Reflecting on risk

As is often the case a reflective learning post is prompted by a strong reaction to module materials.  In this instance I had a very grumpy reaction to the Risk Tributary section on my current project management module.

What was my experience?

• Probability.  No mention of likelihood (which recognises the possibility of more than one occurrence)
• No guidance on whether to assess the likelihood of the event or the consequences (which gives a very different view of what the resultant risk profile actually looks like!)
• Some very prescriptive dictates eg 
• if the organisation does not have a policy it will be necessary to produce a detailed risk management plan
• restricting when risks can be raised to the times defined in the risk management plan
• how to describe risks (MUST begin with the phrase / MUST be described ....) but only saying that probability/ impact SHOULD be recorded using an agreed rating method 😠
• Impacts - the focus was very much on financial impact.  No recognition at all that a risk may have a minimal financial impact on the project but a huge stakeholder impact.
• Missing was consideration of risk from the project and how it is managed/ delivered on the business.  The focus was very internal to the project itself.
• Decision trees but not event trees
• Issues - something to be escalated - but with no discussion on quantifying the impact they may be having

Reflecting

I have had so many encounters at work when a project manager has taken guidance like this and used it 'from the book' (ie not tried to apply) it without any consideration of the context of the business environment.  This has lead to frustration in the project team, the business, stakeholders and actually increased the risk of project failure.

For example re structured language - a risk manager on a recent project applied the instruction that risks MUST be described in the way mandated in the tributary.  Unfortunately none of the team were experienced risk managers and s/he ended up with a risk register that no-one understood or bought into. In effect it really wasn't worth the paper it was written on.  If s/he had understood the context and the maturity level in the team and worked to help them articulate their concerns we would have had a register which would not have complied with the 'standard' but would have been of much greater value to the team.

Outcomes

My reactions to this tributary have been influence by my work experience and the types of projects I've been involved in in the last few years - many of which have not lent themselves to this 'traditional' approach to risk.  Combined with experience of people not understanding the context or how risk management can and should be an integral part of the system.

Going forward - the tributary material has given me a better understanding of risk management from the perspective of a 'professional' project manager (institution).  And perhaps helped me articulate why I've never taken the plunge and actually joined a professional project management institution despite working in the field for >25 years.  And why I'm enjoying systems thinking so much!