Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 75

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 74
74 Table 8.3. Example assessment of programming phase tools. Comments on Subject Matter Tools Examples of Use Future Experts Implementation Identification of Risks I2.1 Red Flag Items I2.3 Risk Checklists Risk Analysis R3.1 Risk Management Plan R3.2 Contingency-- Percentage R3.3 Contingency-- Identified Additional Tools Additional Tools 8.4.1 Assess Current Practices studies on appropriate projects. Again, depending on the tool, this effort might require the expertise of a risk manage- The agency should also assess the current use of tools that ment consultant. support the risk management process at the project level. With the use of either method of testing new tools, the Table 8.3 provides an example of how to assess tool use in one agency needs to have measures to determine if the tool is pro- project development phase. A similar table can be used to as- ducing the result intended. Users should comment on bene- sess tool use in other phases. The agency will want to exam- fits, deficiencies, and changes needed to improve tool imple- ine how the tool is being used and how successful it has been mentation. The tool may be dropped from consideration as a in a specific project application. permanent tool if the results are not satisfactory. To realize the full potential of this approach, Table 8.3 should be used in conjunction with a detailed review of the tools in Appendix A and the steps described in Chapters 5, 6, 8.4.3 Customize Tools to Fit Agency and 7. This is necessary because the detailed application of the The final activity of the project-level implementation would tools can vary, even within an agency. For example, the tool involve the development of agency-specific tools. The tool R3.2, Contingency to Percentage, can be applied in a number must fit within the policy directives regarding risk and the re- of different ways. Some agencies use a sliding scale contin- sources available to fully develop a customized tool for the gency band that ties to project development phases. Others agency. Any customization effort should consider the impact provide standard contingency values for use in each project and level of tool use across projects. development phase. The key in this example is to find the ap- proach that would best fit into the agency level of expertise re- lated to implementing risk management in relation to setting 8.5 Step Four Integrating contingency amounts. the System: A Strategic Plan If there are subject matter experts they should be identified. The previous sections describe the implementation of a risk Often times, the more sophisticated risk management tools management strategy, risk management steps, and risk man- will require an outside consultant to aid in implementing the agement tools at the organizational, program, and project lev- tool. This is particularly true for those tools that involve prob- els, respectively. While each of these elements is individually abilistic estimating. important, success will only be realized when the agency inte- grates these elements as a comprehensive long-term strategic initiative. The basis of any comprehensive strategy starts with a 8.4.2 Test New Tools vision that articulates management commitment and direction. The adoption of new or the revision of existing risk man- This vision addresses change and the need for a new process agement tools should involve testing and verification of their such as risk management. effectiveness. The consequences of implementing inappro- Table 8.4 provides an implementation framework to inte- priate tools that do not support risk management steps can grate the risk steps and tools in support of achieving the Risk lead to unanticipated cost and schedule impacts. Two meth- Strategy across the project development phases. The first col- ods can be followed when implementing new tools: testing umn identifies the project phase, in this case, planning. The the new tool in parallel with existing tools or conducting pilot second column identifies each of the five steps in the risk man-