Scope Creep Is Good

Week 8 Discussion – Scope Creep Is Good

Please respond to the following:

In many risk programs, risks are managed individually. A robust risk program, however, considers the cumulative effect of all risks. Assess the following scenario and identify the effect of multiple events on a risk management strategy:
When the Titanic struck the iceberg, the weather was bad, the lookouts were not properly equipped, the radio operator was not monitoring other ship traffic in the area, and the ship design had a major flaw in the construction of the hull’s “watertight” compartments.
Be sure to respond to at least one of your classmates’ posts.

Respond to student below

Thomas Gutche
Wednesday Aug 23 at 11:10pm

Hello Dr. Marion and Classmates

This week’s discussion looks at risk planning for multiple events vs. managing risk individually. The scenario of the sinking of the Titanic was a barrage of bad events happening simultaneously. The probability of all those issues and the negative impact happening simultaneously would have been low on a risk probability and impact matrix. Even each individual one would have had a low probability, with some having a high impact (i.e., weather or design flaws). Even with low probability, the project should have identified the potential weather issues, design defects, and staff not following policy. Risk happening one at a time or all at once must be considered in risk planning.

Regardless of whether one risk event materialized or multiple, risk responses could have been created and helped mitigate some of the impact of the risk events that happened that night. The bad weather response could have been ‘accept,’ knowing that open oceans can be unpredictable. Accepting potential bad weather could have triggered more training for the crew on how to run the ship in bad weather. The risk response for the radio operator could have used a ‘mitigation’ response on policies being always created to have two staff on duty. If one stepped away without reason, there would always be a second. The ship design response could have been a ‘transfer’ strategy, and the shipbuilder could have hired an independent contractor to inspect the hull design and potentially discover the flaw and request a change in design. Responding to the multiple risks could have had a positive chain reaction that reduced the probability of additional events happening on the ship.

The project team managing the Titanic would have had to have been diligent in the monitoring and control phase to continue accessing the risk register and add/reevaluate new risks as they became known. New risks could have been identified by other ships experiencing impacting events that the Titanic crew didn’t know about when first assessing risk at project initiation.

Feedback welcomed. I hope everybody has a great week!