Risk Management (Part 3) Activity Risk Assessment

Author:            Adrian Hepworth

Date:               21^st July 2013

Further to discussing risk management, behaviors and attitudes (Risk Management Part 2), I would like to focus on “Activity Risk Assessment”. For the purpose of this article “Activity Risk Assessment” (ARA) is defined as a scope of work to complete and part of the overall project objective without incident to persons or equipment. From my experience and my perspective there are still many organizations that get this wrong, certainly more so when outsourcing work scopes to contractors.

Communication, integration and aligned processes are contentious areas of concern. Organizations need to learn an adoptive approach of project integration and develop an integration model/framework that creates a clear roadmap of togetherness; that builds trust and motivation, and working towards the common objective goal (PMBOK, 2008). Human resources are the most precious of all resources that organizations have invested in training and molding to the organizational policies and procedures; and must be protected for continuous business strategies and project turnover. Major operating organizations have a vast amount of historical data from past projects and lessons learned that have helped sculptured there Health, Safety, Security & Environmental policies. During project operations there can only be one governance of authority, processes and procedures, and this must be outlined in the contract agreement. Thus integration must include aligned and integrated project processes and one adopted HSSE manual for the duration of the project activities.

Integration must include a significant risk culture building programme that is road-mapped and spearheaded by the top management leadership. For example top management attending and participating in risk assessment meetings (Tadayon, Jaafar & Nasri, 2012). Highlighting the risk awareness and directing members through an effective process to counter act and thoroughly examine activity hazards (Figure 3.0). Too many risk assessments are conducted without the full team of resources who will be conducting the activity, safety and risk is the responsibility of all stakeholders involved or impacted by the activity (Tadayon, Jaafar & Nasri, 2012). Continuous awareness communication and engagement with activity resources will improve the risk culture development, through safety & environmental workshops and seminars that are interactive with the participants and an extension of induction courses, through team activity discussion of the day’s proposed activities, through action and SIMOPS (Simultaneous Operations in Close Proximity) meetings, through on site walk about and engaging with activity resources and discussing any Health, Safety, Security or Environmental concerns.

Building a risk culture has many variables, however clear transparent communications upheld by all, the project vision revisited monthly and a sense of belongingness to the project; builds trust and motivation and again are the common characteristics aiming towards the common objective goal (Kerzner, 2010). A team that feels belongingness to the project is much more likely to succeed in openness and transparency in communication; hence report near misses and correct HSSE statistics opposed to hiding such events in fear of retribution. ARA can only be thoroughly assessed by involvement of all stakeholders impacted by the activity, through brainstorming and decomposition analysis of each activity, and understanding the relationship of other dependent activities associated to the scope (Norris, Perry & Simon, 2000; Williams, 2006).  

In conclusion, the support and commitment from top management is essential to the risk culture development and continuous awareness roadmap. Integration, shared processes and transparent communication improve the effort in ARA and implementing mitigating measures. Resource engagement at the activity level improves togetherness, shared visions and open communications.     

Figure 3.0 Risk Assessment Model
Source: Author

References

Kerzner, H. (2010) Project management best practices: achieving global excellence. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Norris, C. Perry, J. & Simon, P. (2000) Project Risk Analysis and Management, APM Guide [Online]. Available from:  http://www.fep.up.pt/disciplinas/PGI914/Ref_topico3/ProjectRAM_APM.pdf (Accessed: 29 May 2013)

Project Management Institute. (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide). 4th ed. Newton Square (PA): Author.

Tadayon, M. Jaafar, M. & Nasri, E. (2012) 'An Assessment of Risk Identification in Large Construction Projects in Iran', Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 17 (1), pp.57-69, EBSCO Host,[Online]. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=22907b10-5f4e-4bbd-b4cb-2e58f968c403%40sessionmgr198&vid=3&hid=7 (Accessed: 21 July 2013).   

Williams, M. (2006) Mastering leadership. University of Liverpool Online Library [Online]. Available from:

http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lib/liverpool/docDetail.action?docID=10141072 (Accessed: 29 May 2013).