Major risk of the project:
The objective of the project is to organize and execute the concert at Wahoo stadium. However there are certain constrains applied to the project. Hence in order to effectively lead the project it is important to find out the risks associated with the project. These risks might be associated with the constraints related to the project.
These risks are identified in the following sections in details. The risk identified in the following section has been divided into five major risk category including variation in Milestones, Budget Restrictions, and delivery of resources, stakeholder satisfaction and project setbacks. Each risk category has been further classified divided into different risk events associated with the project of designing the XSU spring concert and execute it successfully at the Wahoo stadium.
Variation in Milestones
- Permission and approvals for the concert not obtained before the due date as approved
- Singers not signed before the event as per the schedule
- Vendors contracts not secured before the assigned date
Budget Restrictions
- Variation in price of vendor contract and project is not executed as per the approved budget
- Project ran out of budget due to insufficient project sponsor
Delivery of resources
- Vendor denies to deliver contract on the agreed date
- Signers not present on the concert day
- Vendors contracted for the waste management did not provided resources after the concert finished
Stakeholders Satisfaction
- Students were not satisfied with the arrangement
- University authority was not satisfied as project ran out of budget and arrangements were not proper
Setbacks: unexpected events
- Injury to students
- Students feeling ill after consuming food and beverage
- Students involved in fighting due to drinking and not being in control
- Vendors contracted for the waste management did not provided resources after the concert finished
Risk assessment form:
|
Risk event
|
Likelihood
|
Impact
|
Detection difficulty
|
When
|
|
Insufficient funding
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Before the project execution
|
|
Delay in contract
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
During the project execution
|
|
Variation in price
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
During the contract sign
|
|
No of Vendor not sufficient
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
During the contract sign
|
|
Permission and approvals for the concert not obtained before the due date as approved
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
During the concert planning
|
|
Vendor denies to deliver contract on the agreed date
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
During the contract delivery
|
|
Signers not present on the concert day
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
Concert arrangement
|
|
Singers not signed before the event as per the schedule
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
During the concert planning
|
|
Vendors contracts not secured before the assigned date
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
during the concert planning
|
|
Students were not satisfied with the arrangement
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
Project evaluation
|
|
University authority was not satisfied as project ran out of budget and arrangements were not proper
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
Project evaluation
|
|
Injury to students
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
During the concert execution
|
|
Students feeling ill after consuming food and beverage
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
During the concert execution
|
|
Students involved in fighting due to drinking and not being in control
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
During the concert execution
|
|
Vendors contracted for the waste management did not provided resources after the concert finished
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
After the concert finishes
|
Risk response matrix:
|
Risk Event
|
Response
|
Contingency Plan
|
Trigger
|
Who is Responsible
|
|
Variation in Milestones
|
Mitigate: Review all the task pending and reschedule them according to the maximum variation possible for critical tasks and communicate the revised plan across the teams.
|
Keep the timeframe flexible so that milestones for tasks that are critical to project success is possible to extend if needed and it does not affect the tasks with low risk and low probability
|
A significant time have been spent yet most of the important and critical tasks have not been completed
|
Sam billing (Team leader)
|
|
Project ran out of budget
|
Mitigate: identify tasks where budget reduction is possible and adjust the budget with tasks where cost and quality both are essential and cost reduction is not possible
|
Keep the budget little flexible so that little variation is not an issue and arrange for sufficient sponsors for financial support in case budget overflow occurs
|
Percentage of budget spent is more than the percentage of task completed as per the project plan.
|
Peter jones (Project manager)
|
|
resources not delivered on time
|
Mitigate: Plan for the alternate resources and make the resources available so that project is not delayed
|
Keep alternative contractors available and ask for delivery when needed
|
Contractor ask for time extension to deliver the resources
|
Peter jones (Project manager)
|
|
New stakeholder requirement added to the project
|
Mitigate: identify if accommodation of new requirement is possible. However any issue regarding that like variation in timeframe, budget should be communicated to the stakeholders and the stakeholders should agree on that
|
Create an alternative plan before project initiation, so that it can accommodate adjustment as per the new requirement and there is no issue for that regarding timeframe, budget.
|
Stakeholders is not satisfied with the project progress report and want changes
|
Peter jones (Project manager)
|
References:
Bocken, N.M.P. & Short, S.W. (2016). The theory of effective Risk management frameworks: a comprehensive discussion. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Chan, C. (2014, January). The importance of Risk management frameworks two execute project
Dan, A., the scope and status of viewer in art. (2015). Method and apparatus for leading effective project execution.
Laukkanen, T. (2015). The definition and scope of Risk management frameworks in project management. A modern theory of art, 42, pp.35-46.
Porterfield, T.E. (2015). Evaluation of Risk management frameworks: an empirical investigation of viewer scope and success. International Journal of project management, 40(6), pp.435-455.
Raisch, W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven art and culture: evaluation of as-Is Workflow Modelling, 18, pp.41-61.
Reijonen, H., Hirvonen, S., Nagy, G., Laukkanen, T. and Gabrielsson, M. (2015). The bias of project manager towards Risk management frameworks. A modern approach, 51, pp.35-46.
Warren. N. (2017, January). The importance of post evaluation for successful project implementation: an intuitive guide.
