Premortem Analysis
Imagine a project or plan has failed in the future, and brainstorm all the reasons that could have led to the failure – then address them now.
What is Premortem Analysis?
The premortem flips your perspective to reveal insights that normal planning might miss due to optimism bias or fear of speaking up. By accepting upfront that “failure happened” (even though it hasn’t), you free yourself and your team to explore unpleasant possibilities without blame. This often surfaces *hidden fragilities* in your plan – maybe a single point of failure, an unrealistic assumption, or a lack of backup. Once identified, these can be fixed: you adjust the plan, add contingency buffers, assign risk owners, etc. The outcome is a plan that’s more resilient. People feel more confident going forward, not because they assume success, but because they know they’ve thought through the worst and are prepared. It’s like vaccinating your project against naive optimism. Emotionally, it also steels you – if some issues do occur, you’ll handle them better because you *expected* them. In short, a premortem strengthens execution by addressing potential failures *before* they happen, rather than doing autopsy after the patient (project) is dead.
A Premortem is the opposite of a Postmortem. Instead of analyzing why something went wrong after the fact, you do it *before* execution to preempt problems. Here’s how it works: Envision that your project or goal has *utterly failed* sometime in the future. Really assume “it all went south.” Now, write down **every possible reason** you can think of that might explain this hypothetical failure – especially the uncomfortable or unlikely issues people might not normally voice. For example, if your goal is to start a small business, you imagine it’s a year later and the business collapsed. Reasons might be: “We didn’t research customer needs deeply, ran out of cash due to overspending, team communication broke down, personal burnout,” etc. List as many causes as you can, including external events and internal shortcomings. The mindset is deliberately pessimistic (to flush out hidden risks), but done in a safe, creative way. Once you have the list, you systematically go through and think: **How can I prevent or mitigate this cause?** This leads to concrete actions you can take now as part of your plan (contingency plans, monitoring of risk factors, adjustments in strategy). The result is a more robust project plan that anticipates challenges. This technique was popularized by psychologist Gary Klein and is even recommended by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman to overcome overconfidence.
How It Works
Imagine it’s the future and my project/goal failed spectacularly. What does that failure look like? (Paint a brief picture of the disaster scenario.)
Helps with: Setting the stage and accepting the premise of failure, which makes the subsequent answers more uninhibited.
List every possible reason that contributed to this failure. Why did things go wrong? (No matter how minor, outrageous, or uncomfortable, write it down.)
Helps with: Brainstorming potential causes without restraint. This is the core where you identify risks, mistakes, and bad luck factors.
Which of these reasons were within my (or our) control? Among those, which seem most plausible or impactful?
Helps with: Prioritizing actionable issues. You focus first on factors you can influence and that have high likelihood or severity.
For each controllable cause: what steps can I take now to prevent it, or at least detect and mitigate it early?
Helps with: Turning each identified risk into a prevention or contingency plan. This is where you derive concrete to-dos (e.g., add more testing, schedule check-ins, get expert advice).
Are there any early warning signs I should monitor during the project for these risks? What are they and how will I monitor them?
Helps with: Setting up gauges or alerts (leading indicators) that might tell you if a feared problem is developing, so you can intervene promptly.
What adjustments will I make to my original plan/timeline/resources based on these insights?
Helps with: Integrating the changes into the master plan. It ensures the exercise leads to a tangible update in your approach.
Optional – share with team: If working with others, how will I communicate these potential pitfalls and safeguards to the group?
Helps with: Making sure the whole team acknowledges the risks and owns the solutions, fostering a culture of open communication and readiness.
Best Used For
You are in the planning stage of any significant project, initiative, or goal, and you want to uncover risks and weaknesses while you still have time to address them. It’s particularly helpful when there’s groupthink or too much optimism in a team – premortems encourage raising concerns without stigma. Also useful for personal goals: for instance, if you plan to train for a marathon, doing a premortem on why you might fail (injury, skipping training in bad weather, etc.) will help you put safeguards in place (like cross-training, find an indoor track, etc.). Essentially, whenever failure is a real possibility and would be costly, a premortem is a smart precaution.
Not Recommended For
Avoid doing a premortem *too* close to deadline or launch – it’s most useful when you still have time to make changes. Also, be careful with team dynamics: ensure the session is framed positively (as improving the plan, not accusing people of potential failure), otherwise it could lower morale. Finally, for trivial or low-stakes projects, a full premortem might be overkill – it’s meant for significant endeavors where the value of foresight outweighs the time spent.
In Practice
"In a software team pre-project meeting, doing a Premortem might surface issues like *“We delivered late because we underestimated how long integration takes”* or *“Quality suffered because we didn’t test on real users early.”* By acknowledging these *before* starting, the team can adjust timelines and add user testing phases to the project plan. Kahneman noted the premortem *“legitimizes doubt”* and helps team members speak up with concerns they might otherwise bury."
"The U.S. Army uses a similar concept (“red teaming” or “war-gaming”) to foresee why a mission might fail and plan accordingly. A study on decision-making found that simply *imagining you are an observer in the future looking back* increased people’s ability to identify reasons for future outcomes by ~30%. That’s the core of the premortem: prospective hindsight. Organizations that practice premortems report fewer nasty surprises during execution, because they’ve already considered and prepared for many potential failure modes."
Scientific Foundation
Gary Klein (HBR, 2007)
Klein instructs leaders to start a premortem by saying *“Pretend we are a year in the future and our plan has failed. It’s a disaster. Take a few minutes and write down all the reasons you can think of for the failure.”* Participants often uncover issues they *“ordinarily wouldn’t mention… for fear of being impolitic.”* This technique thus legitimizes speaking up about doubts.
Daniel Kahneman (2011)
Kahneman endorses premortems, noting their main virtue is that it *“legitimizes doubt”* by encouraging team members to imagine a failure and thereby overcome group overconfidence. He points out that people *“tend to exaggerate our ability to forecast the future”*, and premortems help counter that by revealing how things could go wrong.
Mitchell, Russo, Pennington (1989 study)
Pioneering research on *“prospective hindsight”* found that imagining an event has already occurred **increased the ability to correctly identify reasons** for future outcomes by ~30%. This evidence underpins the premortem’s effectiveness: by *acting as if* the failure happened, planners were significantly better at spotting potential causes of failure.
Start Premortem Analysis Today
Download free. Try this framework in 3 minutes. See the difference science-backed journaling makes.
Download AppFree to start. Upgrade anytime in-app. No credit card required.