I found a risk register template on this website.
It has a function to calculate the risk score and severity of risk from the probability of risk occurring and performance impact inputs.
Anyone familiar with this risk calculation template?
What type of template do you use for risk score calculation? Saving Changes...
Many organizations still use excel for the elaboration of their templates or a risk prioritization model. I think there is not a unique template because risk management depends on the type of business, context affectation and the organization strategy. So, my recommendation is to use a typical template and make progressively the adjustment that better suit your needs.
I like Excel because I can split the different sort of activities that I wish to track in terms of what activity affect and the type of impact. As you know risk score = P x I, where P: the probability of occurrence and I is the impacts.
Since the impacts measure results in terms of time, cost, image, quality, operation reliability, etc., they are rated according to how they affect the achievement of the goals.
For example, if one of the main goals of the project is the return of the investment, impacts that will increase the budget are classified with a high weighted index.
The aim is to split according to the prioritization of the goals of the project over the outcomes to assess how a materialization of risk can affect them. So, the impact is broken down to track what is the impacted activity and how much the impact is. This enables to provide weight to the impact according to the prioritization of goals. Finally, it builds a table to group the risk score. For example:
5 = extremely critical,
4 = critical,
3 = medium,
2 = minor,
1 = minimum. Saving Changes...
I use the same scale but find that both with 1 to 3 and 1 to 5 there is too much of a tendency to apply the mid-point, 2 or 3 respectively. I prefer the even number, 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 forcing people to commit . However, then you have to deal with 2.5 and 3.5 unless you exclude decimals.
I don't like 1-3 for that reason but with 1-5, I can at least get people to compromise and say 2 or 4. I find sometimes people don't want to commit to the extremes or to the middle and it turns into a bunch of arguing about drawing a fine line when it really doesn't significantly change how we're going to address the risk when the independent evaluations are pretty close. I think it's high, you think it's medium...can we call it 4 and move on? Other numbering systems work too. I just find you can waste a lot of time unnecessarily trying to absolutely quantify the unknown so I generally try and keep it simple.
...
1 reply by Peter Rapin
Jun 25, 2021 7:31 PM
Peter Rapin
...
I prefer to use terms like low, medium low, medium high and high during a risk workshop and convert to 1,2 3, and 4 later, or even one to six (very low and very high) as people tend to get too involved with the numbers forgetting that most of this is WAG (wild ass guessing). A 3 is a specific value whereas a medium high is a generality. Risk assessment and management is critical to project success however one must recognise the subjectiveness and limitations of the assessment process. The chances of getting one risk exposure (probability x impact) somewhat accurate is less than 50% but when considering 100 plus events your overall cumulative accuracy should improve to maybe 75%? Probability analysis becomes a great tool.
Some may argue that risk analysis is so risky that its not worth doing. I would argue that the process itself is the greatest mitigating measure.
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Jun 25, 2021 6:44 PM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
I don't like 1-3 for that reason but with 1-5, I can at least get people to compromise and say 2 or 4. I find sometimes people don't want to commit to the extremes or to the middle and it turns into a bunch of arguing about drawing a fine line when it really doesn't significantly change how we're going to address the risk when the independent evaluations are pretty close. I think it's high, you think it's medium...can we call it 4 and move on? Other numbering systems work too. I just find you can waste a lot of time unnecessarily trying to absolutely quantify the unknown so I generally try and keep it simple.
I prefer to use terms like low, medium low, medium high and high during a risk workshop and convert to 1,2 3, and 4 later, or even one to six (very low and very high) as people tend to get too involved with the numbers forgetting that most of this is WAG (wild ass guessing). A 3 is a specific value whereas a medium high is a generality. Risk assessment and management is critical to project success however one must recognise the subjectiveness and limitations of the assessment process. The chances of getting one risk exposure (probability x impact) somewhat accurate is less than 50% but when considering 100 plus events your overall cumulative accuracy should improve to maybe 75%? Probability analysis becomes a great tool.
Some may argue that risk analysis is so risky that its not worth doing. I would argue that the process itself is the greatest mitigating measure. Saving Changes...
