Back to Blog & Insights

Business Growth

Run a Premortem Before a High-Stakes Project Begins

Before committing staff, money, or reputation, ask the project team to imagine the plan has failed. A focused premortem can surface informed dissent, identify material risks, and prompt practical safeguards while the plan can still change.

By WWA Editorial Team 4 min read
Project leader reviewing risk notes with colleagues around a table before approving a major launch

The best time to challenge a project is before commitment

A consequential project can become difficult to question well before it begins. Staff have been assigned, suppliers contacted, budgets discussed, and leaders publicly associated with the plan. Each commitment adds momentum. Team members who see weaknesses may hesitate to raise them, especially when everyone else appears ready to proceed.

A short premortem creates a deliberate opening for that dissent. Instead of asking whether the plan will succeed, the project leader tells participants to imagine that it has already failed and identify plausible reasons why. Gary Klein describes this as prospective hindsight: knowledgeable participants look back from an assumed failure while there is still time to improve the plan.

The premise changes the conversation. Participants are not required to oppose the project or challenge a colleague’s confidence. Their assigned task is to explain failure. That makes concerns relevant to the exercise rather than interruptions to an approved direction.

Use independent thinking before group debate

Run the premortem after the team has enough detail to understand the proposed project but before major commitments make substantial changes impractical. Participants should include people familiar with delivery, customers, finances, operations, and any important dependencies. The exercise should have a defined scope and a clear endpoint.

Begin with a direct scenario: “The project has failed. What caused the failure?” Then ask each participant to write possible reasons independently. Klein recommends this individual writing step, which prevents the first confident speaker from immediately setting the group’s direction.

Collect the reasons before debating them. Combine duplicates, clarify vague entries, and distinguish material risks from minor inconveniences. The team can then select the few risks that deserve action, identify safeguards, assign ownership, and decide what must change before approval.

An illustrative trade-show launch

Consider a small firm preparing to introduce a product at a trade show. The project requires staff time, display costs, demonstration materials, and reputational exposure. Before confirming the full launch, the owner gathers the sales lead, operations manager, product specialist, and the employee coordinating the stand.

They assume the launch has failed and write reasons separately. Their list includes an unreliable demonstration unit, unclear visitor follow-up, insufficient staff preparation, delayed display materials, and messaging that does not explain the product’s practical value. These are illustrative risks, not a prediction of what will happen.

The group selects the risks with the greatest potential effect on the launch. It assigns proportionate safeguards: test the demonstration under show conditions, prepare a backup presentation, define lead ownership, rehearse common questions, and set an earlier internal deadline for essential materials. Not every concern receives a costly response. The purpose is to improve the plan, not make uncertainty disappear.

Avoid pessimistic theater

A premortem loses value when participants compete to invent dramatic disasters, produce an unfiltered catalogue of worries, or treat every possibility as equally urgent. Keep discussion tied to the project’s actual context, available knowledge, and decisions the team can influence.

Leaders should not defend the plan while reasons are being gathered. If every concern receives an immediate rebuttal, the exercise recreates the pressure it was meant to reduce. Evaluation comes after collection. At that stage, ask which causes are plausible enough and consequential enough to warrant prevention, monitoring, contingency planning, or explicit acceptance.

Safeguards should remain proportionate. A low-cost check may justify immediate action; a remote concern may need only a trigger for later review. Recording an owner and next step prevents the session from becoming a performance with no operational result.

Strengthen planning rather than replace it

A structured premortem cannot predict every failure. The methods paper in Implementation Science Communications presents the technique as a way to identify context-specific causes and avoidance measures, while warning that it should supplement robust planning.

Normal planning still establishes objectives, budgets, responsibilities, schedules, and controls. The premortem pressure-tests those elements from a different angle. Daniel Kahneman characterized the technique as easy and likely to produce beneficial changes to plans. Its practical advantage is timely permission: informed people can articulate what might go wrong before commitment turns a revisable proposal into a defended decision.

Sources