Assumptions that do not associate with probabilities create a false sense of certainty. Working backward, considering alternatives that emerge from failed assumptions broadens the scope of scenarios examined. The Premortem technique raises awareness of possibilities, including their likely consequences, to enrich planning.

1. The views expressed in this presentation are the views of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian
Development Bank, or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included
in this presentation and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The countries listed in this presentation do not imply any
view on ADB's part as to sovereignty or independent status or necessarily conform to ADB's terminology.
The Premortem:
Just Play Dead
Olivier Serrat
2013

2. Why History Repeats Itself
A postmortem
examination is a
surgical procedure
conducted by a
pathologist to
determine or
confirm the exact
cause and
circumstances of
death or the
character and
extent of changes
produced by
disease.
Elsewhere, it is common to
conduct the equivalent of a
postmortem by means of
completion or evaluation reports—
after-action reviews, retrospects,
and learning histories are rarer—to
try to understand why an initiative
did or did not succeed. And so,
lessons (to be) learned eventuate
in the form of hindsight—that, by
and large, focusing on
accountability, not learning—at the
(wrong) end of a plan.

3. On Safe Silence and Bias
Does the following development seem familiar? A proposal is
drawn by a task force, endorsed by decision makers, approved
by senior management, launched with fanfare, but leads
nowhere. Why?
In bureaucratic
organizations, people
are reluctant to express
reservations about the
workability of a plan:
they keep mum
because it can be
dangerous to oppose
what bosses command.
Cognitive barriers play a role
too: individuals and groups
may be biased; when they
have worked hard on a plan
they can also become
psychologically committed to
the idea of success, be
overconfident, and therefore
blind to some of its risks.

4. On the Need for Dissent
Analysis is an
exercise in
judgment
under
conditions of
uncertainty:
the errors in
judgment we
make, singly
or in groups,
in a day or
through life,
are countless.
In complicated,
complex, or, chaotic
situations, a dependable
measure might be to
legitimize dissent and
place creative
suggestions and
contrarian objections on
the table to reinforce
the decision-making
process and improve a
plan's chances of
success ex-ante.
A devil's
advocate takes
a position he or
she does not
necessarily
agree with to
test the quality
of an argument
and help
improve or
force the
withdrawal of a
proposal.

5. Erase and Rewind
Taking a team out of the context of defending its plan and
shielding it from flaws opens perspectives from which the
team can actively search for faults. Tasking a team to
imagine that its plan has already been implemented and
failed helps identify reasons for negative future outcomes.
The outcomes of such stress-testing are increased
appreciation of the uncertainties inherent in any
projection of the future and identification of markers that,
if incorporated in the team's design and monitoring
framework and subsequently tracked, would give early
warning that progress is not being achieved as expected.

6. The Premortem: General Steps
Accept that a
plan has failed.
Elicit reasons
for failure.
Gather and
prioritize the
list of reasons.
Strengthen the
plan to forestall
fiasco.

7. The Premortem: Specifics
Settle on a period after which it might be known whether
a plan was well formulated. Imagine the period has
expired: the plan is a fiasco.
Ask team members to list 10 reasons for failure. Starting
with the leader, each team member should voice in turn
the reasons on their lists.
After the session is over, gather and prioritize the list of
reasons that grew out of collective knowledge.
Look for ways to strengthen the plan by avoiding or
mitigating essential drivers of failure, beginning with the
two or three items deemed of greatest concern.

8. Further Reading
• ADB. 2008. Reading the Future. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/reading-future
• ——. 2008. The Reframing Matrix. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/reframing-matrix
• ——. 2009. The Five Whys Technique. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/five-whys-technique
• ——. 2009. Learning from Evaluation. Manila.
http://www.adb.org/publications/learning-evaluation
• ——. 2009. Wearing Six Thinking Hats. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/wearing-six-thinking-hats
• ——. 2009. Asking Effective Questions. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/asking-effective-questions

9. Further Reading
• ADB. 2009. Understanding Complexity. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/understanding-complexity
• ——. 2011. Critical Thinking. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/critical-thinking
• ——. 2012. The Premortem Technique. Manila.
www.adb.org/publications/premortem-technique

10. Quick Response Codes
@ADB
@ADB Sustainable
Development Timeline
@Academia.edu
@LinkedIn
@ResearchGate
@Scholar
@SlideShare
@Twitter