Scenario Planning & Strategic Foresight
Speakers who help organisations anticipate uncertainty, stress-test assumptions and plan for multiple futures
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 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 organisations treat new ideas as intellectual problems – to be argued over, refined, and approved before anyone acts on them. That process is not a filter for bad ideas; it is a filter for action. The companies that build new things do not have better ideas. They have better discipline around testing the ones they have.
Most organisations plan as if the future is a continuation of the present, only faster. The future they actually face is shaped by turning points, unexpected shocks, and ideas that arrive from outside the industry. Long-range thinking is rarely a discipline inside the leadership team, which leaves strategy exposed to events that were predictable to almost no one in the room.
The institutions designed to contain a sovereign debt crisis – fiscal rules, central bank mandates, creditor agreements – rarely hold together under real pressure. Organisations exposed to European markets carry risk that standard scenario planning consistently underestimates. The decisions that actually matter in those rooms – and the compromises made to reach them – rarely match the public account.
Boards that depend on Russia, the Baltics, or the wider post-Soviet space need more than headline analysis. They need someone who has worked inside Russian newsrooms, sat across the table from the Kremlin as a Western corporate, and still files weekly from outside the country. The gap between sanctioned narratives and operating reality is where bad decisions happen.
Boards and investment committees are making capital decisions on geopolitical assumptions that no longer hold. The categories most institutions still use to assess country risk and global exposure were built for a system that is fracturing. Misreading the new map costs capital and market position.
Strategy built for national markets and capital-intensive competition is now a liability, not a framework. Urbanisation, the feminisation of skilled workforces, and the structural erosion of imitation as viable strategy have redrawn the competitive map. The organisations that grasp this shift first will set the terms of the next era of competition – not manage its consequences.
Western organisations built their strategies on assumptions – about US primacy, open multilateralism, and a rules-based order – that are now visibly fracturing. The US-China contest is not a temporary disruption; it is restructuring trade flows, technology standards, institutional loyalties, and investment calculus simultaneously. Most leadership teams are making consequential decisions about market exposure, supply chain architecture, and geopolitical alignment without a working model of how the shift actually operates.
Sustainable competitive advantage has stopped behaving like it used to. Incumbents with strong positions, talent, and capital still lose share to entrants who reframe the question rather than win on the answer. The work is no longer protecting a moat; it is detecting where the moat has already moved.
Organisations are still optimising for metrics that conceal the costs they are actually creating. GDP-linked targets and quarterly profit tell boards very little about regulatory exposure, inequality risk, or structural instability. The economic assumptions that once provided strategic cover are becoming political liabilities – and the frameworks used to replace them are still being contested.
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.