A specific risk has been assessed as having a high likelihood of occurrence and a high impact relative to other identified risks. However, despite its individual severity, its effect on overall project objectives is negligible to minimal.
If this risk is both highly likely and high impact at the individual level, what assumptions are we making that lead us to conclude it has minimal effect on overall project objectives—and are those assumptions truly valid?
The key to this question is the difference between impact relative to the project as a whoile, and relative to other risks. Those are different scales. Let's say most risks have been assessed as having an impact of $1k. A risk that is assessed at a $10k impact is much higher than the others, but if the total project budget is many millions, the $10k risk is negligible compared to the overall project cost.
...
1 reply by Akin Fadare
Mar 18, 2026 2:07 PM
Akin Fadare
...
Keith Novak, I love your analysis using monetary equivalents to explain the risk impact. Comparing the relative impact to the overall impact of the risk on the project. Thanks for the explanation.
Project Manager| AWR Development (BD) Ltd. Cox's Bazer , Bangladesh
Interesting scenario. In such cases, we’re often assuming that the risk is isolated, has strong mitigation in place, or does not sit on the critical path or key deliverables. However, the real concern is whether we are underestimating secondary impacts or interdependencies. A risk may seem negligible at the objective level today, but if conditions change, it can quickly escalate. It’s worth revisiting the assumptions—especially around dependencies, timing, and cascading effects—to ensure the “minimal impact” conclusion is truly valid.
...
1 reply by Akin Fadare
Mar 18, 2026 2:10 PM
Akin Fadare
...
Awesome perspective. The compounding effect of the risk through cascading and understanding the secondary impact should not be neglected. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Md. Golam Rob Talukdar
The key to this question is the difference between impact relative to the project as a whoile, and relative to other risks. Those are different scales. Let's say most risks have been assessed as having an impact of $1k. A risk that is assessed at a $10k impact is much higher than the others, but if the total project budget is many millions, the $10k risk is negligible compared to the overall project cost.
Keith Novak, I love your analysis using monetary equivalents to explain the risk impact. Comparing the relative impact to the overall impact of the risk on the project. Thanks for the explanation.
Interesting scenario. In such cases, we’re often assuming that the risk is isolated, has strong mitigation in place, or does not sit on the critical path or key deliverables. However, the real concern is whether we are underestimating secondary impacts or interdependencies. A risk may seem negligible at the objective level today, but if conditions change, it can quickly escalate. It’s worth revisiting the assumptions—especially around dependencies, timing, and cascading effects—to ensure the “minimal impact” conclusion is truly valid.
Awesome perspective. The compounding effect of the risk through cascading and understanding the secondary impact should not be neglected. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Md. Golam Rob Talukdar Saving Changes...
Senior IS Project Manager| Baycare Health SystemsClearwater, Fl, United States
Akin - when you are doing your risk analysis, there are different actions requirement based on the impact of the risk. In some cases mitigation is needed, in other cases risk avoidance is more appropriate, and some times your project team will want to transfer the risk. In this case, since the risk is going to have little to any impact on your project you can Accept the risk. You have done a great job high-lighting the potential situations and you can manage the results. Saving Changes...
I think it also depends on how the risk links to overall outcomes — if it doesn’t affect the critical path or key milestones, it may be seen as negligible. The real question is whether that assumption holds, especially in the presence of dependencies. Saving Changes...
Michelle MckeePrincipal PMO Architect| Projectmanagertemplate.comEdinburgh, United Kingdom
It’s a risky assumption to make! Often, when a high-severity risk is labeled as having a 'minimal' project effect, we are assuming the project has enough contingency or slack to absorb it. But are we factoring in the 'Dread Factor' or resource diversion? Even if the technical objective stays on track, the effort required to manage a 'highly likely' crisis can bleed resources away from other areas, creating new risks elsewhere. We should definitely validate if our 'negligible' rating is based on data or just optimism." Saving Changes...
I think the interesting tension here is in how “impact” is being defined.
If a risk is assessed as high probability and high impact, but its effect on overall objectives is considered negligible, then we’re likely mixing two different lenses:
• Impact relative to the local event or component vs. • Impact relative to project-level outcomes
That usually points to one of a few things:
• The impact is real but fully absorbed by buffers (contingency, redundancy, resourcing) • The risk is decoupled from critical path or key outcomes • Or we’re labeling something “high impact” at a local level that doesn’t actually translate to objective-level impact
In other words, the contradiction isn’t in the risk — it’s in the model we’re using to evaluate it.
It’s a good reminder that risk matrices only work if “impact” is consistently defined at the level that matters for decision-making.
Otherwise, we end up prioritizing risks that are severe in isolation but irrelevant in practice. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
