SUNNY HELWANDEBUSINESS LEAD| ExxonMobil Services Private LimitedDombivli, Maharashtra, India
Once the project is accepted by project manager with the knowledge of already identified risks then it becomes his responsibilty to plan responses for those risk and communicate those responses or action plan to all concerned stakeholder including sponsor.
A negative risk for which only acceptance is an response strategy, once occured should lead to necessary change requests pertaing to time, cost, scope etc which should be presented to CCB. Saving Changes...
When the PM that a project, it is taken with knowledge of identified risk and the initial mitigation identified.
Generally speaking the PM is responsible to prevent risk using mitigation. Project was accepted by the upper management with knowledge of risk. Some or one of the risk might not have mitigation and the organisation represented by the sponsor have accepted to take a RISK.
Some risk are own by people outside the project, the sponsor for one. Has the sponsor act concerning the RISK? Was it possible? Saving Changes...
Deepa KalangiManager, Program Management, Author, Trainer| CVS HealthCharlotte, NC, United States
I would say it is a collective responsibility. The project sponsor has accepted the risk and it is known. Of course the project manager managed the risk, does not mean he/she alone is responsible for it. Saving Changes...
Stephen GreyAssociate Director| Broadleaf Capital International Pty LtdAustralia
Jun 12, 2017 4:00 PM
Replying to stephen kinnaird
...
I guess for me there are two ways’ to look at this:
1) Did the project fail because the risk was identified but underestimated as to the impact it would cause, and/or the likelihood of it occurring?
Or
2) Did the project fail because the risk was identified to clearly have the potential to end the project should it occur, and the plan was implemented to end the project because it did occur?
If the first is true then the team responsible for quantifying the risk should take responsibility, along with the sponsor for signing off on the plan.
If it was the latter then I wouldn't necessarily call the project a failure. The risks were identified prior to the project, when the risk occurred the decision was made to end the project as per the plan.
The only caveat on option two is that it occurred very early in the project!
It is not black and white. A risk may be accepted and plans made to complete despite the risk but if those plans are not executed competently the failure might lie with the project team.
...
1 reply by stephen kinnaird
Jun 14, 2017 2:00 PM
stephen kinnaird
...
I totally agree, this is a much bigger issue. Any project that has to end before it delivers the original benefits requires investigating
Saving Changes...
stephen kinnairdPresident/CEO| Stem Technical Solutions Inc.Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Jun 13, 2017 12:57 AM
Replying to Stephen Grey
...
It is not black and white. A risk may be accepted and plans made to complete despite the risk but if those plans are not executed competently the failure might lie with the project team.
I totally agree, this is a much bigger issue. Any project that has to end before it delivers the original benefits requires investigating Saving Changes...
Deepesh RammoorthyICT Project Manager ( PMP®AgilePM®Certified ScrumMaster® (CSM®))| Australian Red Cross Blood ServiceTarneit, Vic, Australia
If the project manager accepts unrealistic schedule, scope or cost without due diligence and analysis, it's the Project Manager's fault. That's what planning is supposed to do... Present to the sponsor if constraints are unrealistic and fraught with risks Saving Changes...
"2) Did the project fail because the risk was identified to clearly have the potential to end the project should it occur, and the plan was implemented to end the project because it did occur?
If it was the latter then I wouldn't necessarily call the project a failure. The risks were identified prior to the project, when the risk occurred the decision was made to end the project as per the plan. "
Where a major risk has been identified and communicated clearly, and it then subsequently arises, it can be the correct course of action to close down a project as it is no longer capable of achieving its objectives. That can actually be viewed as a success, as it has saved the organisation expending any further effort or cost. Saving Changes...
Tim PodestaDirector of PM/PMO| Former BP- now IndependentPenn, Bucks, United Kingdom
The project sponsor accepted the risk and presumably the mitigations in place and the potential downside. I can think of 2 examples from my industry experience.
1. The first is commercial such as the size of hydrocarbon reservoir - the economics would have been tested for the downside. If the assumptions did turn out too be optimistic then there should be project lessons learnt for the future.
2. The second is safety such as the risk of a dropped object during a heavy lift - normally there would be full mitigation and the risk action plan for a potentially high impact operation should be approved by the sponsor. The sponsor is ultimately responsible but if an accident did occur there would be a full investigation. Saving Changes...
Prashant SonwaneSr. Program Manager| Winjit Technologies Pvt LtdNashik, Maharashtra, India
Jun 12, 2017 3:22 AM
Replying to Ramachandran Swaminathan
...
If the project failure is due to an identified risk materializing, then whoever gave the approval for going ahead with the project is responsible. This is at a high level.
If you really want to find who exactly, have a look at the risk matrix. What was the probability and impact % given to this particular risk. Pull out the meetings minutes of when this risk was discussed with higher mgmt. Look at whether the probability or impact of the risk was under rated based on the actual scenario. Was there any remediation documented in the matrix.
I am with you Ramachandran. Saving Changes...
Matthew MoreyProject Turn Around and Recovery Expert| C4 Explosive Leadership Training LLCOld Hickory, Tn, United States
I think Aaron Porter is on the right track. If proper Risk Management strategies were used, then not just the Project Sponsor, but the Steering Committee should know what the risks are and the strategies for managing those risks. In addition, each risk should have a "risk owner" whose role is to monitor that risk and make decisions/implement actions in relation to that risk.
All that being said, in many cases, the Project Manager becomes the person who has to shoulder the load, because he/she is responsible for Project Completion; and Sponsors/Steering Committees can certainly suffer from "Reverse Amnesia for Managers"
This is a moment that shows why effective Meeting Minutes and sign-offs are useful to a PM; not just as CYA, but to ensure that everyone is on the same page and able to work toward an effective plan.
