Greg Hutchins - Thought Leader

Guest Post by John Ayers (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

This article focuses on the task level of a project which is the key to merging the different methodologies. There is a lot of articles on line that explain what the merger will look like and the pros and cons of it but I found nothing to explain HOW TO DO IT?  This article goes into quite a bit of detail but I felt I had no choice to convey to the reader how to merge the two methodologies with examples.

Agile was created for software development projects. Some of the key benefits of this methodology are flexibility, speed, high quality, and continuous improvement. These features are implemented at the Scrum level. One major problem with Agile is that it does not scale up to large projects due to lack of structure, changing requirements and scope, and lack of a baseline to measure project performance.  In my opinion, it works well for small software and IT projects that are less than a year in duration and less than $1M in value

Guest Post by Malcolm Peart (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

Projects go wrong.  Despite some people’s best efforts, hopes to the contrary, or helpless denials, that’s a fact.  ‘Best effort’ is sometimes not good enough to help a failing project recover, ‘hope’ can merely be unfounded optimism and denial in the light of facts is just part of the grief cycle.

Nobody really wants to fail, very few like it, and even fewer will enjoy it.  Those that planned a project did not purposely plan to fail.  Perhaps there may have been a bit of a gamble with a tendency towards optimism rather than applying the caution of pessimism.  Projects are about risk as well as opportunity and as the idiom goes, “Nothing ventured…nothing gained” but not every cloud has a silver lining.

Guest Post by Patrick Ow (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

Businesses exist because they are formed by entrepreneurs. They exist to earn a return for the business owners and shareholders.

Organizations exist to fulfill a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of society. The potential for creating value for their customers and stakeholders is a key motive for all types of organizations, including the public sector and not-for-profits.

Guest Post by Peter Holtmann (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

This article is the thirteenth of fourteen parts to our risk management series. The series will be taking a look at the risk management guidelines under the ISO 31000 Standard to help you better understand them and how they relate to your own risk management activities. In doing so, we’ll be walking through the core aspects of the Standard and giving you practical guidance on how to implement it.

In previous articles we’ve looked at the core elements of the risk management framework and the role of leadership and commitment, integration, design, implementation, evaluation and improvement more specifically. We’ve also briefly looked at the risk management process in a general sense, the importance of communication and consultation, how to set your scope, context and criteria, identifying, analysing and evaluating risks, as well as treating risk. In this article, we’ll be looking at how you can monitor and review your risk management process.

Guest Post by James Kline (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

Dianna Deeney in her piece in CERM Insights #362 notes that big data may provide the quality profession with more professional opportunities. Dr Anil Maheshwari in his book Data Analytics: Made Accessible specifically indicates that quality management will benefit from big data. (1)

There can be no doubt that big data is an important environmental change and challenge for most businesses. It changes the environment because with increased computer storage and computational power, companies can access and evaluate more and more information about process performance and customer satisfaction. It is a challenge because the field is relatively new, and management is still trying to understand how the information can best be applied.

Guest Post by John Ayers (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

Today with robotic development, digital transformation, Artificial Intelligence, and other projects t will involve a multi-discipline team with many interfaces. To keep budget and schedule on these types of projects, inputs and outputs from all disciplines must be accurate, complete and timely. If not, your project will be risk.

All tasks (Work Packages) have a manager. Inputs from another task manager to start your task is your supplier. Output from your task goes to another task manager. In this case you become a customer. Every task manager is a supplier and a customer.

Guest Post by Peter Holtmann (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

This article is the twelfth of fourteen parts to our risk management series. The series will be taking a look at the risk management guidelines under the ISO 31000 Standard to help you better understand them and how they relate to your own risk management activities. In doing so, we’ll be walking through the core aspects of the Standard and giving you practical guidance on how to implement it.

In previous articles we’ve looked at the core elements of the risk management framework and the role of leadership and commitment, integration, design, implementation, evaluation and improvement more specifically. We’ve also briefly looked at the risk management process in a general sense, the importance of communication and consultation, how to set your scope, context and criteria, as well as the identification, analysis and evaluation of risks. In this article, we’ll be looking at treating risk. [Read more…]

Guest Post by Malcolm Peart (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

Abraham Lincoln is attributed to have famously said “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”  A more recent US President coined a more manipulative spin on Lincoln’s erudite words… “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”  Preying on ignorance is a human trait which, although frowned upon, certainly thrived in history, and definitely thrives today.

Guest Post by Peter Holtmann (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

This article is the eleventh of fourteen parts to our risk management series. The series will be taking a look at the risk management guidelines under the ISO 31000 Standard to help you better understand them and how they relate to your own risk management activities. In doing so, we’ll be walking through the core aspects of the Standard and giving you practical guidance on how to implement it.

In previous articles we’ve looked at the core elements of the risk management framework, as well as the role of leadership and commitment, integration, design, implementation, evaluation and improvement more specifically. We’ve also briefly looked at the risk management process in a general sense, and we’ve also focused on the importance of communication and consultation, as well as how to set your scope, context and criteria. In this article, we’ll be looking at risk assessments and the role of risk identification, analysis and evaluation in such assessments.

Guest Post by James Kline (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

The 2022 Global Risk Report is the 17^th risk assessment report. The preface to the report notes: “The 17^th edition of the Global Risk Report identifies tensions that will results from diverging trajectories and approaches within and between countries and then examines the risk that could arise from such tensions.” (1)

The results of the survey have substantive implications as the above notes. These implications go beyond diverging trajectories and approaches, to something more fundamental. That is whether the survey has any probative value.  This piece discusses the results of the survey. It also examines its probative value.

Guest Post by Malcolm Peart (first posted on CERM ® RISK INSIGHTS – reposted here with permission)

The term “deadline” hasn’t been around that long, about 160 years in fact.  The first written mentions were in 1863 during the American Civil War.  The “dead-line”, as then, was defined as “a line drawn within or around a prison that a prisoner passes at the risk of being shot” and shot dead at that.  Prison conditions could be so deplorable that some men crossed the line on purpose, some survivors wrote that they had wished they’d crossed it to end their misery.  Deadlines in those days were lessons in ultimate liability.