To build off a previous discussion topic about risk management meetings, when having a risk management meeting what is the best way to get everyone's input?
Many meetings I have been a part of were dominated by 10% of the room, even when they were asking for team input. I worked one summer on bringing in the SCRUM/agile thinking methods to meetings; this allowed for everyone regardless of any job criteria to give input. Everyone puts their ideas on sticky notes and puts them on a wall. Then everyone would walk around and move the sticky notes to different categories; in this case, the different risks that are like each other would be grouped together. The team collectively can then decide the priority of risk and how to mitigate each cluster. It allowed for the most productivity and use of everyone's time. Now that more meetings are on zoom, I feel it is even harder to get more people talking without cutting off anyone. I have used different computer online programs like Trello and Miro that allow multiple people to write and contribute at the same time.
Does anyone else know of any other ways your company does it?
I currently work at a medical device development company in the industry and am going to be attending my first risk management meeting in the near weeks. However, I will say that meetings as important as these should be held in person and I wouldn't be surprised if most companies did infact have risk management meetings in person. In my research of risk management tools online I saw many tools that companies can use to actually evaluate the risk severity, these kinds of tools would also greatly assist. While I can see 10-20% of the room being more involved than the rest, I think it's essentially up to the project leader to ensure that everyones voice is heard and that the proper meeting notes are being documented since risk management is a vital part of the design control process.
I do not work in medical device industry but our company holds risk assessment meetings for any type of change (change control) or new project coming to our plant - typically we conduct a meeting using an FMEA template and a representative from each department will chime in on the respective risks of the project. I agree with @ms2768, the project lead in these meetings should gather all the necessary information from each department to have a solid risk assessment and be able to understand from all points of view the various risks in their project. I think in my experience, we have seen people who are not able to be present rather than the meeting being dominated, so I believe in this case it is more on the project lead to hold follow up meetings or to talk to each department and get their input, as it is important to not proceed further until a proper risk assessment is acquired.
I agree with @ms2768 & @njq3 that prework done by the facilitator of the risk management meeting is extremely helpful to engage the participants. A detailed agenda with as much input as possible from all interested parties generates questions that invite contribution better than simple "fishing questions." Another detail I have found with well-run meetings of this nature is simply scheduling more than enough time with breaks to ensure that there is no incentive for not speaking. The breaks also help with fatigue and breaks up the speaking time of each participant.
These are good suggestions, I really like the idea of using tools like Trello or Miro for virtual collaboration, especially when in-person meetings aren’t feasible. I don’t have much experience with facilitating risk management meetings, but I agree that preparation by the project lead (like setting a detailed agenda and gathering input beforehand) can make a huge difference.
For virtual meetings, has anyone tried using breakout rooms to encourage smaller group discussions before reconvening? I imagine it might help quieter participants feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts.
I like how everyone emphasized how important structure, preparation, and inclusion is in risk management meetings. I want to talk more about the format of a meeting itself that can influence risk visibility. Dr. Simon talked about how risk management is not a one-time thing, but a living process that feeds into every subsystem of a company. If voices are missing, then you will have a communication risk across the entire organization and many different departments.
One method I have seen work very well is rotating functional leads. Instead of having the same facilitator every meeting, one session can be led by the design engineer, another can be led by the clinician, another led by QA, etc. This rotation forces new people to step into the spotlight and allows everyone to be comfortable. Sometimes, people who are not experts in the field do not want to speak up in fear of looking ignorant in front of their colleagues. With a rotating system, different disciplines and knowledge areas will be in focus, allowing more people to step in and identify potential risks. Additionally, an anonymous online system to post questions, comments, and concerns would take the embarrassment away. A pre-meeting anonymous submission form could help as well. This would remove bias when points are discussed during the meeting, balancing everything. The rotating system views problems from different lenses and becomes more thorough in risk mitigation. Quieter team members can also get more authority when “their” area is guiding the discussion.
Another tool that can be used is AI-assisted meeting summaries and risk-mapping tools. Points in real time can be heard by AI, analyzed, and more risks can be found from different algorithms. Some companies use this real-time language processing to tie directly in risk management files. This keeps traceability without putting pressure on individuals to take extensive notes. However, once again, this can introduce over-reliance on AI software. This is not a replacement for human judgment, but it ensures that different risks can be found when humans miss them.
Do you think companies should introduce AI based risk management systems in their meetings? Do you think making the AI feedback anonymous and showing it mixed in with human feedback form results would make the system safer and reduce bias? How much should AI be incorporated into risk management, and how much should anonymity be incorporated into risk management? What specific subsystems should lead risk meetings?
I really appreciate how many of you emphasized that the success of risk management ultimately depends not just on structure, but on how all participants are invited to engage. Personally, I believe that the combination of preparation, rotating facilitators, and virtual collaboration tools can make a significant difference in facilitating balanced discussions.
First, risk management meetings can also be made more objective through the integration of technology (this builds off the post discussing AI-assisted systems and anonymous submissions). For example, AI-driven keyword analysis can be used to uncover under-discussed areas of risk that are either simply consistently receiving less input or are often introduced with emotional hesitation. This would be invaluable to facilitators as it would allow them to follow up on "silent risks" that may not have been articulated in meetings. However, I do agree that there should always be caution on over-reliance on AI, especially when analyzing risk in medical devices, where nuance and field expertise are critical.
Second, building off of the rotating facilitators idea, rotating "risk champions" can be employed instead. Each department can assign a different team member per meeting to elucidate one new risk/mitigate update from their team's perspective. This would ensure continuity while continuing to bring new voices in regularly.
I am curious to see people's thoughts on AI integration: should there be a limit on the amount of automation used in clustering risks, or should technology be allowed to evolve into a co-faciliator role?
