Risk Plan for City of Philadelphia Pole Geodatabase Project

This document serves as the initial risk planning tool for the City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment

Geodatabase Project. It is true that thoughtful planning during the initial stages of a project can help to prevent may

problems from becoming nightmares as time progresses, though these risks must be monitored and dealt with

immediately once evident. Ideas expressed within this document are meant to gain a step up on project risks, before

they occur and during their mitigation. To gauge an idea of possible risks for this project, a brainstorming session

was conducted by many stakeholders of the consultant organization.

As a result of this brainstorming, a list of potential project risks was obtained, and the most relevant twenty were

compiled into a watch list. Those selected were done so as a result of a combination of agreement between

contributors and the discretion of this document’s author. Some risks were merged together with associated topics

to help broaden their scope. See Figure 1. Only risks with a reasonable potential of occurrence were retained, with

the emphasis on those with a significant degree of impact. Following this consolidation, the project risks were

qualitatively categorized by both probability and potential impact, each with possible labels of low, medium, or

high. The result is shown in Table 1, the Risk Probability / Impact Matrix for the Geodatabase project. While some

potential risks stood out as those to be more closely regarded, such as the possibilities of the final Geodatabase

design not being accepted by key City of Philadelphia stakeholders and the completed Geodatabase having a lower

Fitness of Use than the original pole Shapefile dataset, two risks are significantly the most relevant for this project.

From Figure 1, risks 6 and 7 combined constitute the most significant risk, both in terms of likelihood of occurrence

as well as potential impact. Unrealistic cost and time estimates during planning stages of the project are a

considerable possibility due to the very complex nature of approximations that must be made when compiling the

project Work Breakdown Structure. These estimates are associated with nearly every other risk as well, since any

unforeseen changes in the work plan will lead to changes in cost and time scale. Furthermore, if these inaccuracies

do come to fruition, they will greatly impact both the project and the consultant company in general. This risk can

be most mitigated by detailed, intensive planning during initial stages of the project. By obtaining more relevant

information, comparing similar projects, and generally building a broader knowledge base aimed toward the transfer

of spatial data to a Geodatabase structure, a more accurate forecast of the resources (time and cost) needed to

satisfactorily complete the project can be obtained. Routine and timely updates of resource projections should also

occur throughout the lifespan of the project in order to help mitigate and building problems.

The second most significant risk that must be prepared for and thereafter monitored is the potential for changing

rules and requirements from the City of Philadelphia. During project planning stages, the consultant should assume

that the requirements set forth by the City will guide the work structure throughout the project lifespan, but it should

also be assumed that these requirements may change, and therefore mitigation strategies must be developed. It is

difficult to forecast which requirements could be altered, though resources devoted to extensive project planning

will again be beneficial for all parties in the long run. Along with researching similar Geodatabase projects to gain a

perspective on past requirements changes, a greater knowledge of successful conversion details will help to

anticipate these changes. This knowledge must be routinely and successfully communicated to all project

stakeholders, and active participation in general between organizations will bring out the City of Philadelphia’s true

project goals sooner rather than later.

In summary, project risks are a fact of life, however there are many techniques that can be used to mitigate their

potential impacts and keep the project on track. For the City of Philadelphia Pole Geodatabase Project, we have

compiled a list of twenty significant risks and categorized them into the attacked Risk Probability / Impact Matrix.

From this activity, two risks stood out as the most important to plan for and monitor. Budget and time overruns are

a real likelihood given the nature of this project, but impacts can be mitigated with extensive pre-planning as well as

performing routine updates of resource allocation and future trends. Project scope requirements changes are nearly a

given, though their negative impacts can be diminished with research, knowledge, and most important,

communication between the consultant and City of Philadelphia.

Top 20 Potential Risks:

1) Software / Hardware problems or changes2) Personal conflicts between consultant members or between consultant and City members3) Conflicting projects at consultant fight for resources4) City members have insufficient knowledge to master training for future Geodatabase work5) City resource issues cause delays in consultant work / meeting scheduling6) Poor cost estimates lead to over budget7) Poor time estimates lead to over run8) Final Geodatabase design not accepted by City9) Unexpected office closures10) Erroneous or late to obtain Shapefile data from City11) Lack of key stakeholder support12) Fitness of Use shows that new Geodatabase is not an improvement over existing Shapefiles13) Rules or requirements changed by City during the project14) Consultant members do not have sufficient experience to complete project15) Consultant members quit, fired, or on unexpected leave16) City reluctant to change for new Geodatabase17) Poor communication between consultant and City18) City IT structure does not meet Geodatabase requirements19) VBA scripts do not migrate data accurately20) City human resource unavailability

Figure 1: Compiled Risks for the City of Philadelphia Pole Geodatabase Project.

Risk Probability / Impact Matrix:

Probability

High 1 6, 7

Medium 3, 17, 20

Low 92, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15,

16, 188, 11, 12, 13, 19

Low Medium High

ImpactTable 1: Risk Probability / Impact Matrix for the City of Philadelphia Pole Geodatabase Project. Risk numbers correspond to those provided in Figure 1.