The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You are planning ahead and want a sourced scan of the outside forces that could affect your organization over the next few years.
- {{organization}}
- {{audience}}
- {{horizon}}
- {{planning_use}}
- {{about_us}}
- {{sources}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Write a PESTLE scan for {{organization}}, for {{audience}}, from the sources below, so that they can see which outside forces could affect us over {{horizon}}, how likely and how serious each one is, and which to watch or plan for. The scan feeds {{planning_use}}, so it must keep what the sources show apart from what we assume. About us (what we do, where, for whom): {{about_us}} Sources (reports, news, regulations, data, notes from experts), each labeled: """ {{sources}} """ Use the six PESTLE headings: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental. Under each, a table with the columns Factor, Evidence (source label), Time frame, Likelihood (high, medium, low), Impact on us (high, medium, low), What it means for us. Up to five factors per heading. Then: 1. Priorities: the factors rated high on both likelihood and impact, ranked, with one line each on what to do next (monitor, plan for, or act now). 2. Signals to watch: for each priority factor, the sign that would show it is happening, for example a bill passing committee or a price index crossing a level we name. 3. Gaps: headings where the sources were thin, and what to read to fill them. Keep it under 1,000 words, apart from the tables. A good scan is specific to us: "Rising rents in city centers (source 4) squeeze our downtown stores" rather than "economic uncertainty". That example shows the form only. Use only the sources and what we said about ourselves. Do not fill a heading with generic factors to make it look complete; if the sources say nothing for a heading, write "No evidence in the sources" and list it under gaps. Keep Political and Legal apart: Political covers what governments intend and signal, Legal covers laws and rules in force or formally proposed. Likelihood and impact ratings are judgments, so give a one-line reason for each high rating. If two sources disagree about a factor, show both and rate it with that uncertainty in mind. If the sources do not give a time frame for a factor, write [CHECK: time frame] rather than estimating one.
Variables
- {{organization}}
- Your organization, for example "a regional chain of garden centers".
- {{audience}}
- Who reads it, for example "the leadership team at the strategy offsite".
- {{horizon}}
- The time frame, for example "the next three years".
- {{planning_use}}
- What the scan feeds, for example "next year's strategic plan".
- {{about_us}}
- What you do, where and for whom, in a few lines.
- {{sources}}
- Your sources, each labeled, with the relevant passages or summaries.
Why it works
- What to avoid. No heading is filled with generic factors to look complete; an empty heading says so and goes to the gaps list.
- What good looks like. Each factor must say what it means for your organization, and every high rating carries a one-line reason.
- An example. A sample factor shows the difference between a specific, sourced point and a vague one such as economic uncertainty.