The paper "Project Risk Management Process" is an outstanding example of management coursework. The risk event identified is a team-building exercise which entails competition in various games such as skits, jumps, pool e. t.c. team building events are usually organized by corporates, youth and women groups to energize and allow team members to bond (Alexander, Carol and Sheedy 45). Organizing the event involves taking a risk and making assumptions for it to succeed with minimal interruptions. The probability of a risk occurring is a subject to the level of incorporation to the planning of the event or making assumptions. b) Timely procuring of the event materials is a major risk that affects its success.
When materials are sourced and availed within the stipulated time, the participants can practice or mobilize as they prepare to set off the event (Borodzicz 76). Participants also appreciate the event as saving their time to carry on with other activities of the day. They will not be inconvenienced. Time is of the essence especially if the event is done outdoors (Lam 43). Weather is another risk since outdoor events are subject to vagaries of weather like hot sun or rain.
Too much rain or showers can ruin a competition that was running smoothly. For instance, skits and mud poodles will be worsened by rain and will make the area slippery and uncomfortable to participants (Virine and Trumper 42). Quantitative Risk Analysis In the table below, a schedule is important in programming events to ensure they meet the timelines and resources allocated. Time is a crucial factor in this event since the delay in one event leads to delay in the start and finish the duration of the exercise.
Cost implication affects how much should be procured and at what price. Quality is associated with the level of satisfaction of participants (Hutto 34). No Project objective Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic 1 Schedule Negligible loss in schedule Less than 10% loss in schedule 10-25% loss in schedule 25-40% loss in schedule Over 40% loss in schedule 2 Duration Negligible duration increase Less than 10% duration increase 10-20% duration increase 20-30% duration increase Over 30% duration increase 3 Cost Negligible cost increase Less than 15% cost increase 15-25% cost increase 25-35% cost increase Over 35% cost increase 4 Quality Negligible loss in quality Less than 10% loss in quality 10-20% loss in quality 20-30% loss in quality Over 30% loss in quality b) Likelihood and Consequences table Descriptor Score Definition Almost certain 5 The event is anticipated to occur most situations Likely 4 The event probably occurs in most situations Possible 3 The event ought to happen at some time Unlikely 2 Event occurs at sometime Rare 1 An event only occurs in exceptional situations No Project objective Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic 1 Schedule Negligible loss in schedule Less than 10% loss in schedule 10-25% loss in schedule 25-40% loss in schedule Over 40% loss in schedule 2 Duration Negligible duration increase Less than 10% duration increase 10-20% duration increase 20-30% duration increase Over 30% duration increase 3 Cost Negligible cost increase Less than 15% cost increase 15-25% cost increase 25-35% cost increase Over 35% cost increase 4 Quality Negligible loss in quality Less than 10% loss in quality 10-20% loss in quality 20-30% loss in quality Over 30% loss in quality Risk rating Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Almost certain Medium Medium High Very high Very high Likely Medium Medium High High Very high Possible Low Medium High High High Unlikely Low Low Medium Medium High Rare Low Low Medium Medium High The probability of occurrence is given as; very likely to occur (85-100%), likely to occur (65-84%), may occur half the duration (45-64%), unlikely to occur (15-44%), and very unlikely to occur (0-14%).
The parts shaded in yellow shows the selected consequences and probability of occurrence. The team-building event has high precision rating, medium degree of detectability, and high ease of manageability. The level of consequences is as shown in the table above and minor consequences to schedule since it has a higher degree of detectability and managerial intervention.
Duration is negligible since it can be predicted and easily managed. Cost increases are the least predicted and highly affects the team building event. Managerial intervention is more likely to happen. Quality is moderately affected by high predictability rate, medium risk rating but can be catastrophic if not managed well (Wideman 112). Treatment Strategies Risk reduction: This will entail reducing the probability of occurrence of a delay in supply of team building materials like listing all the requirements in time and getting it to the supplier.
Consequences are also lowered through placing various orders to different suppliers. Risk-retention: Team building event organizers have the discretion to retain the risk. A contingency plan is used to accept time, cost and schedule as options than cannot be transferred. The sponsor of the team building event is capable of retaining the risk. Risk transfer: The team building event is not transferrable for the financial but social benefit (Hopkin 87). The intensity of the risks is not high to warrant sponsors or suppliers to charge costs. The event can choose to transfer some of the risks from suppliers by internally sourcing from its functional staff.
The attitude, level of risk and trust among event organizers is positive hence no need to transfer reasonability to external event organizers.
Alexander, Carol and Sheedy, Elizabeth. The Professional Risk Managers' Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Current Theory and Best Practices. PRMIA Publications. 2005. Print.
Altemeyer, Lynn. An Assessment of Texas State Government: Implementation of Enterprise Risk Management, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. 2004. Print.
Borodzicz, Edward. Risk, Crisis and Security Management. New York: Wiley. 2005. Print.
Gorrod, Martin. Risk Management Systems: Technology Trends. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Print.
Hopkin, Paul. Fundamentals of Risk Management 2nd Edition. Kogan-Page. 2012. Print.
Hutto, John. Risk Management in Law Enforcement, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. 2009. Print.
Institute of Risk Management/AIRMIC/ALARM. A Risk Management Standard. London: Institute of Risk Management.2002. Print.
Lam, Jim. Enterprise Risk Management: From Incentives to Controls 1st edition. Wiley. 2003. Print.
Moteff, John. Risk Management and Critical Infrastructure Protection: Assessing, Integrating, and Managing Threats, Vulnerabilities and Consequences (Report). Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.2005.
Szabo, Loccisano. POPs and Human Health Risk Assessment. Dioxins and Persistent Organic Pollutants 3rd (Edition): John Wiley & Sons. 2012. Print.
Virine, Lilian and Trumper Martin Project Decisions: The Art and Science. Management Concepts. Vienna, VA, 2007. Print.
Wideman, Richard. Project and Program Risk Management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. 2002. Print.