178 lines
14 KiB
Markdown
178 lines
14 KiB
Markdown
<!-- markdownlint-disable-next-line MD041 -->
|
|
##### Project
|
|
|
|
::[PROJECT-NAME](Home)
|
|
|
|
##### Internal Release Number
|
|
|
|
::X.Y.Z
|
|
|
|
##### Related Documents
|
|
|
|
- [Project plan](Project-Plan)
|
|
- [Software development methodology](SDM)
|
|
|
|
##### References
|
|
|
|
- [Risk Management during Requirements](http://www.systemsguild.com/pdfs/s5req.lo%201.pdf) by Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister
|
|
- [Taxonomy-Based Risk Identification](http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/93.reports/pdf/tr06.93.pdf) by Carr, Konda, Monarch, Ulrich, and Walker (SEI)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Process impact:** This document records the major project risks, and
|
|
plans to control them. For each risk the plan should include:
|
|
|
|
- Mitigation plan
|
|
- Measures you will carry out now, to reduce the likelihood and/or
|
|
impact of the risk. Alternatively, you can decide to accept
|
|
the risk.
|
|
- Indicator
|
|
- A sign you will monitor to determine if the risk is beginning to
|
|
have an impact on the project.
|
|
- Contingency plan
|
|
- What you will do if the risk does arise. You can specify some
|
|
general contingency plans. In this case you only need to give a
|
|
contingency plan if you have a special one for the particular risk.
|
|
|
|
The severity of a risk is its likelihood multiplied by its impact. Risks
|
|
are classified as minor if they have low likelihood, negligible impact,
|
|
or medium likelihood and marginal impact.
|
|
|
|
*TODO: You should update these lists regularly. They should be reviewed
|
|
by customers and developers from time to time.*
|
|
|
|
### General contingency plans
|
|
|
|
#### Catastrophic risks
|
|
|
|
::If a catastrophic risk occurs we will make an honest reassessment of
|
|
the viability of the project and involve the relevant
|
|
project stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
::If a catastrophic risk occurs we will cancel the project. We will
|
|
take away our lessons learned and any valuable project bi-products.
|
|
|
|
::We do not recognize any catastrophic risks. If one occurs we will
|
|
pretend everything is fine and hope that none of the
|
|
stakeholders notice.
|
|
|
|
#### Risks that consume development resources
|
|
|
|
::The project has a fixed deadline. The requirements are prioritized.
|
|
If we lose time, we will reduce project scope.
|
|
|
|
::The features specified are all essential If we lose time, we will
|
|
delay delivery.
|
|
|
|
::If we lose time, we will make time estimates for the remaining
|
|
features, and meet with the customers to reconsider scope and
|
|
delivery date.
|
|
|
|
#### ::OTHER RISK TYPE
|
|
|
|
::OTHER CONTINGENCY PLAN
|
|
|
|
### Major risks
|
|
|
|
| Name | Description | Likelihood | Impact | Plan | Status | Owner |
|
|
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
|
|
| ::Requirements | Requirements are only partly known at project start. Customers may not allocate sufficient resources to exploring requirements. | Medium | Critical to Catastrophic | Requirements will be detailed first for the top priority goals. Indicator: Track the rate at which requirements are discovered. Contingency: request more customer effort. | Amber | Requirements Lead |
|
|
| ::Goals | Stakeholders goals may conflict. | Medium | Critical | Keep an explicit list of stakeholders goals. The project manager will report progress to each declared goal. | Green | Customers |
|
|
| ::Communication | Communication problems in development team. They are dispersed among several sites, and have not worked together before. | Medium | Critical | Use these [tools](SDM#communication) to help communication. The main indicator of miscommunication will be software defects detected by our [QA activity](qa-plan). | Green | QA lead |
|
|
| ::Acceptance | Customer may accept delivery of the system although it does not really meet their goals. | Medium | Critical | Customers are asked to declare acceptance criteria as each release is planned. | Green | Customers |
|
|
| ::Scope | The total features requested may be beyond what the development team can deliver in the time available. | High | Marginal | Assign levels of important to the use cases. Make the first review of project scope after 12 months. | Green | Customers |
|
|
|
|
### Minor risks
|
|
|
|
*TODO: Review this list regularly, to decide whether the likelihood or
|
|
impact of a risk has increased to make it a "major" risk.*
|
|
|
|
| Name | Description | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Strategy | Status | Owner |
|
|
|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|
|
|
| ::Estimate | The development team might not be able to estimate the work time, preventing customers from deciding priorities effectively. | Medium | Marginal | The development team will gain experience in estimating the work, and deliver the first estimates after 12 months. We will compare estimated work to actual work. | Green | Project Manager |
|
|
| ::Retention | Some developers may leave the project before it is finished. | Medium | Marginal | Employing locations should provide support for continuing professional development. The project manager will discuss career goals with each developer, and try to assign tasks appropriately. | Green | Project Manager |
|
|
| ::Correctness | The system as delivered may have low take-up because of a lack of confidence in its correctness. | Low | Catastrophic | State of the art [QA activity](QA-Plan). Contingency: stop development of new facilities until the quality of the existing code is assured. | Green | QA Lead |
|
|
| ::Usability | The system as delivered may have low take-up because of poor usability. | Low | Critical | We will have a UI style guide. Most of the development of the front end will be in close contact with customers. We will review usability later in the project. | Green | UI design lead |
|
|
| ::Desire | The stated requirements might not match the customers' desires and ambitions for the system. | Low | Critical | Incremental delivery of versions will provide experience of using the system, which will help the customers to identify the real requirements. Indicator: a developer saying "I think they mean ...", a customer saying "They know what I mean". Contingency: request customer review of requirements. | Green | Customers |
|
|
| ::Changes | After requirements have been documented and agreed, development activities begin to based on them, first design then implementation. If the requirements change later then effort is wasted. | Low | Critical | A change control procedure is required, so changes are only made when the cost is worthwhile. Indicator: compare cost of change to new development. Contingency: request customer review of requirements. | Green | Project Manager |
|
|
| ::Process | Some developers may not cooperate in common standards and processes. | Low | Critical | QA to check conformance, then discussions in development team meetings to change the standard or the actual practice as appropriate. | Green | QA Lead |
|
|
| ::Maintainability | The system as delivered might be hard to maintain. | Low | Marginal | We will review the code for maintainability. | Green | Lead Developer |
|
|
| ::RISK-NAME | ONE-TO-THREE-SENTENCES | Low or Medium or High | Negligible or Marginal or Critical or Catastrophic | ONE-TO-THREE-SENTENCES | Red or Amber or Green | PERSON-NAME |
|
|
|
|
#### Possible risk status values
|
|
|
|
##### Red
|
|
|
|
Active & impacting project
|
|
|
|
##### Amber
|
|
|
|
Active but contained without impact to scope or delivery time.
|
|
|
|
##### Green
|
|
|
|
Not yet active
|
|
|
|
### Risk Checklist
|
|
|
|
#### Do the plans provide an indicator to detect each of the risks becoming active?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, if all activities are carried out as planned, we will know if any
|
|
of the risks is becoming troublesome.
|
|
|
|
::No, some risks could creep up on us.
|
|
|
|
#### Are the right "risk owners" assigned to monitor the risks?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, for each risk the assigned owner can detect the indicator, can
|
|
launch the contingency plan, and is the person who will suffer by
|
|
the risk.
|
|
|
|
::No, in some cases the assigned owner may not notice or care, or does
|
|
not have sufficient authority.
|
|
|
|
#### Does each risk have a mitigation strategy, or is the risk acceptable?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, we have plans to control each risk.
|
|
|
|
::Yes, we have plans to control some risks, and have accepted others.
|
|
|
|
::No, this plan leaves open several risks.
|
|
|
|
#### Does each risk have a contingency plan?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, most risks cost development time and the general plan applies,
|
|
and for each of the others there is a contingency plan above.
|
|
|
|
::No, there are some risks we still have to plan for.
|
|
|
|
#### Has this Risk Control Plan been communicated to the development team and other stakeholders?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, this document is being posted to the project website. It will
|
|
also be discussed at an early team meeting, and discussed with the
|
|
customers before the commit to the project. Comments are welcome.
|
|
|
|
::No, our culture does not allow discussion of risks.
|
|
|
|
#### Is there a procedure in place for identifying new risks and reviewing the existing ones?
|
|
|
|
::TBD
|
|
|
|
#### In the light of these risks, is the project worth carrying out?
|
|
|
|
::Yes, it is a low risk project
|
|
|
|
::No, other projects can deliver as much value at lower risk.
|
|
|
|
::Yes. It is an unusually risky project by commercial standards, but
|
|
we believe we have adequate plans here, considering the value that
|
|
the project could deliver.
|
|
|
|
#### Is there an anonymous reporting channel, to allow developers to communicate concerns to senior management?
|
|
|
|
::Yes
|
|
RISKNAME
|
|
RISKNAME and strength of character of
|
|
RISKNAME
|
|
RISKNAME
|