RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT NAME LAPINOU- E PET - FEEDER TEAM GIDAZ MEMBERS: SNEHA IYER DEEPIKA ZOEY ANDREA GREGORIO ANDREY
RISK MANAGEMENTPROJECT NAME
LAPINOU- E PET - FEEDERTEAM GIDAZ MEMBERS:
SNEHA IYERDEEPIKA
ZOEYANDREA
GREGORIOANDREY
TABLE OF CONTENTS1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE2. PROJECT SCOPE 3. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE4. RISK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 5. RISK TECHNIQUE – SWOT ANALYSIS & EXPERT JUDGEMENT6. RISK IMPACT INDEX – 4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES7. RISK IDENTIFICATION8. RISK PROBABILITY & IMPACT MATRIX9. RISK RESPONSE & COST10. EXPECTED MONETARY VALUE ANALYSIS11. RISK TRIGGERS12. RISK CONTROL13. CONCLUSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AN ELECTRONIC REMOTE CONTROL PET FEEDER THAT YOU USE TO MANAGE THE FEEDING ROUTINE OF YOUR PETS.
THIS PRODUCT INCLUDES FOOD REFILL SYSTEM, TIME SCHEDULE, CAMERA, VOICE RECORDER ETC.
OWNER CAN MONITOR THE PET’S FEEDING HABITS VIA PERSONAL ON A SPECIAL WEBSITE OR APP
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
• TO CREATE A PRODUCT THAT ENABLES THE PET OWNERS TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR PETS AND CONTROL THEIR FEEDING HABITS FROM DISTANCE
• TO DELIVER A SMART PRODUCT
• MANAGE THE PRODUCT WITH DIFFERENT DEVICES SUCH AS COMPUTER, SMARTPHONES AND TABLET.
PROJECT SCOPE
TO DEVELOP, INTEGRATE, TEST AND CONDUCT A PILOT RUN OF THE PRODUCT BEFORE ITS LAUNCH.
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY : DEMAND FOR IOT (INTERNET OF THINGS) MARKET DURATION ~ 8 MONTHS BUDGET - $800,000
QUALITY STANDARDS
LAPINOU - WBS
RISK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
1. Technical 4. Project Management3. Organizational2. External
1.1 Requirements
Gathering
1.2 Technology
1.3 Complexity and Interfaces
1.4 Performances and Reliability
1.5 Quality
2.1 Subcontractors
Suppliers
2.2 Regulatory
2.3 Market
2.4 Customer
2.5 Weather
3.1 Project Dependencies
3.2 Resources
3.3 Funding
3.4 Prioritization
4.1 Estimating
4.2 Planning
4.3 Controlling
4.4 Communication
RAM CHART
RISK ANALYSIS
RISK ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Documentation reviews Information gathering techniques Checklists analysis Assumptions analysis Diagramming techniques SWOT Analysis Expert judgment
REASON:
- Known risks, internal and external affecting factors may be well covered by SWOT
- New risks may be identified by experts with relevant experience with similar projects or situations
SWOT ANALYSISSTRENGTHS
- Proprietary technology to control pet’s experience remotely via app or website
- Data aggregation and analysis to predict better customer decisions
- Unique app features
WEAKNESS- Low product loyalty due to
complexity of the app- Possible connection mistakes
identified on the test stage- Low financial stability due to lack
of proper funding
OPPURTUNITIES- Being the #1 (first) tool on the
market to gain max market share- To sell adjacent pet products and
services (vet, insurance, security)- To partner with other
complimentary players in the category to improve marketing efficiency
THREATS – TOP 3- Inability to reach or hire technical
experts to work on the app development
- Delay in product delivery from the sub contractor
- Competitor’s product soon launch
IMAPCT SCALE – 4 MAJOR OBJECTIVESPROJECT
OBJECTIVES
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
QUALITY
Minor changes in applications
Moderate changes to be
made on requirements
Unacceptable quality level –
Six Sigma
SCOPEMinor areas are
impactedMajor areas impacted
Product does not match
requirementsCOST < 5 % cost impact 5 -10% cost
impact10 – 20% cost
impact
SCHEDULE5 – 10 % Schedule
impact10 – 15 %
Schedule impact< 20 %
Schedule impact
5 MAJOR RISKS IDENTIFIED & PROBABILITY INDEX
RISKS RISK AREA
RISK PROBABIL
ITY
RISK IMPACT
RISK SEVERITY
HORIZON
Inappropriate subcontractors Organizational 0.4 5 2 Near
Ineffective technical team Organizational 0.35 5 1.75 Near
Unable to get expected results in the initial stage of pilot run
External 0.3 5 1.5 Far
Unable to capture critical mass
External 0.45 3 1.35 Far
Safety requirements not followed while creating product
Project Management
0.25 5 1.25 Medium
PROBABILITY & IMPACT MATRIX
PROBABILITY THREATS
0.50 0.50 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.40 0.40 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
0.30 0.30 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
0.20 0.20 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.10 0.10 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1 - VERY LOW 2 - LOW 3 - MEDIUM 4 - HIGH 5 - VERY HIGH
RISK RESPONSERISK RESPONSE
Lack of appropriate subcontractors Avoid
Ineffective project team – not technically sound Mitigation
Unable to get expected results in our pilot run Avoid
Unable to capture critical mass in 1st 3 months Avoid
Safety requirements not followed while creating product Transfer
EARNED MONETRY VALUE ANALYSIS
TRAINING/
OUTSORCE
A. Outsource expert team
(Invest $12,000)
Strong knowledge- Effectiveness
($20,000)
Weak Knowledge-Effectiveness
( $9,000)
B. Provide team training
(Invest $5,000)
Strong knowledge- Effectiveness
($12,000)
Weak Knowledge- Effectiveness
( $6,000)
$20,000 - $12,000= $8,000
$9,000 - $12,000= ($3,000)
$12,000 -$5,000= $7,000
$6,000 - $5,000= $1,000
$3,600= 60%($8,000) + 40% (-$3000)
$4,600= 60%(7,000) + 40%(1,000)
= $8,000
= ($3,000)
= $7,000
= $1,000
Net Path ValueChance NodeDecision Node
Decision Definitio
n
60%
60%
40%
40%
RISK TRIGGERS
• INEXPERIENCED SUBCONTRACTORS• TEAM NOT FAMILIAR WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY • DATABASE FAILURE• DATABASE SECURITY RISK• BAD SCOPE • WRONG SEASON AND INEFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN • NOT FOLLOWING THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
CONTROL RISKS
REVIEW AND ANALYZE THE CONTRACTORS PREVIOUS PROJECTS RIGOROUS TESTING PROCESS GETTING A PRIOR APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE ANIMAL SAFETY
ORGANIZATION CERTIFYING ITS SAFETY WEEKLY REPORTS ON PROGRESS DEVELOPING A CLEAR AND DEVELOP SCOPE STATEMENT DOUBLE CHECK THE REQUIREMENT DOCUMENT WITH THE EXPERTS PROVIDING CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE USAGE OF THE PRODUCT FOR
THE USERS
CONCLUSIONWITH PROPER RISK MANAGEMENT:• WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY, MANAGE AND REDUCE OR
ELIMINATE OUR PROJECT RISKS • IN TURN RESULTING INTO POSITIVE RESULTS FOR OUR PRODUCT
THANK YOU