Risk Management Risk: II

In Part I of this two-part series, we examined the organizational and political risks of risk management plans and processes. Now we turn to the risks that arise from change and from the interactions between risks.

Risk dynamics risk

Risk is a dynamic attribute of projects. Even if a project were frozen in place, its risk probabilities and risk impacts could change, because its environment changes. It's necessary to review risk plans with a frequency compatible with the volatility of the risk environment, which is itself difficult to estimate.

Indicators of risk dynamics risk include risk plans that remain unchanged for long periods of time; budgets and schedules that omit risk reviews or perhaps schedule them infrequently; and retrospectives that don't address risk review. If these indicators are present, risk dynamics risk is also likely present.

Intra-project risk interactions

Risk interactions within a given project are especially problematic. Two risks might seem independent, but the probability of one occurring might change if the other materializes; or the response to one risk might alter the consequences of or the probabilities of materialization of others; or the response to one risk might limit the project's ability to respond to another.

For instance, if Arthur is backup for both Tory and Chris, all's well, as long as either Tory or Chris is available. If both become unavailable, we have trouble.

The method known as morphological analysis developed by Fritz Zwicky, is useful for uncovering intra-project risk interactions. In this method, you examine all pairs of risks and ask, "If both risks materialize, will our planned responses still be effective?" If you find that the answer is "no," you can revise your plan. You can generalize this procedure to triples of risks, quadruples, and so on. For more on morphological analysis, see the article by Tom Ritchie at the Web site of the Swedish Morphological Society. Or take your pick from hundreds of sources.

Inter-project risk interactions

An inter-project risk interaction occurs when conditions in a given project change risk probabilities in another project, or cause risks to materialize in another project.

For example, If Arthur is backup for both
Tory and Chris, all's well,
as long as either Tory or
Chris is availablesuppose two projects are scheduled to use the same resource serially. If the first project is delayed, the availability to the second project of that same resource changes. At the time of development of the risk plan of the second project, knowledge about the strategies and risks of the first would have been useful, but such information, sadly, is rarely shared.

To limit inter-project risk interaction risk, coordinate risk reviews with projects likely to transmit risk back and forth. If the risk profile of one of the projects changes, there is enhanced probability of impact on the other.

Most risk conditions are connected to at least a few other risk conditions, either internal or external to the project. Maps of these connections can be very helpful.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

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:

Long-Loop Conversations: Asking Questions

In virtual or global teams, where remote collaboration is the rule, waiting for the answer to a simple question can take a day or more. And when the response finally arrives, it's often just another question. Here are some suggestions for framing questions that are clear enough to get answers quickly.

Nonlinear Work: When Superposition Fails

Much of the work we do is confounding, because we consistently underestimate the effort involved, the resources required, and the time required to get it done. The failure of superposition can be one reason why we get it wrong.

Ten Approaches to Managing Project Risks: II

Managing risk entails coping with unwanted events that might or might not happen, and which can be costly if they do happen. Here's Part II of our exploration of coping strategies for unwanted events.

Seven Planning Pitfalls: I

Whether in war or in projects, plans rarely work out as, umm well, as planned. In part, this is due to our limited ability to foretell the future, or to know what we don't know. But some of the problem arises from the way we think. And if we understand this we can make better plans.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: I

Planners and members of planning teams are susceptible to patterns of thinking that lead to unworkable plans. But planning teams also suffer vulnerabilities. Two of these are Group Polarization and Trips to Abilene.

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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