Step 2: Prioritizing
At this point you should have a long list of potential problems, so now the time is to prioritize them. Here are the selection criteria for narrowing down the list to a size the group can deal with effectively:
- Eliminate the most far-fetched, unlikely, and improbable. Focus on developments that might actually We want to have the list be primarily composed of those “elephant in the room” issues that are deemed impermissible to talk about, but which we have to bring to the forefront and address for the benefit of the project.
- Eliminate eventualities you have no control over. It’s useless to spend an iota of time or effort on them because there’s nothing to be done. Out goes the hurricane or earthquake.
- Focus on the most consequential possibilities: Drop anything that would have only a minor or tangential impact. You want to get down the existential threats to the project.
Step 3: Problem-solving
Finally comes the step that everyone has probably been eagerly awaiting—and which, perhaps oddly, can be the easiest now that all the problems, including the “unspeakable” ones, have been written down for all to see. Propose solutions.
By and large, the potentially show-stopping problems remaining will either be problems that exist and need to be addressed today (partners aren’t buying into the project itself, for example) or problems that might arise down the road but aren’t yet a live issue (a key champion leaves).
For the first group of here-and-now problems, your mission at this point is clear: Get to work solving it. This means assigning specific, named individuals to clearly defined action items, giving them a deadline to do what they’re being asked to do, and following up with rigor on a publicly available time-line. It won’t be a solution unless someone makes it happen before it can kick in, with bad consequences.
For the second group of “maybe but not right now” problems, by definition there’s nothing you can do immediately because the problem isn’t a live present issue. What you can do is create a potential, viable, plan to address the issue should it arise. For example, if the problem is “our key champion leaves the firm”—but he/she is still firmly on-board—your “Plan B” if that happens might be to have a second individual just as passionate about the project as the first lined up and fully engaged.
Summary
Nothing can guarantee the success of a major new initiative. The world is changeable and the future unforeseeable in important ways. Not only that, but the players involved—your partners, your clients, your competitors—have free will and can change their behavior in light of the initiative itself. How they’re behaving today (a competitor is refusing to adopt project management tools) can be different tomorrow (seeing your firm invest in project management, they decide they better face the music and they do so as well).
The best you can do is to:
- Show clarity and candor about the most serious obstacles that could derail the project;
- Firmly address those you need to address today and figure out how to address others that might arise in the future;
- And hold team members strictly accountable for what you’ve all agreed to do.
Note to our readers:
Our experience In our work with clients at Adam Smith, Esq., is that the premortem is one of the most effective, and economical, techniques we’ve come across to help give your new project the fighting chance it deserves.
The “Premortem” is closely related, in purpose and structure, to the engineering methodology called Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA has been used in risk analysis and risk management of engineered systems for 30 years. It is much more detailed and traceable than are the simpler, qualitative tools, but can be executed very much more quickly (and less expensively, and with much less training) that the more rigorous “fault-tree” type risk assessments. FMEA/Premortem efforts are well suited for general decision-making, of the sort Bruce notes, as well as an indispensable step in a risk assessment process for detailed engineered systems that will become more quantitative as the system becomes well enough defined to look at detailed issues such as corrosion of pipes or welding errors.
The point for looking at “Premortems” in law-firm management is that this is not a recent fad. The approach has been used thousands of times in rigorous applications, and an adaption and re-namining that brings it to a new audience can use that long and helpful record to understand what the likelihood is that the process will be useful to a new decision-making situation.
Mark: Many thanks, as always, for such a rich insight.
The longer I toil here in the vineyards of Law Land–as a business and as a profession–the more firmly I believe we have much to learn from the rest of the economy, and here is a splendid example.
While legal “failures” are rarely as spectacular and dangerous as engineering failures, we all could learn from the airline industry, where every crash and every non-normal incident is investigated and exhumed to a fare-thee-well to ensure that, at least, that particular modality of failure does not recur.
Atul Gawande has written wisely about how much medicine could learn from this, as well. In the meantime, the vast majority of lawyers believe we’re all artisans. I don’t think it will be too long before some of the New Entrants into Law Land, bringing AI, business process optimization, flowcharts, and checklists, will have a chance to learn whether their approach is right and ours wrong, or vice versa.