This document acts as an initial risk plan tool for Remote Deposit Capture project. Basically, it provides a thoughtful plan of the project in order to prevent problems that may pose a nightmare during its implementation. Such risks must be adequately monitored, more especially, where they are deemed to pose serious threats to implementation of the project (Cooper & Chapman, 1987). The ideology reflected in this document is aimed at gaining a step up on the projects implementation (Conrow, 2003). Gauging the idea of possible risks the project may suffer involves brainstorming of the scenario of the project’s implementation.
We will write a custom Essay on Remote Deposit Capture Project’s Risk Plan specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Based on brainstorming, the lists of possible risks to the project are compiled. The risks selected are on basis of agreement by the contributors as well as the document author’s discretion (Hillson & Murray-Webster, 2004). To broaden the scope, some risks are merged alongside associated topics. The only risks retained are those showing reasonable occurrence potential with emphasis being placed on the significance of the level of impact. As a result of this consolidation, the project risks are categorized qualitatively using both their probability as well as the potential impact to the project. The risks are assigned value on a scale of 1 to 10, from high to low based on its impact level anticipated. The top 6 potential risks are listed here:
Top 6 Potential Risks:
- Legal risk exposures
- Poor image quality
- Inaccurate electronic data and inappropriate document processing
- Faulty equipment
- Insufficient knowledge of business management
- Cost overrun
|Legal risk exposures||0.8||0.9||0.72|
|Poor image quality and Faulty equipment||0.8||0.7||0.56|
|Inaccurate electronic data and inappropriate document processing||0.9||0.5||0.45|
|Insufficient knowledge of business management||0.5||0.4||0.2|
|1 – 2 Insignificant |
|2 – 4 Minor |
Insufficient knowledge of business management
|5 – 6 Moderate |
Inappropriate document processing and inaccurate electronic data
|7- 8 Major |
Poor image quality and faulty equipment
|9 – 10 Catastrophic |
legal risk exposures
|Likelihood||0.9 to 1.0||Almost certain to occur in most circumstances||0.2||0.4||0.6||0.8||1|
|0.7 to 0.8||Likely to occur frequently||0.16||0.32||0.48||0.64||0.8|
|0.5 to 0.6||Possible and likely to occur at some time||0.12||0.24||0.36||0.48||0.6|
|0.3 to 0.4||Unlikely to occur but could happen||0.08||0.16||0.24||0.32||0.4|
|0.1 to 0.2||May occur but only in rare and exceptional circumstances||0.04||0.08||0.12||0.16||0.2|
Despite the fact that there were various potential risks which posed threat to the success of the project, some are more likely to have higher priority as compared to the others. The table below illustrates the reactions recommended for identified risks.
|Extreme risk||Immediate actions should be taken to mitigate the risk. Eliminate, substitute or implement engineering control measures. Remove the hazard at the source. An identified extreme risk does not allow scope for the use of administrative controls or PPE, even in the short term.|
|High risk||Act immediately to mitigate the risk. Eliminate, substitute or implement engineering control measures. |
If these controls are not immediately accessible, set a timeframe for their implementation and establish interim risk reduction strategies for the period of the set timeframe. An achievable timeframe must be established to ensure that elimination, substitution or engineering controls are implemented.
NOTE: Risk (and not cost) must be the primary consideration in determining the timeframe. A timeframe of greater than 6 months would generally not be acceptable for any hazard identified as high risk
|Moderate risk||Take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk. Until elimination, substitution or engineering controls can be implemented, institute administrative or personal protective equipment controls. These “lower level” controls must not be considered permanent solutions. The time for which they are established must be based on risk. At the end of the time, if the risk has not been addressed by elimination, substitution or engineering controls a further risk assessment must be undertaken.|
|Low risk||Take reasonable steps to mitigate and monitor the risk. Institute permanent controls in the long term. Permanent controls may be administrative in nature if the hazard has low frequency, rare likelihood and insignificant consequence.|
Legal risk exposure
Legal challenge has been identified as the leading risk challenge the business may encounter. This is mainly attributed to many other factors within the business that may give arise due to customer disgruntlement. To avoid this risk, it is recommended that all issues which may lead to fault on the side of the organization and hence client disgruntlement are effectively addressed (Fischhoff, Lichtenstein, Slovic, Derby, & Keeney, 1981). This will not only increase success of the project but also help avoid additional expenses through hefty payouts as a result of client law suites. More often than not, happy clients will not look for reasons to sue. Additionally, in case of disputes, negotiations should be initiated early enough to avoid any law suites which may arise. Communication is therefore fundamental to avoid any challenges. Legal consult should be sought in all areas of the project’s implementation. This is the only way to guarantee that legal risks are kept at minimal. Additionally, careful review should be done to ensure the project is in compliance to all the relevant statutes. This measure is crucial to success of the project. The probable cost for this risk is basically on legal consultation as this does not require a permanent legal employee. The consultation fee is only projected to cost $500 annually.
Conrow, E. H. (2003). Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success (second edition), Reston VA, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Cooper, D. F. & Chapman, C. B. (1987). Risk analysis for large projects. Chichester, UK: J Wiley.
Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L. & Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hillson, D. A. & Murray-Webster, R. E. (2004). Understanding and managing risk attitude. Aldershot, UK: Gower.