AI is only going to make this problem worse!
Apr 24, 2026
Over the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time facilitating and observing simulation and scenario-based exercises across organisations and communities, with the intent of testing how they respond in a crisis.
One pattern continues to stand out, and it’s becoming more pronounced as AI accelerates both opportunity and risk.
Most organisations don’t struggle to understand what they should be doing. The frameworks are there, the risks are broadly understood and the intent is usually sound.
Where things begin to break down is in the transition from understanding to execution.
One of the more consistent observations is the difference between individuals and teams when it comes to these exercises.
It’s quite common for organisations to send a single representative to participate in a simulation. They return with good ideas, useful observations and often a genuine sense of urgency. But very little tends to change.
Not because the insights aren’t valid, but because the individual now carries the burden of translating that experience back into the organisation. They need to explain what happened, convey why it matters, align stakeholders and somehow drive action.
That’s a difficult position to be in.
Where organisations send small groups or cross-functional teams, the outcome is noticeably different. The experience is shared, the discussions happen in real time, and the alignment is built during the exercise itself. There’s less need to convince – and more readiness to act.
Another pattern relates to organisations that already have some form of governance or operational framework in place.
They don’t necessarily perform perfectly, but they tend to move faster. There is already a structure for thinking about priorities, accountability, and decision-making. When new risks or scenarios are introduced, they are adapting rather than starting from scratch.
Where that foundation doesn’t exist, even basic questions become difficult. Where do we start? What matters most? How do we measure the impact of getting this wrong?
The absence of structure doesn’t just slow things down – it creates hesitation.
Culture, however, is often the deciding factor.
Some organisations absorb these experiences and act. Others acknowledge the issues, have the discussions, and then struggle to move beyond that point.
You can see this variation quite clearly across sectors. Highly regulated industries tend to have the mechanisms and mindset to respond more quickly. In other environments, particularly those operating with tighter constraints or competing priorities, the gap between awareness and action is much harder to close.
It’s not a question of intent. It’s a question of whether the organisation is set up to respond.
What simulation exercises tend to expose is not just gaps in process, but gaps in behaviour.
On paper, governance often looks coherent. Roles are defined, escalation paths exist, and policies are in place. But when you introduce time pressure, incomplete information, and real consequences, decision-making becomes far more complex.
It’s in those moments that clarity is tested.
And this is where simulation becomes particularly valuable. Not as a training exercise in the traditional sense, but as a way of experiencing how the organisation actually behaves under stress. It reveals where assumptions don’t hold, where accountability blurs, and where confidence doesn’t quite translate into action.
If there’s a common thread across all of this, it’s that the implementation of crisis preparedness rarely happens in isolation.
Teams tend to move further than individuals. Organisations with some structure move faster than those without. And cultures that prioritise preparedness are far more likely to translate insight into action.
Which raises a few questions.
How confident are we that our current governance would hold up under pressure?
If something did go wrong, how clearly could we quantify the impact and respond in real time?
And perhaps more importantly – are we relying on understanding… or have we actually tested how we would perform?
I’ll explore this further in the next piece, particularly around how organisations can move from governance on paper to something that holds up in practice.
