Project management needs a new breed to succeed (page 1 of 2)

Raise the steel beam from the ground and you would have little chance of anyone being interested, especially if there was no safety net or harness.

The reason gets down to one factor - risk.

With appropriate safety harnesses and nets in use, there would once again be no shortage of volunteers - and why not? With risk clearly identified and managed, the danger to life and limb in this example is reduced to virtually nil, and so people feel comfortable to proceed with the challenge.

It's much the same with risk associated with major projects. Professionals charged with the task of managing these projects identify all risk involved and put in place measures that give clients virtual certainty concerning project outcomes. Or do they?

While this is the ideal, and while most professionals involved with risk management would probably feel that they cover risk effectively in their management of projects, I wonder if all aspects of risk are examined and addressed effectively. Indeed, I wonder how many project professionals really understand risk in all the forms it can and does affect major projects, and the degree of impact various forms of risk can have.

It seems to be the case that the less complex a project is seen to be, the less importance is placed on the management of risk associated with that project.

For many major projects, risk management is limited to a sensitivity analysis at feasibility stage and the inclusion of what is seen to be an appropriate level of contingency fund in the project budget. This might well be an acceptable approach, but only if it is the end result of a detailed analysis of all the risk factors associated with the project.

Risk management should follow the broad principles of cost management. An expansive initial risk profiling approach is to be recommended, and regular review of impact on this profile of various procedures inherent in the project development process should be undertaken.

A key concern with most projects is that any analysis of risk undertaken is limited to the quantitative. The qualitative factors for the most part involve the human factor, and here projects are exposed to dual risk elements. The first flows from the attitude and professional skill and ability of specific operatives, particularly those in key positions. The second is a function of the person's ability to operate and communicate rationally and effectively in an environment that can be contaminated by issues such as corporate politics and social tensions.

On major and/or complex projects, it can often be expected that these issues dominate the technical and contractual in competition for the time and attention of project staff. Consequently, an operative possessing the most finely honed technical proficiency may still need to be regarded as a risk to the project if that person lacks an attitude and level of interpersonal skill appropriate to the specific project environment.


Qualitative Risk Aspects
The obvious yet most important conclusion to be drawn from a review of the risk model is that most quantitative risk elements are intrinsic to the project. A typical exception might be interest rates if not locked in.

On the other hand, the majority of qualitative risk factors have little, if anything, to do with the project as defined in the scope definition documents. They are more related factors impacting on the people who will inter-relate, often across a contractual arrangement, to deliver the project.

As such these factors are generally described to be extrinsic to the project.