Why Your Business Plan Is Already Wrong

Sam Altman had a roadmap for his nuclear energy startup Helion. One morning in late 2022, he received urgent calls about a small AI research lab he’d invested in years earlier. Within months, he was OpenAI’s CEO again, navigating the most significant tech breakthrough in decades—while his nuclear venture continued without him.

Most founders miss this reality: your business plan is outdated before you finish writing it.

While Y Combinator preaches “make something people want” and VCs demand five-year projections, the world’s most successful founders practice a different approach—a thinking approach that embraces uncertainty.

It’s called effectual thinking, and it determines your startup’s survival or early demise.

Consider these contrasting approaches:

Founder A (Causal): Spent six months developing a business plan for an AI productivity tool targeting enterprise clients. Based on market projections, secured $2M in funding. Built product for 8 months before launch. Discovered enterprises had 18-month procurement cycles and competitors had locked major accounts. Ran out of runway trying to shift direction.

Founder B (Effectual): Started with speech recognition expertise and connections at healthcare companies. Then, he created three prototypes in two weeks. After that, he got one administrator to pay $500 for a barely-functional transcription solution. Finally, he iteratively built Abridge, which raised $150M in 2023 to alleviate physician burnout with AI-powered medical documentation.

The second founder—Shiv Rao of Abridge—wasn’t smarter. He applied effectual thinking, the operating system behind most entrepreneurial success stories.

When Figma founder Dylan Field won the Thiel Fellowship in 2012, he didn’t immediately start building design software. He spent almost two years exploring ideas—from 3D printing to drones—before finding the right technology and market timing for Figma. His $20 billion exit to Adobe came from creating conditions for multiple attempts.

Actionable Tactic: The “1/3 Rule” for resources. Allocate one-third of your runway to your current direction, preserve one-third for a potential pivot, and maintain one-third as emergency reserves. This creates a safety net to abandon failing approaches before burnout.

When building the relationship app Archer, Alena Dzioeva didn’t conduct extensive market research. Instead, she approached five psychologists with a simple proposal: “If I build software that helps your clients practice relationship skills between sessions, would you recommend it?” Before she’d written a line of code, three said yes. These pre-commitments provided stronger validation than any market analysis.

Non-Obvious Application: Instead of asking potential customers if they’d use your product, ask for a small commitment. This could be to join a waitlist with a refundable deposit, share contact information of two potential users, or commit to a 30-minute onboarding call when you launch. Measure interest through actions, not statements.

In 2015, when Notion ran out of money, the team shrunk to two people. Instead of giving up, they reimagined their product—creating an all-in-one workspace tool to replace multiple point solutions. This approach led to their $10+ billion valuation today.

Specific Technique: The “Constraint Canvas.” Identify your three most severe limitations (time, funding, expertise, connections) and brainstorm how each could become an advantage. For example, limited technical resources encourage you to build a simpler product that users understand and adopt.

Instead of quickly becoming business experts, effectual thinkers first leverage their technical strengths. Anthropic’s Dario Amodei used his machine learning expertise to create Claude, focusing on superior technology before business models. The result: a $4.1 billion funding round in 2023 and partnerships with major companies.

Specific Approach: Build minimum viable technology to showcase your technical differential. Then, find business co-creators through usage rather than pitches. Let early adopters shape your commercial approach.

Tactical Implementation: Amodei created a simple, text-only interface for early Claude prototypes and gave access to select AI researchers and ethicists first—not customers or investors. This created a technical feedback loop from qualified experts while avoiding commercialization pressure. Technical founders should identify the 5-7 key experts for validation in their field and build for their feedback first, before expanding to general users.

When Shimona Mehta started DTC marketplace Spacewhite, she didn’t compete with technical founders on product sophistication. Instead, she leveraged her retail industry relationships to secure exclusive distribution deals with emerging brands, creating value through curation and access rather than technical innovation.

Tactical Move: Map your unique network advantages—industries, communities, or customer segments with privileged access that technical founders struggle to reach. Start by creating value at this intersection.

In uncertainty, run this weekly diagnostic with your founding team:

1. Quick-Win Question: “What’s one thing we could ship in the next 72 hours that at least 3 users would find valuable enough to take action?”

2. Opportunity Cost Check: “If we continue on this path for 30 more days, what other directions become unfeasible to explore?”

3. Resource Amplification: “Which current resources (team skills, user data, technology) could create significantly more value if applied differently?” (Find underutilized assets)

4. Relationship Leverage: “Who in our network could transform our trajectory with a single introduction, partnership, or piece of advice we haven’t requested?” (Identify untapped relationship capital)

Complete this matrix weekly. Select one action item from your answers. This prevents the common founder trap of confusing activity with progress. It ensures you’re regularly reassessing assumptions instead of blindly executing plans.

While Lean Startup methodology preaches “build-measure-learn,” it assumes you know your target market and problem. Effectual thinking works one step earlier—when you’re figuring out which opportunity to pursue.

The difference is subtle but crucial: Lean Startup helps you find product-market fit for a specific idea, while effectual thinking helps you find the right idea to pursue based on your unique position.

The greatest startup myth is that success begins with a brilliant idea. The truth? Success begins with an honest assessment of your resources—knowledge, network, skills, and capital—and leveraging them into opportunities others cannot see.

What can you create with what you have right now? That’s not just a philosophical question—it’s the only question that matters.

Your next move isn’t writing a business plan. It’s making the first call to a potential co-creator, experimenting with what’s available, and structuring your life for more attempts when the first one doesn’t succeed.

Sam Altman didn’t plan to lead the AI revolution. But by staying in the game and responding to unexpected opportunities, he found himself in that position.

What unexpected opportunity are you positioning yourself to capture?
__________

Did this post resonate with you? If you found value in these insights, let us know! Hit the ‘like’ button or share your thoughts in the comments. Your feedback not only motivates us but also helps shape future content. Together, we can build a community that empowers entrepreneurs to thrive. What was your biggest takeaway? We’d love to hear from you!

Interested in taking your startup to the next level? Wildfire Labs is looking for innovative founders like you! Don’t miss out on the opportunity to accelerate your business with expert mentorship and resources. Apply now at Wildfire Labs Accelerator https://wildfirelabs.io/apply and ignite your startup’s potential. We can’t wait to see what you’ll achieve!