ABSTRACT
The chapter discusses how formal and informal standardization, in relation to risk mapping practices, have both strengths and weaknesses. The various ways in which standardization of the risk mapping practices are drawn upon in the course of the project reveal sources of perceived ‘usefulness’ but also disclose tensions and potential negative effects related to risk management in projects. The study shows how risk maps act as mediating instruments, which allow distributed actors to adjudicate interests, build confidence in, and associate with ‘the project’ and its progress over time. The chapter also discloses practices where risk-related discussions within project teams and between collaborating actor groups have limited focus, while cost control and meeting deadlines are prioritized. As such, the risk matrix, a tool that in theory should promote and increase risk awareness, comes under pressure from processes that prioritize alignment between divergent actors and actor groups, and smooth project progress. Data originate from a case study of an inter-organizational project collaboration within the Norwegian petroleum sector and consist of meeting observations, interviews, and document analyses.
