--- title: "Don't Trade Skyscrapers for Tents: Why the AI Fog Calls for Living Plans, Not Smaller Bets - In Parallel" description: "Toby Stuart says the AI fog forces leaders to trade skyscrapers for tents. He's wrong. The answer isn't smaller bets — it's Living Plans that absorb uncertainty without breaking the horizon." url: https://www.in-parallel.com/insight/dont-trade-skyscrapers-for-tents --- Strategy Execution # Don't Trade Skyscrapers for Tents: Why the AI Fog Calls for Living Plans, Not Smaller Bets Don't Trade Skyscrapers for Tents: Why the AI Fog Calls for Living Plans, Not Smaller Bets Published April 28, 2026 Markku Mäkeläinen Co-founder, CEO [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/markkumakelainen/) Contents The AI fog is real. The choice it’s asking you to make — between skyscrapers and tents, between long bets and short optionality — is not. In Harvard Business Review’s April 2026 essay, UC Berkeley’s Toby Stuart argues that the most consequential effect of artificial intelligence may be the one we can’t see: the uncertainty it creates about everything else. Confidence in a specific vision of the future is the foundation of long-term investment, Stuart writes. Without that confidence, the calculus of capital allocation breaks down. His warning is striking — leaders, peering into the fog, will be tempted to trade the potential future gains of skyscrapers and railways for the temporary utility of tents and bicycles. His prescription is to **optimize for the unknown**. Stuart’s diagnosis is correct. His prescription is incomplete. ## The fog is an execution problem dressed as a strategy problem The instinct to retreat into optionality — smaller bets, shorter horizons, more flexibility — feels like prudent strategy. It isn’t. It’s an admission that your planning system can’t keep up with reality. When a leader looks at a five-year capital plan and decides to pitch a tent instead, they aren’t responding to genuine uncertainty about whether the building is needed. They’re responding to a more uncomfortable truth: they have no mechanism to update the plan as conditions change. That’s the **strategy-market gap** we’ve written about before. The strategic intent is sound. The market is moving. And the artifact in between — the plan, the roadmap, the OKR sheet — is static. It was written in conditions that no longer exist, and updating it requires a quarterly all-hands and three weeks of reconciliation. By the time the new version ships, the fog has moved again. In clear weather, this is wasteful. In fog, it’s catastrophic. The longer your re-planning cycle, the shorter your effective horizon, regardless of how ambitious the original bet was. Stuart’s tents-versus-skyscrapers framing is what happens when leaders feel the cost of re-planning so acutely that they preemptively scale down ambition to match it. ## The Coordination Tax compounds in fog Every shift in conditions creates a coordination event. Teams need to re-align. Decisions need to be re-validated. Dependencies need to be re-checked. In a static planning system, that work is largely manual — meetings, decks, threads, hallway conversations — and the cost of doing it scales with the number of people involved. This is the **Coordination Tax**: the hidden charge a company pays every time reality changes. In stable conditions, it’s an irritation. In the AI fog, where assumptions are revisited monthly instead of yearly, it becomes the binding constraint on horizon. Most organizations don’t conclude that their long-term bet was wrong. They conclude that the cost of staying aligned to it is too high. So they shrink the bet to fit the coordination budget. Stuart’s metaphor inverts neatly here. The skyscraper isn’t expensive because of the steel. It’s expensive because of the schedule — every floor depends on the floors below it staying coordinated for years. If you can’t trust the coordination, you don’t build skyscrapers, no matter how much steel you have. You build tents. ## Living Plans: same horizon, adaptive route The alternative isn’t to shrink the bet. It’s to fix the artifact. A **Living Plan** is a long-term direction wired to short-term reality. It commits to the destination — the skyscraper, the railroad, the franchise — but lets the path through the fog re-draw itself continuously as new information arrives. The destination is anchored. The route is liquid. It works because the plan, the decisions behind it, and the status on the ground are connected continuously rather than synchronized quarterly. When status diverges from plan, the plan updates against it. When plans drift enough, the system surfaces the question of whether the goal itself still holds — instead of burying that question in a quarterly review where it’s already too late to ask. This is the move Stuart’s framework is missing. He’s right that the fog destroys confidence in static forecasts. He’s wrong that the answer is to reduce the size of the bet. The answer is to make the plan capable of absorbing the fog without breaking the bet underneath it. The era of the five-year plan as a fixed document is over. What replaces it isn’t no plan — it’s a plan that learns. The AI fog doesn’t change that conclusion. It accelerates it. ## What this looks like in practice A coordination layer that maintains a Living Plan does three things a static system can’t. It keeps the goal visible while the path changes, so teams don’t lose direction every time conditions shift. It re-routes work when status diverges from plan, so the cost of re-alignment doesn’t scale with headcount. And it surfaces the moments when the goal itself needs revision — distinguishing fog (the path is unclear) from genuine signal (the destination is wrong). This is what an **Intelligent Management System** is for. Not a dashboard. Not a project tool. A live model of how the business actually runs, continuously reconciled against the strategy it was built to execute. AI’s role here isn’t to replace the judgment of the people making the bet. It’s to maintain the reality the bet is being made against — closing the gap between what the plan assumes and what the world is currently doing. In clear weather, that’s a productivity gain. In the AI fog, it’s the difference between staying in the skyscraper business and quietly migrating to tents. ## The takeaway Stuart is right that the fog is here, and right that it punishes confident long-term forecasts. He is wrong that the answer is to make smaller bets. Smaller bets don’t reduce uncertainty. They just lower the ceiling. The fog doesn’t ask you to shrink your horizon. It asks you to upgrade your coordination. Optimize for the unknown by building a system that can absorb the unknown — not by abandoning the kinds of investments that only pay out at scale. The skyscrapers will still get built. They’ll just get built by the companies that figured out how to keep the steel coordinated while the weather moves around them. ### Get insights like this in your inbox One email per week on execution intelligence, team coordination, and enterprise AI. No fluff. By subscribing you agree to our [Privacy Policy](https://www.in-parallel.com/privacy-policy). Unsubscribe anytime. [Back to all insights](https://www.in-parallel.com/insight) [Book a demo](https://www.in-parallel.com/demo) ## Related articles The Coordination Tax — Richard H. Carson on how change actually works Leadership Insights · Oct 20, 2026 ### You Either Manage Change or It Manages You: Richard H. Carson on how change actually works Richard H. Carson, PhD — 40 years inside county governments, regional planning agencies, nonprofits, and the state of Oregon — on why every organization has a risk manager but almost none has a change manager, and what that asymmetry costs. A rope suspension bridge over a dark river towards the fells, drawn in pen and watercolour AI in Business · Oct 9, 2026 ### AI-Assisted or AI-Native: The Bridge Is Shared Context At a CIO data event in Espoo, HumanX in Amsterdam and a post-merger integration forum, large companies explained how they brought AI in by mapping processes and fitting AI into the gaps. That keeps a structure built around human limits. Getting to AI-native means rebuilding information flows into shared context first. The Coordination Tax — Adam Christing on humor as leadership Leadership Insights · Oct 7, 2026 ### You Can't Fix Culture With a Mission Statement: Adam Christing on humor as leadership Adam Christing — professional master of ceremonies, founder of Clean Comedians, and author of The Laughter Factor — on why culture is a feeling rather than a statement, and why humor is the fastest way for a leader to shift it. The Coordination Tax — Jennifer Recla on the urgency mindset breaking your team Leadership Insights · Sep 22, 2026 ### Urgency Isn't Leadership. It's Addiction: Jennifer Recla on the mindset breaking your team Jennifer Recla — leadership coach who has worked with hundreds of leaders across nonprofits, mission-driven organizations, and large financial institutions — on the urgency mindset behind most organizational chaos, and why most leaders have no idea how much of it they're creating themselves. The Coordination Tax — Barry Wolfe on value-centric leadership Leadership Insights · Sep 15, 2026 ### HR Is the Last Line of Defense Against Chaos: Barry Wolfe on value-centric leadership Barry Wolfe — HR consultant, founder of Argos HR, and author of It's All in Your Head — on why HR is the last line of defense against organizational chaos, why every role needs 3–5 clear value outcomes, and why the foundation of a well-run company is one document under 300 words. Two colleagues sharing one open binder — context handed over at the resolution the other person needs Leadership Insights · Sep 9, 2026 ### Your Job Is Already Context Management On The Coordination Tax, Stanford's Robert E. Siegel put it as an equation: truth equals facts plus context. Facts are cheap now. Context is not. Read the manager's week against that equation and the 16.5 hours a week lost to coordination stop looking like overhead — they are context management, performed manually, by the most expensive person in the room. The Coordination Tax — Alberto Torres on surviving disruption Leadership Insights · Sep 8, 2026 ### You Can't Sword-Fight a Bullet: Alberto Torres on surviving disruption Alberto Torres — former Nokia executive, ex-McKinsey partner, and author of The Z Curve — on what actually happened at Nokia, why great peace-time leaders quietly fail in war-time, and what every company facing AI right now should learn from the companies that got disruption right. The Coordination Tax — Olivia Montgomery on why decisions belong lower in the org Leadership Insights · Sep 1, 2026 ### Your Leadership Doesn't Know What's Going On: Olivia Montgomery on why decisions belong lower in the org Olivia Montgomery — principal analyst at Data Frame and former Gartner researcher — on why every layer up the org chart knows less about what's really going on, and why the fix isn't more visibility for leadership but pushing decisions down two or three levels. The Coordination Tax — Craig Denison on the founder's hardest transition Leadership Insights · Aug 25, 2026 ### You Don't Get to Be the Rock Star Anymore: Craig Denison on the founder's hardest transition Craig Denison — head of growth at The Table Group (Patrick Lencioni's firm) and founder of Green Thumb Consulting — on the transition every founder hits when execution stops running through their brain, and why 99% of the time the founder is creating the dysfunction they are trying to fix. A manager mid-explanation, watch visible — the hour spent re-explaining context AI in Business · Aug 24, 2026 ### AI Saves a Day a Week. The Coordination Tax Collects It. BCG's fourth AI at Work survey found 42% of regular frontline AI users save at least a full workday every week, and that two-thirds get little or no guidance on what to do with it. The usual reading is that leaders forgot to give direction. The better reading is that the hours were already spoken for. AI compresses the work; it doesn't touch the work about the work.