Unidentified Risks - Revision history

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:42:57Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 22 February 2019
Line 53:		Line 53:

	===Risk classification===		===Risk classification===
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=uuarticle> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=''uuarticle'' />]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle />]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===

S154073: /* The Cynefin Framework */

2019-02-22T13:42:38Z

The Cynefin Framework

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 22 February 2019
Line 58:		Line 58:

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===
	The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model <ref name=''hbr''> https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review </ref>:		The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model <ref name=hbr> https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review </ref>:
	*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.		*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.
	*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.		*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.
Line 65:		Line 65:
	*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.		*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.

	[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=''hbr'' />]]		[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr />]]

	Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.		Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.

S154073 at 13:41, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T13:41:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 22 February 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle />]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=''uuarticle'' />]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===
Line 65:		Line 65:
	*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.		*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.

	[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr />]]		[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=''hbr'' />]]

	Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.		Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.

S154073 at 13:41, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T13:41:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 22 February 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle </~~ref~~>]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle />]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===
	The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model<ref name=hbr> https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review</ref>:		The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model <ref name=''hbr''> https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review </ref>:
	*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.		*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.
	*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.		*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.
Line 65:		Line 65:
	*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.		*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.

	[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr </~~ref~~>]]		[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr />]]

	Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.		Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:38:02Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 22 February 2019
Line 65:		Line 65:
	*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.		*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.

	[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr /></ref>]]		[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr </ref>]]

	Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.		Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.

S154073 at 13:36, 22 February 2019

2019-02-22T13:36:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 22 February 2019
Line 58:		Line 58:

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===
	The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model<ref>https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review</ref>:		The Cynefin Framework is a tool developed by David J. Snowden and other contributors<ref>http://pmiswohio.org/images/downloads/Summit18/hatter_cynefin_framework_summit18_03202018.pdf Cynefin Framewok (PMI SW Ohio)</ref> to determine contexts enabling leaders to make appropriate choices. The framework consists of five domains: Simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. The first two are placed in to the “ordered universe” where facts are applicable. Complex and chaotic are placed in the “un-ordered universe” where the relationship between cause and effect is not immediately apparent. Below, the different domains are shortly explained and linked to the above model<ref name=hbr> https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review</ref>:
	*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.		*The simple domain are the known knowns where it is possible to categorize the situation based on facts on the area.
	*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.		*The complicated domain are the known unknowns where the situation isn’t immediately apparent, but it is possible to analyze the situation.
Line 65:		Line 65:
	*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.		*Disorder is a mix of the above domains and the situation has to be broken down in to parts to assign to the other domains.

	[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref~~>https://~~hbr~~.org~~/~~2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making (Cynefin Framework). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Snowden, D. J. et al. 2007 in Harvard Business Review~~</ref>]]		[[File:Cynefin_Framework_(HBR).gif\|center\|frame\|The Cynefin Framework<ref name=hbr /></ref>]]

	Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.		Much like the model described in the above section, this framework suggests that the easiest situation is the simple domain, where the known knowns are found. Furthermore, the framework provides tools for leaders to manage their way out of the above situations.

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:35:46Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 22 February 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle <ref/>]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle </ref>]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:35:36Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 22 February 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle />]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle <ref/>]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:35:12Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 22 February 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref>Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.</~~ref~~>]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref name=uuarticle />]]

	===The Cynefin Framework===		===The Cynefin Framework===

S154073: /* Risk classification */

2019-02-22T13:34:38Z

Risk classification

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 22 February 2019
Line 53:		Line 53:

	===Risk classification===		===Risk classification===
	To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> ~~''link/title''~~ Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.		To simplify the classification mentioned in the previous section, the knowledge of an event’s occurrence is labeled “identification” and the knowledge of an event’s impact is labeled “certainty”. In the matrix below, the four different types of (un)certainty are portrayed <ref name=''uuarticle''> Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. </ref>. The matrix is divided in to certainty and identification. The idea is that “identification” is defined as either “knowledge” or “risk”, i.e. positive or negative and that “certainty” is whether or not we know that a certain event, that can influence the project, exists. This implies that the factors or events that we know exist and have knowledge about are relatively easy to identify and manage whereas the unknown unknowns are much harder to identify and therefore manage.

	[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref>Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.</ref>]]		[[File:table_of_uncertainty_1.jpg\|center\|frame\|Risk classification<ref>Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.</ref>]]