Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Stephen L. Carman
v2.0 10/30/03
Outline
Why Risk Management? What is Project Risk and How Do You Manage It? Risk Management Process Risk Management in Your Proposal Barriers to Effective Risk Management During Proposals
v2.0
v2.0 10/30/03
Concorde
Budget Overrun 10X Schedule Overrun 4X
NASA Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) supplement now requires Risk-based acquisition management (R-BAM) in new procurements Risk Management Guide for DoD Acquisition similarly states the increasing emphasis on Risk Management as key to evaluating Department of Defense proposals DOE Risk Management practice emphasizes early risk identification as critical to project success.
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
v2.0
Formulation
Define the Right System
Implementation
Design and Build the System Right
Mission
System Performs Right
Risk Management continuously supports all phases - including the Proposal Phase
v2.0
Band-Aid Time
Start
MDR
PDR
CDR
PER
Launch
Pre A
C
System Life Cycle Phases
E/F
Risk Management seeks to identify what could be done early to minimize the number of problems later on
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
v2.0 10/30/03
10
v2.0
11
v2.0
12
v2.0
13
ISSUES
KNOWN UNKNOWNS UNKNOWN KNOWNS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS
The UNKNOWN KNOWNS are those risks someone knows about, but you dont
v2.0
14
v2.0
16
Assessment
Space Technology Standard Process for all projects from ATP to closeout Same process used during proposal phase The Risk Management Plan tailors the criteria for each project
2 Identification
Identification Record
3 Analysis
Are cost, schedule and performance risk low?
NO YES
Analysis Record
Handling Plan
v2.0
17
v2.0
18
v2.0
19
v2.0
20
Cost
Cost increase greater than 20% Cost increase of 15% to 20% Cost increase of 10% to 15% Cost increase of 5% to 10% Cost increase of less than 5% Cost decrease of
Schedule
Greater than 6 weeks delay in a completion or delivery date 4 to 6-week delay in a completion or delivery date 2 to 4-week delay in a completion or delivery date 1 to 2-week delay in a completion or delivery date Less than a 1 week delay in a completion or delivery date Less than 1 week earlier
Performance
Unacceptable performance will exist. Two or more key performance requirements cannot be met. Major redesign is required. Substantial degradation in performance will exist. One or more key performance requirements cannot be met. Substantial system redesign is required. Moderate degradation in performance will exist. All key performance requirements can be met, but one or more other important performance requirements cannot be met. Moderate redesign is required. Minor degradation in performance will exist. All key performance requirements can be met, but margins are inadequate. Minor redesign is required. Negligible degradation or no degradation in performance. Performance requirements can be met, and adequate performance margins will exist. Redesign is not required. Negligible or no improvement in performance. Performance requirements can be met, Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
4
RISK IMPACT
Substantial
3
Moderate
2
Minor
1
Negligible
v2.0
-1
21
Assessment
Encourage the proposal team to identify candidate risks as the proposal is being prepared
2 Identification
Identification Record
3 Analysis
Are cost, schedule and performance risk low?
NO YES
Analysis Record
Handling Plan
v2.0
22
NOW
Future
t0
t1
Time
Probability of occurrence of the Risk Event is estimated and recorded Probability is between 0% (wont happen) and 100% (will happen)
v2.0
23
Assessment
Risk analysis first estimates the cost, schedule and performance impact if the risk occurs
2 Identification
Identification Record
3 Analysis
Are cost, schedule and performance risk low?
NO YES
Analysis Record
Combining probability and impact, the risk is scored using the risk scoring matrix
Risk is always assessed in time NOW
v2.0
Handling Plan
24
Risk Event
NOW
Future
Risk Event
Schedule impact = Recovery time (t2 t1) Cost impact = Cost of Recovery
Recovery
t0
t1
t2
Time
Recovery from the Risk Event impact is the imagined work that would be required to restore intended performance (fix it) Assumes nothing is done to prevent it between now and then
Schedule and cost impact are estimated by imagining the recovery effort
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
25
NOW
Future
Risk Event
Schedule impact = Recovery time (t2 t1) Cost impact = Cost of Recovery
Recovery
t0
t1
Initial Performance Impact @ time t1
t2
Time
Net Performance Impact is the imagined resulting performance at completion of the Recovery activity
If performance is restored, net impact would be nil or negligible If performance is modified by recovery, net impact is scored accordingly
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
26
Risk Scoring
Scoring Matrix used to determine three scores:
Cost risk
Schedule risk Performance risk
OPPORTUNITY BENEFIT
Rating 5
Severe
Cost
Cost increase greater than 20% Cost increase of 15% to 20% Cost increase of 10% to 15% Cost increase of 5% to 10% Cost increase of less than 5% Cost decrease of less than 5% Cost decrease of 5% to 10%
Schedule
Performance
Greater than 6 weeks delay in Unacceptable performance will exist. Two or more key performance requirements cannot a completion or delivery date be met. Major redesign is required. 4 to 6-week delay in a completion or delivery date 2 to 4-week delay in a completion or delivery date 1 to 2-week delay in a completion or delivery date Substantial degradation in performance will exist. One or more key performance requirements cannot be met. Substantial system redesign is required. Moderate degradation in performance will exist. All key performance requirements can be met, but one or more other important performance requirements cannot be met. Moderate redesign is required. Minor degradation in performance will exist. All key performance requirements can be met, but margins are inadequate. Minor redesign is required.
4
RISK IMPACT
Substantial
3
Moderate
2
Minor
1
Negligible
Less than a 1 week delay in a Negligible degradation or no degradation in performance. Performance requirements can completion or delivery date be met, and adequate performance margins will exist. Redesign is not required. Less than 1 week earlier completion or delivery date 1 to 2-week earlier completion or delivery date Negligible or no improvement in performance. Performance requirements can be met, and adequate performance margins will result. Minor improvement in performance. All key performance requirements can be met, and adequate performance margins will result.
-1
Negligible
-2
Minor
Impact
Risk Impact -3 Cost decrease of 2 to 4-week earlier completion Moderate improvement in performance. All key performance requirements can be met, Probability to 15% 1or delivery date 2 3 4 5 Moderate 10% 0 and one or more other important performance requirements will be improved. Nil Negligible Minor Moderate Significant Severe -4 Cost decrease of 4 to 6-week earlier completion or Substantial improvement in performance. One or more key performance requirements will be E 3 delivery date 5 7 9 10 improved. Substantial 15% to 20% 0 Very Likely Low Med Medium Med Hi High High -5 D Cost decrease Greater than 6 weeks earlier 4 Significant improvement in performance. Two8 more key performance requirements will be or 2 6 9 0 completion improved. High Likely greater than 20% Low or delivery date Med Medium Low Med Hi High C 2 3 5 7 8 0 Possible Low Low Med Medium Med Hi Med Hi B 1 3 4 6 7 0 Unlikely Low Low Med Low Med Medium Med Hi A 1 2 3 5 6 0 Very Unlikely Low Low Low Med Medium Medium
v2.0
27
Assessment
Risk handling plans are designed to prevent or mitigate the risk Unlike recovery activity that is performed after the risk occurs, handling activity is performed between now and the time the risk might occur
v2.0
2 Identification
Identification Record
3 Analysis
Are cost, schedule and performance risk low?
NO YES
Analysis Record
Handling Plan
28
NOW
Future
Risk Event
Recovery
t0
t1
t2
Time
Handling plans may require resources that must be included in the proposal cost and schedule If a risk handling step reduces risk event probability or impact, then a risk reduction may occur following completion This allows a risk waterfall chart to be generated and included in the proposal to illustrate the plan for risk reduction
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
29
Review Requirements
Risk Score
10.Feb.02
10.May.02
Action/Step Points
Control Points
Projected
10.Aug.02
Projected Points
v2.0
21.Sep.02
12.Oct.02
30
Assessment
Risk monitoring is the periodic review of all risks by the Risk Management Board (RMB)
2 Identification
Identification Record
3 Analysis
Are cost, schedule and performance risk low?
NO YES
Analysis Record
The RMB typically meets monthly during the project, but may meet weekly during the proposal
Initial risk list is part of proposal
v2.0
Handling Plan
v2.0 10/30/03
32
Programmatic Risks
Technical Risks Each risk is typically scored high, medium or low based on criteria defined in your process 3. Describe your risk mitigation plans for the risks you have identified
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
33
v2.0
34
35
Provide a prioritizedOrder summary table: Figure 2.2-2. ERBS Risk Items in Priority risk
ERBS Risk Items No.
Title Risk Description
System problems listed could occur as late as I&T and after the design and manufacturing phase. Re-purchase of parts, redesign and manufacture might be necessary. If the JPL thermopile devices fail qualification testing, an alternate source of detectors will need to be identified and potential impact on related electronics will result.
Risk Analysis
Cost Perform Sched
M M
MH M
H M
Control
If mission analyses result in more demanding instrument specifications, then additional design effort will be required with associated cost increase and schedule slippage. If the proposed flex capsule design is not feasible or unsatisfactory in its manufacturability or performance, then an performance accepted or addressed in an alternate fashion.
Control
ERBS-004 Flex Capsule Availability alternate CERES-like design will be required and the EMC
LM
Control
v2.0
36
v2.0
37
v2.0
v2.0 10/30/03
39
v2.0
40
Variations in Application of RM
Not all proposal or project managers are trained in RM Wide variations among proposal team members too Different proposal teams view risk very differently Some teams want to reveal very little risk, fearing customer will think they are unable to perform Others want to show comprehensive risk list Programmatic risks Assumption risk, funding risk, geopolitical risk, etc.
41
Revisit risk impact assessments when schedule and other elements of the plan are updated
v2.0
42
Best solution: Revise individual risks impacted by change & reassess overall risk
Revisit the Monte Carlo analysis to determine revised confidence level (if available) Next Best: Make certain the project manager is aware that the proposal risk assessment was not updated after the last minute changes were made
v2.0 Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation
v2.0 10/30/03
44
v2.0