A few weeks ago, in a conversation about what’s coming next for a team I was talking with, someone reached for an acronym to describe the world their organisation is operating in. They got the letters slightly wrong, we laughed, then landed on the right one: BANI. Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible.
It’s presented, most of the time, as the new VUCA. VUCA, the older acronym, Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous, was born in the US military in the 1980s and adopted by strategy consultants from the 2000s onward. It became the default shorthand for “the world is hard to predict.” BANI was coined by futurist Jamais Cascio, and it has gained real traction since the pandemic, for a reason that matters more than the letters themselves: it doesn’t describe the same problem with new words. It describes a different problem.
Here’s the distinction. VUCA still assumes a legible world. Volatile means fast-changing, but changing along axes you can still name. Uncertain means you lack information, but more information would help. Complex means many interacting parts, but the parts are still knowable. Ambiguous means multiple interpretations are possible, but a clearer framing would resolve it. The whole frame assumes that with enough agility, enough scenario planning, enough strategic flexibility, the ground becomes readable again.
BANI assumes something has actually broken, not just accelerated.
- Brittle means systems that look strong can fail suddenly and completely. No visible warning is shared, which shifts the goal from speed to resilience. There is the risk of redundancy, slack, the capacity to absorb a shock rather than the capacity to move fast.
- Anxious means people can feel unsafe even when nothing measurably bad has happened, which means reassurance campaigns fail on contact, because anxiety isn’t a knowledge gap, it responds to consistency and trust built over time, not to a better slide deck.
- Nonlinear means cause and effect stop lining up the way a project plan wants them to: small actions can produce disproportionate consequences, and large investments can produce nothing visible for a long time, which breaks the logic of a milestone-based roadmap.
- Incomprehensible means some situations genuinely will not resolve into a clean narrative no matter how well you explain them, which means the job of a leader, at some point, stops being explanation and starts being the harder work of building trust that holds even without one.
This is not an abstract distinction for the people I work with.
A transformation plan built for a VUCA world is a straight line with contingencies
There is diagnose, plan, deploy, adjust for volatility, measure. A transformation approach built for a BANI world cannot be a straight line at all, because nonlinearity and incomprehensibility break the premise a straight line depends on, that today’s plan will still make sense in six months. That’s the actual argument behind building a method as a loop instead of a sequence: not a stylistic preference for the word “loop,” but a structural response to a world where the ground itself is no longer stable enough to support a five-step roadmap.
Most organisations I encounter are still managing BANI-shaped problems with VUCA-era tools. Better agility, better scenario planning, more flexible strategy documents. None of it is wrong, exactly. It’s aimed at the wrong kind of instability.
Sources: Jamais Cascio, originator of the BANI framework. VUCA origin: US military, 1980s, adopted by strategy consultants from the 2000s onward.
The Change Society helps organisations clarify their managerial line and strengthen how they demand, evaluate, and recognise performance on the ground.
If you wish to be supported during your transformation projects, we invite you to schedule a meeting with The Change Society Office.
