Without using AI reply to the following discussion post, Please note that your answers are run through an AI-generated detector to ensure original work.

Below is a classmate's post please respond by giving feedback in about one to two paragraphs and don't forget to cite your sources.

Expert judgment is invaluable when data is limited, risks are complex and uncertain, or decisions need to be made quickly. However, it is not a standalone solution. I wouldn't want to base decisions solely on an opinion or judgment regardless of the level of expertise. As a project manager, I should be able to consider the bigger picture and have a holistic approach to risk management. To ensure thorough risk management, it should be used in conjunction with other tools and techniques such as quantitative analysis, risk breakdown structures, response strategies, and structured consensus methods. By combining expert judgment with these tools, project teams can develop well-rounded, effective risk response strategies that account for both data-driven insights and real-world experience.

When it comes to implementing risk responses in project risk management, expert judgment is just one of several tools available. It plays a vital role, but some other tools and techniques provide data-driven or structured approaches to managing risks. It provides qualitative insights based on experience but often needs to be complemented by some sort of quantitative method (like decision trees, or sensitivity analysis) and structured risk management tools (like risk audits or response strategies) for a more comprehensive and data-driven approach. It helps to refine, inform, and validate decisions but should not be the sole tool used in risk response implementation.