Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Usually in the business case, the risks mentioned are high level risk without the full analysis as mentioned above.
This complete analysis is done during later stages because more information will be available.
Do you think it is best to do a full analysis and put all findings in the business case ? I've never done that detailed analysis under risk when I do the business case / project charter.
What do you think ?
I agree with Rami here, the business case as I know it typically is a more high level view used for making decisions (go/no go, project risk portfolio, including additional requirements/deliverables in the project scope as high level risk management). What you proposed here seems more like a risk management plan of later stages.
What was your rationale for using such a elaborate analysis this early?
the link provided doesn't work
hope this one does just found it browsing in the PM central
Level of detail is elaborated for an early stage.
Probability (high level)
Impact (high level)
Required or not
That would define what action (go/no go) to take when more information is available.
I have not see the thread you refer to, so I might not fully understand
thanks for the info, do not really know what happened, have fixed it know.
thanks for this contribution.
I am with you that Risks could only be assessed on a high level at this stage.
This branch could be either used to just collect risks while reviewing the business case/documents and/or also for already handling those risks if appropriate. That means sometimes we do identify a risk and immediately we have an idea how to manage this risk in a proper way. And this could be documented here maybe.
But i see your point and you may be right that such a structure may implied to do a deeper risk analysis/assessment at this time what could be difficult on that early stage.
So, maybe we should add here just the option to collect the identified risks so far.
Let's see what others have to say about.
thanks for your comment. I see your point (like Rami's); please refer to my answer i have given to Rami's posting.
The intention was NOT to kickoff a complete risk management process at this point BUT to initiate collecting risks and to assess them where possible.
If you will see when the map is online, the risk sassessment branch within this map will have several levels.
The first level is just naming the risk or give them a title.
Of course it is possible to stop this part right here and go on with it at a later stage.
The great thing with the mind map and especially with the so called "map parts" is, that you could easily transfer them to other maps (to risk management in this case for instance).
And this feature supports the developing character of the project management processes in a great way.
But i am open to change this to a plain risk list at this stage when the majority of you likes that more.
thanks for this contribution.
This seems to be a good suggestion for a compromise, i guess.
Well, description is redundant in your list and i am not really sure what you mean by "required or not" (how could a risk be required?!).
What do the others say?
I agree with Rami and Thilo. The risks listed in the business case are meant to support the decision: do the benefits outweight the costs and the risks?
The decision makers have a specific risk appetite and threshold that need to be met.
I would include this level of details under Risk Analysis but not the business case as again it is very high level and if too much information is mentioned there, it loses its essence as a business case.
Those are my 2 cents.
Please login or join to reply