Are tech strategy timelines getting shorter?

January is often when strategy decks resurface. We all refresh our roadmaps, and usually, planning timelines stretch far into the future. 

But across tech, companies are acknowledging that those long-range plans rarely survive unchanged. Because markets shift and platforms evolve, and new technologies compress timelines that once felt generous. 

What looked robust one year ago can quickly feel out-of-date. 

Nobody’s throwing away the idea of the five-year plan completely. But everyone working in tech is reconsidering how strategy is planned, reviewed, and adjusted in response to external forces. 

Planning cycles are shrinking 

Most organisations still care deeply about long-term direction. What’s changing is the belief that this direction can be mapped in detail several years in advance.

EY’s latest global megatrends research is explicit on this point. The firm argues that “the days of two- to three-year planning cycles are over” and that, in an environment shaped by continuous disruption, planning horizons have shrunk to months instead of years.

What this suggests is that companies are letting go of the idea that they can predict the future (because with current tech development timelines, you can’t), and focusing instead on being prepared. They’re moving away from fixed plans, and putting strategies in place that are designed to be revisited frequently. 

Why rigid roadmaps fail under uncertainty

Traditional roadmaps are built on assumptions that no longer hold reliably in tech:

• that dependencies can be forecast accurately
• that sequencing will remain stable
• that disruption is occasional, not constant

As those assumptions weaken, roadmaps aren’t standing the test of time. 

Industry commentary is full of whispers about this. Actio Software’s 2025 strategic planning trends report, for example, describes a move away from rigid, linear planning models towards agile strategic planning, where organisations break strategy into shorter cycles and conduct frequent reviews. The report notes that long-term direction is still important – but plans shouldn’t be treated as fixed commitments anymore. 

We should point out that Actio is a planning software provider, not a research institution. But its analysis aligns with a broader pattern across technology-led organisations; and the chatter about planning cycles among real companies is worth taking note of. 

Shorter cycles don’t mean shallow thinking

A common concern is that shorter planning horizons encourage short-term thinking. But the evidence suggests more nuance. 

McKinsey’s research on agile organisations, for example, argues that planning and budgeting processes need to move faster to keep pace with execution. Rather than annual strategy and budget cycles, McKinsey recommends quarterly planning sessions and more frequent budget reviews – to allow organisations to reallocate resources as priorities change.

McKinsey doesn’t argue for abandoning long-term ambition. Instead, it separates long-term vision from short-term execution planning, suggesting that frequent review improves responsiveness without diluting direction.

In the same research, McKinsey reports that agile teams were significantly more likely to financially outperform non-agile peers – showing that adaptability and performance are often linked, even if planning timelines are shorter.

The tension between vision and execution

This is the place where lots of companies struggle. 

Vision gives you coherence: why the organisation exists, what problems it is solving, and what kind of future it is working towards. Execution, however, now happens in compressed cycles shaped by fast-moving tools, shifting markets, and evolving customer behaviour.

Shorter planning horizons help manage this tension. But that only works if leaders are clear about what remains stable. If you don’t have that clarity, iteration risks turning into drift. And if you do have it, iteration becomes learning.

How can tech leaders work with shorter strategy cycles?

Shorter strategy cycles raise expectations of leadership in three areas:

1. Clarity of intent
   If plans are revisited more often, purpose has to be sharper.
2. Meaningful feedback loops
   Strategy reviews must be grounded in evidence.
3. Psychological safety
   Iteration only works when teams can surface problems early, without fear.

This is why shorter planning horizons often sit alongside flatter structures and cross-functional collaboration. They rely as much on trust as on tools.

Planning your 2026 

The advantage this year is going to come from having the most honest roadmap possible – no matter how long it is (or isn’t). 

That means a plan that takes into account what you can know and what you can’t, and acknowledges how quickly assumptions can change. 

At LEAP, these conversations surface again and again: how to hold a clear vision without pretending the future is predictable.

Because in an environment that keeps moving, strategy needs to be alive.