Professionalism: Useful Techniques & Skills for Professionals PDF

14/06/1446 Professionalism Useful techniques and skills for the Professional 1 Outline Introduction to problem and problem solving maturity 6-step problem solving approach The PDCA cycle for quality improvements Brainstorming and reverse b...

14/06/1446 Professionalism Useful techniques and skills for the Professional 1 Outline Introduction to problem and problem solving maturity 6-step problem solving approach The PDCA cycle for quality improvements Brainstorming and reverse brainstorming Root cause analysis 5 Whys Multicriteria decision analysis Pareto chart for analysis and prioritization Risk analysis and management SWOT analysis 2 1  14/06/1446 Introduction Problems – past, present and future Problem solving maturity Reactive – solve the problem that was detected and reported Preventive – implement solutions before problems occur Proactive – analyze past failures to implement improvements Predictive – based on current performance, implement improvements to increase the likelihood of future success Systematic approach to solve problems Useful generic techniques and tools to support problem solving 3 The 6-step problem solving approach STEPS TOOLS & TECHNIQUES Identify the problem to solve SWOT, Brainstorming Define and analyze the problem Root cause analysis Explore and develop possible solutions 5 Whys Assess and prioritize the possible solutions Pareto and Multicriteria Select and implement the best solution decision analysis Evaluate the implemented solution, adjust it Risk analysis if needed, and learn 4 2  14/06/1446 Problem solving technique Six-step problem solving technique provides a structured basis to help deliver outcomes and solutions to your problems Avoid these regrets “I think we may have solved the wrong problem.” “It was only at the end that I realized we had acted too quickly with too little information.” ” I wished we hadn’t jumped to that solution so quickly.” “The solution we went ahead with turned out to be impractical and too expensive.” 5 Step 1 – Identify the problem Be proactive, preventive or predictive Source of problems From current situations From desirable future situations What are the main customers complaints? What challenges, issues, problems you think your What goals you have failed to achieve? organization will face in the next few years? How can you make the process simpler? What training do your employees need to meet new and future challenges? How can we improve the quality of our product? What is causing delays in processing customers’ What customers’ needs will change in the future? requests? What may cause your high performance What problems faced by competitors you want to avoid? employees leave your organization? What small issues you are facing may become serious What is likely to cause a near future crisis? problems? …. …. 6 3  14/06/1446 Step 2 – Define and analyze the problem What is the problem exactly? Scope of the problem Assumptions, limitations and constraints on potential solutions Why we solve the problem? Benefits - tangible and intangible Business value Engage the right people or stakeholders Who knows about the problem? Who is affected by it? Who is causing it? Who cares about solving it? Who can help solving it? 7 Step 2 – Define and analyze the problem (2) Detailed examination of the situation – what it is and what it is not? Collect facts about the problem and its symptoms Identify the nature of the problem and its root causes Perform root cause analysis (RCA) 8 4  14/06/1446 Step 3 – Explore and develop possible solutions Generating creative or proven solutions A facilitated group process is recommended to help generate possible solutions Use brainstorming sessions 9 Step 4 – Assess and prioritize the possible solutions Filter the possible solutions - Perform feasibility analysis Do you have the $ to do it? Do you have the time to do it? Do you have the people and expertise to do it? Do you have the tools to do it? Is it a legally and socially acceptable solution? Use decision analysis techniques to assess and rank the possible solutions 10 5  14/06/1446 Step 5 – Select and implement the best solution Select the solution with the highest rank Use a predictive or agile system development approach to implement the solution Define requirements for the solution Design the solution Implement the design Test the implementation Deploy the implemented solution 11 Step 6 – Evaluate the implemented solution, adjust it if needed, and learn Evaluate the effectiveness of the deployed solution Use benchmarking, performance indicators, … Evaluate the efficiency of your problem solving process Suitability of the tools and techniques used, … What did we learn – lessons learned What can we improve? Improvements and adjustments to the implemented solution Improvements to the problem solving process and techniques we have used Was is failed solution ? 12 6  14/06/1446 The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle A management process for continuous improvements to products and processes Set the objectives for the Optimize the performance Plan improvement activity; Consider risks; develop the planned steps or change / adjust the improvement Act Do Monitor, measure, analyze and evaluate the Implement planned steps effectiveness of the improvement Check 13 14 7  14/06/1446 PDCA Cycle 15 Brainstorming An excellent way to foster creative thinking about a problem. The aim of brainstorming is to produce numerous new ideas, and to derive from them themes for further analysis. Brainstorming works by focusing on a topic or problem and then coming up with many possible solutions to it. Best applied in a group as it draws on the experience and creativity of all members of the group. To heighten creativity, participants are encouraged to use new ways of looking at things and freely associate in any direction. When facilitated properly, brainstorming can be fun, engaging, and productive. 16 8  14/06/1446 Brainstorming 17 Reverse brainstorming Helps you find possible solutions for a problem by combining brainstorming and reversal techniques To use this technique, you start with one of two "reverse" questions: Instead of asking, "How do I solve or prevent this problem?" ask, "How could I possibly cause the problem?" And instead of asking "How do I achieve these results?" ask, "How could I possibly achieve the opposite effect?“ Reverse brainstorming is a good technique to try when it is difficult to identify solutions to the problem directly. 18 9  14/06/1446 Steps in reverse brainstorming 1. Clearly identify the problem or challenge, and write it down. 2. Reverse the problem or challenge by asking, "How could I possibly cause the problem?" or "How could I possibly achieve the opposite effect?" 3. Brainstorm the reverse problem to generate reverse solution ideas. Allow the brainstorm ideas to flow freely. Do not reject anything at this stage. 4. Once you have brainstormed all the ideas to solve the reverse problem, now reverse these into solution ideas for the original problem or challenge. 5. Evaluate these solution ideas. Can you see a potential solution? Can you see attributes of a potential solution? 19 Example "How do we improve patient satisfaction?“ Reverse it to: "How do we make patients more dissatisfied?“ Here are just a few of the "reverse" ideas: Double book appointments. Remove the chairs from the waiting room. Put patients who phone on hold (and forget about them). Have patients wait outside in the car park. open the waiting room 10 minutes earlier Discuss patient's problems in public. 20 10  14/06/1446 Decision analysis – decision matrix Decision analysis formally assesses a problem and possible decisions in order to determine the value of alternate outcomes under conditions of uncertainty. Decision analysis helps evaluating different outcome values under conditions of uncertainty or in highly complex situations. Identify criteria and external factors that may affect a decision 21 Decision analysis Quantitatively assess the possible solutions to a problem Need to identify criteria and factors for the assessment Cost Risks involved Easy to implement Easy to maintain Readiness -- skills External factors, ….… 22 11  14/06/1446 Decision analysis Criteria and factors can be of equal or unequal importance Equal importance – Simple Decision Matrix Unequal importance - assign different weights for each criteria and use a Weighted Decision Matrix Technique is under the category of techniques: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) 23 Simple decision matrix – equally weighted assessment criteria and factors Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Criteria 1: Cost 20 15 22 Criteria 2: Risk 20 15 10 Criteria 3: Ease of implementation 20 15 18 Criteria 4: Acceptability 15 20 20 TOTAL SCORE 75 65 70 Each of the 4 criteria has a weight of 25 (25%) 24 12  14/06/1446 Weighted Decision Matrix 4 Criteria Criterion Solution 1 Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 3 weight evaluation value evaluation value evaluation value C1 – how costly? 35 70 24.5 60 21 70 24.5 C2 – how risky? 10 80 8 60 6 70 7 C3 – how easy 30 60 18 70 21 80 24 to implement? C4 – how easy 25 90 22.5 80 20 85 21.25 to accept it? TOTAL WEIGHTED 73 68 76.75 SCORE - The total of the criterion weights is 100 - Solution evaluation is out of 100 - 76.5 = 70% of 35 + 70% of 10 + 80% 30 + 85% of 25 25 Challenges How many criteria? What are they? How do you decide on which? What are the weights assigned to each criteria? How do we assess/evaluate each criteria for each proposed solution? 26 13  14/06/1446 PERT Average – three-point estimation technique Obtain three opinions (i.e., three numbers) from experts Use the PERT technique to obtain the weighted average of three numbers: L is the lowest, M is the middle, H is the highest The PERT average is: ( L + 4 x M + H ) / 6 Example: let us say the three opinions on the value of the COST criteria are: 30, 46, 35 (L = 30, M = 35, H = 46) The PERT weighted average is: (30 + 35 x 4 + 46) / 6 = 36 [the ‘normal’ average is 111/3 = 37] 27 Assigning weights to criteria Based on perception, expertise, context, … Collect three independent assignments to weights and take the PERT average assignment for each criteria Use Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique - 28 14  14/06/1446 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) AHP provides a rational framework for a needed decision by quantifying its criteria and alternative options, and for relating those elements to the overall goal. Tools: https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ or http://www.isc.senshu- u.ac.jp/~thc0456/EAHP/AHPweb.html Take three expert opinions on AHP priorities and produce PERT averages for the criteria 29 Example of AHP application Decide on the criteria or solutions - We want to assign weight for each one Ask three experts to do a pairwise comparison among the criteria/solutions Compute the PERT weighted average for each criteria and then use it in the weighted multi- criteria decision analysis matrix. 30 15  14/06/1446 31 32 16  14/06/1446 PERT Averaging the three priorities: Criteria 1: 33.3, 74.7, 75.7 - PERT average: 67.96 Criteria 2: 33.3, 19.3, 18.8 - PERT average: 21.55 Criteria 3: 33.3, 6, 5.4 - PERT average: 10.45 PERT Criteria AHP1 AHP2 AHP3 AVG C1 33.33 74.7 75.7 67.97167 C2 33.33 19.3 18.8 21.555 C3 33.33 6 5.4 10.455 33 Prioritization Prioritization provides a framework to facilitate decisions and to understand the relative importance of analysis information. The importance may be based on value, risk, difficulty of implementation, or other criteria. These priorities are used to determine which analysis information should be targeted for further analysis, which requirements should be implemented first There are many approaches to prioritization. Grouping Ranking Time boxing/Budgeting Negotiation Problem - The solution team may intentionally or unintentionally try to influence the result of the prioritization process by overestimating the difficulty or complexity of implementing certain requirements 34 17  14/06/1446 35 Root cause analysis Root cause analysis is a systematic examination of a problem or situation that focuses on the problem's origin as the proper point of correction rather than dealing only with its effects. It applies an iterative analysis approach - more than one root cause contributing to the effects. Root cause analysis looks at the main types of causes such as People (human error, lack of training), physical (equipment failure, poor facility), or organizational (faulty process design, poor structure). Root cause analysis can be used for: Reactive Analysis: identifying the root cause(s) of an occurring problem for corrective action, or Proactive Analysis: identifying potential problem areas for preventive action. 36 18  14/06/1446 Four activities in root cause analysis 1. Problem Statement Definition: describes the issue to be addressed. 2. Data Collection: gathers information about the nature, magnitude, location, and timing of the effect 3. Cause Identification: investigates the patterns of effects to discover the specific actions that contribute to the problem. 4. Action Identification: defines the corrective action that will prevent or minimize recurrence. 37 Fishbone diagram A fishbone diagram (also known as an Ishikawa or cause- and-effect diagram) is used to identify and organize the possible causes of a problem. This tool helps to focus on the cause of the problem versus the solution and organizes ideas for further analysis. The diagram serves as a map that depicts possible cause- and-effect relationships. 38 19  14/06/1446 Fishbone diagram 39 Steps to develop a fishbone diagram include: Step 1. Capturing the issue or problem under discussion in a box at the top of the diagram. Step 2. Drawing a line from the box across the paper or whiteboard (forming the spine of the fishbone). Step 3. Drawing diagonal lines from the spine to represent categories of potential causes of the problem. The categories may include people, processes, tools, and policies. Step 4. Drawing smaller lines to represent deeper causes. Step 5. Brainstorming categories and potential causes of the problem and capturing them under the appropriate category. Step 6. Analyzing the results. Remember that the group has identified only potential causes of the problem. Further analysis is needed to validate the actual cause, ideally with data. Step 7. Brainstorming potential solutions once the actual cause has been identified. 40 20  14/06/1446 41 42 21  14/06/1446 43 44 22  14/06/1446 Five whys Invented by Toyoda in 1930’s at Toyota The five whys is a question asking process to explore the nature and cause of a problem. The five whys approach repeatedly asks questions in an attempt to get to the root cause of the problem. This is one of the simplest facilitation tools to use when problems have a human interaction component. It can be used alone or as part of the fishbone diagram technique. Once all ideas are captured in the diagram, use the five whys approach to drill down to the root causes. 45 To use this technique: Step 1. Write the problem on a flip chart or whiteboard. Step 2. Ask "Why do you think this problem occurs?" and capture the idea below the problem. Step 3. Ask "Why?" again and capture that idea below the first idea. Continue with step 3 until you are convinced the actual root cause has been identified. This may take more or less than five questions—the technique is called the five whys because it often takes that many to reach the root cause, not because the question must be asked five times. 46 23  14/06/1446 Usage Considerations of 5 whys Strengths Helps to maintain an objective perspective when performing cause-and- effect analysis. Enables stakeholders to specify an effective solution at the appropriate points for corrective action. Limitations Works best when you are well trained to ensure the root causes, not just symptoms of the problem, are identified. May be difficult with complex problems; it may to lead to a false trail and/or dead–end conclusion 47 Example: The customer is unhappy Why is the customer unhappy? The customer is unhappy because no one responded to her support request. Why didn’t anyone respond to her support request? No one responded to her support request because she posted it on Twitter. Why didn’t anyone respond to her tweet? No one responded to her tweet because Alice is on vacation. Why does Alice’s vacation mean no one responded to the tweet? Because Alice is the only one who responds to tweets and she doesn’t have a backup. Why doesn’t Alice have a backup? Because we never thought about it before. Now the team knows why the customer is unhappy and exactly how to prevent the same problem from happening in the future. 48 24  14/06/1446 49 Pareto chart Italian economist Pareto in the 1890’s found the 80/20 rule 80% of land in Italy is owned by 20% of the population Quality guru Joseph Juran invented the Pareto chart as one of the seven basic tools for quality control Pareto chart contains a bar graph and a line graph A simple technique for prioritizing possible changes by identifying the problems that will be resolved by making these changes. Prioritize the changes that will most improve the situation. 50 25  14/06/1446 Pareto chart Pareto Principle observations – the "80/20 Rule" – Roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Find the 20 percent of work that will generate 80 percent of the results. 20% of work could generate 80% of the returns. 20% of US workers pay 80% of the taxes 20% of the types of medical errors cause 80% of the problems 20% of the software parts cause 80% of the software errors …. It needs not be exactly 80/20 !! 51 How to construct a Pareto chart? Step 1 – Identify and list problems Write a list of all of the problems that you need to resolve. [Talk to clients and team members to get their input, and draw on surveys, helpdesk logs, ….. Step 2 – Identify the root cause of each problem For each problem, identify its fundamental cause. (Techniques such as brainstorming, 5 whys, root-cause analysis, … ) Step 3 – Score problems Score each problem. The scoring method you use depends on the sort of problem you're trying to solve. For example, if you're trying to improve customer satisfaction, the score is the number of complaints eliminated by solving the problem 52 26  14/06/1446 Step 4 – Group problems together by root cause Group problems together by cause. For example, if three of your problems are caused by lack of staff, put these in the same group. Step 5 – Add up the scores for each group The group with the top score is your highest priority, and the group with the lowest score is your lowest priority. Step 6 – Take action Deal with the causes of your problems by dealing with top-priority problem, or group of problems, first. Solving low score problems may cost more than the solutions are worth. REMARK: While this approach is great for identifying the most important root cause to deal with, it doesn't take into account the cost of doing it. Where costs are significant, use techniques such as cost/benefit analysis. 53 Total # of errors in a project is 85 36 installation errors 42% of the errors 19 software errors 22% of the errors 13 shipping errors 15% of the errors 6 configuration errors 7% of the errors 54 27  14/06/1446 55 Use Microsoft Excel to create a Pareto chart https://www.excel-easy.com/examples/pareto-chart.html 56 28  14/06/1446 57 58 29  14/06/1446 - Group problems together (steps 4 and 5). - Score each group by the number of complaints, and order the list as follows: Lack of training (items 5 and 6) – 51 complaints. Too few service center staff (items 1 and 2) – 21 complaints. Poor organization and preparation (items 3 and 4) – 6 complaints. 59 SWOT analysis It is a simple yet effective tool used to evaluate an organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to both internal and external conditions. used to identify the overall state of an organization both internally and externally. The language used in a SWOT analysis is brief, specific, realistic, and supported by evidence. SWOT can be performed at any scale from the enterprise as a whole to a division, a business unit, a project, or even an individual. By performing SWOT in a disciplined way, stakeholders can have a clearer understanding of the impact of an existing set of conditions on a future set of conditions. 60 30  14/06/1446 A SWOT analysis can be used to: evaluate an organization's current environment, share information learned with stakeholders, identify the best possible options to meet an organization’s needs, identify potential barriers to success and create action plans to overcome barriers, adjust and redefine plans throughout a project as new needs arise, identify areas of strength that will assist an organization in implementing new strategies, develop criteria for evaluating project success based on a given set of requirements identify areas of weakness that could undermine project goals, and develop strategies to address outstanding threats. 61 Elements Strengths (S): anything that the assessed group does well. May include experienced personnel, effective processes, IT systems, customer relationships, or any other internal factor that leads to success. Weaknesses (W): actions or functions that the assessed group does poorly or not at all. Opportunities (O): external factors of which the assessed group may be able to take advantage. May include new markets, new technology, changes in the competitive marketplace, or other forces. Threats (T): external factors that can negatively affect the assessed group. They may include factors such as the entrance into the market of a new competitor, economic downturns, or other forces. Beginning a SWOT analysis with opportunities and threats sets the context to identify strengths and weaknesses. 62 31  14/06/1446 63 Strengths Is a valuable tool to aid in understanding the organization, product, process, or stakeholders. Enables business analysts to direct the stakeholders’ focus to the factors that are important to the business. 64 32  14/06/1446 Limitations The results of a SWOT analysis provide a high-level view; more detailed analysis is often needed. Unless a clear context is defined for the SWOT analysis the result may be unfocused and contain factors which are not relevant to the current situation. 65 Reviews Reviews are used to evaluate the content of a work product. Different types of reviews are conducted for work products. Each is tailored to the needs of the organization and business analyst, and uses these dimensions: Objectives: defining the purpose of the review. Techniques: identifying either a formal or informal way to perform the review. Participants: identifying who should take part in the review activity 66 33  14/06/1446 Reviews can include: an overview of the work product and review objectives, checklists and reference materials that can be used by reviewers, reviewing the work product and documenting the findings, and verifying any rework. Using feedback from reviewers, the work product producer updates the work product. 67 Each review is focused on a work product, not the skills or actions of the participants. The work product may be a package of several deliverables, a single deliverable, a portion of a deliverable, or work in process. For a completed work product, the objective of the review is usually to remove defects or inform the reviewers about the content. For work in process, the review may be conducted to resolve an issue or question. Each review includes the work product producer as a participant. Reviewers may be peers, especially for work in process, or stakeholders, who validate that the work product is complete and correct. 68 34  14/06/1446 Elements of a review - objectives Objectives are clearly communicated to all participants prior to the review. Objectives may include one or more goals, for example: to remove defects, to ensure conformance to specifications or standards, to ensure the work product is complete and correct, to establish consensus on an approach or solution, to answer a question, resolve an issue, or explore alternatives, to educate reviewers about the work product, and to measure work product quality. 69 Elements of a review - techniques Reviews can be formal or informal. The techniques used during a review are selected to support the objectives of the review. Inspection: a formal technique that includes an overview of the work product, individual review, logging the defects, team consolidation of defects, and follow-up to ensure changes were made. The focus is to remove defects and create a high quality work product. While usually performed by peers, it can also be used for stakeholder reviews. Formal Walkthrough (also known as Team Review): a formal technique that uses the individual review and team consolidation activities often seen in inspection. Walkthroughs are used for peer reviews and for stakeholder reviews. 70 35  14/06/1446 Single Issue Review (also known as Technical Review): a formal technique focused on either one issue or a standard in which reviewers perform a careful examination of the work product prior to a joint review session held to resolve the matter in focus. Informal Walkthrough: an informal technique in which the business analyst runs through the work product in its draft state and solicits feedback. Reviewers may do minimal preparation before the joint review session. Desk Check: an informal technique in which a reviewer who has not been involved in the creation of the work product provides verbal or written feedback. Pass Around: an informal technique in which multiple reviewers provide verbal or written feedback. The work product may be reviewed in a common copy of the work product or passed from one person to the next. Ad hoc: an informal technique in which the business analyst seeks informal review or assistance from a peer. 71 Elements of a review - participants Participant roles involved in any particular review depend on the objectives of the review, the selected technique, and any organizational standards that may be in place. In some situations, a supervisor or manager may be one of the reviewers because of their expertise. In these situations, the moderator is careful to avoid adversely affecting the level of frankness of other participants or inappropriately affecting decisions of the team 72 36  14/06/1446 73 Strength Can help identify defects early in the work product life cycle, eliminating the need for expensive removal of defects discovered later in the life cycle. All parties involved in a review become engaged with the final outcome; they have a vested interest in a quality result. Desk checks and pass around reviews can be performed by a reviewer at a convenient time, rather than interrupting work in progress to attend a meeting. 74 37  14/06/1446 Limitations Rigorous team reviews take time and effort. Thus, only the most critical work products might be reviewed using inspection or formal walkthrough techniques. Informal reviews by one or two reviewers are practical in terms of the effort required, but they provide less assurance of removing all significant defects than using a larger team and more formal process. For desk checks and pass around reviews it may be difficult for the author to validate that an independent review was done by each participant. If review comments are shared and discussed via e-mail there may be many messages to process, which makes it difficult for the author to resolve disagreements or differences in suggested changes. 75 Risk analysis and management Risk analysis and management identifies areas of uncertainty that could negatively affect value, analyzes and evaluates those uncertainties, and develops and manages ways of dealing with the risks - it involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating risks. Failure to identify and manage risks may negatively affect the value of the solution. Where sufficient controls are not already in place, we develop plans for avoiding, reducing, or modifying the risks, and when necessary, implementing these plans. Risk management is an ongoing activity. Continuous consultation and communication with stakeholders helps to both identify new risks and to monitor identified risks 76 38  14/06/1446 Components of Risk Management [ISO 31000] 77 1. Risk identification Risks are discovered and identified through a combination of expert judgment, stakeholder input, experimentation, past experiences, and historical analysis of similar initiatives and situations. The goal is to identify a comprehensive set of relevant risks and to minimize the unknowns. Risk identification is an ongoing activity. A risk event could be one occurrence, several occurrences, or even a nonoccurrence. A risk condition could be one condition or a combination of conditions. One event or condition may have several consequences, and one consequence may be caused by several different events or conditions. Each risk can be described in a risk register that supports the analysis of those risks and plans for addressing them. 78 39  14/06/1446 79 80 40  14/06/1446 2. Risk analysis Analysis of a risk involves understanding the risk, and estimating the level of a risk. Sometimes controls may already be in place to deal with some risks, and these should be taken into account when analyzing the risk. The likelihood of occurrence could be expressed either as a probability on a numerical scale or with values such as Low, Medium, and High. The consequences of a risk are described in terms of their impact on the potential value. The impact of any risk can be described in terms of cost, duration, solution scope, solution quality, or any other factor agreed to by the stakeholders such as reputation, compliance, or social responsibility 81 82 41  14/06/1446 While an enterprise may have a standard or baseline risk impact scale, the categories like cost, effort, and reputation, and the thresholds may be adjusted to consider the potential value and the level of risk that is acceptable. Typically, three to five broad categories of level are used to describe how to interpret the potential impact. The level of a given risk may be expressed as a function of the probability of occurrence and the impact. In many cases, it is a simple multiplication of probability and impact. The risks are prioritized relative to each other according to their level. Risks which could occur in the near term may be given a higher priority than risks which are expected to occur later. Risks in some categories such as reputation or compliance may be given higher priority than others. 83 3- Risk evaluation / assessment The risk analysis results are compared with the potential value of the change or of the solution to determine if the level of risk is acceptable or not. An overall risk level may be determined by adding up all the individual risk levels. 84 42  14/06/1446 4- Risk treatment Some risks may be acceptable, but for other risks it may be necessary to take measures to reduce the risk. One or more approaches for dealing with a risk may be considered, and any combination of approaches could be used to address a risk: Avoid: either the source of the risk is removed, or plans are adjusted to ensure that the risk does not occur. Transfer: the liability for dealing with the risk is moved to, or shared with, a third party. Mitigate: reduce the probability of the risk occurring or the possible negative consequences if the risk does occur. Accept: decide not to do anything about the risk. If the risk does occur, a workaround will be developed at that time. Increase: decide to take on more risk to pursue an opportunity. 85 Risk response Once the approach for dealing with a specific risk is selected, a risk response plan is developed and assigned to a risk owner with responsibility and authority for that risk. In the case of risk avoidance, the risk owner takes steps to ensure that the probability or the impact of the risk is reduced to nil. For those risks which cannot be reduced to nil, the risk owner is responsible for monitoring the risk, and for implementing a risk mitigation plan. 86 43  14/06/1446 Continuous risk identification / assessment The risk is re-analyzed to determine the residual risk which is the new probability and new impact as a result of the measures taken to modify the risk. There could be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine if the cost and effort of the measures reduces the level of risk enough to make it worthwhile. The risks may be reevaluated in terms of the residual risk. 87 Strengths Can be applied to strategic risks which affect long-term value of the enterprise, tactical risks which affect the value of a change, and operational risks which affect the value of a solution once the change is made. An organization typically faces similar challenges on many of its initiatives. The successful risk responses on one initiative can be useful lessons learned for other initiatives. The risk level of a change or of a solution could vary over time. Ongoing risk management helps to recognize that variation, and to re-evaluate the risks and the suitability of the planned responses. 88 44  14/06/1446 Limitations The number of possible risks to most initiatives can easily become unmanageably large. It may only be possible to manage a subset of potential risks. There is the possibility that significant risks are not identified. Challenge in assigning probability and impact 89 Informed consent How can an Data protection (AI) Explainability and transparency algorithm Human oversight respects persons? 90 45  14/06/1446 Accuracy and robustness Safety How can an (AI) Privacy algorithm be Transparency and beneficient and explainability non- Accessibility maleficient? Bias and discrimination Human oversight 91 How can an (AI) algorithm be just / fair / unbias? Data bias Fairness detection and Transparency metrics correction Human Representativeness oversight Algorithmic accountability 92 46  14/06/1446 What makes an (AI) (algorithm) system trustworthy and ethical? Fair and Privacy Robust and Transparent impartial preserving reliable Explainable Secure Safe Accountable Responsible 93 Trustworthy (AI) (algorithm) System – Requirement and ethical principles Trustworthiness requirement Respect for Beneficence Justice [B. Ammanath] persons / non- maleficence Fair and impartial √ Robust and reliable √ Transparent √ √ Explainable √ √ Secure √ √ (confidentiality, integrity, availability) Safe √ Privacy preserving √ √ Accountable √ Responsible √ √ √ 94 47  14/06/1446 Fairness gerrymandering 95 Statistical parity and algorithmic fairness 96 48