In a design environment, more and more risk money is set aside/ “tapped” into, to deal with “risks”, but are we using this money for a good cause or are we merely fueling project complacency?
Risks do need to be identified and mitigated before they materialize and become issues.
The question I guess here is, would you really want to cost and set aside risk monies for all identified risks, including project performance related risks?
Or would you only capture risk money for risks that are outside of the control of projects?
Risks do need to be identified and mitigated for all risks including for those that are performance related. I just wouldn’t keep risk money in my risk pot for funding performance related risks.
In funding performance related risks you are merely camouflaging/ distorting the true underlying performance of a project.
Transparency is key for early warnings and to steering the project back to targets.
© 2015, Majed Bushnaq