Before starting a project, ask the team to imagine it has failed and write a story explaining why. This exercise in 'time travel' bypasses optimism bias and surfaces critical operational risks, resource gaps, and flawed assumptions that would otherwise be missed until it's too late.
Related Insights
During product discovery, Amazon teams ask, "What would be our worst possible news headline?" This pre-mortem practice forces the team to identify and confront potential weak points, blind spots, and negative outcomes upfront. It's a powerful tool for looking around corners and ensuring all bases are covered before committing to build.
Instead of defaulting to skepticism and looking for reasons why something won't work, the most productive starting point is to imagine how big and impactful a new idea could become. After exploring the optimistic case, you can then systematically address and mitigate the risks.
When launching a new strategy, define the specific go/no-go decision criteria on paper from day one. This prevents "revisionist history" where success metrics are redefined later based on new fact patterns or biases. This practice forces discipline and creates clear accountability for future reviews.
Foster a culture of experimentation by reframing failure. A test where the hypothesis is disproven is just as valuable as a 'win' because it provides crucial user insights. The program's success should be measured by the quantity of quality tests run, not the percentage of successful hypotheses.
The 'fake press release' is a useful vision-setting tool, but a 'pre-mortem' is more tactical. It involves writing out two scenarios before a project starts: one detailing exactly *why* it succeeded (e.g., team structure, metrics alignment) and another detailing *why* it failed. This forces a proactive discussion of process and risks, not just the desired outcome.
Instead of avoiding risk, teams build trust by creating a 'safe danger' zone for manageable risks, like sharing a half-baked idea. This process of successfully navigating small vulnerabilities rewires fear into trust and encourages creative thinking, proving that safety and danger are more like 'dance partners' than opposites.
Instead of complex prioritization frameworks like RICE, designers can use a more intuitive model based on Value, Cost, and Risk. This mirrors the mental calculation humans use for everyday decisions, allowing for a more holistic and natural conversation about project trade-offs.
Effective, fast research isn't about skipping steps but about rightsizing the effort. Instead of defaulting to a previous method like "10 interviews," teams should determine the minimum insight needed to mitigate the specific risk at hand, using that to define the research scope and approach.
Intuition is not a mystical gut feeling but rapid pattern recognition based on experience. Since leaders cannot "watch game tape," they must build this mental library by systematically discussing failures and setbacks. This process of embedding learnings sharpens their ability to recognize patterns in future situations.
The misconception that discovery slows down delivery is dangerous. Like stretching before a race prevents injury, proper, time-boxed discovery prevents building the wrong thing. This avoids costly code rewrites and iterative launches that miss the mark, ultimately speeding up the delivery of a successful product.