To manage risks properly, we must allocate resources to implement a risk management plan. Some resources must be allocated in advance of anticipated risk events, and some must be held in reserve "just in case."
![Damage to the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge across Lake Pontchartrain Damage to the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge across Lake Pontchartrain](../images/i10-bridge-katrina.png)
Damage to one of the low causeway sections of the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The storm surge brought by the hurricane raised the water level high enough to trap air beneath the concrete causeway's spans, causing them to float off the bridge pier caps. (See Chen, et al., Analysis of the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge's Collapse During Hurricane Katrina). The bridge was built in 1963, when the effects of hurricane storm surge were already understood, though not as well as they are now. Two other nearby bridges, a railroad bridge and the US 11 bridge, withstood the storm with only minor damage. The U.S. 11 bridge opened February 18, 1928. It survived, in part, because its concrete girders are arched, and therefore trapped a smaller volume of air under its spans, reducing their effective buoyancy during the storm surge.
Back in 2001, the exposure of New Orleans to hurricane risk was so well known that it was the subject of a superb article in Scientific American (See M. Fischetti, Drowning New Orleans). Moreover, the storm's effects on the bridges were entirely predictable — explaining them entailed no new engineering discoveries. One can easily speculate about how the outcome of Katrina might have differed if resources for risk study and mitigation had been made available, but one also wonders what disasters elsewhere are yet preventable. Photo by Commander Mark Moran, Lt. Phil Eastman and Lt. Dave Demers, NOAA. Courtesy U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Many organizations have difficulty allocating these resources, especially when resources are thin and risks haven't yet materialized. The temptation to hope that all will go well can lead some to attempt projects with insufficient reserves for risks. And it can lead others to deny that specific risks can ever occur.
For example, despite decades of widely accepted predictions, the U.S. government failed to provide adequate resources to New Orleans for hurricane-induced flood risk mitigation and planning.
In the project environment, at best, project managers or risk officers identify risks and propose resources to mitigate them. Project sponsors and organizational management then review these proposals for sufficiency and reasonableness. They negotiate with the project staff as necessary, and then they allocate appropriate resources for risk mitigation and management.
In many organizations, things rarely work that way. Organizations commit themselves to risk plans that amount to little more than naïve hopes and wishes for the best. How does this happen?
In some cases, the available resources cannot cover all identified risks unless everything breaks favorably. When someone identifies a risk that's expensive to manage, risk revision, exclusion, or denial enables those involved to commit to the effort despite resource shortages. When this happens, risks that do materialize can threaten the project — or worse, threaten the enterprise.
What can organizations do to manage risk revision?
One approach involves adding to the project plan an Appendix of Revised or Excluded Risks — risks that someone proposed, but which were edited before inclusion in the risk plan, or excluded altogether. For each revised risk, the appendix includes the original proposed risk, a revision history with dates, the arguments in favor of and against such revisions, and the names of all involved in each revision decision. The Appendix of Revised or Excluded Risks serves several purposes.
- Audit trail
- If the organization someday decides how particular risk types are to be addressed, the Appendix becomes a useful tool to help project teams bring their projects into compliance.
- Deterrence
- When available resources
can't cover all identified
risks, we sometimes
revise the risks - To whatever extent organizational politics or intimidation play any role in risk revision or exclusion, the knowledge that revision decisions will be recorded in the Appendix might deter some intimidators or some who abuse political power to achieve their ends.
- Support for organizational learning
- The Appendix could provide useful data for project retrospectives, or even earlier, if trouble does appear during the project's execution.
If you think risk revision and denial aren't happening in your organization, you might want to add that observation to your Appendix of Revised or Excluded Risks. Top
Next Issue
Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and
found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Project Management:
Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: II
- Communication can be problematic for any team, especially under pressure. But virtual teams face challenges
that are less common in face-to-face teams. Here's Part II of a little catalog with some recommendations.
Managing Non-Content Risks: I
- When project teams and their sponsors manage risk, they usually focus on those risks most closely associated
with the tasks — content risks. Meanwhile, other risks — non-content risks — get less
attention. Among these are risks related to the processes and politics by which the organization gets
things done.
The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest
- A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project
cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine
with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.
Anticipating Absence: Quarantine and Isolation
- When the pandemic compels some knowledge workers to quarantine or isolate, we tend to treat them as
if they were totally unavailable. But if they're willing and able to work, even part-time, they might
be able to continue to contribute. To make this happen, work out conditions in advance.
On Anticipating Consequences
- Much of what goes wrong when we change systems to improve them falls into a category we call unanticipated
consequences. Even when we lack models that can project these results accurately, morphological analysis
can help us avoid much misery.
See also Project Management and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II
- Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.
And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I
- As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
![Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters](../images/social-icons/email-32.png)
![Follow me at LinkedIn](../images/social-icons/linkedin-reg-32.png)
![Follow me at X, or share a post](../images/social-icons/x-32.png)
![Subscribe to RSS feeds](../images/social-icons/feed-icon-32.png)
![Subscribe to RSS feeds](../images/social-icons/facebook-icon-32.png)
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
![Technical Debt for Policymakers Blog](../images/logos/techdebtpolicy-logo-sm-1.png)
![Join the Organizational Politics Group at LinkedIn.com](../images/office-politics-group.gif)