scenario-planning · diff
git:20260829.635d8e8 to git:20260829.2464776
1 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: scenario-planning
description: Plans under genuine uncertainty — building scenarios, identifying which assumptions are load-bearing, setting early-warning indicators, and stress-testing a plan against futures rather than forecasting one. Use this when a decision depends on something unknowable, when a plan assumes conditions that may not hold, before a large irreversible commitment, or when a market, regulatory, or technology shift could invalidate the strategy.
---
# Scenario planning
Forecasting produces one number and false confidence. Scenario planning produces a plan that
survives being wrong, which is the realistic goal.
## Separate what you know from what you are assuming
List the plan's assumptions explicitly, then sort them:
- **Predetermined** — things that will happen regardless. Demographics, contracted commitments,
technology already deployed. Plan around them; do not spend analysis on them.
- **Genuinely uncertain and load-bearing** — the plan changes materially depending on how they
resolve.
Almost every plan has **two or three** load-bearing uncertainties. Finding them is most of the
value, and the exercise usually surfaces one nobody had articulated.
## Build scenarios from the uncertainties, not from moods
The common failure is three scenarios named optimistic, base, and pessimistic — which is one scenario
with the numbers scaled, and it teaches nothing.
Take the two most consequential uncertainties and build the quadrants. Each scenario should be
internally coherent: if demand is high *and* supply is constrained, what else follows — pricing,
- competitor behaviour, regulatory attention?
+ competitor behavior, regulatory attention?
Give each a name that captures its logic. Names make scenarios usable in conversation, which is where
they earn their keep.
Three or four scenarios. More cannot be held in mind; two collapses into best and worst.
## Stress-test the plan against each
For every scenario: does the plan still work, what breaks first, and what would we wish we had done
sooner?
The output is not a prediction. It is three things:
- **Robust moves** — sensible in every scenario. Do these now, with confidence.
- **Contingent moves** — right in some scenarios only. Prepare, do not commit.
- **Options** — small investments that buy the right to act later. Deliberately underrated, because
they look like indecision and are actually the cheapest way to handle uncertainty.
## Early-warning indicators
For each scenario, name the observable signal that would show it is arriving — and specify it
precisely enough to be checked. "Regulatory pressure increases" is not observable. "A second
jurisdiction opens a consultation" is.
Assign each indicator an owner and a review cadence. Scenario work that produces no monitoring is a
workshop, not a plan.
## Revisit on the trigger, not the calendar
Most scenario planning is done once and filed. Its value comes from being revisited when an indicator
fires — that is the moment the earlier thinking pays, because the options were identified before
anyone was under pressure.
## Never
- Assign probabilities to scenarios and then plan only for the likeliest. That is forecasting with
extra steps.
- Build a scenario nobody in the room believes possible. It will be ignored, and the exercise loses
credibility.
- Let the exercise end without naming what to do on Monday in every scenario.