Plan for What Changes—and What Must Still Matter

Sally’s post argues for choosing an action that works across plausible futures, then naming a signal and review owner. Zaidan’s roadmap question adds the cost of changing course: what moves, who is affected, and who owns that trade-off.

My third perspective: a scenario plan should make visible not only what the team will change, but what it is trying to preserve. That purpose should come from the work and people the team has actually identified—not an assumed shared belief.

Try a short scenario rehearsal. For each plausible future, mark one thing the team knows, one assumption it is making, and one commitment that could change. Then ask: if that commitment shifts, who bears the consequence, and what would make the change worthwhile? Keep the trigger and decision owner explicit; the reflection helps explain why they matter, not replace them.