Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Defining Risk
Opportunities
Threats
2002 Hulett & Associates
Ignoring
Ignoringthe
therisk
riskdoes
doesnot
notmake
makeititgo
goaway
away
Our
Ourobjective
objectiveisistototurn
turnvague
vagueuncertainty
uncertaintyinto
into
identified,
identified,quantified
quantifiedrisk
risk
Cost
Time
Technical
2002 Hulett & Associates
Cost
Time
Technical
customer
Resources may be added => cost more to finish on
time
Cost
Time
Technical
Cost
Time
Technical
Cost
Time
Technical
2002 Hulett & Associates
10
Establish Priority of
Project Objectives: Example
Cost
Technical
Performance
Schedule
Must
Have
Nice to
Have
Accept
Result
2002 Hulett & Associates
11
Measuring Objectives
Technical vs. Cost and Time
Cost is denominated in dollars, time in days
Technical objectives No common unit of measurement
Weight
Speed, range, capacity, climbing rate
Software function points, lines of code
Reliability Mean time between failure
Quality measures, costs
2002 Hulett & Associates
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
www.sei.cmu.edu
2002 Hulett & Associates
22
23
1. Personnel Shortfalls
2. Unrealistic schedules
and budgets
4. Requirements mismatch;
gold plating
24
6. Architecture, performance,
quality
7. Requirements changes
8. Legacy software
9. Externally-performed
tasks
25
26
Checklist Example
Project Risk Checklist
Project Name
Project Manager
Risk Type
Risk Area
Technology
Design
Organizational
Objectives
Resources
Customer
Regulatory
Expectations
Interface
Funding
Permit Required
Description of
Uncertainty
Resolution
(Action,
Evaluation of Risk
(present, importance) responsible)
Complexity
State-of-the-Art
Integration
Unclear
Changing
Compete w/ other proj.
Inexperienced
Unrealistic
Vague, changing
Not timely
Intermittant
Uncertain requirements
Uncertain timing
27
28
29
30
Willoughby Templates
In early 1980s, W. J. Willoughby, Jr was chairman of the
Defense Science Board
DSB developed a way to look at risk in Defense
Acquisition programs using a simple template approach
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Area of Risk
40
Example Template:
Design Requirements (continued)
Timeline
41
Risk Ranking
High Risk
Moderate Risk
YELLOW
Low Risk
GREEN
42
5 Process Controls
Manufacturing
Precision
High
State of the Art
In Design
Highly Complex
Dependent on
Three Additional
Risk Drivers
Very High
Beyond State of the
Art
Concept Stage
Highly Complex with
Uncertainties
Dependent on more
than Three Additional
Risk Drivers
Statistical
Documented
Limited
Process
Controls (No SPC) Controls
Controls (SPC)
Inadequate
Controls
No Known Controls
High
Known but
Inadequate
Unknown
Adequate
Limited Margins
43
Risk Level
Medium
High
Very Low
Low
Reliability
Historically
High
Average
Producibility
Established
Demonstrated
Criticality to
Mission
Nonessential
Minimum Impact
Cost
Established
Known History or
Close Analogies
Schedule
Very High
Validated
Analysis
Inadequate
Analysis
Possible
"Show Stopper"
Alternatives Exist
Out of Range of
Experience
Unknown or
Unsupported
Estimate
Unknown or
Unsupported
Estimate
44
Impact
Impactisisindependent
independentofofhow
howlikely
likelythe
theevent
eventisis
2002 Hulett & Associates
45
Qualitative Assessment of
Probability from Technology Maturity
Technology Maturity
Scientific research ongoing
Concept design formulated for performance and
qualifications
Concept design tested for performance and qualification
concerns at bench scale
Critical functions / characteristics demonstrated at pilot
scale
Full-scale prototype hardware passed qualification tests
with ACWA feedstocks
More than one full scale facility operational and deployed
Probability
Very High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Very Low
46
Probabilty
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
47
Probability
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
48
Qualitative Assessment of
Impact on Performance
Impact of Risk on Performance Objective
Impact
System requirement not achieved, safety and
environmental objectives jeopardized
System requirement not achieved, safety and
environmental objectives satisfied
Degradation of system performance eliminates all margins
Degradation of subsystem performance, decrease in
system performance (still above requirement)
Potential degradation of subsystem performance, but
system level not affected
No effect on subsystem or system performance (includes
producibility and support)
2002 Hulett & Associates
Very High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Very Low
49
Very high
Mod
Mod
High
High
High
High
Low
Mod
Mod
High
High
Moderate
Low
Mod
Mod
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
High
Very low
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
50
On purpose
By design
Because of inattention
Defining the levels by objective criteria helps
Applying numbers to risk probability and impact seems
to improve concentration, increase discipline
51
Probability
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
52
53
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
2002 Hulett & Associates
3.2
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
54
3.2
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
55
Risk Ranking
High Risk
Moderate Risk
Low Risk
.30 < X
YELLOW
GREEN
X < .15
56
0.4
0.8
1.6
2.88
2.24
1.60
0.96
0.32
3.2
57
58
59
60
62
High
500
350
Market Demand
Greenfield
-150
65%
Low
300
150
Plant Decision
35%
High
400
365
Market Demand
Retrofit
-35
65%
Low
200
165
35%
High
300
300
Market Demand
None
0
Low
65%
150
150
63
High
500
350
Market Demand
Greenfield
-150
220
65%
Low
300
150
Plant Decision
235
35%
High
400
365
Market Demand
Retrofit
-35
235
65%
Low
200
165
35%
High
300
300
Market Demand
None
0
Low
202.5
65%
150
64
150
High
500
350
Market Demand
Greenfield
-150
220
65%
Low
300
150
Plant Decision
220
35%
High
400
335
Market Demand
Retrofit
-65
205
65%
Low
200
135
35%
High
300
300
Market Demand
None
0
Low
2002 Hulett & Associates
202.5
65%
150
150
65
System Reliability:
System Failure Analysis
67
68
69
AND Gate
-- Only 0.2% Likelihood
Gate-of a Completely Dark Room
Fault Tree Analysis
State of Being
Floor On, Desk On
Floor On, Desk Off
Floor Off, Desk On
Floor Off, Desk Off
Likelihood
Floor Lamp Desk Lamp
95.0%
96.0%
96.0%
5.0%
4.0%
95.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Total Likelihood
Joint Likelihood
of Occurrence
91.2%
4.8%
3.8%
0.2%
100.0%
70
Result
And Gate
Likelihood
of Failure
71
Either
Eitherthe
theFloor
FloorLamp
Lampor
orthe
theDesk
DeskLamp
LampFails
Fails
72
State of Being
Floor On, Desk On
Floor On, Desk Off
Floor Off, Desk On
Floor Off, Desk Off
Likelihood
Floor Lamp Desk Lamp
95.0%
96.0%
96.0%
5.0%
4.0%
95.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Total Likelihood
2002 Hulett & Associates
Joint Likelihood
of Occurrence
91.2%
4.8%
3.8%
0.2%
100.0%
73
Result
Or Gate
Likelihood
of &Failure
2002 Hulett
Associates
74
75
INCREASING RISK
CONCEPT
Execute
DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
TERMINATION
EFFECT OF RISK
MANAGEMENT
INCREASING VALUE
Plan
Amount at Stake
TIME
76
Evaluate a
Risk Response (Handling) Option
Can it be feasibly implemented?
What is its expected effectiveness?
Is it affordable?
Is time available to develop the option? What is its
impact on the schedule?
What effect does it have on the systems technical
performance
77
Risk Avoidance
Eliminating the risk event
Relax the project objective
Severing the link to the project objective
Any risk for which the Triple Constraint can be relaxed
78
Parallel development
This is an expensive risk response strategy
2002 Hulett & Associates
79
Test components
Test the integrated system at a scale factor
Semi-works tests at a larger scale
May need to test some components at full-scale
80
81
82
Mitigation
83
Poor Quality
Mitigation
84
Inaccurate Metrics
Mitigation
85
Management Malpractice
Managers not trained for their jobs, not rewarded for good project
management skills
Culture lacks awareness of good practices
No training or good curriculum in schools
Mitigation
86
Organization analysis
Mission analysis
Ops-concept formulation
User surveys
Prototyping
Early users manuals
2002 Hulett & Associates
87
Prototyping
Scenarios
Task analysis
User characterization (functionality, style, workload)
88
Gold plating
Risk management techniques
Requirements scrubbing
Prototyping
Cost-benefit analysis
Design to Cost
89
Risk Transfer
90
80
60
40
20
1
Cost Plus
9 10
Relative Risk
100
Contractor Risk
Customer Risk
Fixed Price
2002 Hulett & Associates
91
Contingency Planning
Plan B is the contingency if the baseline plan does not
work out
Plan B will be developed, then kept for emergency
Identify the events that might trigger the need for Plan B
Identify the value or characteristics of the trigger events
that would initiate Plan B
Monitor those trigger points in Risk Monitoring and
Control
92
Risk Acceptance:
Set a Dollar Contingency Reserve
93
Risk Acceptance:
Take the Right Risks
Accepting the Right Risks and Setting Contingency Amounts
Risk Accepted
Subcontractor late
Likelihood Impact
a
40%
b
250
Expected
Mitigation Strategy
Value
c=axb
100 Use Old Subcontractor
Mitigation
Expected Savings
Cost
d
250
d-c
150
94
But Establish
a Contingency Reserve
Risk Accepted
Subcontractor late
Part not pass the test
Design assumption faulty
Likelihood
Impact
Expected
Value
a
40%
30%
20%
b
250
350
650
c=axb
100
105
130
Total
335
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
80
60
40
Over Cost
Behind Schedule
Plan
Earned Value
Actual
20
19
17
15
13
11
0
1
Dollars
100
Project Months
102
Status at Planned
Completion
140
100
Plan
Time Now
80
Earned Value
Actual
60
40
Projected EV
Projected Actual
20
22
19
16
13
10
0
1
Dollars
120
Project Months
2002 Hulett & Associates
103
105
106
Technical Performance
Starts Well, Falls Behind
Technical Performance Measurement
Technical Metric
100
80
Technical
Plan
Technical Shortfall
60
40
Technical
Performance
To-Date
20
0
0
10
15
20
Project Months
2002 Hulett & Associates
107
100
Technical Plan
80
60
Technical
Performance ToDate
Technical To-Go
40
20
25
22
19
16
13
10
0
1
Performance Metric
Forecasting
Technical Risk with TPM
Project Months
2002 Hulett & Associates
108
Project Closeout
Data gathering
109
110