To be open
Every text and paper I've read describes risk management like many other project processes: open, transparent, available to any on the project team. Risks are identified, evaluated, ranked, made subject to some form of risk reduction paradigm; and everyone is made aware.
Oh, but if it only were!
Most of us can handle the text book process. It's more will than capability
But, on projects of material consequence, the "real" risk management is not open
The "real" stuff begins when the text book processes have run their course
Or, not to be open
Too often than not, risks are compartmented. Sometimes "innocently" because the related work and scope are compartmented by project circumstances: security; systems partitioning; backlog partitioning; teams and teamwork; virtual teams
Judgments scorned as guesses
Only bring facts! Ooops, there are no facts about the future; only assessments of events, impact, and probability. All the facts are in the history.
No facts? Then you're just guessing, "they" say. So, "they" say: take you guesses elsewhere.
Inconvenient assessments
But, then, of course, there's the inconvenient assessments that need to be "buried". These assessments come to the wrong conclusion or forecast; they are not in accord with company or agency politics. Sometimes it just petty professional competitions
Whatever: of these we can say that risk management is "closed", not open; not transparent; and not available to all who need to know
Bummer !
Buy them at any online book retailer!
