British Airways' recent and well-publicised move into Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport will doubtless be the subject of project management case studies for years to come.

That kind of nightmare always makes everyone in management nervous, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector. Even those in smaller enterprises will think 'could something like that happen to us?'. And of course, the answer is 'yes'.

Most financial directors have been involved in critical projects such as moves into brand new headquarters, setting up a large factory overseas or shaking down all the known and unexpected factors in a big mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deal.

Whatever the case, the keywords are risk, crisis and control. These days, risk has become especially emotive and crucial. As a subject it is nothing new, but what has changed are the penalties for not being right the first time. There is less room for manoeuvre as organisations become leaner, competitive pressures rise and customers demand better service. Risk takes on a scary magnitude, as two top executives already know, recently dismissed from British Airways.

Faced with a project or multi-project programme, what do you do about reducing risk and raising certainty? Several methods are available to manage it - from identifying all the known or potential threats at the planning and requirements stage, to handling it once the journey of change has begun.

Traditional risk assessment approaches tend to focus on the danger of failing to deliver the project to time, cost and quality criteria. But arguably, what is far more important is to assess the risks of failing to achieve the project's planned outcomes, or ultimate business benefits. Whatever the success of the initial 'T5 Construction Project' (and judging by work-in-progress reports, project management on the construction side was exemplary), the subsequent outcomes were clearly not what BA's management would have desired.

Risk identification and analysis is a specialist business, but generally it can't be done without first consulting key personnel, typically through interviews, questionnaires and workshops. In my experience risk workshops are particularly effective. Bringing together all those to be affected by the initiative means everyone gets a chance to present their case, hear different points of view, raise and discuss ideas, and be more circumspect and candid.

It also provides an opportunity to introduce three important perspectives on risk management. The first is precedent – how were risks handled before in similar circumstances? Much has been documented in this area in the form of case studies and anecdotes. Second, the current position needs to be fully considered: what are the specific, known and speculative risks relating to all the relevant factors? The workshop provides a good starting point to uncover evident and less apparent issues.

But a third and complementary approach is also important – brainstorming or envisaging the totally unexpected, perhaps incredible, but nevertheless possible scenarios. Imagine a move to a new building, it's mid-August and the air-conditioning fails. This is a simple but not improbable example that no one may give a prior thought to, but when it happens the building cannot be used for days. A contingency plan would save major costs.

Financial directors are familiar with thinking the unthinkable: what may happen in the very worst case? What about something totally out of the organisation's control? Economic recession, acts of war, floods, fire; all those things could take place, depending where you operate in the world. In this sense financial directors parallel programme managers in their attitude: both have a tendency to constructively envisage the worst case. But they can also see the flip side: achieving the desired business outcomes.

Often overlooked, another risk factor is change overload. Organisations need to continually monitor the level of change to ensure it is tolerable, manageable and not adding to risks. A common mistake in project or programme management is to implement too many changes too quickly. This can apply to deploying the first stage of a large project or simultaneously launching several small- to medium-size endeavours, each having a similar affect: overloading the original plan including project delivery and intended outcomes.

In the real world, during the progress of a big project or programme, changes are bound to happen. Business is dynamic, so the project or programme should reflect and accommodate that reality. A management system that does not allow for this fact is fundamentally flawed.

The solution is to actively review the value of all projects at all key milestones during the planning and deployment process. Examine any significant changes in business priorities and assess how they will impact delivery dates, the budgets or planned benefits, but don't forget to review the original risk assessment.

Above all, make sure any changes result in a higher, value-adding outcome. Appropriate methods and tools exist to do that. And finally, at some stage all organisations are faced with their own version of potential challenges like Terminal 5. Knowing how to manage that risk in a timely and cost-effective way – in principle and practice - is vital.

David Walton is managing director of project management experts Bestoutcome [1]. He can be contacted at david.walton@bestoutcome.com [2]