Deliberate ignorance in project risk management The management of project risk is considered a key discipline by most organisations involved in projects. Best practice project risk management processes are claimed to be self-evidently correct. However, project risk management involves a choice between which information is utilized and which is deemed to be irrelevant and hence excluded. Little research has been carried out to ascertain the manifestation of barriers to optimal project risk management such as 'irrelevance'; the deliberate inattention of risk actors to risk. This paper presents the results of a qualitative study of IT project managers, investigating their reasons for deeming certain known risks to be irrelevant. The results both confirm and expand on Smithson's [1] taxonomy of ignorance and uncertainty and in particular offer further context related insights into the phenomenon of 'irrelevance' in project risk management. We suggest that coping with 'irrelevance' requires defence mechanisms, the effective management of relevance as well as the setting of, and sticking to priorities.

No abstract

Projects are inherently uncertain and face unexpected events, from small changes in scope to unforeseen client's bankruptcy. This paper studies how project managers respond to such events and how successful and unsuccessful responses differ from the perspective of the practitioner. We analysed 44 unexpected events faced by 22 experienced project managers in defence and defence-related organisations. The project managers compared two unexpected events that they faced, one that they considered the response successful and the other, unsuccessful. We identified three pillars supporting successful responses to unexpected events: (1) responsive and functioning structure at the organizational level, (2) good interpersonal relationship at the group level and (3) competent people at the individual level. The events and respective responses analysed suggest that improvement in project management can be achieved by better managing these three pillars, allowing project and programme managers to "create their own luck".

The management of risk is considered a key discipline by the Project Management Institute and the Association for Project Management. However, knowledge of what needs to be done frequently fails to result in action consistent with that knowledge. The reasons for this seem to have received little attention. This study researched the degree of use of project risk management and barriers that prevent IT project managers from using risk management. Interviews and a survey were carried out. The results show that, in one-third of cases, because of the problem of cost justification, no formal project risk management process was applied.

We develop a framework to analyse the multi-level knowledge requirements of complex, major projects in terms of ambidexterity – the ability to exploit (refine existing knowledge) and explore (develop new knowledge). This is an important theme within the wider literature, yet practical operationalization methods for managers and researchers are not evident. We demonstrate the ambidexterity view through an illustrative case study of telecommunications delivery for the London 2012 Olympic Games and show how these concepts can be used to create an effective knowledge strategy. We offer a structure for the analysis of knowledge utilization in projects