Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration

0

JACK NEIFT TRUCKING CO. Project Plan Presented: Pay Load

JUNE 1, 2016 TEAM MUSK:

Logan Rogers, Anirudh Mathur, Prachi Dikshit, Darshana Shetty

Project Integration & Risk Management

PIRM PROJECT PLAN TEAM MUSK

Pay Load: Jack Neift Trucking Co.

1

INDEX S. No. Contents Page No.

1. PROJECT CHARTER 2

2. PROJECT SCOPE STATEMENT 4

3. (a) WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 6

(b) WORK BREAKDOW PACKAGE 7

4. NETWORK DIAGRAM 8

5. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS 9

6. (a) QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS 11

(b) PERT ANALYSIS - SCHEDULE 12

PERT ANALYSIS – COST 16

7. RISK RESPONSE

PLAN # 1 19

PLAN # 2 20

PLAN # 3 21

8. (a) COST RESERVE ANALYSIS 22

(b) SCHEDULE RESERVE ANALYSIS 24



2

Project Name: Pay Load

Prepared by: Team MUSK

Date: 4/14/16

Purpose/Business Need:

Reduce deadheading by 75% for Jack Neift Trucking Company.

Product Description:

A web-based software system that quickly brings shipping information, unloading schedules, and truck

routes to all major departments to promote efficient planning and sales techniques that leads to

reduction in deadheading.

Success Criteria:

Reduce deadheading by 75%, and achieve 30% ROI for Team MUSK, and release the software system

within 26 weeks of starting the project.

Project Priorities:

1. Scope – A web-based software system with GPS tracking and scheduling wizard.

2. Schedule – Project should be complete within 6 months.

3. Cost – Estimated cost of project is $850,000 but not to exceed $875,000.

Assumptions:

1. Sales force is able to locate clients and make shipment sales for return routes.

2. Clients publish loading/unloading schedules.

3. All hardware and software 3rd party systems work as expected.

Constraints:

1. Comply with state regulations for the man-hours of the truckers.

2. Sales team and dispatchers working hours between 9am and 5pm (eastern)

Risks:

1. Network crashes could cripple the system for unknown periods of time.

2. Being an in-house system may face critical operational issues that may increase the cost of

project.

3. New system may not be intuitive from usability standpoint and may require additional training

and time for it to be effective.

BACK TO INDEX



3

Milestones Schedule: (based on working days)

1. Project plan approval – 3 weeks from start of project

2. Core system implemented – 10 weeks from start of project

3. Beta version released – 16 weeks from start of project

4. Beta testing completed – 19 weeks from start of project

5. User testing completed – 21 weeks from start of project

6. Revised version released – 23 weeks from start of project

7. Employee training completed – 24 weeks from start of project

8. System launch – 25 weeks from start of project

9. Project Closing – 26 weeks from start of project

Other:

1. This project will enable Jack Neift Trucking Company to be a modern trucking company in this

competitive market.

2. The technology developed in this project could be a game changer for the entire trucking

industry.

Approvals:

Sponsor: Bea Stoveburden Date: 4/13/2016

Project Manager: Sal Vatation Date: 4/13/2016

BACK TO INDEX



4


Project Manager: Sal Vatation

Prepared by: Team Musk Date: 4/16/2016

Approved by: Bea Stoveburden Date: 4/16/2016

Project Objectives:

Scope – A web-based software system which will have GPS to tracking and also this will help us in reducing deadheading.

Schedule – Project time to complete this project is 26 weeks.

Cost – Estimated cost for this project shall not exceed $875,000.

Product Scope Description:

This project will produce a software system which will help the company to reduce deadheading by

roughly 75%. It will aid Jack Neift Trucking Company in tracking the truck routes to make efficient travel

plans for their clients' drop-offs and deliveries. This Software will also monitor the truckers' driving time

and will trigger alerts if the driving time approaches the limits set by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration.

Project Deliverables:

Project Plan

GPS Unit

Server

Software

User manuals

State regulation documents

GPS software design documents

Testing reports

Software User Training

Project Boundaries:

The project will only include one-time training for employees, no training after that if any new employee joins the company.

Software is one-time design won’t allow you to add features once it is launched.

BACK TO INDEX



5

Product Acceptance Criteria:

Project plan should be reviewed and accepted by the Project Sponsor.

Jack Neift Trucking Company needs to send their Quality testing person to do the quality check for the software before installing them.

After completion of the testing of GPS units and software the project should be accepted by the project head.

75% reduction in deadheading and 30% ROI for Team Musk.

Project Constraints:

Comply with federal regulations for the man-hours of the truckers.

Sales team and dispatchers working hours between 9am and 5pm (eastern)

Due to existing relationship between JNTC and Elon Tracking, only tracking devices from Elon Tracking may be used.

Project Assumptions:

Sales force is able to locate clients and make shipment sales for return routes.

Clients publish loading/unloading schedules.

All hardware and software 3rd party systems work as expected.

Approval Requirements:

Project Sponsor: Bea Stoveburden

Project Manager: Sal Vatation

BACK TO INDEX



6

BACK TO INDEX



7

Work Package (WBS#) WP#

Duration Estimate - Days Cost Estimate ($K)

Optimistic Most

Likely Pessimistic Optimistic

Most

Likely Pessimistic

Project Plan 1.1.1 2 3 6 47.5 50 60

Schedule 1.1.2 3 5 10 14.25 15 18

Budget 1.1.3 3 5 10 19 20 24

Communication Plan &

Reporting 1.1.4 2 3 6 9.5 10 12

Dev Tasks listed in Project Plan 1.2.1 13 20 30 190 200 240

Integration with 3rd party

software 1.2.2 6 10 15 47.5 50 60

Integration Testing 1.2.3 6 10 20 47.5 50 60

Write Test Cases 1.2.4 9 15 30 95 100 120

Validate the system 1.3.1 6 10 20 71.25 75 90

Defect Management 1.3.2 6 10 20 23.75 25 30

Server Installation and Testing 1.3.3 6 10 20 95 100 120

Write Training documentation 1.4.1 3 5 10 23.75 25 30

Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 3 5 10 23.75 25 30

Receive and resolve UAT

incidents 1.4.3 3 5 10 57 60 72

Comply with Federal

Regulations 1.4.4 2 3 6 14.25 15 18

Create, review and approve

deployment strategy 1.5.1 2 3 6 19 20 24

Ensure successful

release/deployment 1.5.2 2 3 6 9.5 10 12

Receive signoff from the JNT

Board 1.5.3 1 2 4 4.75 5 6

Start using the new application 1.5.4 1 1 2 9.5 10 12

BACK TO INDEX



8

1.1.2 3

11-Apr 13-Apr 1.2.1 13 1.2.3 6 1.2.4 9 1.3.1 6

14-Apr 18-Apr 27-Apr 4-May 5-May 17-May 18-May 25-May

1.1.1 2 1.1.3 3

6-Apr 8-Apr 11-Apr 13-Apr

1.1.4 2 1.2.2 6

11-Apr 12-Apr 19-Apr 26-Apr

1.4.4 2 1.4.3 3 1.4.2 3 1.4.1 3 1.3.2 6

16-Jun 20-Jun 13-Jun 15-Jun 8-Jun 10-Jun 3-Jun 7-Jun 26-May 2-Jun

1.5.2 2

21-Jun 23-Jun

1.5.1 2 1.3.3 6

3-Jun 6-Jun 26-May 2-Jun

1.5.3 1 1.5.4 1

24-Jun 24-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun

Schedule

Dev Tasks listed in Project

PlanIntegration Testing Write Test Cases Validate the system

Project Plan Budget

Communication Plan Integration with 3rd

Server Installation &

Testing

Create, review & approve

Deployment Strategy

Write Training

Documentation

Defect

ManagementRun UAT Sessions

Recieve signoff from JNT

Board

Start using the new

application

Resolve & resolve UAT

Incidents

Comply with Federal

regulations

Ensure successful

release/deployment

STARTA

B

C

D

E

F

GH

I

J

K L

1

25 7

6

8 9

3

4

1116

NM

PQRTU

W X

FINISH

S O

V

1012131415

17

18 19

BACK TO INDEX

BACK TO INDEX



9


Prepared By: Sal Vation

Date: 4 May 2016

Session Facilitator: Sal Vation

Title/Position: Project Manager

Participating Group: All

Location: Worksite

Risk

No.

Identified Risk Probability of

Occurrence*

Potential

Impact**

Risk Rating

Score

Risk

Ranking

Risk Scores >

Threshold = 1.0

Identified by

Whom?

1 Risk of personnel leaving 0.1 4 0.4 5 1.1.4

2 Technical / Design group may

produce incomplete

specifications, like,

missing browser

compatibility

0.5 5 2.5 1 2.5 1.3.3

3 Business Cost / Being an in-house

system may face critical operational

issues that may increase the cost of

project

0.3 3 0.9 4 1.5

4 External / integration with 3rd party

software may take longer than

expected

0.5 4 2 2 2 1.2.3

5 Time / New system may not be

intuitive from usability standpoint and

may require additional training and

time for it to be effective.

0.5 2 1 3 1 1.1.3

1.8Project risk socre = total of top rated risk scores divided by number of top rated risks

BACK TO INDEX



10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5

Ris

k S

co

re

Risk No.

Qualitative Risk Scores

JN Project

*Probability of Occurrence Scale: Very low = 0.1 Low = 0.3 Moderate = 0.5 High = 0.7 Very high = 0.9 ** Potential impact scale Very low = 1.0 Low = 2.0 Moderate = 3.0 High = 4.0 Very high = 5.0

Project risk threshold has been set for a risk score equal to or exceeding 1.0

BACK TO INDEX



11


Prepared by: Sal Vation

Date: 18 May 2016

Session Facilitator: Sal Vation

Title/Position: Project Manager

Participating Group: All

Location: Worksite

Risk

No.

Risk Area

(Above Risk Threshold)

Probability

of

Occurrence

Potential

Impact

Expected

Value

WBS

REF.

2 Technical / Design group may

produce incomplete

specifications such as missing

browser

compatibility

0.5 6 weeks

3 weeks 1.3.3

0.5 $45,000 $22,500

1.3.3

4 External / integration with 3rd

party software may take longer

than expected

0.5 5 weeks 2.5 weeks 1.2.3

0.5 $32,000 $16,000 1.2.3

5 Time / New system may not be

intuitive from usability

standpoint and may require

additional training and time for it

to be effective.

0.5 3 weeks 1.5 weeks 1.1.3

0.5 $15,000 $7,500 1.1.3

Total Expected Value $46,000

7 weeks

BACK TO INDEX



12

Task Duration -Days Expected Variance

No. O M P Te Vd

1Project Plan 1.1.1 2 3 6

3.3 0.4

2Schedule 1.1.2 3 5 10

5.5 1.4

3Budget 1.1.3 3 5 10

5.5 1.4

4 Communication Plan &

Reporting1.1.4 2 3 6

3.3 0.4

5Dev Tasks listed in Project Plan 1.2.1 13 20 30

20.5 8.0

6 Integration with 3rd party

software1.2.2 6 10 15

10.2 2.3

7Integration Testing 1.2.3 6 10 20

11.0 5.4

8Write Test Cases 1.2.4 9 15 30

16.5 12.3

9Validate the system 1.3.1 6 10 20

11.0 5.4

10Defect Management 1.3.2 6 10 20

11.0 5.4

11Server Installation and Testing 1.3.3 6 10 20

11.0 5.4

12 Write Training documentation 1.4.1 3 5 10 5.5 1.4

13Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 3 5 10

5.5 1.4

14 Receive and resolve UAT

incidents1.4.3 3 5 10

5.5 1.4

15 Comply with Federal

Regulations1.4.4 2 3 6

3.3 0.4

16 Create, review and approve

deployment strategy1.5.1 2 3 6

3.3 0.4

17 Ensure successful

release/deployment1.5.2 2 3 6

3.3 0.4

18 Receive signoff from the JNT

Board1.5.3 1 2 4

2.2 0.3

19 Start using the new

application1.5.4 1 1 2

1.2 0.0

WBS#Activities

BACK TO INDEX



13

Conf. Z

Crit. Path Conf.

WBS Variance

Level Factor

Days Level

No. V

99% 2.330

120.7 0.99

1.5.4 0.0

95% 1.648

116.2 0.95

1.5.3 0.0

90% 1.281

113.8 0.90

1.1.1 0.4

75% 0.675

109.8 0.75

1.1.4 0.4

50% 0.000

105.3 0.50

1.4.4 0.4

25% -0.675

100.9 0.25

1.5.1 0.4

10% -1.281

96.9 0.10

1.5.2 0.4

5% -1.684

94.2 0.05

1.1.2 1.4

1% -2.330

89.9 0.01

1.1.3 1.4

1.4.1 1.4

1.4.2 1.4

1.4.3 1.4

1.2.2 2.3

1.2.3 5.4

1.3.1 5.4

1.3.2 5.4

1.3.3 5.4

1.2.1 8.0

1.2.4 12.3

BACK TO INDEX



14

Network Data Table

Confidence Level

Project Network Path ∑Te ∑Vd 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.01

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 105.3 43.7 120.7 116.2 113.8 109.8 105.3 100.9 96.9 94.2 89.9

1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 104.5 40.5 119.3 115.0 112.6 108.8 104.5 100.2 96.4 93.8 89.7

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 88.8 39.6 103.5 99.2 96.9 93.1 88.8 84.6 80.8 78.2 74.2

1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 88.0 36.4 102.1 97.9 95.7 92.1 88.0 83.9 80.3 77.8 73.9

1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 105.3 43.7 120.7 116.2 113.8 109.8 105.3 100.9 96.9 94.2 89.9

1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 104.5 40.5 119.3 115.0 112.6 108.8 104.5 100.2 96.4 93.8 89.7

1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 88.8 39.6 103.5 99.2 96.9 93.1 88.8 84.6 80.8 78.2 74.2

1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 88.0 36.4 102.1 97.9 95.7 92.1 88.0 83.9 80.3 77.8 73.9

1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 103.2 42.8 118.4 113.9 111.5 107.6 103.2 98.8 94.8 92.2 87.9

1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 102.3 39.6 117.0 112.7 110.4 106.6 102.3 98.1 94.3 91.7 87.7

1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 86.7 38.7 101.2 96.9 94.6 90.9 86.7 82.5 78.7 76.2 72.2

1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,

17, 18, 19 85.8 35.5 99.7 95.6 93.5 89.9 85.8 81.8 78.2 75.8 72.0

BACK TO INDEX



15

BACK TO INDEX



16

Project Quantitative Cost Analysis

Task Expected Variance

No. Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic Ce Vc

1 Project Plan 1.1.1 47.5 50 60 51.25 4.34

2 Schedule 1.1.2 14.25 15 18 15.38 0.39

3 Budget 1.1.319 20 24

20.50 0.69

4 Communication

Plan & Reporting

1.1.49.5 10 12

10.25 0.17

5 Dev Tasks listed in

Project Plan

1.2.1190 200 240

205.00 69.44

6 Integration with 3rd

party software

1.2.247.5 50 60

51.25 4.34

7 Integration Testing 1.2.347.5 50 60

51.25 4.34

8 Write Test Cases 1.2.495 100 120

102.50 17.36

9 Validate the system 1.3.171.25 75 90

76.88 9.77

10 Defect Management 1.3.223.75 25 30

25.63 1.09

11 Server Installation

and Testing

1.3.395 100 120

102.50 17.36

12 Write Training

documentation

1.4.123.75 25 30

25.63 1.09

13 Run UAT sessions 1.4.2 23.75 25 30 25.63 1.09

14 Receive and resolve

UAT incidents

1.4.3

57 60 72

61.50 6.25

15 Comply with

Federal Regulations

1.4.414.25 15 18

15.38 0.39

16 Create, review and

approve

deployment strategy

1.5.1

19 20 24

20.50 0.69

17 Ensure successful

release/deployment

1.5.29.5 10 12

10.25 0.17

18

Receive signoff

from the JNT Board

1.5.3

4.75 5 6

5.13 0.04

19

Start using the new

application

1.5.49.5 10 12

10.25 0.17

20

WBS No. Work PackageCost - $K

PERT Data Table

BACK TO INDEX



17

99% 2.330 914.11 0.99

95% 1.648 906.07 0.95

90% 1.281 901.74 0.90

75% 0.675 894.59 0.75

50% 0.000 886.63 0.50

25% -0.675 878.66 0.25

10% -1.281 871.51 0.10

5% -1.684 866.76 0.05

1% -2.330 859.14 0.01

Conf. Level Z Factor Cost $K Conf. Level

Cost Data Table Confidence Level

∑Ce ∑Vc 99% 95% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 5% 1%

Total Network 886.63 139.19 914.11 906.07 901.74 894.59 886.63 878.66 871.51 866.76 859.14

Conf. Level Data

Table Probability Dist. Data

Table

BACK TO INDEX



18

BACK TO INDEX



19

Project Name: Pay Load Risk No. 4, WBS 1.2.3


Date: 19 May 2016

Description of Risk Identified:

Integration with 3rd party software may take longer than expected

Risk Owner: Sal Vation

Results from Risk Analysis:

The risk rating is 2.0 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 5 weeks delay

and $32,000. The expected values are 2.5 weeks schedule delay and $16,000 over budget if no risk response

is applied.

Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): mitigation

Response:

Perform additional research and market analysis. Hold more integration planning review meetings.

Risk Response Cost

Implementation duration (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 wks Te = 1.2 wks

Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $800, $1,300, $1,900 Ce = $1,316

Residual Risk Level:

The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to 25% with resulting expected

values of $8,000 and 1.25 weeks of delay.

Benefit/Cost Ratio:

Sanity Check:

$16,000 - $8,000 - $1,316 = $6,684

2.5wks – 1.25 wks – 1.2 wks = 0.05 wks

Benefit/Cost Ratios (Expected ROI from risk response)

( $16,000 - $8,000 ) / ( $1,316 ) = $ 6.08

( 2.5 wks – 1.25 wks ) / 1.2 wks = 1.042

Secondary Risks: None

BACK TO INDEX



20



Date: 19 May 2016

Description of Risk Identified: Design group may produce incomplete specifications such as missing browser compatibility



The risk rating is 2.5 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 6 weeks delay

and $45,000. The expected values are 3 weeks schedule delay and $22,500 over budget if no risk response

is applied.

Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): mitigation

Response: Seek external expert consultant. Requires communication/networking, interviewing, and

contractual agreement. Requires two meetings between consultant and design group.

Risk Response Cost


Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $3000, $4500, $6500 Ce = $4583

Residual Risk Level:

The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to 10% with resulting

expected values of $4500 and 0.6 weeks of delay.

Benefit/Cost Ratio:

Sanity Check:

$22,500 - $4,500 - $4,583 = $13,417

3 wks – 0.6 wks – 1.267 wks = 1.133 wks


( $22,500 - $4,500 ) / ( $4,583 ) = 3.928

( 3 wks – 0.6 wks ) / 1.267 wks = 1.894

Secondary Risks: Bringing in expert help from outside the company may leave the technical/design team

feeling insulted. This could lead to damaged egos of the design group resulting in possible turnover of core

team members.

BACK TO INDEX



21



Date: 19 May 2016

Description of Risk Identified: New system may not be intuitive from usability standpoint and may require additional training and time for it to be effective.



The risk rating is 1.0 out of 5.0. The probability of occurrence is 50% with potential impacts of 3 weeks

delay and $15,000. The expected values are 1.5 weeks schedule delay and $7,500 over budget if no risk

response is applied.

Agreed Risk Response (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance): Mitigation

Response: Conduct surveys within Jack Neift Trucking company to understand how the future users rate

the user interface and general flow of the software. Based on customer feedback, include additional

information in the training material so the users get a better understanding without having to be retrained.

Risk Response Cost:


Implementation cost (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic): $400, $550, $800 Ce = $566

Residual Risk Level: The risk response is estimated to reduce the probability of occurrence from 50% to

5% with resulting expected values of $750 and 0.15 weeks of delay.

Benefit/Cost Ratio:

Sanity Check:

$7,500 - $750 - $566 = $6,184

1.5wks – 0.15 wks – 0.6 wks = 0.75 wks


( $7,500 - $750 ) / ( $566 ) = 11.92

( 1.5 wks – 0.15 wks ) / 0.6 wks = 2.25

Secondary Risks: None

BACK TO INDEX



22

1. Common Cause Cost Risk Reserve

As shown in the above table, the project cost estimate is $893,090 at the 50% confidence level and

$912,560 at the 95% confidence level. The baseline budget will become $893,090. The common cause

risk reserve will be the difference the 95% confidence level cost and the 50% confidence level cost

which is:

Common causes risk reserve = $912,560 - $893,090 = $19,470.

BACK TO INDEX



23

2. Specific Cause Cost Risk Reserve

After mitigation the three high level risks have the following residual expected values for cost as

described in the risk response plan section.

Special Causes Risk Residual Expected Value

Risk No. 2 $4,500

Risk No. 4 $8,000

Risk No. 5 $750

Total special causes cost risk reserve = $4,500 + $8,000 + $750 = $13,250

3. Management Reserve

The reserve for unknown risks will be set arbitrarily at 5% of the baseline project cost or 5% x $893,090

= $44,654.5.

4. Total Cost Reserve

The total cost reserve is the sum of the common causes risk, special causes risk and management

reserves. Total cost reserve = $19,470+ $13250 + $44,654.5= $77,374.5

BACK TO INDEX



24

1. Common Causes Schedule Risk Reserve

The JNT project will be managed to achieve cost and schedule for the 50% confidence level. However,

cost and schedule reserve will be allocated to provide for a 95% confidence level. There are three risk

mitigation (RM) activities which will be included into existing work packages with the following

mitigation duration requirements.

Risk Mitigation Activity Work Package/Task No. Duration (O, M , P)

RM No.4 1.2.3 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 weeks

RM No.2 1.1.3 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 weeks

RM No.5 1.3.3 0.8, 1.2, 2.0 weeks

Risk mitigation activities No.4 & 5 will be incorporated into Work Package 1.2.3 and performed in

parallel (fast tracked) with the other activities in WP 1.2.3 and will have no impact on the duration of

the existing WP.

Based upon the above analysis, it will be assumed that the project critical path will not change due to

the three top level risk mitigation tasks.

As previously shown in the quantitative schedule risk analysis, the project schedule duration estimate

(critical path) is 105.3 days at the 50% confidence level and 116.2 days at the 95% confidence level.

Common causes schedule risk reserve is 116.2 days - 105.3 days = 10.9` days.

2. Special Causes Schedule Risk Reserve

After risk mitigation the three high level risks have the following residual expected values as described

in the risk response plan section.

Special Causes Risk Residual Expected Value

Risk No. 4 1.25 week or 6.25 days

Risk No. 2 0.6 week or 3 days

Risk No. 5 .15 week or .75 days

BACK TO INDEX



25

Since Risk No. 2 is not on the critical path and has slack of 3 days, its residual expected duration value

of 3 days will not affect the overall project duration and will not be added to the special causes

schedule reserve.

Total special causes schedule risk reserve = 6.25 days + .75 days = 7 days

3. Management Reserve

The reserve for unknown risks will be arbitrarily set at 5% of the baseline project schedule.

Management reserve = 5% x 105.3 = 5.26 days.

4. Total Schedule Risk Reserve

The total schedule reserve is the sum of the common causes risk, special causes risk and management

reserves.

Total schedule reserve = 10.9 days + 7 days + 5.26 days = 23.16 days

BACK TO INDEX

Documents

Project Plan - Risk Management & Integration