Online Discussion

Getting on the Same Page: Why Shared Diagnosis Matters Before Any Planning Investment Decision

When you look at what’s limiting planning performance, do your key stakeholders actually agree on the root cause — and what happens to your investment case if they don’t?

Jul 8, 2026 16:00
17:00
BST
·
Online (MS Teams)
For senior supply chain leaders only
How this meeting works
  • Practitioner-led working session
  • No pitches
  • Small-group, facilitated discussion
  • Works best when you can engage actively
  • Chatham House Rule
  • Limited places to preserve quality

Suggested Discussion Points

  • Where do definitions most often diverge when teams discuss planning performance — and how has that shown up in real decisions or project delays
  • How practitioners are building a shared view of the root cause across functions with different incentives and mental models
  • The difference between verbal agreement and genuine alignment, and how to tell which one you have
  • Who ultimately owns the investment decision when planning, finance and IT all have a stake — and what happens when that is unclear
  • How to create enough shared diagnosis to build a credible investment case without getting stuck in endless alignment cycles

Discussion Host(s)

To be confirmed.

Discussion Co-Host(s)

To be confirmed.

Moderator(s)

To be confirmed.

Why this session exists

Planning investment decisions regularly stall or underdeliver not because the analysis was wrong but because different functions, regions or leadership levels never reached a shared view of the problem. Finance sees a cost issue. Operations sees a process issue. IT sees a data issue. All three may be partially right.

Without a shared diagnosis, the investment case gets built on contested foundations, and the programme pays the price later. This session examines how practitioners are approaching the alignment challenge before solutions or vendors enter the conversation.

What you'll leave with

  • A clearer view of where definitional or interpretive gaps exist between your key stakeholders on the planning performance question
  • Practical approaches to building a shared diagnosis without triggering premature solution conversations or political friction
  • Peer perspective on how others have navigated the authority and ownership question when no single function controls the decision
  • A sharper sense of whether your investment case is built on genuinely shared foundations or assumed consensus

Who this meeting is for

This meeting is designed for people working through real operational and innovation decisions, rather than those seeking presentations or general inspiration.

Who for

  • Supply chain leaders preparing to make or defend a planning investment case where internal alignment on the root cause is incomplete or assumed rather than tested
  • Leaders who have experienced a planning investment decision stall, get redirected or underdeliver, and suspect that stakeholder misalignment was a contributing factor
  • Transformation leaders who need to build a shared diagnostic foundation across planning, finance and IT before the investment case goes forward

Who not for

  • Teams primarily looking for technology demonstrations or vendor comparisons
  • Anyone seeking a passive, webinar-style session rather than a peer discussion

How the online session works

Each session is designed as an online equivalent of a small, in-room roundtable discussion — not a passive, webinar-style presentation.

The format adapts to the topic and the experience in the room:

  • Where participants already have strong knowledge, we typically start by inviting individuals to expand on specific points they have shared in advance. This helps surface real-world context quickly and anchors the discussion in practical experience.
  • Where the topic is less familiar or more specialised, we may begin with a short explainer to establish a shared baseline before opening up the discussion.

To support productive dialogue, we often invite a subject-matter expert to join the session. This may be someone from a vendor, consultancy, or independent background — sometimes from within the community, sometimes external.

Their role is not to pitch or present a solution. Instead, they listen carefully to the discussion and reflect back:

  • how similar challenges have been approached in comparable organisations
  • what has worked (and what hasn’t) in practice
  • concrete examples that help translate discussion into action

This balance is deliberate. Without it, sessions can drift into abstract debate or problem-sharing. With it, discussions stay grounded and participants leave with tangible ideas they can apply in their own context.

The emphasis throughout is on shared learning, practical insight, and forward progress, rather than polished presentations or predetermined answers.

What happens next

Participation is confirmed through a short, staged process designed to ensure a good fit and a productive discussion for everyone in the room.

Step 1: Register interest

You start by entering your details. This helps us understand your background and what you are hoping to get from the session.

Step 2: We sense-check fit and composition

We may follow up to clarify a few details. This is about making sure the discussion works for everyone in the room.

Step 3: You receive a personal invitation

Once confirmed, you will receive a personal invitation with the session agenda, who else will be joining, and clear joining instructions.