Incident response plans can fall apart when faced with real-world security events. Learn about the gaps that can lead to failure and how to avoid them.
Like the best-laid plans of mice and men, even the best-intentioned cybersecurity incident response plans can go awry. When they do, the consequences can be ugly, as many organizations have discovered in recent years.
A 2025 survey of 1,700 IT and engineering professionals by New Relic reported that high-impact IT outages now carry a median cost of $2 million per hour -- roughly $33,000 every minute -- and result in annual losses averaging $76 million per organization. The longer an incident drags on, the greater the damage. IBM's "Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025" found that breaches contained within 200 days averaged $3.87 million in losses, compared with $5.01 million when detection and response took longer.
Cost is not the only issue. Organizations can also face prolonged downtime, regulatory penalties and reputational damage from long-tailed incidents.
When incident response plans fail or don't work as intended, the reasons can be complex and varied. Causes range from gaps in team coordination, unanticipated system failures, inadequate threat intelligence and attackers exploiting previously unknown vulnerabilities.
Security analysts pointed to several likely culprits for incident response plan failures.
Complex or vague plans
Poorly written plans with incomplete problem cases and responses can stymie incident response efforts. So, too, can overly detailed checklists that don't fit reality or high-level fluff with no actionable steps.
"Some plans I've seen become overly technical and are out of date the moment they're completed," said Daniel Kennedy, an analyst at S&P Global Market Intelligence. "Some start to read like a legal policy document and, thus, the people who have to execute steps in the plan don't understand what they're supposed to do."
The key, according to Kennedy, is to develop incident response plans that work under pressure by clearly defining who does what. Plans must be technical enough to guide actions, but clear enough that responders understand their roles. Getting stakeholder input and senior leadership buy-in during planning, though difficult, pays off when an actual incident occurs.
Unclear roles and responsibilities
Bad things can happen when no one knows who's in charge or what they're supposed to do during an incident.
Successful plans establish explicit decision-making hierarchies with preauthorized response actions that don't require real-time approval, said Mari DeGrazia, certified SANS instructor and director of incident response at IDX.
"Teams know exactly who can authorize network isolation, system shutdowns or external communications without waiting for executive approval during critical moments," she said. "This includes having things like presigned legal agreements with forensics firms, clear spending authorities for emergency resources and documented escalation triggers that automatically activate additional response capabilities."
Kennedy added, "A common problem occurs when senior managers without clearly defined incident response roles insert themselves into active incident response, overriding established procedures and previously agreed-upon response steps. That person usually has enough organizational power to start people doing other things, or can demand people stop to answer their questions, but hasn't invested enough time in knowing the plan that was carefully written in calm seas."
Though often well-meaning, such interference can derail an entire response process.
"Having a very senior resource, even C-level, be involved with and approve the carefully written planning steps can overcome this issue," Kennedy said.
Inadequate tooling and access
Incident response plan failures can also occur when responders lack the necessary tools, credentials or permissions for critical systems -- especially when even a few seconds can make a big difference.
"Incident response plans frequently assume access to tools and technologies that may not be properly configured, maintained or accessible during an actual incident," said Elvia Finalle, an analyst at Omdia, a division of Informa TechTarget. "This includes backup systems that haven't been tested, monitoring tools with gaps in coverage or communication systems that become unavailable during the incident."
Another assumption is that the incident response plan is the only plan that needs to be implemented during incident response, Finalle said. To minimize disruption, organizations should also have backup systems and have a safe way for operations to continue as normal while the original environment is restored.
Third-party MSPs and providers can also pose issues. "They aren't always responsive when you need them, or companies discover they don't have the proper service-level agreement for emergency response," DeGrazia said. For example, some MSPs charge significantly more to assist during an incident and after hours, which can be an unpleasant surprise in an already stressful situation.
Rigid and inflexible plans
Most incident response plans are written assuming ideal conditions, Finalle pointed out. In these plans, key personnel are always available, systems work as expected and external resources respond immediately. Real life tends to be a lot messier and unpredictable.
"Reality delivers the opposite," Finalle said. "Incidents typically occur during weekends, holidays or when key team members are unavailable. Critical systems fail to respond as documented, backup communication channels don't work and external forensic firms are already engaged with other clients."
Plans for incident response need to be consistently revised and upgraded as hacking mechanisms change, especially in the AI area.
Elvia Finalle, Analyst, Omdia
While incident response plans assume a controlled environment, breaches create chaos and responders quickly discover that nothing works as intended.
Incident response plans are structured around methodical, step-by-step processes with time for analysis and deliberation, DeGrazia said. Actual incidents compress decision-making timeframes to minutes rather than hours, while simultaneously overwhelming responders with information from multiple sources.
"Teams find themselves making critical containment decisions with incomplete information while managing dozens of parallel activities -- a cognitive load that most plans fail to anticipate or prepare teams to handle," she said.
The unexpected unavailability of a key individual can create another curveball, DeGrazia pointed out. "Vacations, sick leave or simply being unreachable can bring response efforts to a halt if knowledge isn't documented and distributed," she said. Or it could be the longer-than-planned time required to restore from backups, or sudden bandwidth constraints, failed restorations or storage bottlenecks.
"Companies test their backups, but they rarely test restoring everything at once under pressure," DeGrazia added.
Never-tested response plans
If incident response plans sit on shelves gathering dust, there's a high likelihood they will not work as intended during an actual emergency. Similarly, an incident response plan based on old architecture or a plan that doesn't account for cloud environments, remote workforces or recent system changes is not going to be much help.
"Plans for incident response need to be consistently revised and upgraded as hacking mechanisms change, especially in the AI area," Finalle explained.
Plans that hold up under pressure are built on extensive, realistic training that creates muscle memory for response teams. Organizations with resilient plans conduct monthly tabletop exercises, quarterly simulations with real system isolation and annual full-scale incident drills that include stress testing communication channels and decision-making processes.
"This repetitive practice ensures that when adrenaline kicks in during a real incident, teams automatically execute procedures without hesitation or confusion," she said.
Yet, many companies don't hold meaningful tabletop exercises, Kennedy said. And, when they do, senior management -- the people who will play key roles during an actual incident -- are often not involved in the tabletop walkthrough.
"Their entire purpose is to identify shortcomings in the plan in a simulated environment," he added. "The variables that arise during an actual response always throw a curveball at you, and thus plans must address the big steps but be flexible enough to allow for on-the-spot decision making and escalations."
Lack of cross-functional input
Effective incident response depends on a coordinated, cross-functional effort across the organization. While IT and security operations lead threat detection, containment and remediation, incident response extends far beyond technical measures. For example, legal teams ensure breach notification and compliance requirements are met, communications and PR manage internal and external messaging, and business leaders assess operational impact. HR could also be involved if insider activity or employee data is implicated.
"One of the most common reasons incident response plans fail is the lack of cross-functional input during their development," Finalle said. "Plans are often created in silos -- typically by the security team -- without proper input from legal, IT infrastructure, the help desk or other key stakeholders."
This result? Plans that don't reflect the realities or constraints of those teams, which can lead to response failures during a real incident.
A lack of awareness also exacerbates the situation. "The security team might know a plan exists, but others in the organization don't," Finalle said. "If the people who are supposed to execute the plan aren't familiar with it -- or don't even know it exists -- it's unlikely to be effective."
Ignoring the human element
A sudden cybersecurity event forces incident response teams to make high-impact decisions under intense pressure and tight time constraints. In the heat of the moment, this might cause risk aversion. "People may hesitate to act because they don't want to be held responsible for making the wrong call," DeGrazia said.
The time of an incident can also affect response. For example, if an attack occurs after hours or over the weekend, response might be delayed. Organizations that require long hours from responders on top of their normal work obligations also risk burnout and avoidable mistakes.
Organizational culture also impacts the effectiveness of incident response, said Andrew Braunberg, an analyst at Omdia. For example, an organization's risk appetite and risk threshold significantly affect funding, and culture can alter incident response team structure -- for example, whether the team is an integral part of the security operations center or is a standalone team.
To prevent human error, it is critical to have a clear incident response plan, Braunberg said, and to ensure team members receive the proper training on it. Training also includes clearly communicating the plan and testing the team, as well as the plan. This should include penetration testing, tabletop exercises and red, purple and blue teaming, he added.
If an incident response plan can't be executed amid a real-world intrusion, it is of little use. In the end, its value lies in its ability to bring order and calm so teams can react when the pressure is on and the stakes are high.
Jaikumar Vijayan is a freelance technology journalist with more than 20 years of award-winning experience in IT trade journalism, specializing in information security, data privacy and cybersecurity topics.
