John : "Facilitate an open forum where each team member shares their perspective on risk, aiming to uncover common ground. Use this shared understanding to craft a blended approach, combining the best aspects of each viewpoint. Establish mutual checkpoints to monitor progress together, ensuring ongoing alignment,turning disagreement into a dynamic process of co-creation." Sarah : "Take charge and set a clear direction—prioritize the risks that matter most, then assign ownership with accountability. Make the call on the most effective approach and push the team to execute swiftly. Embrace calculated risks and demand quick adjustments if things veer off course. Use the conflict to fuel urgency, driving momentum toward decisive action."

It’s important to find common ground when the team disagrees on risk mitigation. I believe open discussions help everyone share their views and build agreement. Using a risk matrix can also help us see and prioritize risks together.

Diverse perspectives are healthy, however if they cannot be reconciled then a determination on a way forward needs to be made at a project level. Or escalated if that’s not possible. The aim is not necessarily to align different perspectives but to make a risk-based decision on which course of action best aligns with the objectives of the project.

🎯Look retrospectively to find what might has lead to this. Have clear discussion with team members to do critical analysis on what should be adjusted. Share insight on why it's important to risk for the purpose of queering quality data.

To align conflicting approaches to risk mitigation, start by establishing clear communication. Create a shared understanding of project goals and define key risks collectively. Encourage collaboration by involving team members in open discussions, acknowledging each viewpoint, and finding common ground. Use frameworks like a Risk Matrix to prioritize risks based on impact and likelihood, which helps depersonalize decision-making. Finally, ensure that any chosen mitigation strategy is flexible, revisiting and refining approaches as the project progresses to accommodate evolving risks.

"Collaboration turns conflict into harmony." I would start by organizing a meeting where everyone can voice their concerns & suggestions. Promoting an open dialogue aids each member feel heard & valued. We would then trace common goals & objectives to align our focus. Creating a balanced approach that combines elements from each strategy accommodates diverse viewpoints. Using data & evidence to support decisions ensures objectivity. Documenting all risks & mitigation plans centrally keeps everyone informed. Regular check-ins & feedback loops maintain alignment. Offering education/training on risk management can bring everyone to a common understanding. By fostering collaboration & mutual respect, we can harmonize our approaches for success.

An organization should seek clarity in advance and establish its suitable risk appetite and tolerance statements. In this case project feasibility and initiation phase would be most ideal stage for an organization to clearly define its extent of risk acceptance with reference to the project's scope and goals. Where risk is averse, the mitigation strategies should adopt the ALARP approach that seeks to reduce risks to as low as reasonably practicable. The aspect of practicability should be emphasized. ISO 31000 standard provides this guideline and incoporates criteria during the framework design, implementation and evaluation. Thus enhancing on stakeholders decision making and collaboration efforts.

Personal experience suggests that a tabular risk framework defining basic risk definitions and risk priorities assists in bringing all stakeholders on the same page. Usually, conflicts arise because stakeholders hold varying risk definitions and assign contrasting risk mitigation actions. A common framework and open discussion go a long way towards solving future problems.

Risk tolerance can be expressed in quantitative terms, such as a risk limit, or in qualitative terms. It's often measured in the same terms as performance measures, such as progress milestones or percentage of achievement.

Consolidating varied views on risk mitigation: >Facilitate a open platform to express their views. >Encourage active listening with less interruption. >Emphasize common objectives and encourage diverse thoughts. >Highlight similarities in proposed approaches with regard to ideas or concerns. >Use statistics and metrics to evaluate the potential impact and feasibility. >Use a standardized risk management framework to provide order and objectivity. >Convert pros and cons of each approach to combine their strengths. >Define clear roles and responsibilities for the risk mitigation plan. >Check in regularly to review progress, modify it accordingly. >Create documentation of the agreed approach and keep it communicated to avoid future disputes.