Introduction
Risk identification is more useful when it begins with what an organization is trying to achieve. A broad question such as “What could go wrong?” may produce familiar concerns while overlooking threats specific to the decision or activity being assessed. A targeted prompt starts from an objective and asks what could prevent or disrupt its achievement.
The objective provides direction; its success conditions make that direction concrete. Translating both into questions helps assessors explore relevant uncertainty without assuming in advance which risks exist. This tutorial develops that translation process, aligned with the CAS Exam 9 (Risk Management for Actuaries) syllabus.
For example, “complete a system migration” is an objective, but it leaves important details unstated. Success might also require completion by a specified date, preservation of customer records, continuity of service, and operation within an approved budget. Questions based on those conditions can explore different ways that the objective might be disrupted.
From Objective to Useful Questions
A useful prompt is neither so broad that it invites an unfocused list nor so narrow that it presumes a particular explanation. The assessor first clarifies the intended result, then identifies the conditions that matter, and finally asks open questions about possible disruption. This is a way to guide exploration, not to predict which concern will occur.
Describe the intended result in plain, specific terms. If the objective is ambiguous, clarify its scope before generating prompts.
Ask what must be true for the result to count as successful. Consider relevant measures, timing, quality, service, obligations, and constraints; use only those that apply.
Ask what could prevent or disrupt each condition. Keep the question open enough for participants to identify unfamiliar possibilities.
Check that every prompt relates to the objective, that important conditions have not been ignored, and that the set does not merely repeat one concern in different words.
A prompt should make its context clear. “Could data be lost?” may be relevant to many activities, but it is more useful when tied to the objective and the data that matter: “What could prevent the customer records needed for the migration from being transferred completely and accurately?” The second question still permits multiple answers; it does not assert a cause or conclude that a loss will occur.
Prompts should also avoid leading wording. A question such as “Could the vendor’s poor testing cause a failure?” presupposes both a particular party and a weakness. It can steer discussion away from other explanations. A more neutral question asks what could prevent the required testing from identifying problems before launch.
Worked Examples
Worked Example: Retaining Customers During a Product Renewal
A hypothetical insurer wants to renew at least 90% of eligible small-business policies over the next year while maintaining accurate coverage information and providing renewal terms before the applicable deadlines. Develop targeted prompts from the objective and its success conditions.
Method. Separate the stated outcome from the conditions that qualify it. The objective is retaining eligible policies. The stated conditions are the 90% renewal threshold, accurate coverage information, and timely delivery of renewal terms.
Prompt for the retention threshold: What could prevent eligible customers who intend to continue coverage from completing renewal?
Prompt for accuracy: What could result in renewal terms being based on incomplete or inaccurate coverage information?
Prompt for timing: What could delay the preparation or delivery of renewal terms beyond the required deadlines?
Coverage check. There are three prompts for three distinct conditions. Each is linked to the objective, but none assumes a particular cause, such as a pricing error or staffing shortage. The stated 90% threshold gives a testable target; it does not itself explain what might disrupt achievement.
Common mistake avoided. A weak response might ask only, “Could renewal rates fall below 90%?” That repeats the performance target as a question but offers little direction for identifying what might affect it. The corrected approach asks how completion could be disrupted and separately addresses the accuracy and timing conditions.
Worked Example: Launching a Claims-Processing Change
A hypothetical claims unit plans to introduce a revised intake process. Its objective is to process routine claims within five business days, maintain accurate benefit determinations, and keep access available to customers during the change. Write a compact set of prompts and explain how it covers the objective.
Method. Use each success condition as a distinct lens: processing time, decision accuracy, and service availability. Phrase each prompt as an open question about what could interfere with the condition.
Processing-time prompt: What could prevent routine claims from moving through the revised process quickly enough to meet the five-business-day target?
Accuracy prompt: What could make it difficult to apply the relevant benefit information correctly when determining claims?
Availability prompt: What could interrupt customer access to claims services while the revised process is introduced?
Coverage check. The first question connects directly to the five-day measure; the second explores the quality of decisions; and the third addresses continuity of service during the change. The prompts cover different dimensions rather than treating speed as the only measure of success.
Common mistake avoided. Asking only “What could go wrong with the new process?” is too broad and does not signal the three conditions that matter. The targeted prompts preserve the process context while giving each condition attention. They do not assume that the change itself will cause a problem.
Worked Example: Meeting a New Reporting Deadline
A hypothetical financial organization has an objective to submit a quarterly supervisory report by its required deadline. The report must reconcile to approved records, include all required sections, and receive appropriate review before submission. Develop prompts and identify a gap in an overly narrow draft.
Method. First identify the overall deadline objective. Then list the three stated success conditions: reconciliation, completeness, and review. Ask a separate question about possible disruption to each condition.
Deadline prompt: What could delay the collection, preparation, or submission of information enough to miss the required deadline?
Reconciliation prompt: What could prevent the report from reconciling to the approved records used to prepare it?
Completeness prompt: What could result in a required section or item being omitted from the report?
Review prompt: What could prevent an appropriate review from being completed before submission?
Coverage check. The set covers timing and all three specified conditions. The review prompt matters even if the report is completed on time: timely submission alone does not establish that it received the required review.
Common mistake avoided. Suppose the draft contains only “What could cause late submission?” That question addresses one aspect of the objective, not the entire success definition. Adding prompts for reconciliation, completeness, and review corrects the coverage gap without assuming that any one failure has occurred.
Reviewing Prompt Quality
A prompt set is a practical guide, not a checklist that proves all relevant risks have been identified. Review it before use so that the questions support exploration rather than narrow it prematurely.
| Review question | What a sound prompt set should do |
|---|---|
| Is the objective clear? | Use a result that participants can understand and distinguish from the activities used to achieve it. |
| Are success conditions represented? | Address material conditions separately where they require different lines of inquiry. |
| Are the questions open? | Permit more than one possible answer instead of embedding an assumed explanation. |
| Are the questions relevant? | Connect each prompt to the objective, its conditions, or an important constraint on achieving them. |
| Is the set balanced? | Avoid repeatedly probing one visible condition while leaving other stated conditions unexamined. |
| Is the wording manageable? | Use direct language, so participants can understand what success means and what kind of disruption they are being asked to consider. |
The appropriate breadth depends on the assessment scope. A prompt about customer data may be relevant when data quality is a success condition, but it may distract from an assessment whose objective and scope do not involve customer information. Conversely, a highly specific objective may require several prompts because its success depends on multiple constraints.
Prompts should not turn a target into a predicted outcome. If an objective is to meet a service-level target, asking whether the organization will miss the target is less useful than asking what could disrupt the service conditions needed to meet it. The first phrasing can invite a yes-or-no response; the second invites consideration of possibilities without asserting that failure is likely.
Common Mistakes
- Using only a generic prompt. “What could go wrong?” does not use the objective or its success conditions to guide attention.
- Restating a measure without exploring disruption. Asking whether a target will be missed does not, by itself, help identify what could interfere with achievement.
- Assuming an explanation. Questions that name a suspected weakness or responsible party can steer responses toward that assumption.
- Confusing an activity with its intended result. Completing a project is not necessarily the same as achieving its intended benefits, quality, or service outcomes.
- Leaving conditions implicit. If timeliness, accuracy, or continuity matters, a prompt set focused only on cost may leave important dimensions unexplored.
- Writing too many near-duplicates. Several differently worded questions about the same condition may create the appearance of coverage without exploring other conditions.
Check Your Understanding
For each situation, identify the relevant success conditions and formulate prompts that explore possible disruption. Compare your prompts with the concise answers shown.
- A hypothetical pension administrator wants to issue annual statements by June 30, with correct member balances and clear explanations of material changes. Name the conditions and give one prompt for each. (Answer: Conditions: timely issue, correct balances, and clear explanations. Prompts: What could delay issuing statements beyond June 30? What could prevent balances from matching the applicable member records? What could make explanations of material changes unclear?)
- A hypothetical insurer wants to transfer a block of policies to a new service platform while preserving access to policy information and keeping scheduled customer communications on time. Write one focused prompt for each condition. (Answer: What could prevent authorized users from accessing the required policy information after the transfer? What could delay or disrupt scheduled customer communications during the transition?)
- A hypothetical investment team aims to complete a quarterly portfolio review within ten business days, using current position data and obtaining the required approval. Write prompts that cover all three conditions without assuming a particular cause. (Answer: What could delay completion beyond ten business days? What could prevent the review from using current position data? What could prevent the required approval from being obtained before the review is finalized?)
- A hypothetical organization intends to open a regional service center by a planned date, within its approved budget, with enough trained staff to serve expected demand. A draft prompt asks only, “Could construction be delayed?” Identify the coverage gap and add prompts. (Answer: The draft addresses timing narrowly and omits budget and staffing capacity. Ask what could delay the center opening, what could push total costs beyond the approved budget, and what could leave the center without enough trained staff for expected demand.)
- A hypothetical benefits administrator seeks to resolve inquiries within three business days, provide consistent information across service channels, and protect confidential member details. Produce a balanced set of prompts and explain why a single question about response time is insufficient. (Answer: Ask what could prevent inquiries from being resolved within three business days, what could lead to inconsistent information across channels, and what could compromise the confidentiality of member details. A response-time-only question omits consistency and confidentiality, which are separate success conditions.)