Lenka PincotChief of Staff to the CEO| Project Management InstituteParis, France
That is very interesting question. I’m not comfortable answering it without a context. For instance lower probability with higher impact risk may have its score due to a set of prevention activities which keep its probability low. It may be worth discussing it to ensure that actions are on track. Or the lower probability means that it is out of our hands and not really going to happen.. ? Similar scenarios may exist for the other risk...
if I would be really pushed to decide I would highly probably go for what is right ahead, means the higher probable risk. But I’m glad that in reality we typically know context of our risks. Saving Changes...
I think at first I have to use better metrics. High/Low is not sufficiently descriptive, instead I prefer to use 5 levels (very low, low, mediocre, high, very high). On the other side, I would consider which risk is more complicated to respond. Sometimes a very high impact / low probability is very simple to prevent, but it is possible that a low impact / high probability resonates other risks and become very complicated to respond.
For example, a risk of crane failure during installation of a GTC was improbable but very high impact but it was quite easy to prevent: we reviewed the whole process, control audits and check lists. On the contrary, a missed soil compaction test was considered low impact but very probable. it led into 25mm unbalanced GTC foundation sinking at commissioning phase, and became a disaster to the project. Several months delay and huge repairs costs. Saving Changes...
I would choose the one that is more immediate, require action rapidly.
...
1 reply by Christopher Healy
Jul 02, 2019 3:52 PM
Christopher Healy
...
correct!
Saving Changes...
James ShieldsIS Director - Portfolio Solutions| City and County of San Francisco, SFPDSan Francisco, Ca, United States
Quite honestly this question does not make a lot of sense to me. It is akin to saying 'we have a tie for first place ... but we can only talk about one ... who do you pick?'
You have to talk about both low probably/high impact & high probability/low impact. Since you can't talk about both at the same time, I would start with high probability/low impact since that is more likely to occur first. BUT, you need to follow-up with covering low probability/high impact.
...
1 reply by Christopher Healy
Jul 02, 2019 3:52 PM
Christopher Healy
...
exactly. First place ties have a tie breaker. The key is for the PM to know the tie-breaker. The tie-breaker is timing (the explanation is up a bit in this feed)
Saving Changes...
Christopher HealySR IT Program Manager| General MotorsBerkley, Mi, United States
Jul 02, 2019 3:14 PM
Replying to James Shields
...
Quite honestly this question does not make a lot of sense to me. It is akin to saying 'we have a tie for first place ... but we can only talk about one ... who do you pick?'
You have to talk about both low probably/high impact & high probability/low impact. Since you can't talk about both at the same time, I would start with high probability/low impact since that is more likely to occur first. BUT, you need to follow-up with covering low probability/high impact.
exactly. First place ties have a tie breaker. The key is for the PM to know the tie-breaker. The tie-breaker is timing (the explanation is up a bit in this feed)
...
1 reply by Aaron Porter
Jul 03, 2019 10:47 AM
Aaron Porter
...
You're making an assumption about what the PM knows. PMs are not going to just "know" the tie-breaker. The tie breaker is not timing all by itself. If the impact is almost nothing and can be ignored, it doesn't matter how soon it is going to happen. Even if the PM knows this, it may not be the PM's decision to make. The sponsor or risk owner (who may be an executive who is not part of the project team) may need to make the decision, and if you aren't talking to the sponsor or risk owners, it doesn't matter whether or not you talk to your team.
Saving Changes...
Christopher HealySR IT Program Manager| General MotorsBerkley, Mi, United States
Jul 02, 2019 1:41 PM
Replying to Vincent Guerard
...
I would choose the one that is more immediate, require action rapidly.
It also depends on your risk appetite. If the risk with the lower impact was below your risk appetite threshold, then no action required. We've also introduced, controllability and urgency into our risk score. Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
I would go with the higher probability. Why spend a lot of time developing mitigation, contingency and fallback action plans if there's a large chance you won't need them? Saving Changes...
exactly. First place ties have a tie breaker. The key is for the PM to know the tie-breaker. The tie-breaker is timing (the explanation is up a bit in this feed)
You're making an assumption about what the PM knows. PMs are not going to just "know" the tie-breaker. The tie breaker is not timing all by itself. If the impact is almost nothing and can be ignored, it doesn't matter how soon it is going to happen. Even if the PM knows this, it may not be the PM's decision to make. The sponsor or risk owner (who may be an executive who is not part of the project team) may need to make the decision, and if you aren't talking to the sponsor or risk owners, it doesn't matter whether or not you talk to your team. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
