Project Risk Management Failures: Safety, Security, Resilience & Risk

All too often, projects go astray. Risk is not managed, safety is less assured and security is not achieved.

Ironically, many projects continue to drift into failure, long after all the warning signs and concerns are documented or communicated.

Paradoxically, many projects continue to 'double down' or escalate commitment when warning signs of duress, failure or drift are first realised.

As a result, risk, safety and security is not only revised but routinely distorted to conform to the 'new' vision, vigour or corrective view.

In other words, projects and business initiatives continue to stay the 'wrong course' in safety, security and risk despite efforts to correct errors, drift or pending failure.

Not surprisingly, scholars and scientists have looked at this issue and summarised three key factors that contributed to spending good money after bad, or staying the wrong/inadequate course even when attempting to correct issues in safety, security or risk in order to achieve success or resilience.

In short, three broad classifications have been repeatedly observed.

Primarily, the nature of the project involved, sociological and psychological dimensions.

Each of these top line categories are further nuanced into factors immediately relatable for those that have managed or been involved with many projects.

For example, the nature of the project may impose false motivations or reasoning factors to forge on or not adequately address disruptions, delays and pending failures.

Some of these issues include the size, visibility/scrutiny, expected pay off/benefits and availability (lack there of) of possible alternatives.

In other words, the project and pressure create invisible fences and constraints that herd individuals or groups to continue on, regardless of realities or warning signs of safety, security or risk failures.

Sociological factors not only contribute to but also amplify inherent project pressures.

That is, illusion/delusion of control, optimism bias, self-justification and the unique nature of any given project by further drive individuals and groups to pursue inadequate project risk, safety and security objectives or processes.

In other words, no one wants to face defeat or acknowledge failures so they rationalise poor performance as 'external' factors and continue on the same or similar trajectory, even when appearing to apply corrective action, which is again the product of the same people or circumstances that contributed to inaccurate estimates and systemic failures in the first instance.

And these factors are just sociological influences, long before individual ideology, biases and personal, psychological dimensions enter the calculation.

In other words, you can convince yourself of many things, including rewards and even concealing failure, in order to continue to push or pursue an objective.

In sum, safety, security, risk and resilience remains a negotiated and co-created reality within projects and business operations.

As a result, great pain, suffering and ignorance will prevail for the appearance of control, success and the promise of 'better' results in the future.

Even corrective and recalibrated action may result in 'staying the wrong course', further creating, undermining or distorting safety, security, resilience and risk as a practice and reporting metric.

In time, organisations, individuals and project management practitioners will come to declare, embrace and declare project failures, drift and errors as an essential measure for future success, as opposed to just selling how 'good' or 'controlled' projects in their past portfolio have appeared.

Ironically, it is one of the first things risk, safety and security analysts scrutinise pre project and throughout the project delivery cycle.

Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM

Security, Risk & Management Sciences