Risk

Thinks through failure in advance to surface risks, countermeasures, and critical assumptions early.

Core question: Which plausible reasons could make this initiative fail at the assumed point, and how will we detect or reduce them?

• 20–45 min
• Small cross-functional group

Sorts assumptions by uncertainty and leverage so the riskiest hypotheses get tested first.

Core question: Which assumptions are critical to the idea and have the least supporting evidence?

• 45-60 min
• 2-8

Examines an initiative from an opposing perspective, collects weaknesses, and derives prioritized mitigations.

Core question: How could the plan fail under a credible opposing perspective, and what changes the decision?

• 1-4 h
• 3-8

Deliberately flips the question toward the negative to expose risk themes and derive solid solution ideas from them.

Core question: How could we worsen the problem and what does that teach us about solving it?

• 30-60 min
• 3-12

Clarifies workflows, data, causes, and improvements by defining scope and process, collecting failure modes, and assigning actions and owners.

Core question: How can a function fail, what effects follow and which actions demonstrably reduce risk?

• 2-6 h
• 3-10

Clarifies options, criteria, and risks by framing the initiative or decision, collecting implicit assumptions, and planning tests or research.

Core question: Which unproven assumption would endanger the initiative most if it were false?

• 45-90 min
• 2-8

Maps critical knowledge, knowledge holders, and gaps so handovers and transfer can be planned deliberately.

Core question: Which critical knowledge exists where, with whom, and at what risk to the work?

• 1-3 h
• 3-12

Models a top event with AND and OR branches to make critical paths and causes visible.

Core question: Which individual or combined basic events are logically sufficient to produce the defined top event?

• 2-6 h
• 3-8

Thinks through failures in advance, assesses controls, and shows gaps in testing, prevention, and response.

Core question: Which credible failure paths threaten a critical service, how will we detect and limit them, and which residual uncertainty needs rehearsal?

• 1-3 h
• 3-8

Moves options, criteria, and risks toward a concrete result through "collect three values", "explain the formula", and "document the planning assumption".

Core question: What PERT expected values and variances follow from O/M/P, and how are independent work packages aggregated correctly?

• 15-45 min
• 1-8

Moves group input, selection, and decision toward a concrete result through "make items visible", "clarify what the dots mean", and "discuss large or risky items".

Core question: Where does each person independently place an item on the same relative size lane, and which dot spread reveals different models of the work?

• 5-20 min
• 3-20

Moves architecture context, options, and consequences toward a concrete result through "place the architecture diagram or plan in the center", "set risk categories such as technical, organizational, and external", and "assign an owner and next steps for each top risk".

Core question: Which concrete failure scenarios sit where in the architecture, which matter collectively, and how will we reduce or test them?

• 60-90 min
• 4-12

Moves options, criteria, and risks toward a concrete result through "set the scales for likelihood and impact", "collect risks or carry them over from earlier identification", and "define actions for each high-risk item".

Core question: Which risks exceed our tolerance in the agreed horizon, and which response reduces them credibly?

• 30-60 min
• 3-10

Moves backlog, sprint work, and team flow toward a concrete result through "create a board with the four columns Resolved, Owned, Accepted, Mitigated", "carry over risks from earlier stages such as Risk Storming", and "update the board at every review".

Core question: How will each relevant risk be treated, and what must happen before the next review?

• 20-40 min initial, dann laufend
• 3-15

Moves scope, sequence, and delivery flow toward a concrete result through "create a table for Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies", "carry over initial entries from discovery and kickoff", and "archive resolved items instead of deleting them".

Core question: Which open Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies threaten the next commitment, and who will do what by when?

• 30 min Setup, dann laufend
• 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone

Moves the current situation, opportunities, and strategic options toward a concrete result through "place the Business Model Canvas at the center", "define two to three scenarios", and "derive actions per scenario".

Core question: Which parts of the business model fail first under a plausible stressor?

• Half day
• 3-8

Examines how architecture decisions support important quality goals and makes risks and trade-offs visible.

Core question: How does the architecture support our most important quality goals, and where do risks or trade-offs arise?

• Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope
• Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders

Helps a small team assess the main quality risks in its software and choose where to investigate further.

Core question: How well does our software meet its quality goals, and which risks should we investigate further?

• 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional
• 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people