Sunday, July 31, 2016

Risk management: we don't make policy



From General Mike Hayden's memoir (paraphrasing from pg 428)
Imagine two doors to the same room: One labeled risk manager; the other labeled visionary.
Though the risk manager's door, entry is for the inductive thinker:
  • I've got the facts; now I need to connect the dots to reveal a generality or integrating narrative
Through the visionary's door, entry is for the deductive thinker:
  • I've got the vision; I'm confident the facts and dots needed for implementation will emerge
And, consider this:
  • Pessimists with facts enter through the risk manager's door
  • Optimists with business-as-we-want-it enter through the visionary's door
Then what happens?
Each needs to find the other. In the best of situations, they meet in the middle of the room where there is buffer space and flexibility.

Risk management does not establish the vision, set any policy, or necessarily decide anything; it only sets the left and right hand boundaries which arise from the generalities devined from the observable facts. The space in between the boundaries is where the visionary gets to do their envisioning, and decision maker's get to do the deciding.

Sound familiar? I hope so. You'll find a similar explanation known as the "project balance sheet" in my book in Chapter 6 of "Maximizing Project Value: A project manager's guide". In that metaphor, the right side is for the fact-based inductive manager; the left side is for the deductive visionary. And, since those two never agree fully, there is a gap between the inductive and deductive.

And the gap is where the risk is. And who is the risk manager? The PM and the project team -- not the visionary (after all, they have no facts; facts are behind the other door!)

And, that's why we pay the PMO the big bucks: to manage the risk!



Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Thursday, July 28, 2016

About evidence


Did you see this witicism at herdingcats?
A skeptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence. - Neil deGrase Tyson
Think of this whenever there is a conjecture that has no testable evidence of the claim. And think ever more when those making the conjectured claim refuse to provide evidence. When that is the case, it is appropriate to ignore the conjecture all together


Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Monday, July 25, 2016

About coordination


We're all supposed to coordinate. That's written somewhere in the PM literature and taught in bureaucracy school everywhere. And so I was impressed with this bit of wit:
"Successful coordinating mechanisms depend on mutuality. The greatest chance of success derives from mutual benefit tied to sufficiently high priority programs
... "[beware of the] weak coordinating level of [just] interaction rather than [the stronger leverage] in budgeting and policy"
Dr. L. Parker Temple, III 
Policy advisor to President Reagan
The message is clear
  • Money talks
  • Follow the money
In the public sector, and certainly also in large private organizations, personal power and prestige and organization power and influence count for a lot.

It's all well and good to coordinate, so long as I don't lose anything in the deal. Even better: What's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine ... so long as it's gained by coordination!



Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Friday, July 22, 2016

Strategic weakness


And when your strategy depends on someone else doing something that's pretty weak strategy
Jeff Roe
Politcal strategist

Well, yes, but no ....
Certainly, self-sufficiency is the better game plan, but who gets to play in that green field? Certainly not PMs which are at the behest of sponsors, customers, and other business interests. If they don't behave and get on the same page with the project, then there's inevitably a gap between interests ... a gap between the strategic interests of the project project and the business.

And what fills that gap ('cause it isn't a vacuum!) None other than: RISK!
And who gets tagged as risk manager? Right! The PM is always in the hot seat as risk manager, balancing the interests of the project strategy with the larger business strategy.

You say: Not fair! And, you'd be right most of the time. Not fair, but certainly realistic. The PM is the risk manager for any gap between interests. And, as manager, there is both a payoff or a penalty depending on how the risks play out... to wit: hero or goat!




Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Testing... how much testing?


Consider this quote from Tony Hoare:
One can construct convincing proofs quite readily of the ultimate futility of exhaustive testing of a program and even of testing by sampling. So how can one proceed?

The role of testing, in theory, is to establish the base propositions of an inductive proof.

You should convince yourself, or other people, as firmly as possible, that if the program works a certain number of times on specified data, then it will always work on any data.
This can be done by an inductive approach to the proof.

Everyone remember what an inductive argument is? Yes? Good!
Then I don't need to say that ....
When reasoning inductively you are reasoning from a specific instance to a generalization. The validity of the generalization can only be known probabilistically. (It's probable-- with high confidence -- that any instance will work because a particular instance -- or particular set of instances -- worked)

Thus, there is no absolute certainty that a generalization will work just because a large set of specifics works.

Monte Carlo testing is inductive. There are two inductive conditions in Monte Carlo testing:
  1. That the test conditions are time-insensitive ... thus, tests done serially in time are valid for any time, and are valid if the tests were done in parallel rather than serial
  2. That the test results for a finite number of iterations is representative of the next iteration that is not in the test window
Sampling is also inductive.
And why would one do this?
Economics mostly.
Usually you can't afford to test every instance possible; sometimes, you can't create all the conditions to test every instance possible. The plain fact is, as Mr Hoare says, you should be able to do "just enough" testing to convince yourself and others who observe objectively that, hey: it will work! 

 


Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Unknowable in the risk spectrum


Would you agree that safety risk guru Matthew Squair has it about right that this is a fair representation of the risk spectrum?
Actually, I'm not so sure about the "Is it possible" controlling and mitigating for ontological uncertainty (Squair defines ontological uncertain this way: "Ontological uncertainty lies at the far end of our continuum and represents a state of complete ignorance. Not only do we not know, but we don’t even know what we don’t know.")
  • We can't do probabilistic design for something we're unaware of
  • We don't even have the stastistics to back up the probabilistic reasoning
  • We're not even sure that resilience -- defined as ability to absorb shock without castrophe -- is doable
In my opinion, the only things you can really do for ontological risk are to have reserves and buffers that might be able to absorb shock; independent redundancy (the same risk can't effect all redundant capabilities; loose coupling so that the shock does not propagate; and a 360 awareness for the unknowable.

 In an essay he makes this conclusion:

The idea of risk as a quantifiable property emerged from the great flowering of scientific thought of the 18th century, so it is no surprise that the application of risk to engineering has determinedly followed in these footsteps.

But our understanding of uncertainty has moved on from the clockwork universe view of the 18th century.

Some risks, as it turns out, are not just uncertain, but unknowable before the event and today we are slowly starting to recognise the need for tools to ‘know what we do not know’ about technology risks, and we are also learning that the strategies we use for control should be dictated by the types of risk we face.

Fortunately, the work of economists, psychologists and philosophers over the last hundred years has built up a far broader view of uncertainty and risk.

Is he restating the "Rumsfeld Doctrine of Risk"?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld




Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Risk management with $1Billion at stake



Spacecraft projects are pretty tricky risk management regimes. Consider:
 "If anything goes wrong there's no way for anyone to intercede"
That's the feeling in the Juno project office about the injection procedure of the Juno project spacecraft into Jupiter's orbit, as reported in this essay. The PMO is led by Rick Nybakken who has said this regarding risk responses to the orbit maneuver:
"We haven't studied too much in terms of where we end up [if there is a failure], because we are focused on success and not failure"
In other words, there's really no Plan B, much less Plan C. Either the mission is successful re being captured by Jupiter and eased into a productive orbit, or there's a miss, and really most of the mission objectives re Jupiter are not obtainable.

Bummer! $1billion at stake. Most of the money has been spent. Either the value return is really spectacular or pretty much nil. Talk about two discrete outcomes are really nothing in between.

NOT so fast!
Yes, the money has been spent, but on what? I'll bet -- without knowing the details -- that risk management has been hard at work on reliability, redundancy, and sensors of all kinds. I'll bet the PMO knows before it pushes the button whether it's likely to work.

Since they can't do risk management in real time, and they can do little once operations begin, it all has to be anticipated and worked into various failure analyses with work-arounds available in space. I'll bet they spent a fortune on risk management on the ground so that its unavailability in space is of minimal worry.

In other words you work in the domain you have, not the one you would like to have.

 


Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
http://www.sqpegconsulting.com
Read my contribution to the Flashblog