S'inscrire gratuitement

Run a project pre-mortem

Auteur: AILesson7 min de préparationTesté avec:ChatGPTRévisé: 2026-08-28

Réponse rapide

Imagine a failed outcome to surface plausible causes, weak signals, tests, and preventive actions. Fournir: Project and failure date, Evidence and assumptions, Participants and action authority. Résultat attendu: A prioritized failure scenario map with evidence, indicators, owners, and immediate experiments.

1

Ajouter votre contexte

Votre texte reste dans ce navigateur. AILesson Prompts ne l’envoie ni à un modèle ni à un serveur.

2

Votre prompt

Les champs non remplis restent visibles sous forme d’espaces réservés, afin que vous puissiez quand même copier et modifier le prompt.

Run a project pre-mortem using the supplied context.

Project, users, plan, target, and concrete failure definition:
[project]

Constraints, dependencies, incidents, estimates, dissent, and unknowns:
[assumptions]

Participant perspectives, authority, mitigation capacity, and review timing:
[participants]

Assume the project has failed at the stated future point, then generate distinct and plausible explanations across user value, scope, delivery, quality, operations, people, vendor, governance, security, accessibility, data, and external context only where relevant. Separate evidence-backed concerns from hypotheses. Avoid generic catastrophes, blame, and hindsight certainty. Cluster causes into causal chains, identify earliest observable indicators, and rank by plausibility and damage with stated rationale—not invented precision. For the top scenarios provide a cheap test, prevention, contingency trigger, response, explicit owner or Unassigned, and decision deadline. Include contrarian scenarios and strengths that reduce risk.
Essayer dans le Playground
Privé par défautL’assemblage du prompt se fait localement dans votre navigateur. Évitez de placer des informations confidentielles dans un service d’IA, sauf si votre organisation l’autorise.

De l'entrée au résultat

Un exemple détaillé

Voyez comment un contexte concret transforme cette recette en résultat utilisable.

Entrée réelle

Project and failure date
In March, a regional charity launches an online volunteer scheduling portal for 600 volunteers and 40 coordinators. Failure at 30 June means coordinators still maintain parallel spreadsheets, more than 10% of scheduled shifts are disputed, or fewer than 50% of active volunteers use the portal monthly. Pilot begins with two teams in February.
Evidence and assumptions
Many volunteers use phones; 18% of current records lack a unique email. Coordinators use different shift naming. The vendor says CSV import is supported but has not tested our file. Training budget covers two live sessions. One coordinator worries volunteers will not see cancellation notices. Authentication uses email links. No accessibility test, support rota, or spreadsheet retirement rule exists yet.
Participants and action authority
Workshop includes volunteer coordinator, volunteer representative, operations manager with launch authority, data officer, communications lead, and vendor specialist. Two staff-weeks remain for mitigation. Decisions reviewed next Tuesday.

Exemple de sortie

Failure story A—fragmented identity and import: 18% without unique email plus untested CSV import causes duplicate/missing accounts; volunteers cannot authenticate; coordinators retain spreadsheets; disputes rise. Evidence-backed. Earliest indicators: import exception rate, duplicate accounts, failed sign-ins. Cheap test: import a de-identified representative file and attempt phone sign-in with records missing/duplicating email. Prevention: define identity remediation and reconcile counts before pilot. Owner: Data officer for test; identity-policy owner Unassigned. Decision by next Tuesday.

B—inconsistent shift definitions: different names map incorrectly, creating disputed schedules and parallel records. Evidence-backed. Test a shared taxonomy against two pilot teams and reconcile every imported shift. C—cancellations fail operationally: email-link users may miss notices; no support rota or acknowledged-notice rule. Concern is explicit, outcome mechanism partly hypothetical. Test delivery/opening plus five volunteer task walkthroughs; define urgent fallback and owner. D—adoption appears acceptable while coordinators maintain shadow sheets; contrarian governance failure. Indicator: edits continue after cutover. Define retirement gate and exception log before launch.

Other hypotheses: mobile accessibility prevents task completion; two sessions miss shift workers; vendor defects outlast two staff-weeks. Strengths: staged two-team pilot, named launch authority, volunteer perspective, and measurable failure thresholds. Prioritize A/B before pilot because they share a data foundation but require separate acceptance checks.

Pourquoi cela fonctionne

  1. 1

    Prospective hindsight makes teams name failure causes that optimistic planning often suppresses.

  2. 2

    Indicators and cheap tests convert imagined failure into evidence that can change the plan.

Vérifier le résultat

  • Are scenarios specific to this project and linked to supplied evidence or labeled hypotheses?

  • Do top scenarios have early indicators, cheap tests, triggers, and actionable responses?

  • Does the output avoid blame, false probability, and duplicate wording of the same causal chain?

Utilisez-la en toute confiance

Questions fréquentes

Des réponses pratiques sur le bon moment pour utiliser cette recette, ce qu’il faut fournir et les cas où une vérification humaine reste nécessaire.

What should I prepare before using “Run a project pre-mortem”?

For “Run a project pre-mortem,” prepare Project and failure date, Evidence and assumptions, and Participants and action authority. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.

When is the “Run a project pre-mortem” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A prioritized failure scenario map with evidence, indicators, owners, and immediate experiments—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.

Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Run a project pre-mortem”?

The published test record for “Run a project pre-mortem” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.

Plus de façons d'explorer

Où se situe cette recette

Prompts texteGestion de projetPour les managers

Faites avancer votre travail

AILesson · Cours recommandés

Votre prochaine étape : mettez l’IA à contribution

Passez de la compréhension de l'IA à l'action. Entraînez-vous à formuler des requêtes, à évaluer et à améliorer les résultats grâce à des leçons interactives pour le travail et la vie quotidienne.

Découvrir tous les cours
Image de couverture de L’IA pour débutants

15 leçons interactives

L’IA pour débutants

Lancez une conversation utile avec une IA, améliorez sa réponse, vérifiez l’essentiel et sachez quand c’est à vous d’agir.

Découvrir ce cours
Image de couverture de Les bases de ChatGPT

10 leçons interactives

Les bases de ChatGPT

Découvrez ChatGPT à travers trois flux de travail pratiques : mener une première conversation, travailler à partir d’un fichier, puis utiliser Projects pour réutiliser un plan vérifié dans une nouvelle conversation.

Découvrir ce cours
Image de couverture de Comment fonctionne l’IA générative

7 leçons interactives

Comment fonctionne l’IA générative

Comprenez comment les systèmes courants de chat IA apprennent des structures linguistiques, utilisent les messages actuels, construisent leurs réponses et intègrent des sources et des outils.

Découvrir ce cours