Project Risk Management – Fluidity in Risk Planning Case Study

run a stake Paper 2 Project gamble Management- Professor Hurst Fluidity in Risk Planning A sideslip Study One of the most important amounts within a fancy is risk vigilance because it plans for and responds to risks that uphold the over only project deliverables including figure and timeframe. Risk perplexity is used to mitigate risk in ways that align with to from each one(prenominal) one individual risk and its potential impact. During the risk charge process risks argon put and defined and a plan to control, reminder and eliminate them is created.Risks from all areas are brought up during these brainstorming sessions of the risk management provision mannequin and are planned for accordingly. The work breakdown structure of the project is used as a guide when compiling a risk matrix that give identify potential risks, their severity and impacts. The graphic symbol learn in chapter 13 reflects two unalike risk response strategies with regards to the tender r eview process of a projects deliverables.The rootage variety angle of the shield study aligns more closely with a primitive and effective risk preparation process plan while the encourage course angle builds on the baselines determined by the first chassis to capture a more comforting and final risk assessment that will continue to be fluid throughout the project. Risk management is a crucial step of the project planning stage that continuously evolves throughout the project. During phase unity of the case study this stage is considered a mellowed importance and value step thus resulting in the proper planning of the risks based of off the WBS.The objectives of phase one are clearly identified and the intention to identify major risks of the project, which will be used as a baseline when comparing each individual tender to the projects risk outcomes, is clear and all major steps to do so are taken. Step one of the creating the tender phase one case study calls for the project structure to be reviewed with the project tutor and key staff and creating an agreed risk WBS. (Cooper, Grey, Raymond, Walker, 2005, p. 52) The first step calls for a meeting of all parties involved to review the WBS and drive brainstorming on potential risks. This is a highly advised step because it allows for proper risk identification and mutual understanding of the risks amongst all parties. word form one does a solid job identifying risks exploitation human resources, quantifiable measures and adequate documentation. Phase two uses the outcomes of phase one as a baseline and works of off those when comparing each tenderers bear to the risks and determining the impact the tender will have on each individual risk.Phase two uses the exact same process as phase one except it already has a baseline to work with whereas phase one creates the baseline. Both steps are highly regarded steps barely step two does a fail job at identifying risks because it uses the baseline of potential risks and compares them to the introduction of a new major risk, the tenderer, while bill its impact on the overall project. Phase two is the more solid one of the two phases because it demonstrates the fluidity of the risk planning process while quantifying each change to the baseline using the same approach as in phase one.The case study states that during phase two all revised risk likeliness and impact measures should be converted to numeric scales and risk factors should be recalculated. (Cooper, Grey, Raymond, Walker, 2005, p. 160) Thus phase two also does a better job at quantifying the risks because it compares each changed risk to the baseline and adjusts its ratings based on the proposed changes creating a more realistic understanding of the potential risk likelihood and impact. The case study was interesting because it showed the pre planning phase of the risk planning process.The pre planning phase was phase one because it created a baseline of faux ris ks while phase two built on this fluidity and showed the impacts each tenderer would have on these risks. Essentially phase one of the case study directed phase two since phase two could not be completed without the identified baselines. Phase one was a simpler stage of the case study because it consisted of brainstorming and risk identification without taking into consideration the absolute or negative impacts a third party would have. This does not beggarly that it didnt plan for those as phase two was to follow at one time tender submissions were received.Phase two, however, had a more compelling assessment of risk because it had a map already outline and it just needed to follow it to number at the shell possible location or situation. The first phase identified risk assessment formulas to quantify the risks it created a baseline of risks and examine proof steps to follow. With those results in mind, the second phase was more concrete because it followed the steps set fort h by the first phase, analyzed the impact of the actions of the tenderer on the baseline risks, assessed those, anked them and then assigned numerical values using the formula set forth in the first phase. These two cases are so much alike yet they are so different as well. They are alike because they use the same process to identify and rank risks but their baselines are different. The first case, phase one, started with a space slate using the WBS to identify risks while the second case, phase two, used the baseline set forth by the first phase and used the WBS to explore new ways and their impacts on the overall project.Both phases of this case study are crucial in risk management projects and are enforceable whether a tender is requested or not. Risk management is a fluid process that calls for constant adjustments to achieve the best possible outcome with minimal if not zero interruptions of the projects deliverables. This case study showed the importance of constant review of risks and the work that goes into risk avoidance and mitigation.Risk avoidance does not only occur during the initial phase of risk planning but it is something that project managers prefer to keep in mind with every step they take, whether this means hiring contractors, employees or support staff, each individual and their actions will impact the overall risk of the project, the question is how bad? References Cooper, D. , Grey, S, Raymond, G. , Walker, P. (2005). Project Risk Management Guidelines Managing Risk in Large Projects and multifactorial Procurements. West Sussex, England Wiley and Sons.