This concept paper suggests some changes to the Swedish preparedness system. We argue that the system is characterized by three problems, which might require fundamental changes in terms of how societal risk managers perceive the system itself: 1. The all-hazard perspective, applied by many governmental preparedness actors, is analytically overwhelming 2. The Swedish preparedness system is affected by short sightedness in its decision-making practices 3. The so-called principle of responsibility (Swedish: ansvarsprincipen) is associated with contradictions. We suggest that the first problem could be remedied by segmenting the allhazard perspective in several categories - whereof each entails different risk management strategies. The challenges of strategic shortsightedness and contradictions in the application of the principle of responsibility are difficult to address, as they are probably a function of human behavior and cognition. It might however be possible to improve the circumstances surrounding long-term decision-making. Here, we introduce a conceptual model with the aim of splitting and segmenting the responsibility of all-hazard risk management into different preparedness actor constellations. We also suggest implementing a civil capability preparedness program, with the aim to improve the general flexibility of the Swedish preparedness system. These proposals would also allow for the mitigation of institutional misunderstandings (i.e. some risks are not given attention by preparedness actors) in the overall societal governance of risk.