Your $150M Outage Started With One Wrong Assumption: Do You Even Know How to Talk During Incidents?
When the shit hits the fan and systems are burning down, the biggest enemy isn't the technical failure, it's the knowledge confusion that turns your incident response into a circular firing squad.
The brutal business reality: Communication isn't just talking during an incident; it's about knowing the difference between what you actually know and what you think you know. And that difference is costing you millions.
The $150M Million Question: Why Do Smart Teams Go Stupid? 📊
Most teams operate on 90% assumptions and 10% facts. During incidents, this ratio becomes deadly and expensive.
Real cost breakdown of assumption-driven incidents:
Average enterprise outage: $5,600 per minute
Assumption-driven troubleshooting adds: 2-4 hours of unnecessary downtime
Total unnecessary cost: $672,000 - $1.34M per incident
Here's why your war room sounds like a philosophy debate instead of a crisis response team.
The Two Classes of Knowledge (And Why Confusing Them Bankrupts You) 💭
Class 1: First-Hand Knowledge ✅
What your team has personally witnessed, configured, or broken
Direct experience with the system, process, or environment
Facts you can stake your business continuity on
Class 2: Informed Assumptions ⚠️
Educated guesses based on past experience
"I think this works like..." based on similar situations
Logical deductions that feel right but aren't verified
The executive problem? In high-stress situations, everyone sounds equally confident but assumptions cost exponentially more than facts.
Meet Your War Room: The Four Personality Types Burning Your Budget 🎭
Type
Knowledge Profile
Communication Pattern
Business Risk
The Expert
80% first-hand, 20% assumptions
States facts clearly, admits unknowns
Low cost
The Confident Guesser
20% first-hand, 80% assumptions
Sounds certain about everything
High cost
The Silent Knower
60% first-hand, 40% assumptions
Rarely speaks up
Medium cost
The Assumption Amplifier
10% first-hand, 90% assumptions
Builds theories on theories
Critical cost
Executive insight: The Confident Guesser sounds most authoritative while generating the highest operational costs.
Why Your Million-Dollar Engineers Go Stupid During $150M Outages 🔥
The Pressure Cooker Effect
When executives are breathing down your neck, tacit knowledge intuitive, experience-based understanding gets treated as fact. Someone who's "seen this before" becomes the authority, even when their experience costs you $5,600 per minute of incorrect troubleshooting.
The Echo Chamber Amplification
Teams start building expensive solutions on layered assumptions:
Engineer A assumes database corruption
Engineer B assumes network issues based on Engineer A's assumption
Engineer C designs fix based on both assumptions
Business result: You're spending premium engineering hours solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution.
The Hero Complex
One person claims to know everything, and everyone defers. But heroes make assumptions too, they just sound more confident while burning through your incident budget.
The 10% Rule: Your Path Out of Million-Dollar Assumption Hell ⚡
C-suite game-changer: Most teams collectively know only 10% of what they think they know as hard facts.
Translation: 90% of your incident response decisions are based on expensive guesswork.
Step 1: Business-Critical Knowledge Audit
"What do we know for certain right now?" (Facts that reduce MTTR)
"What are we assuming based on experience?" (Expensive guesses)
Document both categories separately track the cost difference
Step 2: Fill the Gap Systematically (ROI-Focused)
Focus investigative energy on the 90% assumption gap:
Validate the most business-critical assumptions first
Test hypotheses before implementing expensive solutions
Convert assumptions to facts through rapid, targeted observation
Step 3: Executive Communication Protocol
Implement clear language distinctions that protect your budget:
"I know..." = First-hand verified knowledge (low-risk decisions)
"I believe..." = Informed assumption (flag for validation)
"The data shows..." = Observable evidence (invest here)
"We need to verify..." = Critical unknown (stop spending until confirmed)
The Knowledge Cascade Framework: Stop Hemorrhaging Money 📊
Explicit Knowledge Sources (Cheap to verify)
Logs, metrics, monitoring data
Configuration files and documentation
Error messages and system outputs
Tacit Knowledge Sources (Expensive without validation)
"This usually means..." ($5,600/minute risk)
"Last time we saw this..." (historical bias cost)
"The system typically behaves..." (pattern-matching expense)
Hybrid Validation Approach (Executive-Approved)
Combine explicit data with tacit insights, but always validate assumptions before burning budget on implementation.
The One-Question That Saves Millions: "How Do You Know That?" 💣
Executive summary: Sometimes you need one simple, brutal question that cuts through expensive bullshit.
Every time someone makes a statement during an incident, your team should ask:
"How do you know that?"
"What makes you say that?"
"What are you basing that on?"
Business Implementation is Brain-Dead Simple
Engineer A: "The database is corrupted" Anyone: "How do you know that?"
Engineer C: "This usually means network issues" Anyone: "What makes you say that?"
Engineer E: "We should restart the service" Anyone: "What are you basing that on?"
Executive Results Are Immediate
Teams immediately distinguish between:
"I saw error X in the logs" (fact-based, low-cost decision)
"This looks like what happened last time" (assumption, validate before spending)
"I think this might be..." (guess, highest cost risk)
The Million-Dollar Assumption Red Flag Detector 🚨
Train your teams to catch these budget-killing phrases:
Red Flag Phrases
Business Translation
Cost Risk
"This always means..."
Past experience, not current evidence
High
"It's probably..."
Pure assumption
Critical
"We should..."
Solution without diagnosis
Extreme
"I think..."
Opinion vs. observation
High
"Usually when this happens..."
Pattern matching, not verification
Critical
Real-World ROI: The $1.2M Assumption Cascade 🛑
Before "How Do You Know That?":
"The API is down, probably a database issue, let's restart the DB cluster" Business result: 2 hours fixing wrong problem = $672,000 in unnecessary downtime
After "How Do You Know That?":
Engineer A: "The API is down" Engineer B: "How do you know that?" Engineer A: "502 errors in nginx logs"
Engineer A: "Probably a database issue" Engineer B: "What makes you say that?" Engineer A: "Um... I'm assuming based on last time" Engineer B: "What does the DB monitoring show right now?" Engineer A: "Let me check... actually DB is fine"
Business result: Fixed in 15 minutes = $84,000 total cost vs. $672,000 ROI: $588,000 saved with one question
The Collaborative Overhearing Effect: When 3 Minutes Saves $2.4M 🔥
Executive insight: Sometimes the most valuable solutions come from accidentally overhearing someone else's problem not from expensive formal processes.
The AWS SSM Business Case
Engineer A: Product expert, needs software installed on all servers Traditional approach: Manual installation across the entire fleet Business cost: 6-12 hours of premium engineering time = $12,000-24,000
Engineer B: Casually overhears the conversation Business insight: "Wait, we don't need to do this manually; install the product, SSM agents are already installed"
Engineer C: "I know how to implement that SSM solution"
Business result: Task reduced from $24,000 to $2,000 in labor costs ROI: $22,000 saved through organic knowledge sharing
Why Overhearing Beats Expensive Formal Meetings
Zero Process Overhead - No meeting costs, immediate value
Accidental Expertise Matching - Hidden skills surface without HR processes
Solution Layering - Complete solutions in minutes, not expensive iteration cycles
Executive Implementation: Smart Distributed Validation 🧠
C-suite directive: Encourage everyone to ask validation questions, but only if your team has baseline competence (otherwise, you're paying for expensive philosophical debates).
The Business Competence Filter
This ROI-positive approach only works with teams that understand:
Product/environment fundamentals
Their own knowledge boundaries
When to escalate vs. when to question
ROI-Focused Implementation: Contextual Validation
DO Validate (High ROI)
DON'T Validate (Waste Money)
Diagnostic conclusions ("It's the cache")
Basic environment facts ("We use Redis")
Solution proposals ("Restart the service")
Documented system behavior ("API returns 500s")
Pattern assumptions ("This looks like last time")
Observable metrics ("CPU is at 90%")
Root cause theories ("Network congestion")
Established procedures ("Check the logs first")
The Executive 2-Person Rule
Before implementing any expensive fix:
Engineer 1: Proposes solution + business justification
Engineer 2: Asks "What makes you confident this will reduce MTTR?"
If Engineer 1 can't provide evidence → investigate before spending
Business-Critical Environmental Design 🔊
Executive Directive: Create Overhearing-Friendly Environments
Fund This
Stop Funding This
Business Result
"I'm trying to figure out how to..."
"I'll handle this privately"
Knowledge surfacing = cost reduction
"Anyone know about X?"
"Let me research this alone"
Expertise matching = faster resolution
"Here's what I'm thinking..."
Silent problem-solving
Solution layering = lower MTTR
The Executive Announcement Protocol
Before starting any expensive manual process, teams must verbalise:
"I'm about to..." (planned approach + cost)
"This will take..." (time estimate + labour cost)
"Unless someone knows..." (opening for cost-saving alternatives)
Business transformation: ❌ "I'll install this on all servers" ($24,000 labour cost) ✅ "I'm about to manually install this on all 50 servers, probably cost $24,000 in engineering time unless someone knows a faster way" (Team discovers automation, costs $2,000)
Executive ROI: $22,000 saved per incident through mandatory verbalisation
Technical Implementation for Business Leaders 🛠️
Real-time Knowledge Classification Dashboard:
text# Executive incident tracking template
VERIFIED_FACTS: [Decisions with low business risk]
TESTING_ASSUMPTIONS: [Decisions requiring validation spend]
KNOWLEDGE_GAPS: [Areas requiring immediate investigation budget]
VALIDATION_STEPS: [How we'll convert expensive assumptions to cheap facts]Communication Infrastructure ROI:
**#factsnly channel = Low-risk, fast decisions
**#theoriesnd-assumptions = High-risk, requires validation budget
**#validationequests = Investigation spend authorization
The Business Intelligence Bot:
Auto-flags phrases like "probably" or "usually" for executive attention—tracks assumption-based spending.
Executive Culture Investment 🛡️
Pre-Incident Business Preparation
Define knowledge ownership: Clear accountability for system expertise
Create assumption-testing protocols: Standard validation procedures with cost controls
Practice fact vs. assumption distinction during tabletop exercises
During-Incident Financial Discipline
Structured communication channels: Separate high-cost assumptions from low-cost facts
Document assumption chains: Track how expensive decisions build on each other
Mandatory verbalisation: No silent problem-solving = no untracked spending
Post-Incident Business Learning
Map assumption failures: Where did expensive wrong assumptions occur?
Strengthen knowledge gaps: Convert repeated assumptions into documented facts
Share validated knowledge: Turn incident learnings into business-valuable IP
The Executive 3-Week ROI Plan 💨
Week 1: Policy Implementation
Pin directive: "Before proposing expensive solutions, ask: How do you know that?" Cost: $0. Setup time: 5 minutes.
Week 2: Controlled Testing
Run tabletop exercises where teams practice validation questioning Investment: 4 hours of team time. Expected ROI: 50% MTTR reduction.
Week 3: Production Deployment
Business result: 50% reduction in assumption-based troubleshooting Average savings per incident: $500,000 - $1.2M
Executive Rules of Engagement ⚡
When Teams SHOULD Use Expensive Validation:
Diagnostic statements: "The problem is X" (high-impact decisions)
Solution proposals: "We need to do Y" (expensive implementations)
Pattern assumptions: "This looks like Z" (historical bias risks)
When Teams Should NOT Waste Validation Budget:
Observable facts: "The server returned 404" (cheap to verify)
Already verified information: "I just checked the logs" (validation complete)
Time-critical actions: "Data center is flooding" (obvious response)
The Bottom Line for Business Leaders 🎯
Executive summary: Incident response isn't about having all the answers—it's about knowing which answers cost money and which ones save it.
The companies that win aren't the ones with the most technical knowledge; they're the ones who can rapidly distinguish between expensive assumptions and cheap facts, then systematically eliminate the cost gap.
The Million-Dollar Question for Your Next Board Meeting:
"Do your engineers know that, or do they assume that and what's it costing us?"
Watch how quickly your incident costs become more transparent.
The most expensive hour in incident response is the one spent doing something the wrong way when someone three desks away knows the right way, but your communication culture prevents that knowledge from surfacing.
Executive action item: Stop burning money on assumption-driven incident response. Start investing in fact-driven resolution. Your shareholders will thank you.
Reference
https://blog.exigence.io/three-communications-best-practices-for-incident-handlers
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7247478/
https://www.everbridge.com/blog/7-skills-leaders-must-master-for-effective-response-to-critical-events/
https://www.samatters.com/assumptions-can-be-a-situational-awareness-barrier/
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1126794.pdf
https://www.eyer.ai/blog/7-tips-to-improve-incident-response-team-collaboration/
https://www.sei.cmu.edu/documents/1631/2021_002_001_651819.pdf
https://virima.com/blog/incident-communication-guide-with-best-practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_management
https://www.alternatives-humanitaires.org/en/2025/07/30/between-tacit-and-explicit-knowledge-humanitarian-communication-in-search-of-a-third-way/
https://right-hand.ai/blog/incident-response-teams/
https://www.edsi.com/blog/knowledge-management-101-preventing-a-knowledge-loss-crisis-in-6-steps
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12400443/
https://www.atlassian.com/incident-management/incident-communication
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6443263/
https://www.pagerduty.com/resources/incident-management-response/learn/a-guide-to-incident-communications/
https://www.ijstr.org/final-print/jun2020/The-Effect-Of-Knowledge-Management-On-Crisis-Management-In-Higher-Institute-Of-Engineering-Professions-In-Al-qubba-City-East-Of-Libya.pdf
https://hyperping.com/blog/incident-management-best-practices
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128225967000164
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10249079211050148
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/crisis-management/
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5880&context=etd
https://right-hand.ai/blog/cyber-incident-response/
https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/120143_book_item_120143.pdf
https://spike.sh/blog/incident-management-is-a-team-responsibility/
https://bloomfire.com/blog/implicit-tacit-explicit-knowledge/
https://eiscouncil.org/disaster-plans-false-assumptions/
https://whatfix.com/blog/types-of-knowledge/
https://emilms.fema.gov/is_0362a/groups/68.html
https://www.atlassian.com/incident-management/incident-response
https://sonat.com/@sonat/articles/tacit-vs-explicit-knowledge-a-comparative-study
https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-jul-2015-understanding-resistance-to-emergency-and-disaster-messaging/
https://www.bluevoyant.com/knowledge-center/what-is-incident-response-process-frameworks-and-tools
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7152024/
https://blog.heycoach.in/cybersecurity-knowledge-sharing-between-employees/
https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10682.pdf
https://www.dataguard.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-incident-response-team/
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/questioning-techniques
https://www.exabeam.com/blog/incident-response/incident-response-6-steps-technologies-and-tips/
https://leadershipeffect.com.au/active-listening-socratic-method/
https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/socratic-method/
https://samiraholma.com/challenge-assumptions/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/adi-bytes/assumption-based-crisis/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-questions-incident-response-every-ciso-must-able-answer-giordano
https://edipuglia.it/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Chapman.pdf
https://www.21kschool.com/in/blog/socratic-method/
https://www.securityscientist.net/blog/19-answers-on-incident-response/
https://therightquestions.co/tag/socratic-method/
https://jackwelch.strayer.edu/winning/crisis-management-five-assumptions/
https://sbscyber.com/blog/top-5-most-common-incident-response-scenarios
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/socratic-method-and-pimping-optimizing-use-stress-and-fear-instruction/201403
https://www.calpnetwork.org/blog/impossible-choices-questioning-assumptions-behind-lock-down-in-low-income-and-fragile-contexts/
https://www.atlassian.com/incident-management/incident-response
https://blog.hptbydts.com/smarter-thinking-the-socratic-method
https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/ai-enhanced-socratic-teaching-for-medical-emergency-management-in-dental-education/
https://www.institutedata.com/blog/asking-the-right-questions-strategies-for-effective-questioning-techniques-in-cyber-security/
https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/futures-thinking-now-examining-assumptions-future/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/11/21/how-to-adopt-a-collaborative-problem-solving-approach-through-yes-and-thinking/
https://collaborativeconservation.org/media/sites/142/2018/02/Collaborative-Problem-Solving-Handbook-1.pdf
https://www2.mediate.com/pdf/CPSInTheWorkplace.pdf
https://www.exabeam.com/blog/incident-response/incident-response-6-steps-technologies-and-tips/
https://www.exabeam.com/blog/incident-response/incident-response-plan-101-the-6-phases-templates-and-examples/
https://www.mitiga.io/blog/abusing-the-amazon-web-services-ssm-agent-as-a-remote-access-trojan
https://www.logsign.com/blog/top-15-incident-response-use-cases/
https://www.mitiga.io/blog/mitiga-security-advisory-abusing-the-ssm-agent-as-a-remote-access-trojan
https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/incident-response
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/building-resilient-services-at-prime-video-with-chaos-engineering/
https://cymulate.com/blog/aws-ssm-agent-plugin-id-path-traversal/
https://auditboard.com/blog/types-of-information-security-incidents
https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/wicked-problems-using-a-collaborative-approach-to-find-effective-solutions
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/systems-manager/latest/userguide/troubleshooting-ssm-agent.html
https://cevo.com.au/post/install-ssm-agent-on-unmanaged-ec2-instances/
https://etactics.com/blog/incident-response-examples
https://sbscyber.com/blog/top-5-most-common-incident-response-scenarios
https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/incident-response
https://www.threatintelligence.com/blog/incident-response
Last updated