How to manage the risks you didn't know you were taking
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- In his opening keynote for PMexpo 2017 in Rome in October 2017, David Hillson aimed to expand the way we think about risk so that we can improve the way we manage it in practice. By exploring the full implications of what "uncertainty that matters" really means, we can start to manage the real risks to our projects, including the ones that (until now) we didn't know we were taking.
Daniel Hillson is such a gifted orator and subject matter expert. I'd go as far as calling him an entertainer. Every time I watch him, I can't pull away. Every sentence is a punchline.
Thanks for your support, I'm glad you're entertained while you're learning! (By the way, my name's David, not Daniel!!)
Thanks a lot Dr. David for this great presentation.
I'm glad you liked it.
Thank you so much David, your video are useful as always!
Thanks Nafi, I'm glad you enjoyed this one.
Great presentation 👏 Very informative!
Thanks Jo, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Risk management is a useful concept but it is not a simple concept. It is just an aspect of or part of the dynamics of system management. Here are some of my thoughts:
a) It invites us to think in terms of possibility, probability, confidence (range), and so on
b) It requires that we consider incompatibilities i.e. something which does not go well together or that could push things over a safe threshold,
c) Every system has many different connections that are served by different processes so there are different "what matters" cases (see Transparency further down)
d) Stochastic, etc could be safely replaced with VUCA concept, and VUCA could be fixed with VUCA2. In essence, we need to ask ourselves are we being reactive or proactive?
e) Flow methodology introduces concepts like features, defects, technical debt (something that works but is more like a quick fix), and risk (broader issues, black swans, scanning the horizon)
f) Transparency is very important as it invites insights, provides assurance, everybody can check what matters to them. It enables detectability, context, awareness and so on.
g) Understanding critical characteristics (things that define things that matter) both from internal and external perspective enable proactive and inclusive management of risks and opportunities, tracking ownership, readiness and so on then we act.
h) Clarity i.e. being specific (explicit) in terms of current reality and future reality and action plans to create positive tension to close the gap, along with being proactive about unfamiliar vs familiar and complex vs simple.
i) Feedback i.e. ongoing regular compounding communication in any form that matters to different stakeholders
j) Organisation, as in Cynefin framework, of a current reality: disorganised, complicated, complex (unknown, uncertain), chaotic (black swans) and expected way of addressing it (Lean, Agile, SPC, etc)
k) Theory of Constraints i.e. management by constraints is an extremely useful concept: avoiding burdens, variation, wastes, resistance etc by using appropriate logical tools.
l) Managing stupidity, which is a behaviour, could be easily fixed with a public i.e. visual register of issues and unwanted behaviours along with resolutions that are visible and apply to - all. Visual management is the right tool to reveal patterns of stupidity. Those negatively affected by stupidity will feel acknowledged and conflicts will drop almost immediately.
m) Communism is a misnomer. Communism is more like True North, Heaven on Earth or American Dream, it is about - striving - for something better. What we need to worry about is anything that becomes dogmatic including: dogmatic socialism i.e. "communism", dogmatic capitalism (GFC).
Thanks for this comprehensive (i.e.long!) response. I agree with most of what you say - although I'm confused about why you mention communism?! Thanks again.
@@Risk-Doctor
In global politics, there is a huge elephant in the room that we refuse to talk about.
41:45 - 42:10 You mentioned Communism then later you mentioned NATO, migrants, Brexit, GFC etc as large scale issues.
I do not believe that those events simply happened or that those responsible for global planning did not understand risk management practices.
Since too many (even those that call themselves communists) do not understand the origin of the concept, then simply go with the flow and continue to mislabel and/or misuse the concept I thought it would be appropriate that we re-orient/calibrate our thinking and look at the real cause(s) of large scale problems and conflicts.
48:18 "How you think about something affects how you act towards it. Thinking, beliefs affects behaviour."
Clarity and transparency will help us avoid tripping again and again on the same old problems, most likely named as something new, in the future.
Thank you for your presentation and your comment.
@@LD-wf2yt Thanks for this really helpful further comment. I'd completely forgotten about using the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent geopolitical changes as an example in this presentation. I agree with you about needing to look beneath the surface and trying to understand underlying influences and patterns. Sadly, that topic is too big for a presentation of this sort at a project management conference - which is not to say that it isn't really important.
Thanks again for following through, much appreciated.
Such a beautiful voice.....
Thank you Aown, that's a really nice thing to hear!
Really it's very helpful information and you provided it in nice simple way with live examples.
Glad it was helpful!
"Risk Management is Life Skill" awesome
Thanks!
Wouldn’t we be doing double work if we are identifying strategic risks in a project yet this is done at a higher level e.g portfolio or organizational level?
You're right - IF strategic risks are actually being identified at a higher level. The ideal situation is that risks are identified at each level by those people who own the objectives at that level. But it often happens that higher-level risks are not identified by higher-level managers. In that case, someone else needs to identify them!!
I suggest to consider PESTER Analysis when analysing emergent risks or emergent uncertainty
Thanks for this suggestion. As we discussed by email, PESTER is the same as PESTLE (Regulatory is covered by Legal/Regulatory), but this is a good framework to use when trying to find emergent risks.
Thanks
No problem
unless we say negative uncertainities is a risk
Hi Boaz. Yes, negative uncertainties are risks if they affect achievement of objectives - we also call these "threats".
But positive uncertainties are also risks if they affect achievement of objectives - we call these "opportunities".
44:43
Yes! This was recorded five years ago, in October 2017, and some of us knew then that a respiratory virus pandemic was a real risk - see this short video that I recorded just after Covid struck:
czcams.com/video/FPnSeZVd-tU/video.html
Imagine if you are a mouse...(no thanks). When giving an example to explain a concept why not use examples from your own consulting experience, or other general examples from business or government.
Thanks for this question San. Sometimes it's more powerful to make a point using humour, or using a simple illustration that everyone can understand. You're right that there are many specific examples that I can mention from my experience, and I often share these during client-specific engagements. Perhaps the best answer is to use both - simple humourous examples, and specific business examples. Different people learn in different ways, so using both approaches maximises the learning opportunity. Thanks again.
Just set the trap off and then get the damn cheese...
Haha, love it! Why didn't I think of that?? (because I care about the mouse???) Thanks Steve.
@@Risk-Doctor I do too lol.