KEY TO RISK SCORING
Project ID |
BDU0054 |
Project Title |
Planning Support Disaggregation Project |
Project Executive |
Paul Taylor, MKSD |
Project Manager |
Michael Josh |
Likelihood |
|
Impact |
||
A |
Very High |
|
1 |
Catastrophic |
B |
High |
|
2 |
Critical |
C |
Significant |
|
3 |
Marginal |
D |
Low |
|
4 |
Negligible |
E |
Very Low |
|
|
|
F |
Almost Impossible |
|
|
|
Likelihood |
A |
|
|
|
|
Risks that score C1 or above on the matrix are regarded as having a greater potential risk to the project and are shown in the register below in red in the columns marked ‘likelihood’, ‘impact’ and ‘score’.
|
||||||||
B |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
C |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
D |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
E |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
F |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
4
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Risks and Opportunities Summary Page
(R = Risk / O = Opportunity}
Risk No |
Risk / Opportunity |
R/O |
Risk Rating |
|
Risk No |
Risk / Opportunity |
R/O |
Risk Rating |
|
Risk No |
Risk / Opportunity |
R/O |
Risk Rating |
|
1
|
IDOX ability to meet deadlines |
R |
C1
|
|
13 |
DM staff losses due to work pressure |
R |
D2
|
|
25 |
Mutual agreement not sustained throughout project |
R |
D3
|
|
2
|
Decisions made outside of the Project Governance framework |
R |
B2
|
|
14 |
Loss of key personnel considered important to project delivery |
R |
D2
|
|
26 |
Appropriate skill levels of key Project Board Members |
R |
D3
|
|
3
|
Multiple disaggregation by partners at different stages |
R |
B2
|
|
15 |
Financial costs are significantly greater than anticipated |
R |
D2
|
|
27 |
No agreement reached on data sharing agreement |
R |
D3
|
|
4
|
MKPS ability to meet deadlines |
R |
D1
|
|
16 |
Government changes to the Planning regulation system |
R |
B3
|
|
28 |
No agreement reached on system update protocols |
R |
D3
|
|
5
|
Political approvals not achieved |
R |
D1
|
|
17 |
MKPS staff losses due to uncertainty |
R |
B3
|
|
29 |
Improved performance and ability to consistently meet service performance standards |
O |
N/A |
|
6
|
MKICT ability to meet deadlines |
R |
D1
|
|
18 |
Dip in performance of MKPS staff |
R |
B3
|
|
30 |
Improved quality of planning administration process |
O |
N/A |
|
7
|
No clear route through TUPE process |
R |
D1
|
|
19 |
Process challenge from Unions |
R |
C3
|
|
31 |
Improved stakeholder perception of TWBC Planning Service |
O |
N/A |
|
8
|
Unplanned breakup of the partnership |
R |
C2
|
|
20 |
Process challenge from one or more Overview & Scrutiny Committees, or decision referral at MBC |
R |
C3
|
|
32 |
Reduced cost of provision of a TWBC Planning Support service |
O |
N/A |
|
9
|
The pace of project/timescales |
R |
C2
|
|
21 |
Poor/unplanned communication with stakeholders |
R |
C3
|
|
33 |
PAS Review |
R |
Closed |
|
10
|
IDOX changes to the system |
R |
D2
|
|
22 |
Tunbridge Wells receiving service ability to meet deadlines |
R |
E1
|
|
34 |
Political changes post May 2015 |
R |
Closed |
|
11
|
Poorly planned repatriation of work |
R |
D2
|
|
23 |
Retraining of staff poorly delivered |
R |
E2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
User acceptance testing incomplete or not rigorous |
R |
D2
|
|
24 |
Increase in number/complexity of applications |
R |
D3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|