A critical piece of equipment broke during a project execution phase. The risk manager notices this risk in the risk register, and the response is to rent equipment until the critical piece is repaired.
You know, if I were the risk manager, I'd just throw the broken piece out the window and call it a day. That's what I call the 'ostrich' risk response - stick your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away!
Haha, good one! I bet the project manager is just praying the repair takes less time than finding a new critical piece. That's what we call 'accepting the risk' with a side of wishful thinking.
It's important to weigh the pros and cons of each risk response strategy. In this situation, mitigation through renting equipment seems to be the most appropriate choice.
Avoiding the risk by starting over could lead to delays and additional costs. Mitigating the risk through renting equipment is a more practical solution in this case.
But starting over may not always be feasible or cost-effective. Mitigating the risk by renting equipment allows the project to continue with minimal disruption.
I'm not so sure about that. Transferring the risk to a rental company sounds more like a transfer to me. The risk manager is passing the responsibility to someone else.
This seems like a classic case of mitigation. Renting equipment to cover for the broken critical piece is a proactive way to reduce the impact of the risk.
Blair
1 months agoGregoria
1 months agoJamal
1 months agoErick
5 days agoVashti
6 days agoOra
14 days agoJoaquin
15 days agoPrincess
1 months agoTiffiny
2 days agoWilbert
9 days agoTesha
19 days agoKerry
2 months agoJonelle
2 months agoJacquelyne
2 months agoNa
2 months agoEstrella
2 months agoMakeda
2 months ago