General Discussion – MRC SIG

[Davin Shellshear]

#11700

Up

0

::

Hi Stephen

ICCPM are looking at their Cert 4 course on complexity to see what can be made available to provide the information you have requested to the MRC SIG. Clearly ICCPM has to consider issues of IP. We will post the information as soon as a decision is made.

Cheers

Davin

[Stephen Grey]

#11699

Up

0

::

Are there any resources on the ICCPM site that cover Kay Remington’s model?

I have read the preface to her book online but I’m reluctant to shell out more than $200 to go any further.

From what I can gather, it’s standard complexity science ideas with a focus on four topics that seem to me to be, rephrasing to test my understanding:

• Linkage between elements of a project
• Novelty
• Objectives and priorities
• Environmental fluidity

 

[Richard Barber]

#11615

Up

0

::

The Working Group topics survey is open until c.o.b. Friday 9th.

Please do complete the survey – we need your views.

[Richard Barber]

#11556

Up

1

::

[quote quote=11531]I just noticed that ICCPM are already posted by them, as partners![/quote]

Yep, ARPI are partners with ICCPM.    I’m also a member of ARPI and can bring some of their ideas to the MRC SIG conversation.  Nonetheless it would be good to have them at the meetings directly.  Richard

[Andrew Pyke]

#11531

Up

0

::

I just noticed that ICCPM are already posted by them, as partners!

[Andrew Pyke]

#11530

Up

1

::

I wonder if we should reach-out, to include or interact with these guys: The Australian Risk Policy Institute

They publish policy papers on advanced risk management topics, some of which are very thought-provoking.  They don’t seem to cover complex projects well, so there could be some synergy, also allowing the SIG to reach a broader audience.

Perhaps the SIG might consider publishing its own similar papers.

[Ian Mack]

#11405

Up

1

::

Hi Tony,

 

Great questions. As a Fellow and retired Exec in the Defence business in Canada, I spent a decade focused entirely on the national Shipbuilding Strategy that involved me in conception, marketing and implementation. As well, I was the portfolio guy for three shipbuilding projects for our Navy and four significant projects for our Army. We tended to work on the principle that I ‘spoke the unspeakable’ to my boss who then used his magic to make the advice politically acceptable. My own belief is that we do not onboard/orient the entire leadership chain (to the Ministerial levels) in government with the mindset needed to understand the realities of complex weapon systems platform projects and the need for unique and much more comprehensive approaches to treating risks and the related issue Courses of Action (when mitigation fails) for strategic risks to such endeavours. Like all things we set out to do with taxpayers money, we must manage expectations for all stakeholders – and especially those atop governance – just as we mange the project outcome expectations in terms of ‘satisficing’ key requirements including scope and schedule (and thus cost growth). My own experience is that, without such on-boarding, seniors create expectations upfront which set the conditions for perceived project failure soon after – such early perceptions of failure then resulting in the avoidance of transparency. I hope that makes sense?

[Tony Graham]

#11404

Up

1

::

Dear All,

I am a Fellow of ICCPM based in UK. I have joined the MRC SIG because I have a general interest in risk management on major national programmes having served on such projects in the past; but also because I have a current interest in risk assessment/management through synthesising ‘collective’ expert(s) risk advice to decision-makers.

My current interest is in the best means of providing such ‘collective expert risk advice’ to decision-makers (could be a Minister, or CEO) in highly complex situations with conflicting attributes (e.g. in defence there can be conflict between safety vs national security drivers). How do you:

• Gather most accurate relevant information
• Gather highest quality experts
• Bring onboard best national facilities to support decision-making
• Create most insightful ‘committee’ discussions
• Make collective risk judgements with partial information
• Highlight conflicts of opinions from experts without damaging confidence
• Separate Fact and Opinion
• Avoid bias in debate
• Define and expose key decision attributes
• Capture collective/individual advice and make most sound recommendations
• Present arguments in most understandable way
• Gain feedback from decision-makers
• Learn from experience as a ‘advice system’ to support better decision-making

I believe the designing of such decision support systems is critical for governments grappling with very complex challenges.

I am keen to be pointed at any relevant best practice, extant decision support systems, relevant research and experts in collective decision support etc?

i.e. Help sought…. hopefully the topic is of interest to others

Tony Graham

 

 

[Richard Barber]

#11277

Up

1

::

Hi,  This is just a first comment to get things started.   Davin and myself( Richard) are excited to be co-chairing this SIG.   As you might expect in the world of complexity, we see our co-chair roles as catalysts of open conversation and exploration – not as coordinators or controllers.

Let’s see how we can collaborate to add practical, real value for complex project managers and stakeholders.  At any time, feel free to throw any comment or suggestion into this general discussion.

We’re looking forward to our first MRC SIG meeting, and then to being part of one or more working groups tackling issues of interest to SIG participants.

 

[Sebastian Winter]

#11172

[Author]

Posts