Innovation NavigatorStrategic Game
Stress-test the strategy against four plausible futures before you commit to it: pick the two uncertainties that matter most, name the worlds they create, find the world that breaks the plan, and leave with one move that holds up and one signal that tells you when to act.
Leadership teams about to make a multi-year bet when the future could go more than one way: strategy offsites, multi-year plans, M&A and capability investments, and board pre-reads.
From plan for the future we expect to stress-test against the futures we don’t.
Thinking through several scenarios tends to widen the range of futures people consider and temper overconfidence in a single forecast. In a study of experienced managers, working through scenarios shifted their judgment toward investments that held up across futures. And imagining that a failure has already happened tends to surface more reasons for it than asking whether it might.
Pick two forces that are high impact and high uncertainty, cross them into four believable worlds (no heaven, no hell), and test the strategy against each rather than guessing which arrives. Thinking through several scenarios tends to temper overconfidence in a single forecast.
In each world, ask “It’s [year], this world arrived, and our strategy failed. Why?” Imagining a failure has already happened tends to surface more reasons for it.
Sort the moves (a robust bet holds in three or more worlds; a hedge limits the damage in the world that breaks you; an option buys the right to move fast), and write one signpost as “If [signal] crosses [level], [owner] will [move]”. Retire a world once it feels familiar.
Also runs as a half day · P4.8 HD
Half day (3 h 30 min), the full scenario build: forces sorted into what will happen anyway and what nobody can call, four worlds built in depth, the current strategy and two alternatives wind-tunnelled in every world, and a signpost for each world, with a quarterly signpost review.
Build four plausible futures in depth and test the strategy against all of them: separate what will happen anyway from what nobody can call, develop each world until it is believable, wind-tunnel the current strategy and its alternatives, and set a signpost for every world with an owner and a review.
Leadership teams setting a multi-year strategy or making a large, hard-to-reverse bet when the future could go more than one way: strategy offsites, multi-year plans, M&A and capability investments, and board strategy sessions.
Thinking through several scenarios tends to widen the range of futures people consider and temper overconfidence in a single forecast. In a study of experienced managers, working through scenarios shifted their judgment toward investments that held up across futures. And imagining that a failure has already happened tends to surface more reasons for it than asking whether it might.
What will hold in every world goes into all four; the two most important, independent uncertainties become the axes, each written as opposite outcomes. Thinking through several scenarios tends to widen the range of futures people consider.
Each group develops the world its members least want, in enough detail to argue with, and the room challenges it for believability. The uncomfortable future is the one plans tend to skip.
The current strategy and two alternatives are tested in every world; the moves are sorted into robust bets, hedges and options; every world gets a signpost with an owner. Imagining a failure has already happened tends to surface more reasons for it, and working through scenarios tends to shift judgment toward bets that hold across futures.
The thinking behind this lab, published in full: