Risk Value Assessment Tool - Definitions
Value to Business / Description / Risk to Business / Description /Supports Mission and Goals / The project supports MIT in fulfilling its Mission and Goals / Compatible w/ Enterprise Systems / The process proposed fits a standard process model in a package application or existing technology strategies
Meets or Supports Compliance / An existing or future compliance or regulatory requirement exists that the system will support, e.g. EPA compliance by Environmental Health & Safety / Architecture Compliance / The project fits within MIT, IT architecture guidelines
Business Efficiency / The project will measurably increase MIT’s ability to conduct business efficiently, e.g. reduction in costs or hand-offs, or improved functionality / Unproven Technology / The technology is new and unproven or would mean early adoption
Business/ Operational Risk / The project mitigates known or probable business or operational risks / Confidence in Project Estimates (scope, cost, resources) / The level of confidence in the project scope, cost, resource and overall sizing estimates. Complex efforts, spanning multiple years, are generally of higher risk
System Health / The project addresses a system or systems that have outlived their expected lifespan. Factors include supportability, scalability, maintainability & functional depth / Institute Commitment / Community, DLC and IS&T readiness and capacity for the project and management commitment to sponsor the project
Project Interactions & Dependencies / Project directly affects other projects and or is dependent on other project’s success
Community Impact / The project will be easily accepted and used by the community or end-users
Risk Value Analysis Criteria
Business Value
Business Value Criteria / Definition / Value (1 –5) 5 = Highest Value /Supports Mission and Goals / The project supports MIT in fulfilling its Mission and Goals / 1. No strategic impact (e.g., operational project)
3. Supports Institute mission and goals or significantly and directly advances a departments goals
5. Provides significant and direct advancement of the Institute’s mission and goals
Meets or Supports Compliance (e.g., Regulatory) / An existing or future compliance or regulatory requirement exists that the system will support, e.g. EPA compliance by Environmental Health & Safety / 1. No compliance requirements
3. Meets anticipated future compliance or regulatory requirement
5. Meets existing compliance or regulatory requirement
Business Efficiency / The project will measurably increase MIT’s ability to conduct business efficiently, e.g. reduction in costs or hand-offs, or improved functionality / 1. No measurable business efficiency
3. Provides at least one measurable business efficiency
5. Provides numerous measurable business efficiencies
Business & Operational Risk / The project mitigates known or probable business or operational risks / 1. No noticeable impact to reducing business or operational risk
3. Project mitigates a known or potential business or operational risk
5. Project mitigates a major business or operational risk
Systems
Health / The project addresses a system or systems that have outlived their expected lifespan. Factors include supportability, scalability, maintainability & functional depth / 1. Replaces healthy and highly functional system
3. Replaces moderately healthy or adequately functional system
5. Replaces a least healthy or poorly functional system
Risk to Project
Compatibility w/ Enterprise Systems / The process proposed fits a standard process model in a package application or existing technology strategies / 1. The project seamlessly integrates with existing enterprise systems and MIT has similar interfaces in production
3. The project integrates with existing enterprise systems but new interfaces are required
5. The project is incompatible with existing enterprise systems
Architecture Compliance / The project fits within MIT, IT architecture guidelines / 1. Projects meets all required and recommended ITAG architectural statements and guidelines
3. Project meets all required, but not all recommended, ITAG architectural statements and guidelines
5. Project is not in compliance with required ITAG architectural statements and guidelines
Unproven
Technology / The technology is new and unproven or would mean early adoption / 1. The technology exists today in MIT’s production environment
3. The technology is either new OR unproven at MIT
5. The technology is both new AND unproven at MIT
Confidence in Project Estimates (scope, schedule and cost) / The level of confidence in the project scope, cost, resource and overall sizing estimates. Complex efforts, spanning multiple years, are generally of higher risk / 1. Estimates are based an actuals from previous projects of the same size, scope and complexity
3. IS&T has implemented similar projects of this size, scope, and complexity
5. IS&T has no experience with projects of this size, scope, or complexity
Institute Commitment / Community, DLC and IS&T readiness and capacity for the project and management commitment to sponsor the project / 1. All stakeholders (community, Business Owners and IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained) resources, capacity and commitment
3. Some stakeholders (community or Business Owners or IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained), resources, capacity and commitment
5. No stakeholders (community, Business Owners or IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained) resources, capacity or commitment
Project Interactions and Dependencies / Project directly affects other projects and or is dependent on other project’s success / 1. This project has no known interactions with other initiatives and no dependencies
3. This project has limited known interactions with other initiatives and limited dependencies
5. This project has extensive known interactions with other initiatives OR considerable dependencies on other projects or initiatives
Community Impact / The project will be easily accepted and used by the community or end-users / 1. Project does not change the way we do business and thus should be easily accepted by end-users and/or community
3. Project requires small changes or the change is limited to a small, identifiable community
5. Project changes the way we do business and directly impacts a majority of the community