Project management is a critical skill needed for the attainment of project objectives and timely delivery. It entails proper planning and the ability to mitigate against all risks. Within an organization, a project manager has the responsibility to develop a project plan that project teams follow to achieve the set goals within the stipulated time. In this article, the author discusses project management through a case study approach. The author answers a total of six questions that present different perspectives related to project management.
One way to develop best practices against risks is to analyze realistic situations. Such a process will provide invaluable lessons that one can apply in future projects to increase their success rate. In this discussion, the author looks at Crossrail’s risk management approach as a realistic example of risk management. The author ensures a thorough process by answering six questions that focus on risk management processes, identification, resolution, and planning, among other things. The author also considers the characteristics of effective innovators, which is an important skill in risk management.
Crossrail’s Definition of Risks
Crossrail defines “risk” as a random event or set of circumstances whose occurrence prevents the attainment of a project’s objectives. Here, objectives refer to the specific goals that an existing project team must accomplish within a given period. Therefore, for Crossrail, risks include, without limitation, any events that negatively impact their project’s scheduling, costs, reputation, quality, and safety (Crossrail, 2015). Crossrail also considers how an event affects its relationship with stakeholders and the environment to determine its “riskiness.” Since project objectives exist at every level of an operation, risks occur randomly at any level and stage (Chapman, 1998). For example, it can affect the organization’s functional aspects or delivery plans. Averting these problems in Crossrail’s terms requires timely and effective communication through established channels. When problems occur, those affected must immediately communicate the anomaly to the management. The senior officer then examines the situation and prescribes a solution. Through collaboration, proper planning, and careful implementation, Crossrail can increase its chances of success while reducing adverse effects.
Crossrail’s Approach To Risk Management
Crossrail’s approach to risk management comprises seven inter-dependent steps that help authorities to avoid risks or mitigate them when they occur. In the first step – planning – the concerned team clearly defines its scope and objectives to facilitate the effective recognition, isolation, and management of risks (Crossrail, 2015). In the second step – identification – parties systematically identify scope risks that could negatively impact the attainment of set objectives. It requires extensive engagement with experts and the allocation of enough resources (Mojtahedi, Mousavi, and Makui, 2010). The third risk management step within Crossrail’s risk management approach is assessment. Here, designated individuals consider how severe a given event or set of circumstances that could affect performance are (Olson and Wu, 2015). It utilizes quantitative techniques and a probability impact diagram. Response, the fourth stage, outlines mitigation measures (Crossrail, 2015). The review phase, which considers the appropriateness of the mechanisms used to avert adverse events, follows the response stage. After that, team members engage in professional reporting to inform sponsors and assure them of the participant’s competencies and skills. Lastly, monitoring ensures that systems are working well and implementation and project performance are within expectation.
Alternative Definitions of Risk
Many other alternative definitions of risk exist, but the commonest one, often utilized in everyday usage, is the idea of exposure to danger. Thus, a risky situation is potentially dangerous as it leaves an individual, group, or organization vulnerable to harm or loss (Taghipour, 2015). Essentially, a risk is a possibility that something unwanted happens unexpectedly, causing immediate or later pain or damage. The term may also refer to a situation where a person does something that they are unsure what the outcomes will be (Santos and Cabral, 2008). Key concepts in this regard include integrating risk into decision-making, disclosing risk information, strong risk management culture, and continuously improving risk management (Goffee and Jones, 1996). In project management and development, risks are all the events and factors that prevent the expected outcomes’ timely attainment.
Alternative Approaches to Risk Management
Any process or procedure that reduces the likelihood of a risk, or inhibits its impacts, could serve as a risk management approach, provided that it is cost-effective and efficient. Indeed, many such processes and specifications exist, and the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) risk management process is one of them (Reich & Wee, 2006). It is a systematic process that project managers or teams use to identify, analyze, and respond to project risks. As shown in Figure 1, it has six specialized procedures that include management planning, identification, first and second analysis, planning, and control (Burnaby and Hass, 2009). PMBOK risk management process is unique in that the analysis is qualitative first and quantitative later (El Yamami et al., 2018). The two critical analyses ensure a proper examination of the current situation to inform decisions and future operations. However, this risk management approach does not have a feedback loop. Instead, managers rely on the information they gather through continuous improvement and system monitoring to make decisions and avert dangerous circumstances. Like Crossrail’s model, this risk management process starts with extensive planning and relies on collaboration and proper resource utilization (refer to Figure 1).
Appraisal of Crossrail’s Approaches to Risk Management
Crossrail has an effective and reliable risk management approach that facilitates the mitigation of adverse events. The company begins this process by first defining its purpose and the scope of its operations. Thus, the purpose of the risk management plan is to outline its requirements for related activities in adverse effect mitigation (Crossrail, 2015). As for the scope, Crossrail’s risk management procedure addresses management issues and applies to both the delivery and functional aspects of its operations. Therefore, it is a wholesome and complementary process that focuses predominantly on eradicating circumstances or events that can affect the attainment of set objectives. By carrying a clear and compelling purpose and scope, the plan helps the management handle the risk events more effectively and make necessary changes for even better outcomes.
Another positive aspect of Crossrail’s risk management plan is its well-defined objectives, which guide and direct the risk identification, assessment, and mitigation procedures. One of its objectives, for example, is ensuring that employees and other stakeholders identify and mitigate, in a timely fashion, events or circumstances that are likely to cause losses or failed operations (Olfat, Khosravani and Jalali, 2010). The risk management protocol also outlines seven individual steps that guide members in planning for and identifying risks, among other things. The seven-step process contains a feedback loop that facilitates continuous improvement. The only problem with this protocol is that it is structured to fit perfectly into Crossrail’s situation, making it less adaptable for other organizations.
Three Risk Identification Techniques: A Critical discussion
Figure 2 shows a model risk identification approach, which may vary from one company to another. Crossrail’s risk identification approach systematically pinpoints events and sets of circumstances that could affect project objectives. It undertakes the process with various stakeholders’ full involvement. For example, Crossrail cannot conduct risk identification without involving contractors, specialists, and delivery and function representatives, among other stakeholders. In the identification stage of risk management, managers accountable and responsible for the project engage in various activities, including confirming the specific scope and objectives that the risk assessment addresses (Muriana and Vizzini, 2017). The accountable manager also collects necessary and valuable information, including drawing and execution plans, risk registers, and risk information, to detect potential problems (Kasap and Kaymak, 2007). The project leader at Crossrail engages actively with all stakeholders, classifies each risk’s causes and effects, and recognizes problem owners (Enkel, Kausch, and Gassmann, 2005). Additionally, the manager records the risks, introduces a mechanism for problem discovery, and confirms problems by revisiting the list periodically. It is an involving process that requires commitment, knowledge, skills, and relevant experience.
Documentation reviews, brainstorming, and the Delphi technique are three other risk identification techniques that project managers and teams can use. Each of the three processes has advantages and disadvantages, and its effectiveness depends on how well an individual or group applies it within a specified context. Experts often consider documentation reviews as the standard practice for risk identification (Masár et al., 2019). As the name suggests, the process involves taking all the papers, articles, materials, and credentials relating to a project and systematically previewing them. The reviewer is often a skilled expert that conducts his or her job objectively and in an unbiased way (Aven and Renn, 2010). Some of the articles considered in this process include project plans, progress reports, incident reports, periodic reviews, implementation reports, and design change notifications, among other things. An effective documentation review process should include the services of different experts to capture the differing expert perspectives (Patterson and Neailey, 2002). Therefore, it remains recommended that more than one person does the documentation review. All the reviewers must then meet and openly discuss their findings.
Brainstorming is a prevalent risk identification approach because it is simple and straightforward. The process combines an informal and relaxed approach to solving problems with lateral thinking to originate solutions. Brainstorming encourages participants to develop novel ideas based on their thought processes and build on what others say or recommend (Mikes, 2009). In this regard, it is a group creativity technique whose success depends on the members’ willingness and ability to contribute to the discussion (Hillson and Simon, 2020). Project managers can organize brainstorming sessions every day or periodically, depending on the ongoing project’s complexity. If brainstorming does not offer the expected solutions, a manager can always utilize a third methodology – the Delphi technique. It involves anonymously consulting experts on a given topic. It assumes that people can provide more detailed and accurate information if they are unaware that somebody else records them. One way to successfully implement the Delphi technique is to send a list of the required information to a team of experts, receive and review their feedback, send it back to them again, and repeat the process until the corresponding parties reach a consensus.
Risk Identification Process Design and Implementation Good Practice
Best practices in risk identification process design and implementation include consulting the latest research evidence, collaboration, and ethics. Consulting the latest available research will help a project manager design the most effective risk identification process. It will also help them implement the idea to ensure the attainment of the set goals and objectives. For example, the latest research supports the use of new technology to identify risks and design mitigation approaches (Hinostroza et al., 2018). The technologies have improved the effectiveness of documentation reviews, brainstorming, and Delphi technique utilization. For instance, engineers can use statistical software like SPSS to analyze numerical information and identify variable associations’ nature and extent. Similarly, brainstorming individuals can use slideshows and presentations to emphasize specific points and help their audience comprehend the information (Jääskeläinen, 2011). Without using technology, it would be challenging to capture detailed information or even identify risks that may be less obvious under normal circumstances.
Another good practice in risk identification process design and implementation is collaboration. Without a doubt, more people working together can originate and implement better ideas than individuals working alone. Through partnerships, individuals share insights and simplify each other’s tasks. They also share ideas about the implementation of specific processes for the attainment of maximum benefits. In risk identification, one can build on the ideas of another individual working in their group to achieve a refined product (Cardona-Meza and Olivar-Tost, 2017). The only problem with collaboration is that it depends on the members’ willingness and abilities to share information that could aid development. Lastly, it is good practice to embrace ethical behaviors in risk identification process design and implementation. If a person realizes that the designed risk process has significant flaws that can prevent the attainment of set objectives, they must willingly and immediately correct those problems. Ethical behavior is also essential in the risk identification stage. Individuals must remain committed to moral conduct, even when the stakes are high. For example, an engineer must provide honest structural reviews, even when their comments might cause significant losses.
Royal Dutch Shell – The Hague-headquartered oil and gas corporation – is one of the companies that utilize these three best practices in the risk identification process design. The company takes risk identification and mitigation seriously owing to the sensitive nature of its operations. Its risk identification process helps it reduce the likelihood of oil spillages, which can cause considerable losses and environmental pollution. Since oil and gas are also highly flammable, failure to take critical risk mitigation approaches can lead to fires that may destroy property and life. Therefore, Shell uses the latest technology in its oil and gas exploration missions. It also collaborates with other stakeholders, including governments, universities, and other businesses, in creating reliable and effective exploration approaches. The company is ethical and puts environmental preservation and human life above profit. Recommended steps for improvement include investing in research and development to improve the effectiveness of the risk mitigation technologies currently in use and collaborating with research institutions, universities, and other players in the oil and gas industry.
Crossrail’s Risk Management Procedures and Approaches
Companies must have good risk cultures to navigate the competitive environment of the 21st century. According to the Institute of Risk Management (2012), the risk culture outlines company beliefs, values, and knowledge about problems that can potentially affect the company’s operations. Among other things, a successful risk culture includes a distinct and consistent tone, a commitment to ethical practice, and a focus on transparent and timely risk information. It also encourages risk event reporting, eliminates obscure or complex processes, encourages risk management skills development, and sufficiently diversifies values, perspectives, and beliefs to consistently and rigorously challenge the status quo (Institute of Risk Management, 2012). Notably, the culture in an organization is the outcome of employees’ repeated behaviors.
Seven critical steps underpin Crossrail’s risk management process. As shown in Figure 3, these processes include planning, identification, assessment, response, review, reporting, and monitoring. It is worth noting that these steps are continuous and cyclic, and often, overlap during the risk management process (Wheatley, 2007). One of the most essential tests of the effectiveness of a company’s risk management approach is risk-management integration in decision-making. Crossrail uses the risk management process to eradicate problems and inspire better decisions that result in reduced operational costs and higher profitability (Szymański, 2017). Embedding an effective risk management plan enables an organization to define and plan for its current and future objectives, come up with cost-effective ways to save company resources, make more informed and confident business decisions, attain its long-term and short-term goals, and create a safe and secure environment for all.
Implications of Embedding the Effective Management of Risks
Firstly, embedding effective risk management strategies in an organization allows the company to define its current and future objectives. Indeed, Crossrail (2015) identified planning as the first step of risk management, allowing it to achieve greater success. Zwikael and Sadeh (2007) concur that improving the planning phase of the risk management process helps an organization outline the roadmap to success. It is an effective administrative tool that enables the head of the organization, as well as the staff, to understand the organizational objectives and focus their resources and energies on them.
Secondly, embedding effective risk management practices in an organization ensure the company creates cost-effective ways of saving resources. Since resources are finite, their prudent utilization is necessary if a company is to succeed and remain competitive (Walker, Shenkir, and Barton, 2002). Embedded risk management practices become a part of the company’s culture and influence how employees do their jobs. A culture of risk-taking encourages creativity, innovation, and improved employee performance and job satisfaction (Smith, 1992; Power, 2004). As such, as corporations allow employees to explore alternatives and work autonomously, they must equip them with knowledge and skills for assessing risky situations and making the right decisions (Hillson, 1997). Such is only achievable by embedding risk management practices in company operations and making it part of the organization’s culture.
Another reason for focusing on an effective risk management process in the day-to-day activities of a large organization is that this strategy allows the firm to make more informed and confident business decisions. Johnstone and Bedard (2003), for example, observed that an effective risk management process allows the organization to make informed “client acceptance decisions.” As their analysis found, risk management strategies assist an organization by reducing the risk of accepting risky clients. In turn, the company’s overall reputation increases, as it avoids risky clients who may bring future problems. The risk management process also decreases the likelihood of an error occurring in the future (Conforti et al., 2013). Therefore, if an organization applies proper risk management techniques, it stands to make better-informed business decisions.
Furthermore, embedding good risk management techniques allows a company to attain its short-term and long-term goals. The processes of planning, identification, assessment, response, review, reporting, and monitoring all, in different capacities, contribute to the overall wellbeing of an organization. Culp (2002), in assessing some of the importance of an effective risk management process in businesses, found that the process allows the company to understand the short-term and long-term risks affecting its operations. The approach also helps the company visualize, capture, and create an effective culture and organizational design (Hallikas et al., 2004). Their study, for example, concluded that a good risk management process allows the business to enhance its supplier network. In this regard, if a company employs a good risk management strategy, it stands to realize both its short-term and long-term goals.
Moreover, embedding effective risk management strategies in the day-to-day activities of a large organization creates a safe and secure environment for all employees and clients. On the side of the clients, a business that applies proper risk management strategies gives them confidence regarding their investments or finances. A robust risk management process gives customers confidence, as well as increases the standing of the organization (Abderisak and Lindahl, 2015). When it comes to ensuring the confidence and safety of the company’s employees, a robust risk management system keeps employees happy by assessing any internal risks that may affect their input and performance. For example, Jaaskelainen (2011) observed that such a process would guard the company against losing key employees, as it makes sure all their grievances are assessed by the human resource department.
The competitive 21st-century environment forces organizations to implement robust risk management systems for business continuity and profitability. The processes of planning, identification, assessment, response, review, reporting, and monitoring all play a critical role in ensuring the smooth running of an organization. Entrenching a good risk management plan allows a business to define and plan for its current and future objectives and to come up with cost-effective ways to save company resources. What is more, it allows the firm to make more informed and confident business decisions, attain its long-term and short-term goals, and create a safe and secure environment for all employees. Risk is one of the main causes of uncertainty and doubt in businesses, and therefore, it is obligatory that organizations focus on identifying and managing it to be more profitable.
Effective Innovator Characteristics
Innovation is the driving force behind successful and ever-expanding organizations. It refers to the practical implementation of ideas leading to enhanced products, services, and operations. It combines technology, science, management, and economics to achieve novelty and extend ideas from mere concepts to commercial successes through production, exchange, and consumption. Notably, a firm’s innovativeness depends on the existence of the specific individual and institutional qualities. For example, Figure 4 summarizes some key characteristics of modern-day individual innovators. They include empathy, problem-solving, risk-taking, networking, observation, creating, resilience, and reflection (Belovic 2019). Within the context of a large corporation, enables of innovation vary from resource availability to effective supervision, motivation, and encouragement of employee autonomy and creativity. Specific characteristics and behaviors that have consistently helped companies become creative and effective innovators include the following:
- Shared-vision leadership
- Appropriate structure
- Key knowledge and skills
- An appropriate culture
- Conducive work environment
Shared-vision leadership facilitates innovation by ensuring all employees work together towards a common goal. When the leadership creates a shared vision and encourages employees to pursue it, they are essentially encouraging members to find personal and creative ways of meeting targets, completing tasks, and enhancing performance (Arena, Arnaboldi, and Azzone, 2010). Without a shared-vision leadership also encourages cooperation and collaboration where employees exchange ideas and enhance them through brainstorming. However, it is not easy managing a large group of employees and creating synergy. Therefore, proper planning, continuous improvement, and the judicious application of new and improved technologies is necessary to inspire and sustain innovative growth.
An appropriate company structure also promotes innovation. It does that by allowing timely and continuous communication among stakeholders. Traditionally, one can organize a company into four different types depending on its structure. These include functional, matrix, divisional, and flat companies (Ryynänen and Uusisalmi, 2021; Beyerlein et al., 2017). Proper company structure simplifies strategy formulation and implementation, which is why a lack of a definable and unique strategy in the firm hampers innovation. Bland strategies, which are mostly illustrated in company phrases, do not give a pathway to innovation in the organization. To enhance innovation, firms need to align their strategies to be able to differentiate it from their competitors.
Innovativeness is also a direct function of key knowledge, skills, and experiences. An employee is more likely to suggest and utilize innovative ideas if they are talented, skilled, and experienced. As such, there is a need for every organization to optimize its hiring approach and invest in talent development among its workforce. Firms that are highly innovative have a comprehensive corporate vision that outlines strategies for scouting for, acquiring, and retaining skilled, talented, and experienced workers (Klopova, Komyshova, and Simonova, 2018). Although investing in employees is expensive, it produces desirable outcomes in the end.
Teamwork is also a critical facilitator of innovativeness. It refers to the collaborative effort of a group to achieve a common goal. It also refers to the efficient and effective combined action of a group. Individual commitment to the group effort is the main ingredient of successful collaborations. It often happens when the employer or firm gives its employees an environment and freedom to originate and test new ideas in the context of a group. The company avails the necessary resources to the team, and the members use those resources to seek and manipulate information to create innovative products, services, and processes. If employees are encouraged to try new things, they become more willing to take risks (Bojarskytė, 2017; Belousova, 2021). It is about reducing victimization due to product development and implementation failures or thinking outside the box.
Overall, effective and reliable organizational cultures inspire employees to use their knowledge, skills, and experiences effectively to attain innovation. The culture of an organization can be rigid, where information flows from the top down, or it can be organic, which is characterized by informal communication and reduced bureaucratic processes (Goosen and Ngungi 2018). The former more official top-down organizational cultures stiffen innovation by insisting on bureaucracy while the latter allows employees to be independent and to plan their work to achieve success. In the context of project management, and effective risk culture enables and rewards individuals and groups for taking calculated risks (Institute of Risk Management, 2012). Such a culture also causes the alignment of managerial activities with people strategy and employee engagement.
An organization that presents employees with clear goals and grants them the freedom to determine their way of achieving the goals creates a conducive environment for innovation. In firms with managers watching over their junior employees’ shoulders, micro-managing their operations will stifle their creativity, a component that encourages innovation (Aibaghi-Esfahani et al. 2017). Employee autonomy may lead to mistakes, but it also encourages learning and growth. When independent, workers can decide on an inefficient way to attain the company’s goals within the stipulated time. Many years of autonomy allow employees to learn from their inefficiencies and mistakes. This will help in the discovery of new ideas and better ways of attaining the goals. In this regard, it allows innovation to thrive, occasioning product, service, and process improvement.
The responsibility of ensuring all the components that inspire innovation exists lies with the management. The rules they formulate and implement can either encourage or discourage innovation, creativity, and growth. As such, there is a need for the management to constantly examine its internal environment to determine and resolve any issues that stifle autonomy and the creativity and innovation associated with it. The company should also ensure its leadership creates and supervises a shared vision and originates and respects an appropriate organizational culture and structure. On top of that, the company should reward teamwork and create a conducive environment for all to embrace and utilize their talents, knowledge, skills, and experiences.
Google’s Innovative Activity and Capacity
Google is one of the many progressive and innovative companies inspiring development and change in the world today. Its success is partly due to its emphasis on creativity and innovation, and the appropriate utilization of resources. Three specific characteristics and behaviors that encourage innovation at Google include:
- Shared-vision leadership
- Key knowledge and skills
- An appropriate culture
Google has a shared-vision leadership approach, and this is one of the reasons for its sustained innovative nature. At the company, there are no rigid leadership ranks that stifle communication and collaboration. Instead, existing managers are mostly for administrative purposes, such as organizing and distributing resources, and taking employee suggestions and making improvements (Shin, Kim, and Yang, 2018). The administrators at the company understand the importance of creating a shared vision that guides the rest of the employees in choosing and implementing their strategies. Once the leaders have identified the company’s goals or objectives for a specified period, they create a system for implementing those goals and measuring success in that regard (Greenhalgh, and Papoutsi, 2019). The manager then looks at individual processes applied in the attainment of goals and decides on the best one based on the available evidence. The identified best practices become the foundation for future organizational work and progression. For example, in the past, Google’s management approach tended to be rigid and suffered from extensive bureaucracies (Thoring et al., 2019). However, over time, the company discovered that it made greater progress by allowing employees to work independently and build their schedules to coincide with Google’s bottom line. Employees were more satisfied when they attained greater autonomy, and their productivity increased too.
Possession of key knowledge and skills is also responsible for Google’s notable innovative nature and market leadership. Over the years, the company has acquired critical knowledge and experience that has allowed it to operate efficiently and successfully. It has derived this knowledge from research and development exercises and client data, which it collects on its search engine and related services (Mättö, 2019). Therefore, one can say that the company’s growth is data-driven and effective. For example, by critically analyzing customer searches, Google can understand general social, economic, environmental, and political trends, and use this information to adjust its operations. Google also hires highly-skilled and experienced developers and offers them the best working environment to facilitate creativity and innovation. In the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California, workers have access to great amenities for free. For example, they can have free meals throughout the day and can work from any location within the premises (as opposed to the traditional way of working from a specific office). Googleplex – the building complex in Mountain View California serving as the company’s headquarters – is often recognized as the center for creative mind development. It gives employees unlimited opportunities to enhance their skills and embrace a growth mindset that guarantees continuous creativity and innovation and creates a culture of stability as summarized in figure 5.
Lastly, Google’s culture is appropriate and the reason for its visibly high innovativeness. The company’s flexible culture accommodates informal communication and encourages employee autonomy. It encourages employees to work in a way that is appropriate to them, provided they deliver the set objectives within stipulated times. This flexibility encourages individuals to collaborate more and to come up with creative and innovative solutions to existing problems (Awan and Sroufe, 2020). At Google, there are no clear ranks among employees, and people interact and share ideas as members of the same big team. As noted earlier, such designations as a manager or team leader are only necessary for administrative purposes like organizing teams and resources. The company has also created a less tense work environment by incorporating fun activities like video games, nap pods, and ping pong (Dolata, 2017). When workers feel that their innovative and creative abilities are dwindling, they can take a rest and meditate or play these games, increasing the chances of obtaining a creative idea.
Suggestions for Improvement
Although Google is doing well on the innovation front, there is always room for improvement. As one of the leading technology companies in the world, Google should continue investing in research and development as this is one of the best ways of transforming mere ideas and concepts into practical products that solve problems or serve client needs. Notably, research and development is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking that requires consistency, patience, and proper planning. The resources that the company allocates to this project may also influence its success and ability to leverage new business trends and investment opportunities. Therefore, Google should always allocate about five to 10 percent of its profits to research and development every year to solidify its market position and lead the way in creating and implementing new innovative products and services as a strategy for long-term success.
Google must also use its extensive financial resources to do a talent search in every country it operates. There are many creative and innovative inventors across the globe that can help the company create and introduce new products to the market and effectively manage risks associated with its large-scale projects (Kim, 2020). Structural and organizational changes due to the recruitment of new talent can help the firm reduce the cost of operation too (Sikdar, 2018). Other general recommendations for improvement that Google can consider include:
- Creating innovation and incubation centers in partnership with universities and technology institutions
- Organizing product development competitions for young upcoming developers in the technology industry
- Monitor organizational performance and embrace continuous improvement to tackle the changing needs of the contemporary society
Reflection on Effective Risk Management
Running projects effectively requires teamwork and such interpersonal skills as persuasion and effective listening and influence. Figure 6 shows a model for influencing decisions and how it can help solve challenges occurring in companies that might prevent project success (Shrivastava and Rathod, 2017). Interpersonal skills include soft skills such as emotional quotient. Analytical skills could study a given projection from different points of view critically. The critical analysis enables the management professional to extrapolate the future course of business so that adequate resource provisions are made to remedy the situation. Communication is the ability to pass information from one person to another to understand the two. Communication is not complete until there is a common understanding because two cannot walk together unless they agree.
Problem-solving is the ability to generate new innovative ideas to solve a management challenge. Challenges occur because it is not always that circumstances will go our way. Sometimes bureaucratic management principles may not be viable in emergencies requiring quick solutions. Hence all managers and staff alike should be able to think on their feet (Provan, Dekker and Rae, 2017). Working in a team requires the team members to negotiate to come up with the best possible outcome constantly. In negotiation, both businesses come up with a win-win situation that does not affect any of the parties involved negatively. Diplomacy requires a mutual understanding between all parties (Belás, Smrcka, Gavurova, and Dvorsky, 2018). People can develop this skill over time as their social interactions increase.
Abderisak, A. and Lindahl, G. (2015) ‘Take a chance on me? Construction client’s perspectives on risk management’, Procedia economics and finance, 21, pp.548-554.
Aibaghi-Esfahani et al. (2017) ‘Sustainable and flexible human resource management for innovative organizations’, AD-Minister, (30), 195-215.
Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., and Azzone, G. (2010) ‘The organizational dynamics of enterprise risk management’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), pp. 659-675.
Aven, T., and Renn, O. (2010) ‘Risk management’, In Risk Management and Governance (pp. 121-158). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Awan, U. and Sroufe, R., (2020) ‘Interorganisational collaboration for innovation improvement in manufacturing firms: the mediating role of social performance’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(05), pp. 1-23.
Belovic, D. (2019) ‘Holistic leadership of modern innovative organizations: model trautin-L’, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(14), pp, 65-82.
Beyerlein et al. (2017) ‘Knowledge sharing and human resource development in innovative organizations’, In Knowledge Management Strategies and Applications (pp. 25-47).
Belousova, S. S. (2021) ‘Characteristics of professional burnout of administrative and managerial personnel of Russian educational organizations in the context of the introduction of innovative technologies’, RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 18(1), 194-216.
Bojarskytė, L. (2017) The impact of internal marketing on employee engagement in innovative organizations. PhD Thesis. ISM University of Management and Economics. Web.
Burnaby, P., and Hass, S. (2009) ‘Ten steps to enterprise‐wide risk management’, Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 9(5), 539-550.
Cardona-Meza, L. S., and Olivar-Tost, G. (2017) ‘Modeling and simulation of project management through the PMBOK® standard using complex networks’, Complexity, 2017(2), pp. 1-12.
Chapman, R. J. (1998) ‘The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques’, International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), 333-343.
Conforti, et al. (2013) ‘Supporting risk-informed decisions during business process execution’, In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 116-132). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Crossrail. (2015) Programme Risk Management Procedure. London, Crossrail Ltd. Web.
Culp, C. L. (2002) ‘The risk management process’, Business Strategy and Tactics (Vol. 103). John Wiley & Sons.
Dolata, U. (2017) Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft: Market concentration-competition-innovation strategies (No. 2017-01). SOI Discussion Paper.
El Yamami et al. (2018). An ontological representation of PMBOK framework knowledge areas’, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications (pp. 1-6).
Enkel, E., Kausch, C., and Gassmann, O. (2005) ‘Managing the risk of customer integration’, European Management Journal, 23(2), 203-213.
Goffee, R. and Jones G. (1996) ‘What holds the modern company together?’, Harvard Business Review.
Goosen, L., and Ngugi, J. K. (2018) ‘Rethinking teaching and learning in the 21st century: course design characteristics towards innovative behavior’, In Proceedings of the South Africa International Conference on Education, Pretoria.
Greenhalgh, T. and Papoutsi, C. (2019) ‘Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement’, Bmj, 2019(4), 365-373.
Hallikas et al. (2004) ‘Risk management processes in supplier networks’, International Journal of Production Economics, 90(1), pp.47-58.
Hillson, D. (1997) ‘Towards a risk maturity model’, The International Journal of Project and Business Risk Management, 1(1), pp. 35-45.
Hillson, D. and Simon, P. (2020) Practical project risk management: The ATOM methodology. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Hinostroza et al. (2018) ‘Application of PMBOK to improve the deadline of projects in SMEs engineering consultancies’, In Brazilian Technology Symposium (pp. 487-494). Springer, Cham.
Institute of Risk Management (2012) Risk culture: Under the microscope guidance for boards. London: Institute of Risk Management.
Jääskeläinen, A. (2011) ‘How to measure and manage the risk of losing key employees?’, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 8(1), pp.63-75.
Johnstone, K. M., and Jean C. B. ‘Risk management in client acceptance decisions’, The Accounting Review 78, 4(2003), pp. 1003-1025.
Kasap, D. and Kaymak, M. (2007) ‘Risk identification step of the project risk management’, In PICMET’07-2007 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology (pp. 2116-2120). IEEE.
Kim, H., (2020) ‘The Analysis of Innovation Management in Google’, Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 3(4), pp. 10-15.
Klopova, O., Komyshova, L., and Simonova, M. (2018) ‘Professional development in the field of human resource management of heads and specialists of the innovative organizations’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 214.
Mättö, T. (2019) ‘Innovation through the implementation of a quality improvement method: A Finnish public-sector case’, The TQM Journal, 31(6), pp. 987-1002.
Masár et al. (2019). The current state of project risk management in the transport sector. Transportation Research Procedia, 40, 1119-1126.
Mikes, A. (2009) ‘Risk management and calculative cultures’, Management Accounting Research, 20(1), 18-40.
Mojtahedi, S. M. H., Mousavi, S. M., and Makui, A. (2010) ‘Project risk identification and assessment simultaneously using multi-attribute group decision-making technique’, Safety Science, 48(4), 499-507.
Muriana, C. and Vizzini, G. (2017) ‘Project risk management: A deterministic quantitative technique for assessment and mitigation’, International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 320-340.
Olfat, L., Khosravani, F., and Jalali, R. (2010). Identification and Ranking of Project Risk Based on PMBOK Standard by Fuzzy Approach. Industrial Management Studies, 8(19), 147-163.
Olson, D. L. and Wu, D. D. (2015) Enterprise risk management. World Scientific Publishing Company.
Patterson, F. D. and Neailey, K. (2002) ‘A risk register database system to aid the management of project risk’, International Journal of Project Management, 20(5), 365-374.
Power, M. (2004) The risk management of everything. London: Demos Publishing.
Provan, D.J., Dekker, S.W. and Rae, A.J., (2017) ‘Bureaucracy, influence, and beliefs: A literature review of the factors shaping the role of a safety professional’, Safety Science, 98, pp.98-112.
Reich, B. H. and Wee, S. Y. (2006) ‘Searching for Knowledge in the PMBOK® Guide’, Project Management Journal, 37(2), 11-26.
Ryynänen, S., and Uusisalmi, R. (2021) ‘Systematic literature review: Healthcare organizations’ innovative processes as self-organization and emergence of digital service’, International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), 12(1), 1-26.
Santos, F. R. S. D., and Cabral, S. (2008) ‘FMEA and PMBOK applied to project risk management’, JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 5(2), 347-364.
Shrivastava, S.V. and Rathod, U. (2017) ‘A risk management framework for distributed agile projects’, Information and software technology, 85, pp.1-15.
Shin, J., Kim, C. and Yang, H., (2018) ‘The effect of sustainability as innovation objectives on innovation efficiency’, Sustainability, 10(6), p.1966.
Sikdar, S., (2018) ‘Artificial intelligence, its impact on innovation, and the Google effect’,
Smith, R.J., (1992) ‘Risk management for underground projects: cost-saving techniques and practices for owners’, Tunnelling and underground space technology, 7(2), pp.109-117.
Szymański, P. (2017) ‘Risk management in construction projects’, Procedia Engineering, 208(5), pp. 174-182.
Taghipour et al. (2015) ‘Construction projects risk management by risk allocation approach using PMBOK standard’, Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(12), 323-329.
Thoring et al. (2019) ‘July. An inventory of creative spaces: Innovative organizations and their workspace’ In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 39-48). Cambridge University Press.
Walker, P., Shenkir, W., and Barton, T. (2002) Enterprise risk management: Pulling it all together. Altamonte Springs: Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.
Wheatley, M. (2007) “Maturity Matters”, PM Network.
Zwikael, O. and Sadeh, A. (2007) ‘Planning effort as an effective risk management tool’, Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), pp.755-767.