Agile Risk Management Approach

 PRINCE2 Agile Risk Management Approach

Introduction

This document describes how to manage risk within an agile/PRINCE2 project environment.

Risk management procedure 

 

Tools and techniques 

Identify risks using the PRINCE2 Agilometer 

Records

The risk register should be visible and clear for all to see and use, like this one:

 

Each risk should be written on a post-it note and put onto the whiteboard in it’s appropriate grid location, depending on the probability/impact assessment

Reporting 

Risks will be discussed during daily standup meetings or with the project board when they visit the project room.

Timing of risk management activities 

At the end of management stages, after any significant release, a re-assessment of the environment using the agilometer will help. However, risks could be identified and discussed at any time.

Roles and responsibilities 

Everyone is responsible for identifying risks and everyone collectively should help the manage risks, however, some would need escalating for further help, see the risk tolerances below.

Proximity 

How close a risk might happen is referred to as its proximity they can be categorised as: 

    Imminent - will potentially happen within a sprint, 

    Within the management stage, 

    Within the project, 

    Beyond the project - after release into operations

Risk responses 

We can respond to risks this way:

 

Early warning indicators 

The project manager and board could monitor the behaviours of the team and look to see if they are appropriate, and the team should monitor their own behaviours openly and honestly.

Risk tolerance 

The team can manage risks that are in the purple boxes themselves.
Risks in the blue boxes should be raised and discussed with the project manager.
Risks in the yellow boxes should be discussed with the project manager and project board.
Risks in the red boxes should be discussed with corporate management.
Security risks should be raised with the cyber security team no matter where they are on the grid.
Health and safety risks should be raised to the department H&S officers.
Reputation risks should be funnelled through the communication management team.

Risk budget 

Due to the low risk to delivery, a risk budget is not necessary.

Here’s some links to simple tips on how to make your project or programme office more agile (simply)

Agile PMO's (Simply)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BH5477LM

Outputs, Outcomes, Benefits & Dis-Benefits are Agile?

There has been several discussions about the correct definition of these words but most seem to understand that an output would be a deliverable from a project which lead to outcomes when something changes and these things should be beneficial in some measurable way. 

Dis-benefits are negative outcomes that almost every change experiences in some way. I’ll come back to these. 

Let’s take an example that differs from most of the examples provided. 

Locally we have had more freezing temperatures lately and the footpaths have been dangerous to walk on, particularly for elderly or disabled people. 

Our local council has done nothing whatsoever to make the footpaths safe and ice free. This is a true statement but the objective of this blog is to help understand the reasoning behind the relationships rather than critical of the council.

Let’s launch a project to grit the footpaths.

The main roads are gritted because they are legally obliged to do so, that is out of scope here.

Government is trying to discourage us from driving in many ways but if we don’t drive to work we need to walk or cycle, so there is a clear need to do something otherwise we will all be driving again. I am personally biased here because I am one the very few who is in the fortunate position of actually walking to work.

The output is a little intangible but we could state something like “Thawed footpaths” or “gritted footpaths” 

Outcome: Safer footpaths, fewer people falling over and fewer people driving which reduces emissions. 

Benefits? These should be measurable improvements in something related to a strategic objective. This is where things get tricky because where’s the benefit to the council?

Fewer people falling over and getting injured is a benefit to the NHS and the individual concerned, and we could argue that this is not a benefit for the council, even if it should be. 

Fewer people driving to work is a benefit to the road capacity but how much money is actually saved by a few less cars? Even if 50% of drivers decided to walk? Savings in road maintenance is probably almost zero. 

Reducing the use of vehicles will contribute to net zero and one could argue that this is a benefit, but where is the cost/benefit analysis.

Where’s the cost/benefit in this? If we are going to invest time and money into a project, then there should be some return on that investment, that is the logic behind project business cases.

Are there any dis-benefits here? Yes, gritting the footpaths would prevent people using them whilst the gritting is in process. 

Let’s look at this in another way, the way that has justified many government projects. 

The changes that the government has implemented to discourage driving particular vehicles, such as the road tax costs based on engine capacity and emissions. 

The congestion charges move the traffic from the city centre to the ring road. Recently they have introduced fifteen minute zones which discourage driving.

Improvements in public transport could be considered an option but many of these have been larger capital projects such as installing trams on existing highways which tend to also discourage driving. That is a huge capital expenditure and I am not sure any have actually paid back the initial investment, but I do not know for sure. I do recall, as a child, my mother taking us to the centre of Birmingham to watch the last ever tram to leave. 

Why did they close the trams? They were too inflexible in a rapidly changing cityscape. 

This blog, like lots of projects has drifted in its scope, away from why the local council did not grit the footpaths, but in a nutshell, there’s nothing in it for them.

Congestion charges, equals more revenue.

Fuel price hikes, equals more revenue.

Road tax based on engine size, equals more revenue.

Fifteen minute zones, equals more revenue.

Trams discourage driving and encourage public transport also equals more revenue.

Bus lanes mean more revenue for the buses that travel along them and the additional traffic congestion uses more fuel and therefore also equals more revenue.

Gritting the footpath does not equal more revenue, it equals less revenue from fuel tax.

Investment in Outputs, is one thing, if nobody used the footpaths after gritting, we’ve wasted money.

When people change their behaviour, they walk to the shops or work and we have the outcome we are seeking.

Those outcomes lead to measurable benefits (and this is where some manipulation of the financial rewards takes place)

In an agile environment the developers would decide that the output had value for a customer somewhere, not necessarily as a cost/benefit business case, but it has value.

Therefore we could argue that agility is more likely to achieve the long term outcome, because they are prepared to invest without an immediate return on investment.

Here’s some simple tips on how to make your project or programme office more agile (simply)

Agile PMO's (Simply)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BH5477LM