Most projects get a review when they are over. The trouble is that the lessons arrive too late to help the project they came from.
A pre-mortem moves that conversation to the start. Before the work begins, the team imagines that the project has already failed. Then each person explains, in their own words, why it failed. The method is simple and tends to surface risks that a normal planning meeting misses.
Why it works
In an ordinary risk discussion, people are asked what might go wrong. That question invites caution and polite hedging. Few people want to be the one who doubts the plan their manager has just presented.
The pre-mortem changes the frame. The failure is treated as a fact, so the task is to explain it. That small shift gives people permission to say what they have been quietly thinking. Concerns about capacity, unclear ownership or a sceptical customer become useful contributions to the plan.
This matters in Scandinavian workplaces too. Flat structures and a habit of consensus are real strengths, and they can also make people reluctant to break a positive mood. A pre-mortem gives a structured, shared reason to be critical, which fits well with a culture that values tillit and open discussion.
Before the workshop
Preparation is light, and it makes a real difference.
- Choose a project or decision that is far enough along to be concrete, but early enough that you can still change course.
- Invite the people who will do the work, plus one or two who see it from the outside, such as someone from finance, operations or customer service. Six to twelve participants is a good range.
- Write a one-page summary of the plan: the goal, the timeline, the main steps and who is responsible. Send it a day in advance.
- Pick a facilitator who is not the project owner. The owner should take part and listen.
Running the session: a 75-minute outline
The steps below fit comfortably into 60 to 90 minutes.
- Set the scene (5 minutes). The facilitator restates the goal of the project and explains the exercise. Say clearly that the purpose is to strengthen the plan, and that no idea is off limits.
- Declare the failure (2 minutes). Describe a specific future. For example: "It is eighteen months from now. The project has failed. It went over budget, the users never adopted it, and the steering group has closed it down."
- Write silently (10 minutes). Each person writes down every reason they can think of for the failure, one reason per sticky note or line. Silence is important here. It stops the first confident voice from shaping everyone else's thinking.
- Share in rounds (20 minutes). Go around the room and ask each person for one reason at a time. Keep going until the lists are exhausted. The facilitator records each reason on a wall or shared board without debate.
- Group and prioritise (15 minutes). Cluster similar reasons together. Then ask the group to vote on the clusters that are both most likely and most damaging. Three votes per person usually works.
- Plan responses (15 minutes). For the top three to five risks, agree on a concrete action. Some actions reduce the chance of the risk occurring. Others are early warning signs to watch for. Each action needs an owner and a date.
- Close (5 minutes). Summarise the decisions, thank people for their honesty and confirm when the actions will be reviewed.
What good output looks like
A typical pre-mortem produces a long list of reasons, and most fall into familiar categories: unclear decision rights, dependencies on other teams, optimistic timelines, weak user involvement and key people being pulled onto other work. Most of the value comes from naming ordinary risks plainly, early and with an owner attached.
Imagine a regional company planning a new customer portal. In a pre-mortem, the developers might predict technical delays, while the customer service lead points out that nobody has planned how staff will answer questions about the portal on launch day. That second risk is easy to fix in month one and costly to fix in month twelve.
Common mistakes
- Letting it become a debate. The sharing round is for collecting reasons. Discussion comes later, during grouping.
- Inviting only the core team. People close to the plan share the same blind spots.
- Stopping at the list. A pre-mortem without actions and owners is an interesting conversation and nothing more.
- Treating it as a vote of no confidence. If the project owner becomes defensive, the group will stop being honest. The facilitator should protect the tone.
After the session
Write up the prioritised risks and actions within a day and share them with everyone who took part. Add the early warning signs to your regular project reviews. When one of them appears, you will already know what to do.
The pre-mortem is a modest tool. It asks for an hour and a willingness to imagine things going badly. In return, it gives a team a clearer view of its plan and a shared sense that the hard questions have been asked. Linje often facilitates sessions like this when an organisation wants a neutral person in the room, but the method works just as well run internally.