نکات کلیدی از رقابت در چارچوب مفروضات برای ریسک و مدیریت عدم اطمینان

This paper explores the relationship between ‘common practice’ as defined by a simple reading of PMBOK Chapter 11 and ‘best practice’ as approached (but not quite achieved) by two alternative guides (PRAM and RAMP) in terms of key points of contention in framing assumptions which everyone interested in project management as a whole ought to understand. An immediate purpose is helping readers to avoid some of the current confusion about the difference between ‘common practice’ and ‘best practice’. A longer term goal is influencing the shape of future project risk management guides, to enhance them individually, and to make them easier to use collectively. ‘Best practice’ definition is itself contentious. Other authors are encouraged to debate the definition of ‘best practice’ and explore the position of other guides. The framing assumptions are considered in terms of basic concepts: ‘probability’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘risk’, ‘optimisation’ and ‘opportunity’. A practical example of the implications is provided via analysis of the use of probability–impact (PI) matrices and associated PI indices (risk indices or scores). The use of PI indices is ‘common practice’, but it is a clear indication that ‘best practice’ is not being followed, for reasons clarified in this paper. A follow-on companion paper considers related generic process definition issues.

The need for effective and efficient management of risk and uncertainty in projects is not contentious. How best to satisfy this need is highly contentious amongst those involved in contributing to the project risk management literature, especially amongst those involved in producing guides under the auspices of professional bodies and government agencies. However, direct debate about points of contention has been limited, and for the most part it has been confined to discussions within groups producing guides.

Most organisations which make extensive use of risk and uncertainty management processes need to develop their own processes at some stage, usefully viewed as a synthesis of successive “Focus Risk Management Process” sub-phases if they start with a PRAM 2004 framework as part of their perspective. Developers of these processes and people involved in using any particular process should view them in the context of what is widely understood – our collective experience or knowledge. This applies to users who provide input assessments and users who interpret the outputs. Users of processes do not need extensive process design expertise, but they do need to understand why using any process at any level in a ‘paint by numbers’ manner is ineffective. Features and insights provided by a range of guides should be considered as part of this knowledge. Many valuable guides not considered in this paper, like [26], offer strengths which can be usefully included, provided any conflicting basic definitions and assumptions are understood and worked around. One immediate purpose of this paper is clarifying how all readers of this journal can best approach the literature on project risk management, guides produced by professional bodies and government agencies in particular.