A strategy plan rarely becomes wrong all at once. It shifts, assumption by assumption, while the text on paper remains unchanged. That makes the question "how do we keep the strategy current" the wrong question to ask. It's not about rewriting on a fixed date, it's about knowing which assumption underlying the plan still holds and which one has quietly slipped away.
A quarterly review assumes that the world changes at a fixed pace, neatly captured in a fixed interval. That's no longer true, if it ever was. Some assumptions still stand after a year. Others have expired within a few weeks, with no trigger to check them. A fixed rhythm of rewriting captures neither well: it's too slow for the assumption that has just collapsed and too much work for the assumption that hasn't moved.
What does work is treating the assumption itself as the unit. Not rewriting the plan, but recording, per assumption, when it was last confirmed and on the basis of what information. That turns the maintenance of a strategy into something that happens continuously and in a targeted way, rather than periodically and comprehensively.
AI taking over work is not a separate development alongside the strategy. It is precisely the kind of change under which an assumption ages without anyone withdrawing it. A plan that relies on a certain staffing level, a certain lead time, or a certain competitive advantage often rests on the implicit assumption that work is carried out the way it has always been carried out. As soon as part of that work shifts — AI taking over the task, AI working alongside with oversight, or tasks that remain human work — that assumption is no longer automatically true. The text of the plan doesn't change, but the ground beneath the plan does.
This is already happening today, and not evenly everywhere. In some companies, this distinction — what AI can take over, what requires oversight, what remains human work — already leads the way capacity is discussed. In other companies, people are still talking within the old assumption framework, while the underlying tasks are already shifting. The difference doesn't lie in the sector itself, but in whether someone tests the plan's assumptions against this shift or not. Companies that are ahead in this track, at how do you know whether your competitor is shifting faster than you, which part of this process is already taking place outside their own organization.
An assumption check doesn't produce a prediction. It produces a status: does this assumption still hold, given what is now known, or has the underlying reasoning become outdated. That is a different kind of statement than "this is going to happen". Nor is it a statement about what an organization should do with its staff — that consideration falls under an organization's own legal requirements and lies outside what an assumption check assesses.
Moreover, the outcome isn't equally reliable everywhere. An assumption about an externally regulated deadline is often easy to verify: the regulation is fixed, the clock is running. An assumption about a competitor's behavior or about the speed at which a market adopts AI is inherently more uncertain. There, the check doesn't provide certainty, but a moment of confirmation: this is what we knew on this date, this is what we based our decision on. When that date lies far in the past, that says something. When the assumption was checked just last month, a shift in the market often says little — the assumption isn't necessarily wrong then, just not (yet) retested.
Nor is it a tool to force decisions. There are choices that are better left pending until an assumption becomes clearer; which decisions are better postponed until the AI question is answered describes when waiting is wiser than pushing ahead on incomplete information.
The practical step is not to rewrite the plan, but to make it explicit. Which assumptions, visible or invisible, underlie the current strategy? When was each assumption last tested, and on the basis of which source? That is a different exercise from a SWOT or an annual reconsideration: it's a list that can be kept current line by line, rather than a document that expires as a whole.
It helps to know where your own picture comes from. A plan that rests on figures that are two years old, while the market has moved on, can be recognized by specific signals — how do you recognize that your plan rests on outdated figures describes which ones. And a plan that has mainly been built from the inside, without placing the outside view alongside it, lacks a point of comparison that is especially relevant to AI-driven shifts; what outside-in thinking means in practice shows how that point of comparison is built.
The underlying question — which work in this company can genuinely be taken over by AI right now, which part requires human oversight, and which part remains human work — is answered per task with the work scan from FTE TO AI.
Keeping a strategy current doesn't start with a new document, but with naming the assumptions hidden within the current one. The free assumption check is a first, short step toward that: you name your key assumptions and see, per assumption, when it was last confirmed and what that confirmation was based on. The full proof — the outside view placed alongside management's own self-assessment, with the assumption list as the connecting element — is under construction.
Stel uw vraag. Vaak zit de echte vraag een laag dieper — daar mag ik naar vragen.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.