How a business deals with risk is a predictor of how that business will move into the future. Hiding or ignoring risks usually just postpones the inevitable. Luck notwithstanding, risks ignored will usually come back as less controllable and higher cost events later in the project.

One of the more difficult team risks to control is communication of the project schedule, particularly if there are problems in the program.

From the team's perspective, they are probably doing what they can. It is rare that a team really doesn't care about the schedule, particularly if there is a real commitment (customer ship date, trade show, venture funding milestone) but often the exact state of the project is as much a `feeling' buried in intuition as it is a `fact'.

Yes, a well laid out plan is an asset, but even a great plan has risks and unknowns that are not reflected in the project plan. These can include accidents, resignations, poor estimates and an endless list of other items. In a project that depends on outside partners all of these also apply, but with less visibility.

So the team might be able to show issues with the plan, have contingencies for risks, and have a solid team… but the critical communication interface with stakeholders has to allow talking about what is going on in the project. If there is not an open communications channel, the team may not be able to manage the project during a crisis. The key to that interface and the discussion is how risks are shared, allocated, or avoided at the interface between the team and its stakeholders.

Management's position, particularly in a larger company, is that they sometimes don't understand what is going on in the project. They might not have the time, technical background, or interest to learn the details. A symptom of this is a management team that emphasizes schedule or cost over all other project parameters.

I have also experienced those three issues in a situation where the management was going to lose their job if the project was not delivered on time, a fact learned well after the project concluded which explained a lot about their reaction to news.

Particularly in a difficult project, management gets tired of bad news. Part of their job is to coach and mentor, but bad news can tire them to where they shun hearing it.

So this is the communications dilemma; a crisis waiting to happen. The team `feels' that there is a problem and management wants to hear only good news.

How management deals with risk-takers makes differences that can determine creative and project success, as well as being a major factor in job satisfaction, productivity, and retention of staff. This can be a critical point for both the project and the company.

In my experience games rarely work. The best path forward is to force the time with the stakeholders to talk through what is going on. The only way for a team to win is to get the stakeholders involved and working together with the team.

If the stakeholders only want good news? Give the facts anyway. Better they know now than have it blow up later. What if they won't listen? Then look for a third party to help.

The best way to deal with this is long before the issues surface. Set the ground and build relationships with stakeholders early in the program. Have everyone understand the risks and consequences early on. This is akin to the advice we all get about setting your exit package before you take the job. The easiest and often only way to deal with tough issues is to have an understanding before the fact.

I always propose that the first step in building a culture that can deal with risk is to establish a way for the project team to quantify and talk about risk. The discussion must go beyond the financial and calendar impact of the risks. Risks are personal. It's a challenge to build that environment, but hey, that's what I do.

Home | Privacy