Skip to content

Problem Assessment Brief (PAB) - “This Is Fine (Until It Isn’t)”

1. What Was Going On

By the time the PEV was completed, the room had shifted.

No one was arguing that the dependency didn’t exist anymore. The question had moved on.

The new tension was quieter, and more uncomfortable:

Is this actually worth doing something about now?

Scoring had never outright failed. The business was operating. Revenue was still coming in. On paper, everything was fine.

Which meant this conversation wasn’t about correctness - it was about risk tolerance.

2. The Conversation That Triggered This Step

Leadership’s reaction to the PEV was measured.

Not dismissive. Not alarmed. Just cautious.

“Okay, it’s real,” someone said. “But how bad is it, really?”

Another voice followed:

“What would actually happen if a scoring run was missed?”

And finally:

“Are we solving a hypothetical, or a business problem?”

Those questions could not be answered with more evidence.

They required judgment.

That’s what triggered the PAB.

3. The Artifact

Below is the Problem Assessment Brief as it was recorded.

No drama. No proposals. Just impact.

# Problem Assessment Brief (PAB)

## 1. Problem Summary
The weekly season scoring process depends on a single individual to execute and complete it correctly.

---

## 2. Evidence Summary
Key validated facts:
- Season scoring is executed by one individual for every scoring cycle
- No alternate operator can independently complete the full process
- No documented runbook exists to support handoff or coverage

---

## 3. Business Impact
**Financial Impact:** Delayed or incorrect scoring can result in downstream reporting delays and potential revenue impact tied to league operations.
**Operational Impact:** Scoring delays disrupt dependent workflows and require manual intervention.
**Customer Impact:** Late or incorrect scores reduce trust and satisfaction among league participants.

---

## 4. Cost of Inaction
If the dependency remains unaddressed, the organization accepts the risk of missed or delayed scoring during the season, with limited ability to recover quickly.

---

## 5. Strategic Importance
Reliable and timely scoring is a core operational capability and directly supports league credibility and continuity.

---

## 6. Urgency Assessment
- **Severity:** High
- **Frequency:** Medium
- **Time Sensitivity:** Weekly during active season

---

## 7. Recommendation
The problem represents a material business continuity risk and warrants prioritization for mitigation.

4. What Almost Went Wrong

Several attempts were made to soften the language.

  • “This hasn’t actually caused an outage yet.”
  • “The likelihood is low.”
  • “We’ve lived with this for years.”

All of these statements were accurate.

They were also irrelevant to the purpose of this step.

The PAB was not asking whether the risk was likely. It was asking whether the risk was acceptable.

5. The Decision

Decision Question Is this problem important enough to justify investment and planning effort?

Decision Made Proceed.

Why This Was Good Enough The assessment:

  • framed the issue in business terms
  • made the cost of inaction explicit
  • avoided prescribing solutions

Leadership did not need certainty. They needed clarity.

6. What This Unlocked (And What It Didn’t)

Now Allowed

  • Define scope and outcomes
  • Discuss sequencing and funding
  • Consider trade-offs explicitly

Still Not Allowed

  • Designing systems
  • Selecting tools
  • Writing requirements

This was a commitment to plan, not to build.

7. Why This Step Matters

This is where many problems die - quietly and politely.

By forcing an explicit assessment, the organization avoided two failure modes:

  • solving something trivial very well
  • ignoring something critical for too long

The PAB made the risk visible, owned, and intentional.

8. Sarcastic Footnote

The phrase “we’ll just deal with it if it happens” was discussed.

It was not accepted as a strategy.