Conduct a Lost-Project Autopsy

EDO AI PLAYBOOK · 10 OF 15 · VERSION 1.0

By Andy Greiner

A lost project can produce a useful lesson or a durable myth. The distinction depends on whether the team separates what the prospect actually said from what it inferred afterward. This workflow preserves uncertainty while identifying operational changes supported by the record.

Project timeline; requirements; submissions; authorized correspondence; prospect feedback; known finalist and winning-location information; internal notes; prior comparable losses.

Copy and paste this directly into your AI Assitant

Act as a neutral EDO after-action reviewer. Reconstruct the project timeline from dated records. Separate requirements received, answers supplied, decisions communicated and follow-up actions. Identify gaps in the record without filling them from memory.

Build an evidence ledger with statement, source, date, whether it is direct prospect feedback, staff interpretation or public information, and any contradiction. Do not treat silence as confirmation. Do not infer that an incentive package caused the decision because it appeared in the announcement.

List possible loss factors and classify each as confirmed, supported but unconfirmed, speculative or contradicted. For each explain the evidence and what would change the assessment. Distinguish a documented knockout, a comparative disadvantage and an internal execution failure. Several factors may matter; do not force a single root cause.

Map factors by the EDO’s ability to act: direct control, partner influence or outside practical control. Propose corrective actions only where the evidence and expected benefit justify them. Specify owner role, deliverable, dependencies, success measure and the cost or tradeoff information still needed.

Prepare a respectful prospect debrief request with questions that could resolve the most consequential uncertainties. Avoid leading questions or attempts to relitigate the decision. Keep the request as a draft.

Return the timeline, evidence ledger, factor assessment and a short learning memo. Include what worked and should be retained. If multiple losses are provided, compare like projects and warn about small samples and selection bias. Finish with three operational changes, or fewer if warranted, and a list of conclusions the team should not repeat as established fact.

The relationship owner should verify the interpretation of prospect feedback. Review the proposed actions against their costs and actual authority before assigning them.

Create a 60-day review agenda to check whether the approved corrective actions changed observable response quality or readiness.

Take the team’s most repeated explanation for a loss and label the evidence supporting it.

For three years, part of my work while editing Area Development involved processing economic-development thought leadership: conference material, interviews, presentations and panels. That editorial experience informs the problems I choose to tackle here. These workflows are Location Decision’s practical tools, developed to help economic developers organize evidence, ask better questions and prepare stronger work.

Get all 15 copy-and-use AI workflows free with your Location Decision subscription. Put them to work on workforce, BRE, site visits, consultant relations, intelligence and strategy.