A project management magazine recently contained an article on innovation which was somewhat provocative when it stated that “Project management is about processes and risk management, and that’s the absolute antithesis of innovation.” This challenge to risk management deserves a response!

The purpose of risk management in projects and business is to seek out significant uncertainties and address them proactively. It is most effective when it considers both threats and opportunities, as recommended by most best-practice guidelines. Surely achieving this goal requires a great deal of innovation?

The first area where creativity is essential is in risk identification. This requires thinking the unthinkable, not being constrained by “the Plan”, but considering other options and alternatives. It asks questions such as “What if… Why not… If only… How about…?” Potential problems (threats) and unexpected benefits (opportunities) can be identified using a range of creative techniques, including brainstorming, assumptions-busting, root-cause analysis, visualisation, scenario analysis, or futures thinking. Indeed it is probably not possible to identify risks without being innovative and thinking new thoughts.

But a second part of the risk process also requires fresh thinking, namely development of effective risk responses. Einstein reputedly said “It is not possible to solve a problem using the same thinking that created it.” Just identifying risks is not enough, and if appropriate action is not taken then risk exposure will remain unchanged. However deciding what is “appropriate” for each risk demands a degree of innovation, being prepared to consider and implement actions which were previously not thought necessary. Einstein also defined insanity as “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, which might be rephrased as “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you’ve always got!” As the Chinese proverb says, “If we don’t change direction we’re likely to end up where we’re headed.”

It seems likely that the person who wrote that “risk management [is] the absolute antithesis of innovation” was probably reacting to an outdated caricature of risk management. If the aim of risk management is perceived as preventing variation from plan at all costs, desperately clinging to the original approach and refusing all change, then it is true that creativity and innovation will be stifled. But modern risk management is very different. It actively embraces and welcomes change, recognising that some risks present an opportunity to improve on the original plan by working “smarter, faster, cheaper” – there is upside as well as downside.

“Uncreative risk management” is an oxymoron which cannot exist, and risk management without innovation merely rehearses and records the inevitable. To be effective the risk process must embody innovative and creative thinking in both risk identification and response development, proactively seeking potentially significant uncertainties and addressing them appropriately. Anything less does not deserve to be called risk management.

一份專案管理雜誌最近有一篇有關創新的文章中，提到「專案管理是關於程序與風險管理，那與創新是極端的對立」，這種說法有些挑撥性。這項對風險管理的挑戰值得回應一下。

專案及企業風險管理的目的，是要找出重要的不確定因素並做積極的處置，根據大部分最佳實務所導引的建議而言，當同時考量威脅與機會時它是最具效力的，達到這樣的目標當然需要許多的創意。

第一個很需要創造力的領域是風險辨識，這需要去思考思慮未及之處，不受限於「計畫」，而是需要考慮其他的選項及方案。他需要問一些諸如「萬一…、為何不…、在…情況下、如果…則如何？」此類的問題，潛在的問題（威脅）及意料外的利益（機會）可以用一些創意的技術辨識出來，包括腦力激盪、前提假設搜索、追根究底分析、視覺化、想定分析、或未來思考等。在缺乏創意及新思維之下的確有可能無法辨識風險。

風險程序的第二個部分也需要新的想法，稱為發展有效的風險回應。據說愛因斯坦曾說：「使用與產生問題相同的思維是無法解決問題的」，只是辨識風險是不夠的，若沒有採取適切的行動，風險暴露的情況會維持不變。然而對每個風險決定什麼才是「適切」是需要相當程度的創意的，並且要準備好考慮及採取先前認為不需要的行動。愛因斯坦將愚蠢定義為：「一再做同樣的事情並期待出現不同結果」，這也可以重組為：「如果你總是做你通常會這麼做的事，那麼你通常會得到你總是會得到的結果」。

寫下：「風險管理與創新是極端的對立」的人似乎可能是在反應一個過時的風險管理諷刺漫畫，如果風險管理被認為是不計代價地防止計畫發生變異，死守著原來的途徑並拒絕改變，那麼創意及創新才是真的會被扼殺；然而當代的風險管理是非常不同的，它積極地擁抱且歡迎改變，認知到某些風險代表著可能可以經由「更聰明、更快速、更便宜」的工作，以改進原始計畫的機會—有正向也有負向。

「無創意的風險管理」就像詭辯一樣是不存在的，而沒有創新的風險管理只是演練並紀錄下一些無可避免的事，風險程序必須將創新及創意的想法建立在風險辨識及回應發展上、且積極地尋找潛在的重要不確定因素並做適切的處置才會有效，缺少了任東西都不配稱為風險管理。