Table 3 Methods to identify threats
Method | Procedure | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
Hindsight | Review successes and failures. Error elimination. | Learn by experience. | Not anticipate events. Poor for big irreversible impacts. |
Informal | Expert guesswork, intuition, asking stakeholders. System 1 thinking. | Quick, easy, cheap. | Overlook and misunderstand threats. Over-influenced by occasional big sensational events (e.g. airliner crashes), under-influenced by common events (e.g. road accidents). |
Checklist and matrix | Adopts threats encountered on previous similar projects. | Formal. Simple. Uses experience. | Limited information. Every project more or less unique so some listed threats possibly irrelevant & other threats overlooked. |
Input–output analysis (IOA) | Deconstructs project into components each of which is analysed in terms of inputs, outputs, gains or losses of energy, matter, rights & opportunities. System 2 thinking. | Formal. Addresses specifics of a project. Diligent, defensible and repeatable. | Costly – requires experience, time, money and effort. |
Constraints analysis | Identifies & links main obstacles (i.e. constraints, threats) to desired outcome. System 2 thinking. | Concise means of representing cause-effect relations among already identified threats & desired outcome. | Does not of itself identify threats, and best done in conjunction with or after IOA. |
Scenario analysis | Assess possible future conditions by considering outcomes of 2–3 contrasting event sequences. | Considers development paths & consequences of possible futures. Appropriate for strategy & external threats. | Does not predict one exact picture of the future. Big picture. Qualitative. |
What-if analysis | More focused than scenario analysis, usually quantitative. | Useful for establishing, optimizing & refining costs & benefits. | Usable if options are quantifiable. |