May PM Mixer panel insights: risk, resilience & results

lorenaflorian0
1 day ago
4 min read

At our May PM Mixer: Risk, Resilience & Results, over 50 project professionals, academic, and students came together to unpack how risk management is and has evolved. A highlight of the evening was the panel discussion, where four industry leaders shared practical insights drawn from dispute resolution, delivery, assurance, and transformation perspectives from infrastructure, digital, public and private industries.

How has “risk” changed in the last 5–10 years?

When asked how the landscape of risk has shifted, Pedram Danesh‑Mand were clear: risk is no longer a static exercise but systemic, dynamic, and inseparable from decision‑making.

Ten to fifteen years ago, risk management was often treated as a one‑off workshop. Today, major projects are operating in far more complex environments with interdependent risks across systems that make management of risk in neatly defined “packages”, as Ravi had seen it done 10-15 years ago, no longer effective.

The update to ISO 31000 in 2018 (last updated before that in 2009) reinforced this shift, emphasising that risk management must be iterative and embedded into everything an organisation does. Modern risk practice is less about identifying and recording risks, and more about actively managing them throughout the project lifecycle with well-defined reporting channels—because risk can impact cost, schedule and reputation outcomes.

“You cannot pass the risk to someone else—it’s like a boomerang. It’ll come back to you.” - Pedram Danesh‑Mand

In the current time, Pedram sees that the composition of risk conferences is 30% from safety and environments with 70% from other backgrounds and disciplines who manage risk. Compared to 20 years ago when the make up of professionals at these events was flipped, with safety being the primary risk focus.

Ravi also highlighted that risk registers are improving, he is seeing progress added to register to track what actions are being done about a specific risk.

The earliest warning signs projects ignore

Louise Hart highlighted that projects rarely fail suddenly, the fate of he project is already decided by the time you sign the contract. From her experience and research, she presented common early warning signs that a project is “set up to fail” very early:

Politically driven timelines, such as projects announced before elections and forced to follow political rather than construction or delivery realities.
Ignoring market signals, particularly around contractor capacity and financial health.
A culture that avoids bad news, leading to “watermelon reporting” where status appears green on the outside but red underneath

The one change organisations should make

Elle Vernerey challenged organisations to rethink how they approach risk altogether. Instead of treating it as something to eliminate or document, risk should actively inform decisions.

That means:

Setting expectations honestly with clients from day one
Aligning early on what “success” actually looks like
Treating the setup phase—including getting to contract—as a project in its own right

Risk registers should reflect the key decisions being made, not exist separately from them. Good practice is risk‑based decision‑making, where actions, owners and deadlines are clearly tied to each material risk.

By the time contracts are signed, many critical decisions—scope, procurement approach, risk allocation—have already locked in future outcomes. And when the delivery team is then handed this contract, they are often inheriting projects that are incredibly risky. As the panel stressed, projects often go wrong at the start, not the end.

Pedram Danesh-Mand offered advice to the attendees if they wanted to make a change in their organisations straight away: identifying the key milestones where decisions in any non-risk process such as cost or procurement are being made and consider whether it is ultimately a risk-based decision. Because it should be. These key decisions are creating an opportunity for the project or organisation.

Organisational readiness vs technical readiness in transformation

In transformation programs, technical readiness often outpaces organisational readiness—and that imbalance is a major risk.

While systems may be technically sound, organisations frequently underestimate:

Change fatigue
Capability gaps
Leadership alignment
Cultural readiness to adopt new ways of working

Successful programs separate development and delivery phases, apply risk‑based assurance at key milestones, and establish a clear baseline for schedule and performance reporting. Independent assurance and a clearly defined risk appetite help organisations make informed decisions rather than reactive ones. As to not stifle innovation, successful organisations set a risk appetite that acts as a safety allowing the team to feel comfortable innovation.

Be creative about responding to stakeholder needs

A consistent theme across the panel was that strong risk management is inseparable from strong stakeholder management. It’s not enough to know the risk — you need to translate it into a message that different stakeholders can act on, in the language of their priorities.

As Louise Hart reminded the audience, senior leaders are not persuaded by technical risk detail but rather a clear, well‑crafted story about why a risk matters to outcomes they care about.

The panel also highlighted that major projects now require risk messaging to travel through multiple channels — from project controls groups, to executives, to government and external parties — and each audience needs a different level of detail and framing.

Final thoughts

The panel discussion at the May PM Mixer reinforced a clear message: projects don’t fail because risk exists — they fail because risk is poorly understood, poorly communicated, or addressed too late. By embedding risk into decisions, culture and governance from the very beginning, organisations can build resilience and deliver results that stand up to complexity.

If your organisation is navigating complex projects, major programs or transformation initiatives, now is the time to strengthen how risk informs decisions — not just how it’s documented.