|
Risk
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
Very High
|
| Schedule flaw materializes
|
Product will be useful whenever put into production |
Product has three or four possible implementation dates |
Product is most useful on an annual cycle or must meet a legislated deadline |
Product has multiple components cross-reliant on data; components must be released according to policy, academic or legislated deadline
|
| People Leave the Project
|
<5 |
5–9 |
10–14 |
>15 |
| Knowledge of Technology
|
Expert |
Familiar |
New to U of S |
Leading Edge to most universities |
| Knowledge of products and requirements developing during course of the project
|
Replacement does not involve business process change
|
New processes, with both business owner and business analyst having experience with implementing the product |
New processes, developing internal expertise with consultant support |
New processes, developing internal expertise without consultant support |
| Complexity
|
Well defined; no controversy or technical glitches expected |
Well defined; some areas of uncertainty can be addressed early in the project |
Multiple approaches will achieve the goal; choice to be made during course of project
|
Solution is unknown or vaguely defined |
| Visibility of Project
|
Affects department support or technical personnel |
Affects support and technical personnel and instructors in some colleges |
Affects students, instructors and support personnel in several colleges |
Affects students, faculty, staff in many processes used by all colleges and departments |
| Cost of Project Failure
|
Minimal impact to the college or department |
Known & viable contingency plan |
Contingency plan is possible but acting on it is not desirable |
Contingency plan cannot be identified or is too costly to be realistic
|
| Project Management Guidelines |
|
|
Consider splitting the project for clarity and success |
