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