Begin: Operations Research in Disaster Risk Management

I have joined a research group here in the Ateneo, and we are focusing on (1) operations research and (2) disaster risk management. Basically, we will look into how management science can contribute to management of disaster relief operations.

Some definitions:

Operations Research -  as defined by the European Operations Research Societies is "the scientific approach to the solution of problems in the management of complex systems". (Altay and Green, 2006)

Disaster Operations - "the set of activities that are performed before, during and after a disaster with the goal of preventing loss of human life, reducing impact in economy and returning to a state of normalcy". (Altay and Green, 2006)

I am quite excited with this research area as it is something of great relevance here in the Philippines! Also, I think I can bring in contributions based on my knowledge in project management and risk management.

I have a lot to read though, specially to catch up with my colleagues on Operations Research and System Dynamics!

---
References: Altay, N., & Green, W. G. (2006). OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(1), 475–493.

Mendeley for Research Groups

I had just recently joined a research group in our school. This is an interdisciplinary research group and we are working on two research projects involving sustainability, disaster risk management, management science, and institutions management. To start off we are trying to build a repository for the research group. My colleague introduced Mendeley to us. It seems to have good reference management system and file sharing mechanism! As my colleague says, it's the i-tunes for research.

I am optimistic with it, my only reservation is that I have grown too comfortable with using EndNote for my referencing. But Mendeley seems to have an equally good referencing system too... If our group's repository works out, then I might completely migrate to using Mendeley.

Trying a Documents Link

Blogger seems to have limited capability in terms of uploading files. It seems that it can only upload images and videos. I'm trying to work around this through Skydrive. Here is a link to an old syllabus (.doc file), just checking if it works:

Link

Fingers crossed.

My Official Thesis Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to firstly thank my supervisor, Alec Fearon. His mentoring style, philosophical mind, diagramming abilities, humour, and care helped me immensely throughout the year. I am a better researcher and thinker because of him.

I would like to thank Dennis Silverwood, for aiding me in improving my work through his insights, criticisms, and tough questions.

I would like to acknowledge Eddie Borup, for being my exploratory guide through the United Nations Development Programme; for occasionally bringing me out of the archival dead-end.

I would like to recognise Ned Robins, for sparking and fuelling my interest in risk management.

I would like to thank my friends. I endured because of them.

Finally, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my family. Completing this thesis would have not been possible without their support, their prayers, and their belief in me. My special thanks to my twin-sister, for being my constant source of encouragement.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Printed and Posted

Haven't updated this thesis in a while! For obvious reasons, I  have neen extremely busy writing and compiling my thesis.

Just got it printed today and submitted online! Going to submit tomorrow.

It's been quite a journey. :) And I've enjoyed the ride.

Should I be upset?

After some back breaking data crunching, I finally finished coding through 304 documents! I tried some initial analysis using SPSS and it seems like my data is not looking so good. :( 

Although I don't think I should be upset, as I think there is a pattern emerging that I can make some sense of. I'm running through some other descriptive statistical tools and trying some non-parametric tests to get some reaffirmation of these initial figures. 

Note: I'm not a statistics expert, but I'm quite relieved that when I opened the statistics books I can still seem to understand majority of it. Yeay! I'm really excited to do some analysis... but right now I'm just really tired from the coding I've been through.

Click images to enlarge!

Progress: 18 July 2012

I'm getting some progress with my work and just happy to present these diagrams that seem to make the sense out of my work (more than my write up). After much deliberation on my research structure, I have decided this will by my methodology scheme:

Click to enlarge

Also I've finally made sense of the documents I'm using! I've tied it up with my discussion on UNDP. Basically it's going to be the documents on the programme level + UNDAF. Still trying to decide whether to include documents on the project level.

Click to enlarge

Research Structure

This picture from Krippendorff shows an idea of how I am going about my research method:

Click to enlarge

Although, this doesn't entirely capture what I want to do... Since I'm not sure I'm using content analysis alone. I think it is more like I'm building cases out of the documents; and I'm using content analysis + (something else, i.e. discourse analysis/semiotics/observations?) to make sense of the documents...

So the picture below maybe a better representation (my inputs in red)...

Click to enlarge

I plan to construct 15 mini (pseudo) cases to represent the risk management and outcome phenomena in each country; and I would then compare those similar phenomena to make an inference.

Does that sound sensible?

---

KRIPPENDORFF, K. 2004. Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.

Documents Thus Far

I'm streamlining my data... So far I have shortlisted my sources of documents to the following categoreis

Region: Europe and CIS
Timeframe: Programme cycles that fall between 2005 to 2011
Countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia,  Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Documents to be analysed:

1. UNDAF
2. CPD (past cycle and on-going cycle)
3. CPAP (past cycle and on-going cycle)
4. ADR (if any) - or - Country Programme Performance Summary (if without ADR)

Given the above list... I am looking potentially at 90 document (1 UNDAF, 2 CPDs, 2 CPAPS, 1 ADR/Summary for each country) already... I'm still deliberating if it will be necessary to look into the additional documents. Aside from the constraint of time and the sheer amount of volume of documents, I've listed my reservations about some of the documents.

1. Outcome Evaluations - Reservation(s): Not all country programmes have outcome evaluations for the specified period. And only selected outcomes are evaluated. Advantage(s): it would list the projects and outputs that contribute to achieving the outcomes.    
2. Project documents - Reservations(s): I'm still undecided whether I should look in depth into project documents since I'm looking at the programme level; maybe I could use it as a support. There is a risk that I would look at the thesis on the project level. Advantage(s): since the programme documents (so far) have not given me quality data for risk management, maybe the project documents could give me insights:  
3. Project evaluations - my reservations and advantages are the same as #2

I guess the question here really is:

Is the country programme documents sufficient to prove a point? If not then I would need to look into project documents.

---
Here are the sources for the documents

UNDP Europe and CIS Country Programme documents (UNDAF and CPD):
http://europeandcis.undp.org/news/show/8EEC429C-F203-1EE9-BB5E744EAA529CF8

ERC Website (UNDAF, Outcome and Project Reports):
http://erc.undp.org/

Assessment of Development Results Reports
http://web.undp.org/evaluation/country-evaluation.html

Also know that... not all country offices would have ADRs, but instead would have a Country Programme Performance Summary. I haven't found a repository... but through persistent search using the keywords "UNDP" and "Country Programme Performance" all the relevant summaries can be found.

Finding a Way Forward

After some correspondence with Eddie, Dennis and Alec... I think I have gathered my confidence that all is not lost! (Read about my panic attack here).

Right after the meeting with Dennis, it seemed clearer what I needed to do. I tried to organise the documents I have and what information I am going to gather from those documents to address my research objectives:

Late Night Library Musings

Been cracking my head on a research issue... Been here in the library all day, skimming through documents, coding, thinking and panicking. Did not even notice that time flew so fast! So night time falls and I decided to try draw the picture of my situation.

So this is a glimpse of how my brain looks like (I'm sure the jumbled thoughts in my head must be amplified by a 1000x). Pictures are a bit blurred but I need a form of reference of my musings. 

At this rate... I'm getting really worried. But I don't think I'll get anything more done for tonight... so off to home now...

--- 

Just in case you are interested in what I'm fussing about:

My research question is: To what extent does programme risk management practice contribute to achieving UNDP programme outcomes?

My research method is designed to be unobtrusive; thus I am heavily depending on using UN documents that have been already created and published. Using these documents  I am trying to infer the extent of (1) how UNDP country programmes uses/perceives  programme risk management and (2) how programme risk management is valued in the process of achieving programme outcomes.

Through my research so far I have been able to:

• Trim down my study's target population to 15 countries within the Europe and CIS region.
• Set the time-frame of the programme cycles to be within the years 2005-2011; the rationale being, so that the outcomes are already evident.
• Gather, complete and read the top 3 country programme documents (UNDAF, CPD and CPAP) of the 15 countries; where the documents have narrated how the programmes are supposed to be managed (but only some includes a risk management aspect)
• Skim through the ERC website, where the documents can give me inferences of the outcomes of the programmes.

What is causing me to worry is: so far I hardly see any explicit risk management aspect in the documents that I have. In addition, I've also gathered that the UN system has proposed and implemented an enterprise risk management framework; but I have realised that the framework was introduced in 2008, mid-way through the programme cycle (therefore will not be evident in the documents that I have).

I've struck gold!

Not literally... but I found this website which just gives me a huge relief!
http://europeandcis.undp.org/news/show/8EEC429C-F203-1EE9-BB5E744EAA529CF8

Although I  have done my own data mining for the past few weeks and have created my own database... this gives me the reassurance of the completeness of (or lack thereof) my data :)

Posting the link on my blog just to be sure I don't lose it.

Drafting my Research Design

My data will come from official UN documents. Through the months, I have been mapping the relevant documents and seen some samples of them. Before I officially embark on my formal data collection... I had to be more clear about my research method. After a week of extensive reading I think I have come to understand my research structure a bit better. Here is the line of thought of my research:

I also found a Krippendorff's book on content analysis really helpful. It gives me the academic/theoretical support of what I want to do. Here is a conceptual process of my research methodology:

Krippendorff identifies that in content analysis, there are three types of units: 

1. Sampling unit -  units of selection; what documents are going to be sampled and analysed? (i.e. CPD, evaluation report)
2. Coding unit - units of description; what is going to be coded/measured/analysed? (i.e. textual presence of risk management, mentions of programme success)
3. Context unit - units that delineate the scope for coders in recording the coding units; what context is the coding unit coded? (i.e. the logframe is a context unit, textual presence of risk management is the coding unit)

The examples above are working definitions of my units of analysis, I still have to work on clarifying them.

As for my sampling, it is clear that I'm using relevance sampling:

"Relevance sampling is non-probabilistic. In using this form of sampling, an analyst proceeds by following a conceptual hierarchy, systematically lowering the number of units that need to be considered for an analysis. The resulting units of text are not meant to be representative of a population of texts; rather, they are the population of relevant texts." (Krippendorff, 2004)

----
References:

GRAY, D. E. 2009. Doing research in the real world, London, SAGE.

KRIPPENDORFF, K. 2004. Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.

KRIPPENDORFF, K. & BOCK, M. A. 2009. The content analysis reader, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.

Weekend in Devon

We had an amazing weekend at Alec's place down south in Plymouth, Devon.

It was a work/leisure weekend. :-)

With regards to work...

We got to tease my literature review and got some great pointers from Alec! Alec kept emphasising on creating a logical line of reasoning for the whole of the thesis. I think I get his point and I think I have a better idea of how I am structuring my thesis.

We also talked about how I am going to go about the thesis and Alec made a diagram from our discussions:

I am content with what  I plan to do, I just hope I have enough time to do it! :-)

Results Chain Summary

Inevitably, writing a literature review on the programme management in the development sector means to touch on the RBM approach. 

RBM is a spin-off to programme management, it is a results philosophy that is integral in the discussion. But honestly it is not my favourite topic, it is taking too much of my time writing about it!

I think the best way to summarise the concept of the results logic is through a diagram:

Click picture to enlarge

The image is a compilation from numerous resources:

COBO, J. R., ORTIZ, I. & MATAIX, C. 2010. International cooperation for development: Design of a competence-based model for managing programmes and projects. Project Perspectives 2010, 32, 15-19.

ICRC 2008. Programme/project management: The results-based approach. International Committee of the Red Cross.

IKA, L. A. & LYTVYNOV, V. 2009. RBM: A shift to managing development project objectives. Journal of Global Business Administration, 1, 55-76.

IKA, L. A. & LYTVYNOV, V. 2011. The “management‐per‐result” approach to international development project design. Project Management Journal

UNITED NATIONS SYSTEMS STAFF COLLEGE. 2010. Results-based management and the UNDAF results matrix. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/Ramen24/resultbased-management-and-the-undaf-matrix-for-country [Accessed 29 March 2012].

Developments in Development

Looking into UNDP means that I need to be aware of the developments in international aid.

The materials I have gathered focus heavily on the political and economical aspects of the development agenda; explicit literature on the implementation of international programmes and projects are limited. Filtering through the books and picking up related themes to my thesis topic, here are some interesting thoughts I have gathered:

• Development studies has been a struggling discipline; because for the 50+ years of active international development activities, little evidence has proven that international aid has indeed helped improve the situations of poorer nations (Rashid, 2011). 
• Feeney (1998) has attributed failure of numerous projects to the lack of understanding of the socio-economical background of developing countries. Rondinelli (1993) reiterates that development projects "have never adequately reflected the underlying uncertainties" of developing nations.
• The development agenda is moving towards a more participative approach; shifting away from micro-managed interjections towards an approach that encourages building capacities, strengthening institutions and promoting country ownership. 
• According to Mosse (2005) the new development approach looks at narrowing the ends of development (focusing and defining the international development targets) and widening the means (improving the capabilities).

In my perspective, I think these points highlight the programmification of the development institutions. In the 21st century, multi-lateral organisations have minimised their role in implementing the projects themselves; taking more involvement at programme level. On the programme level  (in participation with the developing countires) the agencies set up the development targets, aid the selection of projects, build up the country capacities and allow the country counterparts to implement the projects.

---

References:

FEENEY, P. 1998. Accountable aid : local participation in major projects, Oxford, Oxfam Publications.

MOSSE, D. 2005. Cultivating development : an ethnography of aid policy and practice, London ; Ann Arbor, MI, Pluto Press.

RASHID, T. 2011. Why it Matters: Role of Academia in Development and Aid Effectiveness.

RONDINELLI, D. A. 1993. Development projects as policy experiments : an adaptive approach to development administration, London, Routledge.

10-11 May 2012 Tutorials

My thesis is forming up a bit, and  I think I have nearly nailed down the question that I am trying to answer. I am glad that we did the sessions, and it is just clear that I really need to figure out what is it exactly I am doing. 

For the most part, I have the generic baseline stuff that I need to form my thesis. I already know the type of data I will be using. And I have the generic idea of what my literature would look like. The real problem is the question... so after much discussion with Alec and Dennis, I sat down in the learning grid to clear things out... I think I almost have it:

Finding my Unit of Analysis

For the past few days I have been trying to define my case. Alec has blogged about Yin's illustration of different types of case studies. One thing for sure, I am doing a multiple case study. But I'm just having harder time to frame up what my unit of analysis is... what is exactly the case I am studying?

Is it the country programme risk management process? and the country project risk management process as an embedded unit of analysis?

or 

Is it the UNDP risk management process? and the country programme risk management process as embedded unit of analysis?

or 

Is it the project and programme risk management process congruency?

So confused!

Tried to write it up on the board... and I think I may have something here... somewhere.

I'm merely posting this so I won't lose the images...  I will stare at this for a while and maybe a thought might just jump in.

Ideas anyone?

What am I Doing???

I just read Hillson's article; and I am appalled (maybe crushed or devastated even!).

We wanted to discover the best metrics for determining whether a risk management process is effective, and to find ways of showing a link between risk management and improved bottom-line outcomes.

Basically this is what I want to do with UNDP.

But...

Interestingly, the PMI Research Department felt that it was not possible to design an academic  research project to answer these questions directly, and they decided not to take the idea forward. 

This leaves an important and vexing question for risk practitioners – how do we prove we’re adding value?! 

That leaves me with the question... What am I doing??? Is it even possible to do my thesis???

I'm going to sleep on this... maybe tomorrow I will be in a better mood (less panicked state) to look at this objectively! :(

Wei Ji

I remember a discussion with a friend from the Philippines about risk; he pointed out to me that risk in Chinese is known as Wei Ji:

When I opened a book by Hillson, I saw these two characters in his introduction!

I found the Chinese version of risk quite interesting. It is composed of two characters, the first one meaning danger and the second one meaning opportunity. This reflects the true nature of risk; that it can be negative as well as it can be positive. In the context of programme and project management, most often than not when we talk about risk management we almost always mean about managing the impacts of unpleasant events.  Reading through his book, however, Hillson always put risk on a higher note by always emphasising the optimisation of opportunity risks.

---
Source:
HILLSON, D. 2010. Exploiting future uncertainty : creating value from risk, Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, Vt., Gower.

The Risk Variable in Value Optimisation

“Value is grounded in reality.” Stewart emphasises that value is not defined by price but rather in utility. An innovation may have a set price, but its utility depends on the perspective of the owners. The absolute cost of a product may be fixed; but its value may differ depending on the perception of the end users.

Stewart's book 'Value optimization for Project and Performance Management' looks at value from the project point of view.  He defines value in four variables: time, cost, performance and risk. The time-cost-performance triangle is the standard dimension in measuring success in project management, but Stewart adds the risk variable in his value function.  

 or simply...

Risk should be incorporated in measuring value; the impact of uncertainty to achieving project objectives must be considered. This is because if the management of risk is neglected, it can damage the overall value of the project.

"Maximising the relationship between these [four] elements is important to satisfying the customer and optimising valure"

---

Source:
STEWART, R. B. 2010. Value optimization for project and performance management, Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.

What is Grounded Theory?

It is not a theory! Rather, it is an approach to the generation of theory out of data.

'Grounded theory has been defined as "theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process". In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another'. (Bryman, 2012)

Source: BRYMAN, A. 2012. Social research methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Different Project Management Approaches

Encountered an interesting article discussing different research approaches to project management. Table below summarises the authors' discussion

click image to enlarge

---

Source: ALOJAIRI, A. & SAFAYENI, F. The fragmented nature of the project management field. 2009.

Link: http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/article/viewFile/662/571

Using Documents as Data

I'm happy with my choice to do use archival documents as my primary data. Makes me feel a bit different :) Everyone else seems to be opting for using surveys. But it is not an easy choice. Reading into some literature, I have a lot of work to do... and so many decisions to make for my methodology!

Here are some concerns that I need to look at when using documents as data.

1. Level of Analysis - Few or ,many (or both)?
• Few - information from a single or few organisations (concentrate on a few country offices)
• Many - information from many organisations (a sample of country offices in a region)
2. Input Method - Read or measure (or both)?
• Read - using large amounts of archival information, make discoveries through managed pattern of reading
• Measure - Use social scientific 'coding'; insight comes from attention to patterns
3. Causality Theory - Descending or ascending (or both)?
• Descending - Macro patterns are expected to explain micro processes
• Ascending - Micro processes develop on their own, but are incorporated at a higher level of social organisation
4. Measurement Theory - Objects or relations (or both)?
• Objects - analysis focuses on connecting attributes to outcomes
• Relations - relations (rather than characteristics) of objects are expected to yield explanatory value.

Also reading about archival analysis raised a lot more questions. Just clear that there is a lot that I don't know. I read a lot of analytic methodology terms that I do not quite understand, but I may use it in the future:

Content analysis

Semantic grammars

Semiotics

Multidimensional scaling

Sequence analysis

Boolean algebra

Galois lattice

Correspondence analysis

Hierarchical classification model

---

Source:
VENTRESCA, M. J. & MOHR, J. W. 2002. Archival research methods. Blackwell companion to organizations, 805-828.

Thesis Writing Workshop

I attended a thesis writing workshop by Dee Nicholls today. From the mind-mapping exercise I realise that I already have shifted my question a bit; it's different from the one I originally wrote for ReMe on February. 

I think this mind map shows the areas I am really interested in... In a way this can be my guidance for my future writing. 

Click picture to enlarge

I hope I'll stay focused on this one... and won't steer off too much... as such I hung this up on my wall. :)

Aside from mind mapping, I got a lot of insights on writing the dissertation! I got a bit motivated and excited to write after today's workshop. Now, I just have to finish off my April PMAs... so I can start writing my literature review.

03 April 2012: ReMe

Today's ReMe was definitely better than last December's. The discussions are a bit more generic, but this time it got me to do some thinking about my project. 

Here are the highlights for the day:

• Quality of Data Lecture: its about using statistical techniques to data. Even though my data might be more qualitative than quantitative, I am sure that I will use some statistical analysis to some extent in my dissertation. It was a good reminder to me that aside from reading literature, thinking/searching of the possible data source, reading about methodology, etc... I also have to revisit statistics for use in my analysis. But I think that's still a bit far off, first I need to concentrate on setting the base of my study.
• Qualitative Analysis Lecture: the lecturer touched on archival data. The main point was these documents (i.e. UNDP CPAP, AWP etc..) were not written for the purpose of my thesis. The challenge is coding these documents, finding patterns and relating it with the literature. I wish she discussed about it to some more detail, but she didn't. The focus of this lecture was more on ethics and interviews... which could still be helpful for me.
• 'How to avoid Failing' Lecture: First, on a higher note... I will remember the 'golden thread', a distinctive thesis seems like there is a 'golden thread' linking every piece of the thesis beautifully; it flows from start to finish.  But the rest of the lecture is spirit dampening... A lot of DON'Ts and DOs regarding the dissertation structure. The main point is: do not write/include anything that does not add value to the thesis. 

I really don't like the 'how not to fail' theme, it dampens my spirit. After the ReMe session, I felt stressed, anxious; and up to now a lingering feeling of silent panic. -.-

Keep Calm and Carry On...

Frog and the Lily Pad Dilemma

Not entirely related to my thesis, but just a food for thought...

I've been reading "Seeing the Forest for the Trees" to learn more about systems thinking for my Innovation assignment and I encountered an interesting snippet.

Click image to enlarge.

Answers:

• Exponential growth
• 49th day
• On the 40th day, the proportion of the pond covered by lily pads is very small! It would be less than one tenth of one percent! Computed as (1/2)^10

The moral of the story:

Click image to enlarge.

The book is quite interesting; it discusses systems thinking in a simple (ironic considering its a topic about complexity) yet really stimulating manner.

Images are all quotes from Sherwood. 

---

SHERWOOD, D. 2002. Seeing the forest for the trees : a manager's guide to applying systems thinking, London, Nicholas Brealey Pub.

UNDP RBM Presentation

Found a site containing various presentations:

http://www.slideshare.net/undpeuropeandcis/tag/undp

Interestingly I found a presentation a bit similar to our discussion during the tutorials. It kind of links the results chain to particular documents

http://www.slideshare.net/Ramen24/resultbased-management-and-the-undaf-matrix-for-country

 Here are some slides from the presentation: 

27-28 March 2012 Tutorials

I think I got some creative juice running after our philosophical tutorials!

27 March 2012

Today, we did not talk about our projects in detail; rather we discussed more about the philosophy behind research. It gave me some comfort that somehow I'm not totally lost in what I  am doing... I'm actually undergoing an inductive process where I am looking at the context of things and thereby (I might) form a theory.  Also we talked about the phenomenology of meaning in research. Is the meaning of the world given or is meaning derived from the way we interpret and observe things? I am a bit more of an interpretivist, I think meaning is formed from the perspectives of our minds (influenced by culture etc...); as opposed to a positivist who argues that meaning is out there and absolute (?).  It was a mind boggling discussion but it got me into a different way of thinking. Which I really need at the moment!

28 March 2012

I benefited a lot from our one-to-one session, it answered a lot of my worries. We talked about...

1. the possible discussion I can have with Eddie to get started with the data I need,
2. a different perspective on the approach to my research; which I think is fantastic! I can look at my research as a form of a risk assessment for UNDP,
3. a diagram of how how outputs-outcomes-impacts relate to each other and how risk is embedded in it,
4. my research question (and made some iterations),
5. the depth of risk management theory I have to look into
6. the comparison and contrast of MSP guidelines and the actuality of 
7. the course of action if the data returns to me is not what I expected

With these discussion raise a lot more questions that I need to answer (some basic, but some more in-depth):

1. What is a country office?
• How is it organised?
• What is the turnover? Is it a factor for risk management?
2. Define risk management
3. Given that I will do the project as a risk assessment of UNDP, what data do I need?
4. Are the asserted goals matched with the outcomes?
5. Does UNDP require risk management process to be aligned?
6. What does MSP say about the risk management methods? 
• Does UNDP conform to it? Why? Why not?

Generally a productive meeting. But I still feel like I'm in a fog, but I got an idea.! I'll share the idea once I get some fruition from it.

Europe and CIS UNDP

Just got a bit of a nudge to look at Europe and CIS UNDP. Found an interesting page and with it other interesting links that could be useful for my project.

http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/AboutUs/show/ABCA4902-F203-1EE9-BDC3749532FDE254

---
Looking forward to jump start/wake-up call in tomorrow's meeting with Alec.
Because, to be honest right now... progress 0%.

Translation Please!

I found this definition in an interesting article about programme risk management... it would be very helpful if I could understand this portion fully. My maths are a bit rusty, I understand the first portion a bit, but need confirmation for the meaning of (2).

Any help would be appreciated. :)

--

The article:

KWAN, T. W. & LEUNG, H. K. N. Measuring Risks within a Program Consisting of Multiple Interdependent Projects. 2009. IEEE, 1-7.

Sources of Programme Risk

According to Hillson, there are four sources of programme risk:

1. Escalated project risks - some project risks can affect a programme; project risks within a set threshold can be escalated as a programme risk.
2. Aggregated project risks - compilation of numerous project risks that can threaten the achievement of programme objectives.
3. Overall programme risks
4. Non-project risks - risks from non-project components

---
HILLSON, D. 2008. Towards programme risk management
URL:http://www.risk-doctor.com/pdf-files/ADV11.pdf

Measuring an Organisation's Risk Appetite

One of the questions I need to answer in my dissertation is: What is UNDP's risk appetite?

Initial reading from Gambir Bhatta's "Don't do something, stand there! Revisiting the Issue of Risks in Innovation in the Public Sector":

Each organization’s appetite or tolerance for risks is unique and will vary according to any one (or combination) of several variables but may be conceived of as in: the extent of its legal mandate including any fuzzy boundaries around it; the intractability of the problem it is dealing with; the strategy(ies) it pursues to meet the mandate; its degree of access to relevant information; its organizational culture; the management style of its leaders although it could be argued that over time, this will tend to settle at a level that is determined by the organizational culture rather than the leaders’ styles); the responsible minister’s own risk appetite; and the organization’s age.

Notationally, this could be framed as:

Departmental Risk Appetite

{RAd = f(M1, M2, S, Ia, OC, MS, MRAt-1, OA, e}

where M1 is organizational mandate, M2 is degree of problem intractability, S is strategy, Ia is degree of access to relevant information, OC is organizational culture, MS is manager’s style, MRAt-1 is minister’s risk appetite (which itself is also a function of the collective risk appetite of government, and of the perception of severity of risk but lagged because it generally takes time to diffuse to departmental level), OA is age of organization, and e is the error term.

Link: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.4005&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Re-acquaintance with Risk Management

'Not having enough knowledge on risk management' is one of my biggest risk for my thesis. Interestingly, I had a little discussion with Alec and Dennis whether this is a worry, issue or risk... (which is really confusing me right now!).

To manage this worry/issue/risk (of not having sufficient knowledge) I realise I need to read about risk management on a deeper level. I have read some books on risk management process for my module assignments, but this is the first time I'm approaching a book to understand the underlying philosophy of risk management.

To start with, I picked up a small undaunting thin book entitled "Exploiting Future Uncertainty: Creating Value from Risk" by David Hillson.
---
A question on the first chapter directly caught my attention:

Can we prove a link between risk management practice and improved bottom-line outcomes? (Hillson, 2010)

This directly relates to the question I am trying to answer for my thesis:

How can UNDP improve its risk management practice to contribute towards achieving (country) programme outcomes?

Before I can correlate risk management practice and outcomes in the UNDP context, I need to know first if it is possible to relate risk management to results! Well, at least Hillson is convinced so. These are some insights from the first chapter of the book:

• "If we track performance, we should be able to see if there is any link between our ability to manage risk and success rate."
• From experience over time, it can be demonstrated that as risk management maturity and competence increases, so does success.
• It cannot be ascertained that investing in risk management correlates with lack of problems. But it can be measure how successful risk management creates additional value through maximising opportunities.

Sounds promising, I'm excited to read on!

---

HILLSON, D. 2010. Exploiting future uncertainty : creating value from risk, Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, Vt., Gower.

A New Beginning

Okay... so I got feedback from my supervisor regarding my thesis outline. Although a lot of questions have been raised after our discussion, (I think) at least he approves the direction I'm headed! So hopefully this will keep the ball rolling. So now I'm confident in putting my research question up... here goes...

---
INTRODUCTION

International development programmes and projects exist in a climate of significant uncertainties (Ika et al., 2010, Khang and Moe, 2008, Kwak and Dewan, 2001). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) environment, in particular, deals with multifaceted organisational structures, wide-ranging mandates, numerous stakeholders, controlled resources and limited capacities (Terzi and Posta, 2010, Browne, 2011).

Concerned with the agency’s risk responsiveness, in its 2008-2011 Strategic Plan, UNDP advocated organisation-wide efforts on improving its risk management capabilities (UNDP, 2008). UNDP recognises the value of efficiently managing threats and calculatingly pursuing opportunities to achieve development results (UNDP, 2008). Concurrently, UNDP also acknowledges the challenge of integrating the practice of systematic risk management into its culture; especially in its country offices (Terzi and Posta, 2010).

In the context of improving programme outcomes, this research work attempts to provide recommendations for increasing risk management maturity. This study explores the extent of current risk management practices on selected UNDP Country Programmes.

RESEARCH QUESTION and OBJECTIVES

Question: How can UNDP improve its risk management practice to contribute towards achieving country programme outcomes?

Objectives:
1. To profile the risk management maturity levels of selected UNDP Country Programmes.
2. To find relationship between risk management maturity and programme outcomes.
3. To highlight areas of vulnerabilities in the current risk management practice.
4. To provide recommendations for increasing risk management capability.

---
References

BROWNE, S. 2011. The United Nations Development Programme and System, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, Routledge.

IKA, L. A., DIALLO, A. & THUILLIER, D. 2010. Project management in the international development industry: The project coordinator's perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3, 61-93.


KHANG, D. B. & MOE, T. L. 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life‐cycle‐based framework. Project Management Journal, 39, 72-84.

KWAK, Y. H. & DEWAN, S. Risk management in international development projects. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, 2001 Nashville, Tenn, USA.

TERZI, C. & POSTA, I. 2010. Review of Enterprise Risk Management in the United Nations System: Benchmarking Framework. Available: http://www.unjiu.org/data/reports/2010/en2010_4.pdf [Accessed 01 February 2012].

UNDP. 2008. UNDP strategic plan 2008-2011: Accelerating global progress on human development. Available: www.undp.org/execbrd/word/dp07-43Rev1.doc [Accessed 01 February 2012].

18 Feb 2012 Tutorials

Questions for my questions...! Today's tutorials raised a lot of questions. But at least I somehow found some possible routes through the fuzziness of this research. I'm putting my current research question in a separate post.

Here I am just highlighting the inputs and questions I got from my supervisors:

Dennis:

1. UNDP Risk Management Process -- should risk retirement be included?
2. Step 4 and 5 in the ERM cycle (Action and Monitoring & Reporting) can be the potential focus of my research
3. Should the research be limited to CMM to risk management? Perhaps a more cohesive approach?
4. Can programme outcomes be related to risk management level? - There is a possibility that research will be inconclusive. There is a latency in between risk management implementation and seeing the programme outcomes.
5. A possible approach to the project is to look at parallels. Is the success of risk management in other industries transferable to the UNDP context?

Eddie:

1. What is UNDP's appetite for risk?
2. True commitment/implementation to risk management in UNDP might be nil!
3. Look into Prince2 strategies, UNDP has put in a lot of effort in 'benefits strategy'. Now UNDP is starting on 'risk strategy'... Look into this.
4. Perhaps a more cohesive approach to risk management? Balanced scorecard approach, taking into account benefits, quality, configuration etc?

Alec:

1. Possible approach for research is to look at end results, lessons learned and see where risk management could have been applied. Track back... reverse engineering(?)
2. Is the UNDP risk management framework fit for its purpose? How is it different from the framework of corporations? Is it the same?
3. What is so special about the risk management framework in UNDP?
• If the same, how can it be applied more efficiently?
• If different, how can the framework be tailored to the context of UNDP
4. Is there a discernible outcome where risk management is applied (or not applied?) in UNDP projects?
• If not, why not? Is it because risk management is not properly applied or is it because the framework/method doesn't work?
5. Suggest to first conduct study/research on risk management and the risk management framework of UNDP
• But! prioritise what data is publicly available, and what data should  be asked from Eddie.
• Availability of data is crucial!

Augh!!! I'm not sure if my research is getting fuzzier or clearer. So much questions to answer... so much work to do! 

UNDP Country Programming

UNDP Country programming cycle (UNDP, 2011)

---
UNDP 2011, National Implementation by Government of UNDP Supported Projects: Guidelines and Procedures.

Mapping UNDP

I do some scratch-work on loose bits of paper... just trying to make sense of things. I'm taking pictures of them and documenting it here in my blog so I can refer back to them (just in case if I mistakenly throw them away).

I found this today... I actually did this 2-or-3 weeks back. I found it quite useful. 

Cleaner version of the above picture.

Rethinking Project Management

Whilst browsing through relevant literature, I found this article, an easy read, about the fragmentation of approaches in project management research.

http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/article/viewFile/662/571

My colleague is doing research on rethinking project management in the development sector. My focus is not on rethinking PM, but it is an insightful read that may be useful to my thesis as well.

RBM Results Chain + Risk Management

In relation to my previous post, this diagram may help clarify the difference on outputs, outcomes, impact and results:

(UNDP, 2011)

---
UPDATE (30 Jan 2012 6:40PM):
A results chain spin-off  incorporating risk management:

(Cobo et al., 2010)

RBM vs MfDR...

There's a difference between RBM and MfDR...

In essence 'Management for Development Results' is RBM in action... the issue with RBM is that it can misguide to focus on the internal results, but with MfDR the focus should be more on the external results.

Same banana different name... really :|

The process is not about compliance and meeting requirements. In some ways it is similar to the difference between having RBM systems and having a culture of results orientation— while it is important to have the systems, it is more important that people understand and appreciate why they are doing the things they are doing and adopt a results-oriented approach in their general behaviour and work. (UNDP PME Handbook)

 So... how should we measure 'risk management' in practice in this context?

UNDP PPM Toolkit

http://ppmtoolkit.undp.org/

Insights on UN Jargon

I had an encouraging talk with Eddie (he is in Sri Lanka now). I got some great insights! To be honest as a new student of programme and project management I get confused with the language at times. And it is particularly harder for me when I am looking at PPM in the UNDP context, because UN likes to rephrase things...

So I had to ask Eddie to clarify... and guess what? In essence PRINCE2®, RBM and POPPs are all the same thing. Well at least that's cleared up!

I should not get too caught up with the names and terminology. But... it's really challenging for me... since I barely understand the basic PPM language. I really have to read up! 

All in all, the online skype meeting ended with a high note. I am more positive now.... :)

Results, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts

In the UNDP context, both (1) outputs at (2) outcomes are considered as results.

Outputs emerge from processing inputs through the completion of UNDP activities; they are usually specific products or services (i.e. number of people trained, number of studies completed).

Outcomes follow outputs; they are the intended development changes that UNDP seek to support. Note however, outcomes must not be tied directly only to UNDP, as a sum of UNDP outputs does not necessarily equate to development outcomes. Involvement of different and multiple parties cannot be discounted in the contribution of outcomes. Examples of outcomes would be jobs created and incomes increased.

Impacts are improved long term conditions at national level. (i.e. health, longevity)

---
UNDP (2002) Result Based Management: Concept and Methodology
Link: http://www.undp.org/evaluation/documents/RBMConceptsMethodgyjuly2002.pdf

18 Jan 2012 Tutorials: Takeaways

Today's takeaways:

On Research Methodology

1. Diagramming - I am impressed by Alec's use of Unified Modeling Language to map out my thesis topic. It is amazing how it helps organise the knowledge and ideas that I brought in to the table. As suggested by Dennis I can use a diagramming technique to draw out how UNDP is structured (in related to the programmes and projects). Great idea... I think it will make things clearer; as of now everything is just in my head! I should translate it to paper.
2. Writing style - I'm happy that the tutors think I have good written English. Considering... I was just an average English Language student during my undergraduate years. An area to improve on: shorter sentences... specially in writing down my research question!
3. Research question and objectives relationship - the objectives should contribute to the question. The achievement of the objectives should help in  answering the question.

On Thesis Topic:

1. Risk Management Knowledge - I know that I don't know enough on risk management; and it just showed during the consultation. I can't even properly define issue versus risk! Tsk tsk...
• My lack of knowledge and experience on risk management is identified by the tutors as the major risk in my project
• Literature is readily available on risk management; the question is my grasp on the subject
• Key terms that came out during our risk management discussion:
• Issue, risk, uncertainty, proximity, benefit management, threshold, early warning indicator, risk appetite... etc
• In relation to UNDP; I should read about risk management in the context of MSP, Prince2 and P3M3
2. UNDP Context - I need to structure what I know about UNDP. Lay down the context. 
• How does it flow from New York to Country office?
• How is the country office structured? Where is UNDAF, CPAP etc... in this structure?
• How is the MDG played in the UNDP context? As a portfolio, programme, project?
• Who are the stakeholders? What is their influence?
3. UNDP and Risk Management - 
• What are the risk management policies and guidelines on risk management?
• To what extent is risk management is applied in UNDP? Do they do it? Is it properly integrated?
• The availability of data in this area is the most important for my project!
4. Capability Maturity and RBM - also need to know how risk can be measured as well as how is it in the context of RBM in UNDP

A lot of work needs to be done! :)