Mr. Cede, time and again there is the striking realization that there were clear signs of the crisis. We should have and could have seen it – but still didn't. Is it possible to tackle this problem strategically?

This are three issues behind this. First, people often do not think and decide with an open mind, but in a linear way. In other words, they extrapolate their experiences: “It worked in the past ten years, that’s why it will also work in the next ten years.” That's one reason why so many decision-makers don't keep things in mind that, in retrospect, seem downright obvious. And this is why we are preparing for yesterday’s crises in many areas.

The second problem is that we block out unpleasant assumptions about the future. For example, because they challenge our value system, such as a major war in Europe. People tend to ignore undesirable developments or possible negative consequences of decisions during planning.

The third problem is dealing with uncertainties. Our society expects decision-makers to have a clear answer to everything. This puts leaders, especially democratically legitimized leaders, in a position where they can no longer deal with uncertainty, or are put under extreme pressure. A leader who openly communicates uncertainty unsettles everyone and thus undermines his or her own position. The system that put them in the position will try to find someone who knows the ropes.

How much does an organization's openness to the future and its ability to deal with uncertainty depend on its top management?

You definitely need people who understand these questions and can make themselves heard in the organization. In the end, however, it doesn't necessarily have to be the decision-makers themselves. On the one hand, making organizations fit for the future and for strategy requires change processes that refocus organizational structures, personnel and cross-departmental workflows. And on the other hand, it requires a culture that constantly addresses strategic contingencies and issues and aligns its actions accordingly.

Today, companies and public organizations are facing issues that are so large in terms of time, location, structure and politics that we can hardly grasp them: Extinction of species, climate change, demographics. How can such mega topics be addressed strategically?

The core is a structure based on the division of labor. It enables the individual expertise of people and institutions to be leveraged, bundled and processed so that a holistic picture of the situation emerges and strategic thrusts can be developed. After all, the more experts and perspectives are included, the larger the objects that can be made accessible to an analysis and decision-making. But at the same time, the more people are involved, the tighter the ontology needs to be.

A key challenge here is to prepare expert knowledge in a meaningful way. Experts sometimes write hundreds of pages on a topic. However, decision-makers need methodically prepared, concise information that can be placed in logical relationships with one another. So you have to put the expert knowledge into an analysis logic consisting of individual entities that are evaluated according to defined criteria.

What exactly does this mean?

The entities are phenomenons such as risks, ideas, technologies, stakeholder groups or trends. There are specific questions and criteria for each analysis entity. For example, with regard to a trend, I'm interested in its impact and robustness, the possible trend breaks, its temporal dimension or the interactions with other trends. In the case of a risk, on the other hand, I'm interested in the concrete impact and probability of occurrence, or the question of how well prepared you are.

The analysis ontology and the expert knowledge brought together in this way aims to provide decision-makers with an insight into the direction in which the environment is developing and which courses of action are available. On this basis, objectives can be defined, conflicting goals evaluated and measures planed. Our task as strategy consultants is to create heuristics within which decision-makers can navigate in the face of this complexity.

What is the potential of data analytics and artificial intelligence?

Data analytics undoubtedly has considerable potential. But I don’t believe in the assumption that even complex decisions can be automated. AI-based tools help with operational issues, but not with assessing what may happen in the future and where to focus the center of gravity given limited resources and a complex environment. This question is the very essence of strategy, which requires a methodical approach. Only when I have the analytical questions do I know what information I need to find and substantiate concrete answers. However, this is not primarily about Big Data, but about very well-founded expert and empirical knowledge.

Once a decision-maker has set up a useful analysis system, however, intelligent data processing can take effect in the right place and contribute to early detection, for example, by recording and analyzing infection figures, power outages, fake news or developments on financial markets.

In recent years, large and complex organizations in particular have raised doubts about their ability to make decisions and implement them. Do you see structural deficits at the institutional level in the face of an extremely dynamic and networked environment?

There are voices that say that our institutions are extremely robust, but have lost flexibility and no longer bring decisions to the ground. But resilience requires both robustness and flexibility. The public sector in particular is heavily formalized and institutionalized. This is a characteristic of administration. It is designed in such a way that it is accessible for democratic control and thus does not allow flexible decision making in principle. On the other hand, it is very robust. We must therefore try to strengthen key resilience factors such as communication skills or the ability to divide up work and to systematically leverage the potential for flexibility, short official and service channels.

In view of the last few years, which have been and continue to be characterized by extraordinary stresses and disruptions for the public sector, cautious optimism is permitted. Times of crisis are always a catalyst for change and further development.

We have now mainly talked about strategic options and scenarios in the face of critical or even disruptive developments. But shouldn't these approaches and ways of thinking also guide actions and decisions in "normal operations"?

Absolutely. If an organization is to be successful in the long term, it needs a structured approach to strategic questions to identify potential for success: How can my environment develop? Where are current developments heading? What are the opportunities and risks for me? What resources are available to me and how can I mobilize these resources? Which possible options are particularly robust? So dealing with resilience to strengthen structures is always appropriate, and not only when dealing with crisis scenarios. It is at the heart of strategic thinking.