Risk Factors in Relation to PESTEL and SWOT
The risks highlighted in the risk register mainly overlap with the ones outlined in the PESTEL analysis. Uncertainty in estimation (costs, passenger flow, efficacy, revenue) can be seen as a primary concern. Environmental, economic, political, and legal environments are rather unstable, which is associated with diverse risks. At that, PESTEL is an efficient instrument to identify risks related to various spheres of life, including social, which enables investigators to come up with effective contingency plans (Hunziker, 2019). The risk register does not contain data regarding potential disapproval of the public and social unrest that can hinder the construction process leading to delays or even the termination of the work on the project.
Based on the SWOT analysis, it is possible to identify the most serious risks that can lead to undesirable outcomes. The analysis of threats and weaknesses is instrumental in identifying risks, while the evaluation of strengths and opportunities is critical for the development of mitigation and contingency plans (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2015). Reportedly, the considerable level of inflation in the rail sector has led to an increase in the project costs, which made the authorities consider different ways to keep to the agreed budget (Hallam, 2018). The potential outcomes of the project are still difficult to foresee, and the passenger flow is still a serious concern.
However, Coventry’s being an important transportation hub in the north, and the overall layout of the projected railway is likely to make the project successful as passengers will find it convenient. One of the most unpredictable threats is the price and characteristics of rail services that are transforming rapidly, but the focus on construction timeline and flexibility regarding some aspects can help mitigate these risks.
Five Most Important Risks
The major risks associated with the project are the lack of qualified personnel (organisational), unclear passenger flow (external), inappropriate layout of the facility in some spots (external), disapproval of the existing network changes (external), and the inefficacy of communication channels (technical and organisational). The risks are mentioned in accordance with their likelihood (from most probable and impactful to the least likely and important).
Although communication challenges are less likely to occur compared to the identified risks, they can be the most impactful. Communication is one of the most important aspects to consider when implementing projects involving the collaboration of diverse groups of people (Herrmann, 2015). The disruption of effective communication can have adverse effects on all phases of the project and intensify the negative effects of other risks if they occur.
When considering the three success factors, the risks mentioned above will influence them differently. The three success factors of any project include quality, time, and cost (Kerzner, 2017). As far as quality is concerned, ineffective communication and the lack of qualified staff will have the most negative effect on this factor. Inappropriate layout and objections to the current network changes will affect time as the development of a new layout, as well as negotiations with the public, may lead to delays. All the identified risks may influence costs as every delay or quality impairment will lead to increased funding.
Mitigation and Contingency Plan
Mitigation plans are aimed at preventing unwanted events and minimising associated negative effects if prevention is impossible (Coble, 2018). Contingency planning involves the development of specific steps if certain events take place (Haugan, 2016). The response steps are undertaken when triggers are apparent. The identified risks are closely linked to communication and interaction between people, so the use of different types of media (especially social media) can be beneficial (Keyes, 2016).
Reference List
Coble, L.K. (2018) Collaborative risk mitigation through construction planning and scheduling: risk doesn’t have to be a four letter word. Bibgley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Fleisher, C.S. and Bensoussan, B.E. (2015) Business and competitive analysis: effective application of new and classic methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Hallam, K. (2018) ‘Big July as cost of Coventry station masterplan spirals’, Coventry Live. Web.
Haugan, G.T. (2016) The new triple constraints for sustainable projects, programs, and portfolios. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Herrmann, J.W. (2015) Engineering decision making and risk management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hunziker, S. (2019) Enterprise risk management: modern approaches to balancing risk and reward. Rotkreuz: Springer.
Kerzner, H. (2017) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Keyes, J. (2016) Enterprise 2.0: social networking tools to transform your organization. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.