Risk management

STEP BY STEP RISK MANAGEMENT
FOR PROJECTS IN THE BUILDING
SECTOR.

CONSTRUTORA IBEN LTDA.

PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT ACTS ON THE UNCERTAINTIES AIMING AT INCREASING PROBABILITY
AND IMPACT OF POSITIVE EVENTS, THE OPPORTUNITIES, AND REDUCING PROBABILITY AND IMPACT
OF NEGATIVE EVENTS, THE THREATS.

IN OTHER WORDS, RISK MANAGEMENT INCLUDES THE PROCESSES REQUIRED FOR THE CONTROL
OF PREDICTABLE EVENTS SO AS TO FAVOR PROJECT SUCCESS. CERTAIN STEPS ARE IMPORTANT
FOR A SUCCESSFUL RISK MANAGEMENT.

THIS METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CALCULATING THE EXPECTED
VALUE OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTRACTS, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE PREMIUM TO BE
PAID BY AN INSURED PARTY. THE ADVANTAGE IN THIS IS THAT, WHEN WE MANAGE OUR OWN RISKS,
WE HAVE THE POWER NOT ONLY TO IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY THEM, BUT ALSO TO DIRECT THEM SO
AS TO FAVOR OUR INTERESTS.

THE APPLICATION OF SAID KNOWLEDGE MAKES DECISION MAKING SAFER, GUIDES ACTIONS DURING
THE PROJECT, INCREASES COMPANY COMPETITIVENESS AND TURNS UNCERTAIN EVENTS INTO
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFITEERING.


FOR PROJECTS, RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESSES GUIDE THE PLANNING, IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS,
RESPONSE PLANNING, MONITORING AND CONTROL OF RISKS.

THIS METHODLOGY MUST BE APPLIED STEP BY STEP AND COUNT ON EXPERT CONSULTANCY AND
SUPPORT IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PROJECT STEERING.

EXPERT OPINION ADVISES EVERY SINGLE TECHNICAL DETAIL AND MAY BE PROVIDED BY ANY
GROUP OR PERSON WHO HAS SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OR TRAINING, AND IS AVAILABLE THROUGH
SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES.

KNOWLEDGE ON THE REGIONAL SCENARIO, PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGIES AND
EXPERIENCE IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE KEY TO CHANNEL THOSE FACTORS WHICH
USUALLY CATALYZE SUCCESS IN RISK MANAGEMENT.

THE MATURITY OF A COMPANY IN UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT AND BENEFICIAL EVENT
MANIPULATION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VIA SYSTEMATIC COLLECTION
AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL LEARNT LESSONS.


RISK IDENTIFICATION

RISK IDENTIFICATION IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT. BOTH A LIST OF
THREATS AND A LIST OF OPPORTUNITIES MUST BE PREPARED, INDICATING ROOT CAUSES,
PROBABILITY FOCI, HARMFUL IMPACTS AND IMPACT FOCI.

Threats
Cause Effect
Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing
Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution
Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications
Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting
Initial services performed by another company Scope Gap or Buffer
Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes
Competition for labor Increased labor costs
Work-related accidents Indemnifications and leaves of absence
Insufficient human resources Work behind schedule and increased indirect costs
Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing
Ignoring risks Lack of influence over threats
Robbery and/or theft Associated losses
Defaulting Financial Costs
Pending approvals and regularizations Change


RISK IDENTIFICATION

RISK IDENTIFICATION IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT. BOTH A LIST OF
THREATS AND A LIST OF OPPORTUNITIES MUST BE PREPARED, INDICATING ROOT CAUSES,
PROBABILITY FOCI, HARMFUL IMPACTS AND IMPACT FOCI.

Opportunities
Cause Effect
Outsourcing Reduced charges
Mass/Scale purchasing Increased bargaining power
Proximity to labor supplying neighborhoods Reduced commuting expenditures


RISK IDENTIFICATION

THIS IS AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS WHICH TAKES PLACE ALONG THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF THE
PROJECT, NEW RISKS MAY BE IDENTIFIED AND RANKED AS THE TEAM NOTICES THEM.

FURTHER AHEAD WE SHALL SEE HOW THOSE RISKS NOT IDENTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING MAY BE
ACCOUNTED FOR IN ASSESSING THE EXPECTED VALUE OF THE RISKS WITHOUT BURDENING THE
INITIAL EXPECTATIONS UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED.


QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS IS RISK PROBABILITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT AIMING AT
ESTIMATING RISK LEVELS VIA THE PROBABILITY X IMPACT FORMULA.
LOWER LEVEL RISKS MAY BE CONSIDERED FALSE AND FILED, ACCORDING TO THE RISK TOLERANCE
POLICY OF THE COMPANY. MORE RELEVANT RISKS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE RANKED FOR
MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE PURPOSES.

Risk Analysis
Context Risk level (GR)
Very
0.90 High GR>0.1 TRUE
0.70 High GR<0.1 FALSE
0.50 Medium
0.30 Low
0.10 Very Low



ASSESSING PROBABILITY AND IMPACT LEVELS REDUCE THE BIAS IN RISK PRIORITISATION AND
THEIR ANALYSIS ALLOWS TO ASSESS THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH RISK FOR THE PROJECT.

Threats
Number Cause Effect Probability Impact Risk Level Validation
1Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing 0.90 0.50 0.45 TRUE
2Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution 0.90 0.30 0.27 TRUE
3Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications 0.70 0.30 0.21 TRUE
4Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting 0.50 0.50 0.25 TRUE
5Initial services performed by another company Scope Gap or Buffer 0.50 0.30 0.15 TRUE
6Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes 0.50 0.70 0.35 TRUE
7Competition for labor Increased labor costs 0.70 0.50 0.35 TRUE
8Work-related accidents Indemnifications and leaves of absence 0.70 0.50 0.35 TRUE
Work behind schedule and increased indirect
9Insufficient human resources costs 0.70 0.50 0.35 TRUE
10Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing 0.70 0.30 0.21 TRUE
11Ignoring risks Lack of influence over threats 0.10 0.90 0.09 FALSE
12Robbery and/or theft Associated losses 0.30 0.30 0.09 FALSE
13Defaulting Financial Costs 0.10 0.30 0.03 FALSE
14Pending approvals and regularizations Change 0.30 0.30 0.09 FALSE
15 - FALSE



ASSESSING PROBABILITY AND IMPACT LEVELS REDUCE THE BIAS IN RISK PRIORITISATION AND
THEIR ANALYSIS ALLOWS TO ASSESS THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH RISK FOR THE PROJECT.

Opportunities
Number Cause Effect Probab. Impact Level of Risk Validation
1Outsourcing Reduced charges 0.50 0.50 0.25 TRUE
2Mass/Scale purchasing Increased bargaining power 0.70 0.50 0.35 TRUE
3Proximity to labor supplying neighborhoods Reduced commuting expenditures 0.90 0.30 0.27 TRUE
4 - FALSE
5 - FALSE
6 - FALSE
7 - FALSE
8 - FALSE
9 - FALSE
10 - FALSE
11 - FALSE
12 - FALSE
13 - FALSE
14 - FALSE
15 - FALSE



ALONG THIS PROCESS WE MAY ALSO CATEGORIZE RISKS ACCORDING TO THEIR CAUSES OR
EFFECTS, OR EVEN REFINE PRIORITISATION BY ONE ON ONE COMPARISON OF THE RISKS.
IN THE EXAMPLE BELOW, THE LAST RISK IN THE TABLE IS DEEMED AS BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT
AND SHALL BE PRIORITIZED; MOREOVER, CATEGORY 0001, WHICH IS LABOR RELATED, IS THE ONE
FEATURING THE LARGEST NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED RISKS AND AN INTEGRATED ACTION PLAN IS TO
ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY.

Low quality and reworks Low quality and frequent redoing
High level of outsourcing Intense/Widespread outsourcing Error on the performance Incorrect execution
Paralelism between projects and Need for reinforcement of the
performance Parallel work/projects structure Need for structural retrofitting
Lack of human resources in Buffer or Gap of scope Scope Gap or Buffer
sufficient number Insufficient human resources Increase of price of materials and
labor Increased materials and labor prizes
Increase of costs with labor Increased labor costs
Work behind schedule and Work behind schedule and increased
increase of the indirect cost indirect costs
Provision of warranty Warranty covered servicing
Lack of influence on the threats Lack of influence over threats


QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS COMPRISES NUMERICAL RISK ANALYSIS VIA THE RISK IDENTIFICATION,
CATEGORIZING AND PRIORITISATION PERFORMED ALONG QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS. IMPACTS ON
RISK AFFECTED ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES ARE HEREBY NUMERICALLY ASSESSED, VIA
INDIVIDUALIZED CALCULATION OF EXPECTED RISK VALUE OR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ADDED
RISKS HAVE ON THE PROJECT.

EXPECTED VALUE = PROBABILITY X IMPACT.

Threats
Number Cause Effect Probab. Impact Expected Value
1Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing 90.00% R$ 1,140.392.56 R$ 1,026,353.30
2Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution 90.00% R$ 346,583.92 R$ 311,925.53
3Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications 70.00% R$ 337,359.64 R$ 236,151.75
4Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting 50.00% R$ 456,157.02 R$ 228,078.51
5Initial services performed by another company Scope Gap or Buffer 50.00% R$ 114,039.26 R$ 57,019.63
6Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes 50.00% R$ 1,732,919.60 R$ 866,459.80
7Competition for labor Increased labor costs 70.00% R$ 1,346,015.46 R$ 942,210.82
8Work-related accidents Indemnifications and leaves of absence 70.00% R$ 432,503.64 R$ 302,752.55
Work behind schedule and increased indirect
9Insufficient human resources costs 70.00% R$ 479,087.53 R$ 335,361.27
10Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing 70.00% R$ 558,566.29 R$ 390.996.40
Totals R$ (6,943,624.91) R$ (4,697,309.56)



QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS COMPRISES NUMERICAL RISK ANALYSIS VIA THE RISK IDENTIFICATION,
CATEGORIZING AND PRIORITISATION PERFORMED ALONG QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS. IMPACTS ON
RISK AFFECTED ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES ARE HEREBY NUMERICALLY ASSESSED, VIA
INDIVIDUALIZED CALCULATION OF EXPECTED RISK VALUE OR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ADDED
RISKS HAVE ON THE PROJECT.

EXPECTED VALUE = PROBABILITY X IMPACT.

Opportunities
Number Cause Effect Probab. Impact Expected Value
1Outsourcing Reduced charges 50.00% R$ 1,265,098.67 R$ 632,549.33
2Mass/Scale purchasing Increased bargaining power 70.00% R$ 553,735.08 R$ 387,614.56
3Proximity to labor supplying neighborhoods Reduced commuting expenditures 90.00% R$ 421,699.56 R$ 379,529.60
Total R$ 2,240.533.30 R$ 1,399,693.49



AGGREGATE EFFECT OF RISKS ON THE PROJECT DETERMINE THE EXPECTED VALUE FOR THE
PROJECT IN THE PRESENCE OF RISK.
EXPECTED VALUE OF THE PROJECT WITH RISKS = BASE VALUE OF WORK + THREATS +
OPPORTUNITIES.

AT THIS TIME, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE TO PERFORM BEST CASE (ACCOUNTING FOR OPPORTUNITIES
ONLY) AND WORST CASE (ACCOUNTING FOR THREATS ONLY) VALUES CALCULATION.

Expected value – Prior to reaction

Result Analysis
Base Value of Work R$ 34,658,391.90
Risks – Threats R$ (4,697,309.56)
Risks – Opportunities R$ 1,399,693.49
Expected Value of the Project (accounting for Risks) R$ 37,956,007.97
Expected Value - Best Case Scenario R$ 32,417,858.60
Expected Value - Worst Case Scenario R$ 41,602,016.82


PLANNING RISK RESPONSE

IT IS FROM THIS POINT ON THAT THE PMO STARTS INTERFERING ON RISK EVENTS AND IMPACTS.
THE PRECISE IDENTIFICATION WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO BEGIN THIS PHASE WITH PARAMETERS ON
WHICH TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE PROJECT.

WHAT STRATEGY SHALL WE USE TO TACKLE EACH RISK? IS THERE A REACTION TO THE RISK?
WHICH IS THE COST/BENEFIT OF SAID REACTION? WHEN MUST IT BE TAKEN AND BY WHOM?

THERE ARE 04 BASIC RESPONSE TO RISK STRATEGIES, NAMELY;

- ELIMINATE OR CAUSE = RESPECTIVELY TURNING THE PROBABILITY OF THREATS/OPPORTUNITIES
TO 0%/100%.

- TRANSFER OR SHARE = RESPECTIVELY OUTSOURCING THE IMPACT/ACTION OF
THREATS/OPPORTUNITIES.

- MITIGATE OR LEVERAGE = RESPECTIVELY REDUCING/INCREASING THE PROBABILITY AND/OR
IMPACT OF THREATS/OPPORTUNITIES.

- SOAK = WHEN COST/BENEFIT OF A GIVEN REACTION IS UNJUSTIFIABLE AND THE RISK IS THEN
ACCEPTED AND MONITORED.



A GIVEN REACTION MAY BE ALSO RANKED AS CONTAINMENT OR CONTINGENCY, I.E., CONTAINMENT
IS ANY REACTION PERFORMED REGARDLESS OF RISK EVENT OCCURRENCE, WHILE CONTINGENCY
IS THAT REACTION PERFORMED AS A GIVEN RISK EVENT TAKE PLACE.

Reaction - Containment or Contingency of Risk - Threats

Cause Effect Expected Value Moment Strategy. Probab. Impact
1 Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing 1,026,353.30 Contingency Mitigate 90.00% 1,140.392.56
2 Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution 311,925.53 Contingency Mitigate 90.00% 346,583.92
3 Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications 236,151.75 Contingency Mitigate 70.00% 337,359.64
4 Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting 228,078.51 Contingency Transfer 50.00% 456,157.02
Initial services performed by another
5 company Scope Gap or Buffer 57,019.63 Containment Accept 50.00% 114,039.26
6 Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes 866,459.80 Contingency Mitigate 50.00% 1,732,919.60
7 Competition for labor Increased labor costs 942,210.82 Contingency Mitigate 70.00% 1,346,015.46
Indemnifications and leaves of
8 Work-related accidents absence 302,752.55 Contingency Mitigate 70.00% 432,503.64
Work behind schedule and increased
9 Insufficient human resources indirect costs 335,361.27 Contingency Mitigate 70.00% 479,087.53
10 Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing 390.996.40 Containment Mitigate 70.00% 558,566.29
11 Ignoring risks Lack of influence over threats - Contingency Transfer 10.00% -
(4,697,309.56) (6,943,624.91)



REACTIONS ARE TO BE LISTED AND ASSOCIATED COSTS CALCULATED.

Probabilit
Cause Effect Expected Value Reaction Moment Strategy. $ Reaction y Impact
1 Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing 1,026,353,30 Quality/Contract Control Contingency Mitigate 75,000.00 90.00% 30.00% 1,140.392,56
2 Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution 311,925,53 Compatibility of Project Contingency Mitigate 30,000.00 90.00% 30.00% 346,583,92
3 Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications 236,151,75 3rd Party Document Control Contingency Mitigate 90,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 337,359,64
4 Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting 228,078,51 Performance Clause Contingency Transfer 10,000.00 50.00% 10.00% 456,157,02
5 company Scope Gap or Buffer 57,019,63 Soak Containment Accept - 50.00% 50.00% 114,039,26
6 Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes 866,459,80 Anticipated purchase Contingency Mitigate - 50.00% 30.00% 1,732,919,60
7 Competition for labor Increased labor costs 942,210.82 Labor Fidelity Contingency Mitigate 150,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 1,346,015,46
8 Work-related accidents absence 302,752,55 Safety Technician Contingency Mitigate 135,000.00 70.00% 10.00% 432,503,64
9 Insufficient human resources indirect costs 335,361,27 Fund raising agencies Contingency Mitigate 30,000.00 70.00% 10.00% 479,087,53
10 Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing 390.996,40 Quality/Contract Control Containment Mitigate 75,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 558,566,29
11 Ignoring risks Lack of influence over threats - Net Premium Contingency Transfer 200,000.00 10.00% 0.00% -
(4,697,309,56) 595,000.00 (6,943,624,91)



SINCE REACTIONS INTERFERE IN THE FUTURE OF THE RISKS, THE NEXT STEP IS TO REASSESS
EXPECTED RISK VALUES AND COMPARE THE RESULTS TO THOSE PRIOR TO REACTIONS.

New
Cause Effect Expected Value Reaction Moment Strategy. $ Reaction Probab. Probab. Impact New E.V.
1 Intense/Widespread outsourcing Low quality and frequent redoing 1,026,353.30 Quality/Contract Control Contingency Mitigate 75,000.00 90.00% 30.00% 1,140,392.56 342,117,77
2 Parallel work/projects Incorrect execution 311,925.53 Compatibility of Project Contingency Mitigate 30,000.00 90.00% 30.00% 346,583.92 103,975,.8
3 Labor claims Costs with claims and indemnifications 236,151.75 3rd Party Document Control Contingency Mitigate 90,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 337,359.64 101,207.89
4 Low performance of structural inputs Need for structural retrofitting 228,078.51 Performance Clause Contingency Transfer 10,000.00 50.00% 10.00% 456,157.02 45,615.70
5 company Scope Gap or Buffer 57,019.63 Soak Containment Soak - 50.00% 50.00% 114,039.26 57,019.63
6 Inflation above expectations Increased materials and labor prizes 866,459.80 Anticipated purchase Contingency Mitigate - 50.00% 30.00% 1,732,919.60 519,875.88
7 Competition for labor Increased labor costs 942,210.82 Labor Fidelity Contingency Mitigate 150,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 1,346,015.46 403,804.64
8 Work-related accidents absence 302,752.55 Safety Technician Contingency Mitigate 135,000.00 70.00% 10.00% 432,503.64 43,250.36
9 Insufficient human resources indirect costs 335,361.27 Fund raising agencies Contingency Mitigate 30,000.00 70.00% 10.00% 479,087.53 47,908.75
10 Problems after delivery of the product Warranty covered servicing 390.996.40 Quality/Contract Control Containment Mitigate 75,000.00 70.00% 30.00% 558,566.29 167,569.89
11 Ignoring risks Lack of influence over threats - Net Premium Contingency Transfer 200,000.00 10.00% 0.00% - -

(4,697,309,56) 595,000.00 (6,943,624.91)(1,832,345.69)


Expected value prior to reactions

Result Analysis
Risks – Threats R$ (4,697,309.56)
Expected Value of the Project (accounting for Risks) R$ 37,956,007.97
Expected Value - Best Case Scenario R$ 32,417,858.60
Expected Value - Worst Case Scenario R$ 41,602,016.82

Expected value accounting for reactions

Result Analysis
Base Value of Work R$ 34,658,391,90
Reaction cost for threats R$ 595,000.00
Reaction cost for opportunities R$ -
New Base Value of Work R$ 35,253,391.90
Risks – Threats R$ (1,832,345.69)
Management Reserves R$ -
Expected Value of the Project Accounting for Risks (POST-REACTION) R$ 35,686,044.10
Expected Value - Best Case Scenario (Improbable) R$ 33,012,858.60
Expected Value - Worst Case Scenario (Improbable) R$ 42,197,016.82
Expected Value - Best Case Scenario (Probable) R$ 33,853,698.41
Expected Value - Worst Case Scenario (Probable) R$ 37,085,737.59
Improbable Worst Case Scenario Risk Differential R$ 7,538,624.91
Probable Worst Case Scenario Risk Differential R$ 2,427,345.69
Most Probable Scenario Risk Differential R$ 1,027,652.20
Probable Best Case Scenario Risk Differential R$ (804,693.49)
Improbable Best Case Scenario Risk Differential R$ (1,645,533.30)



THE MOST PROBABLE RISK DIFFERENTIAL POST-REACTION INCREASED THE BASE VALUE OF WORK
IN 2.97%.
THIS FIGURE IS THE SUPERIOR ACCEPTABLE THRESHOLD (“CEILING”) FOR RISK IMPACT FOR THIS
PROJECT.
Expected value Post-reaction

Result Analysis
Risks – Threats R$ (1,832,345.69)



METRICS FOR RISK PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE BASED ON THE EXPECTED VALUE FOR
THE PROBABLE BEST CASE SCENARIO.
IDR (RISK PERFORMANCE INDEX) SHALL BE A FUNCTION OF SAID FIGURE. ACHIEVED GOALS IMPLY
IDR = 100%.
Expected value Post-reaction

Result Analysis
Risks – Threats R$ (1,832,345.69)


RISK MONITORING AND CONTROL

AS A RULE OF THUMB, BUILDING COMPANIES INCLUDE IN THEIR PROJECT COST CALCULATIONS
RISKS RANGING FROM 3% TO 5%.

THIS PARAMETER HAS BEEN UNDULY RELIED ON, SINCE IGNORED AND UNMANAGED RISK TENDS TO
STAY WITHIN SAID MARGINS.

THE FACT IS THAT RISK MANAGEMENT MAY TURN UNCERTAINTIES INTO A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
AND MAKE THE DIFFERENT ON DECISION MAKING.

THIS METHODOLOGY MUST BE APPLIED AFTER THE DETERMINATION OF A RISK POLICY DEFINING
THE ORGANIZATION RISK TOLERANCE.

THIS POLICY MAY BEGIN ON A PESSIMISTIC NOTE AND BECOME MORE OPTMISTIC AS THE PROJECTS
REGISTER BETTER PERFORMANCE AND LEARNT LESSONS HELP THE ORGANIZATION TO MATURE.

MATURE COMPANIES ARE MORE COMPETITIVE!

THE SUCESS IN OBTAINING STREAMLINED RISK PERFORMANCE METRICS LIES IN MONITORING AND
CONTROLLING THEM ALONG THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF THE PROJECT.


RISK MONITORING AND CONTROL

TIPS ON RISK MONITORING AND CONTROL:

- ALL REACTIONS MUST HAVE A RESPONSIBLE PERSON ASSIGNED AND A SCHEDULED PERFORMING
DATE.

- REACTIONS MUST BE SCHEDULED AS ACTIVITIES.

- ROOT CAUSE OF RISKS MUST BE MONITORED AND WARNINGS INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNICATION
PLAN.

- MANAGEMENT RESERVES ARE TO BE USED TO TACKLE NON IDENTIFIED RISKS ONLY.

- THE PMO MUST ESTABLISH GOVERNANCE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCESSS AND RISK
FOLLOWING-UP.

- PRESERVE DOCUMENTED RISK, TREND AND SCENARIO CHANGING LOGS.

- IMPROVE MATURITY OF THE ORGANIZATION BY INCORPORATING RISK MANAGEMENT LEARNT
LESSONS INTO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.


WRITTEN BY

EDUARDO MILITÃO ELIAS, MBA / PMP®
ID 1396759

SPONSORED BY

CONSTRUTORA IBEN LTDA., RCP PMI®
ID 1463462


Risk management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to Risk management

Similar to Risk management (20)

More from Iben Engenharia

More from Iben Engenharia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Risk management