PROJECTS IN THE SPOTLIGHT

PROJECT IN THE SPOTLIGHT

THE EMPLOYMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE

WING COMMANDER ROB SEABROOK LOOKS AT THE EMPLOYMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN BOTH MILITARY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTS.

As with many management processes, often the value lays in simply having any sensible process rather than shooting for nirvana in the elusive perfect process.

I don’t profess to be an expert or an academic specialising in risk management (let’s call it RM to save some time), but I am a practitioner – having in ADF service regularly employed RM techniques both formally in a governance sense and informally as a method of day-to-day management.

Assuming a knowledgeable audience I do not propose to explain the “how” of RM, but rather I will present a discussion of the why (and even the why not) particularly in military service, and in providing an overview of how the ADF utilises RM I hope to demonstrate why sensible and adaptive methods are necessary rather than just slavish adherence to a policy.

THE PURPOSE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

Succinctly clarifying the purpose of RM is useful for context. In short, it is a management tool to prevent impact from unforeseen circumstances. This immediately makes it indispensable in a range of enterprise activities regardless of whether they are military, public or private.

The methods can of course also apply to seeking more impact from desirable circumstances (called opportunity) but that is largely semantics in the context of this short article. Most importantly, RM enables one to make informed decisions by making the available information as useful as possible.

Essentially it does this through reducing the unforeseen aspect of the circumstances and putting structure around the measurement and comparison of cost to benefit. Standardised processes put in place a common language, ensuring team understanding and enabling wide team input.

As with many management processes, often the value lays in simply having any sensible process rather than shooting for nirvana in the elusive perfect process.

Often much time is wasted in changing processes, outsourcing, or adopting the latest proprietary methods, when improvement is sometimes impossibly difficult to measure. Sometimes new methods are just different, in reality no better or worse.

Granted, there are complex situations where the investment to carry out quantitative analysis to increase accuracy and fidelity is warranted, however it is my view that the so-called law of diminishing returns often results in the investment not providing value for money, and the alleged benefits not being realised.

RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE ADF

Regardless of whether conducted intuitively and quickly in a dangerous operational environment, or deliberately and mathematically in a project environment, RM is the basis for all decision-making in the ADF.

In planning activities, it is an aid to considering options; balancing advantages and disadvantages and considering what is known as the what if? question. In reality the only practical variation in RM between types of work area or operational environment is the speed and accuracy of analysis required in different circumstances.

decisions which place people’s lives at risk, and their key considerations are of immediate mission success and casualties. Most risk causal factors relate to actions of the adversary. The timeframes they are considering are in the range of minutes to hours, with decisions often being made in seconds to minutes under severe stress.

Conversely, a staff officer conducting operational planning has a much higher-level focus, and usually far more time with which to make deliberate considerations. They are considering risk in the context of broad operational success and national or organisational reputation, across a longer timeframe and larger geographical area, and with a broad range of causal factors beyond just the adversary to political, environmental, and even public relations factors. Additionally, in developing options for Government to apply military influence, the operational planner is also giving consideration to the risk related to other Government levers of influence – that is, diplomatic and economic – so that possible Government responses to an event are synchronised across these areas.

A project manager overseeing what the ADF calls capability development and acquisition activities has a more traditional view of risk. The project risk consequence areas of scope/ quality, cost and schedule are at the fore, and an ADF concept known as the “fundamental inputs to capability” (FIC) is often used to bound the relevant risks.

FIC includes not only the system being acquired, but also essential contributing elements such as personnel, support, and facilities. Work Health and Safety is also a key consideration, and the timeframe being considered is across the life of the system – sometimes decades. Finally, whenever developing project business cases for Government approval the project manager must also consider risk from the Government’s perspective, such as reputational, environmental and impact on Australian industry.

Good RM practice is just a tool for managers to use; it is an enabler for decision-making, not a security blanket to be desperately clung to at all costs.

Across all these areas there is significance in the term “acceptable risk”. It tells us firstly that there is a degree of risk that is acceptable – it is rarely if ever possible to achieve zero risk – and secondly it implies that someone must make a judgement to determine what loss or impact is acceptable. This consideration differs according to the environment and the type of risk, but in the ADF it is often formally specified and sometimes delegated.

Finally, RM serves the ADF as a common language to translate between technical and operational environments. Ultimately all activity in the ADF is conducted in support of operations, either directly or indirectly, so RM serves to enable a technical, administration or logistics specialist to

Wing Commander Rob Seabrook. (Source: Australian Defence Force)

express answers to the so what? question to operational commanders in operational terms.

ADF policy specifies that commanders must have the flexibility to deviate from formal process when “compelling operational imperatives” exist, which reinforces that good RM practice is just a tool for managers to use; it is an enabler for decision-making, not a security blanket to be desperately clung to at all costs.

CONCLUSION

The real value of RM, regardless of the method employed and regardless of the organisation, is in paying conscious attention to the “unforeseen circumstances” that create risk events. Actively identifying, analysing, managing and tracking risks by some standardised method can only serve to improve the individual, organisational or project resilience to “stuff that goes wrong”, and does not need to be a complicated process. These factors make RM an indispensable management tool regardless of military or civil application.

Author: Rob Seabrook joined the Air Force in 1990 and has worked in a range of technical, operational and staff positions as an engineer, a communications officer and a project manager. He is an electrical engineer by trade, and is both a Certified Practising Senior Project Manager (CPSPM) and a chartered professional engineer.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Royal Australian Air Force or the Australian Department of Defence.