We talk a lot about uncertainty in launch – but frequently, teams focus on one future. Forecasts are locked, the strategy is developed and plans are built, all implicitly assuming a single data outcome, a single label, a single access reality. Then pivotal data read out, or the label language lands, and the rework begins, rewriting the story, the value proposition and the launch plan.
Good scenario planning does three things:
Protects investment by avoiding wasteful re‑work and last‑minute scrambles
Sharpens strategy by testing whether your choices still hold under different plausible futures
Aligns stakeholders by giving everyone a shared, realistic view of what might happen and what you’ll do in each case
In late Phase 2, your asset sits at a critical point: you’re starting to commit real money and organisational attention to launch, but key uncertainties on data, label and access remain.
Scenario planning forces you to surface those uncertainties, decide which ones matter, and build a plan that can flex or be refined once the pivotal data and label arrive, avoiding significant rework or rebuilt from scratch. Additionally, earlier scenario planning is even more important for companies managing overlapping launches with limited resources and therefore cannot afford to rebuild strategy at each data milestone.
Effective scenario planning is not about inventing multiple hypothetical worlds. It is about focusing on the uncertainties that matter most for winning at launch. In late Phase 2, three dimensions typically dominate: data strength, label outcome, and market access/timing.
The power of scenario planning in late Phase 2 is that you only build one coherent launch plan – and then refine it twice at key data milestones. This keeps the work structured and reusable, instead of starting from scratch every time something changes.
Take your three scenario dimensions and define a single, integrated launch strategy that is robust across the most likely combinations of scenarios. This becomes your “spine” – the core value story, segmentation, positioning and strategic choices that you expect to hold.
Make assumptions explicit and link them to scenarios. Identify scenario‑sensitive elements of your plan: claims and messaging that rely on specific data thresholds; tactics contingent on breadth of label or specific sub‑groups and access and pricing strategies that hinge on HTA expectations.
The output is a lean but coherent late Phase 2 launch plan with a visible “assumption spine”: everyone can see which parts are rock‑solid and which depend on how data, label and access land.
Update only the components of the plan that are directly impacted. For example, re‑rate the credibility and strength of your main value claims; adjust prioritisation of patient segments, prescribers and messages if effect sizes or subgroup patterns differ from expectations. And / or confirm whether additional evidence generation or sub‑analyses are now critical pre‑launch.
The discussion should be very focused, because the assumptions were explicit. You retain most of the spine and refine only what is needed.
Confirm where your planned narrative and claims are fully supported, where they need tightening, and where new opportunities or constraints appear.
Consider if/where adjustments are required for example, positioning language and proof points to be strictly label‑compliant; market access plans to reflect any restrictions or special conditions and / or training and launch materials to reflect the final, compliant story.
Again, you are refining the same underlying launch plan – not inventing a new one. The team’s mental model of the brand, and the evidence behind it, evolves coherently across Phase 2, Phase 3 and pre‑launch.
A common fear is that scenario planning will explode workload, not reduce it. It doesn’t have to. In our work we find that done well, it is a way to sharpen choices and avoid spinning cycles on low‑value “busy work”.
Top Tips! A lean approach to scenario planning in late Phase 2
Work with a small number of impactful scenarios – typically 2–3 per dimension, not every theoretical variation.
Focus on decision‑critical differences, not on cosmetic details. If two scenarios would drive the same launch strategy, they do not need separate plans.
Use simple tools and visuals: clearly showing what changes and what stays the same
Integrate into existing processes (e.g. TPP reviews, annual brand planning, launch readiness) rather than adding a parallel track of work.
The aim is not to predict the future perfectly. The aim is to make uncertainty explicit, test your strategy against it, and be ready to adapt with minimal re‑work when critical information arrives. Teams that built explicit assumptions can course-correct faster because they already know which information or signals matter, what it means and what to do next.
Read the other articles in our launch series here: