Question 1a & b: Reading and Organizing Risk Data:

1a) Pareto charts are often called histograms, and “show” most frequently occurring risks to projects in descending order.  “Aggregating” these is totaling by category and organizing in a bar chart. Aggregate data refers to numerical or non-numerical information that is (1) collected from multiple sources about differing multiple risks, variables, or data and (2) compiled into data summaries or reports, typically for the purposes of statistical analysis—i.e., examining trends (see Kendrick, 2008 on project risk aggregated data from 600 projects).  If all complaints in the Pareto chart below were “aggregated” from 100 customer complaints, how many were about product quality? What % is that of all complaints in the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year?   

1b) Each person needs to be able to read a Probability & Impact rating scale in PMAN 637.  Review the worldwide standards PMBOK Guide scale, Table 11-1, p.407. How many months schedule delay risk “impact” is labeled “high risk” if a project is experiencing “significant” impact upon its functionality (for instance, due to “scope creep” and unauthorized add-ons) that is rated unacceptable to sponsor?

Question 2:  Identifying Project Risks

Intellectual property risks can be classified in a risk breakdown structure (RBS) for discussion by diverse teams in any work setting, in order to separate risks into categories.   Create an RBS (see Practice Standard for Risk Analysis “Appendix D”, PMI, 2009) based on intellectual property risks in the following case: 

“Tampa Bay Water Desalination Plant”, on p.12 of the article assigned “Mitigation of Risk in Construction:  Strategies for Reducing Risk and Maximizing Profitability” (McGraw-Hill, 2012).  This article was assigned in session 3 and is under “Content”.

Question 3   Risk Mgt. Tools and Methods in Performing Quantitative Analysis (worth 4 points).  Review the process below illustrated in your (PMI, 2009, p.41).   Describe two useful methods you have learned this semester to “perform quantitative analysis” and cite (no direct quotes: must be in your own words!)  from methods described from 4 different readings from sessions 1-6.  

Question 4 Using a Risk Register and Rating Scale: case analysis

 Read the attached “Ready-Energy” case and format a Risk Register (you can use the template in “Content” session 5 or develop your own in Excel).  Identify the top 8 risks facing the Project Management team. Categorize these by scope, schedule, budget and “technical” risks.  Weather or environmental risks would impact schedule and budget.  Rate risks using the scale provided at the end of the case.

Risks in Producing Electricity via Steam-Powered Turbines:  A Hypothetical Case 

Sam Martinez is seeking to invest a portion of his considerable assets in the “independent” electric power production industry in California, a sector projected to experience very rapid growth in the 21st century. He has set up and funded a company “Ready-Energy Inc.”.  The intention is to use the company to build and operate an electric power plant and use innovative, state-of-the art turbine equipment to generate steam.  His plan is to sell both electricity and steam.

However, the large public-sector (hypothetical) CA Energy Resources Inc. produces most of the power for that remote region of northern California.  The main exceptions are co-generation plants which sell off extra steam, once generation of electricity takes place.  These small hydro-plants generate electricity for many northern Californian towns using river water heated into steam, which turns turbines in the plant – thus electricity is produced.  These “independents” are Mr. Martinez’ business models but also competition.   The giant electrical utility, California Energy, operates all long-distance distribution, selling electricity to municipal utilities for local distribution, brokering sales of electrical power to large industrial customers, and providing electricity wholesale to small rural customers. 

Privatization of California Energy is being argued by leading environmental groups, with a view that increases in electricity cost per unit which would decrease electricity consumption and that “big energy” owns too much power generation.  Other groups do not want rate increases so are interested in co-generation of electricity and want to financially back Mr. Martinez.   Risk probabilities have been calculated as part of Ready-Energy’s early financial forecasts, but they lack any risk management plan.

Sam has identified what he believes to be his first big opportunity and is excited to share it with you as a “Risk Management consultant”. It would involve:

1. Producing base load electric power for sale t using a CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) set of natural gas-powered turbines driving generators with waste heat producing high pressure steam to drive a steam turbine generator.

2. Providing (for sale) low pressure steam for manufacturing organizations in the immediate vicinity of the CCGT plant.

The local city has a natural gas network and supply, but the supply pipeline is not large enough to cope with the proposed CCGT type of natural gas-run turbine.   The gas supply company will provide a new main and gas at a price per unit fixed for a substantial period of time but require a “take-or-pay” contract with any buyers. If Ready-Energy decides to contract to take gas from any given date, they will have to pay for the contracted natural gas flow whether they use it or not.

A range of established suppliers/vendors of turbine-run CCGT plant equipment would be willing to sell Ready-Energy its turbine-driven equipment to start operations: they offer, for differing prices (which could risk the project budget): 

A)  New untested design. Very high fuel efficiency. Initial reliability is uncertain. Likely to be very reliable in the long run. Claimed very low maintenance costs. Low capital cost to encourage purchase.

B) Tried and true design. Low fuel efficiency, moderate reliability and maintenance costs. Moderate capital cost. Easy to maintain. 

CCGT plant suppliers will install the major plant components on a fixed price basis.  Ready-Energy Inc. has revised the scope and Contract, with stiff penalty clauses for 1) delays or 2) performance failures, which the CCGT turbine manufacturer must be responsible for. However, such penalty clauses may not be operable, for example, if ground conditions are not as tested environmentally or electrical grid connections are not in place when required.  The Board wants a project risk analysis to be made, and you will be assigned this responsibility.

The giant California Energy will provide grid connections and will not allow anyone else to do installations from their main grids. The plant could be delayed for weather reasons and start-up delayed due to natural gas hook-ups or even electrical failures due to ‘rolling black-outs’.

Water to turn the CCGT turbines will be taken from a river which flows through the municipality. However, no legal environmental permits have been granted to remove water from these rivers during the several drought years in California.  Permit fees statewide are rumored to rise dramatically this year.

Extraction of water requires municipal planning permits, and also state gov’t. approval is required for the plant construction using low pressure steam lines to run steam to local companies, and hook-ups to any electrical grid power lines.  All construction must be scheduled, of course, dependent upon approvals from governmental agencies.  Your supervisor at Ready-Energy is pressuring you, as a Project Management consultant, to complete your work for Board review.

Instructions:  Question 4

Use this scale when formatting your Risk Register and rating risks. 

When finished:  Please put your Name and Date on the top of your Answer Sheet and upload into your Assignment Folder by deadline of Tuesday morning, March 24, 2020.