Flooding in Metarie, Louisiana, following Hurricane Katrina. The photo was taken September 8, 2005. The Hurricane had made landfall nine days earlier, on August 29. The catastrophic scale of the damage was due, in part, to the scale of the storm, and, in part, to the manner in which the various governments involved managed risk and risk resistance. Dr. Walter Maestri, Emergency Management Consultant with DRC Group, was for over a decade the Director of Emergency Management for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, of which Metarie is a part. Dr. Maestri held that position through the events associated with Hurricane Katrina. In a 2005 interview with the PBS program FRONTLINE, and on numerous other occasions including congressional testimony, Dr. Maestri told of funds promised but not allocated and mitigation plans revised or deferred. He is quoted as saying, "pay me now or pay me later. You're going to pay now, the estimates are more than $160 billion to rebuild this community. If you had pre-positioned all of the resources that needed to be here, if you had raised the levees or begun that process or looked at some of these other out-of-the-box ideas, it wouldn't have cost $160 billion, and we wouldn't have lost as much as we have." In response, government officials have argued that even if those plans had been executed, the catastrophe would not have been prevented, because the scale of the storm exceeded the design capacity of the mitigations. However, such a claim only indicts as inadequate the planned — but deferred — mitigations. Photo courtesy U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Risk resistance is the objection to all or part of a risk plan's content. Typically, objectors are project sponsors or senior managers. Typical objections are that the risks in question are fictitious, or that the mitigation plan is too expensive. Since the organizational power of the objectors generally exceeds that of the risk plan's authors, authors often simply eliminate or downgrade the items with which objectors disagree.
Although risks rarely materialize as projected, something similar often does. A classic example is the flooding of New Orleans in 2005. Concerns about such catastrophes trace back at least to the Flood Control Act of 1965, but the resources provided over the years for mitigating flood risk were most inadequate. The result of these mitigation downgrades is the disaster following Hurricane Katrina.
Downgrading risk plans — or their funding — doesn't downgrade the risk or make risk mitigation any cheaper. Instead, it opens gaps between risk plans and reality. That's how risk resistance creates risk. Here are four methods for addressing risk resistance risk.
- Make risk plan revision traceable
- Document risk plan revision in a Risk Plan Revision History — a section of the project plan that documents the downgrading of risk probability estimates and risk mitigation budgets.
- Traceability facilitates corrective action when the organization is found unprepared for risks that do materialize. Record in the History the original risk plan elements, the reasoning supporting the modifications, and the dates of and parties to the downgrade decisions.
- Retrospectively review gaps between risk plans and reality
- After an unanticipated risk materializes, and its full impact on budget and schedule are known, review how it was addressed in the risk plan.
- Was the risk anticipated in the final plan? If not, was it addressed in any earlier versions of the risk plan? Were earlier versions of the plan downgraded? Use the Risk Plan Revision History to answer these questions.
- Measure risk response budgets and actuals
- Keep accurate historical data measuring both the budget and actuals for risk response.
- Managing risk more Document risk plan revision in
a Risk Plan Revision Historyeffectively requires narrowing the gap between risk plan budgets and risk response expenditures. Rarely do we have the necessary data available when we try to assess our risk performance. Start collecting it now. - Measure risk performance globally
- Mitigating risk by taking actions that harm other projects can be expensive to the organization.
- Some projects use political power to export the costs of their risk responses onto other projects. For example, reassigning people with rare skills — or holding onto them longer than planned — might aid one project, but it can harm others. To assign responsibility for these costs correctly, measure risk response costs across the entire organization, as opposed to per-project.
Objectors to risk plans, who often recognize the implications of the measures suggested here, might raise objections to implementing them. Begin advocacy or implementation only when you're prepared to meet those objections. 
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
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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:
Backtracking in Incremental Problem Solving- Incremental problem solving is fashionable these days. Whether called evolutionary, incremental, or
iterative, the approach entails unique risks. Managing those risks sometimes requires counterintuitive action.
Deep Trouble and Getting Deeper- Here's a catalog of actions people take when the projects they're leading are in deep trouble, and they're
pretty sure there's no way out.
Ego Depletion and Priority Setting- Setting priorities for tasks is tricky when we find the tasks unappealing, because we have limited energy
for self-control. Here are some strategies for limiting these effects on priority setting.
Seven Planning Pitfalls: II- Plans are well known for working out differently from what we intended. Sometimes, the unintended outcome
is due to external factors over which the planning team has little control. Two examples are priming
effects and widely held but inapplicable beliefs.
Rescheduling: Project Factors- Rescheduling is what we do when we can no longer honor the schedule we have now. Of all causes of rescheduling,
the more controllable are those found at the project level. Attending to them in one project can limit
their effects on other projects.
See also Project Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming July 23: Microdelegation- Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.
And on July 30: What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Actually Is- Although the Dunning-Kruger Effect is widely recognized, people describe it — and understand it — in many different ways. Some of these expressions are misleading. Proceed with caution. Available here and by RSS on July 30.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!
Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we
love the work but not the job.Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or
maybe even outright revolt?Learn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.