Project Risk Management Process - Coursework Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Project Risk Management Process 1. Risk Identification a) 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 organizaid by corporates, youth and women groups to energize and allow team members to bond (Alexander, Carol and Sheedy 45). Organizing the event involves taking 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 taking assumptions. b) Timely procuring of the event materials is the 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 savingon their time to carry on with other activities of the day. They will not be inconvinienced. Time is of 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 orshowerscan 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). 2. Quantitative Risk Analysis In the table below, schedule is important in programming events to ensure they meet the timelines and resources allocated. Time is a crucial factor in this event since delay in one event leads to delay in the start and finish durations of the exercise. Cost implication affects how much should be procured and at what price. Quality is associated with 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% lossin 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% costincrease 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 Event probably occurs in most situations Possible 3 Event ought to happen at some time Unlikely 2 Event occurs at sometime Rare 1 Event only occursin 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% lossin 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% costincrease 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 higher degree of detectability and managerial intervention. Duration is negligible since it can be predicted and easily managed. Cost increases are least predicted and highly affects the team building event. Managerial intervention is more likely to happen. Quality is moderately affected by high predicatbility rate, medium risk rating but can be catastrohphic if not managed well (Wideman 112). 3. Treatment Strategies i) Risk reduction: This will entail reducing the probability of occurrence of delay in supply of team building materials like listing all therequirements in time and getting it to the supplier. Consequences are also lowered through placing various orders to different suppliers. ii) 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. iii) Risk transfer: The team building event is not trasferable for 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 repsobility to external event organizers. Residual risk is what is left after treatment. The treatments to the team building event were; providing the requirements list in time, involving more and qualified staff in organization process and preferring reliance on competence from external sources (Gorrod 102). The residual probability and consequences are minimal that they will not affect the team building event (Institute of Risk Management 76). After providing tarpaulins for shelter from rain, the remaining risk is meeting the satisfaction of the fans. The residual risk level is low and fans will understand that the organization had tolerated to cushion them from rain. This risk (loss in quality and satisfaction) can be tolerated. I believe that residual risk and levels of tolerability are applied so that the treatment to every risk inhibits secondary risks like accidents during the team building exercises from not becoming primary risks and shadowing the event. First Aid kits are provided as residual risk treatments (Moteff 90). For that matter, I feel that the team building event can be accepted and not tolerated. 4. Risk Register The table below shows a risk register of some of the risks identified with the team building event. I believe that a risk register is esential in identifying and objectively analyzing the impact of risks. I feel that I have known what it takes to host an event when all the risks have been brought out and considered for their impact on the overal completion of the event. The register to my understanding has captured most of the variables like; probability, consequences, treatment and resposibility. I also deem it essential in costing and determining the status of the event from the time of inception to completion. No Risk event Prob Consqnce Rating Treat Who When Cost Status 1 Bad weather Possible Catastrophic High PVC shelter manager Event date 0 To happen 2 Missing materials Unlikely moderate medium Improvise Supplier Eve to the main event $1000 ongoing 3 Fights in the field Unlikely low low Guards manager Event date 0 To happen 4 Low turn out Rare medium high Publicise Marketing team A week to event $600 ongoing The risk register can be used in many of the projects especially social events to guide the program manager in guiding the schedule and quality of the event. 5. Reflecting Quality in Risk Management I happen to have attended a competition for “Race against cancer”in October 2012. The event involved a fundraising as well as building awareness on the prevalence of cancer among the current youth. The event was organized by a group of City doctors who also acted as sponsors. They provided contingency measures for both primary risks and secondary risks. The plan was a walk along the pavement holding huge banners. The police were involved to deter people who were out to interrupt the event or those who could shout the marchers down. An ambulance was also provided complete with First Aid Kits in case participants fainted or experienced minor injuries on the way. The event was not given to chance but ensured that more than 70% of probability for risk occurrence was countered by providing adequate risk treatment strategies. I have learned that it is important to identified, assess, evaluate and treat risks as they appear. The doctors and other sponsors like pharmaceutical companies were keen to provide safe bottled water for thirsty participants as well as umbrellas in case it rained. I felt that it was crucial to identify a risk that people would be thirsty while walking and retaining the risk by providing a votehead that caters for mineral water. While many risks can abound, the degree at which the marchers were cushioned from the risks told a lot about quality of risk management processes in organizing events. I realized that the stakeholders were kept informed of all the risk management process. The event also allowed for a two way consutative process for risk identification and treatment (Szabo 65). Eventually, risk management enhances quality, cost minimization and effective decision making (Altemeyer 37). Works Cited 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. Read More