Comments on: A Tool For Your Toolbox: Risk Poker http://22ideastreet.com/blog/2010/03/09/a-tool-for-your-toolbox-risk-poker/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:08:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Anthony Panozzo http://22ideastreet.com/blog/2010/03/09/a-tool-for-your-toolbox-risk-poker/comment-page-1/#comment-407 Anthony Panozzo Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:20:39 +0000 http://22ideastreet.com/blog/?p=971#comment-407 Thanks for letting me know. Are there any good resources you have found that cover this topic in more depth? Thanks! Thanks for letting me know. Are there any good resources you have found that cover this topic in more depth? Thanks!

]]> By: Rob Cass http://22ideastreet.com/blog/2010/03/09/a-tool-for-your-toolbox-risk-poker/comment-page-1/#comment-406 Rob Cass Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:07:11 +0000 http://22ideastreet.com/blog/?p=971#comment-406 Anthony, I first heard about Risk Poker about 3 years ago. Anthony,

I first heard about Risk Poker about 3 years ago.

]]> By: Anthony Panozzo http://22ideastreet.com/blog/2010/03/09/a-tool-for-your-toolbox-risk-poker/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Anthony Panozzo Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:15:15 +0000 http://22ideastreet.com/blog/?p=971#comment-271 I haven't actually used this technique, just thought that it made a lot of sense. It seems like you guys have done something very similar, and it worked out well. I would think about doing this periodically throughout the project. When I've worked on projects, I have a pretty intuitive sense of what is going to take a long time because we aren't sure about the requirements or the technology. It seems helpful to formalize this, even if you are on a solo project, because it keeps you from slowly rationalizing away perfectly valid concerns. Thanks for your comment, it was quite helpful in seeing that people I know have been doing something like what the post suggested! I haven’t actually used this technique, just thought that it made a lot of sense. It seems like you guys have done something very similar, and it worked out well. I would think about doing this periodically throughout the project.

When I’ve worked on projects, I have a pretty intuitive sense of what is going to take a long time because we aren’t sure about the requirements or the technology. It seems helpful to formalize this, even if you are on a solo project, because it keeps you from slowly rationalizing away perfectly valid concerns.

Thanks for your comment, it was quite helpful in seeing that people I know have been doing something like what the post suggested!

]]> By: MaTT http://22ideastreet.com/blog/2010/03/09/a-tool-for-your-toolbox-risk-poker/comment-page-1/#comment-269 MaTT Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:49:42 +0000 http://22ideastreet.com/blog/?p=971#comment-269 This fascinates me. I have performed some "Hazard Analysis" for a couple of projects that I worked on. It was a completely different mindset than what you are talking about, but we did it in a very similar fashion. At least 2 people sat down and came up with all the hazards they could think of, then we came together and did even more brainstorming. I strongly agree with this approach! Whatever cliche you'd like to use - two heads are better than one in many ways. I find that I think of hazards in a different way than say, David Mott does. Together I felt like we had a very BROAD coverage of hazards. And together we could easily weigh each hazard effectively. I'd be interested to see/hear your results of using this approach for risks. I assume this would be something done at the early stages of a project? Or perhaps iteratively as the project progresses and/or scope changes? To answer your question - we didn't have a name for it, we simply called it "brainstorming". :-) This fascinates me. I have performed some “Hazard Analysis” for a couple of projects that I worked on. It was a completely different mindset than what you are talking about, but we did it in a very similar fashion. At least 2 people sat down and came up with all the hazards they could think of, then we came together and did even more brainstorming.

I strongly agree with this approach! Whatever cliche you’d like to use – two heads are better than one in many ways. I find that I think of hazards in a different way than say, David Mott does. Together I felt like we had a very BROAD coverage of hazards. And together we could easily weigh each hazard effectively.

I’d be interested to see/hear your results of using this approach for risks. I assume this would be something done at the early stages of a project? Or perhaps iteratively as the project progresses and/or scope changes?

To answer your question – we didn’t have a name for it, we simply called it “brainstorming”. :-)

]]>