Scenarioplanering och strategisk framtidsanalys
Talare som hjälper organisationer att förutse osäkerhet, testa antaganden och planera för flera möjliga framtider
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Scenarioplanering och strategisk framtidsanalys, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington och Dean van Leeuwen.
Leadership teams are pattern-matching to a present that feels unprecedented, but most of what they are facing is not new. Inflation, energy shocks, industrial conflict, technological disruption and political fragmentation have all shaped earlier eras of corporate decision-making, and the leaders who handled them well drew on a longer view than their successors usually do. The senior question is whether your organisation has the historical literacy to see the present clearly enough to act.
Most boards now own an AI strategy on paper. Very few can describe the governance, the deployment route, or the human-machine boundary their organisation will actually operate against once the pilots end. The harder question is not whether to invest, but how to make defensible decisions about autonomy, accountability, and workforce design when the technology is moving faster than the policy around it.
Global economic governance is structurally misaligned with the pace of modern capital markets. National governments retain fiscal and monetary levers but have limited control over the cross-border flows that increasingly determine outcomes. When a sovereign debt crisis or currency shock spreads, the institutions designed to respond are slower, more politically constrained, and more contested than most boards assume.
Boards now carry political risk that does not sit in any single committee. Trade regimes, sanctions, development finance, European alignment and transatlantic politics move together, and they move faster than most strategy cycles. Leadership teams need someone who has actually taken these decisions, not summarised them from the outside.
Most boards are now expected to take a public position on AI and immersive technology before the rules that will govern them exist. They are making capital decisions on cities, infrastructure and customer environments under standards that are still being drafted. Knowing who is writing those standards, and how to align to them early, has become a leadership question, not a technical one.
Senior teams routinely mistake the first plausible explanation for the right one. Under time pressure, pattern recognition replaces investigation, and the cost of a confident wrong answer is rarely tracked until a strategic call goes sideways. The discipline that closes that gap is diagnostic, not motivational: how to slow the inference, separate symptom from cause, and force a second hypothesis into the room.
Most organisations are structured to absorb change slowly, through plans, reviews and sign-offs. The world they now operate in moves faster than those systems can process. Leaders are being asked to make good decisions on projects that have no precedent, with teams they rarely see in person, against competitors who did not exist two years ago.
Leadership teams can see the signals of disruption. They cannot agree on what those signals mean for the business, or act on them at the pace the market demands. The gap between foresight and organisational response is where strategy stalls, culture fractures, and customer relevance erodes.
Biology is becoming a programmable technology, and most leadership teams still treat it as someone else’s R and D problem. The commercial consequences of that blind spot are accelerating across materials, health, food, energy and computing. Boards need a clear read on which of these shifts are hype, which are imminent, and what a credible corporate response looks like.
Leadership audiences now operate inside a political and media environment that moves faster than their comms functions can track. The tension is not information scarcity, it is signal: what a story actually means for a business, which sources to trust, and when a developing situation shifts from noise into a board-level decision. Organisations need a reader of events who can cut through the churn in real time.
Europe is the largest single market in the world and one of the slowest to act on it. Boards with exposure to the EU face a widening gap between what Brussels signals, what national capitals deliver, and what competitors in Washington and Beijing execute. The question is no longer whether Europe will reform, but which reforms will actually happen, on what timeline, and how to position capital, supply chains, and regulatory strategy against them.
European security is no longer a background condition for business strategy – it has become a primary variable in board-level decisions about investment, supply chains, and market access. Most organisations carry geopolitical exposure they cannot yet map: to shifting NATO commitments, to the long-term arc of the Russia-Ukraine war, and to a transatlantic relationship under structural strain. The analytical frameworks that served risk functions in a stable order are no longer adequate.