Scenario Planning & Strategic Foresight speakers
Speakers who help organisations anticipate uncertainty, stress-test assumptions and plan for multiple futures
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Scenario Planning & Strategic Foresight, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington and Dean van Leeuwen.
Boards are being asked to make long-horizon calls on alliances, sanctions exposure and political risk with no recent precedent to lean on. Most analysis available to them is short-cycle and reactive. What they often lack is a serious historical reading of how leaders held coalitions together, or failed to, when the rules-based order last broke down.
Boards are being asked to take positions on China exposure, US political volatility and UK regulatory direction without the inside knowledge to do it well. The result is either over-cautious paralysis or strategic bets made on newspaper reading. What is missing is someone who has worked inside Westminster, Fleet Street and the City and can translate political signal into commercial decision.
Boards and executive teams now make decisions about AI, data, and digital infrastructure that touch every part of the business. The technical case is well rehearsed. The harder questions, what these systems do to customer trust, to employee agency, to the meaning of the work, get pushed to ethics committees or deferred indefinitely. Leaders need a way to think clearly about technology that is neither uncritical adoption nor reflexive fear.
Most leadership teams consume far more futures content than they can act on. The problem is not a shortage of prediction. It is the absence of a structured method for connecting macro change to the specific decisions an organisation is already under pressure to make. Without that connection, strategic planning is reactive, investment decisions trail the market, and the wrong questions dominate the board’s time.
Pandemic and emerging-infection risk has moved from a public-health concern to a recurring shock to operations, supply chains and workforce continuity. Most boards still treat it as a once-a-decade event rather than a standing exposure on the risk register. The capability gap is between the science of what is coming and the strategic decisions leaders have to make before it arrives.
Boards now treat Russia and the wider authoritarian bloc as a permanent feature of their risk register, not a passing event. The hard question is not what is happening, but what the regime is likely to do next, and on what timeline. Most strategic intelligence reaching senior leaders is filtered through analysts who have never lived under the system they are describing.
Every established organisation faces the same structural trap: the systems that make it excellent today are precisely what prevent it from building what it needs tomorrow. Budget cycles, governance structures, and talent incentives are designed to protect the core – not to fund the experiments that will eventually replace it. The problem is not a lack of innovation ambition; it is the absence of a working architecture that lets both agendas run simultaneously, with different logic, without one destroying the other.
Most leadership teams cannot tell which emerging technologies will reshape their business and which are noise. They commission AI pilots, IoT proofs of concept and digital programmes without a coherent picture of how these pieces will sit together five years out. The gap is not capacity to experiment. It is the absence of a credible long-range view that operating decisions can be anchored to.
Boards are being asked to price political risk that no longer behaves as it used to. Sanctions regimes shift, alliances strain, energy supply is contested, and a single foreign policy decision can rewrite a five-year capital plan. Most leadership teams lack a credible voice in the room who has seen great-power conflict from the operational level and can talk through what is actually decided, by whom, and how fast.
Most organisations have committed to net zero. Far fewer can put a number on what it will cost, or name who inside the business is accountable for delivering it. Decarbonisation stalls less on technology than on getting finance, operations and leadership to agree which trade-offs are worth making.