› Forums › Managing Risk in Complexity SIG
(MRC SIG) › 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 LindarsParticipant@trevorlindars13 July 2021 at 6:46 pmPost count: 2::
[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”.
N-Square Matrices info uploaded…Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber11 July 2021 at 11:13 amPost count: 58::
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:
Davin ShellshearSIG Chair@davin-shellshear10 July 2021 at 5:18 pmPost count: 142::
- 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)
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
DavinTrevor LindarsParticipant@trevorlindars8 July 2021 at 6:01 amPost count: 2::
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.
Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber7 July 2021 at 10:15 amPost count: 58Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber6 July 2021 at 12:54 pmPost count: 58::
- This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Trevor Lindars.
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.Simon SpringateParticipant@springates6 July 2021 at 11:19 amPost count: 21Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber30 June 2021 at 1:35 pmPost count: 58::
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.
RichardYazdi BhoteParticipant@yazdi-bhote30 June 2021 at 12:59 pmPost count: 1Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber30 June 2021 at 9:11 amPost count: 58Up::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 BarberParticipant@richard-barber29 June 2021 at 7:47 amPost count: 58::
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.Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber23 June 2021 at 4:43 pmPost count: 58Richard BarberParticipant@richard-barber21 June 2021 at 10:15 amPost count: 58::
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.Davin ShellshearSIG Chair@davin-shellshear21 June 2021 at 9:25 amPost count: 142::
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 BarberParticipant@richard-barber21 June 2021 at 7:36 amPost count: 58Up::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?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.