Most organisations understand the importance of having a backup plan. When things go wrong, you need an alternative approach ready to deploy. This logic seems sound, and many organisations invest significant effort in developing Plan B. Yet time and again, organisations with backup plans still find themselves unprepared when crises arrive. The problem isn't that they didn't plan - it's that they only planned for one alternative future.
Having a backup plan creates a sense of security. You've thought about what could go wrong, developed an alternative approach, and feel prepared for contingencies. This feeling is understandable, but it's often misleading. The reality is that most crises don't unfold in the single way you anticipated. They arrive in unexpected forms, through unanticipated channels, or with complications you didn't consider.
Consider the company that developed a backup plan for supply chain disruption, only to find themselves unprepared when the disruption arrived in a completely different form than anticipated. Or the organisation that had a contingency plan for economic downturn, but discovered that the actual crisis combined economic challenges with regulatory changes and technological disruption in ways their single backup plan couldn't address.
The problem with having only one backup plan is that it assumes you can predict not just that something will go wrong, but exactly how it will go wrong. This assumption is almost always false. Real crises are complex, multi-faceted, and unpredictable. A single backup plan, no matter how well thought out, is unlikely to match the complexity of real-world challenges.
The failure of single backup plans isn't due to poor planning - it's due to the fundamental unpredictability of how crises unfold. When you develop Plan B, you're making assumptions about what Plan A's failure will look like. But real failures rarely match these assumptions. They arrive in unexpected forms, with unexpected complications, and through unexpected channels.
This creates what might be called the "contingency planning trap": the more specific and detailed your backup plan, the more vulnerable it becomes to reality's unpredictability. A plan that's perfectly designed for one type of crisis becomes useless when the crisis arrives in a different form. The organisation finds itself with a backup plan that doesn't match the actual problem, leaving them almost as unprepared as if they had no plan at all.
Real crises are rarely simple. They typically involve multiple factors interacting in complex ways. A supply chain disruption might coincide with regulatory changes and market shifts. An economic downturn might combine with technological disruption and competitive challenges. These multi-faceted crises can't be addressed by single backup plans designed for simpler scenarios.
This complexity means that organisations need to prepare for multiple types of failures, not just one. A backup plan for supply chain issues doesn't help when the problem is regulatory. A contingency plan for economic challenges doesn't address technological disruption. The organisation needs multiple backup plans, each addressing different types of potential failures.
But developing multiple isolated backup plans creates its own problems. How do you know which ones to develop? How do you allocate resources across multiple contingencies? How do you avoid planning paralysis when the number of possible failures seems infinite?
Some organisations have discovered a different approach to contingency planning. Instead of developing isolated backup plans for specific failures, they create comprehensive frameworks that prepare for multiple scenarios simultaneously. These frameworks don't require predicting exactly how things will go wrong - they prepare for several ways things might go wrong.
The key insight these organisations have discovered is that you don't need to predict specific failures to prepare for them effectively. Instead, you can identify the key uncertainties that could affect your outcomes, map out different ways those uncertainties might resolve, and develop flexible strategies that work across multiple scenarios. When a crisis arrives, you're ready - not because you predicted it correctly, but because you prepared for several possibilities.
This multi-scenario approach transforms contingency planning from a prediction exercise into a preparation exercise. Instead of trying to guess which specific failure will occur, you prepare for multiple types of failures simultaneously. This doesn't mean planning for every possible problem - it means structuring your thinking around key uncertainties and preparing for different ways they might resolve.
The organisations that avoid the contingency planning trap have learned to think about preparation differently. Instead of developing isolated backup plans, they create frameworks that build resilience across multiple scenarios. These frameworks don't require predicting specific failures - they require identifying key uncertainties and preparing for different ways those uncertainties might unfold.
This approach has several advantages. First, it reduces vulnerability to prediction failure because you're not betting everything on one anticipated problem. Second, it creates flexibility to adapt when crises arrive in unexpected forms. Third, it builds organisational resilience that works across multiple types of challenges. Most importantly, it prepares you for the complexity of real crises rather than simplified versions of them.
Developing multiple contingency plans doesn't mean planning for every possible problem - that would be overwhelming and impractical. Instead, it means developing structured approaches to thinking about multiple scenarios. These approaches help you identify the most critical uncertainties, map out different ways they might resolve, and prepare flexible strategies that work across scenarios.
The organisations that successfully avoid the contingency planning trap have developed frameworks that make multi-scenario planning manageable. These frameworks don't require endless "what if" exercises - they require structured thinking about key uncertainties and systematic preparation across possibilities. This approach transforms contingency planning from overwhelming to practical.
The shift from single backup plans to multi-scenario preparation requires changing how you think about contingency planning. Instead of asking "What will go wrong, and how will we respond?" you ask "What might go wrong in different ways, and how can we be ready for multiple possibilities?" This shift transforms contingency planning from a prediction exercise into a resilience-building exercise.
This doesn't mean abandoning specific backup plans entirely. It means developing them as part of a larger framework that prepares for multiple scenarios. Your specific backup plans become components of a comprehensive approach to uncertainty rather than standalone solutions to predicted problems.
When organisations move beyond single backup plans to multi-scenario preparation, the benefits are substantial. They become more resilient because they're prepared for multiple types of challenges. They become more flexible because they have frameworks that work across scenarios. Most importantly, they become better at handling the complexity of real crises because their preparation matches that complexity.
These benefits become particularly important during times of uncertainty or rapid change. When multiple challenges emerge simultaneously, organisations with multi-scenario preparation are better equipped to respond because they've thought about how different factors might interact. They're not caught off guard by complexity because their preparation has accounted for it.
The contingency planning trap exists because single backup plans assume you can predict exactly how things will go wrong. But real crises are complex and unpredictable, arriving in forms that rarely match our assumptions. The solution isn't to abandon contingency planning—it's to move beyond single backup plans to multi-scenario preparation.
The organisations that avoid this trap have learned to prepare for multiple scenarios simultaneously. They've developed frameworks that help them identify key uncertainties, map out different ways those uncertainties might resolve, and create flexible strategies that work across scenarios. The result is organisational resilience that matches the complexity of real-world challenges, preparing them for multiple types of failures rather than betting everything on predicting one.
If you're ready to move beyond single backup plans and develop comprehensive approaches to multi-scenario preparation, there are structured frameworks that can help you build resilience across multiple possibilities without getting lost in endless "what if" exercises.
Check out this course to help you prepare for multiple futures: The Future Matrix - Master the Art of Planning for Uncertain Futures