Talk:Risk management strategy

Revision as of 21:11, 25 November 2014

Review from Username111

First of all, it doesn't look like the article is complete yet. Therefore, I will only give a review based on the abstract, structure and the risk processing chapter (doesn't seem complete either but I'll use what is produced so far) which is currently produced (November 25th 15:00). However, the topic seems interesting and very relevant for any project manager (or student within project management). It seems clear that the article is under in-depth method description category, due to each of the proposed chapters will have method descriptions.

I like the proposed structure of the article. I believe that it will create a good flow with a clear red thread.

These are my specific questions and suggestions:

• Maybe you could add a general example to each of the chapters. This could further strengthen the arguments of using the methods. E.g. you could give an example of an identified risk in "risk identification", analyze this specific risk in "risk analysis", assess the risk in "risk assessment", and finally propose mitigation action for the risk in "risk processing". This would give the reader a clear understanding of how to use the proposed methods in each of the chapters.
• There seems to be a lack of proper referencing.
  • In the first sentence you reference to (Machiavelli, 1514), but there is no bibliography were I can find the actual article/journal/book.
  • In the second paragraph in the abstract there is a lot of interesting statements of risk management. I guess most of them are not something you have created out of your own thoughts, and therefore they need referencing to the correct sources. E.g. the definition of risk: "A risk can be defined as the product of the probability of the risk and the impact of the risk" needs referencing. Maybe some of the statements are common sense for a project manager, but I would still suggest using some references to academic resources in order to improve the quality of the article.
  • Your dice example needs need a reference as well, unless you came up with it yourself of course.
• In the second paragraph you give two examples; when a problem is likely to happen but no impact, and when a problem is unlikely to happen and high impact. Maybe you could add a few more examples, in order to introduce scenarios were risk mitigation action is required.
• You talk about "injuries" in relation to the impact of a given risk. I consider an injury something that can occur to an person. E.g. Bendtner sustained an injury after scoring his 6th goal. I would propose to use: consequence, damage, etc., since it often will be the impact in the project/company, not the person.
• This sentence is very hard to read: "If there is no certain way to determine a risk’s impact or probability or multiple risks are compared without having similar impact type (e.g. comparing human casualties against monetary loss) a qualitative approach can be used, where the risk is rated from e.g. 1-5.". Please consider revising, in order to make it more understandable.
• Since you already mention there are several other apppm wikis about risk management, you could use these as potential references, instead of just saying they might be similar.
• The risk processing chapter: It seems like the chapter is not completely done. I would suggest to begin this chapter with describing the different methods/strategies (accept, mitigate, transfer, avoid, improve), and then follow by when you would use these different methods/strategies. Ideally you could give an example in the end of a risk that has been mitigated using one of the methods/strategies. Remember proper referencing for this chapter as well.

Other than these few comments, good job. Just fill in the chapters and make sure to use proper referencing, and the article will be great :)

Good luck!

Review from Xyz

You have chosen a very exiting topic and is a very good first outcast, but obviously it's not complete.

• The spelling, grammar and punctuation looks fine to me.
• The article is generally easy to understand, but some of the sentences are bit long and hard to follow.
• There are so fare no figures. It would be easier to understand the main points, if there were a few figures.
• I find the topic very interesting and relevant, and i think any person within project management would to.
• To me it seams like article belongs to the method description category.
• I think there will be a nice flow through out the article, when it is finished.
• It would be nice to finish the article with a short summery/conclusion.
• It might be a good idea to have some more solid references.

-Good luck.