Talk:Risk analysis

General points

• In the abstract you describe what your wiki will concern, but you don't say why. Why is your wiki important to companies or students? And where is it exactly you want to go with it? Is it suppose to be a tool that you can just start using right away on your own risk problems?

(Also Christian mentioned in class today that they prefer to call it a summary in stead of an abstract)

• I think you should be aware of long sentences - I am bad at it too, that's why I'm so aware of it when others do it :)

• It might be a good idea to visualize what you are talking about. Could you maybe add some models that are typically used within risk analysis or to illustrate risk analysis.

• Would it be possible to turn some of your very many bullets into an illustration that you explain in stead? For me, it feels a bit confusing to look at the huge amount of bullets you have. Maybe you could illustrate the Input/Output part somehow.

Feedback from Author

1. The idea of a wiki is mainly to clarify any questions which may arise when using the different methods; yes one way is to make a walkthrough, but in this case it is meant as an informative article listing usable tools.
2. I will keep the part about long sentences in mind when I go over it again, thanks.
3. I've added a picture, might add more..
4. regarding bullets vs. illustration; the input/output could be turned into that, will consider it, but not the list of tools.

Specific points - may not all be relevant if you change the text

Abstract

• "main article: Risk Management" - I would probably include this in the text, in stead of having it as the very first thing you see after the subheading
• I do not quite understand what you mean by the sentence in the (); "but (in order to allow the full use of the wiki) not be described in detail."
• "Risk analysis essentially chooses " i am not certain Risk analysis itself can choose anything - I think a human being has to choose :)

Feedback from Author

1. This is the norm in a wiki.. if your page is a "sub-part" of another page, you list the "mother" as the first thing.. kinda like a file structure in your computer.
2. A wiki is built like the spaghetti-marshmallow tower with the articles being marshmallows and the links between them the spaghetti.. In order to become credible you generate a criss-cross of references and articles on the different subjects. thus, the () is to emphasize (and encourage) future participants of the course, to make a page for each of the tools.
3. I'll rephrase it.

Definition

• "Risk is mostly defined as a probability of losing something of a specific value, mathematically speaking; the probability of the event occurring multiplied by the potential value-loss = the risk." - I think I know what you mean by this sentence, but it might be you should consider if you should maybe part it up and try to make it slightly more eatable.
• ISO Guide 73-2009 - I don't actually know this but wouldn't you add a little reference note on this one - and maybe in the references write what year it was made?
• ISO 31000 - Same as the above point
• The sentence with both these standars quoted is very long.

Feedback from the Author

1. I presume it is edible now.
2. Found a reference for both
3. when things are quoted, they are written as they are stated.. can't really change that.

Main features of risk analysis

• "Qualitative, Semi-quantitative and quantitative." - Capital letters all the way.
• Is " guestimates" an actual word? Isn't it just called "guesses" or "best guesses" - I'm asking cause I don't know myself, but maybe you looked it up?

Feedback from the Author

1. fixed, thanks.. but does that mean throughout the article?
2. yup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guesstimate

Benefits of analysing risk

• "Analysing risk has become an integrated part of working with forecasts as well as decisions or projects, programs and portfolios," - I am not certain I would put projects, programs and portfolios in the same category as decisions. It might also just be I don't understand the sentence right.
• "The reason why risk is analysed with so many different methods to choose from, is because several different categories of risk exist, and yet there is a universal consensus that risk is best avoided, mitigated, minimised or negated." Is there some kinds of risk we shouldn't try to avoid? Is it relevant to mention what kinds of risk there is out there?

Feedback from Author

1. changed "or" to "in"
2. as mentioned previously in the article, "risk" is primarily about loosing something of value, though I do get the chain of thought where risk has a positive outcome.. I will reconsider your point.

Models used when analysing risk

In general for this part of the wiki - would it make sense to add some models to describe what the idea is with the models?

• How is brainstorming specifically related to risk analysis? (I think I might be able to guess, but I don't feel I can get it from the text) - I am thinking the same thing about some of the other bullets :)

Maybe you should try to have the question "how is this tool especially good for risk analysis" with you?

General remarks:

• Relevant and practicable topic
• Systematic and clear organization of the text
• I would wish for reading a more precis description and definition of "risk analysis" as a single step in the risk assessment process, giving a better understanding of your topic "demarcation" in relation to risk management as a whole
• You should also consider being a bit more concise in your abstract and scope description on what is actual subject for your article: Is it a survey of tools available ? Is it a discussion of principles ?
• You should consider adding more links to references

Feedback from the Author

1. Thanks
2. Thanks again :)
3. Has been updated, does it make sense?
4. I think it makes sense now.
5. sometimes less is more ;) or should I state all the links to the real wiki.. not my intention..

Specific remarks:

1. • In section "Definition": You should consider giving a reference for an authoritative definition of the term "risk"
   • In section "Main features": The characteristics and definition of the 3 principles could be more clear and distinct. Consider a graphic presentation of their differences and/or giving examples.
   • In section "Main features": Last 4 lines in the introductory subsection are difficult to understand - what is your point. You describe risk analysis as just "computing" some info, is that really your understanding of the concept ?
   • Subsections "input" and "output": These paragraphs are difficult to understand. As I read it you just give a list of issues and parameters to be considered when doing a risk analysis, but some explanation or examples on how it actually works would be helpful.
   • Section "Benefits": The text is not easy to understand. You should consider elaborating this a little, and maybe address some of the shortcomings, I'm sure there must be some, e.g. the classic "garbage in/garbage out" pitfall
   • Section "Models used when": I am a bit confused about this section. Do you aim to give a survey of applicable tools for risk analysis? If so, it seems that you go somewhat outside your own definition of risk analysis. According to ISO 73:2009 (your own reference) risk analysis is step 2 in the risk assessment process, step 1 being risk identification. Some of the listed tools are probably risk identification related, and some seems to be general management tools and methods not specific for risk analysis. "Models" may also be too big a word to use for the items you describe.
   • Section "Models etc." The reader misses some kind of concluding wrap-up for the survey, if possible including recommendations for practical purposes.