Risk assessor Flashcards
(3 cards)
AIRMIC (2010), explains the risk management process. Explore its suitability for PM.
According to AIRMIC (2010), which builds on the ISO 31000 standard, effective risk management consists of five key elements: understanding the context, risk assessment, risk treatment, communication and consultation, and ongoing monitoring and review.
In our project – aimed at preventing type 2 diabetes among young men with ethnic minority backgrounds in Aarhus Municipality – we follow this structure closely. We begin by establishing the context of the project, clearly defining both the purpose and the target group. This helps ensure that our risk approach is aligned with the project’s real-world setting.
We then carry out a thorough risk assessment, starting with identification of potential risks. Using a 3x3 risk matrix, we identify possible challenges such as “lack of support from schools” or “low student engagement.” Next, we analyze each risk in terms of likelihood and potential consequences. For instance, lack of school support is considered both likely and highly damaging – categorizing it as an extreme risk. Based on this, we evaluate which risks need the most attention and prioritise them accordingly.
Following the assessment, we move on to risk treatment. For each identified risk, we develop specific actions. Some are actively addressed – for example, we create engaging exercises for students and collect feedback. Others are managed differently, such as preparing backup instructors to ensure continuity. We also use strategies such as tolerating or transferring risks, in line with AIRMIC’s approach.
Communication and consultation are ongoing throughout the project. We work closely with school leaders, students, and partners like the Steno Diabetes Center to ensure transparency and involvement at all levels. This strengthens our shared understanding of the project’s risks and solutions.
Finally, we emphasize monitoring and review. Our monitoring and evaluation plan includes feedback tools like Padlet and professional journals. While mainly used to assess project outcomes, this also helps us track whether our risk responses are effective – and allows us to adjust the risk plan if new challenges emerge.
In summary, our approach to risk management is structured and practical. To further improve, we could introduce fixed review points to make risk follow-up more systematic, ensuring risk management remains an active part of the project – not just something addressed at the beginning.
(RA) In using the Gantt Chart as a planning tool, Geraldi and Lechter (2012) allude to several risks. Summarise these risks and relate to your project.
The Gantt Chart is a classic project management tool that visually organizes tasks over time, showing start and end dates and dependencies. While common in project planning, Geraldi and Lechter (2012) note it was originally designed for repetitive, industrial tasks. This creates risks when it’s applied uncritically to complex or uncertain environments.
Although we didn’t use a Gantt Chart in our proposed health intervention for ethnic minority youth, it’s worth considering the risks if we had.
First, Gantt Charts are highly time-focused, prioritizing deadlines. In our project, this could have pressured us to hold workshops or evaluations on fixed dates, even if schools or students weren’t ready—potentially reducing intervention quality.
Second, the chart assumes objectivity: that tasks and durations can be defined upfront. But our project relies on collaboration with diverse stakeholders. A rigid plan from the start would limit our ability to adapt to different school contexts.
Third, it’s deterministic—assuming we can predict and control outcomes. Yet our risk matrix shows likely disruptions like low attendance or tech issues. A Gantt Chart doesn’t capture this uncertainty and may give a false sense of control.
Fourth, it promotes an analytical breakdown of tasks. But our project’s components are interdependent. For example, if students misunderstand the questionnaire, it affects monitoring and evaluation. Treating tasks in isolation might obscure these links.
Fifth, the chart emphasizes accountability by assigning tasks to individuals. While role clarity is important, this could promote blame. Poor feedback, for example, might stem from design issues or environmental factors, not just one person’s role.
Finally, it assumes sequential progress—one task finishes before the next begins. Our approach is iterative. We plan to revise the second workshop based on the first. A rigid timeline wouldn’t support this adaptive cycle.
To summarise, the six risks of using a Gantt Chart in our context are: overemphasis on time, assumed objectivity, false predictability, disconnection between tasks, excessive focus on individual accountability, and linearity. Reflecting on this, we believe excluding it was the right choice. Instead, we proposed tools like a risk matrix and ongoing feedback to support a more flexible, human-centred process.
(RA) Contrast Sartorius’ (1991) use of the term “assumptions” in an LFA with the way AIRMIC (2010) uses the term “risks”.
In project planning, the concepts of assumptions and risks play essential but different roles, particularly in two widely used approaches: the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).
In the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), assumptions are understood as external conditions that must hold true for a project to succeed. These are factors that lie outside the control of the project team, yet they are critical to the logic of the intervention. Assumptions appear at all levels of the project hierarchy—from activities to outputs, to purpose and overall goals. For instance, in a preventive health project, an assumption at the purpose level might be: “Increasing knowledge about diet and exercise will reduce diabetes risk.” At the output level, we might assume “students will show up and participate,” and at the activity level, “qualified instructors will be available.” These assumptions are not managed in the same way as risks; instead, they must be carefully assessed during the design phase. If they seem too weak or unlikely to hold, the project plan may need to be revised.
On the other hand, Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) takes a broader view. According to AIRMIC (2010), a risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives, which means it includes both threats and opportunities. ERM involves a structured process of identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks throughout the project lifecycle. In our health project, risks could include: “Lack of support from schools” (likely and harmful), “Low student engagement” (likely and moderate), or “Technical issues during presentations” (unlikely and minor). Each risk is assessed and paired with a mitigation strategy, such as engaging school leadership, making activities more interactive, or having IT support available. Unlike assumptions, risks are actively managed during implementation.
In summary, the key difference lies in their function and treatment:
Assumptions are external conditions that support the project logic but can’t be controlled; they are monitored during planning.
Risks are uncertainties that can affect project success and are managed with planned responses throughout the project.
Both are essential for responsible planning, but they serve distinct purposes: assumptions test whether the project is built on a realistic foundation, while risks help ensure resilience during implementation.
