Project Management

Describing risk: How much detail?

From the Risk Insights from The Risk Doctor Blog
by
David Hillson, The Risk Doctor, shares key tips on understanding and managing risk, blending thought-leadership with expert practical application. Managing risk is easy - find out how!

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

HAPPY NEW YEAR: Two-faced risk management

Zero chance of a zero-risk project

Innovative risk management

Why some risks turn into surprises

Are project opportunities the same as scope screep?

Categories

risk analysis, risk identification, risk management, risk process, risk psychology, risk responses

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  

Categories: risk identification


Risks can be identified and described at different levels of detail, and there can be considerable variation between different projects or organisations. Some projects identify just a small number of high-level risks, while others have many hundreds or even thousands of detailed risks. A generalised or high-level description of risk can make it difficult to develop responses and assign ownership, while describing risks in a lot of detail can create a great deal of work. How can we determine the correct level of detail? There are three components to consider : management, ownership, and reporting.
1.    Firstly, risks should be described at the level to which they are will be managed. A high-level description such as “Something unexpected might happen during the project” is quite useless as no management action is possible at this level. Too much detail is also pointless, for example “George Smith the junior system architect may break his right leg at the football match next Tuesday night and not be able to finish the Phase 2.4.2 detailed design drawings.” The risk might be better stated as “Key staff may not be available when required to complete the system design.” At this level the risk can be managed proactively, with careful resource planning, use of shadowing or deputies, and ensuring that key tasks are not assigned to one person. Of course it is true that some risks will need to be managed at a detailed level while others can be addressed at a higher level.
2.    Secondly, each risk should be described at a level of detail where it can be assigned to a single owner, with clear responsibility and accountability for addressing the risk. However this also allows for some variation in the level of risk description, as risk owners can range from junior team members who might be responsible for detailed risks, through to the project sponsor or senior managers who are only interested in the higher level.
3.    Thirdly, the level of risk description should match the reporting needs of the person receiving the risk report. Project team members need detailed risk descriptions for those risks which they are responsible for managing. The project sponsor or client needs less detail, perhaps with groups of risks being summarised into high-level descriptions.

Each of these three answers suggests that risk descriptions can be useful at various levels for different purposes. There is no one right level that meets all needs. So what can be done?

One useful tool addressing this issue is the Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS), which is a hierarchical structure describing sources of risk to the project. This allows risks to be described at increasing levels of detail throughout the project. At the top level (Level 0), all risks are simply “Project Risks”. But this can be broken down into major sources of risk at Level 1, such as Technical Risk, Commercial Risk, Management Risk, External Risk. Each of these major areas can be further detailed at Level 2 (for example Technical Risk could be subdivided into Technology, Performance, Reliability, Interfaces etc). At the lowest level individual risks are described under each specific source.

Different RBS levels can then be used for different purposes. Detailed risk reporting, ownership and management can take place at the lowest level. Higher RBS levels allow groups of risks to be rolled-up and summarised for reporting, ownership and management further up the organisation. So the project safety engineer may need to know about a specific risk affecting a particular product trial (RBS Level 4), whereas the company's Chief Technical Officer may be interested in the overall level of technical risk on the project (RBS Level 1).

Risk descriptions at different levels of detail are useful in different ways. Instead of insisting that all risks are described at a single level which may not suit all needs, using a hierarchical RBS can provide the necessary flexibility with both high-level and more detail as appropriate.

[For details of the RBS concept and use, take a look at the paper where this idea was first described, available online at www.risk-doctor.com/pdf-files/rbs1002.pdf.]


Posted on: July 14, 2015 10:56 AM | Permalink

Comments (10)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
avatar
Kevin Coleman Subject Matter Expert, Author, Speaker and Strategic Advisor| - Insights Pa, United States
One should take extreme care of the list of identified risks. I that was to fall into the wrong hands it could be very troublesome on several fronts.

avatar
Simone Pozzi Senior Management Consultant and Project Manager| BIP (Business Integration Partners) San Lazzaro Di Savena, Bologna, Italy
Thank you for the interesting article. I completely agree with you. Good job! Regards, Simone

avatar
David Hillson The Risk Doctor| The Risk Doctor Partnership Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Thanks Simone!

avatar
Ebenezer Daramola Manager| Ebensoft Consulting Ltd London, United Kingdom
Thanks for the post; quite insightful.

avatar
David Hillson The Risk Doctor| The Risk Doctor Partnership Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Thanks Ebenezer, glad you found this one useful.

avatar
JOSE ALOYSIO DE SOUZA JUNIOR Project Manager, Risk Practitioner| PETROBRAS Salvador, Ba, Brazil
Thank you for your post, Mr David Hilson, as i understand it there are different ways to address risk communication towards different stakeholders; I I was wondering if there is an ideal (or at least the one that you recommend) way of writing risks that call attention to a major stakeholders, as for instance the sponsor or your main client? Thanks!

avatar
David Hillson The Risk Doctor| The Risk Doctor Partnership Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Hi Jose. Thanks for this interesting question. In my opinion, the key is to express each risk using language that reflects the interests of the person who should be managing it. Our goal in communicating about risk is to gain ATTENTION and encourage ACTION.

If we take the definition of risk as “An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has an effect on one or more objectives”, then we should be communicating to sponsors or clients about risks that affect their objectives. So our risk description should refer to those objectives, and indicate why the person needs to pay attention and take action.

I hope this makes sense? Thanks again for asking.
David

avatar
JOSE ALOYSIO DE SOUZA JUNIOR Project Manager, Risk Practitioner| PETROBRAS Salvador, Ba, Brazil
Yes, David it definitely does and i really liked the "call for action" statement, i´ll keep that in mind. Thanks again.

avatar
Vincent Guerard Coach - Trainer - Speaker - Advisor| Freelance Mont-Royal, Quebec, Canada
Using the meta languages the right level will also permit to identify that required action have been taken to change the risk level.

avatar
David Hillson The Risk Doctor| The Risk Doctor Partnership Petersfield, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Hmm, that's an interesting idea Vincent, thank you. I hadn't considered using risk metalanguage in this context.

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

"Stop that! It's silly."

- Graham Chapman, Monty Python's Flying Circus

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors