The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How to catch a black swan: Measuring the benefits of the premortem technique for risk identification
Abstract
Projects face the challenge of increasing complexity and uncertainty leading to more black swans (hard-to-predict, potentially catastrophic risks) in our future. Within the two schools of risk (objective and subjective), we theorize the latter is the key to early identification of the black swan. Creativity-based risk identification techniques are not bound by the historical data and precedence but teams must overcome deliberate ignorance for meaningful collaboration. This study compares two creativity-based risk identification techniques—brainstorming and premortem. The premortem is the theoretical opposite of a postmortem. In a postmortem, the investigator determines the cause of death after the patient has died. The premortem calls for a team to imagine the project has failed and deduce causes for the failure. The team then proposes changes to the project plan to address causes of the failure. We conclude that teams using the premortem technique identified better quality risks, more quality changes to the plan, and identified more black swan risks than their brainstorming counterparts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This technique, originating from behavioural economics [111,112], helps to mitigate cognitive biases among interview respondents such as confirmation bias, hind sight bias, and groupthink.”
From Smart, circular and renewable: The role of cooperative governance in accelerating a sustainable energy transition (2025) · cites this paper as [111]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 43
- 10.1016/j.ress.2013.07.005 · DOI
- Beasley M., 2015
- 10.1177/1056492611432802 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12599-012-0206-8 · DOI
- Carpenter T. D., 2014, 82, 1119
- 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.03.006 · DOI
- 10.1002/pmj.20242 · DOI
- DeCarlo D., 2004
- Diehl M., 1987, 53, 497
- 10.5437/08956308x5702005 · DOI
- 10.5437/08956308x5701005 · DOI
- Goodman L., 1963, 58, 310
- 10.1007/s10726-012-9312-8 · DOI
- Hobbs D., 1994
- 10.1108/09653561211234516 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12599-013-0282-4 · DOI
- 10.1243/09544054JEM1080 · DOI
- Klein G., 2004
- Klein G., 2007
- Klein G., 2009
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003 · DOI
- Mandelbrot B. B., 2010, 47
- 10.1016/j.nutres.2015.04.014 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.004 · DOI
- 10.1108/09653561211234507 · DOI
- Mitchell D. J., 1989, 2, 25
- Nastase P., 2013, 12, 101
- Palisade, 2015a
- Palisade, 2015b
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01787.x · DOI
- 10.1177/0018720815570374 · DOI
- PMI, 2009
- Reeves J. D., 2013, 25, 3
- Robson C., 2011
- Ross J., 1999
- Sakia R. M., 1992, 41, 169
- Smithson M., 1989
- Taleb N., 2010
- Veinott B., 2010
- Wessa P., 2015
- 10.1002/pmj · DOI
- Zhao Z., 2010, 5, 181
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Van Opstal, W., Bocken, N., & Brusselaers, J. (2025) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.104049 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Gallop, D., Willy, C., & Bischoff, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Enterprise Transformation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-04-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-106
- ISSN
- 1948-8289
- 1948-8297
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review