Working Group A: What practical, useful risk tools and methods are available that can help project managers to visualise and understand complex interconnected risks and their implications?

[Trevor Lindars]

#12360

Up

1

::

[quote quote=12070]We had a good meeting on Wed 9th June. The meeting notes are attached. They are worth a quick read, especially if you weren’t able to be there. Some of the topics covered include:

• “What are we seeking to visualise and work on – individual risks or multiple risks?”
• Predict! Risk visualisation tool.
• Are we in the game of mega complexity, or much smaller?
• Risk professionals – who and what?
• Should we provide a decision tree for selecting risk tools?

Other Actions Arising: The following additional actions were suggested or agreed during the meeting:

• Trevor will upload a 2-page summary about the use of n-square matrices in systems engineering.
• Richard will provide an overview of the “Systemic Bowtie” tool he mentioned.
• Davin will have a look at what IRM’s SIG “Risk in Complexity” is doing and let the group know.
• Richard will start a dialogue on the forum about the idea of a “decision tree”.

Regards, Richard[/quote]

N-Square Matrices info uploaded…

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Richard Barber]

#12324

Up

1

::

We had a wide-ranging discussion in our most recent MRC SIG Working Group A meeting (7th July).  See the attached notes from the meeting. 

The key topics included:

• Integrating project schedule and risk
• Using tools to provoke, enable and support investigation and dialogue
• Characteristics of effective tools

Other topics touched on:

• The role of worldview
• Cynefin and other models – can people use them?
• Differing project priorities
• Are there a few areas that are most challenging for project managers?
• Essential Capabilities Maps (ECM)

Discussion about our Working Group:

• Three questions posed during our previous Working Group A meeting
• How to provide initial feedback to ICCPM Members about our Working Group
• Moving to meeting each three weeks (instead of fortnightly)

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Davin Shellshear]

#12323

Up

1

::

Has anyone used the systems thinking tools ithink® (https://thesystemsthinker.com/ithink-the-visual-thinking-tool/ ? How well did it work for you?

I used to use this tool in the 80’s and 90’s –  in a different life, but have not used it since. I suspect it provides some valuable visual thinking capability to address systems issues. It comes from STELLA

Cheers

Davin

[Trevor Lindars]

#12308

Up

1

::

Thinking about our potential magazine article, I feel we should consider the journey from managing risk in a simple project, thru’ complicated and into complex territory. We can explain what is fundamentally different for each type (allowing for the grey transition), how to recognise where we are operatig and what additional questions senior management should be asking in each scenario.

This approach would provide a framework for aligning the tools, that we have discussed, with those questions – indicating which provided best ROI (value vs effort required) and how they would be used to provided the responsiveness and perspectives required for dealing with emergent complexity.

Fundamentally, we need to help the reader understand when they may have entered a situation where the more familiar tools are inadequate and why; and then provide a considered pathway to safer territory.

On reflection, the key transitions described by, say, Cynefin suggest a risk management approach that progressively deals with independent (simple), interdependent (complicated) and scenario-based (complex) risks and treatments. The latter types describe situations where blind-spots are more likely and where tools that facilitate engagement and exploration (eg live what-if analysis) in broad stakeholder forums will be essential.

Perhaps we could mind-map this and use that as the framework for the article / recommendation.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Trevor Lindars.

[Richard Barber]

#12306

Up

1

::

Attached is a starting-point agenda for the Working Group A session later today (Wed 7th July, 5:30pm Canberra time).

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Richard Barber]

#12296

Up

1

::

Yes Simon – but the only image we have is the one I included in the notes from the last meeting.   I’ll attach it here again.  If you want to use it, you might want to crop it to take out people’s images.   Shree will have better images, I am sure.   I’ll also send Shree’s email address to you.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[simon springate]

#12295

Up

1

::

Any chance we can get an ‘image’ of the early model as demonstrated plus I would like to make contact with Shree as I am very interested in the concept she is pursuing

[Richard Barber]

#12178

Up

1

::

Hi,

The software demonstrated by Shree last week was a “pilot software” version developed at Curtin University.  As far as I know it has not been published and is not publicly available.    Shree is working with them to further develop the pilot software, so that it can be published as “open source”.   I’m not sure about the timeframe for that.

Shree is presenting an ICCPM webinar on this topic on 22 July.   Have a look at ICCPM’s upcoming events for the details.  When I last asked, Shree was unsure whether at the webinar she will still be using the pilot software to demonstrate, or will be able to show a later version.

Richard

 

 

[Yazdi Bhote]

#12177

Up

1

::

Afternoon Richard,

Hope you are well.

Can you please share the details about the software that Shree has used to display the wide spread linkages of a Risk during our previous forum?

Cheers

Yaz

04087970767

[Richard Barber]

#12175

Up

0

::

Shree Lakshmi has provided an email to me that we can use to contact her directly with specific suggestions about the risk visualisation software she demonstrated during our last meeting.

Please contact me and I will provide it to you.  I haven’t provided the email here because that would make it visible to a much larger group of people.

In general, all comments and suggestions are best placed on this thread – where Shree will see them automatically anyway provided that she is ‘subscribed’.

[Richard Barber]

#12171

Up

1

::

My apologies for taking so long to get these notes out.  I’ve been heavily committed since last week.  Please have a look at the notes from the Working Group A meeting last Wednesday, and feel free to add comments and to extend the ideas.

Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 7th July at 5:30pm Canberra time.  An invite will be provided with the next email sent out by ICCPM.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Richard Barber]

#12157

Up

1

::

Here are the agenda slides for Meeting #4.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Richard Barber]

#12144

Up

1

::

Another topic discussed at the last Working Group A meeting was how project managers and other stakeholders can decide which tools/methods they can or should apply.

For discussion, attached is a powerpoint document with some quick thoughts to provoke discussion at the next meeting (Wednesday this week, at 5:30pm Eastern Australian Standard time).   In the meantime, feel free to download the document to add your comments, make changes etc.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Davin Shellshear]

#12143

Up

1

::

Should we refer to ‘complex projects’, or ‘projects with aspects of complexity’. The discussion in Group B would seem to indicate the latter, with suggestions that the tools applicable to projects should align with the context – if this next part of the project is merely complicated (or even simple), then use tools appropriate to complicated (or simple) issues, and not tools applicable to complex issues. If this is true, how do we decide which aspects of the project are complex, complicated or merely simple? When do we make these calls? If complex, what form of complexity are we talking about – cultural, technical, goal, stakeholder, etc. – since the tools used will surely depend on the form of complexity we are dealing with? Do models for project complexity add any value in asking this question?

[Richard Barber]

#12141

Up

0

::

I’ve noticed that we sometimes discuss what a complex project is.   This implies that some projects are complex and others are not – and also that if a project is ‘complex’ we should treat it differently.   I reckon that all human projects include aspects of complexity – and that even the most ‘complex’ mega projects inherently include simple and complicated situations within them.

We should talk about working in and on ‘project systems’ and the need to be alert to the level of complexity faced in any given situation.  In that context, tools and methods for working in and on complexity are of value to virtually all project managers and other stakeholders, to varying degrees.

What do you think?

[Author]

Posts