A shipping disruption thousands of kilometres away can quickly become a decision in your boardroom. Fuel costs rise. Suppliers revise delivery dates. Customers want assurances. Your leadership team must decide what to protect, what to change and how much to spend, with incomplete information.
The disruption at the Strait of Hormuz illustrates how a distant geopolitical event can reach an organisation through its suppliers, operating costs and customer commitments. It also raises a practical question: has your team rehearsed the decisions such a crisis would demand?
SudoSIM, a crisis simulation product, helps organisations prepare by giving leadership teams the opportunity to practise difficult decisions before they face real consequences.
The Hormuz case study.
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to international shipping routes and is a critical passage for global energy supplies. According to the International Energy Agency, approximately 20 million barrels of oil and oil products passed through it each day in 2025, representing around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Alternative routes have limited capacity. Source: IEA Strait of Hormuz factsheet
The conflict and disruption to shipping have demonstrated how exposure extends beyond businesses operating in the Gulf. The IEA has documented interrupted energy flows, volatile prices and pressure on supplies of products used in manufacturing and agriculture. It also describes an initial easing of market pressure followed by renewed increases after the breakdown of a ceasefire agreement. Source: IEA Middle East and Global Energy Markets
For organisations, this creates a planning challenge. How do you respond when disruption spreads across several functions, lasts longer than expected and appears to ease before worsening again?
The following lessons translate that challenge into practical preparation.
Lesson one: Your exposure may be hidden
An organisation does not need to ship through Hormuz to be affected by disruption there. A supplier may depend on Gulf energy or raw materials. A logistics provider may pass on higher fuel costs. A customer facing financial pressure may delay payment. Mapping direct suppliers is therefore only the beginning. Leaders also need to understand the dependencies behind those suppliers and the points at which disruption could reach their own operations.
How crisis simulations help: A simulation can begin with an event that appears remote, then introduce consequences closer to the business. Participants must identify their exposure, request the right information and decide when to act.
Lesson two: Several problems can demand attention at once
A supply delay rarely remains a procurement issue. It can become a finance issue when replacement stock costs more, a customer service issue when deliveries slip, and a leadership issue when competing priorities require a decision. Each department may have a workable plan. The difficulty is making those plans work together.
How crisis simulations help: Presenting several developments at the same time tests how teams share information, allocate resources and resolve competing demands. It reveals whether responsibilities are clear and whether important decisions get delayed between departments.
Lesson three: Waiting for certainty carries a cost
During a developing crisis, information can arrive late or conflict with other reports. A supplier may promise normal service while a logistics partner warns of delays. A reassuring announcement may reach executives before operational conditions improve. Leaders must decide how much evidence is enough to justify action.
How crisis simulations help: An exercise can introduce incomplete and contradictory updates, requiring participants to assess sources, state assumptions and explain their decisions. The debrief can then examine what prompted action, what caused hesitation and what information was missing.
Lesson four: Early relief may be temporary
An apparent improvement creates its own decisions. Should the organisation reduce emergency stock, restore normal purchasing arrangements or stand down its crisis team? Moving too quickly may leave it exposed to renewed disruption. Maintaining every precaution can also become expensive. The Hormuz case makes this transition particularly relevant: organisations need criteria for reducing their response, as well as criteria for escalating it.
How crisis simulations help: A scenario can include a period of apparent recovery followed by another setback. Participants must decide which measures to retain, what evidence supports a return to normal and who has authority to make that call. The exercise helps leaders establish clearer thresholds before a real recovery decision arises.
Lesson five: Preparedness must extend beyond the first few days
An effective response in the first 24 hours does not establish that an organisation can sustain the same effort for several months. People become tired. Emergency spending accumulates. Temporary arrangements begin to affect normal operations. Leadership may need to make lasting changes to suppliers, inventory or customer commitments.
How crisis simulations help: Advancing a scenario from the first day into later weeks and months tests handovers, delegated authority, spending limits and the transition to longer-term adaptation.
Putting the lessons into practice with SudoSIM
A Hormuz-inspired exercise could follow a fictional organisation facing a series of escalating decisions. The sequence below is illustrative, rather than a record of an actual SudoSIM customer engagement.
The first alert: Shipping disruption is reported. A logistics partner warns of possible delays. The team must assess exposure and decide whether to activate its crisis arrangements.
The business impact: A supplier extends delivery times while transport costs increase. Finance wants to protect cash, operations requests additional stock, and customers ask for delivery guarantees.
The apparent recovery: Reports suggest conditions are improving. Leaders face pressure to reduce precautionary spending, but suppliers cannot yet confirm reliable service.
The renewed disruption: Deliveries slip again. An alternative supplier requires advance payment. The team must revisit earlier assumptions and explain changed commitments.
The longer-term decision: Several weeks later, leadership must decide which temporary measures to retain and whether to change sourcing arrangements.
The value lies in the decisions the exercise exposes. Who can approve additional spending? What happens when a key decision-maker is unavailable? Which customers receive priority? What evidence justifies changing course? Working through these questions together gives teams a clearer view of their readiness.
Prepare your team for the decisions ahead
The Strait of Hormuz case shows how quickly a distant disruption can become a business-wide challenge. Organisations cannot control every external event, but they can practise recognising exposure, coordinating their response and making difficult choices. We provide an opportunity to rehearse those decisions and turn the findings into practical improvements.
Contact us to explore a crisis simulation around your organisation’s critical dependencies and the decisions your leaders need to practise.
