Your Councillors

 

 

Risk and Opportunity Register

SUMMARY


 


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