The effect of intervening conditions on the management of project risk

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main findings of asuccessfully defended doctoral thesis that studied factors or interventionscausing the discrepancy between how adequate project risks should be managed andhow project risks are actually managed. Design/methodology/approach – Theapproach involved interviews and a survey using questionnaires gathered datafrom project managers about their experiences with project risk managementduring two phases of fieldwork. The first phase included in-depth interviewswith information technology (IT) project managers in order to explore patternsinvolving risk mediators and their influence on project risk management. A web-based survey was used in the second phase for the purpose of testing thesepatterns on a wider range of project managers. Findings – Specific risk-relatedinterventions strongly influence the effective use of project risk management:project managers tended to deny, avoid, ignore risks and to delay the managementof risk. Risks were perceived as discomforting, not agreed upon. IT projectmanagers were unaware of risks and considered them to be outside their scope ofinfluence and preferred to let risks resolve themselves rather than proactivelyengaging with them. As a consequence, factors such as the lack of awareness ofrisks by IT project managers appeared to constrain the application of projectrisk management with the result that risk had an adverse influence on theoutcome of IT projects. Practical implications – The underlying rationalassumptions of project risk management and the usefulness of best practiceproject risk management standards as a whole need to be questioned because ofthe occurrence of interventions such as the lack of information. IT projectmanagers should first prevent risk-related interventions from influencing theuse of project risk management. However, if this is not possible, they should beprepared to adapt to risks influencing the project outcome. Originality/value –The paper contradicts the myth of a “self-evidently” correct project riskmanagement approach. It defines interventions that constrain project manager’sability to mana