Essays on The Perception of Risk Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "The Perception of Risk" is a great example of an assignment on management. A rich picture is an informal macro-level view of a real-world cooperative work situation. It shows the characters (roles), working context, internal and external environment. This presents a holistic view of a cooperative work environment. This is used to get an overall picture of the requirement gathering stage of the project. A rich picture is one of the wonderful ways of engaging local stakeholders and allowing them to tell the story of the project.

In the construction, a rich picture makes easy all stakeholders in getting to grips with the rich picture form of presentation. A rich picture is really insightful and there is a great deal of honesty as to current problems and issues (Fishhoff, Slovic & Lichtenstein, 2001). The honesty, related to one of the known powers of the rich picture tool when undertaken in an action research process where issues of vulnerability are expected and respected. The rich picture is adapted within the NATO construction to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express the stakeholder’ s wider concerns- and in line with the research question for the construction, considering deeper issues than those pertaining purely to the information use and project, and to set theses out in the context of the potential success or failure of the construction project (Slovic, et al.

2004). The rich picture also allowed visual metaphors of corruption (money being diverted), the intervention of government in project affairs and internal frustrations as well as the more prosaic matters of information flow and delivery. Drawing a rich picture is an essential part of conceptualizing a problem if one is following the project.

However, the rich picture can also be extremely useful even if one is following a less rigorous approach. In a rich picture, one can use a cartoon approach to capture as much information as one can, concerning what is happening in the situation one is examining. For example, what is involved, what their relationships are, what difficulties are being faced, and so on (Viscusi, 1999). System maps One can use system maps to who is involved in a given situation and what their relationships are at a given moment in time.

It is very essential when one is trying to decide which different people are involved in a given situation, what their relationships are, and what their relative significance is. Drawing a system diagram, adding, deleting and moving actors around is good physical activities that will discipline one’ s thinking and assist one to reflect more carefully about everyone involved (Cox, 2008). The most significant part of drawing a system map is this modification and reflection process, rather than ending up with a definitive statement about actors and their relationships.

For example, through a system map, one can know what is actually taking place in the workplace at that particular time, and then draw another that represents what one thinks should be taking place, and then compare the differences (Slovic, et al. 2004).

References

Affect, R. (2000). Risk and Rationality, Risk Analysis, 24 (2), 311- 31

Brington, P. and Foy, D. 2007. News Values. London. Sage Publications

Cox, L. 2008. What’s wrong with Risk Matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2). Disaster, Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 271- 305

Fishhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein. 2001. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits, Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152

Kasperson, R. E. et al. 1998. The social amplification of Risk: A conceptual Framework, Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177- 201

Michael, M. 2004. The Risk Management of Everything. London. Demos Publishers.

Oyatta, T. 2004. Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about. Macmillan publishers.

Paul, O. 2000. The perception of Risk. London. Earthcan publishers.

Slovic, P. et al. 2004. Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality, Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311

Toft, H. and Brian, G. 2000. Limits to the Mathematical Modeling of Disasters, Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, (Hood and Jones, Eds.). UCL/Routledge. London.

Viscusi, D. 1999. The Dark Side of Oragnizations: Mistake, and Misconduct. London. Macmillan publishers.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us