Question 1

When should insights teams play a role in strategy communication?

Accepted Answer

Insights teams should be involved in strategy communication as early as possible — both during strategy development and when the strategy is being rolled out — whenever data is needed to back up the message. In practice, this means when leaders are communicating a major strategic decision or shift, the insights team plays a role by presenting the research and evidence that supports it. For example, if a company is shifting focus to a new customer segment, an insights professional might share key survey results or market trends during the announcement to explain why that segment was chosen. By contributing to strategy communication (through presentations, reports, or Q&A sessions), the insights team helps translate data into a clear narrative, making the strategy more credible and understandable to stakeholders. In short, any time strategic decisions are communicated to the broader organization or clients, involving the insights team ensures those communications are grounded in evidence and resonate with the audience's need for rationale.

Question 2

What regional differences complicate foresight studies in research?

Accepted Answer

Foresight studies often struggle with regional differences such as uneven economic development, technology adoption rates, and cultural attitudes, which can complicate predicting the future globally. A trend that seems inevitable in one region might be far off in another because of these disparities: for instance, widespread electric vehicle use or cashless payments could be on the near horizon in countries with robust infrastructure and supportive policies, but in regions with less investment or different norms, those changes may unfold much later or differently. Cultural values and regulatory environments also vary widely--an idea that is socially acceptable or legal in one country might face resistance or bans elsewhere, altering how a scenario plays out. Such differences mean foresight researchers must adjust their assumptions and possibly develop distinct scenarios for different regions rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model. Ignoring regional context can lead to forecasts that miss the mark or only hold true for certain parts of the world.

Question 3

Can AI-driven web scraping replace human analysis in CI?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven web scraping can automate data collection for competitive intelligence (CI), but it can't fully replace human analysis due to context and judgment. An AI scraper will tirelessly gather competitor prices, product changes, or reviews from across the web at scale and speed that humans can't match, giving your CI team a firehose of raw information. However, making sense of that information - filtering signal from noise, interpreting why a competitor made a move, or spotting subtle market shifts - still requires human insight. AI might flag an anomaly (like a sudden price drop), but a human analyst determines if it's a strategic play, a stock clearance, or an error. There's also nuance and sarcasm in online chatter that AI might miss or misread. The sweet spot is using AI to do the heavy lifting of monitoring and initial summarizing, then having analysts apply expertise to validate findings and draw strategic conclusions. This hybrid approach mitigates the risk of blind spots or false leads that a solely AI system might generate.

Question 4

What practices improve accuracy in scenario planning in research?

Accepted Answer

Scenario planning becomes more reliable when researchers use diverse data inputs and actively challenge assumptions to craft plausible futures. Best practices include incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives and historical analogues so scenarios aren't just reflections of current biases. Quantifying key drivers — for example, using trend data or simulations for each scenario's assumptions — adds rigor to these what-if narratives. It's also important to engage subject matter experts to review and stress-test each scenario, which can expose blind spots or overly optimistic thinking. Defining clear signposts (early indicators for each scenario) further improves accuracy by letting teams monitor which future is unfolding and adjust plans accordingly. By regularly updating scenarios as new information emerges — and combining data-driven modeling with creative foresight — scenario planning yields more credible, actionable guidance for strategic decisions.

Question 5

What cultural differences complicate change programs across countries?

Accepted Answer

Cultural differences can significantly complicate corporate change programs when rolling them out globally, because management styles and employee expectations vary by country. For example, a change initiative that encourages open feedback might flourish in a low power-distance culture but stall in a high power-distance one where employees are reluctant to question leadership openly. Communication norms differ too: direct, candid messaging might be valued in one culture and seen as rude or alarming in another that prefers a more indirect approach. Even attitudes toward uncertainty and risk (part of national culture) affect how people respond to new initiatives--some may embrace innovation, while others fear it. Successful international change programs recognize these differences and adapt their approach for each culture, often involving local leaders to interpret and tailor the message and methods, avoiding a one-size-fits-all rollout that could backfire.

Benjamin Maurice LLC

What is Benjamin Maurice LLC?

Services and Expertise