One Plan Is Not Enough

It's the beginning of the year. Many of us are sitting over a strategic plan right now — either writing one or trying to run a company by one. The document looks great — clear vision, defined goals, carefully chosen numbers, realistic projections. But try asking yourself one question: how many of the assumptions your plan is built on were still valid two years ago?

The truth is, in 2024, none of us planned for AI transforming entire industries in months, not years. No one anticipated that a ten-year-old company like Revolut would be generating $4 billion in annual revenue by 2025, serving 65 million customers, and heading toward a $75 billion valuation — more than most traditional European banks. And that's just one example. The pace at which AI is compressing innovation cycles is changing the rules of the game in ways most strategic plans simply aren't built for.

The world isn't accelerating linearly. It's accelerating exponentially. And our strategic tools still haven't caught up.

The Problem of a Single Future

The standard approach to strategy is built on one scenario — the "base case." The most probable market trajectory, from which the budget, investment decisions, and workforce plan all follow. Even though every plan has some buffer, its logic rests on a single set of assumptions about what the world will look like.

At first glance, this makes sense. Why plan for something that probably won't happen?

Because it's precisely what "probably won't happen" that determines a company's survival. The 1973 oil embargo "probably" wasn't going to happen. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 stemmed from a scenario its leadership never simulated — a rapid deposit outflow amid rising interest rates. And most European companies had no Plan B in 2022 for a world where energy prices tripled in a matter of months.

The problem isn't that these companies predicted poorly. The problem is that they never considered the alternative.

Rohrbeck's longitudinal study of 70 large European firms, published by EDHEC Business School, produced hard numbers: companies that systematically work with multiple future scenarios are 33% more profitable and achieve twice the growth compared to their industry average. And yet — only one in five companies does this systematically.

Prediction vs. Preparedness

We live in an era that loves prediction. Prediction markets, AI models, superforecasting — everything promises a more accurate view of what's coming. And it partly works. For short-term, clearly defined questions — will the regulator approve this product in Q3? — predictive tools are extraordinarily useful.

But strategic questions aren't of this type. "How will AI change banking in five years?" isn't a puzzle with one correct answer. It's an open-ended question where the rules can change mid-game.

The difference between prediction and preparedness isn't semantic — it's the difference between two fundamentally different approaches to strategy. Prediction asks: "What will happen?" Preparedness asks: "What will we do if this happens — or this — or something entirely different?"

The goal of scenarios isn't to predict the future. The goal is to break the rigid mental models that prevent leadership from seeing reality when it changes. It's not about guessing right. It's about ensuring no development catches you unprepared.

What This Means in Practice

It's not about throwing out your strategic plan. It's about examining the assumptions it's built on and distinguishing two fundamentally different categories: trends and uncertainties.

Trends have a clear direction — aging populations, digitalization, urbanization. They feed into every plan and can't surprise us. But alongside them exist uncertainties — factors whose future trajectory is critical for the company, yet no one knows which way they'll go. How will AI regulation evolve in Europe? Will a global player enter our market? Will customer behavior change faster than we can respond?

It's precisely these uncertainties that form the axes around which scenarios are built. When you take the two most critical uncertainties in your industry and combine their extreme states, four distinct futures emerge — four worlds with their own internal logic. None of them is a prediction. Each of them is a consistent possibility you can prepare for.

And then comes the key question: what capabilities do we need to succeed in each of these worlds? There are moves that make sense regardless of which scenario unfolds — so-called "no-regrets moves." And there are moves you prepare "in the drawer" in case the world takes a specific turn. For that, you need indicators — measurable signals that continuously show you which scenario reality is approaching. Strategy then stops being a static document and becomes a living system that evolves alongside the world around it.

Until recently, this approach was only available to companies with large analytical teams and consulting budgets. Today, the combination of AI and agentic systems is changing that equation — specialized AI agents can autonomously monitor hundreds of sources in real time, detect shifts in regulations, technologies, or the competitive landscape, continuously recalculate scenario probabilities, and recommend concrete strategic actions. Scenarios stop being a static document and become a living system that evolves with the world. This is exactly the space we're filling at DSGHT.ai — building a Living Foresight Platform that makes this kind of strategic work accessible to companies that don't have the luxury of their own foresight department.

The Future as a Discipline

The future is not fate. Nor is it an equation that can be solved with enough data. It's a space we navigate through today's decisions.

A company working with a single plan is playing roulette. A company working with multiple scenarios holds a portfolio of options. It doesn't need to be right about which future will unfold. It's enough that none of them arrives as a surprise.

The world won't slow down. AI will keep compressing innovation cycles. Regulation will keep mutating. New players will keep entering markets at speeds we're not used to. The question isn't whether something will surprise you. The question is whether you'll be ready for it.

And the first step is simple: look at your strategic plan and ask yourself — how many of its assumptions still hold today?