Project risk management processes techniques in sights phần 4 potx

As discussed in Part I, effective risk management needs to address uncertainty in a broad sense, with early consideration of all sources ofuncertainty and associated responses.. As indic

Identify the issues

7

Zaphod put on the sunglasses They were a double pair of Joo Janta 200Super Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, which had been specially designed tohelp people develop a relaxed attitude to danger At the first hint of trouble theyturn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might harmyou.—D Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Introduction

Most project risk management process (RMP) descriptions emphasize a need toidentify ‘risks’ early in the process, typically restricting this to risk events andsometimes to just threats As discussed in Part I, effective risk management needs

to address uncertainty in a broad sense, with early consideration of all sources ofuncertainty and associated responses As indicated in Chapter 4, the SHAMPU(Shape, Harness, And Manage Project Uncertainty) identify phase involvesidentifying ‘sources’ and associated possible responses and secondary sourcesarising from these responses For convenience, we use the word ‘issues’ to refer

to individual sources, their associated responses, and secondary sources It isthese ‘issues’ rather than ‘risks’ that need identification and subsequent manage-ment Identifying issues involves two specific tasks:

1 search—for sources and responses, employing a range of techniques;

2 classify—to provide a suitable structure for defining sources and responses,aggregating or disaggregating particular issues as appropriate

The key deliverable is a clear, common understanding of the sources of tainty facing the project and what can be done about them Opportunities need

uncer-to be identified and managed with the same resolve as threats, as part of thesame process Sometimes opportunities and threats are closely coupled, but thisneed not be the case Often an RMP is particularly successful because theprocess of generating and reviewing responses to threats leads to the identifica-tion of important opportunities, with implications well beyond the uncertaintythat led to their identification

The identify phase can be treated as an iterative five step process, as shown inFigure 7.1, with each step involving both search and classify tasks The first stepinvolves a simple first cut at the identification of sources associated with the keyperformance criterion Step 2 explicitly expands this focus in three important

dimensions Step 3 considers associated responses Step 4 considers associatedsecondary sources and responses Step 5 elaborates on the very basic searchprocess used to kick off the first five steps A specific assess task then initiatesloops back to earlier steps if necessary As with Figures 5.1 and 6.1, the Figure7.1 portrayal of the identify phase is deliberately simplified to illustrate the spirit

of what is involved In practice, things may not happen according to this model,but the model is a useful target that can help to maintain focus and order.The identify phase involves the identification of at least one assumed responsefor each identified source A generic ‘do nothing’ response is one option, but thiswill not be appropriate in some cases A preliminary list of obvious responseoptions indicating preferences associated with all sources is a recommendedoutput on a first pass Detailed lists of response options may be deferred untillater passes for those sources that prove significant, but early identification ofresponse options can form the basis of a concerted opportunity identificationprocess that goes beyond simple threat management Risk efficiency is aboutgenerating options that may lead to better plans, responses to sources providingthe starting point from an RMP perspective

Figure 7.1—Specific tasks of the identify phase

In terms of documentation, the identify phase involves the production of a list

or register of sources However, it is important to co-ordinate SHAMPU ‘sourcelist’ equivalents with associated ‘upstream’ lists generated in the define phase and

‘downstream’ lists involving responses and secondary issues Generalizing theSCERT (Synergistic Contingency Planning and Review Technique) approachdeveloped for BP and later ‘risk engineering’ versions for other contexts involves

a numbering system of the form u, v, w, x for response x specific to source warising in the context of activity v where u is defined as follows:

u¼ 1 is concerned with parties (who)

7 PLC (project life cycle)

When relevant, secondary sources and responses involve extending this ing system to the form u, v, w, x, y, z, for secondary response z to secondarysource y A key increase in process efficiency and effectiveness is provided bythe use of simple ‘labels’ (‘handles’) for each u, v, w, x, y, and z element, andenough associated text (‘descriptions’) to clarify what is involved Being able toaccess this information flexibly can be very useful (e.g., producing a list of issues

number-a pnumber-articulnumber-ar individunumber-al or tenumber-am is responsible for) The common verify, number-assess, number-andreport tasks are dependent on an effective approach to this document task.Example 7.1 illustrates the two specific tasks of searching and classifying in-volved in all the identify phase steps The search task was concerned with theidentification of issues like pipe ‘buckles’ The classify task was concerned withrecognizing the significant difference between ‘wet buckles’ and ‘dry buckles’ forrisk management purpose

Example 7.1 Identifying and classifying ‘buckle’ issues in

pipe layingLaying offshore pipelines in the North Sea in the mid-1970s was deemed aparticularly risky activity, so examination of sources received considerableattention About 40 sources were identified, including the lay barge arrivinglate, the lay barge not operating as quickly as planned given good weather,encountering bad weather, pipe ‘buckles’, and so on

The large number of sources involved made it particularly obvious thatrules of thumb needed to be developed to help decide how many separatesources should be identified, and how some different sources might be

grouped under a common heading or label and treated collectively Thisprocess issue is usefully illustrated in relation to pipe ‘buckles’, which couldtake two basic forms: a ‘dry buckle’ or a ‘wet buckle’.

A dry buckle involves a kink in the pipe and/or the loss of some of theconcrete coating If a dry buckle occurs, the pipeline can be pulled back onboard the lay barge, the buckled section cut off, and pipe-laying can thencontinue Very little pipe or time are lost

A wet buckle involves a fracture in the pipe that allows water to rush in.The pipe quickly becomes too heavy for the barge to hold, ripping itself offthe barge unless it is released quickly It then sinks to the ocean floor andcontinues to fill with water and debris

It was very important to distinguish between wet and dry buckles Drybuckles were a minor problem, conveniently put together with other

‘productivity variations’ to cover a range of problems not worth separateanalysis, although identification in terms of a comprehensive list of ex-amples was useful Wet buckles were a major problem, worth designating

as a separate source (called ‘buckles’ without the need to use the word

‘wet’ every time they were referred to)

All sources need to be classified as ‘wet buckle equivalents’ or ‘dry buckleequivalents’, initiators of major issues to be treated separately or minor issues

to be treated collectively

Technical sources of the kind illustrated by Example 7.1 are useful forillustrative purposes throughout this book, because they are unambiguous.Market-related sources and institutional sources may be just as important inpractice (Miller and Lessard, 2001), and some technical sources may bemuch more difficult to deal with (Klein and Cork, 1998), but the same principlesapply

Some descriptions of identify phase tasks concentrate initially on assessing theeffects of sources without reference to associated responses, leaving considera-tion of responses until later and then only consider alternatives in relation tomajor issues We recommend an early, proactive approach to responses asindicated above The essence of the matter is:

1 do not waste time considering alternative responses if the first one thought of

is both effective and efficient;

2 do not overlook key responses;

3 do not overlook the apparently minor problem that has no effective fix once itoccurs;

4 identify opportunities that may have implications beyond the issues that gered their consideration;

trig-5 explore deeper levels of uncertainty where this is particularly important

Sources associated with the key

performance criterion

The simplest way to begin the identify phase is to adopt a simple ponderapproach to the identification of what might be termed key criterion, level one,primary issues (more conveniently referred to as KLP issues) Key criterion issuesare sources and associated responses that impact directly on the most important

or central project performance criterion Level one issues are sources ofuncertainty and responses that can be linked directly to an uncertain effect on

a performance criterion of interest, without reference to an uncertainty structureinvolving multiple levels of disaggregated or contributory sources Primary issuesare issues associated with base plans or designs or other base assumption aspects

of the project, as distinct from secondary issues associated with sources arisingfrom primary responses The following example clarifies what is meant by KLPissues

Example 7.2 Identifying key criterion, level one, and primary

issues (KLP issues)Offshore oil and gas projects in the early 1970s experienced widespreadplanning and costing failure, in that many projects came in late and overcost

The key criterion was time Most cost uncertainty was driven by timeuncertainty (delay), and trade-offs between time and cost or performancewere not a significant issue Time uncertainty was directly linked to theexecution of project activities, the whichway in terms of the six W s, at theexecute stage of the PLC (project life cycle)

Part of the reason for the planning and costing failure was the absence of

a formal process for considering sources of uncertainty However, most ofthe people involved could provide a list of primary sources that coulddirectly impact on project duration without much hesitation given acarefully executed define phase in terms of the project’s activity structure.When a formal RMP (risk management process) was introduced, identifica-tion of a list of primary sources in level-one terms was reasonably straight-forward

Examples of such sources were provided in Example 7.1: the lay bargearriving late, the lay barge not operating as quickly as planned given goodweather, encountering bad weather, pipe buckles, and so on

Sources associated with the key performance criterion 109

Sources associated with other

performance criteria

As noted in Chapter 1, there are a number of problems associated with defininguncertainty and risk in relation to performance that can be viewed as opportu-nities One problem (or opportunity) is the multidimensional nature of projectperformance In some circumstances a case can be made for keeping the meas-urement of performance and success very simple, but such conditions are com-paratively rare More commonly, project objectives might be viewed in terms ofcost, time, or quality Cost might be addressed in terms of capital cost or ‘wholelife’ cost and quality might be divided into technical specification, functionality,and appearance, each of which may be ‘at risk’ to different degrees Oftenperformance is perceived primarily in terms of dimensions that can be measured,such as time and cost or particular aspects of quality The implication is thatvariations are possible and measurable, and hence uncertainty exists in respect ofthese performance criteria Other criteria that are not readily quantified may betreated as inviolate constraints for project management purposes This may lead

to neglect of uncertainty in these dimensions, even though they representimportant performance criteria These problems (opportunities) need to beaddressed in this step

Even if one criterion clearly dominates, such as time in a North Sea offshoreproject context, other criteria will be important Uncertainty not identified in theframeworks used for the key criteria will need explicit attention Consider anexample, building on Example 7.2

Example 7.3 Building cost uncertainty on a time

uncertainty frameworkWhen North Sea offshore project teams were satisfied that time uncertaintyhad been properly assessed, aspects of cost uncertainty not addressed aspart of the process of responding to time uncertainty were assessed Forexample, the uncertain duration of pipe-laying activity was multiplied bythe uncertain cost of lay barge per unit time needed to compute lay bargecost

In this case it is relatively simple to build cost uncertainty on a time uncertaintyframework When a clear structure linking criteria exists, it is worth exploiting.When it does not, more complex approaches may be required, and this complex-ity requires great care For example, many weapon system and informationsystem RMPs identify sources in terms of time, cost, and performance impactssimultaneously, using matrix formats This may seem sensible for a first-pass

approach to the identify phase However, it poses two somewhat different tial problems First, it does not facilitate a clear, sequential focus on performancecriteria, which helps to avoid omissions Second, it leaves structural and trade-offissues to be addressed later as they must be for quantification, and this canmitigate against appropriate quantification By impeding quantification, itimpairs the iterative process that is central to a complete RMP.

poten-Much more detailed analysis of objectives, including their decomposition in astructure directly related to project activities or design components, may beuseful in some cases For example, in a high-technology product developmentproject, if a set of components is assessed as very risky, it may be possible todesign out the uncertainty by changing the basic nature of the design, perhaps aspart of a formal value management process (Green, 1994) This will require aclear understanding of the functional role of the components in the overalldesign It involves an interaction between the project why and what Thegroundwork for identification of such issues should have been provided back

in the define phase

It is important to address these difficulties explicitly as part of the focus phase

or the closely linked structure phase Guidance on how to manage such culties is beyond the scope of this book, but a starting point for those interested

diffi-is provided by Chapman et al (1985a), Klein (1993), and Chapman and Ward(2002)

Even if only one project party is of concern, it is very important to defineobjectives in writing and their relative priorities Often different parts of the sameorganization have different objectives At the very least, agreed priorities in terms

of time, cost, and performance are essential If differences are very important,treating the different parts of the organization as separate partners may beappropriate This takes us into different criteria related to different parties anduncertainty associated with other W s

Sources associated with other W s

It is convenient to start with a focus on the KLP issues, then generalize toconsider other criteria from the perspective of the key player (assumed to bethe client here), then move on to other W s For present purposes assume thattime is the key criterion, with cost driven by time as in Examples 7.2 and 7.3, and

we now want to move on

Project risk management, which is largely focused on time uncertainty (aproject why), is naturally addressed in terms of project activities (the projectwhichway), but the other project W s are usually important and associated un-certainty will usually need explicit attention As a consequence, this step isconcerned with considering the other four W s: who, what, when, and where-withal, using as a basis the documentation of all six W s from the define phaseand other interactions of all six W s as a complete set

Considering the complete set of W s can reveal some key sources, associatedresponses, and in some cases secondary sources, with important interactions thatrequire management Below we consider each of these four W s in turn, not togenerate an exhaustive, generic list of possible sources, which would be im-practicable and inappropriate, but to illustrate the range of areas that could beconsidered.

Sources associated with other parties, the who

Chapter 5 indicated the importance of documenting clear descriptions of all theinterested parties during the define phase The concern here is an effective issueidentification process using this earlier identification of the relevant parties.Examples 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate what is involved to some extent, but consideranother example

Example 7.4 The need to keep partners informed of

possible changesJoint venture partners are important to address explicitly, in terms of theinterests and roles of all the partners Many offshore oil projects involve alead partner who takes operational responsibility and other partners whohelp to fund the project and share the product A significant change inplans will require approval by all the partners If they are not all keptinformed of the possible need to make such changes, managing the deci-sion to change the plan can be a question of crisis management rather thanrisk management, adding to the cost of the incidents necessitating thechange or eliminating the possibility of responding to an opportunity

Multination military joint ventures, such as the development of new weaponsystems or their platforms (aircraft, ships, etc.), make the who dimension veryrich indeed, due, for example, to different technical requirements, different needs

in terms of timing, and different contracting systems between the partners andtheir contractors It clearly complicates the why, in the sense that each party’sobjectives need attention

Regulators, planning authorities, and others providing approvals may alsoprove to be key players For example, combined cycle gas turbine power stationsinvolve warm water discharges into rivers and vapour plumes that are regulated,

in addition to the planning permission issues associated with such plant Nuclearpower stations involve obviously increased levels of regulation, including safetystandards that may be changing during construction, necessitating redesigns withdelays that yield still more regulation-induced design changes in a vicious circle,

which can prove extremely expensive Channel tunnel rolling stock developmentand production encountered this kind of difficulty To manage this kind of source

it is important to understand what is driving changes in the regulatory ment and to endeavour to meet the regulations that will be relevant at theappropriate time in the future, rather than those currently in force

environ-Competitors for limited resources (wherewithal) can also prove a profitablearea of study For example, oil majors have attempted to avoid bidding up theprice for key scarce resources by timing their projects (moving the when) toavoid excessive competition If only a half a dozen players are involved, indi-vidual study and perhaps direct collaboration may be feasible More generally, itmay be appropriate to look at the markets for specific resources as a whole.Successful commercial property developers are aware of the need to time newbuilding construction, hopefully while the market for resources and cash aredepressed, just before the market for office space takes off Many failed devel-opers are also well aware of the importance of these considerations too late.Much of the uncertainty inherent in project management arises from agentsappointed by the client, such as contractors and subcontractors The client maynot be able to rely on an agent performing as the client wishes for reasonsrelated to the nature of the work and the agent’s motivation, ability, and under-standing of the work In theory, it should be possible for the client to maximizethe chances of satisfactory performance from the agent by careful selection of asuitable agent, careful monitoring of the agent’s activities, and ensuring that theagent is appropriately motivated Unfortunately, lack of knowledge on the part ofthe client and the presence of uncertainty can make these things difficult toachieve

The so-called ‘principal–agent’ relationship, whether between parties in thesame organization, or between a client and contractor, is prone to threefundamental problems: adverse selection; moral hazard; and risk allocation(Eisenhardt, 1989)

Adverse selection refers to misrepresentation of ability by the agent and theprincipal’s difficulty in selecting an agent with appropriate skills The agent mayclaim to have certain skills or abilities when hired, but the principal cannotcompletely verify these skills or abilities either at the time of hiring or whilethe agent is working A ‘selection’ problem can also arise where a contractormisrepresents the work that will be done or the likely final price Once acontractor has been hired, it may be difficult for the client to ensure that costsare contained and work promised is what is actually delivered

Moral hazard refers to an agent’s failure to put forth the contracted effort.This can be of greatest concern to the principal when it is particularly difficult orexpensive for the principal to verify that an agent is behaving appropriately, aswhen task specifications are inadequate or the principal lacks knowledge of thedelegated tasks

Risk allocation concerns the manner in which responsibility for project-relatedissues (sources and responses) is allocated between principal and agent Risk

allocation is very important because it can strongly influence the motivation ofprincipal and agent and the extent to which uncertainty is assessed andmanaged In so far as principal and agent perceive risks differently and havedifferent abilities and motivations to manage uncertainty, then their approach torisk management will be different In particular, either party is likely to try tomanage uncertainty primarily for his or her own benefit, perhaps to the disad-vantage of the other party This issue is explored in more detail in Chapter 16.The uncertainties arising from problems of adverse selection, moral hazard,and risk allocation are more likely to arise where principal and agent are sep-arate organizations, as in most client–contractor relationships Where principaland agent belong to the same organization it might be expected that such prob-lems would be less likely to arise, to the extent that the parties can shareinformation, responsibilities, and objectives more readily Unfortunately, this isnot always the case Chapman and Ward (2002, chap 6) explores ‘internalcontracts’ to address such issues.

Sources associated with project design, the what

Many of the important sources associated with a project relate to the specificphysical nature of the project and its design, to the what of the project Therelationship may be direct and obvious or indirect and easily overlooked Forexample, many risk management methods for high technology products (such asadvanced weapon systems) suggest an explicit focus on technical issues arisingfrom design because using a design based on the latest technology may involvesources associated with technical failures or reliability problems Using a designbased on established technology may avoid certain technical sources but involveother sources associated with more aggressive competitors who are willing andable to manage the uncertainty involved in new technology That is, avoiding atechnical source may involve generating a competitor-based source, but wherethe choice of technology is implicit, competitor-based sources may not be seen

as a related issue

Design changes are often a major threat However, freezing the design is oftennot a viable option Hospitals, military equipment, computer software, andcomparatively simple consumer products may require design updates duringdevelopment and production to remain viable Anticipating these changes inneeds may be the key to successful design, as well as the key to a successfulproject more generally Attention to procedures for ‘change control’ (designchanges) should be recognized as central to any project involving a designthat is neither simple nor stable

Effective anticipation of design changes is part of the RMP Links to other W smay be quite simple but very important, requiring an understanding of the what,with the whichway and why assumed to have been covered earlier, and thewherewithal and when yet to be considered For example, property developers

will be sensitive to issues like how many car-parking places a planning ment may require for a new building now, and whether or not this is likely toincrease by next year A design that fails to reflect this sort of change canseriously threaten a project At the very least it requires a clear understanding

depart-of the technologies involved and the interface between technological choicesand related issues For example, the development of computer-controlled fly-by-wire technology revolutionized aircraft design because inherently unstabledesigns that previously would not have been able to fly became feasible, but

a whole new set of sources were generated that were not all anticipated at theoutset

It is important to appreciate that what is the recipient of effects from other W s

as well as a primary source, and these effects can generate substantial order effects For example, if some combination of problems from a variety ofsources threatens the viability of the target project completion time or date, or itscost, the response may be a change in design This may have the desired effect

second-or it may make the situation wsecond-orse This impact is well understood in thesecond-ory interms of the standard time–cost–quality triangle (Barnes, 1988), but it is oftenoverlooked in practice Part of the role of documenting the six W s in the definephase, and review of this documentation in the identify phase, is explicit identi-fication of these issues

Sources associated with project resources,

Example 7.5 Factors influencing the supply of welders

A very early study by Chapman was totally driven by the impact of a scarceresource: welders needed for the fabrication of a proposed, large-diameter,gas pipeline to bring Arctic gas to US markets The availability of welderswas central to the project because political pressures were forcing a shortproject duration (a when issue) that required a significant proportion (of theorder of 10%) of the suitably skilled welders available in Canada Otherfactors influencing the availability of welders also needed to be understood,such as immigration rules that would make importing labour difficult orimpossible and a recognition that Arctic construction of this kind oftenleads to a pattern of employment that involves long hours (and weeks)

for an extended period when cash is accumulated by the workforce,followed by a spell on a sunny island until the cash runs out, the duration

of both periods depending on the welders’ circumstances and whims

Potential shortage of various resources is not the only resource-related source ofuncertainty In the context of computer software projects, there is a widely heldview that adding more staff to a software project that is running very late is ratherlike attempting to drown a fire by pouring on petrol Usually economic usage ofresources suggests self-imposed constraints even if there are no externallyimposed constraints For example, employing 300 people one week, 100 thenext, and 200 the next, is generally very uneconomic compared with 200throughout If all the resources required are readily available in the requiredquantities at the required times with no difficulties associated with quality orperformance, and no costs associated with highly variable resource usagepatterns, the wherewithal issue is not worth pursuing At the very least it isworth confirming that this is the case, in writing if appropriate

It may be convenient to identify and describe resource requirements withal ) within the activity (whichway) structure, but resources shared with otherprojects mitigate against this, making separate wherewithal documentation useful

(where-If a project is subject to political pressure to employ local labour or otherresources it makes obvious sense to identify this type of consideration in relation

to those resources that are relevant, which has implications for how the resourceunits are defined As in the case of activities, the basic rule of thumb is dis-aggregate resource types only when it looks useful to do so

Sources associated with project timing, the when

Like design (what), timing (when) can be an important primary source of certainty over and above the timing implications of delay considered earlier and

un-a recipient of impun-acts from other W s, which cun-an generun-ate importun-ant order effects Formal documentation of the W s is concerned with making surethese issues do not fall down cracks and get lost from sight until they generate acrisis Example 5.6 illustrates a timing/resource link, in terms of overstated timeuncertainty if common resource usage is overlooked

second-Even if no first- or second-order implications are involved, project duration is

an economic choice that needs explicit attention For example, the study cerned with welders described in Example 7.5 addressed the question of anoptimal target project duration explicitly, in response to the political pressurefor a shorter duration But even if no one outside the project team asks questionsabout project duration, the issue of trade-offs between time (indirect cost) anddirect cost is important At this stage in the process the question needs to beraised in broad terms For example, if the proposed project duration is five years,

con-the question is why not four, or six? If con-the answer is not clear, furcon-ther attention tothe issue will be required and the need to give it attention should be flagged.From the outset it is important to be clear what level of overhead costs per unittime will be incurred in relation to any project extensions.

A simple first cut at identifying primary sources might involve a simple list ofall the sources associated with each W and brief notes on relevant issues inrelation to each source, merging steps 1 and 2 of Figure 7.1 At any stage inthe process the use of a simple label (or ‘handle’) for each source can be veryhelpful for discussion purposes, while back-up descriptions for each sourcedocument what is involved However, no matter how clear the output looks, ifall key sources for all six W s have not been properly understood and thatunderstanding documented and shared by the project team, issue identificationcannot be effective For example, failure to consider market and political sourcesassociated with why or what can render detailed planning and risk analysis ofwhichway and when somewhat superfluous Additionally, market and politicalsources may be driven by technical choices

A complementary second-cut (or alternative first-cut) approach is to look foruncertainty associated with the elements of a hierarchical framework based onone or more of the six W s, starting with the obvious framework for the keycriteria, as suggested by the separate steps 1 and 2 of Figure 7.1 Thus a startingpoint might be a work breakdown structure based on a decomposition of thewhichway, a product breakdown structure based on a decomposition of the what,

or an objectives breakdown structure based on a decomposition of the why.Whichever hierarchical basis is chosen, the other five W s provide a promptlist for identifying sources at each level in the adopted hierarchy

Whatever the exact nature of the first-pass approach, it is important to seeFigure 7.1 as a portrayal of tasks to be achieved to a ‘fit for the purpose’ level foreach pass, with an emphasis on early aspects of step 2 on the early passes,moving the emphasis toward later aspects on later passes

Sources in other stages of the project life cycle (PLC)

A project risk management focus on time uncertainty associated with whichwayuncertainty is almost a basic instinct if the RMP is initiated at the end of the planstage as assumed here Step 1 and the part of step 2 of the identify phaseaddressed in the previous sections of this chapter were concerned with ensuringthat other criteria and other W s did not get ignored An obvious further elabora-tion is a review of uncertainty associated with other stages in the PLC Chapter 14will address the process implications of being at other stages, but a useful step atthis point in the RMP is making sure sources of uncertainty that may notmaterialize until later in the PLC and sources that may have been overlooked

in earlier stages are addressed now

Sources in other stages of the project life cycle (PLC) 117

As noted in Chapter 2, many important sources are associated with the mental management processes that make up the PLC A fair number of sourcesare implicitly acknowledged in lists of project management ‘key success factors’.Potential sources typically identified in this way are listed in Table 7.1 against theappropriate PLC stages identified in Chapter 2.

funda-Table 7.1—Typical uncertainty management issues in each stage of the

project life cycle (PLC)

conceive the product level of definition

definition of appropriate performance objectivesmanaging stakeholder expectations

design the product novelty of design and technology

strategically determining ‘fixed’ points in the design

control of changesplan the execution identifying and allowing for regulatory constraints

strategically concurrency of activities required

capturing dependency relationshipserrors and omissions

allocate resources adequate accuracy of resource estimates

tactically estimating resources required

defining responsibilities (number and scope of contracts)defining contractual terms and conditions

selection of capable participants (tendering procedures and bidselection)

execute production exercising adequate co-ordination and control

determining the level and scope of control systemsensuring effective communication between participantsprovision of appropriate organizational arrangementsensuring effective leadership

ensuring continuity in personnel and responsibilitiesresponding effectively to sources that are realizeddeliver the product adequate testing

adequate trainingmanaging stakeholder expectationsobtaining licences to operatereview the process capturing corporate knowledge

learning key lessonsunderstanding what success meanssupport the product provision of appropriate organization arrangements

identifying extent of liabilitiesmanaging stakeholder expectations

The identification of these sources of uncertainty in the project managementliterature is based on substantial project management experience, but it is some-what haphazard Different writers identify different success factors or problemareas, describe them in more or less detail, or identify as single-problem areaswhat may in practice be a whole series of separate issues Another difficulty isthat sources of uncertainty are identified as adverse effects rather than in terms ofunderlying causes or uncertainties For example, potential problems in theexecute stage of a project can often be related to weaknesses in particularearlier stages of the project: ‘failure of prototype to pass performance trials’may be a consequence of faulty workmanship, unreasonable performancerequirements, a choice of new technology, or novel design features.

Conceive the product

Stakeholder expectations associated with a conceive stage that is not subjected toformal risk management until the end of the plan stage can be a major issue, ascan performance objectives in terms of relative priorities This is never an accept-able reason for avoiding these issues, but it can make managing an RMP a veryhigh-risk operation

Designing and planning

A common source of project risk inefficiency is a failure to carry out steps in thedesign and plan stages thoroughly enough Thus a project proceeds through toexecution with insufficiently well-defined specifications for production Duringexecution this gives rise to difficulties necessitating additional design develop-ment and production planning, and consequently adverse effects on the perform-ance criteria of cost, time, and quality Related risk inefficiency associated with

‘premature definition’ is also difficult to avoid entirely, except on very routine,repeated projects, and the problem is most acute in novel, one-off projectsinvolving new technology The basis of both problems is that it is extremelydifficult to specify in advance how every part of the execution and terminationphase will take place; neither is it cost-effective to seek to do so In any case,some uncertainty about operating conditions and related factors outside thecontrol of project management will always remain Inevitably, judgements have

to be made about the degree of detail and accuracy practicable in the design andplan stages However, these judgements should be supported and informed byappropriate risk analysis that is undertaken no later than the end of the plan stage

them As noted on p 113, the introduction of an agent is prone to the threeproblems of adverse selection, moral hazard, and risk allocation In particular,this stage of a project can introduce several sources of uncertainty with signifi-cant risk inefficiency implications:

1 participants have different priorities and risk/uncertainty perceptions;

2 unclear specification of responsibilities (including those relating to the agement of uncertainty and risk);

man-3 communications between different departments or organizations;

4 co-ordination and control tasks

Even if client and agents all work for the same organization, the problemspresented by these uncertainties can be substantial When agents are differentorganizations, these problems can be particularly challenging

In a client–contractor situation, the client exerts influence over the contractorprimarily via conditions laid down in a contract between the two parties Thecontract sets out what is to be produced, what the client will pay, how the clientcan assess and monitor what the contractor has done, and how things shouldproceed in the case of various contingent events In theory, the contract seeks toreduce uncertainty about each party’s responsibilities In practice, substantialuncertainties can remain associated with items such as the following:

1 inadequate or ambiguous definition of terms (specifications; responsibilities ofparties to co-operate, advise, co-ordinate, supervise);

2 inappropriate definition of terms (performance specifications; variations;extensions);

3 variations (powers to order; express and implied terms; pricing and paymentmechanisms);

4 payment and claims arrangements (timing and conditions for payment);

5 defects liability (who has to be satisfied; who could be responsible; extent ofliability)

Effective risk management toward the end of the plan stage should look forwardand anticipate these issues, putting effective responses in place

Execution

During the execute stage, the essential process issue is the adequacy of ordination and control procedures Thus co-ordination and control ought toinclude risk management practices as ‘good project management practices’ thatamount to:

co-1 milestone management;

2 adequate monitoring of activities likely to go wrong;

3 ensuring realistic, honest reporting of progress;

4 reporting problems and revised assessments of future issues

A common source of risk inefficiency in the execution phase is the introduction

of design changes Such design changes can lead to disruption of schedules andresourcing, and affect cost, time, and quality measures of performance directly Apotentially serious concern is that changes are introduced without a full apprecia-tion of the knock-on consequences Apart from direct consequences, indirectconsequences can occur For example, changes may induce an extension ofschedules, allowing contractors to escape the adverse consequences of delays

in works unaffected by the change Changes may have wider technical tions than first thought, leading to subsequent disputes between client andcontractor about liability for costs and consequential delays (Cooper, 1980;Williams et al., 1995a, b) Standard project management practice should establishproduct change control procedures that set up criteria for allowable changes andprovide for adequate co-ordination, communication, and documentation ofchanges However, adjustments to production plans, costs, and payments toaffected contractors ought to be based on an assessment of how project risksare affected by the changes and the extent to which revised risk managementplans are needed

implica-In a repetitive, operational context, human failings can be a significant source

of risk inefficiency Studies of accidents and disasters often identify ‘human error’and ‘management error’ as major contributory causes (Kletz, 1985; EngineeringCouncil, 1993, app 3) Such risk inefficiency may be evident in a project setting.Although the novelty of a project can discourage complacency and carelessness

to some degree, the project context is often characterized by sufficient novelty,complexity, work pressure, and uncertainty as to increase greatly the likelysignificance of human failure or error

In any organizational context, a number of factors influence the performance

of an individual participant, as shown in the left-hand column of Table 7.2.Failure in individual performance, whether amounting to inadequate or incorrectperformance, may be related to one or more of these factors in a wide variety ofways, as shown in the right-hand column of Table 7.2

In a project context, sources of risk inefficiency of the kind listed in Table 7.2could feature in any stage of the PLC However, seeking to identify such sourcesassociated with individuals at every PLC stage may represent an excessive level

of analysis More usefully the factors in Table 7.2 might be applied to particulargroups of individuals or to individual participating organizations In the lattercase it is easy to see how the sources of risk inefficiency of Table 7.2 might

be associated with individual departments or whole organizations acting, forexample, in the capacity of contractors or subcontractors

Sources in other stages of the project life cycle (PLC) 121

Deliver and support

Looking forward to the deliver and support stages, and developing appropriateresponses for key sources while still in the plan stage, can reduce or eliminatepotential later problems at relatively low cost The key here is identifying whichissues need this attention in the plan stage and which do not

Table 7.2—Possible causes of inadequate or incorrect performance by individuals

task perception following instructions that are incorrect

failure to realize responsibilitypersonal interpretation of a task requiredmistaken priorities, such as taking short cuts through safetyrules to save time

capability and experience lack of appropriate training or skills to perform a task

failure to follow instructionslack of appreciation of consequences of actionsinappropriate choice of procedure to achieve desiredoutcome

jumping to conclusions about the nature of a situationwork environment information overload makes it difficult to identify important

pieces of information and easier to ignore or delay scrutinytask overload impairs ability to monitor developments andformulate reactive or proactive responses

difficult working environmentinadequate work environment, equipment, or proceduresincrease the chance of mistakes

failure to detect very unusual situations or rare eventsincorrect assessment of a situation

motivation lack of incentive for high level of performance

lack of concentration on a taskpersonal objectives

actions of others failure to communicate information

frustration of actionsincorrect or faulty components suppliedinsufficient quality of contribution

As shown in Figure 7.1, the next step in the identify phase is concerned withresponses This step involves searching for and classifying primary responses foreach primary source identified earlier, in the process documenting, verifying,assessing, and reporting what is involved

Often the identification of a possible response to a particular source is asimple task Once a source has been identified it is frequently obvious howone could respond However, the most easily identified possible response maynot be the most effective or the most risk efficient response; other responses may

be worth identifying and considering Where an issue is particularly significant, asystematic examination of a range of possible responses, perhaps with a view toapplying several responses in parallel, may be worthwhile There are nine types

of response that can be considered, as shown in Table 7.3

A key response option is to modify objectives, as noted earlier For example,

as a proactive response, the time allowed to complete a decommissioning taskmay be extended before a contract for the work is let because an assessment ofthe base plan shows that the initial target would be virtually impossible to meet

As a reactive response, certain performance targets may be relaxed during theexecution and termination phases of the PLC, if difficulties in meeting originaltargets become insuperable or the value of achieving the original targets isreassessed Setting different levels of cost, time, or quality objectives can havevarying effects on the achievement of other objectives These effects depend on

a variety of situational factors, not least of which are the nature of the project andthe behaviour of the contractors and professionals employed For example,good-quality building work is fostered by allowing contractors time to analyseand properly price what is required, and to conduct the work without excessive

Table 7.3—Generic response typestypes of response method of handling uncertainty

modify objectives reduce or raise performance targets, changing trade-offs

between multiple objectivesavoid plan to avoid specified sources of uncertainty

influence probability change the probability of potential outcomes

modify consequences modify the consequences if an event occurs

develop contingency plans set aside resources to provide a reactive ability to copekeep options open delay choices and commitment, choose versatile optionsmonitor collect and update data about probabilities of occurrence,

anticipated effects, and additional sources of uncertaintyaccept accept uncertainty, but do nothing about it

remain unaware ignore uncertainty and take no action to identify (or

manage) it

haste and paring of costs In setting goals for attainment on each project tive, trade-offs must be made between levels of attainment on each objective.Unfortunately, deciding trade-offs is often complicated by uncertainty about thenature of the interdependencies between the different performance objectives.Thus, a decrease in the time available to complete a project can cause anincrease in total project cost, but it may cause a decrease Similarly, improve-ments in quality can mean an increase or a decrease in project time associatedwith an increase or a decrease in project cost.

objec-In the face of these difficulties, a pragmatic approach is common Trade-offsmay be expressed simply in terms of one objective having clear priority overanother Alternatively, project objectives are often expressed in terms of satisfyingtarget levels of achievement that are assumed to be mutually compatible Thistypically results in a series of ad hoc trade-offs being made through the life of theproject For example, in a construction project, the client’s representative on thebuilding site might accept work of lower performance than specified in thecontract where specifications appear excessively tight, in exchange for work ofhigher performance in other areas, to secure an overall balance in the terms ofexchange

A second response—avoid—is often a feasible and desirable response touncertainty However, risk management strategies formulated as avoidanceoptions in practice may operate only as influence or modify options This maystill be useful, but the residual uncertainty should be recognized In a multipartycontext, transferring uncertainty to another party may be perceived by the trans-ferring party to be an obvious and natural way of avoiding one or more sources

of uncertainty However, uncertainty may not be eliminated for the transferorunless the party receiving the uncertainty adopts appropriate risk managementstrategies, and the consequences may include secondary sources that fall on thetransferor This is a particularly significant issue in contractual relationships, oftenwith profound implications for risk management and project performance Thisissue is examined in more detail in Chapters 9 and 16

A third response option is influence probability This is a very common type

of response that typically has the intention of reducing the probability of adverseevents occurring Viewing risk management as opportunity management involvesincreasing the probability of desirable events occurring In terms of sources ofuncertainty more generally, this response involves changing the probability of thevarious potential outcomes

A fourth response option is modify consequences This involves modifying thepotential consequences of a source on project performance It certainly includesreducing adverse impacts (e.g., reducing delays likely to be caused should aparticular event occur) However, modification may also involve modifyingpotential consequences by changing their nature, perhaps by transforming animpact on one performance criterion into an impact on another criterion Forexample, if an event occurs that will delay the project, it may be possible tocounter this by paying for overtime work or other additional resources