MGT310 PM I Fall 2009 Project Risk Profile Ashley Wallingford

PROJECT RISK PROFILE

as of:

PROJECT UNCERTAINTY PROFILE

Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty

0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4

--- BUSINESS UNCERTAINTY ---

Factor (1) / Rating
Clear, measurable / Ultimate business benefit / Unclear, not measurable / 1
Local / Customer distribution / Global / 4
Established / Customer needs / Little known / 1
Veteran / Experience with target customer group / New comer / 1
Stabilized / Government regulations / In flux / 1
Predictable / Financial exposure / Unpredictable / 1
Flexible / Schedule / Fixed / 3
Stable / Market conditions / Volatile / 2
Total / 14
Mean / 1.75

--- PRODUCT (DELIVERABLE) UNCERTAINTY ---

Factor
Clear / Functional Requirements / Unclear / 1
Clear / Quality /performance reqs. / Unclear / 1
Stable / Core technology / Rapidly changing / 1
In place / Support systems & processes / Non-existent / 1
Clear / Completion criteria / Unclear / 2
Low / Technical complexity / High / 2
Proven / Track record with similar product / Unproven / 3
Total / 11
Mean / 1.57

(1) Factors need to be modified on an project-by-project basis.

--- PROJECT UNCERTAINTY ---

0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Factor
Reliable / Outside vendors / Unreliable / 1
Low / Complexity of the project / High / 3
Highly experienced / Team member expertise / Inexperienced / 3
Dedicated to this project / Team member availability / Multiple projects / 2
Conducive / Team’s Working Conditions / Distracting / 1
Co-located / Location of Team / Dispersed / 4
High / Project manager’s control over resources / Low / 1
Expert / Project manager’s experience / Novice / 2
Dedicated / Project manager’s availability / Multiple projects / 1
Light & Flexible / Project mgmt. methodology / Heavy & Rigid / 2
Established / Project mgmt. infrastructure / Not established / 2
Satisfying / Likely Quality of life on Project / Dissatisfying / 1
Adequate / Incentives available / Inadequate / 2
Low / Dependency on other projects / High / 1
Excellent / Track record with similar projects / Poor / 2
Achievable / Win Conditions: must meet, optimize / Unachievable / 1
Total / 29
Mean / 1.81

--- ORGANIZATIONAL UNCERTAINTY ---

0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Factor
Low / Political sensitivity / High / 1
Fast / Approval cycles / Slow / 1
Low / Number of Stakeholder Groups / High / 3
Low / Number of Individual Stakeholders / High / 3
High / Crucial stakeholders’ support / Low / 1
Strong / Stakeholder participation / Weak / 1
Stable / Project portfolio priorities / Unstable / 1
Low / Political sensitivity / High
Weak / Sponsor’s Clout / Strong / 2
Total / 13
Mean / 1.62
Mean: Total Project / 1.72

______

RISK ACTION GRID

Risk Event / Impact of event on
Win Conditions
• Schedule
• Budget
• Quality
• Scope
• ROI
• Team satisfaction
• Stakeholder sat. / Probability of event (P) / Impact of event (I) / Factor
( P x I) / Risk Solution:
Accept it?
Avoid it. How?
Mitigate it. How?
Transfer it. How?
Scale:
1 = Very low
10 = Very high
Overly Optimistic Schedule / Schedule, Budget, ROI / 7 / 10 / 70 / Avoid it through good planning, otherwise, Accept it
Effort Greater than estimated / Schedule / 5 / 7 / 35 / Transfer by delaying non-essentials
End Users Insist on New Requirements / Schedule, Scope / 8 / 5 / 40 / Mitigate by having firm functionality goals
End users do not buy into project / Stakeholder Satisfaction / 6 / 5 / 30 / Mitigate with good communication and involvement
Component not delivered when promised / Schedule / 5 / 6 / 30 / Avoid by keeping abreast of progress
Modules are error-prone / Schedule, team satisfaction / 5 / 6 / 30 / Mitigate with thorough testing at each stage
Requirements are poorly defined / Schedule / 5 / 8 / 40 / Mitigate by having thorough fact-finding prior to development
Functionality issues are not followed up / Quality / 6 / 7 / 42 / Avoid by persistent communication with developers
Unable to locate suitable vendor / Quality, Schedule / 6 / 10 / 60 / Mitigate with through search but realize that some level of acceptance may be needed
Test cases lack depth and effectiveness / Quality / 5 / 7 / 35 / Mitigate by having testers closely involved
Developer unfamiliar with business / Schedule, Quality / 8 / 5 / 40 / Accept it and mitigate it by having a good plan and thorough and clear expectations

______

The elements contained in the Project Prospectus™ are based on Doug DeCarlo’s book, eXtreme Project Management: Using Leadership, Principles and Tools to Deliver Value in the Face of Volatility. Some of the elements in the Project Prospectus™ will need to be adapted to your particular project. Project Prospectus™ is trademark of the Doug DeCarlo Group.

Notice: This Project Prospectus™ is copyrighted material and is intended for your own, individual use. Re-distribution or resale is strictly prohibited without prior written permission. Permission granted to Lisa K. Sieverts