|
Page 9 of 22
3.3 Types of Risks
The earlier disclaimer re the relative unimportance of defining risks by types
is not being ignored here. Here the treatment loosely parallels that of the
Risk Management Guide of the DSMC in which typing is accomplished through "risk
facets" defined as a way of classifying risks. These facets are postulated
as a means to understand and classify risks. One or more of the facets are assigned
to any given risk.
The facets are the names that have often previously been applied as labels
for the types of risk: technical, supportability, programmatic, cost and schedule.
In effect, the earlier typing criteria are now considered as characteristics.
These characteristics match the matrix labels recommended earlier. The Risk
Management Guide has good discussions of these different facets. These discussions
are just paraphrased here:
3.3.1 Programmatic Risks
Those risks that flow from or impose an impact on program governance, and those
risks that impact program performance. The risks for governance may be external
(political, statutory, litigious, or contractual) or internal (business priorities,
staff limitations, ROI constraints, and learning curves). Risks that impact
on program performance generally flow from issues of competence, experience,
organizational culture, and skills of the management team.
In this context, in contrast to present fashion re leadership that denigrates
managers versus leaders, it is most important that the management team understand
the nuts and bolts of management of the design, development, integration, test
and verification processes. Basically, it is important that the management team
fully understand the System Engineering process and its implications at each
step in the overall process.
3.3.2 Schedule Risks
At the highest level of concern, schedule risks are simply that not enough time
exists to do the required job with the resources allocated... people and/or
money and/or material. Problems with resources can be argued as being of a programmatic
nature, i.e., an intrinsic flaw in the program. (Such arguments are, of course,
the basis for the risk classification scheme recommended in Section 1.1) At
a managerial level, the concern is more focused. For example, how does one incorporate
flexibility in the tail end of the schedule to permit some maneuvering room
for coping with problems that will inevitably occur as time and resources diminish.
3.3.3 Cost Risks
At the highest level, cost risk is simply that there is not enough money to
do the job required in the time allocated including reserves for reasonable
contingencies. Again, an intrinsic flaw in the program. The causes of such risks
can be estimating errors, low ball bids, business decisions, lack of understanding
of requirements and political expediency. A management technique is to focus
on all elements of the program that are new and to insure that management reserves
are at least adequate compared to the costs of the new elements.
Technical Note: It occasionally appears that the procuring agencies do not
understand what is reasonable in terms of accuracy of estimates. Often, the
implied levels of concern are at odds with any reasonable assessment.
For example, the construction industry in the U. S. is a well-founded, well-understood
and well-experienced industry (as it is, in fact, in any nation relative to
local practices). In major construction the uncertainty in costs to build are
historically about 30% at the stage of "door knob" estimates. As the
design and specification of a particular project evolves to the level of detailed
definitions, detailed drawings/specifications and detailed schedules, the uncertainty
drops to 5% or so.
In small-scale residential construction, it is common practice for a general
contractor/ builder to add 25% to the quoted cost to construct any plan that
the particular builder has not built before. (Secondary factors influence this
margin, but the main factor is that of the uncertainties in the details. A significant
other factor is the such homes tend to be custom builds, and buyers of custom
homes tend to be picky.)
It would seem to be entirely unreasonable to expect smaller uncertainties in
endeavors involving significant scratch development of state-of-the-art hardware
and/or software.
3.3.5 Technical
The technical risks are performance risks associated with the end items. From
the perspective of the buying organization the concern is that the system will
not perform as required. From the perspective of the performing organization
the concern is that the system will not meet it specifications (and hence not
be purchased and/or not meet customer satisfaction goals).
3.3.6 Supportability
The supportibility risk is that an otherwise acceptable system will cost too
much to operate and maintain over its life cycle in terms of time, personnel
and material resources. It is a fact that most systems cost more to sustain
than to develop, and this fact is not new. It was a matter of comment in Goode
and Machol in 1957 (Reference 7).
|