Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration

0
JACK NEIFT TRUCKING CO.
Project Plan Presented: Pay Load
JUNE 1, 2016
TEAM MUSK:
Logan Rogers, Anirudh Mathur, Prachi Dikshit, Darshana Shetty
Project Integration & Risk Management

PIRM PROJECT PLAN TEAM MUSK
Pay Load: Jack Neift Trucking Co.
1
INDEX
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. PROJECT CHARTER 2
2. PROJECT SCOPE STATEMENT 4
3. (a) WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 6
(b) WORK BREAKDOW PACKAGE 7
4. NETWORK DIAGRAM 8
5. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS 9
6. (a) QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS 11
(b) PERT ANALYSIS - SCHEDULE 12
PERT ANALYSIS – COST 16
7. RISK RESPONSE
PLAN # 1 19
PLAN # 2 20
PLAN # 3 21
8. (a) COST RESERVE ANALYSIS 22
(b) SCHEDULE RESERVE ANALYSIS 24

2
Project Name: Pay Load
Prepared by: Team MUSK
Date: 4/14/16
Purpose/Business Need:
Reduce deadheading by 75% for Jack Neift Trucking Company.
Product Description:
A web-based software system that quickly brings shipping information, unloading schedules, and truck
routes to all major departments to promote efficient planning and sales techniques that leads to
reduction in deadheading.
Success Criteria:
Reduce deadheading by 75%, and achieve 30% ROI for Team MUSK, and release the software system
within 26 weeks of starting the project.
Project Priorities:
1. Scope – A web-based software system with GPS tracking and scheduling wizard.
2. Schedule – Project should be complete within 6 months.
3. Cost – Estimated cost of project is $850,000 but not to exceed $875,000.
Assumptions:
1. Sales force is able to locate clients and make shipment sales for return routes.
2. Clients publish loading/unloading schedules.
3. All hardware and software 3rd party systems work as expected.
Constraints:
1. Comply with state regulations for the man-hours of the truckers.
2. Sales team and dispatchers working hours between 9am and 5pm (eastern)
Risks:
1. Network crashes could cripple the system for unknown periods of time.
2. Being an in-house system may face critical operational issues that may increase the cost of
project.
3. New system may not be intuitive from usability standpoint and may require additional training
and time for it to be effective.
BACK TO INDEX

3
Milestones Schedule: (based on working days)
1. Project plan approval – 3 weeks from start of project
2. Core system implemented – 10 weeks from start of project
3. Beta version released – 16 weeks from start of project
4. Beta testing completed – 19 weeks from start of project
5. User testing completed – 21 weeks from start of project
6. Revised version released – 23 weeks from start of project
7. Employee training completed – 24 weeks from start of project
8. System launch – 25 weeks from start of project
9. Project Closing – 26 weeks from start of project
Other:
1. This project will enable Jack Neift Trucking Company to be a modern trucking company in this
competitive market.
2. The technology developed in this project could be a game changer for the entire trucking
industry.
Approvals:
Sponsor: Bea Stoveburden Date: 4/13/2016
Project Manager: Sal Vatation Date: 4/13/2016
BACK TO INDEX

4
Project Manager: Sal Vatation
Prepared by: Team Musk Date: 4/16/2016
Approved by: Bea Stoveburden Date: 4/16/2016
Project Objectives:
 Scope – A web-based software system which will have GPS to tracking and also this will help us in
reducing deadheading.
 Schedule – Project time to complete this project is 26 weeks.
 Cost – Estimated cost for this project shall not exceed $875,000.
Product Scope Description:
This project will produce a software system which will help the company to reduce deadheading by
roughly 75%. It will aid Jack Neift Trucking Company in tracking the truck routes to make efficient travel
plans for their clients' drop-offs and deliveries. This Software will also monitor the truckers' driving time
and will trigger alerts if the driving time approaches the limits set by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
Project Deliverables:
 Project Plan
 GPS Unit
 Server
 Software
 User manuals
 State regulation documents
 GPS software design documents
 Testing reports
 Software User Training
Project Boundaries:
 The project will only include one-time training for employees, no training after that if any new
employee joins the company.
 Software is one-time design won’t allow you to add features once it is launched.
BACK TO INDEX

5
Product Acceptance Criteria:
 Project plan should be reviewed and accepted by the Project Sponsor.
 Jack Neift Trucking Company needs to send their Quality testing person to do the quality check
for the software before installing them.
 After completion of the testing of GPS units and software the project should be accepted by the
project head.
 75% reduction in deadheading and 30% ROI for Team Musk.
Project Constraints:
 Comply with federal regulations for the man-hours of the truckers.
 Sales team and dispatchers working hours between 9am and 5pm (eastern)
 Due to existing relationship between JNTC and Elon Tracking, only tracking devices from Elon
Tracking may be used.
Project Assumptions:
 Sales force is able to locate clients and make shipment sales for return routes.
 Clients publish loading/unloading schedules.
 All hardware and software 3rd party systems work as expected.
Approval Requirements:
 Project Sponsor: Bea Stoveburden
 Project Manager: Sal Vatation
BACK TO INDEX

6
BACK TO INDEX

7
Work Package (WBS#) WP#
Duration Estimate - Days Cost Estimate ($K)
Optimistic
Most
Likely
Pessimistic Optimistic
Most
Likely
Pessimistic
Project Plan 1.1.1 2 3 6 47.5 50 60
Schedule 1.1.2 3 5 10 14.25 15 18
Budget 1.1.3 3 5 10 19 20 24
Communication Plan &
Reporting
1.1.4 2 3 6 9.5 10 12
Dev Tasks listed in Project Plan 1.2.1 13 20 30 190 200 240
Integration with 3rd party
software
1.2.2 6 10 15 47.5 50 60
Integration Testing 1.2.3 6 10 20 47.5 50 60
Write Test Cases 1.2.4 9 15 30 95 100 120
Validate the system 1.3.1 6 10 20 71.25 75 90
Defect Management 1.3.2 6 10 20 23.75 25 30
Server Installation and Testing 1.3.3 6 10 20 95 100 120
Write Training documentation 1.4.1 3 5 10 23.75 25 30
Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 3 5 10 23.75 25 30
Receive and resolve UAT
incidents
1.4.3 3 5 10 57 60 72
Comply with Federal
Regulations
1.4.4 2 3 6 14.25 15 18
Create, review and approve
deployment strategy
1.5.1 2 3 6 19 20 24
Ensure successful
release/deployment
1.5.2 2 3 6 9.5 10 12
Receive signoff from the JNT
Board
1.5.3 1 2 4 4.75 5 6
Start using the new application 1.5.4 1 1 2 9.5 10 12
BACK TO INDEX

8
1.1.2 3
11-Apr 13-Apr 1.2.1 13 1.2.3 6 1.2.4 9 1.3.1 6
14-Apr 18-Apr 27-Apr 4-May 5-May 17-May 18-May 25-May
1.1.1 2 1.1.3 3
6-Apr 8-Apr 11-Apr 13-Apr
1.1.4 2 1.2.2 6
11-Apr 12-Apr 19-Apr 26-Apr
1.4.4 2 1.4.3 3 1.4.2 3 1.4.1 3 1.3.2 6
16-Jun 20-Jun 13-Jun 15-Jun 8-Jun 10-Jun 3-Jun 7-Jun 26-May 2-Jun
1.5.2 2
21-Jun 23-Jun
1.5.1 2 1.3.3 6
3-Jun 6-Jun 26-May 2-Jun
1.5.3 1 1.5.4 1
24-Jun 24-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun
Schedule
DevTaskslisted in Project
Plan
Integration Testing WriteTestCases Validatethesystem
ProjectPlan Budget
Communication Plan Integration with 3rd
ServerInstallation &
Testing
Create,review&approve
DeploymentStrategy
WriteTraining
Documentation
Defect
Management
Run UAT Sessions
RecievesignofffromJNT
Board
Startusingthenew
application
Resolve&resolveUAT
Incidents
Complywith Federal
regulations
Ensuresuccessful
release/deployment
START
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K L
1
2
5 7
6
8 9
3
4
1116
N
M
PQRTU
W X
FINISH
S O
V
1012131415
17
18 19
BACK TO INDEX

9
Prepared By: Sal Vation
Date: 4 May 2016
Session Facilitator: Sal Vation
Title/Position: Project Manager
Participating Group: All
Location: Worksite
Risk
No.
Identified Risk Probability of
Occurrence*
Potential
Impact**
Risk Rating
Score
Risk
Ranking
Risk Scores >
Threshold = 1.0
Identified by
Whom?
1 Risk of personnel leaving 0.1 4 0.4 5 1.1.4
2 Technical / Design group may
produce incomplete
specifications, like,
missing browser
compatibility
0.5 5 2.5 1 2.5 1.3.3
3 Business Cost / Being an in-house
system may face critical operational
issues that may increase the cost of
project
0.3 3 0.9 4 1.5
4 External / integration with 3rd party
software may take longer than
expected
0.5 4 2 2 2 1.2.3
5 Time / New system may not be
intuitive from usability standpoint and
may require additional training and
time for it to be effective.
0.5 2 1 3 1 1.1.3
1.8Project risk socre = total of top rated risk scores divided by number of top rated risks
BACK TO INDEX

10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5
RiskScore
Risk No.
Qualitative Risk Scores
JN Project
*Probability of Occurrence Scale: Very low = 0.1
Low = 0.3
Moderate = 0.5
High = 0.7
Very high = 0.9
** Potential impact scale Very low = 1.0
Low = 2.0
Moderate = 3.0
High = 4.0
Very high = 5.0
Project risk threshold has been set for a risk score equal to or exceeding 1.0
BACK TO INDEX

11
Prepared by: Sal Vation
Date: 18 May 2016
Session Facilitator: Sal Vation
Title/Position: Project Manager
Participating Group: All
Location: Worksite
Risk
No.
Risk Area
(Above Risk Threshold)
Probability
of
Occurrence
Potential
Impact
Expected
Value
WBS
REF.
2 Technical / Design group may
produce incomplete
specifications such as missing
browser
compatibility
0.5 6 weeks 3 weeks 1.3.3
0.5 $45,000 $22,500 1.3.3
4 External / integration with 3rd
party software may take longer
than expected
0.5 5 weeks 2.5 weeks 1.2.3
0.5 $32,000 $16,000 1.2.3
5 Time / New system may not be
intuitive from usability
standpoint and may require
additional training and time for it
to be effective.
0.5 3 weeks 1.5 weeks 1.1.3
0.5 $15,000 $7,500 1.1.3
Total Expected Value $46,000
7 weeks
BACK TO INDEX

12
Task Duration -Days Expected Variance
No. O M P Te Vd
1
Project Plan 1.1.1 2 3 6
3.3 0.4
2
Schedule 1.1.2 3 5 10
5.5 1.4
3
Budget 1.1.3 3 5 10
5.5 1.4
4 Communication Plan &
Reporting
1.1.4 2 3 6
3.3 0.4
5
Dev Tasks listed in Project Plan 1.2.1 13 20 30
20.5 8.0
6 Integration with 3rd party
software
1.2.2 6 10 15
10.2 2.3
7
Integration Testing 1.2.3 6 10 20
11.0 5.4
8
Write Test Cases 1.2.4 9 15 30
16.5 12.3
9
Validate the system 1.3.1 6 10 20
11.0 5.4
10
Defect Management 1.3.2 6 10 20
11.0 5.4
11
Server Installation and Testing 1.3.3 6 10 20
11.0 5.4
12 Write Training documentation 1.4.1 3 5 10 5.5 1.4
13
Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 3 5 10
5.5 1.4
14 Receive and resolve UAT
incidents
1.4.3 3 5 10
5.5 1.4
15 Comply with Federal
Regulations
1.4.4 2 3 6
3.3 0.4
16 Create, review and approve
deployment strategy
1.5.1 2 3 6
3.3 0.4
17 Ensure successful
release/deployment
1.5.2 2 3 6
3.3 0.4
18 Receive signoff from the JNT
Board
1.5.3 1 2 4
2.2 0.3
19 Start using the new
application
1.5.4 1 1 2
1.2 0.0
WBS#Activities
BACK TO INDEX

13
Conf. Z Crit. Path Conf. WBS Variance
Level Factor Days Level No. V
99% 2.330 120.7 0.99 1.5.4 0.0
95% 1.648 116.2 0.95 1.5.3 0.0
90% 1.281 113.8 0.90 1.1.1 0.4
75% 0.675 109.8 0.75 1.1.4 0.4
50% 0.000 105.3 0.50 1.4.4 0.4
25% -0.675 100.9 0.25 1.5.1 0.4
10% -1.281 96.9 0.10 1.5.2 0.4
5% -1.684 94.2 0.05 1.1.2 1.4
1% -2.330 89.9 0.01 1.1.3 1.4
1.4.1 1.4
1.4.2 1.4
1.4.3 1.4
1.2.2 2.3
1.2.3 5.4
1.3.1 5.4
1.3.2 5.4
1.3.3 5.4
1.2.1 8.0
1.2.4 12.3
BACK TO INDEX

14
Network Data Table Confidence Level
Project Network Path ∑Te ∑Vd 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.01
1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 105.3 43.7 120.7 116.2 113.8 109.8 105.3 100.9 96.9 94.2 89.9
1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 104.5 40.5 119.3 115.0 112.6 108.8 104.5 100.2 96.4 93.8 89.7
1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 88.8 39.6 103.5 99.2 96.9 93.1 88.8 84.6 80.8 78.2 74.2
1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 88.0 36.4 102.1 97.9 95.7 92.1 88.0 83.9 80.3 77.8 73.9
1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 105.3 43.7 120.7 116.2 113.8 109.8 105.3 100.9 96.9 94.2 89.9
1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 104.5 40.5 119.3 115.0 112.6 108.8 104.5 100.2 96.4 93.8 89.7
1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 88.8 39.6 103.5 99.2 96.9 93.1 88.8 84.6 80.8 78.2 74.2
1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 88.0 36.4 102.1 97.9 95.7 92.1 88.0 83.9 80.3 77.8 73.9
1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 103.2 42.8 118.4 113.9 111.5 107.6 103.2 98.8 94.8 92.2 87.9
1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,
13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 102.3 39.6 117.0 112.7 110.4 106.6 102.3 98.1 94.3 91.7 87.7
1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 86.7 38.7 101.2 96.9 94.6 90.9 86.7 82.5 78.7 76.2 72.2
1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19 85.8 35.5 99.7 95.6 93.5 89.9 85.8 81.8 78.2 75.8 72.0
BACK TO INDEX

15BACK TO INDEX

16
Project Quantitative Cost Analysis
Task Expected Variance
No. Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic Ce Vc
1 Project Plan 1.1.1 47.5 50 60 51.25 4.34
2 Schedule 1.1.2 14.25 15 18 15.38 0.39
3 Budget 1.1.3 19 20 24
20.50 0.69
4 Communication
Plan & Reporting
1.1.4
9.5 10 12
10.25 0.17
5 Dev Tasks listed in
Project Plan
1.2.1
190 200 240
205.00 69.44
6 Integration with 3rd
party software
1.2.2
47.5 50 60
51.25 4.34
7 Integration Testing 1.2.3
47.5 50 60
51.25 4.34
8 Write Test Cases 1.2.4
95 100 120
102.50 17.36
9 Validate the system 1.3.1
71.25 75 90
76.88 9.77
10 Defect Management 1.3.2
23.75 25 30
25.63 1.09
11 Server Installation
and Testing
1.3.3
95 100 120
102.50 17.36
12 Write Training
documentation
1.4.1
23.75 25 30
25.63 1.09
13 Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 23.75 25 30 25.63 1.09
14 Receive and resolve
UAT incidents
1.4.3
57 60 72
61.50 6.25
15 Comply with
Federal Regulations
1.4.4
14.25 15 18
15.38 0.39
16 Create, review and
approve
deployment strategy
1.5.1
19 20 24
20.50 0.69
17 Ensure successful
release/deployment
1.5.2
9.5 10 12
10.25 0.17
18
Receive signoff
from the JNT Board
1.5.3
4.75 5 6
5.13 0.04
19
Start using the new
application
1.5.4
9.5 10 12
10.25 0.17
20
WBS No. Work Package
Cost - $K
PERT Data Table
BACK TO INDEX

17
99% 2.330 914.11 0.99
95% 1.648 906.07 0.95
90% 1.281 901.74 0.90
75% 0.675 894.59 0.75
50% 0.000 886.63 0.50
25% -0.675 878.66 0.25
10% -1.281 871.51 0.10
5% -1.684 866.76 0.05
1% -2.330 859.14 0.01
Conf. Level Z Factor Cost $K Conf. Level
Cost Data
Table Confidence Level
∑Ce ∑Vc 99% 95% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 5% 1%
Total
Network 886.63 139.19 914.11 906.07 901.74 894.59 886.63 878.66 871.51 866.76 859.14
Conf. Level Data
Table
Probability Dist. Data
Table
BACK TO INDEX

18
BACK TO INDEX

19
Project Name: Pay Load Risk No. 4, WBS 1.2.3
Date: 19 May 2016
Description of Risk Identified:
Integration with 3rd party software may take longer than expected
Risk Owner: Sal Vation
Results from Risk Analysis:
The risk rating is 2.0 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 5 weeks delay
and $32,000. The expected values are 2.5 weeks schedule delay and $16,000 over budget if no risk response
is applied.
Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): mitigation
Response:
Perform additional research and market analysis. Hold more integration planning review meetings.
Risk Response Cost
Implementation duration (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 wks Te = 1.2 wks
Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $800, $1,300, $1,900 Ce = $1,316
Residual Risk Level:
The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to 25% with resulting expected
values of $8,000 and 1.25 weeks of delay.
Benefit/Cost Ratio:
Sanity Check:
 $16,000 - $8,000 - $1,316 = $6,684
 2.5wks – 1.25 wks – 1.2 wks = 0.05 wks
Benefit/Cost Ratios (Expected ROI from risk response)
 ( $16,000 - $8,000 ) / ( $1,316 ) = $ 6.08
 ( 2.5 wks – 1.25 wks ) / 1.2 wks = 1.042
Secondary Risks: None
BACK TO INDEX

20
Date: 19 May 2016
Description of Risk Identified:
Design group may produce incomplete specifications such as missing browser compatibility
The risk rating is 2.5 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 6 weeks delay
and $45,000. The expected values are 3 weeks schedule delay and $22,500 over budget if no risk response
is applied.
Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): mitigation
Response: Seek external expert consultant. Requires communication/networking, interviewing, and
contractual agreement. Requires two meetings between consultant and design group.
Risk Response Cost
Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $3000, $4500, $6500 Ce = $4583
Residual Risk Level:
The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to 10% with resulting
expected values of $4500 and 0.6 weeks of delay.
Benefit/Cost Ratio:
Sanity Check:
 $22,500 - $4,500 - $4,583 = $13,417
 3 wks – 0.6 wks – 1.267 wks = 1.133 wks
 ( $22,500 - $4,500 ) / ( $4,583 ) = 3.928
 ( 3 wks – 0.6 wks ) / 1.267 wks = 1.894
Secondary Risks: Bringing in expert help from outside the company may leave the technical/design team
feeling insulted. This could lead to damaged egos of the design group resulting in possible turnover of core
team members.
BACK TO INDEX

21
Date: 19 May 2016
Description of Risk Identified: New system may not be intuitive from usability standpoint and may require
additional training and time for it to be effective.
The risk rating is 1.0 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 3 weeks
delay and $15,000. The expected values are 1.5 weeks schedule delay and $7,500 over budget if no risk
response is applied.
Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): Mitigation
Response: Conduct surveys within Jack Neift Trucking company to understand how the future users rate
the user interface and general flow of the software. Based on customer feedback, include additional
information in the training material so the users get a better understanding without having to be retrained.
Risk Response Cost:
Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $400, $550, $800 Ce = $566
Residual Risk Level: The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to
5% with resulting expected values of $750 and 0.15 weeks of delay.
Benefit/Cost Ratio:
Sanity Check:
 $7,500 - $750 - $566 = $6,184
 1.5wks – 0.15 wks – 0.6 wks = 0.75 wks
 ( $7,500 - $750 ) / ( $566 ) = 11.92
 ( 1.5 wks – 0.15 wks ) / 0.6 wks = 2.25
Secondary Risks: None
BACK TO INDEX

22
1. Common Cause Cost Risk Reserve
As shown in the above table, the project cost estimate is $893,090 at the 50% confidence level and
$912,560 at the 95% confidence level. The baseline budget will become $893,090. The common cause
risk reserve will be the difference the 95% confidence level cost and the 50% confidence level cost
which is:
Common causes risk reserve = $912,560 - $893,090 = $19,470.
BACK TO INDEX

23
2. Specific Cause Cost Risk Reserve
After mitigation the three high level risks have the following residual expected values for cost as
described in the risk response plan section.
Special Causes Risk Residual Expected Value
Risk No. 2 $4,500
Risk No. 4 $8,000
Risk No. 5 $750
Total special causes cost risk reserve = $4,500 + $8,000 + $750 = $13,250
3. Management Reserve
The reserve for unknown risks will be set arbitrarily at 5% of the baseline project cost or 5% x $893,090
= $44,654.5.
4. Total Cost Reserve
The total cost reserve is the sum of the common causes risk, special causes risk and management
reserves. Total cost reserve = $19,470+ $13250 + $44,654.5= $77,374.5
BACK TO INDEX

24
1. Common Causes Schedule Risk Reserve
The JNT project will be managed to achieve cost and schedule for the 50% confidence level. However,
cost and schedule reserve will be allocated to provide for a 95% confidence level. There are three risk
mitigation (RM) activities which will be included into existing work packages with the following
mitigation duration requirements.
Risk Mitigation Activity Work Package/Task No. Duration (O, M , P)
RM No.4 1.2.3 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 weeks
RM No.2 1.1.3 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 weeks
RM No.5 1.3.3 0.8, 1.2, 2.0 weeks
Risk mitigation activities No.4 & 5 will be incorporated into Work Package 1.2.3 and performed in
parallel (fast tracked) with the other activities in WP 1.2.3 and will have no impact on the duration of
the existing WP.
Based upon the above analysis, it will be assumed that the project critical path will not change due to
the three top level risk mitigation tasks.
As previously shown in the quantitative schedule risk analysis, the project schedule duration estimate
(critical path) is 105.3 days at the 50% confidence level and 116.2 days at the 95% confidence level.
Common causes schedule risk reserve is 116.2 days - 105.3 days = 10.9` days.
2. Special Causes Schedule Risk Reserve
After risk mitigation the three high level risks have the following residual expected values as described
in the risk response plan section.
Special Causes Risk Residual Expected Value
Risk No. 4 1.25 week or 6.25 days
Risk No. 2 0.6 week or 3 days
Risk No. 5 .15 week or .75 days
BACK TO INDEX

25
Since Risk No. 2 is not on the critical path and has slack of 3 days, its residual expected duration value
of 3 days will not affect the overall project duration and will not be added to the special causes
schedule reserve.
Total special causes schedule risk reserve = 6.25 days + .75 days = 7 days
3. Management Reserve
The reserve for unknown risks will be arbitrarily set at 5% of the baseline project schedule.
Management reserve = 5% x 105.3 = 5.26 days.
4. Total Schedule Risk Reserve
The total schedule reserve is the sum of the common causes risk, special causes risk and management
reserves.
Total schedule reserve = 10.9 days + 7 days + 5.26 days = 23.16 days
BACK TO INDEX

Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration

Ähnlich wie Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration (20)

Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration