Speaking Risk With Our Project Managers

Dustin Nix, J. Fellows, John Hall
{"title":"Speaking Risk With Our Project Managers","authors":"Dustin Nix, J. Fellows, John Hall","doi":"10.56094/jss.v54i3.64","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effective communication between the system safety engineer and the project manager (PM) is an essential characteristic of good risk management in a robust system safety program. However, these two disciplines often use similar terms with disparate meanings that can lead to sub-optimal technical or programmatic outcomes. MIL-STD-882E defines “risk” as “a combination of the severity of the mishap and the probability that the mishap will occur”. The Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide, 6th Edition, defines “individual project risk” as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives”. \nIt is incumbent upon the system safety professional to clearly communicate safety-related issues, hazards, risks and concerns using language most likely to be understood by the PM to ensure that he or she has the requisite information to make a sound programmatic decision. This paper explores the discrepancies between project risk management and safety risk management standard processes that hinder clear communication and can drastically impact program performance. We present methods to consider that will improve understanding between the system safety professional and the PM, along with two framework approaches for integrating safety and project risks.","PeriodicalId":250838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of System Safety","volume":"7 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of System Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56094/jss.v54i3.64","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective communication between the system safety engineer and the project manager (PM) is an essential characteristic of good risk management in a robust system safety program. However, these two disciplines often use similar terms with disparate meanings that can lead to sub-optimal technical or programmatic outcomes. MIL-STD-882E defines “risk” as “a combination of the severity of the mishap and the probability that the mishap will occur”. The Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide, 6th Edition, defines “individual project risk” as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives”. It is incumbent upon the system safety professional to clearly communicate safety-related issues, hazards, risks and concerns using language most likely to be understood by the PM to ensure that he or she has the requisite information to make a sound programmatic decision. This paper explores the discrepancies between project risk management and safety risk management standard processes that hinder clear communication and can drastically impact program performance. We present methods to consider that will improve understanding between the system safety professional and the PM, along with two framework approaches for integrating safety and project risks.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与我们的项目经理谈论风险
系统安全工程师和项目经理(PM)之间的有效沟通是一个健全的系统安全计划中良好风险管理的基本特征。然而,这两个学科经常使用具有不同含义的相似术语,这可能导致次优的技术或编程结果。MIL-STD-882E将“风险”定义为“事故严重程度和事故发生概率的组合”。《项目管理知识指南》(PMBOK)第6版将“单个项目风险”定义为“一种不确定的事件或条件,如果发生,对一个或多个项目目标有积极或消极的影响”。系统安全专业人员有责任使用PM最容易理解的语言清楚地传达与安全相关的问题、危害、风险和关注,以确保他或她拥有必要的信息来做出合理的规划决策。本文探讨了项目风险管理和安全风险管理标准过程之间的差异,这些差异阻碍了清晰的沟通,并可能极大地影响项目绩效。我们提出的方法将提高系统安全专业人员和项目经理之间的理解,以及集成安全和项目风险的两种框架方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Proposing the Use of Hazard Analysis for Machine Learning Data Sets Review of the Latest Developments in Automotive Safety Standardization for Driving Automation Systems Human Reliability Analysis using a Human Factors Hazard Model Incremental Assurance Through Eliminative Argumentation System Safety Bookshelf
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1