Thanks for this encouraging response Ernest.

Thanks for adding your perspective - I agree with you completely. You can't tell if a decision was "good or bad" until you know the outcome, which might take some time. You can however control whether your decision-making is good or bad, using the best possible available information in an appopriate way. Thanks again.

Thanks! I've visited Russia several times and always enjoyed meeting people there. Also all Risk Doctor Briefings (except the last two) are available translated into the Russian language - see here: risk-doctor.com/briefings/ Enjoy!!

@@Risk-Doctor thank you! Highly appreciated.

@@2027759 You are very welcome.

Every true decision is risk based

Yes, you've got it!

"Uncertainty that matters"!

Thanks Alex, you're right of course. I was really trying to make the point that understanding risk is an intrinsic part of all decision-making, and it must nt be ignored if we want to make consistently good decisions. I'm not saying that we should drop any considertion of risk from decision-making - just that including risk is so basic that we don't need to say it. (Perhaps it's an example of English humour that doesn't always work elsewhere?!)

@@Risk-Doctor I agree and hope soon enough it will be clear to everyone that risk is inherent in any important decision and we won't have to even mention the word risk

You've got it!

Thanks Abdullah.

Thanks for your feedback.

I think that here the point is that with perfect knowledge there is no choice: maximize the gain. When you have a tradeoff you have to assign weights to the involved factors in order to get to a decision: hardly those weights do not involve uncertainties.

Thanks Prof Forman. I respectfully disagree that there are no uncertainties when we make trade-offs. If there is only one optimal solution, then we don't need to make a decision, we just take the best option. In this case we need to do an analysis, but then we just "decide" to accept the outcome of the analysis. My argument is that a true decision is only required when we need to choose between options where there is no clear winner - and this necessarily means taking account of risk. I realise that in your role as Professor of Decision Sciences at GWU, you'll look at decisions in more depth than I was able to do in this 8-minute video short! Perhaps we might find that we agree if we drilled down into the detail of both our positions and opinions! Thanks again for your comment.

@@Risk-Doctor I'd very much like to continue this discussion. Would you mind perusing my website that I'm rebuilding at the moment so we can align on what we agree on, which I think is most everything but choice decisions with tradeoffs involving certain benefits and costs -- where I recommend using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to structure, measure and synthesize the tradeoffs. I've extended this to providing a comprehensive and scientifically valid process for ERM over the past seven years and would very much appreciate discussing it with you as what I've found fits very nicely with your viewpoints. My website is Professor Forman.com. I'm currently developing a process that can be used to measure the "risk-reward" tradeoffs that so many people allude to for opening up in the face of Covid19 but few if any can actually measure to support a recommendation for a given strategy.

@@ErnestForman Thanks - I found your website already (that's how I knew about your position at GWU!). Let's continue the discussion by email...

@@Risk-Doctor Excellent. I look forward to some interesting conversations.

Thanks for this perceptive question Don. My answer is "Yes, but..." Perhaps the easiest way to think about this is in terms of time. Quality management assesses what we have already done *in the past*, through audits and reviews, and uses this to shape what we do in future through use of standards. Risk management focuses entirely on *the future*, considering what might or might not happen (good or bad) and seeking to act proactively in order to minimise threats and maximise opportunities. The goal is the same - to optimise the chances of achieving project objectives. But the focus is different; the methods, tools & techniques are different; the thinking is different.

@@Risk-Doctor Thank you. That really helps.

You're welcome Samar.

Sorry for the very late reply :-( You ask a very interesting and important question. There are levels of impact for any risk. We need to assess the impact against "what matters", and clearly it matters that we achieve our objectives/goals. But if we don't achieve an objective, then there are follow-on consequences that also matter. And if any of those occur, then there may be other effects. You could go on like this for several layers - but should you? You can conduct risk assessment at various levels, from high-level strategic to very detailed technical levels. The level of the assessment will determine the level of impact that you need to consider. But in principle, I would always recommend assessing the nearest level of impact ("proximal impact"), i.e. what would happen first in time. Some organisations get round this by asking you to assess "consequence" against objectives, and also "impact" against time, cost or other measurable indicators. This might be OK in some settings, but it's probably too complicated most of the time. I hope this is useful - sorry again for replying so late.

Thanks 👍

Welcome