A premortem is a strategic exercise where a team assumes a project has already failed and works backward to determine the potential causes. Developed by research psychologist Gary Klein, this method is used before a project officially starts to proactively identify and address risks. Unlike a postmortem, which analyzes a failure after it has occurred, the premortem aims to prevent that failure from ever happening. It is a structured process designed to surface weaknesses when there is still time to make adjustments.
The Psychology of Prospective Hindsight
The effectiveness of a premortem lies in a psychological principle known as “prospective hindsight.” This concept describes our ability to more easily and accurately explain past events—even hypothetical ones—than to forecast future possibilities. A 1989 study found that imagining an event has already happened can increase the ability to correctly identify reasons for that outcome by as much as 30%.
This mental shift helps to counteract common cognitive biases that can derail projects. One such bias is optimism bias, the tendency to believe we are less likely to experience negative events. The premortem also helps dismantle groupthink, where the desire for consensus overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives. By framing the discussion around a definite failure, it creates a psychologically safe environment for team members to voice concerns and criticisms without appearing disloyal or overly negative.
Executing the Premortem Process
A facilitator, who can be a neutral party, is selected to guide the project team through the process. The facilitator’s first action is to set the stage by announcing that the project has failed completely. They instruct the team to imagine it is some time in the future and the initiative has been a spectacular disaster, but the reasons are not yet known.
Following this setup, each team member independently takes time to brainstorm and write down every possible reason for the project’s failure. This individual activity ensures that a wide range of independent viewpoints is captured before the group discussion begins. It prevents the initial ideas from unduly influencing others.
Once the individual brainstorming is complete, the facilitator goes around the room, asking each person to share one reason from their list. This process is repeated until every idea has been shared and recorded on a whiteboard or digital tool. No criticisms or debates are allowed during this phase; the goal is to consolidate a comprehensive list of all potential failure points.
After all potential reasons for failure are documented, the team discusses and analyzes the list. Similar items are often grouped into themes to better organize the feedback. The team then reviews these consolidated points, clarifying any ambiguities and beginning to understand the most significant threats.
Transforming Insights into Action
The output of the premortem meeting is a catalog of potential risks, but the process does not end there. The next step is to transform these identified risks into a concrete plan. The team must review the consolidated list to prioritize the threats to determine which issues pose the greatest danger to the project.
For each high-priority risk, the team develops specific, preventative actions or contingency plans. This involves brainstorming solutions or mitigation strategies that can be implemented to avoid the potential failure. This step ensures the exercise moves beyond simple identification and toward proactive problem-solving.
Finally, these preventative measures are integrated directly into the overall project plan. Each action item should be assigned to a specific team member who takes ownership, and clear deadlines for completion must be established. This integration makes risk mitigation a formal part of the project’s workflow, turning the insights into a functional management tool.