7 Risk MGT
7 Risk MGT
7 Risk MGT
CHAPTER SEVEN
Risk Management
CHAPTER SEVEN
PROJECT PROFILE Project Moses: Keeping Venice Above Water
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT MANAGERS IN PRACTICE Mohammed Al-Sadiq, Aramco Oil Company
7.1 RISK MANAGEMENT: A FOUR-STAGE PROCESS
Risk Identification
Analysis of Probability and Consequences
Risk Mitigation Strategies
Use of Contingency Reserves
Other Mitigation Strategies
Control and Documentation
PROJECT PROFILE Ferris Wheels: Bigger and Higher
Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall
TRANSPARENCIES
7.1
1. FINANCIAL RISKS
2. TECHNICAL RISKS
3. COMMERCIAL RISKS
4. EXECUTION RISKS
10
11
12
ADJUSTMENT TO PLANS
Absenteesim
Resignation
Pull-aways
Unavailable
Staff/skills
Spec Change
Added work
Need more
training
Vendors late
13
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
10.
14
11.
15
12.
16
13.
17
18
19
14.
20
15.
21
16.
22
23
17.
24
18.
25
26
27
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 7.1: DeHavillands Falling Comet
28
Questions:
1) How could risk management have aided in the development of the Comet?
DeHavilland was producing an aircraft that was so revolutionary in so many ways that
they may have become overawed by the push in technology for its own sake. Certainly,
the original Comet included several radical design elements (embedded engines in the
wing root, square windows, pressurized cabin, and so forth) that any one of them could
have been a significant advance on its own. Putting them all together into the same new
aircraft design without adequate testing was a disaster. The question of how much testing
is enough is difficult to answer but certainly, with so many innovations in one design, it is
clear that they did not engage in sufficient risk assessment and design testing.
2) Discuss the various types of risk (technical, financial, commercial, etc.) in relation
to the Comet. Develop a qualitative risk matrix for these risk factors and assess
them in terms of probability and consequences.
This question asks students to identify the wide variety of risks that were present in this
aircraft. Commercially, DeHavilland had a huge investment in its success and perceived
that first-mover advantage would allow them to pick up a big piece of the commercial jet
aircraft market if they were first off the mark. Technically, the aircraft had so many new
and radical features that several of them could have been perceived as risky in their own
29
right. All of them together were simply too much risk, too fast. Although in might be
difficult for students to reasonably comment on probability of failure, there is no question
that consequences would be catastrophic (as they were).
3) Given that a modified version of the Comet (the Comet IV) is still in use with the
British Government as an anti-submarine warfare aircraft, it is clear that the
design flaws could have been corrected given enough time. What, then, do you
see as DeHavillands critical error in the development of the Comet?
Over time, the fundamental aircraft design (minus the original square windows) has been
proven to be a success, though the company never again attempted to launch it in the
commercial jet market. DeHavilland tried to do too much too fast and created an unsafe
design due to inadequate testing. Students are quick to recognize this basic error on
DeHavillands part. It is often instructive to note that this foray into the commercial jet
aircraft market was DeHavillands last and they never returned to the level of technical or
commercial success they had enjoyed during and just after the Second World War.
This question can generate several opinions from students as evidence demonstrates
again and again that organizations continue to push the edges of the technological
envelope with new designs for buildings, aircraft, automobiles, etc. The issue that we
have to address is just how far one should be allowed to push this envelope and at what
point does some system of controls come into play. Clearly, the greater the consequences
of failure, the greater the oversight needed to ensure that sufficient risk analysis and
management has taken place prior to opening Pandoras Box.
30
The famous story of the bridge that shook itself to pieces is familiar to many students.
The background of the story is not as well known and illustrates what happens when we
attempt to be too innovative without recognizing the full implications of our choices.
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge (TNB) was built at a sight with numerous design challenges
and difficulties, including physical location, size and length of the bridge, use of nonoptimal materials, and so forth. From a risk analysis perspective, the TNB represents
another example of journeying too far into the unknown and only belatedly recognizing
the implications of major design decisions.
Questions:
1) In what ways was the projects planning and scope management appropriate and
when did they begin taking unknowing or unnecessary risks? Discuss the issue of
project constraints and other unique aspects of the bridge in the risk management
process. Did they take them sufficiently into consideration? Why or why not?
It is easy, in hindsight, for students to criticize several elements in the TNB development
and construction; however, it is important that instructors not allow them to take the easy
way out and focus on the result of the construction. Rather, it is useful to examine how
the development of this bridge actually led to the understanding of an entirely new field
of engineering aerodynamics. It was thought, up to that point, that bridge-building was
simply a static engineering problem, concerned with downward loads. It took this failure
for engineers and scientists to understand the implications of entirely new forces. In
developing the answers to this question, it is useful to consider all the constraints (known
and discovered) that they were dealing with at the sight and with the design they had. In
those circumstances, ask student what they did correctly and where they ignored ample
warning signs of problems to come.
31
This exercise allows faculty to tease out the various risk factors that the TNB project
encountered. After listing them on the board develop a qualitative risk matrix and ask
students to help classify the various risk elements. Ask the question: Why was so little
risk analysis done at the time? The answer is that they did not recognize the risk in the
design, sighting of the bridge, or construction until after it had been constructed.
3) What forms of risk mitigation would you consider appropriate for this project?
Instructors can discuss various risk mitigation strategies in light of the TNB example
(share it, transfer it, etc.). It is useful to ask how each mitigation strategy might be used,
who it would be used with (which stakeholder parties), and how effective each strategy
might be.
32
PROBLEMS
1. Assessing Risk Factors. Consider the planned construction of a new office building
in downtown Houston at a time when office space is in surplus demand (more office
space than users). Construct a risk analysis that examines the various forms of risk
(technical, commercial, financial, etc.) related to the creation of this office building.
How would your analysis change if office space was in high demand?
Solution:
This question can be answered by students in a number of ways. The key point is to get
them thinking in terms of potential risks that are bound to exist prior to initiating a new
project. Commercial risk is paramount here because office space is in low demand,
making any new office building project questionable from a financial perspective.
2. Qualitative Risk Assessment. Imagine that you are a member of a project team that
has been charged to develop a new product for the residential building industry. Using a
qualitative risk analysis matrix, develop a risk assessment for a project based on the
following information:
Likelihood
1. High
2. Low
3. Medium
4. High
5. Low
33
Based on the above information, how would you rate the consequences of each of the
identified risk factors? Why? Construct the risk matrix and classify each of the risk
factors in the matrix.
Solution:
Student can draw a simple 3x3 risk matrix with Probability and Consequences as the two
axes. Depending upon how they view the consequences of each of the above risks, it is
possible to classify them into one of the quadrants of the qualitative risk matrix. The key
is that students justify their classification by giving a logical reason for the consequences
they perceive for each risk factor, should the problem actually occur.
Solution:
Students can construct a risk mitigation approach (accept it, transfer it, etc.) for each of
the risk factors identified. They must justify their mitigation strategy on the basis of how
severe the risk effect could be, the alternatives, and the reasons why they selected the
mitigation strategy they chose.
Consequences of Failure
Maturity = .3
Complexity = .3
Dependency = .5
Cost = .1
Schedule = .7
Performance = .5
34
Please calculate the Overall risk factor for this project. Would you assess this level of
risk as low, moderate, or high? Why?
Solution:
Using the formula from the chapter, the solution to this problem is:
5. Developing Risk Mitigation Strategies. Assume that you are a project team
member for a highly complex project, based on a new technology that has never been
directly proven in the marketplace. Further, you require the services of a number of subcontractors to complete the design and development of this project. Because you are
facing severe penalties in the event the project is late to market, your boss has asked you
and your project team to develop risk mitigation strategies to minimize your companys
exposure on this project. Discuss the various types of risk that you are likely to
encounter. How should your company deal with them (accept them, share them, transfer
them, or minimize them)? Justify your answers.
Solution:
This question is not intended to elicit a specific answer, but to make students consider all
potential issues that could arise and begin to formulate strategies for mitigating those
risks. The more interesting discussion typically emerge around the question of which
mitigation strategies are best for different risks. Some creative thinking of the part of
35
students can often identify alternatives to standard approaches for risk mitigation,
although it is also useful to have them recognize that for certain low impact risks, simply
accepting them is often the best (least expensive and fastest) solution.
6. Assessing Risk and Benefits. Suppose you are a member of a project team that is
evaluating the bids of potential contractors for developing some sub-assemblies for your
project. Your boss makes it clear that any successful bid must demonstrate a balance
between risk and price. Explain how this is so; specifically, why are price and risk seen
as equally important but opposite issues in determining the winner of the contract? Is a
low price/high risk bid acceptable? Is a high price/low risk bid acceptable? Why or why
not?
Solution:
The issue of price and risk and critical for understanding the thought process that often
goes on with clients when deciding which contractor to award the project. At times, a
higher price bid can win a contract, provided that the client recognizes a lower risk level
with a certain contractor. For example, in cases where an older, well established firm
bids a contract, they may offer a higher bid but it is attractive because their obvious
project management expertise lower concomitant risk. On the other hand, an untested or
problematic contractors low bid may be refused because they bring unacceptable levels
of risk to the project. Price and risk thus serve as the weights on two opposite scale pans.
Too much risk requires exceptionally lower prices, whereas a higher bid can be offset
with significant reductions in risk.