Learn
Someone has to try to make the plan fail
A red team is a group given one job: to defeat a plan before the world does. The idea is simple and old, and it works only under a condition most organizations find uncomfortable. The people attacking the plan must be free to win.
Borrowed from the war room
The term comes from military exercises, where the opposing force was traditionally marked red and the home side blue. A red team plays the adversary as an adversary would, using its own judgment rather than the script the planners hoped for.
Security work borrowed the practice: a red team tries to break into a system the way a real attacker would. Business planning borrowed it later, aiming the same hostile attention at a launch, an acquisition or a strategy.
Breaking the plan is different from criticizing it
Criticism looks for weak reasoning in the argument. Red teaming looks for the way the plan fails in the world: the supplier who goes quiet, the competitor who cuts price in week two, the payment system that stalls at peak traffic. A plan can be well argued and still break on contact.
So a good red team starts from the plan's steps, not its slides. It asks which step everything else depends on, and what would have to happen for that step to fail.
Conditions for a red team that works
Independence comes first. A red team that reports to the author of the plan learns quickly which findings are welcome. Second, the team needs the same information the planners had, or it will attack a version of the plan that does not exist. Third, its findings need a home: each one answered, accepted as a risk, or fixed.
A short red team with these conditions beats a long one without them. Two days of honest attack before launch is cheaper than two months of repair after it.
The Red Teamer in a Decision Room
In Argumont, the Red Teamer runs stress scenarios against the plan that leads, while the Challenger attacks the weakest reasoning in the arguments. The two jobs overlap less than they seem. The Gray Wolf hunts hidden weaknesses, and the Scout and Inspector check whether a failure the Red Teamer describes is supported by evidence or only imagined. The Verdict states what survived the attack, and the Human Decision stays with the person who owns the plan.
A launch that assumed the good day
A subscription business plans a launch expecting 20,000 sign ups in the first week, a payment success rate of 97 percent and support tickets from 3 percent of new customers. The red team asks what happens at twice the traffic. Payments time out above 400 a minute, so a busy hour could cost thousands of sign ups. Support at 3 percent of 40,000 means 1,200 tickets, against a team that clears 300 a day. The plan keeps its direction but gains a queue page, a payment load test and four temporary support staff, all before launch day.
Questions
- Who should be on a red team?
- People with relevant knowledge who are not invested in the plan's success. Outsiders help, and so do insiders from other departments who know how things really fail.
- How is a red team different from a pre-mortem?
- A pre-mortem asks the planners to imagine the plan has already failed and explain why. A red team hands the attack to someone else. The two work well together, and the red team is the harder of the two to fool.
- Can a red team be too harsh?
- Its findings can be harsh, and that is the point. What matters is that each finding is weighed on evidence, so a vivid but unlikely failure does not carry the same weight as a likely one.
Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.
Start with a paid 60 day pilot on your own real Decisions.