Managing risks in creative technology projects

At the end of the Creating New Spaces podcast episode with Darryl Rogers and Troy Merritt from Soma Lumia, Troy mentioned risk:

“There’s a lot of risk in this type of work and maybe that’s part of the appeal of it. It’s the thing that keeps me up at night but also the thing that makes it fun. It’s exciting because it’s not entirely predictable.”

This isn’t the first time risk has come up in the podcast. In the episode From Idea to Installation: Creating Outdoor Light Art with Amalie Soland from Vertigo, risk was part of the conversation too.

Why risk matters in creative technology practice

Risk is something we often associate with danger or uncertainty, but in creative technology practice, it’s also linked to possibility. New technologies and experimental approaches are what make these projects compelling – but they also introduce points of failure.

Artists encounter different types of risks – conceptual, creative, and technological. In this reflection, I’m focusing on technological risk, though many of these ideas also apply to creative uncertainty.

One of the ways people first learn about risk management is through work health and safety, where risk assessments are often seen as compliance tools.

Another way we encounter risk management is through project management. During a project, if a task is late or its outcomes have quality issues, the underlying cause is often a risk that hasn’t been assessed or addressed.

In larger projects, risk is typically tracked in a risk register. These registers can grow long, listing every possible thing that might go wrong. But when the list becomes too detailed, it’s hard to use in day-to-day decision-making. I’ve found that an overwhelming risk register can actually make it harder to steer the project.

A metaphor I often come back to is this: if a project is like sailing a ship, the tasks are your destination – but how you steer the boat is through managing the risks.

A personal example: What went wrong in Crossing

I have a strong optimism bias. I generally expect things to work, and this sometimes leads me to skip thorough testing. Crossing  was an immersive installation that responded to the presence and movement of visitors. Embedded in the wooden pathways were piezo sensors that activated visuals and sound, creating an experience that evoked the feeling of crossing water – step by step.

During the making of this piece, I had moved into a smaller studio space and could only set up three of the nine interactive steps. During testing, I discovered noise issues in the signal from the piezo sensors, which I resolved by using shielded cables with a grounded shield. I was relieved to find the issue before the gallery installation.

On opening night, only the test board – assembled on a hand-soldered prototyping board with simple connections – worked reliably. I hadn’t created a clear backup plan, so I had to switch the triggering of images and sounds to a randomised timing system.

Later, I realised the solder joints were unreliable. I have a rare neurological condition called Generalised Dystonia, which shows up as a tremor in my hands. Looking back, I probably shouldn’t have been soldering the boards myself. And even now, I’m recognising more risks than I had considered at the time.

• Under-testing: Two of the boards hadn’t been properly tested before installation.
• Optimism bias: I assumed things would work without checking thoroughly.
• Generalised dystonia: My tremor affected my soldering – something I now actively factor into future builds.

That experience pushed me to stop doing my own soldering and move to custom PCB prototyping instead. It has improved my processes significantly.

Frameworks for dealing with risk

Breaking risk down: Likelihood, consequence, and control

A common way to assess risk starts by identifying what could go wrong – this is the hazard or risk. From there, you rate two things: how likely it is to happen, and how serious the consequences would be if it did. Based on that, you put in place controls – things that reduce the likelihood or lessen the impact. Then you reassess: with those controls in place, is the risk still serious? This cycle helps decide what needs attention, and what can be accepted.

Keeping risks visible during projects

In project-based work, I often use a simple system to track the top three to five most likely risks, colour-coded as green, orange, or red depending on their current status. What matters most is that these risks stay active—not just recorded once and forgotten. They’re included as standing items on meeting agendas or built into regular project status reports. Often, they’re the first thing reviewed. This keeps risk front of mind and allows teams to respond early rather than react too late. By making risk part of the ongoing rhythm of a project, it becomes easier to see what needs attention, where small shifts are happening, and when something requires a decision or a change in plan.

If–then planning: Turning uncertainty into action

Another simple tool I use is if–then planning. This idea comes from the work of psychologist Peter Gollwitzer, who developed the concept of implementation intentions in the 1990s. His research showed that forming specific “if–then” statements – such as “If I finish dinner, then I will go for a 20-minute walk” – can significantly increase the likelihood of follow-through.

The strength of if–then planning lies in how it links situational cues to automatic responses, reduces decision fatigue, and prepares us to navigate obstacles in advance.

In creative projects or installations, it works like this: “If the weather changes during an outdoor installation, then we’ll switch to the hall space.” Having this clarity removes the need for last-minute choices in high-pressure moments. It’s a way to treat your creative risk like a system – not a gamble.

When risk planning makes the work possible

In the end, risk management is thinking through what could go wrong – and how you’re going to prevent those things from going wrong. It’s not about removing the unpredictability that Troy described. It’s about making that unpredictability manageable enough to keep doing the work.