they invest in. The gap between net zero language and how organisations actually build, source and locate is where the real exposure now sits.
Boards are making bets on Europe, India, and the transatlantic relationship without anyone in the room who has actually negotiated at that table. Macro briefings explain the weather. They do not tell you how Berlin will react to a tariff letter, what New Delhi will accept on market access, or how Washington reads a European industrial policy move. The gap between geopolitical headline and commercial decision is where serious money is being lost.
Industry boundaries are moving faster than strategy teams can redraw them. Software firms, platforms and AI entrants now compete inside sectors that once felt structurally protected, and the rules of value capture have changed with them. Boards keep asking the same question: where in this ecosystem do we still own the customer, and where are we becoming a component in someone else’s stack.
Strategy demands commitment, and commitment is what kills companies when the future does not arrive as forecast. Boards reward bold bets; the same bets concentrate risk in ways the planning cycle hides. The hard question is not which strategy to pick, but how to commit to one direction while keeping the option to be wrong.