Skip to main content

Tag: Foresight

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

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.

Thinking in Futures: Scenario Development in Foresight

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, Foresight Method.

The future never arrives as a single, predictable line. This is why strategic foresight has largely abandoned the idea of “predicting” what comes next in favor of something far more useful: developing scenarios – multiple, plausible, internally consistent stories about how the future could unfold.

Scenario development is not about being right, but about being prepared. It helps organizations stretch their imagination, stress-test their strategies, and recognize the early signals of change before competitors do. Below, we’ll walk through what scenario development is, why it matters, and three of the most influential approaches practitioners use today: the Shell scenario method, the 2×2 matrix, and the archetypes approach.

Why Scenarios?

Traditional forecasting extrapolates from the present: take last year’s numbers, adjust for known trends, and project forward. This works reasonably well in stable environments. It fails spectacularly when the world shifts — during pandemics, geopolitical ruptures, technological leaps, or financial crises.

Scenarios are not about the question: “what is most likely?”, but about “what is possible, and what would each possibility mean for us?” A good set of scenarios captures the genuine uncertainty of the future without dissolving into infinite possibilities. They are tools for decision-making under deep uncertainty, helping leaders see their assumptions, identify blind spots, and build strategies robust across multiple futures.

There are dozens of ways to develop scenarios, so here are the most interesting ones:

The Shell Scenario Approach

No discussion of scenario planning is complete without Royal Dutch Shell. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Shell’s planners – most famously Pierre Wack – pioneered a method that would become legendary after the company anticipated the 1973 oil crisis when its competitors did not.

The Shell approach is intensive, narrative-driven, and deeply qualitative. It typically begins with framing a strategic question — something concrete enough to matter but broad enough to invite real exploration. From there, planners scan the environment for driving forces: technological, economic, environmental, political, and social factors that shape the issue. These forces are then sorted by importance and uncertainty, and the most critical uncertainties become the backbone of two to four richly developed scenarios.

What makes the Shell method distinctive is its emphasis on storytelling and challenge. Scenarios are not bullet-point lists of conditions; they are coherent, plausible narratives with internal logic, vivid detail, and named characters of change. The goal is to produce stories that surprise executives, force them to confront mental models, and leave a lasting impression. Shell still publishes major scenario studies today, often with multi-decade time horizons exploring energy transitions and geopolitical shifts. The strength of the Shell approach is depth. Its weakness is cost: doing it well takes months of work, skilled facilitators, and senior leadership engagement.

The 2×2 Matrix Method

If the Shell approach is the gold standard, the 2×2 matrix is the workhorse. Developed and popularized by the Global Business Network (GBN) in the 1990s — drawing heavily on Shell’s intellectual heritage — it offers a faster, more accessible way to generate four scenarios that span a meaningful range of futures.

The method is elegant in its simplicity. After identifying the driving forces relevant to the question at hand, the team selects the two most important and most uncertain forces. These become the axes of a matrix. Each axis runs from one extreme to the other (for example, “high regulation” to “low regulation”), and the four resulting quadrants each describe a distinct future world.

Imagine a company exploring the future of urban mobility. The team might land on two critical uncertainties: the pace of autonomous vehicle adoption (slow vs. fast) and the dominant ownership model (private vs. shared). The four quadrants then yield four very different futures — a world of privately owned self-driving cars, a world of shared autonomous fleets, a world of traditional private ownership, and a world of shared human-driven mobility. Each quadrant gets a name, a narrative, and a set of implications for strategy.

The 2×2 method is widely loved because it is fast, visually intuitive, and produces scenarios that feel meaningfully different. It works well in workshops and is easy to communicate to stakeholders. The trade-off: by collapsing complexity into two axes, it can oversimplify, and the choice of axes carries enormous weight. Pick the wrong two uncertainties and you get four scenarios that feel hollow.

The Archetypes Approach

The archetypes method takes a different starting point. Rather than building scenarios from the ground up via driving forces, it draws on the observation — first made systematically by futurist Jim Dator and developed further by researchers like Sohail Inayatullah and Peter Bishop — that scenario stories tend to cluster around a small number of recurring patterns. Dator’s classic four archetypes are:

Continued Growth — the future as more of the present, with established trends extending forward. Economies expand, technology progresses, institutions persist.

Collapse — systems break down. Environmental, economic, political, or social crises overwhelm existing structures, leading to significant decline or rupture.

Discipline — society organizes around a constraining principle, often in response to limits. Resources, behaviors, or freedoms are deliberately constrained to preserve something deemed essential — sustainability, security, tradition, equality.

Transformation — a fundamental shift in what it means to be human or to organize society, typically driven by technological, spiritual, or values-based change. The post-transformation world operates by different rules entirely.

Practitioners take their core question and write each archetype into a scenario specific to the topic. A study of the future of higher education, for example, would produce a “continued growth” scenario where universities keep expanding, a “collapse” scenario where the model breaks under financial and demographic pressure, a “discipline” scenario where education is reorganized around tighter purposes and constraints, and a “transformation” scenario where AI, biotechnology, or new social structures redefine learning entirely. The archetypes approach is powerful because it forces teams to consider futures they might otherwise avoid — particularly collapse and transformation, which executives often find uncomfortable. It also produces scenarios that span a genuinely wide possibility space. Its limitation is that the archetypes can feel formulaic if applied mechanically, and they sometimes obscure the specific driving forces shaping a particular issue.

Our Approach at the Futurewise Company

At Futurewise, we don’t believe in one-size-fits-all foresight. Every strategic question carries its own texture — different uncertainties, different stakeholders, different time horizons — and our methodology adapts accordingly. While we draw on the established traditions described above, we typically build scenarios through a tailored sequence that combines several techniques into a coherent process.

We often begin with the Futures Wheel, a structured ideation tool that helps us trace the ripple effects of a change. Starting from a central trigger — a new technology, a regulatory shift, a demographic transition — we map out first-order consequences, then second- and third-order effects radiating outward. This is particularly powerful for surfacing emerging customer needs or identifying problems that haven’t yet appeared on anyone’s radar. If autonomous delivery becomes mainstream, what new anxieties, opportunities, or behaviors does that create two or three steps down the line? The Futures Wheel makes the implicit explicit.

Once we’ve identified emerging needs or problems, we ask the critical follow-up question: under what conditions would these actually emerge? A trend identified in a workshop is not the same as a trend that will materialize in the world. We systematically define the conditions that would have to hold — regulatory environments, technological maturity, consumer trust, infrastructure readiness, geopolitical stability — for each potential development to take shape.

These conditions are then assessed through an impact/uncertainty matrix. Each condition is plotted on two dimensions: how much it would shape the outcome if it occurred (impact), and how unpredictable its trajectory is (uncertainty). The conditions that cluster in the high-impact, high-uncertainty corner become our candidates for scenario axes — because these are precisely the factors where being wrong matters most and where the future genuinely could break in different directions.

From this assessment, we select the most strategically critical uncertainties as our axes and build out scenarios. To pressure-test and enrich these scenarios, we draw on an adapted Delphi Method. The classical Delphi approach gathers expert input through anonymous multi-round surveys until consensus emerges, but we’ve reshaped it to fit the realities of strategic work with executives. Instead of running surveys, we conduct semi-structured 1:1 interviews built around hypotheses derived from our earlier foresight work — the Futures Wheels, the impact/uncertainty assessments, the draft scenario matrices. This format preserves the comparability across experts that makes Delphi valuable, while allowing for the depth, nuance, and unexpected insights that only a real conversation can surface. We then synthesize these expert perspectives to sharpen our scenarios, identify future growth opportunities, and build decision-relevant views on the strategic risks and opportunities our clients face.

Choosing an Approach

These three methods are not in competition. Experienced practitioners often combine them, using the Shell method’s rigor for high-stakes long-term studies, the 2×2 matrix for workshops and rapid strategy sessions, and the archetypes for ensuring breadth of imagination. The right choice depends on the question, the time available, and the audience.

What unites all three is a fundamental commitment: take the future seriously as a space of multiple possibilities, build coherent stories about those possibilities, and use them to make better decisions today. Done well, scenario development does not eliminate uncertainty — it equips you to act wisely within it.

The future will still surprise you. But with good scenarios, fewer of those surprises will be the kind that catch you completely off guard.

The Delphi Method in Foresight - and How We Use It

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, Foresight Method.

Originally developed at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s, the Delphi method is a structured way to gather and synthesize expert opinion on questions about the future – particularly where data is scarce and uncertainty is high. It is a multi-stage, survey-based approach used in foresight, typically designed to arrive at a stable assessment through controlled feedback across several rounds, while avoiding the influence of dominant individuals.

In foresight, Delphi is less about asking open questions and more about testing sharply formulated hypotheses about how the future might unfold. It allows us to systematically confront these hypotheses with diverse expert perspectives – across hierarchies, geographies, and sectors – and to understand not only where views converge, but where they meaningfully diverge. The goal is not a single prediction, but a clearer map of plausible futures, underlying assumptions, and critical uncertainties.

At the Futurewise Company, we have adapted the method to fit strategic work with executives. Instead of anonymous multi-round surveys, we run Delphi as semi-structured 1:1 interviews based on hypotheses derived from earlier foresight tools such as Futures Wheels or scenario matrices. This approach preserves comparability across interviews while allowing for depth, nuance, and unexpected insights. We then synthesize these expert perspectives to refine scenarios, explore future growth opportunities, and build decision-relevant views on strategic risks and opportunities.

Starting With Hypotheses

Before we ever talk to an expert, we need to know what we are actually trying to learn. That foundation comes from earlier foresight work — typically a Futures Wheel, a 2×2 scenario matrix, or both.

These tools generate something useful: a map of the drivers, dependencies, and fields that matter for our research question. From that map, we extract two things. First, the topical territory we need to cover. Second, the conditions that are simultaneously high impact and high uncertainty — the places where the future is genuinely unsettled and where expert input will move our thinking the most.

This, for how we conduct Delphi interviews at the Futurewise Company, is the raw material for hypothesis formulation.

A hypothesis like “manufacturing will change in Germany” is useless. Nobody will disagree with it, and nobody will say anything interesting in response. Compare it to: “In 2036, most manufacturing and production will be outsourced. What remains in Germany is R&D only.”

That version is specific. It commits to a timeframe, a geography, and a structural claim. It is also slightly provocative — and that is intentional. Vague hypotheses get vague answers. Provocative hypotheses force experts to either defend or dismantle the claim, and either response gives you signal.

The rule we follow: be specific, and lean toward the provocative end. If your hypothesis could be the headline of a contrarian opinion piece, you are probably in the right zone.

Choosing the Right Experts

Once the hypotheses are sharp, we work backwards from them to figure out who needs to weigh in. A good Delphi panel is not just “smart people we can reach.” It is a deliberately structured group designed to surface different angles on the same question.

We think about diversity along several axes:

  • Hierarchy. Strategic voices (C-suite, policy leads) see the system. Operational voices (engineers, plant managers, frontline analysts) see the friction. Both are necessary, and they often disagree in productive ways.
  • Geography. A question about German manufacturing looks different from Munich, Shenzhen, and Detroit.
  • Organizational background. We aim for a mix across academia, government, media, industry, civil society, think tanks, and consultancies. Each sector carries its own incentives and blind spots, and the contrast is where insight lives.

The goal is not balance for its own sake. It is to make sure that when consensus does emerge, it is meaningful – and when disagreement emerges, we know exactly which fault lines are doing the work.

Finding and Reaching Experts

The hardest part is often just getting people to talk to you. A few channels work consistently for us:

LinkedIn is the obvious starting point, but the higher-yield move is browsing speaker lists from relevant conferences. People who agree to speak publicly on a topic are, by definition, experts in their field and willing to talk about it — a rarer combination than it sounds.

Internal networks are underrated. Your CEO, your shareholders, and your sales team often have networks that took decades to build. Use them. A warm introduction from them beats a cold message every time.

Beyond that: scientists who have published recently in the area, VCs investing in the space (they have done their own diligence and are usually happy to share a slice of it), and journalists covering the beat. Journalists in particular tend to know a lot of people and have a strong sense of who is worth listening to versus who is just loud.

Designing the Questions

Generic questions produce generic answers. The framing techniques below are designed to get experts out of their default talking points and into more useful territory.

Post-mortem questions project the panelist into a future where something has already happened, and ask them to explain it. “It is 2036, and Germany has lost its position as a manufacturing hub. What were the three decisions in the 2020s that caused this?” This bypasses the natural tendency to hedge and forces a causal narrative.

Best-case scenario questions do the inverse. “Imagine the optimistic version of 2036 for German industry. What does it look like, and what had to go right?” Useful for surfacing what experts secretly hope for, which is often a better signal than what they predict.

Lived-reality questions ground the abstract in the concrete. “You wake up in 2036 and walk into a production site. What has changed since 2026?” Sensory, specific framing pulls people away from buzzwords and toward detail.

Counterfactual futures stress-test dependencies. “If Person X had not remained in office after 2028, what would have shifted in the years that followed?” This exposes which assumptions in an expert’s worldview are actually load-bearing — and which are just decoration.

Running the Interviews

In our case, we run the panel as semi-structured 1:1 interviews. Fully structured interviews are too rigid; you miss the digressions where the real insight often lives. Fully unstructured ones make cross-comparison impossible. Semi-structured is the sweet spot.

We build a question guideline organized around the hypotheses, clustered by theme. Not every expert gets every question — a regulatory scholar and a factory floor manager have different things to offer, and forcing them through identical scripts wastes everyone’s time. But within each cluster, we keep enough overlap across panelists that we can compare answers meaningfully later.

Every interview is recorded and transcribed. This is non-negotiable. Memory distorts, and the analysis phase depends on having the actual words.

Analyzing What You Heard

The analysis is essentially a search for two patterns: similarity and difference.

Where do experts converge? Convergence across a diverse panel — different sectors, hierarchies, geographies — is a strong signal. It does not mean they are right, but it means a particular view of the future is widely held by people who have thought hard about it. That is worth knowing, and worth challenging.

Where do they diverge? This is usually the more interesting finding. Sharp disagreement often maps onto the high-uncertainty zones we identified at the start, and the shape of the disagreement matters. Are the academics aligned against the industry voices? Are the strategists split from the operators? Is it a regional pattern? Each of these tells you something different about what the real fault lines in your topic actually are.

Our recommendation: Read between the lines: sometimes the most important things get mentioned in passing – a throwaway aside, a half-finished thought – and AI-driven analysis tends to miss exactly those moments, so during the interview take notes, especially on the minor mentions that feel quietly major.

The output of a Delphi round is rarely a clean answer. It is a more textured map: clearer on which futures have broad expert backing, clearer on which ones are genuinely contested, and clearer on what would have to change for one trajectory to win out over another.

Why Delphi?

Delphi works because it does something neither pure data analysis nor pure intuition can do on its own. It systematically harvests tacit knowledge — the kind that lives in the heads of people who have spent careers in a field — and structures it well enough that you can compare, contrast, and act on it.

What Is a Futures Wheel?

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Allgemein, Foresight, Foresight Method.

A simple tool to think complex thoughts about the future

The Futures Wheel is one of those rare foresight tools that looks deceptively simple — and then quietly forces you to confront how non-linear the future really is.

Originally developed in 1971 by Jerome C. Glenn, the Futures Wheel has guided futurists, strategists, and decision-makers for more than five decades in exploring the ripple effects of change. It is also documented in the Futures Research Methodology (FRM), one of the core reference works in professional foresight.

At its core, the Futures Wheel helps individuals and organizations move beyond linear cause-and-effect thinking, and instead map how one change can cascade across systems, sectors, and societies.

The basic idea

A Futures Wheel is a structured, visual brainstorming method used in strategic foresight to explore the direct and indirect consequences of a specific trend, event, decision, or innovation.

It asks:

“And then what?”
“And what follows from that?”
“Who else is affected, and how?”

The result looks a bit like a spider web or a set of concentric circles — but conceptually, it represents chains of impact spreading outward over time.

How a Futures Wheel is structured

The structure is deliberately simple:

1. The center: the change

At the core sits a single, clearly defined change, often phrased as a thesis:

  • A new technology
  • A regulatory shift
  • A strategic decision
  • A societal or economic trend

Example: “Autonomous trucks become mainstream in Europe.”

2. First-order consequences

In the first ring around the center, you map direct, immediate effects — the things that happen because the change occurs.

These are often the most obvious impacts.

3. Second- and third-order consequences

From each first-order consequence, you then ask: “What does this lead to?”

These indirect effects populate the outer rings:

  • Effects of effects
  • Side effects
  • Feedback loops
  • Unintended consequences

What problem does the Futures Wheel solve?

Most strategic thinking fails in one of two ways:

  • It stays too linear (“If X happens, Y follows”).
  • It focuses only on first-order effects, missing the real strategic implications.

The Futures Wheel is designed to do the opposite. Its purpose is to:

  • Surface complex, interconnected consequences
  • Reveal unexpected risks and opportunities
  • Challenge optimistic or pessimistic single-story futures
  • Make implicit assumptions visible

In short: it helps teams think systemically about change.

Where and how it is used

The Futures Wheel is widely applied across contexts, including:

  • Strategy & innovation: exploring second-order effects of new products or business models
  • Technology foresight: assessing societal, economic, and regulatory impacts of emerging tech
  • Policy & regulation: anticipating unintended consequences of laws or reforms
  • Organizational decision-making: stress-testing major strategic moves

It is especially useful early in a foresight or strategy process, before numbers, roadmaps, or KPIs narrow the field of vision.

Was ist Futures Thinking?

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight.

Futures Thinking, auch bekannt als Strategisches Zukunftsdenken oder Foresight Thinking, ist ein interdisziplinärer und strategischer Ansatz, um sich mit der Vielfalt möglicher Zukünfte auseinanderzusetzen. Anders als bei klassischen Prognosen oder linearen Zukunftsmodellen geht es beim Futures Thinking nicht um Vorhersagen, sondern um den aktiven Umgang mit Unsicherheit, Komplexität und Wandel.

Im Zentrum steht die Fähigkeit, Multioptionalität – also mehrere denkbare Zukünfte – anzuerkennen und daraus Erkenntnisse für die Gegenwart abzuleiten.

„Futures Thinking darf nicht als sinnloser Versuch missverstanden werden, die Zukunft vorherzusagen – denn diese ist per Definition nicht vorhersagbar. Vielmehr vermittelt Futures Thinking die Fähigkeit, mit Unsicherheiten umzugehen und Komplexität zu bewältigen. Es befähigt Menschen dazu, ihre bevorzugten Zukunftsszenarien aktiv zu gestalten und mitzugestalten.“

-Canina, Bruno & Monestier: Futures Thinking (SpringerLink)

Futures Thinking ist eine methodisch gestützte Denkweise, die Organisationen, Regierungen und Individuen hilft, mögliche zukünftige Veränderungen und Unsicherheiten zu verstehen und damit umzugehen.

Wer nutzt Futures Thinking?

Die britische Regierung nutzt Futures Thinking, um politischen Entscheidungen eine langfristige Perspektive zu geben. Laut einem offiziellen Leitfaden der Regierung bieten Methoden der Zukunftsforschung „einen strukturierten Ansatz, der robust ist und auf langfristige Veränderungen reagiert.“ (GOV.UK, 2022)

Auch Unternehmen wie E.ON setzen auf Futures Thinking, um ihre Branche auf die Zukunft auszurichten. Sie beschreiben Futures Thinking sogar als dieFähigkeit des Jahrhunderts:

„Futures thinking is a key skill for this century.“

– Hiromi Valenzo, Foresight-Expertin bei E.ON (E.ON Innovation)

Welche Methoden gibt es im Futures Thinking?

Häufig genutzte Tools sind:

  • Szenarienentwicklung
  • Horizon Scanning (Trends und Zukunftsentwicklungen systematisch recherchieren)
  • Backcasting (Rückwärtsdenken vom Ziel)
  • Futures Wheel (Konsequenzen verschiedener Zukunftsentwicklungen durchdenken)
  • Delphi-Methode (Mehrstufige, qualitative Interview-Methode)
  • Cross Impact Analysis (Verknüpfung verschiedener Trends und deren Auswirkungen)

Was unterscheidet Futures Thinking von Trendforschung?

Statt sich auf einzelne Trends oder Detailprognosen zu fokussieren, rückt Futures Thinking große gesellschaftliche, technologische, wirtschaftliche oder ökologische Dynamiken in den Fokus. Das Ziel ist es, neue Handlungsräume zu eröffnen und den strategischen Horizont zu erweitern.

Futures Thinking ist ein strategischer Ansatz zur Betrachtung der Zukunft aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln. Im Zentrum steht die Fähigkeit, Multioptionalität anzuerkennen und Unsicherheit sowie Komplexität aktiv zu gestalten, statt die Zukunft linear vorherzusagen.

Wünschenswerte Zukünfte können, müssen aber nicht im Zentrum stehen: Entscheidend ist die Erweiterung des Denk- und Handlungshorizonts durch die systematische Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen möglichen Zukünften.

Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Futures Thinking und Futures Literacy?

Futures Thinking ist ein Denkansatz und Methodenset.
Futures Literacy ist eine Grundkompetenz, um mit Zukünften reflektiert umgehen zu können:

„Futures Literacy hilft Menschen zu verstehen, warum und wie wir die Zukunft nutzen, um uns vorzubereiten, zu planen und mit der Komplexität und Neuartigkeit unserer Gesellschaften umzugehen.“ (UNESCO)

Why I founded the Futurewise Company

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in News. 1 Comment on Why I founded the Futurewise Company

For years I have been working with executive boards and decision-makers. Through Covid, a war in Europe, the energy crisis, inflation, and shattered supply chains. Amid all these upheavals, I have experienced one thing again and again: leadership no longer takes place under stable conditions, but under permanent uncertainty.

In recent months, I have conducted many of these conversations even more consciously. I asked: What is really preoccupying you right now?

The answers are astonishingly similar.

When proven business models no longer hold

Many business models – especially in our European flagship industries – are beginning to wobble. For decades, it was enough to continuously optimize existing products, processes, and structures. Efficiency was the growth driver.

The last few years, however, have shown: that is no longer enough. Optimization alone creates no new growth when markets, technologies, and geopolitical conditions shift simultaneously.

Growth does not arise in the obvious business fields, because these are heavily contested and therefore hardly profitable. The blue oceans of the future, by contrast, are not (yet) apparent at first glance – and are thus often associated with high risk. The truly effective levers therefore frequently lie precisely where uncertainty reigns – and thus also fear.

To seize these opportunities, companies must learn to break away from pure process and optimization thinking and to think more radically again. This is not a purely strategic task, but also a cultural one. The step from maximum safeguarding toward consciously taken risk is difficult, especially for organizations that have been optimized for stability for decades.

This is exactly where futures thinking comes in: as a structured space for thinking and decision-making for radical innovation.

When not deciding becomes the greatest danger

At the same time, I am experiencing a second thing, almost even more urgent: making decisions is becoming ever more difficult.

The world is not only complex, but highly volatile. Developments do not proceed linearly, forecasts quickly lose their validity. The costs of a wrong decision have risen massively – financially, politically, culturally. In many industries, a great deal is at stake, often the economic substance itself.

The consequence: things are postponed, put on hold, analyzed further. Better to make no decision than the wrong one. But that is precisely what is fatal in a time when other players have long been trying to gain sovereignty over our economic and technological future.

Scenario work comes in at exactly this point. It creates no certainty in the classic sense, but orientation. It helps to systematically think through possible futures, to weigh options against one another, and to make decisions not from the gut, but out of an expanded understanding of the future.

Why I want to do my part

The founding of the Futurewise Company arose from precisely these observations.
I want to do my part to help European companies become capable of action again, not despite uncertainty, but with it.

My goal is to understand resilience not merely defensively, but as the foundation for new growth. Not as a retreat to what has proven itself, but as a conscious opening toward new futures. Toward business models that will still hold in five, ten, or fifteen years.

Futurewise supports leadership teams in opening up exactly these spaces: for radical thinking, for well-founded decisions, and for an economy that once again shapes its own future.

Yours,

Carina Stöttner

Wie können Unternehmen Szenarien nutzen?

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in News.

Wenn Unternehmen über Zukunft sprechen, tun sie das oft implizit so, als gäbe es die eine Zukunft: eine Prognose, eine Zielzahl, einen strategischen Plan. Doch gerade in Zeiten hoher Unsicherheit greift dieses Denken zu kurz. Märkte, Technologien und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen entwickeln sich nicht linear – und genau hier kommen Szenarien ins Spiel.

Was sind Szenarien?

Szenarien sind keine Prognosen und keine Vorhersagen. Sie beschreiben alternative, in sich konsistente Zukünfte, die auf unterschiedlichen Annahmen über zentrale Einflussfaktoren beruhen.

In der deutschsprachigen Zukunftsforschung – etwa bei Rolf Kreibich – wird Zukunft häufig in unterschiedliche Kategorien unterteilt:

  • mögliche Zukünfte: alles, was prinzipiell eintreten könnte
  • wahrscheinliche Zukünfte: das, was unter heutigen Annahmen als plausibel gilt
  • wünschenswerte Zukünfte: das, was wir aktiv anstreben wollen

Szenarien bewegen sich genau in diesem Spannungsfeld. Sie machen sichtbar, dass Zukunft kein feststehendes Ziel ist, sondern ein Gestaltungsraum, in dem Entscheidungen von heute Weichen stellen.

Wozu nutzt man Szenarien?

1. Ein klareres Bild möglicher Zukünfte gewinnen

Szenarien helfen, Komplexität zu strukturieren. Statt einer diffusen „Zukunftsunsicherheit“ entstehen konkrete Bilder:

  • Wie könnten sich Märkte entwickeln?
  • Welche Kundenbedürfnisse könnten dominieren?
  • Welche externen Kräfte verändern unser Spielfeld?

Diese Bilder ersetzen keine Entscheidung – aber sie schaffen eine gemeinsame mentale Landkarte, auf der Entscheidungen getroffen werden können.

2. Klarheit im Führungsteam schaffen

In vielen Führungsteams wird zwar viel über Zukunft gesprochen, aber selten überprüft, ob alle über dieselbe Zukunft sprechen. Szenarien legen implizite Annahmen offen:

  • Meinen wir Wachstum im bestehenden Markt – oder in völlig neuen Feldern?
  • Gehen wir von Stabilität aus – oder von tiefgreifender Disruption?

Szenarien machen Unterschiede sichtbar, ohne sie sofort auflösen zu müssen. Allein diese Transparenz schafft oft enorme Klarheit und verbessert die Qualität strategischer Diskussionen.

Szenarien als Projektionsfläche für Strategie und Initiativen

Ein besonders wirkungsvoller Aspekt von Szenarien ist ihre Funktion als Projektionsfläche. Bestehende Initiativen, Projekte oder Investitionen lassen sich gezielt gegen verschiedene Szenarien spiegeln:

  • Für welches Szenario ist diese Initiative eigentlich sinnvoll?
  • Welchen Kunden adressieren wir dort?
  • Was passiert, wenn wir im „falschen Szenario“ investieren?

So wird sichtbar, wo Aktivitäten am gewünschten Ziel vorbeilaufen – oder wo Ressourcen auf Annahmen beruhen, die implizit bleiben. Szenarien schaffen damit nicht nur Orientierung, sondern helfen auch, strategische Inkonsistenzenaufzudecken.

Szenarien als Exploration neuer Geschäftsmöglichkeiten

Szenarien sind nicht nur ein Instrument zur Absicherung, sondern auch zur Exploration. Indem alternative Zukunftsbilder bewusst durchgespielt werden, entstehen neue Fragen:

  • Welche Geschäftsmodelle wären in diesem Szenario attraktiv?
  • Welche Kompetenzen würden wir dort benötigen?
  • Wo entstehen neue Wertschöpfungsketten oder Kundensegmente?

Gerade jenseits des bestehenden Kerngeschäfts entfalten Szenarien ihre kreative Kraft. Sie legitimieren es, über Möglichkeiten nachzudenken, die heute noch unrealistisch erscheinen – aber morgen strategisch relevant sein könnten.

Risiken antizipieren, bevor sie akut werden

Ein weiterer zentraler Nutzen von Szenarien liegt in der frühzeitigen Antizipation von Risiken. Statt erst zu reagieren, wenn Veränderungen bereits eingetreten sind, ermöglichen Szenarien ein vorausschauendes Fragen:

  • Welche Entwicklungen könnten unser Geschäftsmodell unter Druck setzen?
  • Wo liegen potenzielle Brüche, Abhängigkeiten oder Kipppunkte?
  • Welche Frühindikatoren sollten wir beobachten?

Risiken werden dadurch nicht eliminiert – aber sie werden denkbar, diskutierbar und handhabbar.

Wir nutzen Szenarien in einer Vielzahl unserer Projekte.

Warum Offsites für Vorstände immer wichtiger werden

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in Foresight, News.

Der Begriff Offsite ist längst kein Buzzword mehr. Immer mehr Vorstände ziehen sich bewusst für ein oder mehrere Tage aus dem operativen Alltag zurück – raus aus dem Büro, weg von E-Mails, Termindruck und Status-Meetings. Doch was genau ist ein Vorstands-Offsite eigentlich – und warum erlebt dieses Format gerade so viel Zuspruch?

Was ist ein Vorstands-Offsite?

Ein Vorstands-Offsite ist ein bewusst gestalteter strategischer Arbeitsraum außerhalb des Tagesgeschäfts. Im Fokus stehen nicht operative Entscheidungen, sondern die großen Fragen:

  • Ist unsere strategische Richtung noch die richtige?

  • Welche Annahmen über Markt, Kunden und Wettbewerb tragen (noch)?

  • Wo müssen wir nachschärfen, wo neu denken?

Offsites schaffen Distanz – räumlich wie mental. Genau diese Distanz ist oft notwendig, um festgefahrene Denkmuster zu verlassen und wieder strategische Klarheit zu gewinnen.

Warum immer mehr Vorstände auf Offsites setzen

Die Rahmenbedingungen haben sich fundamental verändert. Märkte werden volatiler, technologische Entwicklungen schneller, geopolitische und gesellschaftliche Faktoren schwerer vorhersehbar. Klassische Vorstandssitzungen stoßen hier an ihre Grenzen.

Offsites bieten:

  • Zeit zum Denken, nicht nur zum Entscheiden

  • Alignment im Gremium, jenseits formaler Beschlusslagen

  • Raum für offene Diskussionen, Unsicherheiten und kontroverse Perspektiven

Kurz: Offsites werden zum strategischen Resonanzraum in Zeiten permanenter Unsicherheit.

Warum Foresight im Offsite besonders wirksam ist

Viele Offsites drehen sich um Strategie – aber häufig bleibt der Blick erstaunlich nah an der Gegenwart. Zahlen, Forecasts und bekannte Wettbewerber dominieren. Genau hier entfaltet Foresight seine Stärke.

Foresight hilft, Strategie nicht nur als Fortschreibung bestehender Trends zu verstehen, sondern als bewusste Auseinandersetzung mit möglichen, wahrscheinlichen und wünschbaren Zukünften. Statt nur zu fragen „Was passiert nächstes Jahr?“, geht es um:

  • Welche grundlegenden Verschiebungen prägen unseren Markt?

  • Welche Annahmen könnten sich als falsch erweisen?

  • Welche Zukünfte müssen wir heute schon mitdenken?

Gerade im Offsite-Kontext entsteht dadurch ein gemeinsames Zukunftsverständnis im Vorstand – eine oft unterschätzte Grundlage für tragfähige Entscheidungen.

Unsicherheit produktiv nutzen

Foresight macht Unsicherheit nicht kleiner, aber handhabbar. Szenarien, Zukunftsbilder und strukturierte Exploration helfen, sich nicht von Unsicherheit lähmen zu lassen, sondern sie als strategische Ressource zu nutzen. Entscheidungen werden dadurch robuster – nicht weil sie sicherer sind, sondern weil sie mehrere mögliche Zukünfte berücksichtigen.

Unser Ansatz: Der beste Outcome für den Vorstand

Die Futurewise Company verfolgt dabei ein klares Ziel: den bestmöglichen Outcome für Vorstände und Führungsgremien zu erzielen. Kein Methoden-Fetischismus, keine Standardformate – sondern das, was in der konkreten Situation wirklich hilft.

Methodisch vielseitig – strategisch klar

Je nach Fragestellung kombinieren wir im Offsite-Setting unterschiedliche Ansätze:

  • Foresight, um langfristige Entwicklungen, Unsicherheiten und Szenarien zu erschließen

  • Change Management, um strategische Einsichten anschlussfähig zu machen

  • Innovationsmanagement, um neue Geschäftsfelder und Optionen zu explorieren

  • Organisationsentwicklung, um Struktur, Kultur und Entscheidungslogiken mitzudenken

Diese Methoden setzen wir nicht nebeneinander, sondern im Wechsel ein – immer orientiert an der Dynamik des Gremiums und der strategischen Fragestellung.

Der Challenger-Blick aufs Big Picture

Ein zentraler Bestandteil unserer Arbeit ist der Challenger-Blick. Wir moderieren nicht nur, wir spiegeln, hinterfragen und erweitern Perspektiven. Immer mit dem Blick auf das große Ganze:

  • Wohin entwickelt sich der Markt wirklich?

  • Welche externen Kräfte werden heute unterschätzt?

  • Welche strategischen Optionen werden (noch) nicht gesehen?

Gerade Vorstände profitieren davon, einen Sparringspartner zu haben, der nicht Teil der internen Logik ist – und genau deshalb andere Fragen stellen kann.

Why foresight and family businesses fit together so well

Written by CarinaS on . Posted in News.

Symbolic image of family businesses: Carina Stöttner at the Otto Group’s #CRX24 with then-CEO Alexander Birken

Family businesses tick differently. Anyone who works with them regularly quickly senses it: here it is not just about quarterly figures, but about responsibility, continuity, and the question of what the company should be in ten, twenty, or thirty years. That is precisely why family businesses are often surprisingly foresight-minded – even if they would not always call it that themselves.

Three reasons why we particularly enjoy working with family businesses

1. Thinking in generations
While many organizations are heavily oriented toward short-term goal achievement, family businesses often think in generations. Decisions are measured not only by whether they work today, but by whether they are also viable for the next generation. This long-term thinking is the ideal foundation for strategic futures work.

2. Long-term stability over short-term profit
In family businesses, the sustainable stability of the company often takes precedence over short-term return optimization. That creates room: for strategic debates, for uncomfortable questions – and for engaging with possible futures that lie beyond the status quo.

3. Economic reserves enable risk-taking
Many family businesses have solid economic cushions. That does not mean they act carelessly – on the contrary. But it does mean that they can afford to take targeted risks, to explore new fields, and occasionally to pursue trains of thought whose return is not immediately measurable.

Why foresight work is particularly worthwhile in family businesses

As forward-looking as family businesses often are in their attitude – strategically, much nonetheless remains in optimization mode.

Strategy as fine-tuning rather than reinvention
In many family businesses, strategy primarily means: improving existing business models, becoming more efficient, securing market share. Radical reinvention or systematic exploration of new business fields takes place more rarely. This is exactly where foresight comes in: not as a replacement for existing strategies, but as an expansion of the space for thinking.

Success breeds tunnel vision
Many family businesses have been successful in the market for decades – in some cases for more than a hundred years. This success is an enormous strength, but it can also lead to tunnel vision. When a business model has worked well for a long time, it is hard to imagine that the rules of the game could change fundamentally. Here, foresight deliberately introduces an outside perspective: across industries, across markets, and fed by insights from other industries and customer markets.

Niches under pressure to change
Hidden champions in particular often operate in very specific niches. These niches are highly profitable today – but not necessarily future-proof. New technologies, regulatory changes, or shifting customer needs can cause a niche to lose significance in a new market environment. Foresight helps to recognize early on which niches remain stable, which transform – and where new ones might emerge.

Globally positioned – but often without a structured future radar

Many family businesses have long been active globally. They know international markets, serve different customer needs, and are open to new things. What is often lacking, however, are structured tools to systematically analyze this diversity and translate it into strategic options.

This is where foresight unfolds its full effect:

  • Future trends are not considered in isolation, but in their interactions.
  • Uncertainties are not suppressed, but deliberately used to develop robust strategies.
  • New markets, customer needs, and business models are not discovered by chance, but explored in a targeted way.

With our structured futures-thinking approach, the future thus becomes not an abstract vision, but a concrete strategic field of work.

To our offering