One of the most frustrating experiences in business is seeing a problem coming, developing a contingency plan to address it, and then watching that plan get rejected by finance teams who can't justify spending money on "what if" scenarios. This budget battle plays out in organisations everywhere: valid concerns are raised, thoughtful contingency plans are developed, and then finance teams ask the question that kills them: "But what if this doesn't happen?"
From a finance perspective, contingency planning presents a genuine challenge. Budgets are typically allocated based on expected outcomes, projected returns, and measurable benefits. Contingency plans, by their nature, address uncertain futures. They require spending money on scenarios that might not materialise, making it difficult to demonstrate clear return on investment. The finance team's question—"What if this doesn't happen?"—isn't unreasonable from their perspective, but it creates a dangerous dynamic.
This dynamic creates what might be called the "contingency planning paradox": the plans that are most needed are often the hardest to justify financially. When you can't predict whether a problem will occur, you can't easily calculate the return on preparing for it. The result is that many organisations find themselves unable to get approval for contingency planning until after the disaster has struck—at which point, the costs are far higher than they would have been with advance preparation.
The problem isn't that finance teams are short-sighted or risk-averse—it's that traditional budgeting processes don't provide a framework for evaluating uncertain scenarios. When a contingency plan is presented as a standalone "what if" scenario, it's difficult to assess its value. How do you justify spending money on something that might not happen? How do you calculate ROI for a scenario that may never materialise?
This challenge is compounded by the way contingency plans are often presented. When they're framed as isolated "what if" scenarios, they can seem speculative or unnecessary. Finance teams, trained to evaluate investments based on expected returns, struggle to assess the value of preparing for uncertain futures. The result is that many valuable contingency plans never get approved, leaving organisations exposed when those scenarios do materialise.
The cost of rejecting contingency plans is often invisible until it's too late. When a crisis arrives that could have been anticipated, organisations find themselves spending far more on reactive responses than they would have spent on proactive preparation. Emergency measures are almost always more expensive than planned contingencies. The budget that seemed impossible to justify in advance suddenly becomes a necessity, but by then, the costs are higher and the options are more limited.
Consider the company that couldn't get approval for a supply chain diversification plan, only to watch costs skyrocket when their single supplier failed. Or the organisation that couldn't justify budget for regulatory compliance preparation, only to face massive penalties and rushed implementation when new regulations arrived. In both cases, the contingency planning would have been far less expensive than the reactive response, but the upfront investment couldn't be justified using traditional budgeting frameworks.
Some organisations have discovered that the key to getting contingency plans approved isn't to make better predictions—it's to reframe how contingency planning is presented and evaluated. Instead of presenting contingency plans as isolated "what if" scenarios, these organisations structure them as part of a comprehensive multi-scenario planning approach.
The difference is significant. When contingency planning is part of a structured framework that addresses multiple possible futures, it becomes easier to evaluate. Instead of asking "What if this doesn't happen?" finance teams can ask "How do we prepare for the range of possible futures?" This reframing transforms contingency planning from speculative spending into strategic preparation.
Organisations that successfully get contingency plans approved have learned to think about budgeting differently. Instead of evaluating each contingency plan in isolation, they develop comprehensive planning frameworks that address multiple scenarios simultaneously. This approach allows finance teams to see contingency planning as part of a larger strategic investment rather than as isolated speculative spending.
The key insight these organisations have discovered is that when you structure planning around multiple scenarios, contingency plans become part of a comprehensive strategy rather than standalone "what if" exercises. Finance teams can evaluate the overall approach to uncertainty management rather than trying to assess individual uncertain scenarios. This makes it easier to justify investment in preparation across multiple futures.
The challenge for finance teams isn't that they don't understand the value of preparation—it's that they need frameworks to evaluate investments in uncertain scenarios. When contingency planning is presented as part of a structured approach to managing multiple possible futures, it becomes easier to assess and justify.
Some organisations have developed methods that help finance teams evaluate multi-scenario planning approaches. These methods don't require perfect prediction—they require structured thinking about possibilities and systematic preparation across scenarios. This approach makes uncertainty manageable for finance teams, allowing them to evaluate investments in preparation rather than trying to assess individual uncertain scenarios.
The organisations that successfully get contingency plans approved have learned to communicate the strategic value of preparation. They frame contingency planning not as spending money on things that might not happen, but as building organisational resilience that works regardless of which future unfolds. This reframing helps finance teams see contingency planning as a strategic investment rather than speculative spending.
This approach recognises that preparation has value beyond addressing specific scenarios. Well-structured contingency planning builds organisational capability, improves response times, and creates flexibility that's valuable across multiple futures. When presented this way, contingency planning becomes easier to justify because its value extends beyond any single scenario.
The key to getting contingency plans approved is to move beyond isolated "what if" scenarios and develop comprehensive approaches to multi-scenario planning. When contingency planning is part of a structured framework that addresses multiple possible futures, it becomes easier to evaluate and justify. Finance teams can assess the overall approach to uncertainty management rather than trying to evaluate individual uncertain scenarios.
This requires developing frameworks that help structure thinking about multiple futures. Instead of presenting contingency plans as standalone scenarios, these frameworks integrate them into comprehensive planning approaches. This makes it easier for finance teams to see the strategic value of preparation and justify investment in building organisational resilience.
Getting approval for contingency plans requires more than just better predictions or more compelling presentations. It requires reframing how contingency planning is understood and evaluated. When contingency plans are presented as isolated "what if" scenarios, they're difficult to justify financially. But when they're part of a structured framework for managing multiple possible futures, they become easier to evaluate and approve.
The organisations that successfully navigate this challenge have learned to think about contingency planning differently. They develop comprehensive approaches to multi-scenario planning that make uncertainty manageable for finance teams. They frame preparation as building organisational resilience rather than spending money on things that might not happen. The result is that they get approval for contingency planning before disasters strike, saving money and building resilience in the process.
If you're struggling to get approval for contingency planning, there are structured approaches that can help you present multi-scenario planning in ways that finance teams can evaluate and justify, making uncertainty manageable rather than speculative.
Check out this course to help you prepare for multiple futures: The Future Matrix - Master the Art of Planning for Uncertain Futures