|
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.
|
