Qualitative Technique
A qualitative method makes use of words or descriptive scale and comes in the form of a ranking structure, alternating between Rare and Almost Certain. Such a method is concerned with raking likelihoods and consequences (Bowden et. al, 2001). With regards to construction projects, which can be applicable to my organization, the consequences can range from insignificant (whereby there is no injuries and minimum financial loss), moderate (injuries with medical help required and moderate financial loss) to catastrophic (death with significant financial loss). Such a qualitative table with various likelihood and risk levels matrix can be useful in the following scenarios:
1. Initial screening guide to identify possible risks for further analysis.
2. Where the level of risk does not justify the time and effort required for more analysis.
3. Insufficient numerical data, which renders a quantitative analysis useless.
For the qualitative analysis, the management and staff with regards to the risk events at different levels must work through the risk-ranking matrix. Each likelihood and consequence criteria should be considered in order to put events in the appropriate category (Bowden et. al, 2001).
However, there are several disadvantages associated with this technique:
1. It may not be too accurate as events within the same category may have substantially different levels of risk.
2. There may not be a common basis for comparison of risk i.e. on dollar basis or number of deaths.
3. There is no clear justification with regards to the process of ‘weighing’ risks
4. There could be different interpretations with regards to the meaning of different consequences i.e. the word catastrophic can mean a great deal to some people, while others might take it more lightly.
5. It can be difficult to translate the findings from this technique to match that of a quantitative method (Bowden et. al, 2001).
With these pitfalls mentioned above in mind, I would think that it will be better to consider the qualitative technique as more of an initial screening exercise which should be used concurrently with the quantitative technique.
Quantitative Technique
This approach takes the product of likelihood and consequence, with the consequence expressed as an actual variable (Bowden et. al, 2001). Such a technique is more reliable as it relies on numerical values, with estimates of frequency being made in terms of event frequency (Bowden et. al, 2001).
There are several drivers of risks, namely, technology, people, systems, organizational factors and external factors (Bowden et. al, 2001). In my organization, some drivers of risk might include how updated my computer versions of accounting and sales systems, the competency and educational levels of the employees, the number of new ideas by lower management accepted by higher management and possibly the amount of pollution our products might cause to the environment.
The quantitative analysis is further broken down into likelihood and consequence criteria. For the likelihood criteria, it is expressed as a probability instead of frequency, thus ensuring that risks are compared on a similar basis (Bowden et. al, 2001). With similar small events likely to occur, the likelihood of them occurring can be considered as one event. With regards to my organization, examples of such similar events might include:
1. 20 deliveries which are not made on time (more than 30 minutes) to customers resulting in losses of $1,000 each for transportation costs
2. 5 deliveries of wrong grades of products to customers resulting in losses of $1,500 for transportation and bank charges.
For the consequence criteria, it can be considered in terms of an event leading to possible death or severe losses i.e. financial or reputation losses. In the case of the two examples for likelihood criteria given above, the related consequence criteria are as follows respectively:
1. Free deliveries made for the next trip.
2. Appropriate discounts given for these batches of products sold.
The consequence criteria can also be expressed quantitatively in terms of non-performance or failure to achieve certain KPIs, reflecting on the organisation’s priorities in accepting varying degrees of risks. In my organisation’s case, the free deliveries and discounts given could jeopardize not only the revenue and profit targets, but also in terms of customer satisfaction (which are important KPIs). As such the consequence criteria can be expressed as the mean or expected value (Bowden et. al, 2001). This is consistent with the Monte Carlo method, which can be used to obtain the distribution of the project or product value associated with trading operations (Vlahos, 2001).
Reference List
Bowden, A., Lane, M. and Martin, J. (2001) Triple Bottom Line Risk Management. Wiley.
Cooper. (year unknown). New Products: Problems and Pitfalls. Pg 22-49.
Cooper. (year unknown). To test or Not to Test. Pg 123-129.
Smith, P. and Reinertsen, D. (year unknown). Managing Risk. Pg 207-21.
Vlahos, K. (2001). Tooling up for Risky Decisions. Pg 47-52.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1507288