Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Risk Management: Blame Allocation, Biased Opinion, or Objective Reality

by Greg Hutchins Leave a Comment

Risk Management: Blame Allocation, Biased Opinion, or Objective Reality

Risk Management: Blame Allocation, Biased Opinion, or Objective Reality

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

“I told you so…” is so often cried after something has gone wrong.  But was that ‘telling‘ stated clearly and unequivocally before things went wrong or was it merely a passing counterview against a probable likelihood based on an alternative possibility.

When a risk manifests itself and takes a grip on a project it’s amazing how quickly hindsight can kick in.  This comes in the form of free advice as to what could have happened to avoid the risk ‘after the fact’. These latter-day soothsayers were, for some reason or other, unprepared to prove their prophetic ability before the fact preferring, it would seem, to go with the flow as an uninvolved observer but officious bystander when all facts are revealed.

Hindsight, coined as 20:20 vision is merely retrospective reporting and analysis and will not change the past.  Unfortunately, individuals who ‘told us so‘ rarely offer solutions to the problem they predicted.  Oftentimes these soothsayers believe that they can act with impunity as they offer damning, but late, unneeded and unwanted criticism, rather than timely, supportive and constructive advice.

Risks Foreseeable (Knowns – Known & Unknown)

If the realised risk was on the risk register then it was either ignored completely or it snuck up on the poor unsuspecting victims and pounced on them.  The Risk Management team did their job during project planning but the execution team will, inevitably, be blamed for not dealing with the known risk, despite a perception of low possibility.

The risk register can be so easily populated based upon pessimism and colour-coded on perception.  Perception is so often biased towards optimism, after all project proponents don’t start off with failure in mind.  They inevitably believe in the mitigation measures on the register and the perceived possibility of a risk occurring becomes less; nothing can go wrong, warning signs are ignored, and Murphy can barge in.

If a project team does not see a pattern of problems emerging or ignores adverse trend in terms of production, costs incurred, quality defects, or contractual complaints this may be seen as blissful ignorance.  Such unawareness is not only ignorance but, if the ‘knowns’ were made known to the project management team, then unawareness will constitute negligence.

These ‘knowns’ may well be included in a risk register, but how often is a risk register so voluminous that it will not be read, nor is it explained to the team.  An overpopulated and exhaustive register may appease the pessimist and risk averse manager but if real risks are not considered in context such voluminosity may do more harm than good.

Risks Unforeseen (Unknowns – Known)

If the risk that is realised isn’t on the register was there a problem with the planning or is it more likely a problem is with the ‘risk management’ during execution.  “Risk register reviews” and routinely listing the ‘top ten risks’ on a progress dashboard may provide assurance that risk is being ‘managed’.  However, if this is considered adequate why do so many projects fail or, more likely, merely overrun in terms of cost or time or both.

Risk Management is not necessarily about foreseeing the future and documenting every conceivable as opposed to probable risk but being aware of the environment in which a project is being executed.  Opportunities and risks present themselves and they must be dealt with actively and proactively.  Identifying and subsequent analysis of an emergent risk during execution is part of accepted risk management practice but how often is time, or money or personnel, authorised on evaluation, planning the treatment and subsequent monitoring?

If ‘standard’ risk management practice is adopted then will an unknown risk that emerges be managed appropriately?  If such a ‘risk’ becomes a reality it cannot be merely communicated and monitored.  A passive ‘business as usual’ approach is far from real risk management”.  Reality happens and must be considered objectively

The ‘designated risk manager’ in any team cannot merely review and communicate risk but needs to advocate action.  Covering one’s ass by merely reporting “I told you so” in a belief that this will provide absolution will never help a project in trouble or facing it.  But just as unbridled optimism can be the flavour of the day in the wild enthusiasm of a project starting up, abject pessimism may well result when the going gets tough and there is a need to face reality.

Risks Unimagined (Unknown Unknowns)

If risks emerge that are outside the project team’s or the organisation’s experience then these cannot be readily explained and are more difficult to deal with.  Rather than deal with reality objectively the blame game is played.

A scapegoat may well be sought and blame will be allocated; after all somebody somewhere must surely be responsible.  Similarly, somebody, somewhere may well discover that the risk that emerged out of the blue was actually foreseeable. However, unless that somebody also discovers a way of dealing with the risk, its mere identification is of little use unless a means of mitigating it is found or formulated.

While project proponents are optimistic there needs to be the realisation that the phrase of ‘nothing can go wrong’ is actually wrong.  The real project truth is according to Murphy and that ‘if it can wrong it will‘; a harsh and unforgiving lesson in reality.

These unimaginable risks, above all else, require action rather than just putting them down to experience, documenting a costly lesson learned, and adding to a more populated risk register for a future project.

Conclusion

Ideally all risks should be identified and mitigated in the first place but if they emerge during execution then action must be taken.  Such action must be positive and objective rather than looking for scapegoats, shooting messengers and sending a sacrificial lamb(s) to slaughter.

Being wise after the fact, as with hindsight, is of no use if the ship has sunk or the horse has bolted.  The wild optimists who think that “nothing can go wrong” can be so very, very wrong when it comes to risk and a degree of pessimism may temper such wildness.

t’s an unfortunate aspect of risk that it’s so easy to be wise after the fact. It’s also human nature to give advice, wanted or unwanted and when somebody says “I hate to say “I told you so” but...” they have done so in any case…

Bio:

UK Chartered Engineer & Chartered Geologist with over thirty-five years’ international experience in multicultural environments on large multidisciplinary infrastructure projects including rail, metro, hydro, airports, tunnels, roads and bridges. Skills include project management, contract administration & procurement, and design & construction management skills as Client, Consultant, and Contractor.

 

Filed Under: Articles, CERM® Risk Insights, on Risk & Safety

About Greg Hutchins

Greg Hutchins PE CERM is the evangelist of Future of Quality: Risk®. He has been involved in quality since 1985 when he set up the first quality program in North America based on Mil Q 9858 for the natural gas industry. Mil Q became ISO 9001 in 1987

He is the author of more than 30 books. ISO 31000: ERM is the best-selling and highest-rated ISO risk book on Amazon (4.8 stars). Value Added Auditing (4th edition) is the first ISO risk-based auditing book.

« How did RCM principles emerge?
Why Should I Block My Test »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CERM® Risk Insights series Article by Greg Hutchins, Editor and noted guest authors

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories
  • ALT: An in Depth Description
  • Project Email Economics

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy