Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Deliberate ignorance in project risk management

By Elmar Kutsch and Mark L. Hall

Abstract

The management of project risk is considered a key discipline by most organisations involved in projects. Best practice project risk management processes are claimed to be self-evidently correct. However, project risk management involves a choice between which information is utilized and which is deemed to be irrelevant and hence excluded. Little research has been carried out to ascertain the manifestation of barriers to optimal project risk management such as 'irrelevance'; the deliberate inattention of risk actors to risk. This paper presents the results of a qualitative study of IT project managers, investigating their reasons for deeming certain known risks to be irrelevant. The results both confirm and expand on Smithson's [Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty. Springer-Verlag, New York] taxonomy of ignorance and uncertainty and in particular offer further context related insights into the phenomenon of 'irrelevance' in project risk management. We suggest that coping with 'irrelevance' requires defence mechanisms, the effective management of relevance as well as the setting of, and sticking to priorities. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved

Publisher: Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
Year: 2010
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/5114
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2004). A Conceptual Review of Decision Making in Social Dilemmas: Applying a Logic of Appropriateness," doi
  2. (1981). Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: doi
  3. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty," doi
  4. (2001). An integrated approach for risk response development in project planning," doi
  5. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns." doi
  6. (1983). Behaviour under uncertainty and its implications for policy," doi
  7. (1993). Business Risk Management.
  8. (1996). Challenging the orthodoxy in risk management," doi
  9. (2003). Dealing with Risk. London:
  10. (1986). Decision making under ambiguity," doi
  11. (1990). Desired risk: Broadening the social amplification of risk framework," doi
  12. (2007). E-Business and Project Procurement”
  13. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation," doi
  14. (1989). Ignorance and Uncertainty. doi
  15. (2001). In Defense of Ignorance: on the Significance of a Neglected Form of Incomplete Information,"
  16. (2000). Institution, "Project management - part 3: Guide to the management of business related project risk," British Standards Institute,
  17. (2006). Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," doi
  18. (2004). Management of uncertainty through postponement," doi
  19. (2001). Managing incomplete knowledge: Why risk management is not sufficient," doi
  20. (2002). Neglected risk regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon," Centre for analysis of risk and regulation, doi
  21. (2007). Office of Government Commerce, "Management of risk: Guidance for practitioners;" The Stationary Office,
  22. (1989). On defining, describing and explaining elephants (and reactions to them): Hazards, disasters, and risk analysis,"
  23. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy," doi
  24. (1987). Perception of risk," doi
  25. (2003). Perceptions in risk evaluation for project management," doi
  26. (1999). Postmodern reflections on ‘risk’, ‘hazard’ and life choices” doi
  27. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty," doi
  28. (2005). Project Categorization Systems: Aligning capability with strategy, Project Management Institute,
  29. (2003). Project uncertainty management,"
  30. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner -Researchers. ,2nd ed. doi
  31. Relevance thresholds: a multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information," doi
  32. (1999). Restoring trust by participation: A comment based on social judgement theory," in Risk Analysis: Facing the New Millennium,
  33. (1986). Risk Acceptability According to Social Sciences. Padstow:
  34. Risk analysis - A subjective process," doi
  35. (1994). Risk Analysis in Project Management. doi
  36. (2002). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings," Decision Research, doi
  37. (2003). Risk assessment and perception," doi
  38. (2004). Risk management: The talking cure," doi
  39. (2000). Risk management: The undiscovered dimension of project management,"
  40. (1997). Risk, ambiguity, and decision choice: Some additional evidence," doi
  41. (1987). Subjective risk," in Risk and Decisions
  42. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. doi
  43. (2001). The Book of Risk.
  44. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications," doi
  45. (1997). The techniques of risk analysis are insufficient in themselves," doi
  46. (1979). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science."
  47. Trust in project relationships - inside the black box," doi
  48. (2003). Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes," doi
  49. (1994). Understanding uncertainty," doi
  50. (2001). Use and benefit of tools for project management,"
  51. (2005). Wilful Ignorance in the Request for Product Attribute Information," doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.