Елена Макарова Управление Рисками

Topic: Risk management for digital/data-driven projects (corporate & public-sector examples)

• Frames risk management as a long-established corporate practice to improve project effectiveness.
• Core idea: Higher risk → higher project cost (e.g., hedging via discount/interest rate; banking/infrastructure cost increases).
• Defines risk as: the probability of an event that can be negative or positive and can significantly affect project outcomes.
• Emphasizes that risk has:
  • Source
  • Consequences
  • Multiple characteristics tied to likelihood and impact on key project components

---

Risk management system (iterative process / stages)

1) Risk identification (most important step)

• Goal: produce an identified list of risks.

• For a “good project” aim for ≥ ~50 risks (practical note: often 10–15 are easy early; then it gets harder).

• Each risk must be captured using 4 fields:

  • Risk name
  • Cause
  • Trigger (symptom)
  • Consequences

• Quality rule: the consequences must not be the same as the risk name (avoid duplicate wording/sound → indicates incorrect structuring).

• Practical goal illustrated for a workshop example:

  • Start with fewer (e.g., 25) and “in real life” strive for ~50.

2) Risk assessment

• Quantify/qualify each risk using two indicators:
  1. Probability of occurrence
  2. Degree of impact on significant project indicators
• Outputs: a risk matrix (probability vs. impact) to identify most critical risks.

3) Monitoring & control

• Iterative updates based on:
  • Whether triggers/symptoms indicate probability has changed
  • Whether the risk is closer or farther due to internal/external environment changes

Management ownership

• Risk management is described as the prerogative and personal responsibility of top management (project/process/department leadership).

---

Risk sources: internal vs external

External risk sources

• Legislative changes
  • Example: recent Russian legislation changes increased risks (e.g., pension reform, social/economic risks).
  • Example of positive legislative impact: reduction in Russia’s key rate by >1 percentage point; last reduction mentioned: -1.5 pp, reducing cost of capital and benefiting the economy.
• Market reaction to new products/technologies
  • New offerings can force companies without flexibility into overstocking, higher financial burden, and loss of competitiveness.
• Competitor actions and technological shifts.
• State-level example: Shale oil & gas appearing (~2013 context)
  • intercepted sales and buyers
  • logistics changes via liquefied gas technologies
  • spillover effects mentioned:
    • real income decline
    • ruble value effects

Internal risk sources

• Human capital/competence gaps
  • Digital economy/data workflows: lack of capacity to analyze large information volumes → incorrect conclusions/final results.
• Project-area inherent risk
  • Example: oil production/refining risks due to long cycle (up to ~15 years) → world and consumer conditions can change significantly.

---

Impact model: what risk affects

Risk consequences ultimately distribute across four project components:

• Goals / target indicators
• Cost
• Quality of results
• Timing / deadlines

---

Triggers (risk signs / symptoms)

• Trigger = an observable change/event indicating probability of a risk is sharply increasing.
• Example (construction fire):
  • Risk: “fire”
  • Possible causes: safety violations, poor-quality wiring
  • Rejected trigger example: “smoke appears” is too close to the fire itself
  • Better trigger examples:
    • workers smoking on-site improperly
    • frequent/increasing short circuits detected during inspections

---

Correlation/synergy between risks (combined effects)

• Instruction: don’t treat risks independently.
• If 2–3 risks trigger simultaneously, they can create synergistic effects (positive or negative).
• Example chain (Russia/oil & gas context):
  • emergence of shale oil/gas
  • sanctions after Crimea annexation (2014)
  • later lifting/changes in sanctions (e.g., Iran mentioned) → increased supply → downward pressure on prices
  • demand not fully recovering after 2008–2009 crisis
  • resulting interconnected pressures on market and effective demand; downstream effects cited like price collapse (e.g., $140 → ~$35–40 as a historical illustration)

---

Methods/playbooks for risk identification (practical toolset)

Used in parallel; encouraged to apply multiple methods for better coverage.

• Review of project documentation
  • Check contracts/specs/tender docs/technical requirements for contradictions that reveal risks.
• “Hypothesis from the opposite” / reverse hypothesis
  • Build an initial hypothesis of what the project will achieve.
  • Then reason from the opposite outcome (“if it doesn’t happen—why?”) to generate risks.
  • Example: high-speed rail promised passenger growth; if flows don’t rise and complementary infrastructure doesn’t develop → risks like routing choice, pricing too high, or wrong transport mode selection.

• SWOT analysis (risk-oriented, not only formal)

  • Quadrants: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
  • Suggested approach: create ~5 items per quadrant → derive multiple risks.
  • Caution: avoid “SWOT as paperwork”; use it strategically (use strengths to capture opportunities; address weaknesses/threats).

• Brainstorming

  • Pros: cheap, flexible.
  • Cons: difficult to gather experts; conflict of interest, hierarchy suppression, and needs strong moderation (otherwise becomes “a bazaar”).
• Expert inquiry with sociologists (iterative remote questionnaires)
  • Designed to mitigate brainstorming downsides:
    • interview large expert groups
    • multiple rounds
    • sociologists refine questions between iterations
  • Drawbacks: high cost (noted “from millions of rubles”).
  • Incentive challenge: motivate experts to respond (status/complexity + possible monetary rewards).
• Visualization / Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram
  • Break the process into stages (example categories mentioned):
    • machinery/equipment
    • human resources
    • incoming raw materials
  • Identify bottlenecks at each stage and link to defect/final outcome causes.

---

Risk assessment mechanics (scoring & matrix)

Qualitative scoring

• Probability rated on a 5-point scale:
  • “Very high”, “High”, “Medium”, “Small”, “Rarely encountered”
• Guidance: scoring should involve experts.
• Warns against simplistic 50/50 guessing:
  • if unknown, probability rankings become unreliable (illustrated with the “dinosaur probability” joke).

Impact scoring

• Impact degree divided into 4 significant characteristics:
  • effect on cost
  • effect on goals/targets
  • effect on timing
  • effect on quality
• Mentions using the arithmetic mean from these ranks to form an overall impact score.

Risk matrix output

• Create matrix:
  • Vertical: probability rank
  • Horizontal: impact rank
  • Cells contain the ordinal numbers of risks at intersections
• Prioritization:
  • Most important risks cluster in the upper-right quadrant (high probability + high impact).
  • Suggest choosing ~7 top risks (if total is 20/25) for detailed personal response strategies.

---

Risk response strategies (action playbook)

For each top risk, define a response strategy (options from negative to positive):

1. Accept
   • Do nothing in advance except monitor triggers/symptoms and track probability changes.
   • Note: acceptance still involves acknowledging the risk cost/treatment in planning.
2. Transfer
   • Shift responsibility/cost to contractors via tender/subcontracting documentation.
   • Contractor includes risk response funding internally.
3. Minimize
   • Reduce likelihood and/or consequences:
     • Example: fire risk → increase inspection of wiring to reduce likelihood; use less flammable materials and enforce cleanliness/safety to reduce consequence severity.
4. Avoid / abandon
   • In rare cases when risk makes continuing the project pointless, reconsider or abandon the initiative and revise conditions.

Positive risks (explicit reminder)

• The speaker encourages assuming at least a couple positive risks to broaden the development horizon and improve opportunities capture.

---

Actionable recommendation / exercise

• Encourages viewers to:
  • Generate ~2025 risks for a current activity (wording suggests risks for a planning horizon)
  • Build a risk impact interaction matrix
  • Use it practically for risk management implementation

---

Presenters / sources

• Presenter: Елена Макарова (as indicated by the video title snippet: “Елена Макарова Управление Рисками”)