'Risk-Driven' project management

I agree whole hardly with your comments about project plans. Project plans in themselves should only concentrate on the "ground rules" so to speak about how various aspects of project management will be managed. For us, since we have a phased approach, our "phase" plans will speak to what it is we need to achieve to get to the next phase. It is to provide some substantiation for senior management that gives them confidence in what it is you are doing in each of the phases. For myself, the schedule for the most part is the "plan".
I also agree there is nothing wrong with working backwards, however problems arise when one quickly realizes after some detailed planning that those initial dates/ budgets are not achievable. It then gets really bad, when the sponsor refuses to change the dates and/ or the budget. At this point, logic does not apply in its truest sense. The logic being applied is by those, who themselves do not understand the timelines involved, but instead have made commitments (usually finance related) without consulting with those that must execute the projects. It is a lose-lose scenario that I have seem time and time again. This all goes back to proper planning IMHO.
Your last comment is particularly relevant, as for us in the government, this is often the case of much angst.

Peter,

Risk should be part of project evaluation from the start, maybe more in construction. There is usually two party involve in a construction project, the client and the construction organisation.

From the client point of view many kind of risk need to be evaluated. In the early phase, the organisation need to consider the mode of realization, many option here that put risk on the client or the constructor. That a key input in the project planning.

From the constructor/bidder project should be an early risk evaluation. Many organisation have a go/nogo at that stage, that should evaluate risk vs expected benefits. And has they decide to make a proposal, risk should be thoroughly evaluated during planning and estimation.

Then come winning and execution of the construction, that may include the design.

Kiron suggested David Hillson his blog here
Home Blogs Risk Insights from The Risk Doctor
https://www.projectmanagement.com/blogs/29...The-Risk-Doctor
and he has some webinars here also.

Peter,

You are right, there is more than two, it was to illustrate that risk are not the same if you are the Owner or any other roles in the project context. Some risks are transfer from the owner to any other role according to contractual agreement.

Risk needs to be re-evaluated on a regular basis and may influence future decisions until the project is completed.

So if every decision is risk based, then should every decision made be documented in the risk register?

The question of what decisions to record, where to record them and who should record is an important one. This should be established at the start of the project and is subject to risk/benefit analysis. The Risk Register may not identify all risks but only significant risks. What are significant risks - determine this in the initial analysis based on project complexity and risk tolerance.
That being said, the Project Manager should only be making decisions that have a significant impact on project delivery and thus most likely should be recorded. Most day-to-day decisions should be delegated to staff especially administrative decisions.
Keep in mind that recording decisions may not be project driven but "cover-your-butt" considerations. I have known Project Managers to have a personal Risk Register (at least in their heads if not in writing) - what are my personal/professional risks associated with this assignment and how do I mitigate.