respond with one paragraph for each page (3 paragraphs)

1. 2. How would you account for CCPM implementation risk in the risk management plan? How would you classify and control CCPM risk? 

Leach discussed a number of actions one may take to account for project risk. One recommendation was to schedule high-risk activities early in the process. This would let you get the difficult projects out of the way first that may eat into the buffer. Leach also stated to monitor to determine if chances of risk are increasing. For example, if weather was a risk identified that could delay the process, one should monitor the weather up to the project date to see if the likelihood of a potential issue increases or decreases. Developing a risk matrix that includes the probability and consequences of the potential risks would also help classify and control CCPM risk. The matrix would outline all potential issues and would weight each risk based on probability and conesquences. Table 10.1 on page 257 is a great example.

References

Leach, L., P. (2014). Critical chain project management (3rd ed.). Norwood, MA: Artech House

Bottom of Form

2-Bottom of Form

As Leach points out CCPM risk management plans only require special cause risk focus because the process itself handles common cause risk (2014, p. 254) for schedule and cost.  He defines risk as the composition of probability of occurrence and the resulting consequence or impact.  In the risk matrix, he quantifies each and multiplies them together to quantify the risk so appropriate action can be determined.  I consider the risk statement he shares from Hilson and the matrix example he provides (2014, pp 256 – 257) useful to a risk management plan.  The list of risk types is a nice foundation for determining areas to consider as well (p. 254) and I am partial to the team approach in determining risk.  The matrix is similar to a team generated process FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) but less complex and I have encountered some of the human factor pitfalls he shares.  An ex-employee of our company suggested attempting to list everything that could go wrong is like trying to chase infinity and suggested asking “What must go right” then error proofing those items (Casey, 2008).  This may be another way to keep the team focused, insure the risk matrix doesn’t become too large and potentially mitigate a risk altogether.

Leach suggests classifying probability as low (1-5%), moderate (5-20%), and high (20-50%) with anything over 50%.being likely and listed in project assumptions (2014, p. 261), which I found reasonable.  From the text, low and moderate were too similar to provide adequate granularity for differentiation.  Low does not exceed 20% of the schedule, moderate consumes 20%, and high could exceed the buffer.  However, upon closer review of the risk matrix, a more useable scale was found: low is less than 20%, moderate is 20 to 100%, and high is more than the buffer.  This classification scheme is acceptable.

Leach has significant CCPM project experience and except for poor editing of the text, his recommendations are sound and supported where possible.  I would use this guidance in developing the risk plan, classifying the risk and developing indicators to control identified risks.  The fever chart would, of course, be one of the risk control tools used.

Casey, J. J. (2008). Strategic error-proofing: achieving success every time with smarter FMEAs. Boca Raton, FL:  CRC Press.

Leach, L. P. (2014). Critical chain project management. (3rd ed.).  Boston, MA:  Artech House.

3-

2. How would you account for CCPM implementation risk in the risk management plan? How would you classify and control CCPM risk? 

CCPM implementation risks could potentially fall under all of the risks types: program, business, cost, schedule, health and safety, environmental and regulatory risks. I prefer a qualitative risks assessments, even though quantifiable information is easier to interpret, the numbers are subjective.

I believe Bernstein said it the best ““The essence of risk management lies in maximizing the areas where we have some control over the outcome while minimizing the areas where we have absolutely no control over the outcome and the linkage between effect and cause is hidden from us” (Bernstein, 1996). Basically, we need to breakdown the CCPM implementation, find the factors we can control and maximize our control.  The factors we can control include proper documentations, using appropriate buffers, educating employees and getting their buy-in in the implementation phase.

            All of the risks should be classified as probability of the risks (high, moderate, low) and  risk impact (high impact, moderate, low).  This would develop a chart to figure out where each potential risks would fall. There is a control to help mitigate each area of risk. The three controls include risk monitoring, mitigate and planning.

Bernstein, P. L., Against the Gods, The Remarkable Story of Risk, New York: Wiley, 1996.