To Plan or Not to Plan?

Ann Forsyth’s words capture the delicate duality of plans:

“Plans speak about the future—what people are planning for—but are creatures of the time in which they were written.”

Her insight resonates beyond its academic roots, especially when applied to Business Continuity Management (BCM). Plans are more than just documents—they are a reflection of how we attempt to navigate uncertainty.

But here’s the catch: the more complex the situation, the less detailed planning helps.

Why?

Detailed plans often create a false sense of security.

In high-stakes, fast-changing situations, relying on rigid instructions can leave us vulnerable. Worse, such plans can dull critical thinking, making teams overly dependent on prescribed steps that fail when reality diverges from expectation.

But this doesn’t mean we abandon planning altogether.

Instead, we need to understand when and how to plan effectively.

The Cynefin Framework: A Guide for When to Plan

The Cynefin framework provides a useful lens for decision-making and planning by categorizing situations into domains:

1. Simple (Clear):

• Cause-and-effect relationships are straightforward.
• Use detailed planning and established processes.
• Example: Routine maintenance schedules or financial audits.

2. Complicated:

• Requires expert analysis; there’s a right answer, but it’s not immediately obvious.
• Use detailed plans for sequences where outcomes are path-dependent.
• Example: IT system recovery or synchronized manufacturing processes.

3. Complex:

• Cause and effect are only clear in hindsight.
• Avoid over-planning; favor broad objectives and iterative adjustments.
• Example: Managing supply chain disruptions during a global crisis.

4. Chaotic:

• Immediate action is needed; there’s no time for analysis.
• Forget detailed plans; rely on guiding principles and rapid decision-making.
• Example: A cyberattack or sudden natural disaster.

As complexity increases, the utility of detailed planning diminishes.

In fact, detailed plans in complex or chaotic domains can backfire by encouraging rigidity, reducing adaptability, and creating a dangerous illusion of control.

Detailed Plans vs. Sequences: When Path Dependence Matters

Some scenarios demand meticulous sequences, where the order of steps is critical to success. Taleb calls this path dependence: the idea that certain outcomes hinge on specific sequences of actions.

These are the cases where detailed plans shine.

Scenario: Blackout

Imagine a transregional power outage lasting several days or more—a blackout that shuts down communications, disrupts transportation, and freezes supply chains. This is a high-stakes scenario where the effectiveness of your response hinges on decisions made well in advance.

Path-Dependent Elements

Certain aspects of the response must be planned and prepared ahead of time. In this scenario, one critical path-dependent element is communication.

Without reliable communication channels, your crisis team cannot coordinate effectively. You cannot improvise this during the blackout; it must already be in place.

Examples of pre-planned measures include:

• Pre-arranged meeting points: Teams know where to gather if communication systems fail.
• Backup communication systems: Satellite phones or other off-grid solutions ensure connectivity.
• Defined authority levels: Teams understand decision-making boundaries, including budget limits, without needing constant approval.

These path-dependent preparations form the foundation for an effective response.

On-Site: Adaptability Over Detail

Once the crisis team is on-site and communication is established, the value of detailed step-by-step plans diminishes. In a blackout, the situation evolves rapidly, and rigid plans can be a liability.

Instead, the crisis team must operate based on principles, training, and real-time assessment of the unfolding situation.

• Principles: Clear objectives, such as "ensure public safety" or "restore critical infrastructure first."
• Flexibility: The freedom to allocate resources or adjust priorities without needing specific guidance.
• Boundaries: Guidelines on what actions are permissible (e.g., budget limits or regulatory constraints).

Detailed plans are not needed at this stage; the crisis team’s expertise and ability to adapt are far more valuable.

The Risks of Over-Planning

Over-planning in complex or chaotic situations comes with several risks:

1. False Security: Detailed plans can create the illusion that every scenario has been accounted for, leading teams to overlook the need for flexibility and real-time problem-solving.
2. Cognitive Laziness: Over-reliance on plans can dull critical thinking. When teams aren’t accustomed to improvising, they’re more likely to freeze or follow ineffective steps when faced with unexpected challenges.
3. Resource Drain: Creating and maintaining exhaustive plans for every potential scenario diverts time and resources from other priorities, often with diminishing returns.

Instead, focus detailed planning on what must happen (e.g., path-dependent sequences) and leave space for adaptability in everything else.

Striking the Balance: A Practical Framework

1. Focus on Principles in Complexity:

• Prioritize overarching objectives rather than exhaustive steps.
• Equip teams with guiding principles and encourage real-time decision-making.

2. Use Skeleton Plans:

• Create high-level frameworks with flexibility for adjustment.
• Example: A business continuity plan might outline recovery priorities (e.g., restoring communication systems first) but leave resource allocation decisions to be made in real-time.

3. Invest in Training, Not Just Plans:

• Encourage critical thinking through scenario simulations.
• Prepare teams to act confidently without rigid instructions.

4. Reserve Detail for Path-Dependent Sequences:

• Focus detailed planning on situations with clear dependencies, such as emergency evacuation procedures or restoring critical IT systems.

Closing Thoughts: The Art of Planning

A plan is most effective when it acknowledges its limits.

As complexity grows, our reliance on pre-defined steps should decrease, replaced by a focus on principles, preparation, and adaptability.

• Use detailed plans where path dependence is critical (e.g., sequences that cannot fail).
• Embrace adaptability in dynamic, unpredictable situations.
• Equip your teams to think critically and act flexibly, ensuring resilience even when the plan no longer applies.

This is the essence of resilience: being prepared not just for what you can foresee but for the inevitable surprises that no plan can predict.

Have a great weekend everyone!

P.S.:

Subscribe to my newsletter for regular insights on Risk, Resilience, and Management:

https://marcoresilienceengineers.substack.com/