Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (SoranĂ®)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
Welcome to Part C of Session 2 in our Project Risk Management course.
In this section, we will focus on organizational and project -related
These risks often come from inside the team or the way the project is managed.
In this section, we will explore the difference between organizational and
project -specific risks.
Organizational risks are broader and come from the structure environment and
culture of the organization.
This could include things like unclear strategy, financial problems, or weak
support from executives.
Even how decisions are made in offer management can add a risk to a project.
Project risks, on the other hand, are more specific and tied to the project
itself. They may involve unclear scope, team performance, or how well
stakeholders are engaged.
Understanding both levels is important because even a well -planned project can
fail in a risky organizational setting.
Organizations don't all handle risk the same way. Their approach often depends
on their industry, culture, and overall goals.
For example, startups and high -risk industries like oil industry usually
high risk tolerance.
They accept the possibility that many of their projects may fail because the
success of one of those high -impact projects could make up for the losses.
In contrast, more conservative organizations such as government
services provided with steady -paying customers, are usually risk -gabbers.
They aim for stability and prefer all projects to succeed, even if the returns
are smaller.
Importantly, an organization's risk tolerance is reflected in its policies.
For instance, a company with lowest tolerance might avoid fixed -price
because of the financial uncertainty involved.
This helps us understand that risk isn't just about the project, it is shaped by
how the organization chooses to operate it.
Risk management does not begin when the project starts.
It actually begins even earlier during project selection.
At that stage, decision makers need to think carefully about risks to decide
whether the project is worth pursuing.
That is because project selection and risk management are closely linked.
Choosing a project can introduce new risks, and at the same time, risk
helps guide the selection.
These two areas always work together.
To make smarter decisions, teams need reliable risk data.
Without clear estimates and solid analysis, organizations might have
that seem good at first, but are unrealistic and likely to fail.
In the end, a strong risk management leads to better project choices, and
choices help reduce future risks.
To succeed in selecting the right projects, organizations need a clear and
analytical portfolio management system.
Without it, decisions can become scattered and risky. When portfolio
is weak, several common issues tend to appear.
Teams may set unrealistic expectations about what projects can deliver.
Resources get stretched too thin with too many projects competing for limited
support.
Sometimes there is no clear link between project goals and the organization's
bigger strategy.
Projects may also be underfunded or rushed with unreasonable deadlines.
And leadership may assume the organization can handle more than what
can. All of these adds risk before a project even starts.
A strong portfolio process helps filter out the wrong project and gives the
right ones a real chance to succeed.
Here is a real -world inspired example from a fictional company called Kansas
Problem Solvers.
It is a mid -sized tech firm that starts the year with full of energy and new
ideas. The leadership team is given three exciting proposals, including
chain software, a customer service mobile app, and a full ERP system.
Without deep analysis, the executives decide to approve all three projects at
once, driven mostly by their enthusiasm.
They don't take time to check resource limits or strategic alignment.
Very soon, trouble starts to appear.
Technical teams are overloaded, leading to delays and reduced quality.
The budget cannot cover all three projects, so some key purchases are
The mobile app is finished, but it does not match the company's real strategic
goals. The ERP rollout runs into complexity and causes frustration due to
preparation.
In the end, the most promising project, the SDM software, is canceled because
there is no money left.
This example shows why portfolio management is not about doing
about doing the right things the right way.
So why do we place so much importance on structured project management
processes? Because without them, risks often go unnoticed and uncertainty takes
over. Good risk management does not just happen in response to problems.
It comes from solid planning.
At the project level, teams often face tight deadlines, changing priorities,
pursue to move fast.
But skipping planning only adds more risk, leading to rework, mistakes, or
surprises.
Fast -track projects actually need even more careful planning, not less.
At the organizational level, some managers may see project management as
unnecessary overhead.
And when there is little data, it becomes harder to make the case for it.
But even simple metrics, real examples, and a few small wins can start to shift
that mindset.
And here is something to remember.
Even if your organization does not fully support formal processes, you can still
use them in your own project and let the results speak for themselves.
And that wraps up part C of this session. Thank you for following along.
When you are ready, please continue with party to keep building your
understanding.
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.