Ask a leadership team "are we confident this will work?" and you will get a yes. That yes costs nothing. Nobody can be wrong about it in advance, and nobody can be proven wrong about it afterwards either — because when the project stalls, every function quietly writes its own version of events. Ops blames the data. Finance blames the scope. The vendor blames adoption. All three stories survive contact with reality, which is exactly why they get told.
Now ask a different question: what breaks first, and what breaks after that?
Suddenly the room has to commit. The demo will impress. Integration will be underpriced. Risk controls will eat the projected return. The scope will shrink to something narrower and genuinely useful. That is a sequence with dates attached. In six months you can hold it up against what actually happened and mark it, step by step. Some of it will land. Some of it won't. Either way, the judgment is on the record.
That's the part people resist, and they rarely name it out loud. Optimism is politically safe. A scored sequence is not. It removes the right to reinterpret the past once the money is gone.
But it's the only version that gives a kill/fix/double-down decision anything to stand on. You cannot run a review against a vibe. You can run one against a named order of collapse — because the first item on the list arrives early, usually while the budget is still mostly intact.
None of this makes anyone clairvoyant. Predicting a shape doesn't condemn a project or guarantee foresight. It just converts a hunch into a hypothesis that can lose credibility in public — which is what makes it worth more than confidence.
So the question I'd put on the agenda before the kickoff deck freezes: what would failure look like early enough for us to do something about it?
Discover more from Leverage AI for your business
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.