A pre-mortem is a proactive risk management exercise that helps teams anticipate potential failures before they occur. Unlike traditional risk assessments, which often focus on known risks, a pre-mortem encourages teams to imagine a scenario where the initiative has already failed and work backward to identify the causes. This method:
Uncovers hidden risks that might otherwise be overlooked.
Encourages open and candid discussions within teams.
Enhances risk mitigation strategies early in the process.
Strengthens team alignment and shared accountability for success.
What Are the Outcomes of a Pre-Mortem?
When executed effectively, a pre-mortem delivers several valuable outcomes:
A comprehensive list of potential failure points.
A prioritized risk register with mitigation actions.
Stronger team cohesion and ownership over the initiative’s success.
Improved decision-making, ensuring proactive rather than reactive responses to risks.
How to Execute a Pre-Mortem
Follow these structured steps to conduct an effective pre-mortem:
Set the Stage: Gather the key stakeholders, including project sponsors, team leads, and operational experts. Ensure a psychologically safe environment where candid discussions are encouraged.
Define the Scenario: Present the hypothetical situation: “It is six months (or an appropriate timeframe) in the future, and the project has completely failed. What went wrong?”
Brainstorm Failure Points: Each participant individually lists reasons for failure, considering strategic, operational, and technical factors.
Share and Categorize: Consolidate and group similar failure points into themes (e.g., governance issues, resource constraints, external disruptions).
Prioritize Risks: Use voting, ranking, or a risk assessment matrix to determine which failure points are the most critical.
Develop Mitigation Actions: For each high-priority risk, define preventive measures and contingency plans.
Integrate into Governance: Assign ownership for risk monitoring and integrate these insights into ongoing project reviews.
When and With Whom Should You Conduct a Pre-Mortem?
When: Ideally, before finalizing the transformation strategy or at key milestones in major initiatives (e.g., post-planning, before execution phases, during major pivots).
With Whom: A cross-functional group including executives, project managers, functional leads, risk officers, and frontline implementers.
By embedding the pre-mortem approach into your transformation governance, you significantly improve the likelihood of success by proactively identifying and addressing risks before they materialize.
This technique not only improves project outcomes but also builds stronger teams through enhanced communication and psychological safety.
Organizational transformations represent some of the most complex undertakings in business. According to research by McKinsey & Company (2019), nearly 70% of transformations fail to achieve their stated objectives, with inadequate risk management frequently cited as a contributing factor.
Effective risk management requires a structured approach where risks are identified, assessed, and mitigated at the appropriate levels:
Portfolio Risks – Strategic risks impacting the entire transformation, requiring executive oversight. Examples include: resource allocation, organizational capacity for change, external (market/regulatory) and financial sustainability risks.
Program Risks – Cross-project risks affecting multiple initiatives, managed at the program level. Examples include: interdependencies/resource conflicts between projects, timeline/milestone risks, development, technical integration, adoption, and benefit realization risks.
Project Risks – Operational and execution risks handled by project teams. Examples include: scope/requirements, schedule, budget, resource, quality, performance, team capability/capacity, and stakeholder acceptance risks.
A clear governance structure ensures that risks are escalated to the right level—whether the Executive Steering Committee, Program Leadership, or Project Management—for timely decision-making and intervention.
2. Risk Management in Transformation Governance
To embed risk management into transformation governance effectively, organizations must:
Define risk ownership at different levels (executive, program, project).
Establish governance bodies with clear escalation mechanisms.
Integrate risk reviews into decision-making forums.
Ensure risk reporting is transparent, structured, and aligned with transformation objectives.
3. Risk Assessment & Mapping Tools
Several proven tools can help organizations systematically assess and map risks:
Risk Matrix (Probability vs. Impact): Prioritizes risks based on likelihood and severity.
Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS): Categorizes risks by type (strategic, organizational, operational, financial, technical, change management, etc.).
Bow-Tie Analysis: For high-priority risks, visualizes potential causes, consequences, and controls for a given risk.
Monte Carlo Simulations: Provides probabilistic forecasting for risk impact on budgets and timelines.
SWIFT (Structured What-If Technique): Facilitates structured brainstorming on potential risks.
Each of these tools helps organizations gain visibility into risks and prepare for effective mitigation.
4. Mitigation Planning & Execution
Risk mitigation involves defining structured responses based on the nature and severity of risks:
Avoid: Eliminating the risk by altering the transformation approach.
Mitigate: Reducing the impact or probability through proactive measures.
Transfer: Shifting the risk to a third party (e.g., insurance, outsourcing).
Accept: Acknowledging the risk with contingency plans in place.
A Risk Register should be maintained to track risks, owners, mitigation actions, timelines, resources, and follow-ups. Additionally, mitigation progress should be reviewed in governance forums to ensure accountability and timely interventions.
5. A Step-by-Step Guide to Implementing Risk Management
Risk Management Framework: Agree on the objectives, structure, policies, and procedures.
Risk Identification: Engage stakeholders and put mechanisms in place across all levels to surface risks early.
Risk Assessment: Use structured tools to break risks down, categorize them, and evaluate the likelihood and impact.
Risk Prioritization: Align risk priorities with transformation goals and organizational risk appetite.
Governance & Oversight: Integrate risk reviews into transformation governance structures, with dedicated risk review sessions.
Ongoing Monitoring & Communication: Establish reporting mechanisms, including risk trend reporting, and continuous improvement processes.
6. Example – Global Financial Services Transformation
A major financial institution undertaking a digital transformation employed a three-tiered risk management approach:
Portfolio Level (Executive Steering Committee) The ESC focused on strategic risks including regulatory compliance, competitive disruption, and organizational capacity for change. They established quarterly “risk deep dives” where each transformation workstream presented their top risks and mitigation strategies. The ESC maintained a portfolio-level risk contingency reserve, allocating funds to address emerging risks based on severity and alignment with strategic priorities.
Program Level (Transformation Office) The Transformation Office implemented a “Risk Guild” comprising risk owners from each workstream who met bi-weekly to identify cross-program dependencies and risks. They employed a sophisticated risk visualization dashboard that highlighted interdependencies between workstreams and potential cascading impacts. The office also maintained a centralized risk register with automated escalation of risks that exceeded defined thresholds.
Project Level (Agile Teams) Individual teams incorporated risk identification into their sprint planning and retrospectives, with “risk spikes” allocated to investigate high-priority uncertainties. Teams used “risk-adjusted story points” to account for implementation uncertainties in their capacity planning. A “see something, say something” culture encouraged anyone to raise potential risks through a simple digital form.
The results were impressive: while industry benchmarks suggested that 70% of financial services transformations fail to meet objectives, this institution achieved 85% of its targeted benefits within the planned timeframe.
7. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Risk Management as Compliance Exercise
Problem: Risk management becomes a bureaucratic checkbox exercise rather than a decision-making tool.
Solution: Focus on decision-relevance by integrating risk discussions directly into key decision points. Emphasize how risk information has influenced specific decisions. Use concrete, specific risk descriptions rather than generic categories.
Overemphasis on Documentation
Problem: Teams spend more time documenting risks than managing them.
Solution: Simplify documentation requirements, focusing on action-oriented information. Implement user-friendly tools that minimize administrative burden. Establish “one source of truth” rather than duplicative risk registers.
Failure to Close the Loop
Problem: Identified risks have mitigation plans, but no one follows up on implementation.
Solution: Implement clear accountability for mitigation actions with regular status reviews. Treat high-priority risk mitigations as projects with defined deliverables, timelines, and resources. Celebrate successful risk mitigation.
Risk Isolation
Problem: Risk management operates in isolation from other management processes.
Solution: Integrate risk considerations into strategic planning, resource allocation, and performance management. Use consistent language and frameworks across processes. Ensure risk owners participate in relevant decision forums.
Static Approach
Problem: Risk register becomes a static document that doesn’t evolve with changing circumstances.
Solution: Implement regular risk refresh cycles. Establish triggers for out-of-cycle risk reviews based on internal or external events. Create mechanisms to identify and assess emerging risks.
8. Conclusion
Risk management in organizational transformation is not a peripheral activity but a central governance function that enables informed decision-making and increases the likelihood of success. By implementing a multi-layered approach that addresses portfolio, program, and project risks, organizations can navigate the inherent uncertainties of transformation with greater confidence.
The tools, frameworks, and step-by-step guide outlined in this article provide a roadmap for implementing robust risk management practices. However, the most important factor is creating a risk-aware culture where identifying and managing risks becomes part of everyone’s responsibility.
The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle serves as a foundational framework for structured, data-driven continuous improvement. However, to maximize its impact, integrate complementary methodologies at each stage of the cycle. This article explores how you can enhance PDCA with Root Cause Analysis, Agile Execution, Visual Management, Standard Work, and Kaizen Events, all supported by Gemba Walks to ensure alignment with operational realities.
Plan: Identifying and Addressing the Right Causes
Many improvement initiatives fail not because of poor execution, but because they target symptoms rather than root causes. The Plan phase is critical in ensuring that the right problems are being addressed.
Utilize Root Cause Analysis techniques like the 5 Whys and Fishbone Diagrams to uncover the fundamental issues rather than applying quick fixes.
Involve cross-functional teams in problem identification to ensure diverse perspectives and deeper insights.
Clearly define success criteria and key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the impact of changes.
Personal Experience: In the adoption of a new digital tool, a constant flow of tickets were raised for additional reports. The root cause was not that reports were missing, but people did not trust the data and tried to get reports to show this. Creating more reports is therefor not the solution, building trust in the data is.
Do: Implementing Fast, Iterative Improvements Using Agile
Traditional improvement initiatives often fail due to long implementation cycles that do not adapt to emerging insights. In the Do phase, an Agile approach enables teams to execute improvements iteratively, ensuring quick learning and adaptation.
Break down solutions into small, incremental changes rather than large-scale, disruptive overhauls.
Use short sprints to test hypotheses, gather feedback, and refine the approach dynamically.
Foster a culture of empowerment by enabling frontline employees to take ownership of improvements within their domain.
Personal Experience: Especially shortly after Go Live, people experience all kinds of issues in working with the new system. Logging the issues for the next big release might be tempting from a program perspective, but you lose both the momentum in adopting the solution as well as the business/process performance will lag behind.
Check: Leveraging Daily and Visual Management
Without structured reflection and analysis, even well-intentioned improvement efforts risk failure. The Check phase ensures that the changes implemented are having the desired effect and allows for course corrections.
Implement Daily Management Routines, such as stand-up meetings, to assess progress and identify real-time roadblocks.
Utilize Visual Management Tools like performance dashboards and Kanban boards to provide clear visibility into key metrics.
Conduct regular reviews to assess whether improvements align with strategic objectives.
Personal Experience: Daily management in combination with clear, trustworthy dashboards is one of the most impactful concepts to drive the adoption, performance, and engagement of the teams. It fosters fast feedback and helps to accelerate the PDCA cycle.
Act: Standardizing or Pivoting Based on Results
The final phase of the PDCA cycle ensures that improvements either become standard practice or trigger deeper exploration through structured problem-solving.
If the improvement proves effective, incorporate it into Standard Work to sustain the gains.
If the problem persists, go deeper by organizing Kaizen Events—intensive, collaborative workshops aimed at breakthrough improvements.
Ensure knowledge sharing so that lessons learned from one cycle inform future improvements across the organization.
Personal Experience: Evaluating what works and does not work can be done in different ways, but the important thing is that action is taken—to either sustain and spread the working solution or pivot. When the improvement did not work, it likely requires more analysis and review, and the Kaizen approach can really help here.
The Role of Gemba Walks: Ensuring Alignment with Reality
Supporting this entire PDCA cycle is the practice of Gemba Walks, where leaders go to the actual workplace (Gemba) to observe, engage with employees, and understand challenges firsthand. This prevents a disconnect between strategy and execution, ensuring that improvement efforts are grounded in operational realities.
Ask open-ended questions to frontline employees to uncover hidden inefficiencies.
Reinforce a culture where continuous improvement is not top-down but co-created with those closest to the work.
Identify systemic barriers that require leadership intervention to remove.
Personal Experience: By going to the Gemba, leaders both get a better understanding of what is really happening and show commitment to their teams in leading the transition.
Conclusion: Continuous Improvement as a Leadership Imperative
PDCA, when enhanced with Root Cause Analysis, Agile Execution, Visual Management, Standard Work, Kaizen Events, and Gemba Walks, becomes a powerful engine for continuous improvement. Transformation leaders must champion this approach, ensuring that improvement is not a one-time initiative but a deeply embedded organizational capability.
In an era of rapid technological change and market disruptions, organizations must execute projects with both precision and adaptability. Digital transformation initiatives, IT modernizations, and enterprise-wide projects require structured governance to ensure alignment with business goals while maintaining agility to respond to evolving needs. However, choosing between Traditional Waterfall (PMBOK) and Agile (Scrum/SAFe) is not always straightforward.
While Waterfall offers predictability, governance, and risk control, Agile provides speed, flexibility, and iterative value delivery. The reality is that many organizations do not need to choose one over the other but rather combine them strategically. This article explores the strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies, when to apply each, and how a hybrid approach can leverage the best of both worlds.
2. Why You Need a Strong Project Management Setup
Project failure rates remain alarmingly high, with studies indicating that up to 70% of digital transformation initiatives fail due to poor execution, misaligned priorities, and resistance to change. A well-structured Project Management (PM) framework is essential to prevent these failures, ensuring that projects are not only delivered on time and within budget but also drive real business value.
At the core of any successful transformation is clear ownership, structured governance, and a balance between control and agility. Large-scale projects often face a paradox—executives and stakeholders demand predictability and structured planning, while operational teams require flexibility to iterate and adapt. Without the right project management setup, organizations risk falling into two extremes: either too rigid, leading to slow execution and missed opportunities, or too unstructured, resulting in chaotic implementations and wasted resources.
Finding the right project management approach is about more than just process—it’s about aligning methodologies with the business context, organizational culture, and project complexity. For some initiatives, a Traditional Waterfall (PMBOK) approach provides the necessary structure and risk mitigation, while for others, Agile (Scrum & SAFe) offers the speed and adaptability required in fast-moving environments. In many cases, a hybrid model that blends both methodologies delivers the optimal balance.
3. Choosing the Right Approach: Traditional Waterfall (PMBOK) vs. Agile (Scrum, SAFe)
A. The Case for Traditional Waterfall (PMBOK)
Some projects demand a highly structured approach with well-defined requirements, strict regulatory compliance, and minimal scope for change. This is where Waterfall methodologies, based on PMI’s PMBOK framework, excel. Waterfall is most effective in industries where predictability, formal approvals, and rigorous documentation are essential, such as large IT infrastructure deployments, ERP implementations, regulatory projects, and government initiatives.
Waterfall project management operates in a linear, sequential process, with clear stages: Initiation, Planning, Execution, Monitoring & Controlling, and Closing. This structure ensures that risk is carefully managed upfront, scope creep is minimized, and accountability is enforced at every stage. Executives often favor Waterfall because it provides detailed planning, resource forecasting, and cost predictability, making it easier to report progress to stakeholders and investors. However, its rigidity can become a drawback in environments where requirements frequently change or when teams need faster iterations.
B. The Case for Agile (Scrum & SAFe)
Unlike Waterfall, Agile methodologies like Scrum and SAFe are designed for projects with evolving requirements, high collaboration needs, and rapid innovation cycles. Agile breaks work into short, iterative cycles (Sprints) where teams continuously deliver value, receive feedback, and adapt.
Agile thrives in environments where customer needs shift rapidly—such as software development, digital product innovation, and emerging technologies. Teams operate in cross-functional units, fostering collaboration between developers, designers, business leaders, and end-users. The key advantage of Agile is its ability to respond to change quickly, ensuring that projects deliver what users actually need, rather than what was initially planned months ago.
For enterprises managing multiple Agile teams, SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) provides a structured way to scale Agile across large organizations, ensuring alignment across teams while maintaining flexibility at the execution level.
4. Why Not Both? Leveraging a Hybrid Approach
Many organizations struggle with a pure Waterfall or Agile approach because no single methodology fits every project. The solution? A hybrid model that blends both methodologies strategically. This allows businesses to maintain the structured governance of Waterfall while embedding Agile’s flexibility where it matters most.
A. When to Combine Waterfall & Agile
Enterprise Digital Transformation – Waterfall for strategic planning, Agile for implementation.
IT Modernization – Waterfall for infrastructure, Agile for application development.
Mergers & Acquisitions – Waterfall for integration planning, Agile for transition teams.
Regulated Industries – Waterfall for compliance, Agile for innovation efforts.
B. Structuring a Hybrid Approach
Aspect
Traditional Waterfall (PMBOK)
Agile (Scrum/SAFe)
Planning
Long-term roadmap & milestones
Iterative backlog prioritization
Execution
Sequential phases (Design → Build → Test)
Continuous delivery in sprints
Governance
Strong documentation & risk control
Agile leadership & adaptive governance
Measurement
Scope, cost, time adherence
Value delivery, customer feedback
By combining Waterfall’s governance with Agile’s iterative execution, organizations can reduce risk, optimize delivery speed, and improve project outcomes.
5. Key Takeaways for Executives
No single methodology is universally best—Waterfall excels in structured, risk-heavy environments, while Agile thrives in fast-changing ones.
For predictable, well-defined projects, PMBOK (Waterfall) ensures control.
For innovation-driven or fast-moving projects, Scrum/SAFe enable adaptability.
Hybrid models offer the best of both worlds, integrating structure with agility.
Project governance should be tailored to business needs rather than rigidly following a single methodology.
By adopting a balanced approach, organizations can drive digital transformation efficiently while mitigating risks.
Best of Digital Transformation 