Risk – like a car accident – on the program are things we have no real control over, other that preparing as best as possible. For example the “flying machine,” can crash for a possibly unknown reason. It will be known after the crash of course, but at 1st flight test, it was not. The Flight Readiness Review (FRR) will have considered all risks to the 1st flight and either mitigated them or retired them prior to the FRR.

Now along the way, we identify potential causes of a crash and either retire them, mitigate them, or ignore them. The transfer option is not possible, since the client is the system integrator and the “buck stops there.”

The benefit of this approach is it separates the risk responses into – true “risk” and “risks we can do something about.” For the winter driving – your weather is likely more extreme than ours here on the front range – is to have in your car all the “risk response” materials. Blankets, fire starter, emergency radio, etc. etc.

Where the accident situation can’t carry all the response materials – like another car.

So when Duncan says there may be a great number of risk statements, this is a signal that risk management is not being performed well.

The “handleable” risks must be in the Integrated Master Schedule. We know they are risks and we know how to perform risks handling on them – one of the four responses. It’s the ones that we have no pre-defined response for that are the real “risk” to the program.

This allows risk management to focus on the “real” risks and systems engineering and program management to focus on the risks that can be handled.

Risk – like a car accident – on the program are things we have no real control over, other that preparing as best as possible. For example the “flying machine,” can crash for a possibly unknown reason. It will be known after the crash of course, but at 1st flight test, it was not. The Flight Readiness Review (FRR) will have considered all risks to the 1st flight and either mitigated them or retired them prior to the FRR.

Now along the way, we identify potential causes of a crash and either retire them, mitigate them, or ignore them. The transfer option is not possible, since the client is the system integrator and the “buck stops there.”

The benefit of this approach is it separates the risk responses into – true “risk” and “risks we can do something about.” For the winter driving – your weather is likely more extreme than ours here on the front range – is to have in your car all the “risk response” materials. Blankets, fire starter, emergency radio, etc. etc.

Where the accident situation can’t carry all the response materials – like another car.

So when Duncan says there may be a great number of risk statements, this is a signal that risk management is not being performed well.

The “handleable” risks must be in the Integrated Master Schedule. We know they are risks and we know how to perform risks handling on them – one of the four responses. It’s the ones that we have no pre-defined response for that are the real “risk” to the program.

This allows risk management to focus on the “real” risks and systems engineering and program management to focus on the risks that can be handled.

RT @pmstudent: #PMOT Comment on Risk Management in the Snow by Glen B. Alleman [link to post]

– Posted using Chat Catcher

While it may be useful from an analogy purpose, where’s the product or service produced by your drive.

Driving to work, driving to Gamma’s for Christmas or flying the airliner is “operations.” It has risks as well, it has resources and it may have a finite duration. But it doesn’t have many of the other attributes of projects.

This confusion between operations and project dilutes the value of “managing projects,” as well as over generalizes the notion of a project – to include anything and everything – with now beneficial outcome for doing so.

While it may be useful from an analogy purpose, where’s the product or service produced by your drive.

Driving to work, driving to Gamma’s for Christmas or flying the airliner is “operations.” It has risks as well, it has resources and it may have a finite duration. But it doesn’t have many of the other attributes of projects.

This confusion between operations and project dilutes the value of “managing projects,” as well as over generalizes the notion of a project – to include anything and everything – with now beneficial outcome for doing so.