4squareviews

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)
• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis process of Project Management)
• the identification of regional risk trends
• the risks that have gone changed the most since the last Global Risk Report

The next topic I went to get to are those risks which are the top 5 global risk of highest concern in the medium-term (18 months)  in the long-term (10 years).

2.   Top 5 Global Risks of Highest Concern–Medium-term vs. Long-term

Based on the results of the Global Risks Perception Survey, here are the five global risks whom the highest percentage of respondents listed as being of the highest concern:

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

Many of the risks in the medium-term were close in terms of the percentage of respondents who felt they were of the highest concern, but one stands out:  large-scale involuntary was felt by the majority of respondents as being of highest concern in the medium-term of the next 18 months.

Although geopolitical risks were the predominant concern over the next 18 months, the environmental risks and the societal risks they engender were felt by most respondents to be the global risks of highest concern over the longer term

For that reason, the next post will cover what the Global Risk Report has to say about the Paris Agreement, which can be considered as a risk response to the long-term  environmental risk mentioned above, especially Risk #2, Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)
• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis process of Project Management)
• the identification of regional risk trends

The next topic I went to get to in the report is related to ecology of risks in time, meaning those risks which have changed the most in terms of impact and/or likelihood since the last Global Risk Report in 2015.

2.   10 Most Changing Global Risks

The likelihood and impact of 29 risks were rated on a 1 to 7 scale based on the Global Risks Perception Survey done in the Fall of 2015.

Based on Figure 1.1 of the Global Risk Report 2016, those 10 risks that had the largest change in likelihood and/or impact from 2015 to 2016 were as follows:

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

The largest movement of risks are the societal risks of Large-Scale Involuntary Migration and Profound Social Instability, and these also happen to be linked together.

The environmental risks that are rising, but not rising as dramatically as the societal risks, are those of Failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation and Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, which are also linked together.

Four of the 10 risks are decreasing in either likelihood, impact, or both.   Concerns about conflicts between states does not seem to be as much on the radar as conflicts within countries.

The next post will cover those risks which concern the respondents of the Global Risk Perceptions Survey the most over the medium term (18 months) versus those thar of more of concern over the long-term (10 years).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)
• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis process of Project Management)j

After discussing the highest probability risks, those of highest potential impact, and those with the highest risk rating (combined score based on probability times impact) on a GLOBAL scale, the next topic I went to get to in the report is something which seems new for the Risk Report 2016, namely, going to a more granular analysis of the top three most likely risks on a REGIONAL basis.

2.   3 HIGHEST PROBABILITY RISKS FOR EACH REGION

The respondents were asked to assess each of the 29 risks (these risks are listed on the post dated 3/29/2016) based on the probability of occurrence on a scale from 1 to 7, with a “1” meaning that the risk is not likely to happen, and a “7” meaning that the risk is very like to occur.

Those 3 risks that rated as having the highest probability of occurrence for each particular region were as follows:

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

The top risk is different based on the region:   North America faces technological risk, East Asia faces environmental risk, both Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa face geopolitical risk, Europe as well as the Middle East and South Asia face societal risks,  whereas Central Asia is facing economic risk.

However, the second highest risk is economic in nature for most of the regions of the world, except in North America and East Asia which face environmental risks, and Central Asia which races economic risk.

The third highest risk for most regions of the world is either societal or geopolitical in nature.

The next post covers the ecology of risks in time, meaning those risks which have changed the most in terms of impact and/or likelihood in the past few Global Risk Reports.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)
• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Analysis process of Project Management)

Although I have discussed in the last posts on the qualitative analysis of risks those individual global risks which are considered to have the highest probability and/or potential impact, this post goes to Figure 2 of the Global Risk Report, the “Global Risks Interconnections Map 2016.”   In order to visually appreciate this map you need to download the actual report at

Click to access WEF_GRR16.pdf

However, I would like to discuss those global risks which are considered to be the 10 most interconnected with other global risks.

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

a.  The risks that made the list of “most interconnected” were societal risks.   If you look at the risk map in Figure 2, they are the ones that are in the center of the map, and have the most links leading to it.

b.  One way to look at the interconnected issue is to notice that the Syrian refugee crisis was preceded by a water crisis in turn exacerbated by the extreme heat and drought brought about by the initial stages of global warming, resulting in the internal migration from the desert to the cities.   The crackdown of the Syrian government against rebellion take an even larger toll on Syrian society, which caused large-scale involuntary migration from those rebel areas that were being targeted militarily by the government.  In turn, this started to have an effect on neighboring countries which drew in both Russia and the United States.

The interconnectedness of these risks is part of their difficulty, but also integral to the opportunities that are presented if they can be mitigated.  Their interconnected precludes simple solutions such as dropping bombs on rebel-held areas.   But if the crisis can be mitigated through multilateral diplomatic efforts, a lot of problems can be effectively solved at one .and the same time.

The cascading effect of one risk effecting a network of others can be seen as a danger or an opportunity.

The next post discusses how global risks are perceived differently, depending on the region of the world you happen to live in.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

In March, I went to a local bookstore and got Benny Lewis’ book Fluent in 3 Months.   One of his first recommendations for learning multiple languages at the same time is to make concrete goals for each of the languages you intend to focus on.

So I wrote down a multilingual learning plan for the month of March 2016.    The purpose of today’s post is to review the plan, and improve upon it in drawing up a plan for the month of April.

1. Multilingual language goals–Long-term

I am fluent in five foreign languages if you measure that fluency in terms of B1 level or higher on the Common European Language Framework.

So for those languages, I have put my goal to become one level higher by 2017.

For the languages I have been studying but which I have not achieved fluency, I am also putting my goal to become one level higher by 2017.

For those languages I have not studied before, but which I want to study in 2016, I’m putting the target as BEGINNER (A1).

Although I put all languages on my level goal list, certain languages have higher priority level, which translates into studying frequency.   Also, although my ultimate goal is to speak with native speakers, my intermediate goal  is to use textbooks in order to prepare for proficiency tests.

2.  Multilingual goals–method, priority level

3.   Multilingual goals–March 2016

Here were my goals for March 2016.

Based on what I actually accomplished in March (whichever goals are listed as DONE), here’s how I will improve my plan for April.

a.  High-priority languages–having the Chinese lessons twice a week already gives me enough practice for Chinese; for Japanese, I found that the first step of the  review I can do for the JLPT N2 level exam is to review the Kanji and vocabulary for levels N5, N4, and N3.  In turn, the way to do this is to go through the elementary school Kanji grades 1 through 6, which means in terms of the Kanji Kentei (the Japanese Kanji Proficiency test aimed at native Japanese) to review levels 10 through 5.   This month I reviewed level 10 (grade school 1) by going all of the readings in a workbook and putting them on flash cards.  I’m practicing listening skills by watching the NHK historical drama Ryomaden on Drama Fever.

b.  Medium-priority languages–I finished the skill trees for Spanish and French on Duolingo.   Now I’m starting the 5th level of the German skill tree.   It works well to concentrate on completing one skill tree at a time while periodically reviewing the ones I’ve already completed.    So I’ll work on completing the German skill tree in April for example, followed by Italian in May, and Portuguese in June.

c. Low-priority languages–I was WAY too ambitious by listing all of the languages.   I started Arabic using a great textbook Mastering Arabic Vol. 1.  I found that is way better than the one I had been using before.    I will pick ONE language, Korean, to finish doing the preparation work for studying by going through the chapter on pronunciation and writing.

d. Metalanguage–I found that Benny Lewis’ book Fluent in 3 Months was a great motivator for my language studies.  I’ve decided to get an online subscription to his Fluent in 3 Months website in order to go into more depth the principles that were in his book.

4. Multilingual Goals for April 2016

Here were my goals for the next month..

Those languages which are in bold are high priority, those that are in regular font are medium priority, and those which are in italics are low priority.

Let’s see what I accomplish in the month of April!

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)

and now in this third series of posts, I am concentrating on the next topic,

• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Analysis process of Project Management)

This qualitative analysis is called “qualitative” because it does not fix a specific dollar amount to each risk (that would be “quantitative analysis”), but instead analyzes each risk according to some qualitative variable, usually something like likelihood, or impact

The respondents to the Global Risk Perception Survey 2015 were asked the following questions regarding the 29 risks that were identified.

1. Which ten of the global risks have the highest probability of occurring in the next decade?
2. Which ten of the global risks would have the greatest potential impact if they were to occur in the next decade?

In yesterday’s post, I discussed the result of asking the respondents to the survey the first question about the highest probability global risks.    In this post, I discuss the result of asking them the second question about the global risks with greatest potential impact.

2.   RISKS OF GREATEST IMPACT

The respondents were asked to assess each of the 29 risks (these risks are listed on the post dated 03/29/2016), based on the potential impact if they were to occur, on a scale from 1 to 7, with a “1” meaning that the risk will have little impact, and”7″ meaning that the risk is have a catastrophic impact.

Those 10 risks that rated as having the highest potential impact were as follows:

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

a.  Most of the highest probability risks are environmental

Four out of the ten risks are societal:

• Risk #3 Water crises
• Risk #4 Large-scale involuntary migration
• Risk #8 Spread of infectious diseases
• Risk #10 Profound social instability

Of the remaining six risks, three are economic:

• Risk #5 Energy-price shock
• Risk #7 Fiscal crises
• Risk #9 Asset bubble

Two are geopolitical:

• Risk #7 Interstate conflict
• Risk #6 Failure of national governance

Two are environmental:

• Risk #1 Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation
• Risk #6 Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse

and the last one is geopolitical:

• Risk #8  Weapons of mass destruction

There were no risks in the technological category that made it into the top 10 global risks of greatest potential impact.

b.   Highest-impact trends

The number one highest-impact risk was Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation.    This has appeared on previous global risk reports in the list of top highest-impact risks, and has risen steadily in those lists until it is now the highest impact risk.

3.  COMBINED MEASURE:  PROBABILITY & IMPACT

If you take a look at the risks that have highest probability, and those that have the highest impact, if you multiply these risk factors you get the risks with the highest risk rating overall.   Here are the global risks with the

There is at least one crisis from each category on this list of risks of highest concern.   What is significant is that risks #1, #3 and #4 are all linked, which will be the subject of a future post.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

1.  INTRODUCTION

In my previous posts on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2016, I have concentrated on

• the methodology of the report (corresponding to the Plan Risk Management process of Project Management),
• the identification of risks (corresponding to the Identify Risks process of Project Management)

and now in this third series of posts, I am concentrating on the next topic,

• the qualitative analysis of risks (corresponding to the Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis process of Project Management)j

This qualitative analysis is called “qualitative” because it does not fix a specific dollar amount to each risk (that would be “quantitative analysis”), but instead analyzes each risk according to some qualitative variable, such as likelihood and impact.

The three questions that the respondents were asked about the 29 global risks were:

1. Which ten of the global risks have the highest probability of occurring in the next decade?
2. Which ten of the global risks would have the greatest potential impact if they were to occur in the next decade?

In yesterday’s post, I discussed the result of asking the respondents to the survey the first question.   In this post, I discuss the result of asking them the second question, on those risks which have the highest probability of occurring.

2.   HIGHEST PROBABILITY RISKS

The respondents were asked to assess each of the 29 risks (these risks are listed on the post dated 3/29/2016) based on the probability of occurrence on a scale from 1 to 7, with a “1” meaning that the risk is not likely to happen, and a “7” meaning that the risk is very like to occur.

Those 10 risks that rated as having the highest probability of occurrence were as follows:

Here are some things to notice about these risks.

a.  Most of the highest probability risks are environmental

Three out of the ten risks are environmental:

• Risk #2 Extreme weather events
• Risk #3 Failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation
• Risk #5 Natural Catastrophes

Of the remaining seven risks, two are societal:

• Risk #1 Large-scale involuntary migration
• Risk #9 Water crises

Two are geopolitical:

• Risk #4 Interstate conflict
• Risk #6 Failure of national governance

Two are economic:

• Risk #7 Unemployment or Underemployment
• Risk #10 Illicit trade

and the last one is technological:

• Risk #8  Data fraud or theft

b.   Highest-probability trends

For 2015, the number one highest-probability risk was Interstate Conflicts.    This has fallen down to #4 in 2016, having been superseded by the environmental risks #2 Extreme weather events and #3 Failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation, and being followed by #5 Natural Catastrophes.

Clearly environmental crises are perceived as increasingly likely to occur.

3.  CONCLUSION

On the societal front, large-scale involuntary migration is the highest probability risk, followed by a series of environmental risks.

Okay, it’s one thing to say that a risk is likely to happen.   What about when it does happen?   What will be its impact?   The respondents were asked about that question as well, and that will be the subject of my next post.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

`.  INTRODUCTION

The World Economic Forum puts out a Global Risk Report every year in January.   The first process in risk management is identifying risks.   The WEF identified 29 global risks through the Global Risk Perception survey, which were divided into 5 categories:  economic, environmental, geopolitical, social, and technological.

The definition of a global risk used is an occurrence that causes significant negative impact for several countries and industries, and that occurrence is something which expected to appear within the next 10 years.

2.  IDENTIFIED GLOBAL RISKS

Here is a chart of the  risks divided into the 5 categories mentioned above.   This is taken from Appendix A of the Global Risk Report 2016.

3.  CONCLUSION

The majority of the 29 risks  divided between the five categories of economic (9), environmental (5), geopolitical (5), social (5), and technological (4) risks.   There are almost twice as many risks in the economic category than the other four categories, which have almost the same amount of risks.

The next step in risk management is performing qualitative analysis, which assigns to each risk a probability, and potential impact, to yield an overall risk factor.   That is the subject of the next post.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Every year the World Economic Forum meets in Davos, Switzerland, and puts out a Global Risk Report.   This year on January 14th the World Economic Forum they put out their 11th edition of the Global Risk Report, which describes those risks which have the highest likelihood of occurring and which would have the highest impact on the world if they do occur.   During the next week, I would like to delve into the details of the report, which can be read and/or downloaded at the following site:

https://www.zurichna.com/en/knowledge/articles/2016/01/global-risks-report-2016

1.  INTRODUCTION

I have followed these reports since 2012.  Like the reports for previous years, they give tremendous insights into the pressing problems around the globe, how they interact, and also how they evolve.    Understanding these global risks can give insights into the background behind the major events that will transpire during the year, including the upcoming US Presidential Election, and so studying this report has become an essential tool in being prepared for what lies ahead.

Posts during this week and next week will go into the following topics:

• Methodology of the Global Risk Report 2016 (this post)
• The 29 global risks identified by the survey and the 5 risk categories they belong to
• Ten Global Risks of Highest Concern in 2016
• Global Risks Landscape 2016–maps risks according to their likelihood and potential impact
• Global Risks Interconnections Map 2016–showing interdependencies of the 31 global risks
• Risks and Trends to Watch–recent trends in global risks, and risks may become more important in the future
• The Security Outlook 2030
• Risks in Focus–The (Dis)empowered Citizen, Climate Change and Risks to Food Security, Global Disease Outbreaks
• Risks for Business

2.  METHODOLOGY

Because I write posts on what the report tells us , I wanted to start today with a different question on how it was done.   For those with access to the Global Risk Report 2016, this is located on Appendix B:  Global Risks Perception Survey and Methodology, page 88.

a)  Identify global risks, which are risks that are global in geographic scope, cross-industry relevance, uncertainty as to how and when they will occur, and high levels of economic and/or social impact.    29 global risks were identified. 

b)  Categorize these 29 global risks into five Risk Categories: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.

This became the basis for the Global Risks Perception Survey, which was sent in mid-September through October 2015 to almost a thousand decision-makers and leaders, and questions were asked about the 29 selected global risks.   There were a total of 742 usable responses.   (This survey method is known as the Delphi technique.)

c)  The respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of the risk occurring globally within the next 10 years and the impact of the risk if it were to occur, impact in this context having a broader meaning than simply economic impact.    The rating was done on a 1 to 7 scale (previous years have used a 1 to 5 scale).  This then became the basis for the Global Risks Landscape 2016 part of the report.

d) The respondents were asked to state which out of the 29 selected global risks were the top five that were of the most concern between the timeframe of 18 months and 10 years.

e)  The respondents were asked to identify three to six pairs of risks they believed were most strongly connected.   The strength of the interconnection of each pair of risks was determined by the number of respondents that had cited them.    This then became the basis for the Global Risks Interconnections Map 2016 portion of the report.

f)   The respondents were asked to identify up to three risks which were most likely to occur in the region they were located.

This takes the global risk report to the next level of detail by showing regional risks.  

The first question, as mentioned above, was the first time that respondents were asked to nominate their own risks as ones facing the world at present.   The second question forms a “watch list”, that is, risks which are both low in terms of probability and/or impact at the present, but which could migrate due to future trends of increased probability and/or impact to a position where they might become prominent global risks at some point.

For more technical detail into the composition of the respondents in terms of gender, age, geographical area, and stakeholder group (i.e., business, academia, NGOs, national governments, or international organizations), as well as details on how these responses were handled from a statistical basis, you can go to Appendix B of the report which is at the website mentioned at the top of the post.

3.  CONCLUSION

A study of this global risks report is an excellent exercise in understanding how to identify and analyze risks, but it also is an inspirational example of how risk management, rather than being just an academic exercise, can actually be of help to global leaders who are trying to cope with the world’s most intractable problems.     The more people that are informed about the nature of these problems, the less they will be tempted to react to them with a sense of passivity based on fear, and more with a sense of purposeful action.

To put it bluntly, if as a leader you don’t manage global risks, then global risks will end up managing you!

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

In John Stenbeck’s book “PMI-ACP and Certified Scrum Professional Exam Prep and Desk Reference”, he creates an “agile project management process grid” which describes 87 processes used in agile project management.   These processes are divided into five process groups (Initiate, Plan, Iterate, Control, and Close), which are analogous to the five process groups in traditional project management, and seven knowledge areas which can be mapped, more or less, onto the ten knowledge areas in traditional project management.

The previous posts have covered the “Initiate”, “Plan”, “Iterate”, and “Control” process group of an agile project.   Now I am focusing on the “Close” process group.   I first want to define what I mean by that term of “process group”.   Why do I use this instead of the word “phase”?    Phase implies a sequence that goes more or less from one set of processes to another.   In reality, after the initiate and plan process groups, an agile project actually shuttles back and forth between the “iterate” and “control” process groups.   However, although a traditional or waterfall project always ends with the “Close” process group,  the “close” control group in agile also refers to those activities which are done at the close of an iteration and not just of the product itself–such as the process 7.7 Process tailoring.

This process is the last of the 87 processes that John Stenbeck describes in his book.    Having learned all of the agile processes, it is now time to go beyond them–meaning to incorporate processes from waterfall or traditional project management if it is warranted.

The first post out of three discussed hybrid projects in general, i.e., those that incorporate elements of both agile and other  methodologies.    The second post covered process tailoring in order to meet the needs of the organization.   Today’s post, the third and final one in the series, will cover process tailoring in order for the organization to meet external standards.

There are two types of external standards to consider:    regulatory and industry standards.    The biggest difference is that the first type of standard is obligatory, and the second type is more of a recommended best-practice type of standard.

1. Regulatory standards

Let’s take a typical example of the first type;  the health-care industry, which is covered by HIPPA regulations (among others).    Although the Agile Manifesto’s second principle is:

Working software over comprehensive documentation

the reality of the situation is that if you don’t do the documentation that shows your new system is HIPPA compliant, then it not be able to be used by a health-care provider.   Period.   So agile processes have to produce documentation that allows the product to be sold.    I know this well from my days working for Mitsubishi Motors, when I worked in the regulatory compliance division.    All those tests we did to make sure we passed NHTSA and EPA regulations may not have seemed, at first glance, to add value for the customer.   But if didn’t do those tests, either agency would have been able to make sure that the customer never even saw the vehicles in a showroom, let alone buy one.

Regulatory compliance is so important that, when tightening a company’s budget, a project which works on regulatory compliance issues that has, on the surface, little ROI, will be carried out even over a project which has a relatively high ROI but does nothing to advance the product’s regulatory compliance.

Agile is like a reed that bends to the winds of reality.    So if process tailoring meets the external need of regulatory compliance, it will accommodate that reality.

2. Industry standards

A set of quality standards like ISO standards is self-imposed to a certain extent, but it is done as a symbol that the product has value to the customer because it meets certain quality standards.

Here are some guidelines given by John Stenbeck:

• Analyze those organizational standards which are in most need of improvement, i.e., that will deliver a high value if changed
• Have  a strong executive champion to sponsor the change (important)
• Find evidence (case studies or white papers) which validate similar organizational improvements done by other organizations within the industry (the sponsor will need these to convince others in upper management)
• Identify which roles must be tailored to the external standard–it is roles, even more than resources, which people tend to protect more fiercely, and you will need to show how the changes will benefit them, NOT make them obsolete
• Create a framework and detailed procedures that incorporate the new standards

This is the final post on this book, and I must say it was very helpful in studying for the Certified ScrumMaster exam, which I recently passed.

Tomorrow I will start a series of posts on the Global Risk Report 2016 from the World Economic Forum, analyzing its contents and comparing them to previous reports in order to identify significant trends.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »