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.
New leaders fail in their first ninety days more often than at any other point in their career, and the cost is paid by the team, the strategy, and the board that hired them. The same pattern repeats further up: senior teams face decisions where pattern recognition and systems thinking matter more than functional expertise, and most have never been taught either. Organisations need a repeatable way to accelerate leaders into new roles and to sharpen how their top team thinks.
Boards are being asked to make capital commitments against technologies that will not mature for a decade or more. Quantum computing, AI, biotech and energy are converging on timelines most strategy processes are not built to hold. Leaders need a credible read on what is physically possible, what is hype, and where the next decade of value will actually sit.
Most AI investment is still trapped in pilots, demos and isolated tools. The harder problem is redesigning how the organisation actually decides, staffs and operates once machines do meaningful work. Senior teams need a way to move from AI as a project portfolio to AI as the operating model.
Most boards now have an AI position on paper. Very few have a confident view of what their organisation should actually do with the technology, on what timeline, and at what cost to existing structures. The gap between AI as a slide in the strategy deck and AI as a real operating capability is where senior teams quietly stall.
Boards are being asked to make defensible decisions about exposure they cannot fully see: criminal networks embedded in supply chains, cyber intrusion routed through state actors, sanctions risk that shifts faster than legal opinion. The old separation between security, geopolitics and commercial strategy no longer holds. Leaders need a coherent picture of how these systems actually interact, written by someone who has spent decades inside them.
Most strategic planning assumes a single, most-likely future. Organisations that fail mid-execution are often those with the best plans – built on one scenario rather than a map of probable outcomes. When conditions shift, teams that have modelled uncertainty act; those that have not, freeze.
Boards with exposure to the Middle East are being asked to make capital and operating decisions on a region where the analytical inputs are unreliable. Sanctions regimes shift, alliances re-form, and the gap between media narrative and on-the-ground reality has widened. Most external advisers can describe the policy. Very few can read the room.
Boards are being asked to make irreversible bets on AI, quantum, and biotech without a credible internal voice on where these technologies are actually heading. The instinct is to delegate the question to consultants who repeat last year’s consensus. That leaves the most consequential decisions with leaders who lack the horizon to judge them.
Boards are being asked to make consequential decisions about AI systems they do not fully understand, on timelines set by competitors, regulators and the technology itself. The vocabulary used inside these conversations, alignment, capability, existential risk, governance under uncertainty, was largely built by a small group of thinkers before the commercial AI race began. Without that vocabulary, leaders end up either dismissing the risk or capitulating to it.
Senior teams keep being surprised by events they could have seen coming. The traits that built their careers, conformity, consensus, command of detail, are the same traits that make boards slow to confront the unthinkable. The capability gap is not analytical, it is human: the willingness to name what is uncomfortable while there is still time to act.
Most organisations understand that AI and digital transformation are not optional. The problem is the gap between acknowledging this and making irreversible decisions about infrastructure, talent, and operating models: particularly in industries built around physical assets and long capital cycles. Leaders in real estate, construction, financial services, and retail are being asked to future-proof portfolios before the technology landscape has stabilised. The consequence of moving too slowly and too fast look equally costly from a boardroom.
Most strategy functions are not built for exponential change. They forecast from the past and plan in quarters. When AI, energy transition, and geopolitical realignment compress decades of disruption into months, the system stops working.