REG NASA-LLIS-1363-2003 Lessons Learned Risk Management (RM) The Use of Formal Versus Informal Methods.pdf

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1363Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1363a71 Lesson Date: 2003-01-01a71 Submitting Organization: ARCa71 Submitted by: Donald R. MendozaSubject: Risk Management (RM): The Use of Formal Versus Informal Methods Abstract: The “informal“ RM implemented by the project was efficient an

2、d effective because it was built into many of its day-to-day activities including: ongoing workshops, peer reviews, project meetings, and the use of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist with identification of risks and to plan their mitigation.Description of Driving Event: The Project was already

3、 in its implementation phase and had developed various methods and processes to identify and manage risks before the Agencys Continuous Risk Management (CRM) course was available. Additionally, based on its existing RM processes and experiences the Project felt that CRM was not suitable for their ac

4、tivities. In particular, it was felt the CRM “quantitative“ risk assessments (such as weighted risk factors and discrete risk values) would have been forced, misleading and therefore undermining to the existing albeit “qualitative“ process. Thus, while the Project did complete the CRM training, its

5、formal structure was not incorporated into its RM processes.Lesson(s) Learned: 1. The “informal“ RM adopted by the Project was efficient and effective because RM was built into many of its day-to-day activities including: ongoing workshops, peer reviews, Project meetings, and the use of Subject Matt

6、er Experts (SMEs) to assist with identification of risks and to plan their mitigation.2. 3. Performing an annual reevaluation of existing risks and identification of new risks helped strengthen the Projects risk awareness and its sensitivity to RM.Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or netw

7、orking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-4. The use of outside experts and peer reviews to help manage risks proved to be an acceptable replacement for the traditional involvement of the Centers System Safety and Mission Assurance Office (SS&MA). However, the Project may have benefited from man

8、y of the RM tools common to the SS&MA office such as checklists, taxonomies, templates, and lessons learned.Recommendation(s): For projects already implementing RM when a new methodology or process comes into vogue, the following should be considered. 1. The project should consult with the experts o

9、r owners of the new processes to determine if it is cost effective to transition to the new way of doing business.2. Partial transition or adoption of new tools should be considered as ways to enhance the existing processes. Tools that target a specific area that is not included in the existing meth

10、odology should be incorporated into the existing RM process.3. Specific tools associated with the new process should be used as a cross check against the methods already deployed.4. When primarily using outside experts and consultants to help the projects RM planning, traditional sources of knowledg

11、e such as the SS&MA originations should still be used in a review capacity. There may be existing tools that the project can use.5. Project Manager and all Level Three Managers should be required to review the latest developments in RM on an annual or semi-annual basis, to determine if there are ite

12、ms that now apply, that may not have been applicable in the past.6. Any enhancements from a “hybrid“ methodology consisting of traditional and new processes should be feedback to the RM process owners (SS&MA).Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: N/ADocuments Related to Lesson: NPG 7120.5, N

13、PG 8000.4Mission Directorate(s): a71 Exploration Systemsa71 Sciencea71 Space Operationsa71 Aeronautics ResearchProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Additional Key Phrase(s): a71 Program and Project Managementa71 Risk Management/Assessmenta71 Safety & Mission AssuranceAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2003-09-29a71 Approval Name: Andrew Hockera71 Approval Organization: ARCa71 Approval Phone Number: 650-604-4120Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-