Several times now I've wondered if there are perhaps lessons we can take from real-world, successful projects and approaches the ICT industry that we may be able to apply generally to society. A simple example is how the Agile management approach speaks rather deeply, on a philosophical level, about how to approach projects in a rapidly changing, non-deterministic environment where requirements may change rapidly. It is quite obvious how this sort of approach could be applied in similar environments where older, more deterministic project management approaches are too cumbersome or rigid (of course, the implementation details would have to be tailored for the environment, because strict Agile project management is usually quite specific to software development).
Lately I've been looking into what it takes to build scalable, robust, reliable systems for a variety of purposes and there seems to be, in a similar way to Agile project management, an underlying philosophical shift from the ways in which traditional systems are built. This philosophical shift can quite simply be summarised in a single sentence: build in enough fat to cater for the worst case scenario (so-called "black swan" events).
Do you anticipate, even with a very low likelihood, that you may have a sudden spike in traffic with over 100,000 users accessing your system simultaneously? Make sure your system is load-balanced and horizontally scalable, and find ways to break up complex computational problems (which may become bottlenecks or constraints in your system) into smaller parts and distribute these smaller computations across your clusters. You don't know how often and which of your servers will fail? Make sure you replicate data and functionality across multiple nodes, storing more than one copy of a chunk of data in case a server rack fails. You don't know where most of your users will be? Set up multiple data centres across the world, providing localised, distributed access to your services. Of course, you have to balance this with the costs of doing so, so you may set up small-ish data centres, but with the ability to add more capacity if necessary.
This happens to be the philosophical approach that Nassim Taleb advocates in his (absolutely mind-blowing) book Anti-Fragile, and is applicable to many spheres of life. It's also hinted towards in the famous Eliyahu M. Goldratt's Theory of Constraints from his seminal work, The Goal, where he recommends building in buffers around your process constraints to ensure the constraint is never starved and that it's output is never blocked. It's also very important to have backup equipment to be able to replace or supplement your process "constraint" in the case of failure, because, as the theory goes, a constraint failure will result in total system failure.
Such a philosophy is applicable to many situations in everyday life, and, at least in my mind, is verging on achieving the status of a general principle. For example, if one has to undertake an hour-long drive (with no traffic) to be on time for an appointment at 14h00, and there is a very small chance of a traffic jam where the worst-case scenario could be up to a two-hour delay, applying this principle would result in one leaving at 11h00. Of course, this may result in you being two hours early if you don't encounter any traffic, so you'll have to weigh up the costs involved in being two hours early versus two hours late. (Note that this is usually a very intuitive process that we generally go through on a daily basis, but you would be surprised at how often this is only applied in situations like being on time for appointments and neglected in business). There are countless examples of how this naturally occurs in nature (just think about how much money goes into our struggle to fight against nature when our bodies store up fat).
This is also applicable to personal financial planning. Think about the worst- case scenarios as to what could happen to you in life: you could be killed in an accident, be diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, be permanently disabled, or the economy of your country in which your retirement funds are stored could encounter hyperinflation. Covering yourself for the worst-case scenarios helps you to ensure that you, should you survive, and your family, should they survive, are not crippled even further by financial circumstances. It's easy to see how this sort of example could extend to business financial planning.
Overall, you have to look at the cost of encountering a "black swan" event. A prime example cited by Taleb is the Fukushima nuclear disaster, where they failed to take into account the cost of a very low-probability event like the tsunami that caused the disaster when initially building the plant.
At the very least, such a configuration, whether it be a web application, a manufacturing line, an entire supply chain, could be called "robust" in the face of catastrophe (i.e. that the overall configuration would be unharmed and continue to operate in the face of catastrophe).
One of the primary benefits of such robust configurations, as Taleb points out, is that one doesn't need to be able to predict the future when constructing them. Just take care of the worst-case scenarios as best you can, and the configurations will take care of themselves, freeing you up on many levels to focus your (otherwise worry-oriented) energy elsewhere.