Risk metalanguage: how to make a proper Risk Register

One of the key deliverables in project risk management is the risk register.

The idea is that after risk identification, qualitative and quantitative analysis, and planning of risk response the tender manger (or project manager) should end having a list with all the risk identified at that point in time.

I assume that the content and format of the list will vary depending on the type of project and organization. However I believe that it should include at least:

  • Risk description
  • Impact on objective
  • Risk response strategy
  • Risk owner

The Project Management Institute add to this list other concepts like category (the taxonomy of risks always looked somehow arbitrary to me), probability (even more difficult to define with accuracy in many situations) and cause.

If you are familiar with the topic you will remember that, if a risk materialize, it will be moved from the risk register to the issues (or problems) register.

And here the interesting parts – I have been reviewing some risk registers that I have done in the past noticing that the description of risk was mixing three different concepts – cause, risk and effect.

“Presence of strong Workers Unions in the area”, for instance, it is not a risk: it is a fact, a reality in several projects I have been involved.

The risk is to have many strikes in the construction site – the effect would be delays (impacting the “to be on time” objective) and payment of damages (impacting the “to be on budget” objective).

There is a proper way to fill the risk register: the use of risk metalanguage.

Risk should be expressed in sentences with this structure:

“Because of <cause>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <effect>.

This language construction help bringing clarity and logic to the risk register. The previous example would become for instance:

“Because of <the presence of strong Workers Unions in the area>, <many strikes> might occur, which would lead to <delays and payment of damages>.”

There are some interesting implications. For instance this structure should be used in different languages – I would be curious to see if it can be replicated easily in all of them.

Additionally, it force you to think at the logical correlation between the causes of risks.

For instance, you can think at different situations were the same risk can have 2 different, independent causes:

“Because of <cause #1 AND cause #2>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <effect>.”

I understand that in this case it should be split in 2 different entries of the Risk Register.

However in some situations two or more different causes need to be there at the same time for the risk to materialize:

“Because of <cause #1 PLUS cause #2>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <effect>.”

Obviously you can increase the complexity ad libitum, as the same risk can have more than one effect:

“Because of <cause>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <effect #1 AND effect #2>.”

I guess that also in this case the good practice is to split the sentence in two different entries for the Risk Register.

This entry was posted in Project Management by Francesco Miceli. Bookmark the permalink.

About Francesco Miceli

Hello! My name is Francesco and I'm a civil engineer specialized in EPC (that is, "turnkey") wind farms projects. I'm currently based in Hamburg, Germany and I'm developing several interesting project all around the world - southern Europe, LATAM and various other countries. If you want to contact me please don't leave a comment in the blog (I don't check them very often) - you can use the contact form. You can write me in English, Spanish and Italian. To find a (somewhat concise) description of my non-wind business activities you can visit my webpage - www.francescomiceli.com If you want to know more about my work, here you can download my CV - www.windfarmbop.com/CV_Francesco_Miceli.pdf Hope you like the blog! Francesco

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *