First Midwest BankFirst Midwest Bank logoArrow DownIcon of an arrow pointing downwardsArrow LeftIcon of an arrow pointing to the leftArrow RightIcon of an arrow pointing to the rightArrow UpIcon of an arrow pointing upwardsBank IconIcon of a bank buildingCheck IconIcon of a bank checkCheckmark IconIcon of a checkmarkCredit-Card IconIcon of a credit-cardFunds IconIcon of hands holding a bag of moneyAlert IconIcon of an exclaimation markIdea IconIcon of a bright light bulbKey IconIcon of a keyLock IconIcon of a padlockMail IconIcon of an envelopeMobile Banking IconIcon of a mobile phone with a dollar sign in a speech bubbleMoney in Home IconIcon of a dollar sign inside of a housePhone IconIcon of a phone handsetPlanning IconIcon of a compassReload IconIcon of two arrows pointing head to tail in a circleSearch IconIcon of a magnifying glassFacebook IconIcon of the Facebook logoLinkedIn IconIcon of the LinkedIn LogoXX Symbol, typically used to close a menu
FDIC-Insured - Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government

Suggested Search Terms

    Suggested Search Terms

      America Innovates: Celebrating 250 Years
      Get Insights

      Get monthly ideas delivered right to your inbox.

      Subscribe for Insights

      For Your Business Anders Liu-Lindberg October 21, 2026

      Why Scenario Planning Remains Finance’s Most Underused Tool

      Every finance leader now agrees that the operating environment has become harder to predict. Far fewer have changed how they plan in response. The annual budget still gets built around a single, most-likely view of the future, reviewed and approved, and then treated as the reference point against which everything else gets measured for the next twelve months, regardless of how much the world around it has shifted in the meantime. McKinsey’s latest CFO Pulse Survey, fielded among 152 finance leaders across 22 countries in late 2025, found that 37% now identify geopolitical instability or conflict as one of the biggest risks to their company’s growth, and 32% point to shifting trade policy, both figures higher than the same survey found just months earlier. Awareness of volatility is rising fast. The planning process built to handle it is, in most companies, still catching up.

      A Capability Most Companies Say They Need But Haven’t Built

      The gap between awareness and readiness shows up clearly in Deloitte’s Spring 2026 European CFO Survey, which found 76% of CFOs now rate external financial and economic uncertainty as high or very high, a 15-percentage-point jump from just the prior survey period and a level last seen during the peak disruption of 2022. Faced with that uncertainty, Deloitte found the most common risk-mitigation measure CFOs are now turning to is scenario planning, ahead of other options like cost reduction or capital deferral.

      That’s the right instinct, but research from Kyriba, based on a survey of 1,400 CFOs and senior finance decision-makers at companies with at least $500 million in revenue, suggests most organizations are further from genuine readiness than their stated priorities imply. Nearly six in ten CFOs in Kyriba’s research say they lack a complete, real-time view of their own organization’s risk position, and 61% now identify risk management and scenario planning as crucial skills for their teams to develop, an implicit admission that the capability isn’t yet where it needs to be. Naming scenario planning a priority and having the infrastructure, data and discipline to do it well are two different accomplishments, and most finance functions are still closer to the first than the second.

      Why Most “Scenario Planning” Isn’t Actually Scenario Planning

      Part of the problem is definitional. A lot of what gets labeled scenario planning inside finance functions is really sensitivity analysis wearing a more ambitious name: a single base case with an optimistic and pessimistic variant layered on top, usually built by flexing one or two assumptions up or down by a fixed percentage. That’s a useful exercise, but it isn’t the same as genuine scenario planning, which starts from distinct, internally coherent stories about how the future could unfold, not a single story with the volume turned up or down. A downturn driven by a demand shock, a downturn driven by a supply disruption and a downturn driven by a credit crunch can produce an identical-looking revenue line on a sensitivity table, while requiring completely different operational responses in practice.

      The distinction matters because of what each approach prepares an organization to do. A sensitivity table tells a CFO how sensitive profit is to a given assumption. A genuine scenario, built out as a coherent narrative with its own internal logic, tells the organization what it would need to do differently, operationally and strategically, if that version of the future started to materialize. Research from AFP’s benchmarking of integrated planning makes the practical payoff concrete: Organizations that have adopted structured scenario planning complete their annual budgeting process 11% faster than peers that haven’t, even though scenario planning sounds, on its face, like it should add time and complexity to the calendar rather than remove it. The explanation is straightforward: Once a genuine range of futures has already been thought through in advance, far less of the annual planning cycle gets consumed relitigating assumptions from scratch.

      What Separates Genuine Scenario Planning From A Spreadsheet Exercise

      A handful of disciplines tend to separate organizations that treat scenario planning as a living capability from those that treat it as an annual slide deck exercise, reviewed once and then filed away until the next planning cycle:

      • Each scenario is a distinct, internally coherent story, not a single forecast with the dial turned up or down, so the organization can reason about what each version of the future would require operationally.
      • Leading indicators are identified in advance for each scenario, so the organization has a real-time signal for which version of the future is starting to unfold, rather than waiting for lagging financial results to confirm it.
      • Trigger points and pre-approved responses are defined ahead of time, so a shift in the operating environment prompts action immediately rather than convening a new round of meetings to decide what to do.
      • Scenarios are revisited on a regular cadence, not just once a year, since the set of plausible futures that made sense twelve months ago may no longer reflect the risks an organization is facing today.

      Without these disciplines, a scenario plan is just documentation of what leadership already expected to happen, dressed up with a few alternative numbers that rarely get revisited once the planning cycle ends.

      Resilience Is Built Before the Disruption, not During It

      The organizations that weather disruption well aren’t the ones that respond fastest once a crisis is already underway. They’re the ones that had already done the thinking in advance, so that when conditions shift, the response is execution of a plan rather than improvisation under pressure. That’s the real value genuine scenario planning creates, and it’s also why it’s so easy to underinvest in: The payoff is almost entirely contingent, invisible in the years nothing goes wrong, and only obviously valuable in retrospect, after a disruption the organization happened to be prepared for.

      Given how clearly CFOs now recognize volatility as the defining condition of the current environment, the gap between that recognition and the maturity of most organizations’ scenario planning capability looks less like an oversight and more like a predictable consequence of chronically underinvesting in a discipline whose return is only visible when it’s needed.

      For a finance function already managing long-range plans, annual budgets and rolling forecasts, scenario planning isn’t a fourth parallel process to resource separately. It’s the discipline that tells the other three what to do when reality stops cooperating with any of them. A long-range plan built without genuine scenarios is a single bet dressed up as a strategy. An annual budget without pre-thought-through alternatives turns every deviation into an emergency rather than an anticipated branch in a plan that was already built to flex. And a rolling forecast, however accurate, only tells an organization what’s happening. Scenario planning is what tells it, in advance, what to do about it.

       

      This article was written by Anders Liu-Lindberg from Forbes and was legally licensed through the DiveMarketplace by Industry Dive. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@industrydive.com.

      Subscribe for Insights

      Subscribe