Project Management

ISOM 654 - Project Management

Fall 2016

HW: 2

Ch. 6, Problems: 1, 3, 4

1.

University Hospital: Risk Matrix

Dayne Meyer

Nathan Hastings

Jordan Elder

7

2: Pharmacists

may resist

Probability

6

1: Cost to

implement

5

4: Might reduce

quality of care

4

3: May run longer

than expected

3

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Impact

Critical Monitor Ignore

For the 7 point scale, the resulting distribution was Critical (31%), Monitor (49%), and Ignore (21%). This conservative distribution was chosen so the

majority of values would fall into the Monitor category, followed by Critical, and lastly Ignore. This resulted in two events falling into each of the Critical

and Monitor designations, with none in the Ignore section, ensuring all risks are properly accounted for.

To lower the risk associated with each of these events, the following responses could be taken:

Avoid (1&2): Freeze the scope of the project and initiate a Project Launch Meeting to discuss the objectives, thus reducing future scope creep and

unnecessary costs. This will also show upper managements comittment to the decision, this firm statement filtering through the heirarchy and reducing

push back from pharmacists as they recognize they are unlikely to deter its implementation.

Mitigate (1&3): Create a Gantt Chart or other form of WBS to list all pertinant aspects of the project. Monitor the progress of the critical path items to

ensure completion is on schedule and assign additional resources when necessary to get back on track. By mitigating these issues early, it will reduce the

risk of extending beyond the fiscal year and also heightened costs later in the project. Due to the ramifications of incompletion, a "contingency plan"

should also be created through a 3rd party utilization.

Mitigate and Accept (2&4): A reduction in quality of drug care may or may not occur, however, at this stage it is difficult to understand how or what

that will entail....