Control and trust
The risk management process is a means par excellence to manage and utilize the uncertainties inherent to projects. The word ‘utilize’ in this context is no coincidence. Both threats as chances offer opportunities and arguments to re-evaluate the course of the project and adjust it.
The principal (ordering party) trusts his project manager to inform him in a timely and appropriate fashion about all uncertainties relevant to the project and the moments these uncertainties will become apparent. The project manager in his turn trusts his principal to apply this information to steer the project.
If the trust between principal and project manager is sub-optimal, these signals are not or incorrectly interpreted by one party or not or incorrectly given by the other. Both are vulnerable in this process. A breach of trust usually results in applying strict procedures by both parties just to keep up the appearance of control.
The same applies to the project team; the project manager and his collaborators.
Again the key to success is trust. To be able to give the correct signals to the customer the project manager needs to be informed also in a timely and appropriate fashion. Collaborators need to be aware of the uncertainties in the project and recognise the occurrence of chances and threats. Reports to the project manager need to be clear and complete.
In a blame culture the required openness will not come easy. Collaborators and project managers that are likely to be blamed when reporting risks in a project, will avoid to report these. But also opportunities that occur will not be reported. In such an environment people will try to keep up the appearance of control by holding on to the original course instead of adjusting by which the project goals are better served.
An example
Every military mission has a project structure. The project manager (field commander) receives his orders with a clearly defined mandate from his commanding officer. With help of risk management as many uncertainties as possible are eliminated (lives are at stake). Both precautionary and corrective measures are taken and all uncertainties are examined and evaluated at every team deliberation. Still not everything can be predicted or foreseen and that’s why the field commander has a mandate to make autonomous decisions in the field to deal with unforeseen situations (threats and opportunities).
The unconditional trust necessary to act as such exists between customer and project manager (commanding officer and field commander) but also between the field commander and his soldiers (collaborators) who follow his decisions to adjust the course of the project and also are open to recognise opportunities and threats if they occur (serendipity).
If we look at projects like this – exception is made to the military command structure – it appears that measures taken to control projects are directly related to the capabilities, and our trust in those, of all project members.
Total control is Utopia. Projects are therefore in control when uncertainties are accepted and we are aware that some risks conscientiously must be taken. If risk management in addition to that also connects with corporate risk management fake control is prevented and the project is in control within the overall organisation.
Author:
Jan Seijerlin (jan.seijerlin@ictpa.com)
Co-authors:
Henk de Koning (henk.dekoning@atosorigin.com) en Dick Smorenberg (dse@tg.nl).