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