8 weeks · ¥45,000 JPY
Knowing where your company is going — three to five years out.
A structured planning process for leadership teams who want a considered position, not a forecast — with documented assumptions they can revisit as conditions change.
What this engagement delivers
At the close of this engagement, your leadership team will have a written plan — not a presentation deck that will age on a shared drive, but a working document with decision points, documented assumptions, and a scheduled annual revision built in.
The plan addresses where demand in your sector is likely to move over the coming three to five years, what capabilities your company would need to serve that demand, and what must be committed — and when — to build those capabilities. Sensitivity to the underlying assumptions is included, so the plan does not become obsolete the moment conditions shift.
Clarity
A shared, articulated view of direction — something your team can point to and reason from, rather than carrying separate private assumptions.
Flexibility
Decision points rather than fixed commitments. The plan is built to be revised, not followed blindly.
Ownership
The document belongs to your company. Your team participated in building it and can maintain it without external support.
Continuity
A scheduled annual revision is included — the plan is designed to remain in use, not to be written once and forgotten.
Where many companies find themselves
Most companies can say what they plan to do this financial year. Budget is set, projects are assigned, targets are written down. That kind of planning is necessary and most organisations do it reasonably well.
The harder question — what the company intends to look like in three or five years, and what would need to be true for that to happen — tends to remain unresolved. Not because it is unimportant, but because the immediate demands of running the business press against any sustained attempt to address it.
The effect is that significant decisions get made without a coherent longer frame of reference. Capital is committed, people are hired, capabilities are built or abandoned — and each decision is locally reasonable but not necessarily connected to a considered direction. This is not a failure of diligence. It is what happens when the mechanism for longer-horizon planning has not been built.
Common situation
Planning currently extends no further than the coming financial year. Longer-horizon questions exist but have no formal process.
The gap it creates
Decisions about investment, hiring and direction are made without a shared longer-term reference. Each is defensible on its own terms but may not connect.
What this addresses
A structured engagement builds the mechanism that was missing — a documented position with decision points your team can return to and revise.
The approach for this engagement
This engagement works with your leadership team and relevant department heads over eight weeks. It is structured rather than open-ended — each phase addresses a specific set of questions, and the sequence is designed so that later discussions are grounded in what was established earlier.
The process begins with the sector: where is demand likely to move, and on what basis? This is not a market research exercise. It is a structured examination of the assumptions your company is already making — made explicit so they can be discussed, challenged and documented.
From there, the engagement moves to capability — what your company would need to be able to do to serve demand as it develops — and then to commitment: what would have to be decided, and when, and what would those decisions foreclose. The output is a plan with decision points, not a fixed forecast.
What makes this effective
The engagement works with your existing assumptions, not against them — making explicit what leadership already believes so it can be examined and stress-tested.
Department heads are involved at the relevant stages, so the plan reflects operational reality and has genuine buy-in rather than being imposed from above.
Sensitivity to demand assumptions is built in — the plan accommodates scenarios rather than depending on a single forecast being correct.
The written output is designed for internal use over time — structured so your team can return to it annually and update it without external assistance.
What working through this looks like
Sector and demand
Understanding where demand in your sector is likely to shift, and documenting the assumptions behind that view. Sessions with leadership.
Capability mapping
Identifying what the company would need to be able to do to serve demand as it develops. Department heads involved at this stage.
Commitments and timing
Working out what must be decided and when, what each decision would foreclose, and where flexibility can be preserved.
Plan and handover
The written plan is drafted with your team, reviewed, and handed over — with the annual revision schedule built in and explained.
What participants often find
The value of the working sessions is often as much in the conversation as in the output. Leadership teams that have not previously articulated their longer-horizon assumptions in a shared setting frequently find that they were not as aligned as they assumed. Working through that openly, in a structured setting, tends to produce a clearer collective view — and a better document.
The engagement fee
Fee
¥45,000 JPY
Agreed in full before work begins. No revision billing within standard scope.
The fee covers eight weeks of structured work — sessions with your leadership team, all preparation and follow-up, the written plan, and a scheduled follow-up review point. There are no additional charges for the deliverable or for the revision session.
Payment schedule is discussed and agreed at the outset. Typically the fee is split across the engagement period rather than paid in a single instalment — the precise arrangement is confirmed in writing before work begins.
What is included
Eight weeks of structured working sessions with leadership and department heads
A written plan with decision points rather than fixed commitments, handed to your company at close
Sensitivity analysis against the demand assumptions underlying the plan
Scheduled annual revision — a structured process your team can follow independently
A follow-up review point after delivery to address questions arising from implementation
How progress is tracked and what to expect
Planning work of this kind does not produce results that are visible within the engagement period itself. The engagement produces a document. The value of that document is realised through how the company uses it over the years that follow — in the decisions it shapes and the conversations it enables.
What can be assessed at the close of the engagement is the quality of the output: whether the plan is internally consistent, whether its assumptions are documented clearly enough to be revisited, and whether the leadership team feels they have a shared view they did not have before.
On the horizon table below, the three columns show what changes within three months of completing the engagement, within a year, and beyond. These are typical, not guaranteed — the trajectory depends on how the company uses the plan.
Within 3 months
Within a year
Beyond
A shared, written view of direction that leadership can reference in discussions and decisions.
Decision points reviewed and updated at the scheduled annual revision. Assumptions tested against what has changed.
Compounding effect of decisions made with a clearer long-horizon frame — capital, people and capability aligned over time.
Our commitment to you
Scope held
The scope and fee agreed before work begins are not revised upward during the engagement. Standard revisions and additional working sessions within the agreed scope are included.
Honest assessment
If the working sessions produce findings that challenge the direction leadership expected to confirm, those findings will be set out clearly. Advisory work that only validates existing assumptions is not advisory work.
No obligation to start
The initial conversation is at no charge and involves no commitment. If, after discussing your situation, this engagement is not the right fit, that will be said directly.
How to proceed if this feels relevant
Get in touch
Use the contact form or write to info@mast-corelab.com. Briefly describe your company and the planning question you are trying to address.
Initial conversation
We discuss your situation, whether this engagement is a fit, and what the process would look like for your company specifically. No commitment involved.
Scope agreed in writing
If both sides are satisfied, scope, timing and the full fee are set out in writing. Work begins once that is agreed and countersigned.
If your company is making decisions without a clear longer-horizon frame, this engagement is designed to change that.
Other engagements available
4 weeks · ¥39,000 JPY
Investment Case Preparation
Support preparing the case for a significant capital commitment — covering operational assumptions, alternatives and the conditions under which the case fails.
View details6 weeks · ¥36,000 JPY
Sustainability Reporting Support
Practical support for companies asked to report on environmental and social matters — frameworks, data collection and accurate reporting without overstating.
View details4 weeks · ¥31,000 JPY
Risk Register Development
A working risk register covering operational, financial, supply, regulatory and key-person exposures — with a review schedule your team can follow independently.
See all engagements