Ah, the RAID log—Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies. To a bright-eyed project manager, it’s a shining beacon of order. To the rest of us? It’s corporate Mad Libs: half-blind guesses, blame-shifting masterpieces, and ominous warnings with no context.
To understand what to make of the whole charade I’ve spent some time coaxing the ever verbose ChatGPT into writing an entertaining piece that can help as all survive in a project where someone pulls onto their screenshare the dreaded and confusion inducing “RAID Log”. Enjoy!
If you’ve ever found yourself lost in the labyrinth of RAID log entries, you’ve probably met our key players: Non-Tech Nigel, Blaming Betty, Excessive Eddie, and Risk Bomb Rick. Together, they transform what should be a useful tool into a bureaucratic Hunger Games.
Let’s meet these characters, laugh at their antics, and figure out how to navigate the chaos — whether you’re aiming to fix the project or just dodge the fallout.
Meet the Usual Suspects
Non-Tech Nigel is your project lead who couldn’t explain a database if his life depended on it. But Nigel’s a master of buzzwords and will proudly log risks like “Unexpected technical challenges” to appear insightful. It’s Nigel’s way of saying, “Something bad might happen, but I have no idea what or why.”
Blaming Betty views the RAID log as a legal shield. Her entries all point fingers: “Dependency on Team X for specs” or “Timeline delays due to QA team.” If success has many parents, Betty’s here to make sure failure has an orphanage.
Excessive Eddie treats the RAID log like his personal diary, logging everything from “Potential delays due to asteroid impacts” to “Low team morale after pizza ran out last week.” His entries are so long you need a machete to cut through them.
Risk Bomb Rick lives for ominous but useless warnings: “Potential for critical failures in the system.” Rick never explains what these failures are, but when things inevitably go wrong, he leans back and says, “Well, I did flag it.”
How They Turn the RAID Log Into a Battlefield
1. Nigel’s Magical Cover-Your-Assets Spell
Nigel doesn’t understand tech, but he does understand plausible deniability. His favorite move? Logging vague risks that sound technical but mean nothing. “Potential delays due to unforeseen system complexities.”
At one meeting, Nigel solemnly pulled up the RAID log and pointed to an entry that just said “Integration concerns.” When pressed for details, he adjusted his glasses and said, “That’s what the team is investigating.” The team, of course, had never seen this “concern” until that moment.
How to Survive Nigel
Use his own vagueness against him. When he logs a risk with zero substance, reply with, “What mitigation steps do you suggest?” Watching Nigel scramble for an answer is its own reward.
2. Betty’s Blame Tennis Championship
Blaming Betty wields the RAID log like a tennis racket, lobbing problems into someone else’s court. “Deployment delayed due to Team A’s incomplete requirements.” Team A, naturally, didn’t even know they were supposed to provide requirements.
Betty once logged “QA blocked by unresolved dependencies” during a heated status meeting. When the QA lead (Rick, of course) asked for clarification, Betty smirked and said, “Well, it’s in the log.”
How to Outplay Betty
Always specify your deliverables and timelines in your own RAID log entries. If Betty tries to blame you, you can counter with, “Actually, Betty, this was logged with an agreed deadline last week.” Serve, ace, point.
3. Eddie’s Flood of Irrelevant Risks
Excessive Eddie logs everything. Every. Single. Thing. “Potential delays due to daylight savings time confusion.” “Risk of low team energy during Q3 due to insufficient snack variety.” It’s like he’s being paid by the word.
During one sprint planning session, Eddie insisted the team review his 36 “priority” risks. By the time we got to “Morale dip due to post-lunch fatigue,” nobody could remember why we were there.
How to Avoid Drowning in Eddie’s Flood
Politely suggest a RAID review. This is where you “prioritize high-impact risks” and quietly delete “Potential email server outages due to Mercury retrograde.”
4. Rick’s Ominous Prophecies
Risk Bomb Rick loves to drop cryptic warnings into the log. “Potential instability during high traffic.” What traffic? What instability? Rick doesn’t say—he’s too busy planning his “I told you so” moment.
Once, Rick logged “Performance concerns with System Y during load testing” and then went silent. When System Y exploded in production, Rick sighed theatrically in the meeting and said, “This was flagged months ago.”
How to Defuse Rick’s Bombs
Ask for specifics the moment Rick logs a risk. “What exact tests showed performance concerns? Can we see the results?” Rick hates specifics almost as much as Nigel hates understanding tech.
More Chaos on the Battlefield: How RAID Logs Go Off the Rails
The Passive-Aggressive Assumption
Someone (probably Betty) logs an assumption like “Assume Team Y will meet the delivery deadline.” It sounds harmless—until Team Y inevitably doesn’t deliver. Then the entry becomes a smug “Well, we assumed you’d do your job” weapon in the next meeting.
How It Backfires: Team Y fights back with “We weren’t even aware of this assumption until five minutes ago.” Cue spiraling chaos as the assumption gets bounced around like a dodgeball.
The Endless Dependency Loop
Eddie logs “Dependency on Team X to provide configurations,” while Team X logs “Dependency on Team Y for architecture approval.” Team Y logs “Dependency on external vendor for tool updates.” By the time you unravel it all, you realize the only real dependency is the coffee machine working properly.
How It Backfires: Nothing gets done because everyone’s waiting on everyone else. When someone finally asks “Can we clarify these dependencies?” Eddie sighs and adds “Dependency clarification risk” to the log.
The Risk That Ate the Budget
Rick logs a catastrophic risk like “System collapse during high traffic could result in $1M losses.” Leadership panics and reassigns half the team to mitigate this apocalyptic scenario. Meanwhile, the real risk—like a critical API not being developed—goes unnoticed until it’s too late.
How It Backfires: The risk Rick flagged turns out to be a 0.01% edge case, and leadership is furious about the wasted resources. Rick, of course, shrugs and says, “Better safe than sorry.”
The Meeting Black Hole
Nigel, unsure of how to actually resolve risks, schedules recurring RAID log meetings. The log itself becomes a living entity, growing larger and less useful with every review. It’s now more of a “Crisis Log” because nobody can decide whether to act, escalate, or delete anything.
How It Backfires: People stop attending. The RAID log dies quietly in a forgotten shared folder, and Nigel announces a new “Alignment Tracker” initiative instead.
Turning the Chaos to Your Advantage
1. Keep a Shadow Log
The RAID log may be full of nonsense, but your personal notes should capture the real risks and issues. When the project implodes, you’ll have the receipts.
One dev who worked with Betty kept a spreadsheet titled “Actual RAID Log” because Betty’s entries were so inaccurate. When Betty tried to blame his team, he calmly shared his notes, and Betty’s power-play crumbled like a stale donut.
2. Frame Risks Like a Pro
The trick to surviving the RAID log? Make yourself look proactive. When you log risks, include a mitigation plan. “Integration delay due to API changes—working with DevOps to adjust timelines.” Now you’re the hero, not the scapegoat.
If Nigel logs “Unforeseen challenges with deployment,” one-up him with: “Deployment delay risk flagged and escalated to leadership. Monitoring mitigation progress.” Boom—Nigel’s vague entry now sounds like your victory lap.
3. Deploy Strategic Ambiguity
Sometimes, you need to play Rick’s game, but better. Log risks that make you look smart without pinning you down.
Instead of Rick’s “Critical failures possible,” try: “Potential latency under peak loads due to infrastructure scaling—monitoring required.”
It’s technical enough to impress Nigel and vague enough to avoid blame.
4. Use Humor to Control the Room
When RAID meetings descend into chaos, a well-timed joke can shift the tone. Once, during one of Eddie’s infamous risk monologues, someone interrupted with: “Is this about the pizza again?” The room laughed, the tension broke, and Eddie’s risk log shrank by 20 items.
More Ways to Use RAID Logs to Your Advantage
Good: Create a Log of Wins
Don’t just flag risks—document your successes. When a risk is resolved, add a note like “Mitigation successful—delivered API integration ahead of schedule.” Now the log isn’t just a list of failures waiting to happen; it’s a record of your victories.
Evil: The Layered Blame Shield
Log risks that subtly pass responsibility onto others while making you look proactive.
Example: “Vendor X tool updates delayed—flagged to procurement team for follow-up.”
If the delay causes issues, it’s on procurement. If it’s resolved smoothly, you’re the hero who escalated it.
Good: Risk Triage Hero
During chaotic RAID meetings, step up as the voice of reason. Say things like, “Let’s focus on the high-impact risks and save the smaller ones for offline discussion.” People will start associating you with clarity and efficiency.
Evil: Risk Triage Saboteur
Use triage as a power move. Suggest deprioritizing risks logged by people you secretly want to undermine (cough Betty cough). Frame it as “streamlining,” and nobody will notice you’re sabotaging their credibility.
Good: The RAID Whisperer
Offer to manage the RAID log for your team. Keep it accurate, concise, and aligned with project goals. You’ll gain trust and authority over the process, ensuring the log is actually useful.
Evil: The Puppet Master
Managing the log means you control the narrative. Frame risks and dependencies to subtly shift credit toward your team and accountability away from it. Example:
“Dependency resolved through proactive engagement from Team A.”
“Delay risk escalated due to Team Z’s lack of timely input.”
Good: Educate the Non-Techs
If Nigel logs vague risks, take a moment to educate him. Explain why “Integration challenges” isn’t actionable and suggest something like “Data format mismatch in endpoint integration.” It’s not glamorous, but it might make the RAID log slightly less infuriating.
Evil: Nigel Whispering
Instead of educating Nigel, feed him risks that align with your agenda. Suggest he log “Potential system inefficiencies with Vendor X” so leadership starts doubting the vendor you’ve always hated. Nigel will think you’re a genius, and you get plausible deniability.
Good: Clarify Assumptions
If assumptions are logged vaguely, clarify them in a way that benefits the team. Example: “Assume resource availability for Q4 testing.” If questioned later, you can point out that the assumption was clearly documented.
Evil: Assumption Ambiguity
Log assumptions so broad that they’re impossible to disprove. Example: “Assume smooth transition to production.” If anything goes wrong, shrug and say, “Well, we assumed everything would go right.”
Why a RAID Log Might Be Politicized
Why does the RAID log bring out the worst in [fictional] people? It seems to me (the real me, not the ChatGPT ascii spewing machine that wrote most of this amusing sillyness) that there’s something about the RAID log that brings out the worst and most political behaviour in people. Of course I asked GPT to tell me what could be going on there, to help me understand the dynamics. I think the following is helpful in seeing what might be at play when people behave in odd ways, and might have negative feelings about this particular artifact of project management. See if you can see which of these underlie the behaviour of the above charlatans.
Risk Aversion and CYA (Cover Your Ass[ets])
- Behavior: Individuals or teams log overly detailed risks and issues that might be unlikely but could protect them if things go wrong.
- Motivation: If something fails, they can point to the RAID log and say, “I warned you.”
- Impact: This creates noise and a culture of fear, making it harder to focus on genuinely significant risks.
Blame Shifting
- Behavior: Risks, issues, or dependencies are deliberately framed to highlight failures of other teams or external factors.
- Motivation: To protect their own reputation or gain leverage in cross-functional conflicts.
- Impact: The log becomes a political battlefield, detracting from its intended purpose of fostering collaboration and solving problems.
Overloading Assumptions to Push Agendas
- Behavior: Assumptions are crafted to justify a preferred course of action (e.g., “Assuming budget approval by X date” to pressure finance).
- Motivation: To manipulate decisions or shift focus toward personal priorities.
- Impact: It can distort the actual state of the project, leading to poorly informed decisions.
Cherry-Picking Risks and Issues
- Behavior: Only certain risks or issues are highlighted in the RAID log, depending on what aligns with a person’s agenda.
- Motivation: To downplay problems in their area or exaggerate issues elsewhere.
- Impact: Critical risks may be ignored, and the project team may lose trust in the log’s integrity.
Weaponizing Dependencies
- Behavior: Teams strategically emphasize dependencies on others to exert pressure or avoid accountability.
- Motivation: To deflect responsibility or create negotiating leverage.
- Impact: Creates resentment and stalls cooperation, rather than encouraging proactive problem-solving.
Why Does This Happen?
- Organizational Culture: In highly political environments, people may prioritize self-preservation or career advancement over the success of the project.
- Fear of Failure: RAID logs might be seen as a mechanism for postmortems rather than proactive tools, encouraging defensive behavior.
- Lack of Clarity in Ownership: If RAID items are not tied to actionable responsibilities, they can be manipulated to avoid blame or effort.
- Stakeholder Dynamics: RAID logs can be used to placate senior stakeholders or push decisions in a particular direction, even at the expense of project realities.
Signs Your RAID Log Is Being Politicized
- Overly Complex Entries: Risks or issues are framed in convoluted language to obscure accountability.
- Finger-Pointing Language: Phrases like “caused by X team” or “waiting on Y team” dominate the log.
- Focus on Low-Impact Risks: Trivial risks are highlighted while critical risks are ignored or minimized.
- Frequent Revisions Without Progress: Items are frequently updated or rewritten, but little action is taken to resolve them.
- Lack of Engagement by Teams: The RAID log is maintained by a single person or group without team-wide buy-in or collaboration.
Final Thoughts: Tool or Trap?
RAID logs can be incredible tools for project clarity—or an absolute mess of politics and nonsense. It all depends on how they’re used (or abused) and the context within which they exist.
So what’s your take? Are RAID logs the unsung heroes of project management, or just an elaborate game of CYA? Would you champion them, or weaponize them like Betty and Rick?