At the weekly project review, the risk of delayed switchgear delivery is still marked red in the register. Procurement reports that follow-up is ongoing. The site team still plans to deploy installation crews on the original arrival date. If delivery is late, labour waits and commissioning slips. Everyone has seen the warning, yet the next commitment depends on delivery being on time.
A useful review should make the next decision clear while the team can still influence the outcome. Ask which approaching commitment this risk could change. Continuing with the existing plan can be reasonable, provided someone with the appropriate authority accepts the exposure, records why and agrees what evidence would prompt reconsideration.
Connect the risk to a decision
Start with a simple sequence: identify the risk, assign an owner, define a trigger, select an action and review its effect. ISO 31000 links risk management with organisational planning and decision-making, and includes treatment, monitoring and communication within the process. The first step of establishing the concept which includes both External and internal context should never be skipped. It becomes the part of Risk Management Process. Context would link it to the strategic goal of the organization or the project concerned. Follow the process meticulously be it Identification or analysis of risk.
Describe the cause, possible event and consequence. “Supplier delay” is too broad. “Incomplete factory testing may delay switchgear dispatch, leaving insufficient time for installation before energisation” identifies both the evidence to check and the milestone at stake.
Then identify the decision affected. Should the project authorise expediting, change a work sequence or postpone crew mobilisation? Alongside the risk rating, consider when the team must decide. Even a lower-rated risk may need attention today if the opportunity to respond is about to close.
Give the owner a route for approval
Name one person to coordinate the response. Also identify who will perform each action and who can approve expenditure or a changed sequence. A procurement lead may obtain dispatch evidence, while the project manager decides whether to fund expediting.
This distinction matters when a response crosses organisational boundaries. An owner needs an escalation route and a decision deadline. HM Treasury’s Orange Book recommends specifying actions, approval and implementation responsibilities, resources, early warning indicators and completion times. Put these details beside the risk so that the owner can get a decision when it is needed.
Set the trigger while there is time to respond
A trigger is an observable condition that calls for an agreed response. This could be a missed manufacturing milestone, an outstanding drawing approval or a forecast exceeding the available schedule margin. “Monitor closely” does not specify when to act.
Work backwards from the date when the problem would affect the project. Allow time to confirm the evidence, obtain approval and implement the response, with a margin for uncertainty. If an alternative takes three weeks to arrange, a warning one week before the equipment is needed is too late.
If the evidence supports a preventive action, start it promptly. The trigger should activate a further response when circumstances require it. Do not wait for a threshold before undertaking work that can reduce the exposure.
Adjust the checking frequency as necessary. A weekly meeting may be appropriate for a procurement milestone that is still some time away. A decision due within days requires more frequent checks. Agree who will receive the warning immediately. Do not postpone a response until the next routine review once the trigger is reached.
How this changes a procurement decision
Consider an illustrative infrastructure project needing switchgear. Factory testing is unconfirmed, while the installation contractor plans to bring in the full crew against the original delivery date.
The procurement lead owns the risk and coordinates the response. The team sets a confirmation deadline based on dispatch approvals, transport time and the time needed to change mobilisation. If factory testing and dispatch readiness remain unconfirmed by that deadline, the procurement lead escalates the matter that day. The project manager decides on expediting or revised mobilisation by the next working day.
Suppose the supplier’s revised manufacturing programme forecasts a week’s delay in testing. The team examines expediting options, but none can restore delivery on time within the approved budget. The project manager postpones mobilisation of the full crew. The construction lead assigns a smaller team to finish approved cable supports and earthing on an available workfront. The planner updates the installation sequence and commissioning forecast. The procurement lead verifies completion of testing and dispatch before recommending remobilisation.
The review has changed resource allocation and the sequence of work. The team limits labour committed to an unavailable installation front while keeping the effect on commissioning visible. Room readiness and equipment acceptance requirements must also be verified before installation. Any contractual consequences of changing mobilisation need to be addressed through the project’s approval process.
Review whether the response worked
At the next review, check both execution and effect. Expediting can be completed without changing the delivery forecast. In the example, check actual dispatch, crew allocation, standby costs and the commissioning forecast. Compare that forecast with the approved baseline so that a revised programme does not conceal an unresolved deviation.
Keep the risk entry linked to the action record and the subsequent schedule or procurement decision. Retain dates and supporting evidence. Close the risk once the relevant uncertainty has passed. If the appropriate authority accepts remaining exposure, record that decision and any continuing monitoring. Check for new exposure created by the response, such as congestion from a revised sequence.
A checklist for the next review
Which approaching project decision did we confirm or change?
Who will act, with what resources, by when and with whose approval?
What observable trigger activates the response, and who checks it?
Does the trigger leave enough time for approval and implementation?
What evidence will show the response’s effect and the remaining exposure?
Document the decision in the programme, procurement instruction or mobilisation plan. The next review should be able to trace what was agreed and what happened.
