› Forums › Managing Risk in Complexity SIG
(MRC SIG) › Working Group B: What principles are important in dealing with complexity?
-
AuthorPosts
-
Up::1
I On the matter of new topics that WG B might consider, would offer two potential new risk-related questions for consideration – one from my own experience and one building on comments by Richard Barber:
(1) Unique Attributes of a Complex Project Mindset – When you are talking to seniors about getting engaged for the first time in complexity, what are the rather unique attributes of a complex project’s mindset or model that will best prepare them for the challenges they will face?
(2) Building Trust in Complex Project Risk Treatment Systems (Note – I prefer ‘treatment’ systems to ‘management’ systems when dealing with complex projects because you will realise so many risks) – How do you develop the necessary trust in the leadership team (from project to governance and organisational) and those engaged in developing and supporting the risk treatment system to enable the buy-in needed for effective mitigation of risks and for early consideration of issue management for realised risks?
Up::1Hi All,
Please see the link for the attachment as suggested by Dr @richard-barber on the 14th Oct.
Up::1Richard
The paper seems to have failed to upload
Steve
The problem is the file size – ICCPM only allows files around 3MB to be uploaded
David – can you provide the link so we can get it from the source?
Cheers
Davin
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Davin Shellshear.
Up::1For those able to seek a small number of additional survey responses, the link to send people is
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/WGB_V2
If there are any issues with this don’t hesitate to contact me via this forum or directly
Mobile +61 412 223 256
Up::0I mentioned earlier that the survey approach used to explore concerns about complexity draws heavily on the Cognitive Edge Sense Maker tool
I have built the same survey design in Sensemaker using my limited demo license
Anyone who is interested can see it and click through the questions here
https://collector.sensemaker-suite.com/collector?projectID=c2d95961-dc6f-4f56-bd99-4c96c3acbd67
See you tomorrow morning
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Stephen Grey.
Up::1Hi Team
I thought you may find the attached white paper of interest
Cheers
Davin Shellshear
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Davin Shellshear.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::1USING THE INITIAL SURVEY RESULTS
I don’t want to seed fixed ideas into the discussion but here are a few thoughts on the survey results.
- I encourage everyone to look at the results, perhaps find a response you made in the appendix to the most recent notes and look at where your responses fall within the overall set of results.
- While the weight of responses is towards matters concerning human interactions, there are a few in the technical, planning and design space.
- Governance doesn’t rate much of a mention on its own but there a few that look like a mix of governance and stakeholder management.
- It is interesting that while concern for data systems was not absent from the responses, it was not strongly rated in its own right, contrary to a common knee jerk response to complexity – measure and monitor more rigorously.
- Thinking about the interface between this group and WGA, my initial thought is that support for teamwork, stakeholder relations and similar matters is perhaps a more important objective for tools seeking to support the management of complex projects than the Big Data style of systems. Visualisation and communication of complicated factors and relationships might be a point where synergy will arise.
- The sliders show a strong interest in flexible governance and management but no clear lead on how to improve the way we manage challenging projects, whether to buy or build people who can deal with complexity.
With more inputs it might be possible to gain insights into some of the outliers.
Any thoughts on the survey exercise and process will be most welcome as well.
Up::1Apologies once again for the messed up algebra affecting the initial results. I have redone the calculations and confirmed them by several means so I am now confident that the latest plots, in the attached document, are sound. This is more like they should have been from the start.
I probably couldn’t have done it if I tried but the mistake seems to have rotated the plots sixty degrees. Now that is fixed, the results seem a lot more plausible.
Team and stakeholder management is in fact the main focus, as I thought it would be. It is interesting to note that there are some outliers. These can be instructive – to see what makes something out of the ordinary, which can provide insights into the factors at work.
This cockup highlights the value of using a properly designed tool instead of hacking your own together. The Survey Monkey part was easy enough but the data analysis and display was not.
I am setting up the same design as this survey in a demo version of Cognitive Edge SenseMaker to show how it could be done. The demo version has a limit of 20 responses so if we wanted to go further with this I think we’d be looking at a basic SenseMaker licence.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::1I am adding the latest survey results to the summary and I have spotted an error in the maths I used to turn the ternary co-ordinates into X-Y co-ordinates. I lifted it from something I did a couple of years ago and missed a point.
I am sorry about this. It doesn’t change the slider graphs or the primary data, just the way I have plotted it.
I’m alternating between kicking myself in the backside and reworking it. Should have the corrected charts out late today or over the weekend.
We have a total of twenty responses now although one did not use the ternary plots or the sliders, so it’s nineteen effective inputs.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Stephen Grey.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.