I LIKE PMBOK BECAUSE IT IS A BEST PRACTICE KNOWLDGE NOT A FIXED METHODOLOGY SO FROM MY PONIT OF VIEW IN DEALING WITH RISKS IS TO APPLY RISK TRANSFER BY MAKING A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT OR INSURANCE TO PROTECT OUR ORGANISATION FROM RISKS.I KNOW THAT THE PROJECT MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE ALL THE TIME WHETHER THERE IS A CONTRACT OR NOT WITH ANOTHER OR THIRD PART HOWEVER, THE CONTRACT MAY BE USED IN CASE OF CONFLICT OR SOMETHING ELSE IT WORKS WELL .AVOID FOR ME IS NOT A BEST PRACTICE BECAUSE THE PM SHOULD BE A PROACTIVE PERSON AND DEALING WITH ISSUES LIKE A FIGHTER. Saving Changes...
There is no "best" as that implies a practice is suitable in all contexts. Each of the risk response strategies is appropriate given the context of the risk and project. If we have a risk which could cause the project to fail and we are unlikely to be able to change its impact, then avoidance might be an advisable strategy, especially if we are early in the life of the project. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Hossameldin,
I cherish your statement, but the PMBoK does not include 'best' practices, only 'good' practices. As Kiron says, best is always depending on the situation or specific project or risk. What is best for one may not even be good for another.
PMBoK says the practices are good 'for most projects most of the time'.
Mitigation may be appropriate for significant risks, if you cannot avoid them and do not want to accept them. If you share risks with others, like insurances, you still have the risk in your project but you mitigate the damage if the insurance pays.
Being proactive for me rather means to identify the key risks and then plan for them.
BTW - you write in uppercase only which makes it hard to read your questions, probably that is why you get less comments than others. Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Risk transfer is not always possible and comes with a price when it is attempted. He who takes the risk is rewarded for taking the risk and that reward may be more expensive then the benefit. Also, risk transfer has risks in itself. For example the Fixed Price Contract you reference carries with the risk of the contractor not being able to meet the contract obligations, or a poorly written scope of work or undefined site conditions resulting in extras and contract claims.
An example of risk avoidance I have used in the past - If one has no tolerance for risk then don't get out of bed in the morning. But that in itself carries a risk of physical and mental deterioration, the possibility of a house fire and not getting out, starvation, dehydration, etc. Maybe there is less risk in getting up then staying in bed.
Thus, risk management is finding the cost effective solution to a possible problem before the problem occurs, if it occurs. Avoidance, transfer, accepting, and mitigation are all viable options - the question is, which one (or combination) is the most effective. Saving Changes...
Each risk response strategy is effective depending on specific situations. We can't determine that a strategy is always the best to apply. For negative risk, we have a set of options to manage it: avoid, eliminate, transfer, mitigate, accept or scale; for positive risks, strategies are: exploit, enhance, share, accept or scale. Saving Changes...
