Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis
Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis
Introduction
Risk analysis can be categorised into two broad methods. They are qualitative and quantitative
in nature.
Several factors leading to successful qualitative risk analysis are summarized in Figure 6-1.
1. Agreed-Upon Approach:
o Manageability: Some risks are unmanageable and attempting to address them is a waste of
resources. So the project team may examine and decide to:
o Impact external to the project: The importance of a risk may be increased if it affects the
enterprise beyond the project.
2. Agreed-Upon Definitions
Risk assessment should be based on agreed-upon definitions of important terms, and they
should be used consistently.
Example: Levels of probability and impact on objectives helps to give realistic risk assessments,
and facilitates communication of results between management and stakeholders.
Individual data subject to reporting or intentional bias should be identified and remedied, or
else a different and unbiased source of information should be found and used.
4. Iteration
Periodical analysis of individual risks of project enhances the success of qualitative risk analysis.
The frequency of analysis is planned in the Plan Risk Management process, and events within
the project also influence it.
Tools and Techniques for the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis Process
Tools and techniques identify the risks that are important to the project’s success. They are as
follows:
The tools and techniques used for assessing individual risks will identify the risks that are important
to the project’s success. This process is illustrated in Figure 6-2
Helps to distinguish high level risk response from low level risk response.
The criteria that make a risk important to management are agreed upon in advance and
implemented in the tools used.
Output includes a listing of risks in priority order or in priority groups such as high, moderate,
and low.
Data collection, evaluation tools, including interviews, workshops, and references to databases
of prior projects require management support and attention.
Intention bias should be avoided while relying in expert judgment for the information.
Helps to distinguish a risk’s priority in terms of probability and impact on project objectives.
The organization should be explicit about the single risk prioritization index, if needed, which
reflects the establishment’s preference among objectives.
Brings improvement in analysis of the probability and magnitude of project risk and effective
responses.
Identifying common root causes of a group of risks reveal both the magnitude of the risk event
and effective strategies that might address several risks simultaneously.
Better understanding of the chain of risks lead to the implementation of risk for the project.
Combined results of the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis and risk breakdown structure shows
clusters of priority risks arising from specific sources and high risk areas.
Assessment of high priority risks’ impact on one objective reduces the uncertainty of that
objective.
Documentation of Results
Priorities are based on probability of risk occurrence and impact on project objectives.
The information is stored in risk registry and is easy to use and update.
List of prioritized risks is posted to the project participants for improving the plan and risks
having high priority are segregated for further analysis and monitoring.
Low priority risks are placed on a watch list and are less often reviewed for changes.
APPENDIX
The Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis process prioritizes the further analysis of the
undifferentiated list of risks identified in the Identify Risks process.
Organizations apply resources to “high risk” based on their priority indicated by risks’
probability and impact characteristics.
TECHNIQUES
1. Root Cause Analysis:
A root-cause analysis identifies basic causes of risks that may point to fundamental forces; it also
identifies common sources of risks. Risks that may be related because of their common root
causes may also be identified. Preventive action may be taken according to the details that are
arrived at through this technique. The success of this technique depends on the willingness by
management to accept and address the root cause rather than adopting partial workarounds.
The root-cause analysis technique reduces the instances of problems occurring instead of
reacting to problems when they occur.
Disadvantages: Root causes cannot be identified in risk management techniques that are
organized by individual risk.
Other potential causes of risk may be overlooked in this technique. Moreover, there may be no
valid strategy to address the root cause once it has been identified.
Addresses both key dimensions of a risk, namely its degree of uncertainty (probability) and its
effect on project objectives (impact).
Terms for probability (e.g. probable, almost certain) and impact (e.g. insignificant, major) are
ambiguous and subjective.
Impact can be represented by a range of values that can not be put into specific impact level
such as “moderate impact on time.”
Critical success factors such as agreed definitions and terms reflect stakeholders’ risk tolerance
and thresholds.
Values used in the definitions represent the same level of impact across objectives as perceived
by the management or stakeholders.
Consistent use of agreed-upon terms and definitions across all identified risks.
The probability of a risk occurring can be specified by assigning levels of risk probability by
ranges of probability.
Risk estimation in terms of probability and impact helps the subject experts to assess a risk’s
probability within a range rather than as a specific value.
Impact level definitions are project-specific.
The values used to specify the level of impact from very low to very high (if a 5*5 matrix is being
used) should be:
o Higher impact, for threats and opportunities, as they move from very low to very
high for a specific objective.
o Levels are defined by the organization as causing the same amount of pain or
gain to the project for each level across objectives.
o If a risk’s possible impact is uncertain and could be assigned to more than one
level of impact (e.g. from moderate to high), the analyst may choose to assign
the risk to the impact level that represents the expected or average impact.
o The risk may be flagged for extra analysis in order to reduce the range of
uncertainty to fit within a single range.
An example of impact level definitions is shown in Figure: D11. These definitions should be tailored
for opportunities and threats and scaled by stakeholders to the specific project.
VHI 61-99% >40 days >$200K Very significant impact on overall functionality
MED 21-40% 11-20 days $51K-$100K Some impact in key functional areas
Figure 6.4: Example of Definitions for Levels of Probability and Impact on Four Specific Objectives Used to Evaluate
Individual Risks.
Note: Opportunities are to be treated as representing a positive saving in time or cost, or increased
functionality. For threats, each impact scale is interpreted negatively, i.e. time delays, increased cost,
or reduced functionality.
The review of risk databases of previous projects, such as those that arise from post-project
reviews or lessons learned exercises or historical information within an organization or industry
can reveal information relevant for a current project.
This technique leverages previous experience, and prevents the occurrence of the same
mistakes or missing the same opportunities again.
© 2012 RMstudy.com Page 7 of 12
Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis
Participation of previous project team members and a well-structured project lessons database
increases the effectiveness of this technique.
Disadvantages:
Allows the organization to prioritize the project risks for further analysis (e.g. quantitative) or
risk response.
Critical success factors include clear and unambiguous input data for assigning levels of
probability and impact.
Organizations should be careful to assess the combinations of probability and impact that qualify
a risk as low, moderate or high risk so that the method used reflects the organization’s risk
attitude.
Definitions used to designate the levels of impact (L, M, H) for each objective should represent
the same level of impact as perceived by the organization’s management or project stakeholders
as reflecting the organization’s utility function.
Drawbacks include inefficiency in handling risk ranking factors such as urgency or manageability
and the range of uncertainty in the assessment of a risk’s probability or impact overlapping a
boundary.
VHI L M M H H H H M M L VHI
HI L L M H H H H M L L HI
MOD L L M H H H H M L L MOD
LOW L L L M H H M L L L LOW
VLOW L L L L M M L L L L VLOW
Figure 6.5: Example of Probability-Impact Matrix Used to Sort Risks (Threats and Opportunities) into High Risk (H),
Moderate Risk (M), and Low Risk (L) Classes.
Assists in developing a relative weighing for project objectives that reflects the organization’s
priorities for time, cost, scope, and quality for the project.
Assists the creation of an overall project priority list of risks with respect to individual objectives.
This prioritization determines how trade-offs affect different objectives.
Critical success factors for the effective application of this method include: it acts as an expert
facilitator in the process, agreement by management that it is useful to develop a consistent set
of priorities among objectives, and use of proper method or available AHP software.
Weaknesses include organizational decisions often made by committees than individuals and
difficulty in gathering information about pair-wise comparison of the objectives from high-level
management.
Preference Factors
1 Equally Preferred
2 Mildly Preferred
3 Moderately Preferred
4 Greatly Preferred
5 Always Preferred
Note: Preference factors input is given in Blue color. Principal Diagonal is 1.0 by definition. Other cells
calculated as 1/ preference factor for same objectives.
Figure 6.6: Example of Analytic Hierarchy Process Computations to Determine the Relative Weighting of Four Project
Objectives.
2. Effect: Conditional future events or conditions which would directly affect one or more project
objectives if the associated risk happened.
3. Impact: A measure of the effect of a risk on one or more objectives if it occurs. Also known as
consequence.
5. Iteration: The act or repeating the process usually with the aim of approaching a desired goal or
target or result.
10. Probability: A measure of how likely an individual risk is to occur. Also known as likelihood.
11. Risk: An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a
project’s objectives.
12. Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS): [Tool] A hierarchically organized depiction of the identified
project risks arranged by risk category and subcategory that identifies the various areas and
causes of potential risks. It is tailored to specific project types.
13. Risk Register: The document containing the results of the qualitative risk analysis, quantitative
risk analysis, and risk response planning.
14. Root Cause: An initiating cause that gives rise to a causal chain which may give rise to risks.
15. Scalability: It is the ability of a system or component to accommodate greater demand while
maintaining an acceptable response time for users. It is an important factor for project
management anticipating for future growth.
16. Stakeholder: Person or organization (e.g., customer, sponsor, performing organization, or the
public) that is actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or
negatively affected by execution or completion of the project. A stakeholder may also exert
influence over the project and its deliverables.