METHODS / RISK, CHANGE, AND IMPROVEMENT / PROJECT PREMORTEM
METHOD
Project Premortem
A project premortem asks a team to assume that a planned initiative has already failed and explain what caused the failure. People generate reasons independently before the group discusses them. The team then strengthens the plan, assigns controls, and identifies signals that should trigger action.
WHERE IT COMES FROM Gary Klein in Harvard Business Review, 2007
A leadership offsite. A board cycle or major investor process. An executive transition. A launch, an acquisition integration, or any plan with several teams and unfamiliar risks, still early enough to change.
The exercise creates value when priority risks lead to a change in the plan, a preventive action, an owner, and a review date.
WHAT IT IS
Why the sequence matters.
Gary Klein developed and popularized the project premortem, drawing on research into prospective hindsight. Asking people to imagine that an outcome has already occurred can change how they identify and explain possible causes.
Participants write independently before group discussion. The group then collects causes, identifies warning signals, prioritizes material risks, and changes the plan. Independent writing helps preserve perspectives that might otherwise be shaped by the first or most senior speaker.
FIT
When a project premortem is useful.
Reach for it when
- You are planning an executive or leadership offsite.
- You are preparing a board cycle or major investor process.
- You are managing an executive transition or organization change.
- You are launching a new operating cadence, tool, or workflow.
- You are committing to a project with several teams, dependencies, or unfamiliar risks.
Choose another approach when
- The work is routine and stable, and an SOP or checklist handles it better.
- The idea has not become a real plan yet.
- The incident is already happening.
- The matter is legal, HR, security, or safety and the right specialist is not in the room.
- The technical risk needs testing or quantitative analysis beyond the group discussion.
- The group cannot raise concerns safely. Address that condition before running the exercise.
HOW TO RUN IT
Move from independent thinking to action.
THE WORKSHEET
What to record for each priority risk.
- Failure cause
- Evidence or assumption behind the concern
- Early warning signal
- Preventive action
- Contingency if it occurs
- Owner
- Review date
- Residual risk or escalation needed
EXAMPLE
Strengthening a leadership offsite.
The team imagines it is three months after a leadership offsite and nothing improved. Independently written causes include unclear decision rights, a late pre-read, CEO changes to the agenda, no safe route for dissent, decisions with no owners, and a failed hybrid setup.
Before the event, leadership names decision owners, freezes the pre-read date, opens an anonymous risk channel, tests a backup hybrid setup, creates a decision-log structure, and schedules a seven-day owner confirmation. The fictional exercise produces specific changes to the plan and owners for the remaining risks.
KEEP IT USEFUL
Common implementation and participation considerations.
Common implementation issues
- Using a vague failure scenario.
- Letting the senior leader speak first.
- Priming the group with the facilitator's own risks.
- Generating a large list with no mitigation or owner.
- Turning the exercise into catastrophizing.
- Punishing the person who raises a political risk.
- Treating the exercise as a replacement for evidence or testing.
- Filing the output without changing the plan.
Participation and hierarchy
- Hierarchy, group similarity, and a leader's attachment to the plan narrow what gets said.
- Use silent or anonymous input and neutral facilitation.
- Invite external evidence where the group is assuming things about customers, technology, law, or safety.
AI AND JUDGMENT
Use AI after the independent risk round. People test the risks and change the plan.
AI can help
- Group similar causes after participants complete their independent work.
- Compare the list with approved lessons, incidents, or risks from similar projects.
- Flag risk categories the group may not have discussed.
- Draft the risk and action record with proposed owners and review dates.
People remain responsible for
- Generating the first round of risks independently.
- Judging which concerns are credible and material.
- Choosing controls, contingencies, owners, and escalation routes.
- Deciding which risks to accept and what must change in the plan.
Do not show AI-generated risks before the independent human round. Early examples can narrow the group's thinking, and AI suggestions remain prompts until the team verifies them.
SOURCES
What the research supports.
Independent evidence
Research on prospective hindsight suggests that imagining an outcome as already having happened can help people generate reasons for it. Later research and practitioner guidance apply that idea to project-risk discussions. A premortem surfaces possibilities; the team still needs to verify material risks and change the plan.
View sources (5)OpenClose
WHERE IT FITS