Good morning and welcome to our webinar about scenario planning. My name is Mike. We are happy to see so many of you online. For us, scenario planning is a leadership discipline as leadership begins where certainty ends. And since many of us are working with planning, we have to embrace that uncertainty. As many of you know, we can't predict the future, but organizations and you out there, you can practice how you will meet it. And scenario planning is the framework to use. So, the purpose of today's session is to explore how and why to separate prediction from judgment. It is to introduce the six steps of scenario planning. And it is to discuss how to make scenario planning into a monthly habit. And finally, I also have Jacob by my side from DLG, who will show some cases of how he has used scenario planning in his work. So, today, besides me, we have Jacob from DLG. We have Thomas with us from Implement and together they have written a book about scenario planning. The book is called War Rooms and Wind Tunnels. And maybe before we start, Jacob. Why did you decide to write a book, something as old fashioned as a physical object here? Why do you believe that is relevant? Well, I think I was probably born old. So, essentially, I really like the old fashioned stuff. But also because when working with planning and also specifically working with scenario planning, I think it is important that we have a frame that we can all relate to and that we can all understand. And a very, very good way, as I see it, to distribute knowledge is through a book. Because if you have five people reading the same book, they will get the same vocabulary and they will get a lot of the same thinking about what is scenario planning. Because there are many ways to define it. And this is one way. We have done our best to do it good. And, of course, if you sit in a big organization and you want people to work in the same manner, towards the same goals, this is a really good way to transfer knowledge between the two of us. And that was sort of the primary. And then, essentially, I've always wanted to write a book. Thomas and I have been talking about it for a decade. And the occasion arose that we could do it together. And it's been really, really fun. So, I could recommend it. But that was sort of the primary reason for it. Yeah. And thank you also for inviting me to contribute with the book. Yeah, and thank you for that. The reason that there's a big W behind in the graphics is, of course, because of your name. Yeah. So, you are a big part of it. And thank you for that. Thank you. And, Jacob, you will come back later to come with concrete examples of how to apply scenario planning. But before we start, then I'll just introduce some of the terms we will use today. So, when we say a scenario, that is basically a narrative of a plausible future to explore the possibilities and inform decision-making. Then we have assumptions. An assumption that is a fact or development or evident. It is accepted as true or as certain to happen, but we don't have a proof for that it is true. Then we have uncertainty. And that is basically situations where the outcome of an event is not known. We have options. And options that are the strategic operational choices that are available in a response to a scenario. And finally, we have bias, which is systematic deviations from the rational judgment. And bias can potentially distort a scenario development. So, now we got the vocabulary in place. Then I will invite Thomas up to me. And Thomas, he will take over and explain why scenario planning is important as a discipline, even though it is an old concept from the 1970s. Why is that still relevant today here in 2026? So, can you please come over to me, Thomas? Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you. So, I will start by using an old quote by most likely Niels Bohr. It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future. And it is, even though this quote is 70 years old, it is even more hard today. So, to change our things are changing more rapidly. The uncertainty is increasing. And we have used the term VUCA world for many years. And we actually think that we are now in a VUCA world on AI steroids, meaning that things are changing so fast and the uncertainty is so high. And that is why we see scenario planning as even more important. Yeah. So, the future cannot be predicted, but we can explore it. And there are two types of uncertainty that we are working with. One is the known unknowns. And this is where we are launching a new product. We don't know how the new product will sell. So, we have an unknown about the sales, but we are known about the facts. And I think in this case, we can apply scenario planning in a very structured way because it is about defining what is the best case, what is the upper and lower limits, etc. So, we can work this very structured way. And that actually helps us to train our cognitive muscle of scenario planning, which we also have to apply for the even harder cases, which is the non unknowns. So, when we have the unknown unknowns, this is where a black swan hits us. This is like the COVID case, that something suddenly happens that has huge impact on our supply chains. And Gardner made a study in 2020 where they actually analyzed and asked companies if they were highly prepared for these unknown unknowns, these black swans. And it was only 12% that actually felt that they were highly ready for this. So, I think working with scenario planning is both to be ready for the known unknowns and for the unknown unknowns. If we then go to the subject that Mike mentioned about prediction and judgment. So, prediction is where we gather all the data that we have. And based on that, we create our inputs to our decisions. This is the part where we see a huge impact from AI right now. So, AI can really gather the data, create the inputs for decisions, can help us create even scenarios and options, etc. But then there's the other part actually of taking this and taking the decisions and that's where the judgment comes in. And right now, we have the assumption that the judgment has to stay human because it has to take into all the things that are in the context. So, the judgment is actually the hard part. So, when we free up time for the prediction, we can actually spend more time on the judgment. And that's where the scenario planning comes in. We have chosen the title for our book about scenario planning, Wall Rooms and Wind Tunnels. So, these two metaphors have two different angles. So, the wall room is about gathering the right people, the key stakeholders to actually take the decisions and prepare for this. The wind tunnel metaphor is for testing the optional decisions against the scenarios. And this is the term from strategy planning. So, war rooms and wind tunnels is actually the frame for the scenario planning. So, the question is, should we always apply scenario planning? No. We should only apply scenario planning when we have a high uncertainty and a high impact. So, in those situations, we need scenario planning as framing this and helping us to take decisions. If we are in a situation where we have high uncertainty but it has a lower impact, it could be more on the operational planning, we could apply light scenarios but we wouldn't really use the full toolbox of scenario planning. The full toolbox of scenario planning, we mainly use when we have high impact and high uncertainty. That's where we apply it. So, what is the scenario planning steps? What is the toolbox we use in scenario planning? So, the scenario planning consists of six steps. So, first, we always need to identify and challenge the assumptions. So, we need to understand what is the assumptions behind our planning. And these assumptions and the uncertainties, they help us to create scenarios. And here we can, for example, use a two-by-two matrix by combining the two major uncertainties, which is a tool. The important thing is that it's not about creating as many scenarios as possible. It's actually helping us to define the decision options. So, we need to kind of explore the future in a way that we know about different scenarios. We don't have to cover all, but we have to think about the most important ones that help us drive this decision options. Creating those decision options, afterwards, we want to test these, wind tunneling these decision options against the scenarios, so that we don't just say that there's a best case of the sale of the new product and then we gear our supply chain for that. Because there's also a high likelihood that we actually, if we increase our capacity, that we will risk having excess capacity if the sale doesn't come through. So, testing the options against the scenarios and doing that in a structured way and doing it in a way so we avoid bias. So, it's not the one that screams the loudest that actually gets the decisions through, but really assessing it in a structured and good way. Then, we want to recommend a decision. And sometimes, it's actually better to chop up decisions, because when you chop up decisions, then you can actually gain more insights and then ensure that you don't take wrong decisions. So, an example of this could be if you take a CapEx decision. So, instead of just taking the CapEx decision, it could be that we take the decision that we want to engineer two different solutions for different futures. And then, when we come closer, we actually take the decision about which CapEx decision we want to take. In this way, we can gain time, but we also, of course, use more resources up front. And here, tools like AI can help us a lot, because we can actually work with these different solutions longer, and then we can take better decisions. And the last part is about when we have taken a decision, we need to be clear about what are the assumptions behind it, how do we monitor these assumptions, so that if these assumptions are not true, that we can then revisit the decision and redo the decision if necessary. But we should not revisit the decision all the time, we need to have some kind of freeze. So, for different decisions, we then wait maybe three months, and then after those three months, we visit the assumptions. But we do that in a structured way, and thereby we take decisions about changing things. So, scenario planning can be used on different levels. It can be used on this strategic level, where it was actually born, and we have a lot of history of that in the book. On the sales and operations planning, which is actually, I think, the key area that we also focus on today, it's evident that here really scenario planning fits in. Because in sales and operations planning, we have the high uncertainty, because we are on a horizon of maybe six to 24 months, so we have a high uncertainty. We have a monthly tact, and that actually tact that supports how we train our cognitive muscle, and we train our scenario planning. And this training of the scenario planning is actually so important if we are hit by the black swans, the unknown unknowns. And one thing is certain is we don't know what is coming, but there will be things coming, because that we can see from the past. There will always be something that we didn't expect that will hit us. In the operational planning, it's used less, because of course the impact is less. And typically it could be that if we have big decisions, it would be escalated somehow to an ad hoc sales and operations planning decision, which could either go into the normal tact or it could be ad hoc if it's important and it is urgent to take decisions. So sales and operations planning, if I dive a little bit more into sales and operations planning. So in sales and operations planning, we need to take good decisions. And good decisions, we hereby have defined as they have to be timely. We have to take them in due time to take into account the lead time of the different decisions, etc. They have to be cross-functionally and aligned cross-functionally, so the whole company works in the same direction. And it has to be right decisions. And because we are working on this long horizon of 6 to 24 months, there is a high uncertainty. So for some parts, we are actually basically guessing. So we are guessing about what will be the sales in the future, etc. And we want to quantify it and qualify it in the best way. But we will not be sure. So there will be all these assumptions, all these uncertainties. And therefore, we need to create the transparency on the assumptions. And we need the scenarios to explore the future. And we need an open space solution, so where we actually can see what are the different options that we have for decision. And we test these against the scenarios. But all this, and this is a key thing, all this requires that we create a space of psychological safety. Because if we don't have psychological safety, it will be the power game that actually decides which decisions we take. So it's all about creating the right setting for these decisions. And here, I would like to hand over to you, Jacob, to explore more about how do we actually apply scenario planning in an organization. I'll do my best, Thomas. Thank you. Thank you for this. So, of course, looking about psychological safety, I think before going into the specifics of psychological safety, I'd say a lot of what we've looked at for years is, of course, the canon ones where you say, OK, you have two ways of thinking. Thinking fast, thinking slow. And in a world of AI, we are increasingly thinking fast. We're using knowledge that is brought forward and then we make quick decisions. And we want to slow it down a bit. And we actually want to be able to sit down and have some forums where we can talk together. But for that to really work, for us to get the mental cognitive frame to actually do that, we need to be in a situation where we feel safe. Because otherwise, it won't really work. So that's, for us, the connectivity between Kahneman and Amy Edmondson's psychological safety. One of the things that we sort of use in the book is Hans Christian Andersen and his tale about the emperor's new clothing. And hopefully most of us will know it, right? You have this kid who points to the king who's being marched down in his new clothes and he says, but he has nothing on. And everyone sort of applause the kid for speaking the truth. And of course, that's a good thing. We want to applaud that. But in reality, the tale ends there. And I, for one, often think about what happens to the kid after the tale ends. Is he going to be applauded forever? Or is the king going to do something harsh to this kid? And normally, there's a saying in Danish, you want the truth from children and drunk people. And unfortunately, we can't grow younger. We can grow more drunk. But I wouldn't recommend it. And that's specifically not in a big company setting. So we need a different way of approaching this. That could be the structure that is defined as obtaining more psychological safety. And part of it is, of course, showing vulnerability from everyone around the room, actually going into this, having it facilitated with some clear rules by a facilitator, having the talks not just with the participants, but also the owners of this meeting. What are we expecting them to say, do, decide, but also behave in this meeting so that we get all the right things to the table? Because really, a lot of, as I said earlier, the idea of knowing what you go into when you go into a room just makes it a lot easier to be in the room. So if you are invited to the queen's palace, there's a very strict number of rules of what you can expect. And they're not made for the queen. We think, oh my god, all this stuff, they must really think highly of themselves. It's actually made for you as a guest. So that when you enter the palace, you know what to expect, you know how to behave, and you can be a bit more comfortable in that setting. That is quite important. And knowing the rules of the game. Then going to Kahneman again, to say, how do we then transfer this into making good decisions? Now we have this room where we have people sitting together. And it's not just a room, it's the entire way of functioning in this organization where you work more and more with an open dialogue. What Tom has alluded to is, of course, that you have AI, and it can help us a lot with biases, but also noise. But the models will over time also drift because the assumptions change. And when the assumption changes, when we have black swans or whatnot, then we need to revisit the world and actually make a corrective action. And this is where we try to find the balance between prediction and judgment. And of course, I, for one, believe that the human judgment is vital. But we need to continuously monitor where is it that we use our judgment and where is it that we give more power to automation. One of the ways where Kahneman actually goes into decisions and how they can be made over time is a protocol that he made on decision hygiene. Now, there are six steps in this. I won't go through them all, but a way of looking at it, if you go into a setting that we all know, or hopefully we all know where you're going on a vacation, you might be going, as I often do, to Italy. And then you sit down and decide on, okay, which parameters are important for us. There's something about how do we get there, the drive to or the plane or the train or the very long walk to Italy. There's something around the budget and there's something around timing. There are all sorts of different things that are important to us when looking at this trip. And we have these dimensions. And then we as a family, because I think here it's important that when deciding on a trip for vacation, of course, you need to hear the entire family. And not just the head of the family, so to say. So you sit there together and you have this conversation. And in a family, it often happens over more than one meeting, right? So you actually sit there and you have the debates and you go back and forth. How is that we want to do this? Especially when you have older children like I do. And then people come back and say, what do they feel? What sort of dimensions are of more importance and how do we rate them? And then we share our views around the dinner table. We debate. And then as a family, we end up also deciding. Of course, as head of planning, I will step in if we are not in complete agreement. And then I'll hand the word to my wife and then we'll make a good decision on this. But essentially, we have these parameters that we can look at. In a business setting, it's important that we document. That we actually document these assumptions. And we need to decide when is it that we follow up on the assumptions. If something changes, if there's a CAPEX process, then we know there are certain times in this process where it's important to actually revisit and say, are we on the right track? Do we want to change something? And this needs to be decided in advance so that we know, okay, these were the parameters and these are the assumptions and this is how we follow up on it. And then we have some defined guardrails. Now, for example, for my trip to Italy this year, I changed my job to DLG. That also meant that we were lucky enough to get a new car. And that was an electric car. So, for me, in my soul, it sort of changed a bit of the assumptions around driving to Rome. Because I was planning on driving there in a different car with a bit more carbon going from it. And now we're going in an electric car and that changes a lot of the trip. So, we really had to have a dialogue again, are we okay with this? Is this how we want to do it? And luckily we were. But when bigger things happen, then we need to assess it. Otherwise, we leave it for the meetings that we've decided on. Now, in my work today in DLG, I've been with DLG since March. So, this is also a new way of working in DLG. But it's been, people are leaning forward and really going into this. Now, of course, within DLG, we work with the agricultural parts of Denmark. And there is a lot happening in that realm in these days. I think almost every day, there is a new meeting with the heads of state in Denmark and all the different ministers. Talking about how much they really like my industry and how they want to help us become even better. And that's, of course, interesting. But it also means that there is so much uncertainty. And the uncertainty is happening right now. And it's going to affect us for many years in future. Now, for us to work with this, then we need to figure out which scenarios are in play, do we believe, and which scenarios are we in right now. So, specifically on this very strategic horizon, we sat down with members of our leadership team and the business as such and looked at what can we expect. And we did that early in the year. And then we've done it a few times after, as the world changes, to say, okay, are our assumptions still valid? We looked at, you know, regulation compared to other parameters and said, or other dimensions, and said, how is this going to be affecting us? And we described with names different scenarios with different options for us to actually go into these different scenarios. So, if an option helps us in all scenarios, then there's a no-brainer, then something we want to do. But if it only happens to help us maybe right now and not so much in other scenarios, then it's something to be evaluated and decided on, of course. But it will nevertheless guide the business also in the shorter tactical horizon. Because if we have clear views on where we want to go in the longer horizon, and we have defined where we believe is the most likely scenario, then we can take that and maybe even do more scenarios within that frame in our, for example, in SNOP or in bigger planning forums. Another case that we've just finished in DLG is, of course, harvest, because harvest is over in Denmark. So, to do harvest planning this year in DLG, we did it a bit differently than what we used to do. So, we actually sat down across functions. I think that's also something you usually do. But we sat down more, and we had more meetings where we actually discussed what are our ways of working, what are our assumptions about the harvest and how it can transpire. And then we decided to say, okay, these are our primary scenarios, and these are the different levers that we have to cope when the world comes in differently, because we know it will come in differently. And then we made a full plan prior to harvest, during harvest, and post-harvest to say this is how we're going to cope. And luckily, it's been planned in a way that is receiving a lot of acknowledgement from across the business, and where I wouldn't say it became a bit more boring actually executing harvest, because harvest is never boring. But it was easier to execute because people knew. They had actually practiced in peacetime on ways of operating, doing uncertainty. And it didn't happen exactly as any of our scenarios, but it doesn't really matter, because people don't remember a specific thing. They remember the feeling of going into uncertainty and then making quick decisions around a scenario. And it made it just a lot easier to cope with. Mm-hmm. Great. Thank you, Jacob. Then I will take over. And maybe one of the assumptions, at least my kids are having for holiday, is that all hotels are serving pancakes for breakfast. So that's an assumption that we have to make sure are true when we get there. But we would like to talk a bit more about scenario planning. And therefore, I have invited Thomas and Jacob into an interview session. So I will be asking them some questions, but it's also time for you to ask some questions in the chat. So please stay tuned and then we will start with some questions. Good. So Thomas and Jacob, again, congratulations with the book. You have both been working with planning for many years, more than 20 years, some more than 30. But why was it actually scenario planning you choose to write about? I mean, there are many interesting topics and processes you could write about. So why scenario planning? For me, I think the world is...so we talked about this book, right? Everything is moving really, really fast. And to keep on top of it, we need to start looking at...so we have all this data that's coming in. But we need to have a different way of actually assessing it as a business. And also making decisions on all the different levels of our organization that can be easily transferred between layers, but also across timelines. So for example, the very short term, it's important that they know what to do, how to operate with very clear trigger points or guardrails that have been decided and been reviewed in a tactical setting. But that the tactical setting is also guided by strategic thinking. And scenario planning essentially, and in the book of course, we give tools for how you can actually utilize this throughout your chain, both in time but also across functions. So, and then for me, coming from sales as well, it's just more engaging than so many other things that you can do. You're not just looking at numbers and then making a decision. You're actually going in there and questioning the assumptions and making it a bit more lively. And I think that is important. Yeah. Anything to add from your side, Thomas? Just adding maybe from my personal journey point of view. So I worked with supply chain before it was supply chain, 40 years, right? Yeah. And I think I spent maybe 20, 25 years on really optimizing and taking these data for the truth, not challenging the assumptions and then finding out how important the assumptions was. And then I worked more and more with scenario planning. So I think this is actually a natural next step when we think about planning. Yeah. So it also goes well in hand with the maturity of companies. Yes. Yeah. I think that you cannot jump into scenario planning without having a foundation, right? Yeah. It's, it's, it, it, it, the method looks maybe kind of in, looks easy in theory, but in practice it, it's hard because you actually have to have a foundation for doing all this scenario planning, right? You cannot just do this in Excel sheets. You need to have a foundation. Yeah. Thanks. Jacob, in the book, you write about an experience you had at the Regan West bunker. Can you maybe explain the situation for the, for the listeners and also what did a war game there do that a slide couldn't do? Yeah. And of course, Regan West is a, is a bunker in Denmark that's from the Cold War. It's been opened up for the public and they actually have a room where you can go in and do a war gaming. And I would definitely recommend it. It was, it was quite fun. Yeah. And I think that's, that's actually again, a key to this. It was, it was actually quite fun. If, if when you, when you do this in your regular setting and we make slides and we present the slides, then people are focusing what is on the slide. Is there, are they dotted right? Uh, is the information exactly right? Uh, which is also important, which, which is fine, but it gives you a distance. And, and, and, and. OK, at, I was impressed to McC宮. Now what you mean by the interest okay when you are on a. it becomes different. And at ReUnwest specifically, it was extremely fun as well. And if we can get just a bit of that geist into our meetings, it would be relevant. I think many of the meetings that I go into in SNAP, they start out with sort of a bit of chatter around the corners where people are a bit nervous. You might hear the nervous laughter. And then you have the meeting and you have all the discussions. And then when we go out, you sort of hear the sigh and people are happy. It was good. And I think that's really, really good. But if we can make it even more engaging, even more fun, and make it not just an information meeting, but also a meeting where you not necessarily do full scenario planning, but where you assess are we still in the scenario A or B or C or whatever that we believe we were in so that we know this is where we are. We may be moving towards something differently. So we might be starting to look at other options, but we know where we are and we can discuss something that is maybe a bit more close to heart for sales, for the CEO, for whomever is in the meeting. Because for planners, and I can say this for myself as well, it's so nice just to have the numbers, as Thomas is saying. And then that's the truth. But really, it's also a bit boring. And it's not necessarily more true. So actually making it lively and making our judgment a bit less biased, and then also understanding that just because it's a number doesn't make it more right, just because it's made by AI and looks really smart doesn't make it better. You need to use your human judgment at the right levels. So to remove this illusion of truth. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thomas, you also mentioned here that you are more curious about the assumptions behind the plans now. And I know you have been involved in many companies. So what is the one assumption that most planning organizations, they carry, that nobody has written down? I think it's a good question and relates to what Jacob actually just talked about is, I think this is about the data. Yeah. That we believe the data is the truth. And there's especially one data point, which is the forecast, right? Yeah. So one forecast, we believe it's the truth, even though we know there's high uncertainty. Yeah. And it's both an insult to commercial who are working hard to create growth that we don't acknowledge, that there's uncertainty in this. But it also, it creates a wrong thinking, right? And I think there's this quote from George Box, who created exponential smoothing, the forecasting method. He has this, that it says, all models are wrong, but some are useful. And a one number forecast in uncertainty is not usual. We need to know the scenarios. Yeah. Thanks. I can see there are also some questions here in the chat here. There's one here to both of you. So what are your views on the behavioral part of the process? You may have an excellent view of data, possibilities, scenarios, but no decisions or challenges are made. So maybe back to what are the behavioral part of the process? How do you cover that? How do you train that? Yeah. I think, for me, I think it's important when you look at tactical planning and specifically an SNOP process. Many people see the SNOP process as what happens in a meeting. A meeting is a meeting. A process is something different. It's what happens prior to and after. And when we do scenarios, for example, many of the bigger scenarios, you don't do that in an SNOP meeting. You do that prior to the meeting. And then you give your recommendations into the SNOP. If it's a tactical horizon, if it's a strategic, then, of course, it's not giving for a decision in the SNOP. It's giving as a frame in the SNOP. But these things happen around the SNOP. And behavior is not just something that happens in a meeting or in a process. It's something that happens in a company. So if you really want to be good at having better foresight, using scenarios, and being prepared, then you need to trust your organization. Then you need to lean in. You need to actually listen to your organization. Good planning, good scenarios does not come from a super CEO. It comes from the organization and a CEO who can actually mandate the organization to do a number of things, but also takes it upon himself or herself to actually make the required decision. So behavior starts not just at the top. It starts across our business. And really, it's important that all of us recognize that if we see behavior that isn't okay, that we call it out. And we do it in a good way. So when we also, when we want to challenge someone, you can challenge them without being a pain, but actually in a positive way. And that's what we want to train. Yeah. Thanks. Maybe to you, Thomas. Can you give a practical example of the use of the 2x2 matrix to identify scenarios? Yeah. So it's about identifying the two main uncertainties, right? And so when we look at companies that are maybe introducing a new product platform, right? Then there's, of course, a big uncertainty about how will the adoption be in the market. But it could also be that they know there's behavior from their competitors also doing. So that could be two dimensions. And then actually defining those scenarios into these two dimensions. So it's about defining the two major uncertainties and combining those. Yeah. And that gives a rough frame for defining scenarios. But we shouldn't be rigid. It's not like we have to use the four. It could be that we use two of them and we combine it with a third one. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think it was you, Jacob, that stated that everything is moving faster. Hence, we also need to take more decisions faster. How do you cope with decision tiredness or decision fatigue? I take a nap. Specifically. But, yeah, we need to take decisions faster. But when I say we, it's companies, of course. And here, again, it's just important that we look at the balance between AI or prediction and judgment. Because essentially, yes, we need to make more decisions. But we also need to allocate it to our company. So the more you can allocate dispersed decisions, the easier it is to do. But, of course, when allocating it, you need also not just to allocate decision rights. But also frames, again, guardrails, trigger points. What are people allowed to decide on? And if you go past a guardrail, then it needs to be escalated. And new frames come up. And this is something that needs to be monitored. So a good monitoring strategy is essential for scenario planning so that we know where are we, are our assumptions still valid? Because often what happens is that it's the person on the machine right before we deliver to the truck, often who sees when the world changes fast because all of a sudden something happens. And that message needs to go all the way through and filter through judgment and whatnot so that, if applicable, it lands for decisions all the way to the top of the company. And then you need to figure out what paces that you have. SNOP or the executional layers where people have ad hoc meetings. Or do you actually need to be able to bring even higher stakeholders into the frame quicker? So it's also then about the uncertainty and the impact of the decisions. You have the right forms for the right decisions. Yeah. And I think here it's just important to say assessing impact can't be done in a single function. You need to have the cross-functional view. Yeah. And maybe there's also about that some decisions we shouldn't revisit all the time. Because there's also a nervousness in the organization. People look at weekly sales numbers and are they. And so we also need to be a little bit clear on we freeze some decisions for some periods. Yeah. And then we revisit them and we are clear on the assumptions that we have to revisit. So I think there's been a discussion, will SNOP, you know, the monthly cycle go away? I don't believe that because I think there is something in the monthly cycle that is actually also ensuring that we don't redo decisions all the time. But on the short horizon, we need to take more and more quick decisions. Right. Yeah. And the more we can empower that in the organization, the better. Yeah. The final question for you, Jacob. If a listener should do one thing different in the next SNOP meeting, what should that be? I think be bold and actually question some of the key assumptions. And really step into the game and not just sit there, but really questioning the assumptions. That is what will bring us forward. It's a lot more fun as well. But of course, maybe before going into the meeting with that mindset, just mention it to your facilitator. Good tip. Good. We are out of time. So I'll just quickly wrap up. So what we hope you can bring with you home to your own decision room is that you should let the machines doing the prediction, but keep judging the assumptions because that's an important human capability. You should make sure that you could wind tunnel your options through the scenarios before you commit to anything that is difficult to reverse. And finally, build it into a habit, into a monthly rhythm where you are protected by the decision hygiene and a room where it is safe to be wrong. So thanks a lot for listening in. Thank you for your time. And thank you, Thomas and Jacob. Thank you, Mike.