Bruce A HayesProject Manager, Scrum Master, Product Owner, and freelance Trainer.| Available to partner with you. Let's review your needs to see if we are
a match.Fort Wayne, IN, United States
What do you think?
As a project Risk Register is created, we have many tools available to quantify the risks and plan responses. Isn't the risk's impact lowered by developing more viable responses?
What about cumulative risk? As the risk register grows and grows, Aren't we stacking risks on top of each other? The overall project risk isn't just the highest impact and probable catastrophe, isn't it a qualitative look at how the risks pile up on top of one another?
Is a small project with many risks, more in peril than a bigger project with just a couple of risks? I have my thoughts but want your opinions! Saving Changes...
The interrelationships between risks is important to assess and certainly our ability to successfully respond to risks or the issues they are realized as is limited the shorter the duration of a project.
This is why there's a need to look at risks from a top-down (overall) and bottom-up (detailed) approach and also the need to scale our risk management focus to the complexity of a given project.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Mike BissonetteBusiness Executive, Adjunct Professor, Training Consutant, Author, Entrepreneur| RTConfidenceLaguna Hills, Ca, United States
Bruce
1. The risk impact and probability can both be lowered via response strategies -- but they usually cost something.
2. If you perform project risk management well, your risk register information will drive your task duration probability functions (assuming you use the most viable means of determining overall project risk -- Modelling and Simulation). Overall project risk is typically communicated in terms of %Confidence (or 100% - %Risk) which is basically the cumulative probability function (or "S" curve) generated via Modelling and Simulation for milestone events.
3. This is dependent on numerous factors, so you cannot make that broad generalization.
Bests, Mike Saving Changes...
Tamer Zeyad SadiqAssistant Cost Manager| Turner & TownsendRiyadh, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Agreed with Kiron!! Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
For management proposes project manager must put the focus on "top ten risk". Is a best practice mostly forgotten. After the first iteration on risk management process the "top ten risk" must be identified in terms of your organization determine according to the risk management practices: making a raking driven by possible money lost, or probability of occurence, or some range, etc. Saving Changes...
RAJESH K LProject Manager, PMP| Bharat Electronics, Bengaluru, IndiaBengaluru, Karnataka, India
It is difficult to decide qualitatively the cumulative impact of risks on project. It is important to perform quantitative assessment of high ranking risks from qualitative analysis to understand the risks at project level.
Higher number of risks may mean it is operationally difficult to manage the project; it is difficult to say that the project is in more danger! One needs to understand the overall impact to decide whether the project is in more danger compared to a project with few risks. Saving Changes...
We use a methodology to aggregate risks into an overall project risk level. It is this overall aggregate risk level that defines project approval authorities and mandatory PM competency levels.
Back to your question: If strategy is to mitigate risk; then yes, but one can also accept the risk "as is" as part of the strategy. Risks are all about probability and their impact, so one can have many high impact risks, but with low probability and vise-versa, so there is no one correct answer. In our realm (government projects), we are instructed to treat any change in the government as a "constraint" and not as a risk, even though when there is a change in government, the project approval process is typically delayed substantially. Saving Changes...
