Skip to main content

The Most Useful Foresight Methods for Companies

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

The future can’t be predicted — but it can be shaped by looking ahead. For mid-sized companies, hidden champions and international groups alike, recognizing change early and staying able to act under uncertainty is decisive. Futurewise Company works with established and emerging methods from strategic futures research to make that possible. The question at the center is always the same: how do today’s signals, trends and uncertainties become decisions that hold up tomorrow?

Which method makes sense depends on the strategic question. Is it about new growth markets, technological upheaval, the future of a business model, or the long-term direction of an entire company? Here’s an overview of the foresight methods we work with regularly at Futurewise Company.

The Delphi method

What is the Delphi method?

Delphi is a qualitative method used in futures research. Over several rounds, experts from different fields are systematically asked about possible future developments. The method was developed at the RAND Corporation and takes its name from the ancient oracle at Delphi.

The first step is in-depth interviews with a carefully selected panel, usually 15 to 35 experts. We condense what they say into hypotheses, which are then assessed and commented on anonymously in a second round. What emerges is a well-grounded picture of possible developments — including dissenting views, blind spots and the uncertainties that matter strategically.

What is Delphi good for?

  • Widening your perspective beyond the boundaries of your sector and your company
  • Assessing trends, technologies and future shifts in the market
  • Finding strategic direction under high uncertainty

In practice

We use Delphi when management and leadership teams want to get properly to the bottom of a strategic question: where are the future growth areas? How are customer requirements, value chains or regulatory conditions changing? And which risks are still being underestimated in the day-to-day business?

To answer that we talk to people from academia and government, existing and potential customers, sector specialists, start-ups and other companies. For a hidden champion it might mean assessing the future of a highly specialized technology. A mid-sized company might want to find out which new customer groups it could reach with the capabilities it already has. At group level, Delphi can help bring different perspectives on a single question about the future together systematically. The most valuable findings often aren’t in the headlines or the published studies — they come out of direct conversations with the people actually working on technological, political or social change.

Scenario analysis

What is scenario analysis?

Scenarios are narrative, plausible pictures of the future built on assumptions, drivers and the central uncertainties. They help companies understand several possible paths rather than building a strategy around one expected outcome alone.

Coined in part by Herman Kahn and made famous by Shell, the method makes it possible to work systematically through different developments and what they would mean for markets, business models, investments and organizations.

What are scenarios good for?

  • Developing strategic options that hold up across several futures
  • Preparing for uncertainty and disruptive change
  • Giving leadership teams a shared basis for discussing complex futures

In practice

There are dozens of ways to build scenarios. The video below explains three of them briefly. Compact approaches like the 2×2 matrix work well for examining a specific strategic question efficiently from several directions: what happens if a key customer segment’s purchasing power grows — and what if it stalls? What if demand for a new technology stays niche — and what if it becomes a mass market?

For owner-run mid-sized companies this creates a structured basis for major investment decisions. Hidden champions can test how robust their specialization is against technological or geopolitical change. Group leadership teams use more comprehensive scenarios to assess portfolios, regions or business units under different future conditions. In contentious strategy discussions in particular, scenarios help everyone step back from personal conviction and look at several plausible developments as objectively as possible.

Backcasting

What is backcasting?

Backcasting doesn’t start in the present but in a future worth having. Working from a clear picture of that future, the necessary steps are traced systematically back to the present. That opens up new perspectives and stops long-term strategy from becoming a simple extension of today’s business.

Together with management and leadership teams, we develop a concrete picture of the future and derive short-, medium- and long-term decisions, milestones and responsibilities from it.

What is backcasting good for?

  • Developing strategies that are ambitious and deliverable at the same time
  • Getting past short-term, purely reactive planning
  • Giving innovation, growth and transformation programs a clear direction

In practice

Talking about the future usually generates plenty of good ideas. But in the daily operating business, time, resources and clear ownership for long-term topics run short fast. Backcasting creates accountability: if a company wants to reach a particular goal by a particular date, what has to be in place three, five or ten years beforehand?

For mid-sized companies, the method translates big ambitions into realistic steps that match the resources actually available. Hidden champions can use it to build the capabilities, partnerships and technologies that will secure their market position long-term. In larger groups, backcasting helps connect a shared picture of the future with concrete transformation paths for business units, functions and regions.

The Futures Triangle

What is the Futures Triangle?

Developed by Sohail Inayatullah, the Futures Triangle analyzes three forces that shape any future:

  • Push: the drivers and changes of the present
  • Pull: compelling pictures of the future and shared ambitions
  • Weight: the structures, experiences and habits of thought from the past that hold things back

The method makes visible the tensions a strategic decision sits within — and why a change might not be moving forward despite every argument in its favor.

What is the Futures Triangle good for?

  • Analyzing contradictory demands on the future
  • Setting strategic priorities
  • Reflecting on cultural, structural and historical blockers

In practice

“We discussed this three years ago. It didn’t work then, so we don’t touch it now.” We hear sentences like that in companies of every size. The Futures Triangle helps surface the experiences and beliefs behind them, and test whether they still hold under changed conditions.

In family businesses and mid-sized companies, long-established decision paths or tight resources can stall an initiative aimed at the future. For hidden champions, the very specialization that has been so successful can stand in the way of a necessary shift. In large groups, structures, target systems or earlier transformation programs can prevent a convincing vision from taking hold. The method also helps put hyped trends in perspective: is this a short-term pull, or a development the company genuinely needs to respond to strategically?

The Futures Wheel

What is a Futures Wheel?

Developed by Jerome C. Glenn, the Futures Wheel is a visual thinking tool for systematically mapping the direct and indirect consequences of an event, a trend or a strategic decision.

At the center sits a single impulse — a technological innovation, a regulatory change, a shift in customer behavior. Working outward from there, we examine first-, second- and third-order effects across several rings.

What is the Futures Wheel good for?

  • Analyzing new developments systemically
  • Involving different functions and levels of leadership
  • Identifying opportunities, risks and unintended consequences early

In practice

The first-order effect of a trend is usually easy to name: AI will take over parts of what graphic designers do. For strategic decisions, though, that statement isn’t enough. What matters is what happens next. Can designers handle ten commissions instead of one? Do clients then expect lower prices and shorter turnarounds? Do creatives become managers of parallel AI processes? And what does that mean for skills, management, workload and how agencies are organized?

A Futures Wheel helps mid-sized companies grasp the operational consequences of a trend early and without excessive effort. Hidden champions can connect effects on products, customers, capabilities and supply chains. Group leadership teams use the method to make the interactions between business units, markets and functions visible. An abstract trend becomes a concrete strategic question.

Trend radar

What is a trend radar?

A trend radar is a structured analytical tool that captures, assesses and prepares relevant trends, signals and possible ruptures for use in strategy work. Developments are positioned by relevance, time horizon and uncertainty, and visualized clearly.

We build trend radars for sectors, technologies and company-specific questions — the future of work, industry, mobility or sustainability, for instance. What matters isn’t collecting as many trends as possible but what each one means for the particular company.

What is a trend radar good for?

  • Strategic early warning
  • Identifying and prioritizing new fields for innovation and growth
  • Communicating knowledge about the future clearly across the company

In practice

For mid-sized companies, a focused trend radar provides orientation without adding to the flood of information. Hidden champions can use it to watch developments outside their established market that could change their technological lead or their access to customers. In larger groups, a shared radar creates a solid basis for assessing future topics across business units, assigning ownership and reviewing strategic priorities regularly.

Want to work out which foresight method fits your strategic question and your organization? Futurewise Company supports mid-sized companies, hidden champions and group leadership teams in choosing a method, running it, and translating the results into concrete strategic decisions.

Send an email

Zukunftsforschung als Hilfe in Krisenzeiten: ein Artikel über die Arbeit der Futurewise Company

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Wenn eine Regionalzeitung eine Zukunftsforscherin zum Thema Krisenfestigkeit befragt, ist das ein gutes Zeichen. Es bedeutet, dass die Frage nach dem Umgang mit Unsicherheit dort angekommen ist, wo sie hingehört: bei den Unternehmen vor Ort.

Der SÜDKURIER hat Carina Stöttner, Gründerin der Futurewise Company, beim Friends & Family Day des Instituts für strategische Innovation und Transformation (IST) der HTWG Konstanz begleitet. Entstanden ist ein Porträt, das nicht bei der üblichen Frage stehenbleibt, was die Zukunft wohl bringen möge – sondern bei der deutlich unbequemeren, warum Organisationen so oft zu spät reagieren.

Worum es in dem Artikel geht

Autor Joshua Tress greift zwei Denkmuster auf, die im Vortrag eine zentrale Rolle spielten und die in der Beratungspraxis immer wieder auftauchen.

Das erste ist die Neigung, bedrohliche Informationen besser zu erinnern als neutrale oder positive – ein evolutionär sinnvoller Reflex, der heute allerdings dazu führen kann, dass unternehmerische Entscheidungen gar nicht erst getroffen werden. Wer die Welt vor allem durch Krisenmeldungen wahrnimmt, hält Gestaltung irgendwann für aussichtslos.

Das zweite Muster ist das gegenteilige und mindestens genauso folgenreich: die Annahme, dass alles ungefähr so weiterläuft wie bisher. Carina Stöttner hat das im Saal mit einer schlichten Frage überprüft – und die Reaktion des Publikums fiel so aus, wie sie in solchen Situationen fast immer ausfällt. Wie die Probe konkret verlief und was sie über den Umgang mit Warnsignalen verrät, steht im Artikel.

Dazu kommt ein historisches Beispiel, das wir gern erzählen, weil es einen weit verbreiteten Irrtum über Szenarioarbeit aufräumt: Ein Ölkonzern begann Anfang der Siebzigerjahre gegen die Skepsis der Branche mit systematischer Szenarioplanung. Als die Ölkrise kam, lagen die entworfenen Szenarien allesamt daneben – und das Unternehmen war trotzdem besser vorbereitet als seine Wettbewerber. Der Ertrag von Szenarien liegt eben nicht in der Trefferquote, sondern in der Reaktionsfähigkeit.

Was uns an dem Text besonders gefreut hat

Zwei Aspekte, die im Gespräch mit dem SÜDKURIER Raum bekommen haben und die im Alltag oft untergehen:

Der Markt hat sich verschoben. Vor Pandemie und Ukrainekrieg drehten sich Anfragen überwiegend um Digitalisierungsvorhaben. Heute geht es häufiger um Orientierung in einer Komplexität, die viele Organisationen nicht mehr einordnen können. Dass ausgerechnet Krisen die Nachfrage nach Zukunftsarbeit befeuern, ist ein zwiespältiger Befund – im Artikel formuliert Carina Stöttner es so: „Die Krisen haben mir in die Karten gespielt.” Verzichtbar wäre der Rückenwind allemal gewesen.

Ziele dürfen sich unterwegs verändern. Ein Punkt, der es selten in Projektbeschreibungen schafft. In der Arbeit mit Kundinnen und Kunden steht nicht das anfangs definierte Ergebnis im Mittelpunkt, sondern eine gemeinsame Suchbewegung, in deren Verlauf sich die Zielvorstellung mehrfach verschiebt. Wer unterwegs klüger wird, sollte umdisponieren dürfen.

Zum Weiterlesen

Der vollständige Beitrag beschreibt außerdem, in welchen drei Phasen sich Organisationen durch Umbruchsituationen bewegen, und wie eine Zukunftsforscherin persönlich nach vorn blickt, die beruflich täglich mit Unsicherheit zu tun hat.

👉 Was, wenn die eigene Branche wankt? Zukunftsforscherin will Unternehmen durch Krisen helfen – SÜDKURIER, 25. Juli 2026, von Joshua Tress

Unser Dank geht an das IST der HTWG Konstanz für die Einladung und an den SÜDKURIER für das Interesse an unserer Arbeit: die Bereitschaft, mehrere Zukünfte gleichzeitig ernst zu nehmen.

Warum Szenariendenken essenziell ist - Carina Stöttner in Konstanz

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Eine Methode aus den 1970er-Jahren erlebt gerade ihr Comeback. Carina Stöttner, CEO der Futurewise Company, erklärt, warum das kein Zufall ist – und was Szenarioarbeit wirklich verändert.

Die meisten Unternehmen planen mit genau einer Zukunft: der fortgeschriebenen Gegenwart. Umsatz plus X Prozent, Kosten minus Y, Marktanteil bleibt stabil. In dieser Logik steckt eine stille Annahme – dass das Morgen ein leicht verändertes Heute sein wird.

In stabilen Zeiten funktioniert das erstaunlich gut, sagt Carina Stöttner. In komplexen Zeiten wird es zum Risiko.

Genau hier setzt Szenariodenken an. Und die wichtigste Klarstellung kommt gleich zu Beginn: Szenarien sind keine Prognosen. Es geht nicht darum, richtig zu liegen. Es geht darum, auf mehrere Möglichkeiten vorbereitet zu sein.

Was Shell in den 70er-Jahren gelernt hat

Die vielleicht bekannteste Geschichte der Szenarioplanung beginnt Ende der 1960er-Jahre in der Planungsabteilung von Royal Dutch Shell. Ein paar Pioniere bekamen den Auftrag, sich mit einer damals wenig populären Möglichkeit zu beschäftigen: dass der Ölpreis steigen könnte.

Niemand bei Shell hat die Ölkrise in ihrer Schwere von 1973 vorhergesagt. Das ist, so Stöttner, der entscheidende Punkt.

Aber als sie eintrat, war sie für die Führungskräfte kein völlig unbekanntes Terrain. Sie hatten diese Welt gedanklich schon einmal betreten. Sie mussten nicht erst monatelang fassungslos sein, bevor sie handlungsfähig wurden. Während andere noch damit beschäftigt waren, das Geschehene überhaupt einzuordnen, traf Shell bereits Entscheidungen – und ging aus der Krise deutlich stärker hervor, als es hineingegangen war.

Für Carina Stöttner ist das bis heute die wichtigste Lektion der ganzen Methode:

Szenarien verändern nicht die Welt. Sie verändern die Landkarte, die Entscheider:innen im Kopf tragen.

Das eigentliche Produkt von Szenarioarbeit ist nicht das Dokument, das am Ende im Regal steht. Es ist das veränderte Denken der Menschen, die damit gearbeitet haben. Deshalb funktioniert es auch nicht, sich Szenarien einfach von außen einkaufen und präsentieren zu lassen. Wer nicht selbst durch den Prozess gegangen ist, findet den Weg nicht.

Warum unser Gehirn ein schlechter Zukunftsforscher ist

Wenn Szenarioarbeit so wirksam ist – warum tun wir uns dann so schwer damit?

Die Antwort liegt zu einem guten Teil in unserem Kopf. Unser Gehirn ist nicht darauf optimiert, über offene Zukünfte nachzudenken, erklärt Stöttner. Es ist darauf optimiert, schnell und energiesparend zu Entscheidungen zu kommen. Drei Verzerrungen stehen dabei besonders regelmäßig im Weg:

Wir denken Entwicklungen als Geraden. Exponentielles Wachstum, Kipppunkte und Sättigungskurven unterschätzen wir systematisch – erst zu lange zu wenig, dann zu spät zu viel.

Wir halten an der Normalität fest. Wenn eine Situation sich verändert, bleiben wir oft erstaunlich lange bei der Annahme, es werde schon alles beim Alten bleiben. Das ist keine Dummheit, sondern der Normalfall menschlicher Wahrnehmung unter Unsicherheit.

Der Negativitätsbias. Negative Erfahrungen wiegen schwerer als positive. Was wir kürzlich gelesen haben, was emotional aufgeladen ist, was in der eigenen Branche gerade alle diskutieren – das prägt unser Zukunftsbild stärker, als uns lieb ist.

Diese Verzerrungen sind keine Denkfehler im Sinne eines Defekts. Sie waren evolutionär sinnvoll: schnelle Urteile in einer weitgehend stabilen Umwelt. In einer komplexen Umwelt werden sie zur Schwachstelle. Und – auch das gehört zur unbequemen Wahrheit – man bekommt sie nicht dadurch weg, dass man sie kennt. Sondern nur durch Methode: durch einen Prozess, der einen zwingt, mehrere Zukünfte gleichzeitig ernst zu nehmen.

Was Szenarien konkret verändern

Was Organisationen aus guter Szenarioarbeit mitnehmen, ist selten ein fertiger Plan. Es ist eher dies:

Sprachfähigkeit. Teams bekommen Begriffe für Entwicklungen, die noch nicht sichtbar sind. Man kann nur besprechen, wofür man Worte hat.

Frühindikatoren. Wer die Szenarien kennt, weiß, worauf zu achten ist – und erkennt Bewegungen früher als der Wettbewerb.

Robuste Entscheidungen. Welche Schritte zahlen sich in allen Zukünften aus? Diese No-Regret-Moves sind oft das wertvollste Ergebnis des gesamten Prozesses.

Entkopplung von Wahrscheinlichkeit und Relevanz. Ein Ereignis kann unwahrscheinlich und trotzdem existenziell sein. Wer nur nach Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit priorisiert, sortiert genau diese Fälle aus.

Erlaubnis zum Widerspruch. Szenarien machen es sozial zulässig, im Meeting eine abweichende Zukunft auszusprechen, ohne als Pessimist:in oder Spinner:in zu gelten. Unterschätzt – und vielleicht der größte Kulturhebel von allen.

Resilienz beginnt mit der zweiten Zukunft

Vorgetragen hat Carina Stöttner diesen Impuls beim Friends & Family Day des IST in Konstanz am Bodensee. Am 9. und 10. Juli hatte das Institut zu zwei Tagen mit Unternehmer:innen, Alumni, Projektpartner:innen und langjährigen Wegbegleiter:innen geladen. Den Auftakt bildete ein Get-Together in der IHK Hochrhein-Bodensee, gestaltet von Lucas Sauberschwarz, Sebastian Strohmaier, Lukas Dieterle und Carina Stöttner. Das gemeinsame Thema: Resilienz in der Zukunft.

Nach den Impulsen ging es aufs Wasser: eine Rundfahrt über den Bodensee, gute Gespräche, ein entspanntes Anstoßen in einer Kulisse, die man sich kaum besser ausdenken könnte. Am Freitag klang der Friends & Family Day im Institut aus.

Was von diesen Tagen bleibt, ist für Stöttner vor allem eine Beobachtung: Die Bereitschaft, gemeinsam über unbequeme Zukünfte nachzudenken, ist da – und sie wächst. Genau diese Bereitschaft ist der Anfang von Resilienz. Nicht die Fähigkeit, die Zukunft vorherzusagen, sondern die Fähigkeit, auf mehr als eine vorbereitet zu sein.

Ein herzlicher Dank geht an das IST-Team für Einladung und Gastfreundschaft – und an alle, die mitgedacht, mitdiskutiert und mitgefeiert haben.

What Shell Knew Before the Crisis Hit

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

When the oil crisis struck in 1973, most companies were caught flat-footed. Shell wasn’t. They’d already spent two years thinking through how they’d need to adapt.

Why? Because back in 1971, two senior Shell managers dared to ask a simple question: what would happen if oil prices swung dramatically?*

The scenarios they built weren’t great forecasts. Their price estimates were set far too low. But it didn’t matter — and that’s the whole point. Whether oil tripled or quadrupled, the consequences rhymed: a wobbling economy, social tension and fuel theft, shifting mobility paradigms (remember car-free Sundays?), a push toward diversified supply chains, and new pricing policies.

Shell had already reasoned through those consequences. So when the shock came, they weren’t panicking, but rather already in the execution mode.

Thinking in scenarios

Thinking in scenarios is far more than playing out the single most likely outcome. It means:

  • Reasoning through many possible futures, not just one.
  • Continuously adapting your strategy, because you’ve learned to watch for the signals that one future or another is emerging.
  • A huge cultural shift — building an organization that welcomes people asking challenging questions, rather than punishing it.

That last point is the hard one. Asking “What if a pandemic shuts down the country?”, “What if kerosene is no longer available?”, or “What if the Rhine becomes unnavigable?” isn’t always welcome. It requires leaders willing to engage seriously with divergent futures — and, in doing so, to admit they don’t have 100% certainty about the years ahead.

That admission is uncomfortable. It’s also exactly what let Shell move while everyone else was still reacting.

*How it all played out at Shell is told by Dr. Henk Alkema in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WZQU8_HnA

Wenn die Führungsrunde nur teuer nickt: Group Think an der Unternehmensspitze

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Jan David Ott ist Facilitator for Longterm Strategic Decision-Making & Change bei der Futurewise Company. Auf seinem LinkedIn-Account nimmt er uns mit bei Themen zu Change Management, Leadership und Foresight. Hier veröffentlichen wir Auszüge seiner Erfahrungen.

Wie viel Geld investieren Sie in hochkarätig besetzte Führungsrunden — und am Ende hätte das Leittier genauso gut allein entscheiden können?

Das ist keine rhetorische Frage. Es gibt Phänomene in Gruppen, die wissenschaftlich gut belegt sind. Doch in Top-Führungsrunden mit Highperformer*innen kommen sie vermeintlich nicht vor. Das passt nicht zum Selbstbild. Da sollen also Extraversion, Gender und Muttersprache keinen Einfluss darauf haben, wer gehört wird und wer den Ton angibt. Schließlich werde ja „gut” moderiert.

Was ausgeblendet wird, wirkt trotzdem

Besonders gefährlich wird das beim Group Think. So sehr es das Selbstbild kränken mag — gerade in Unternehmensspitzen ist dieses Phänomen aktuell besonders relevant.

Ungeachtet vorheriger Einzelgespräche gilt: Einmal um den Tisch versammelt, möchte in Unternehmenskrisen niemand einer Lösung im Weg stehen. Alle wollen sich committen, alle an einem Strang ziehen. Doch genau dieser Zusammenhalt tötet die kritische Distanz.

Die „richtige” Lösung liegt dabei keineswegs auf der Hand. Aber wenn links und rechts alle vermeintlich zustimmen und mitmachen, überzeugt es auch mich. Meine Fragen würden da jetzt nur wertvolle Zeit kosten — so der Reflex. Und so nickt eine teuer besetzte Runde sich durch eine Entscheidung, die niemand wirklich geprüft hat.

Den Bann brechen: ein Blick in die Zukunft

Dieser Bann lässt sich lösen — mit Diskussionen über die Zukunft in 10, 15 oder 20 Jahren. Denn hier versagen Erfahrung, Karrierepfad und Pay Grade als Orientierung. Niemand am Tisch kennt die Antwort.

Richtig moderiert, verliert der Tongeber seinen Führungsstab. So entstehen seltene, wertvolle Momente in Diskussionen unter Executives, in denen tatsächlich Perspektivenvielfalt zählt — und weniger Macht und Beziehungen.

In meiner Praxis stelle ich daher eine Frage: Was sollten wir für unsere aktuelle Entscheidung über die Welt in 10 Jahren wissen? Auf Führungsteams wirkt sie oft wie ein befreiender Jungbrunnen.

Und Ihre Runde?

Eine lohnende Frage zum Schluss: Wie immun ist gerade Ihre Führungsmannschaft gegenüber Group Think?

Fear in the leadership team: A dangerous taboo for future planning

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Jan David Ott is Facilitator for Longterm Strategic Decision-Making & Change at the Futurewise Company. On his LinkedIn account he takes us along on topics related to change management, leadership, and foresight. Here we publish excerpts of his experiences.

You lead a company – and you sense the worries and fears of your leadership team regarding the future?

We all know this sentence: “Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is acting despite fear.”

But in reality, doesn’t a different expectation actually apply? Leaders don’t have fears, they have solutions. They are the sponges of the company – soaking up everyone else’s worries, and “with one wipe” it’s all gone. How? With the right mindset, of course.

The mindset list keeps getting longer

Growth mindset, agile mindset, inclusive mindset, entrepreneurial mindset…

The list is long. Mindset seems like the universal tool – whoever just has the right attitude masters everything.

A study by GP Strategies (“Great Leaders Think Differently”) breaks with this image. Because when top performers lack something, it is often not the skills required for the respective mindset. Those they acquire. What is missing is the right way of dealing with a feeling that is not allowed to occur: fear.

And now it gets interesting – also for corporate foresight

When executives have to develop long-term future strategies, they need a futures mindset. And the key to success for this is not knowledge and methods. What is decisive is the way of dealing with critical uncertainties:

What are the forces that will radically change the world in 10 to 15 years? How do they interact – and where are we headed beyond the next bend?

You can face these uncertainties. Or you can look away – and focus on what seems certain. Two years. Four years. Or rather just six months?

But here you can usually only optimize and rarely shape.

Three steps in futures sparring

That is why, in my #FuturesSparring with company leaders, I rely on three steps:

➤ First, spell out the fears – because they are an important indicator: What presumably will not stay the way it has been?

➤ Then unleash your own curiosity – long-term strategy is a vast, as yet uncultivated space for shaping. Those who engage early with critical uncertainties can look out for signals of change and see patterns. Can discover new possibilities before others see them. #Zukunftsmusik (dreams of the future) whets the appetite.

➤ And then arises courage fueled by enthusiasm and filled with energy – because the goal is no longer to lose nothing, but to gain something new.

Carina Stöttner at the LEON Congress Hesse: in conversation with Hesse's Deputy Minister-President, generals, and CEOs

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in News.

Photo: Jana Kay. From left: Brigadier General Holger Radmann, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Guido H. Baltes (moderator), Christoph Bernius (Divisional Board Member Cyber Risk, Commerzbank AG), Kaweh Mansoori (Minister of Economic Affairs), Carina Stöttner (CEO Futurewise Company), Alexander Laukenmann (Senior Executive VP Fraport), Peter R. Manolopoulos (CEO Schunk Group). A look back at the closing keynote by futures researcher Carina Stöttner at LEON 2026 – and what she had to say about the future of industrial work, resilience, and the risks of overcorrected protectionism. It is already past 5 p.m. at the Casals Forum in Kronberg. A long day of the congress lies behind the roughly one hundred decision-makers from business, science, politics, and the German armed forces. The day’s major themes – resilience, security, transformation financing, the Mittelstand as an anchor of stability – have been drawn out. Introduced by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Guido H. Baltes, Carina Stöttner takes the stage and poses the question: where could German industry and the economy develop in the future? Stöttner is a futures researcher – not a forecaster who extends charts into the next ten years, but someone who works with companies, ministries, and educational institutions to make desired futures concrete. Her closing keynote “The Future of Industrial Work” was not a full stop, but a starting signal: for a debate that has been conducted too technocratically in Germany for too long – and now needs a direction.

Resilience is not defense – but the ability to build the future

Throughout the day, resilience had been the leitmotif of LEON 2026. Minister of Economic Affairs Kaweh Mansoori had declared it the “decisive prerequisite for competitiveness.” Stöttner picked up the term – and turned it around. Resilience, as the thrust of her keynote went, is not the attempt to defend a status quo against an uncertain world. Resilience is the ability to remain capable of action despite – and with the help of – disruptive change, and to shape desirable futures. Those who understand resilience merely as a protective shield build bunkers. Those who understand it as the capacity to shape things build platforms. This set the frame for the keynote’s two major thematic strands: deeptech and radical innovation on the one side, education and the work of the future on the other.

Deeptech and radical innovation: Germany’s real question of competitiveness as a location

Germany has an innovation paradox. Strong in research, strong in patents, strong in its Mittelstand – and yet behind the USA and China in many key technologies. Stöttner delivered a diagnosis for this that resonated in the room: We have perfected incremental innovation, but have structurally weaned ourselves off radical innovation. Deeptech – that is, technologies with high scientific risk and a long development horizon, from quantum computing through synthetic biology to new energy and materials systems – requires different conditions than the optimizing innovation in which German industry grew large:
    • Longer capital horizons than the typical German financing mix offers today
    • A higher tolerance for failure, both within companies and in the logic of public funding
    • Closer interlocking of cutting-edge research and industrial scaling, as well as international cooperation
    • Talent that thinks across disciplines and can move between lab, code, and factory floor
Fotografie Kim
Fotografie Kim
Fotografie Kim
Fotografie Kim

The trade-offs of protectionism: When resilience becomes a cage

Stöttner devoted perhaps the most delicate part of her keynote to a question that is often circumvented in the current industrial-policy discourse: What happens when protectionism becomes too drastic? Resilience and sovereignty are legitimate, even compelling, goals. But they have a downside that must be named in honest industrial policy:
    • Loss of innovation through isolation. Those who reorganize critical intermediate products on a purely national basis pay not only higher unit costs, but also lose the competitive pressure and knowledge exchange that drives innovation. Closed systems age faster than open ones.
    • Strategic costs of the subsidy spiral. Every industry kept in the country by subsidy ties up resources that are then lacking elsewhere. Where investment goes into the production of efficient commodities, capacities no longer suffice for new high technologies. Industrial policy is always also an allocation decision against alternative futures.
    • Reciprocity risks. Protective measures provoke protective measures. An exporting nation like Germany loses structurally more in an escalating protectionism spiral – in social prosperity and in growth.
    • Democratic erosion. When “strategic industries” become a permanent category, the entanglements between the state and corporations grow, weakening competition and renewal in the long term.
Stöttner’s plea was not a naive call for free trade, but a plea for measure: resilience where it is relevant to security and not otherwise attainable – and openness everywhere else, because openness remains the true source of innovation and prosperity. The desirable future lies not in maximal self-sufficiency, but in smart, partnership-based sovereignty.

What remains: Three imperatives for the next decade

From Stöttner’s keynote, three imperatives can be distilled that apply to any industrial and economic location – and to Hesse in particular:
    1. Bet on deeptech and radical innovation. Incremental improvement is a mandatory exercise, no longer a competitive advantage. The real challenge is: financing, organizing, and scaling technologies with a ten- to fifteen-year horizon now.
    1. Think about education and work from the perspective of the life course. Not curricula, but learning architectures. Not qualification as a project, but learning as infrastructure.
    1. Balance resilience and openness. Sovereignty where it is indispensable. Openness everywhere else – as a source of innovation, talent, and economic strength.

About the congress: LEON 2026 in Kronberg, Hesse

On 6 May 2026, representatives from business, science, politics, and security institutions came together at the Casals Forum Wiesbaden for the new Hessian economic and industrial congress LEON. The leitmotif: resilience as the decisive question of competitiveness for the 21st century. Three brackets held the day together:
    • Resilience becomes a question of competitiveness – in the face of fragile supply chains, geopolitical tensions, and rising energy and security requirements.
    • Industry, innovation, and security can no longer be thought of separately. Key technologies such as AI or new materials have civilian and security-relevant applications.
    • From a problem of insight to a problem of implementation. “We do not have a problem of insight, but rather a task of implementation,” Minister of Economic Affairs Kaweh Mansoori put it in his opening remarks.

The keynotes and impulses at a glance

    • Kaweh Mansoori, Hessian Minister of Economic Affairs – Opening
    • Prof. Marcel Fratzscher (DIW Berlin) – Keynote: “After Us, the Future. A New Generational Contract for Freedom, Security, and Opportunity”
    • Peter R. Manolopoulos (CEO Schunk Group) – “What Makes Us Strong: Resilience in the Industrial Mittelstand”
    • Hans-Dieter Kemler (Member of the Board, Helaba) – “Transformation Financing in Germany – Hesse Leads the Way”
    • Alexander Laukenmann (Senior Executive VP Fraport) stepped in for Dr. Pierre Dominique Prümm (Member of the Board, Aviation, Fraport AG) – “Rethinking Resilience: How Aviation Shapes the Future in Turbulent Times”
    • Christoph Bernius (Divisional Board Member Cyber Risk, Commerzbank AG) – “Cyber Resilience: Europe’s Path to Security and Economic Strength”
    • Dr. Kai Beckmann (CEO Merck KGaA) – Video message on the future of Merck
    • Defence Panel with Major General Wolf-Jürgen Stahl (President, BAKS), Thomas Mailänder (EDAG), Daniel Zittel (Daimler Truck), Prof. Dr. Andreas Glas (UniBw Munich), Dr. Hans Christoph Atzpodien (BDSV), and Brigadier General Holger Radmann (Landeskommando Hesse): “Why We Need Strong Cooperation Between the Bundeswehr, Business, and Innovation”
    • Nathalia Schomerus (Legal Innovation Lead, Legora) – “Security and Resilience of German Industry with Regard to Cybersecurity”
    • Hesse’s industrial frontrunners – Presentation of six outstanding Hessian companies: JUMO, Energiesysteme Groß, Vacuumschmelze, Ponticon, Stephan Schmidt KG, and Alexander Binzel Schweisstechnik / Abicor Group
    • Carina Stöttner, futures researcher – Closing keynote: “The Future of Industrial Work”
The stage program was complemented by 13 breakout sessions on topics such as reducing bureaucracy, cybersecurity, sustainable industry, transformation financing, and security-policy cooperation – as well as a poetic-musical wrap-up at the close. LEON is designed as a long-term platform. It sees itself, in Mansoori’s words, as the prelude to a dialogue meant to shape the years ahead: “The future of Hesse as a location for innovation and industry is being decided now.”

Carina Stöttner as a speaker at IFAT for the steel and metal recycling industry

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Munich, IFAT 2026 – the world’s leading trade fair for environmental technologies. On stage sit four people negotiating together a question that could hardly be more decisive for Europe’s industrial future: Where is the circular economy heading – toward a highly technologized, globally integrated system? Or are protectionism and geopolitical fragmentation pulling it back from the international stage?

The hosts were the BDSV (German Federation of Steel Recycling and Disposal Companies) and the VDM (Association of German Metal Traders and Recyclers) – two associations that are currently merging into the future Circular Metal Association. On the panel: Murat Bayram, Andreas Schwenter, Prof. Dr. Frank Pothen – and futures researcher Carina Stöttner, whose short keynote set out the framework for the discussion.

What became visible in the process goes far beyond the industry: steel and metal recycling is one of the places where it is decided whether Europe remains industrially sovereign – and whether it does so in a way that is fit for the future.

The underrated industry: What has long existed

Before talking about the future, it is worth looking at the present. In Germany alone, around 10,000 circular economy companies account for about 300,000 jobs. In Europe, the figure runs to several million jobs. Family-run small and medium-sized enterprises, specialized plant manufacturers, highly technologized sorting operations – over the past decades they have invested billions in shredding plants, modern processing technology, and AI-supported sorting.

Murat Bayram’s message on the panel was therefore clear: This industry must stop talking itself down. Recycling operations are not a burden on the environment but, in the words of Andreas Schwenter, environmental protection facilities. They secure raw materials, avoid CO₂, enable green steel, and lay the foundation for industrial value creation in Europe.

Prof. Dr. Frank Pothen provided the economic underpinning: every ton of recycled steel scrap avoids considerable CO₂ emissions. The circular economy is not an accessory to climate policy, but its practical core.

Into this self-understanding Carina Stöttner placed her impulse – and opened up the view ahead.

IFAT Munich
IFAT Munich
IFAT Munich
IFAT Munich
IFAT Munich

Stöttner’s scenarios: possible futures for the circular economy

Stöttner’s opening question in the keynote was pointed: Where is our industrial economy heading? And what does that mean for the steel, metal, and recycling industry?

  • Scenario A – High-tech circular economy. A globally integrated circular economy in which AI sorting, robotics, new materials sciences, digital material passports, and international cooperation work together. Recycling rates rise drastically, the quality of secondary raw materials reaches primary level, and Europe becomes the technology leader in a growth market.
  • Scenario B – customers migrate away and relocate production largely abroad. And with them go raw materials in the form of production scrap, as well as the demand for recycled materials.
  • Scenario C – fragmented protective economy. Rising protectionism, new export bans, regional isolation. The industry loses economies of scale, investment power, and innovation pressure. The circular economy does become necessary, but does not turn into a global growth field.

Her message: Which scenario comes to pass is not a forecast. It is a decision. And this decision is being made right now – in Brussels, in Berlin, in supervisory boards, in investment committees.

Deeptech as the future formula of the circular economy

What Stöttner made particularly clear at IFAT: The next stage of the circular economy is a deeptech stage.

In concrete terms, that means:

  • AI-supported sorting and material identification, delivering secondary raw materials in qualities that today only primary raw materials achieve
  • Robotics in the dismantling of complex products – from electric cars and wind turbines to electronics
  • New materials and processes that orient product design toward circularity from the very outset
  • International cooperation in research, standards, and trade, because no single market is large enough to bear these investments alone

The trade-off: When protection weakens the very industry it is meant to protect

It was precisely at this point that Stöttner’s keynote interlocked with the pointed position of the associations on the panel. Andreas Schwenter and Murat Bayram were unequivocal on one matter: Protectionism, export bans, and additional trade barriers are not a future strategy.

The logic behind this is not ideological, but rooted in industrial reality:

  • Those who seal off markets deprive the industry of investment power. Recycling technology scales only with global sales markets – not with national residual volumes.
  • Those who restrict scrap exports slow innovation. International competition is precisely what has made the German recycling industry into the leading position it holds today.
  • Those who bet on self-sufficiency lose quality. Secondary raw materials require specialization, sorting purity, and international material flows. Closed systems produce lower qualities at higher prices.
  • Those who overload the Mittelstand with bureaucracy weaken the backbone of the circular economy. The ten thousand companies that carry the system need framework conditions that enable – not hold back.

That does not mean: no sovereignty. It means: smart sovereignty instead of a protective-wall reflex. Strategic reserves, diversification of critical material flows, European standards – yes. Long-term, blanket export bans and new walls – no.

Stöttner’s contribution to this: An industry that hunkers down gains short-term security and loses long-term future. The desirable circular economy is open, cooperative, and technologically ambitious – not defensive.

What the industry needs now: less nostalgia, more courage

From the panel and Stöttner’s keynote, four imperatives for the coming years could be distilled – not as finished answers, but as the right questions:

  1. Self-confidence instead of justification mode. For decades, the industry has been solving in practice what others demand in theory. This achievement belongs in the public narrative about climate protection and industrial sovereignty.
  2. Deeptech investments now. AI, robotics, new materials, and digital traceability are no longer pilot projects. They are the foundational technologies of the sector for the next twenty years.
  3. Framework conditions that enable. Reducing bureaucracy, faster approval procedures, reliable energy and trade policy – so that investments can take place in Europe rather than elsewhere.
  4. International cooperation as a strategy. European strength does not arise from going it alone, but in alliance with global partners, shared standards, and open markets – while maintaining sovereignty in genuine key areas.

The announced merger of BDSV and VDM into the Circular Metal Association fits precisely into this line: more clout, more unity, more future – and an industry that is finally positioning itself the way it has long been set up.

Conclusion: The future of the circular economy can be shaped

Stöttner’s central message at IFAT: The future is not predetermined. It can be shaped.

Whether Europe builds a global high-tech circular economy or retreats into a fragmented protective economy will not be decided in forecasts. It will be decided in the next rounds of investment, in the next wave of European regulation, in the question of whether the industry takes its own strength seriously – and whether politics has the courage to open up spaces of possibility rather than close them.

About the event

The IFAT in Munich is the world’s leading trade fair for water, wastewater, waste, and raw materials management. On the joint stage format of BDSV and VDM – the associations of the steel and metal recycling industry that are merging into the Circular Metal Association – the following took part in the discussion:

  • Carina Stöttner, futures researcher, CEO futurewise company
  • Murat Bayram, President, VDM
  • Andreas Schwenter, President, BDSV
  • Prof. Dr. Frank Pothen, Professor of economics at the University of Applied Sciences (Ernst-Abbe-Hochschule) in Jena

Offsite: Why executive boards, executives, and teams need a change of scenery

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

When the calendar is overflowing, the strategy is talked to death between two quarterly reports, and no one knows anymore what the team is actually working on – then it’s time for an offsite. But what lies behind the term that, in corporations and start-ups alike, is increasingly becoming a fixed part of leadership work?

Offsite meaning: More than just a change of scenery

The literal translation of offsite into German is simply “away from the location.” But the meaning of offsite goes far beyond the geographical aspect. An offsite is a planned work event outside the usual office environment that creates space for strategic thinking, intensive collaboration, and undisturbed reflection.

In contrast to the classic meeting in the conference room, an offsite event pursues three central goals:

  • Distance from day-to-day business, in order to sharpen the view of the big picture
  • Concentrated working time for strategic matters without interruptions from operational topics
  • Strengthening of relationships among the participants

While the term has long been established in English, offsite in German is increasingly catching on in business language – as a synonym for closed-session conference, strategy workshop, or leadership retreat.

The various formats: From the team offsite to the shareholder offsite

Not every offsite is the same. Depending on the group of participants and the objective, different formats have become established.

Team offsite

The team offsite is aimed at working groups, departments, or project teams. The focus here is on operational planning, team culture, and solving concrete challenges. Typical topics are quarterly planning, retrospectives, onboarding new team members, or the development of shared ways of working.

Company offsite

A company offsite encompasses the entire workforce or at least large parts of it. Such formats often have an event character and combine work phases with shared experiences. They are particularly suited to conveying company values, making strategies transparent, and strengthening the sense of togetherness – an aspect that is becoming ever more important in times of distributed teams and hybrid work.

Executive board offsite and board meeting offsite

The offsite for the executive board is the premier format of strategic closed sessions. Here, the management, board members, or C-level come together to work on fundamental questions away from operational pressure: Where does the company stand? Where is the market heading? Which strategic course must be set now?

A board meeting offsite goes beyond the formal session. While regular board meetings are often dominated by mandatory topics, reportings, and resolutions, the offsite format creates space for more in-depth discussions about future themes, risks, and opportunities.

Shareholder offsite

The shareholder offsite brings together shareholders, investors, and management. Such meetings serve the strategic exchange about the long-term direction of the company, upcoming investment decisions, or the assessment of business development. In contrast to the annual general meeting, the focus here is on confidential, dialogue-based exchange.

Why classic offsite meetings often fail

Despite good intentions, many offsite meetings turn out disappointing. The most common causes can be traced back to a few patterns.

For one thing, the preparation is underestimated. An offsite is not a change of scenery with random discussions, but requires a clear agenda, a well-thought-out methodology, and defined outcome goals. For another, neutral facilitation is often lacking. When the management facilitates and joins the discussion on substance at the same time, both roles suffer. Important voices go unheard, conflicts are swept under the rug, decisions are postponed.

Another problem: the lack of follow-up. What was decided at the offsite peters out in day-to-day business if no consistent implementation follows.

What makes a good offsite

Successful offsites are characterized by a few central features. They have a clear focus rather than an overloaded agenda – better to truly penetrate two topics than to skim over ten superficially. They make use of the right environment, because the place shapes thinking: an inspiring venue opens up different mental spaces than the conference room at headquarters.

Good offsites work with professional facilitation that guides through complex discussions, involves all voices, and also puts uncomfortable topics on the table. They combine work and recovery in a dramaturgy that interlocks phases of concentration with informal encounters, movement, and reflection time. And they end with concrete results: defined measures, responsibilities, and timelines.

Strategic topics for executive board offsites

At the executive board level in particular, certain thematic fields have proven especially valuable for offsite formats.

Future strategy: How does the company position itself over the next five to ten years? Which technological, regulatory, and societal developments will shape the business model? Such questions need time, space, and a protected setting.

Scenario planning: Instead of linear forecasts, executive boards develop alternative images of the future at offsites. What happens if the economy slumps? If a new competitor shakes up the market? If regulatory requirements change fundamentally? Thinking in scenarios makes the company more resilient.

Sharpening the customer view: In the operational everyday, leaders often lose their direct line to customers. An offsite can bring this view back into focus – through customer journey analyses, persona work, or direct exchange with selected customers.

Organizational development: Phases of growth, crises, or strategic realignments raise the question of whether the organization still fits the strategy. Executive board offsites offer the setting to fundamentally question structures, processes, and leadership models.

The underrated factor: External facilitation

Anyone planning an offsite at the executive board level or in the extended leadership circle should not underestimate one aspect: the facilitation. External, professional facilitation brings several advantages. It is neutral, has no political interests within the company, and can also ask the difficult questions that no one internally dares to voice. It structures discussions with proven methods, ensures the participation of everyone present, and captures results in such a way that they become actionable.

Especially with strategically highly relevant topics such as future strategy or scenario planning, this investment pays off. The difference between a well-facilitated and a poorly facilitated executive board offsite can amount to several million euros – in wrongly set priorities, missed opportunities, or delayed decisions.

Conclusion: The offsite as a strategic instrument

An offsite is not a luxury, but a strategic tool. Properly conceived and professionally facilitated, it creates clarity where complexity reigns, alignment where silos dominate, and the capacity to act where stagnation looms. Whether as a team offsite, company offsite, executive board closed session, or shareholder offsite – the format unfolds its effect when preparation, facilitation, and follow-up interlock professionally.

The change of scenery alone does not yet make for success. But combined with clear focus, methodological depth, and neutral leadership, the offsite becomes a lever for the most important decisions of your company.

Book offsite facilitation for executive boards and executives

Are you planning an offsite on topics such as future strategy, scenario planning, or the customer view – and would you like it to truly have an impact? Experienced external facilitation ensures that your valuable time at the C-level leads to concrete results.

Arrange a no-obligation conversation now and have your next executive board or executive offsite professionally facilitated.

Jan David Ott and Carina Stöttner are a well-coordinated team when it comes to facilitating your executive board or leadership offsite. Request a no-obligation initial conversation.

Ideas from our foresight work with executives that every leader should know

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, Future Topic, News.

When we think about the future, our attention goes forward almost automatically: to trends, scenarios, risks and opportunities. But one of the most underrated questions in strategic leadership isn’t what comes next?

It’s this:

What would we have decided differently in the past?

I have little time for simply extending past developments in a straight line into the future. But questioning past decisions — even playing out alternative pasts in your head — is a remarkably effective instrument for making better decisions tomorrow.

Two methods I use regularly in my work with leadership teams:

1. Counterfactual thinking: what if we had decided differently?

Picture a city that handed its best city-center locations to large shopping centers and international chains in the 2010s: H&M, Zara, the usual names.

At the time it looked sensible. Big brands were considered safe. They brought footfall, spending power and reliable tax revenue.

Ten years on, the city center is hollowed out. E-commerce has eaten away at a lot of those store models. Rents stayed high. The cafés, independent shops and local concepts that make a city center feel alive never had a real chance.

The underlying assumption back then was:
large chains are resilient. They draw people in. They’re the future.

But what if the city had decided differently? What could it have done instead, and what would the consequences have been?

That’s where counterfactual thinking earns its keep. The method doesn’t only show what went wrong. It exposes which assumption made the decision feel obvious at the time.

And that’s what makes it strategically relevant today:

Which of our current certainties will look like that empty shopping center in ten years?

2. The pre-mortem: how did it fail?

The second approach is the pre-mortem.

A city is planning its first big marathon. Before any decisions are final, the team asks an unusual question:

Imagine it’s the evening after the event — and it was a failure. What happened?

Suddenly the answers start arriving:

  • Not enough medical staff along the route
  • Road closures were never communicated to residents
  • Aid stations were in the wrong places
  • The start clashed with another major event

None of it was in the original plan. All of it could be fixed in time.

The pre-mortem shifts the perspective. Instead of asking abstractly could this fail?, it asks something more concrete and more useful:

How did it fail?

Imagining failure in advance makes it far more likely you’ll spot the real risks early — before they get expensive.

Why these methods matter for leaders

Strategic work involves a lot of looking forward: market shifts, technological developments, geopolitical scenarios.

But some of the clearest thinking about the future comes from an honest — or hypothetical — look backwards.

Because that’s where you see:

  • which assumptions you’d been treating as facts
  • which risks you systematically underestimated
  • which thinking errors you may well be repeating right now

Being ready for the future isn’t only about looking ahead. It’s also about examining your own certainties.