Task 1 Risk Management Plan
Task 1 Risk Management Plan
Instructions to Learners:
This summative assessment can be completed in class or at any other convenient location.
Students are required to complete this task using digital tools and ensure to submit in an acceptable format, e.g. .docx, .pdf, .pptx, or as advised by your assessor.
Please use the following formatting guidelines to complete this assessment task:
Font Size: 12; Line Spacing: Double; Font Style: Times New Roman
Assessment activities can be completed either in real workplace environment or in a simulated environment such as your classroom. In both cases, appropriate evidence of the assessment activities must be provided.
Instruction to Assessors:
You must assess students assessment according to the provided Marking Criteria.
You must complete and record any evidence related to assessment activities including role-plays and presentations using appropriate forms which must be attached with student assessment submission.
You must provide students with detailed feedback within 10 working days from submission.The student can consider any other project similar to civil construction for the assignment
Project Evaluation Summary
Ballarat Line Upgrade
382270052656Proponent Victorian Government
Evaluation date 30 August 2018
Contents
Summary1Strategic context2Problem description2Project overview3Options identification and assessment3Economic evaluation4Deliverability6469265824865Infrastructure Australia has added the Ballarat Line Upgrade project to the Infrastructure Priority List as a Priority Project.
00Infrastructure Australia has added the Ballarat Line Upgrade project to the Infrastructure Priority List as a Priority Project.
Summary
The Ballarat Line is an important regional public transport link for Melbournes outer west, with annual boardings increasing from 3.4 million in 2014/5, to 4.3 million in 2016/17. It provides access between the Melbourne CBD and growing population centres, such as Bacchus Marsh, Melton and Ballarat. Demand on the Melton/Bacchus Marsh section of the Ballarat Line exceeds capacity at peak times, causing passenger crowding and affecting service punctuality and reliability.
Victoria in Future (2016) predicts strong population growth in local government areas to the east, north and west of Melbourne. To the west, in the Ballarat Line corridor, the population of the Melton local government area is expected to grow at 4% between 2011 and 2031 the highest average annual growth rate in Greater Melbourne.
The Australian Infrastructure Audit (2015) projected that demand on the Melton/Sunshine section of the Ballarat Line would grow to around three times the current capacity by 2031. Road traffic is also projected to grow strongly, with daily trips to and from the Melton/Bacchus Marsh area forecast to increase from 14,300 trips per day in 2011 to 87,700 trips per day in 2031.
The Ballarat Line Upgrade project responds to the demand growth and will improve reliability by duplicating tracks and enhancing rail systems, adding passing loops and upgrading stations. The works would allow an increase in service frequency, and provide passengers with more reliable and less crowded trips. It would also reduce congestion on the road network by encouraging some travellers to use public transport instead of driving.
The proponents stated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the project is 1.1, with a net present value (NPV) of $60 million (using a 7% real discount rate and a P90 equivalent capital cost estimate).
Infrastructure Australia identified several issues in the economic analysis underpinning the business case, including the overestimation of road decongestion, health benefits and additional fare revenue. Infrastructure Australia also noted the omission of potential benefits from road maintenance cost savings, improved reliability of rail services, and improved amenity for passengers using new trains and upgraded stations.
Overall, Infrastructure Australia considers that, on balance, the project will deliver marginal net economic benefits to Australia. The economic and strategic case for the project is the strongest for works to the east of Melton, where growth is expected to be higher.
Strategic context
In Melbournes outer west, the populations of Melton, Moorabool and Ballarat grew respectively by 5%, 3% and 2% each year from 2012 to 2017. Meanwhile, Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that, in 2016, Melbournes CBD accounted for approximately 20% of employment in Greater Melbourne. This has led to more demand for commuter services on the Ballarat Line, which runs through this corridor. V/Line reported that annual rail trips on the Ballarat Line have increased from approximately 1.5 million in 2005/06, to 3.4 million in 2014/15 an annual growth rate of 9.5%. Peak journey time indicators reported by V/Line suggest much of this growth is attributable to the Melton/Deer Park section of the Ballarat Line.
This trend is expected to continue with the Victorian Government forecasting the population of Melton to increase from 112,600 in 2011 to 266,000 in 2031 an annual growth rate of 4.4%. This population growth is driven in part by the expansion of Melbournes Urban Growth Boundaries. Further west, the population of the Moorabool and Ballarat local government areas are forecast to grow at annual rates of 1.8% and 2.4% respectively.
Future congestion in the rail corridor between Melton and Sunshine was identified in the Australian Infrastructure Audit (2015), and the Melton Rail Line Upgrade Priority Initiative has already been included on the Infrastructure Priority List. While the Ballarat Line Upgrade project will enhance rail capacity between Melton and Sunshine, the Victorian Government is also considering electrification and quadruplication of the line east of Melton.
Problem description
V/Lines May 2018 patronage data shows that four morning peak services originating from Bacchus Marsh/Melton and travelling to the Melbourne CBD reached 100% seated capacity by Melton or Deer Park. The three services originating further west from Ararat and Wendouree had 94%, 89% and 66% of seats occupied. In the evening peak, five of the six services departing Melbourne between 5pm and 6pm on the Ballarat Line reached 100% seated capacity by Footscray or Sunshine, while the other service reached 90%.
The average timetabled peak journey times from Wendouree, Bacchus Marsh and Melton are 119 minutes,
49 minutes and 38 minutes respectively. Average punctuality on the Ballarat Line has decreased from pre-2015 levels of near 95%. The decline was exacerbated by the opening of the Regional Rail Link in June 2015 to accommodate increased patronage on the Geelong Line, as Ballarat Line services now share the Regional Rail Link track east of Deer Park West with Geelong Line services. Between January and July 2018, V/Line reported punctuality of between 77% and 86% on the Ballarat Line.
The proponent states that increased service capacity and improved punctuality on the Ballarat Line cannot be achieved without additional track capacity. There is currently no spare track capacity to add more services to meet peak demand, and spare weekend capacity will be eroded over time. Without investment to increase capacity on the Ballarat Line, demand will increasingly exceed capacity.
Road demand is also forecast to increase along the M8 Motorway corridor with the Australian Infrastructure
Audit (2015) predicting that daily car trips to and from the Melton/Bacchus Marsh area will increase from 14,300 in 2011 to 87,700, over the period 2011 to 2031 an annual growth rate of 9.5%. This is the highest percentage growth of car trips for any Melbourne statistical area in the same period. Improvements to rail infrastructure on the Ballarat Line, and particularly to Melton, can encourage people to take the train and reduce road congestion.
Project overview
The proponents objectives for the Ballarat Line Upgrade project are to:
increase the number of peak services from Ballarat to Melbourne to accommodate current unmet demand and cater for growing patronage caused by forecast population growth on the Ballarat Line
increase the on-time running performance of services on the Ballarat Line from the current levels and deliver travel time savings on some services
increase consistency and reliability of services by addressing existing network constraints and providing a foundation for further capacity expansion in the future.
The project includes upgrades between Wendouree and Deer Park on the Ballarat Line, including track duplication, construction of new rail track and passing loops, enhanced stabling facilities, and station upgrades.
The proponent revised the project scope after completing the business case to reflect the findings of supplementary rail operations analysis, analysis of noise impacts on the local community and to meet legislative requirements. The proponent has advised that the revised project scope does not affect the benefits of the project, but increases the total project cost slightly. Infrastructure Australias evaluation has considered the revised scope, which includes the following:
Melton to Deer Park West duplication: a new track on the northern side of the existing line between Deer Park West Junction and Melton
Ballan passing loop: a 5-kilometre long passing loop near Ballan
Spreadeagle passing loop: a passing loop between Bungaree East and Bungaree West Junctions on the Bungaree Deviation, making it possible to close the existing Bungaree loop and remove five level crossings
Bacchus Marsh duplication: duplication of the rail line between Bacchus Marsh and Maddingly stabling facility
Maddingly Stabling upgrade: removing stabling at Bacchus Marsh and replacing with stabling at Maddingly
Bacchus Marsh Station upgrade: construction of a second platform and enhanced pedestrian access facilities
Ballan Station upgrade: construction of a second platform and enhanced pedestrian access facilities
Rockbank Station upgrade: construction of a second platform, enhanced pedestrian access facilities and a new car park on the southern side of the station
Wendouree Station upgrade: construction of a second platform and enhanced pedestrian access facilities
Rolling stock: allocation of 12 VLocity carriages (of 27 carriages being procured as part of the Regional Rail Upgrade Program) to provide additional service capacity on the Ballarat Line. Only the costs of the 12 carriages have been included in the cost-benefit analysis.
A new station will also be constructed at Toolern under a separate funding arrangement by the Victorian Government using Growth Areas Infrastructure Contributions. This is not part of the business case submitted for the Ballarat Line Upgrade. Therefore, the costs and benefits of this station have not been included in the Ballarat Line Upgrade business case or cost-benefit analysis.
Options identification and assessment
The proponent completed a systematic options identification and assessment process, which considered capital and non-capital solutions to determine the preferred solution of strategic rail infrastructure upgrades focusing on improving the condition of the existing rail network to increase rail capacity and performance.
The business case considered a thorough long-list of possible solutions, including demand management, better use of existing assets, and investing in alternative transport modes. However, the rail infrastructure improvements option was selected as the recommended strategic option using only qualitative analysis. Infrastructure Australias Assessment Framework recommends the use quantitative analysis to shortlist options, with at least two project options (plus a base case) being considered in the detailed economic appraisal. For instance, an alternative option could have focused on infrastructure works near Melton/Bacchus Marsh and Deer Park where the strongest population and trip growth is forecast to occur Economic evaluation
The proponents stated BCR for the project is 1.1 with a NPV of $60 million, using a 7% real discount rate and a P90 equivalent capital cost estimate. The proponent did not estimate any wider economic benefits for the project, and they are not expected to be material.
The Victorian Governments metropolitan and regional transport modelling tools, the Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM) and Victorian Patronage Elasticity Model (VPEM), were used to estimate the base case and project case demand forecasts. VITM was used to model the metropolitan part of the regional train network (Melton and Wyndham Vale), while VPEM was used to model the regional rail corridors.
The use of these two models is consistent with their respective strengths and capabilities. However, using a single multi-modal model to forecast demand changes within the entire study area would have been a more transparent method of deriving economic model inputs and estimating road user and environmental externality benefits.
The VITM model used Victorias Reference Case of projects, which includes existing and planned projects, some of which are yet to be funded. While the Reference Case approach is useful for the purposes of integrated long-term transport planning, it is unconventional for economic evaluations and could understate the BCR if the unfunded projects assumed in the base case do not proceed. The underlying population and employment growth rates used in the models are consistent with the Victorian Governments planning policies.
Benefits and Costs breakdown (excluding wider economic benefits)
Proponents Stated Benefits and Costs Present Value ($m, 2015) @ 7% real discount rate % of total
Public transport user benefits Reduced crowding $16 3%
Reduced wait time $67 11%
Service reliability $8 1%
New user benefits $20 3%
Fare resource cost correction $112 18%
Road user benefits Road decongestion $178 29%
Resource cost correction for vehicle operating cost savings cars $43 7%
Resource cost correction for parking $23 4%
Other (environmental externalities, accident cost savings, health benefits) $132 21%
Residual value of assets $23 4%
Total Benefits1 $622 (A) 100%
Capital costs (P90 equivalent)2,3 $437 78%
Operating and maintenance costs $124 22%
Total Costs1 $561 (B) 100%
Net Benefits - Net Present Value (NPV)4 $60 (C) n/a
BenefitCost Ratio (BCR)5 1.1 (D) n/a
Sources: Proponent cost-benefit analysis and business case
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
For the purpose of the cost-benefit analysis, the capital costs include the relevant proportion of rolling stock costs to reflect the allocation of new VLocity carriages procured in the Regional Rail Upgrade Program. They are not included in the capital cost of the project (see next page).
The capital cost has been determined during procurement and are by the proponent to be equivalent to a P90 estimate.
The net present value (C) is calculated as the present value of total benefits less the present value of total costs (A B).
The benefitcost ratio (D) is calculated as the present value of total benefits divided by the present value of total costs (A B).
Capital costs and funding
Total capital cost (nominal, undiscounted) $517 million (P90 equivalent)
Proponents proposed Australian Government funding contribution (nominal, undiscounted) $467 million
Other funding (nominal, undiscounted) The remainder would be funded by the Victorian Government
Note: The project capital cost differs from the capital costs in the cost-benefit analysis, which includes rolling stock opportunity costs.
The economic appraisal was originally developed to measure the benefits and costs of a broader Regional Rail Upgrade Program, of which the Ballarat Line Upgrade is a component. The proponent subsequently prepared a revised cost-benefit analysis to consider only the costs and benefits of the Ballarat Line Upgrade project, which resulted in several discrepancies between the business case and the economic appraisal.
At a high-level, the economic appraisal shows that only 36% of the total project benefits are for public transport users. This proportion appears low, given that the primary objectives of the project are to improve the punctuality, reliability and capacity of rail services.
Infrastructure Australia identified several issues in the economic analysis underpinning the business case, including the overestimation and omission (under-estimation) of several benefit categories. The most significant issue is the overestimation of road decongestion benefits, which are $178 million (or 29%) of the project benefits. The economic appraisal used optimistic assumptions for the value of avoided vehicle kilometres driven and the extent of future road congestion in regional parts of the study area.
Further, the economic analysis artificially constrained the number of passengers who could travel on severely crowded trains, which potentially understates rail user benefits and overstates road user benefits.
Other minor issues include the use of optimistic parameters for estimating health benefits and the estimation of residual values using a 3% discount rate. Infrastructure Australia also noted that V/Line introduced a new Ballarat Line timetable with additional services after completing the business case, suggesting that the base case for the project may have been slightly underestimated.
Infrastructure Australia also identified a number of factors that could positively impact on the economic viability of the project, including:
Rail performance: the business case appears to significantly underestimate potential rail punctuality and reliability improvements, as the project should allow the rail network to recover from unplanned incidents sooner and reduce passenger delays. The infrastructure investments should also benefit the Geelong/Bendigo Lines, which interface with the Ballarat Line near Deer Park West and Sunshine respectively. The proponent has been unable to provide accurate attribution on the cause of delays due to data collection limitations.
Appraisal period: the business case considers a 30-year operational period in the appraisal, whereas a 50-year period would better reflect the longer asset life of rail infrastructure, including station buildings.
Road maintenance: notwithstanding the previous discussion of impacts on the road network, it would be reasonable to allow for reduced road maintenance costs if fewer people travel by car as a result of the project.
Amenity and safety: upgrading stations and providing new rolling stock will improve passenger experience and safety.
Overall, Infrastructure Australia considers that the project will deliver marginal net economic benefits to Australia. The economic and strategic case for the project is the strongest for works to the east of Melton, where travel demand growth is expected be higher.
Deliverability
The Ballarat Line Upgrade will be delivered by Rail Projects Victoria (formerly known as Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA)), on behalf of the Victorian Government. The project has been procured and will be delivered by a construction contractor consortium in partnership with V/Line, a government-owned corporation that operates the regional passenger train and coach services.
Rail Projects Victorias recommended procurement approach is a single-package, alliance-delivery model with accelerated competitive pricing. The approach to the procurement options analysis was informed by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finances High Value High Risk (HVHR) Project Assurance Framework and National Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Guidelines (Procurement Options Analysis).
The business case noted that an independent peer review of the original project scope found that the original capital costs may have been underestimated by approximately 3%. However, the Ballarat Line Upgrade is now in the delivery phase and the proponent has confirmed that competitive tendering has validated the cost estimate and that the project is operating within the funding envelope prescribed in the business case.
A limited benefits realisation plan has been developed for the project. The benefits realisation plan does not link closely to the benefits measured in the cost-benefit analysis. For example, a total of three benefits have been identified as part of the benefits realisation planning: service punctuality, number of services and service frequency. These benefits led to four key performance indicators, which did not include reducing road congestion, which accounted for $178 million (29%) of project benefits, or increased patronage, which would lead to additional fare revenue accounting for 18% of project benefits. These two measures alone account for almost one-half of total benefits.
The business case does not provide a plan for a future post-completion review. Infrastructure Australia encourages the proponent to undertake and publish a post-completion review to assess the extent to which expected project benefits and costs have been realized. This will help to inform future projects and should assess project costs and outcomes for customers, against the expectations set out in the business case. Projects undertaken under Ballarat Rail line upgradation are
Project 1
Duplication of 18 kilometers of track between Deer Park West and Melton
The track duplication between Deer Park West and Melton, spanning a length of 18 kilometers (11 miles), and at Bacchus Marsh is a significant infrastructure project aimed at improving the efficiency and capacity of the railway network in those areas. The purpose of this track duplication is to address congestion issues, enhance operational flexibility, and improve service reliability for both passenger and freight trains.
Key Objectives:
Increase Capacity: By duplicating the track, the project aims to increase the capacity of the rail line, allowing for more frequent train services and reducing congestion.
Improved Reliability: Duplicating the track will help minimize delays caused by conflicts between trains traveling in opposite directions and provide better timetable adherence.
Enhanced Safety: The project aims to improve safety by reducing the risk of accidents and incidents due to overcrowding and congestion on the single-track sections.
Support Future Growth: The track duplication will cater to the anticipated increase in population and demand for rail services in the region, ensuring the infrastructure is prepared for future growth.
Efficiency and Operational Flexibility: By providing a dual-track system, the project aims to enhance operational flexibility, allowing for smoother and more efficient train movements and reducing potential bottlenecks.
Progress and Challenges:
Construction Milestones: Provide an overview of the major milestones achieved during the project, such as completion of feasibility studies, design phase, land acquisition, commencement of construction, and completion of specific sections.
Stakeholder Engagement: Highlight the efforts made to engage with local communities, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders to address concerns, gather feedback, and ensure their interests are considered throughout the project.
Technical Challenges: Outline any technical challenges or complexities encountered during the track duplication, such as geological conditions, environmental considerations, or coordination with existing infrastructure.
Budget and Schedule: Assess the project's progress in terms of budget adherence and schedule timeline, identifying any deviations or challenges encountered and the corresponding mitigation measures implemented.
Risk Management: Evaluate the effectiveness of risk management strategies and actions taken to mitigate risks associated with the project, including risks related to safety, environmental impact, stakeholder management, and technical issues.
Lessons Learned:
Identify Success Factors: Identify and highlight successful practices, strategies, or methodologies that contributed to the project's progress and successful outcomes.
Analyze Challenges and Mitigation Measures: Assess the challenges faced during the project and the effectiveness of the measures taken to address them. Identify areas for improvement in risk mitigation and management.
Communication and Stakeholder Engagement: Evaluate the effectiveness of communication and engagement efforts with stakeholders, identifying areas for improvement in maintaining transparent and productive relationships.
Project Management: Reflect on project management practices, including planning, resource allocation, coordination, and monitoring, to identify areas of improvement for future projects.
Technical and Engineering Considerations: Analyze the technical aspects of the project, such as design, construction methods, and quality control, to identify areas for improvement or innovation in similar future projects.
Conclusion: Summarize the overall progress of the track duplication project, including achievements, challenges, and lessons learned. Emphasize the impact of the project on improving rail services, addressing congestion, and supporting future growth. Provide recommendations for future projects based on the insights gained from this experience.
PROJECT 2
Building a new Cobblebank Station, between Rockbank and Melton, separately funded by the Victorian Governments Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution
Building a new Cobble bank Station, between Rockbank and Melton, with separate funding from the Victorian Government's Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution, is a significant infrastructure project aimed at improving transportation services and supporting the growth of the surrounding areas. The construction of this new station will provide increased accessibility to public transportation, enhance connectivity, and accommodate the growing population in the region.
Key Objectives:
Enhanced Connectivity: The construction of Cobblebank Station aims to improve connectivity by providing a new public transportation option for residents in the area. It will create convenient access to train services, reducing reliance on private vehicles and promoting sustainable transportation.
Catering to Population Growth: The project is designed to address the anticipated population growth in the region. By providing a new station, it ensures that the transportation infrastructure can accommodate the increased demand for public transportation services.
Improved Travel Efficiency: Cobblebank Station will reduce travel times for commuters by providing a closer and more convenient boarding point, thereby improving overall travel efficiency and reducing congestion on roads.
Supporting Development and Economic Growth: The new station will serve as a catalyst for economic development by providing improved connectivity to employment centers, educational institutions, and commercial areas. It will attract investment and support the growth of the local economy.
Progress and Challenges:
Funding and Budget Management: Provide an overview of the funding allocation and management for the construction of Cobblebank Station. Highlight any challenges or changes in the budget and how they were addressed.
Planning and Approvals: Discuss the planning process, including feasibility studies, environmental assessments, and obtaining necessary permits and approvals. Address any challenges or delays encountered during this phase and how they were mitigated.
Construction Milestones: Outline the major milestones achieved during the construction process, such as land acquisition, site preparation, station infrastructure construction, and installation of necessary amenities.
Stakeholder Engagement: Describe the efforts made to engage with local communities, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders to gather feedback, address concerns, and ensure their interests are considered. Highlight any successful engagement practices or challenges faced.
Integration with Existing Infrastructure: Address any technical or logistical challenges encountered during the construction of Cobblebank Station, particularly related to integrating the new station with existing railway infrastructure and ensuring seamless operations.
Timelines and Project Delivery: Evaluate the progress of the project in terms of adhering to the established timelines and key project milestones. Identify any delays or issues that may have impacted the project's delivery and the steps taken to mitigate them.
Lessons Learned:
Project Planning and Execution: Reflect on the effectiveness of the project planning and execution strategies, including the identification of risks and contingencies, resource allocation, and coordination among stakeholders. Identify lessons learned to improve future project planning and execution.
Stakeholder Management: Evaluate the stakeholder management approach used during the project, including communication channels, engagement methods, and responsiveness to stakeholder needs and concerns. Identify areas for improvement in fostering positive relationships with stakeholders.
Collaboration and Coordination: Assess the effectiveness of collaboration and coordination among project teams, contractors, and relevant authorities involved in the construction of Cobblebank Station. Identify lessons learned to enhance coordination and cooperation in future projects.
Project Integration: Analyze the challenges and successes related to integrating the new station with existing infrastructure, ensuring smooth operations, and minimizing disruptions. Identify areas for improvement to optimize future integration efforts.
Public Engagement and Community Impact: Reflect on the engagement with the local community and the effectiveness of communication strategies in managing community expectations and addressing concerns. Identify ways to enhance community involvement and minimize negative impacts during construction.
Conclusion: Summarize the progress and achievements of the Cobblebank Station construction project. Highlight the successful outcomes, challenges faced, and the lessons learned throughout the process. Emphasize the impact
Your task is to create a comprehensive Program Risk Management Plan that covers the following:
Program Overview - This section defines the program vision, its business value, and projected outcome. It may include a summary of the program scope, dependencies and constraints. This introductory portion may also include success criteria for measuring program outcomes.
Schedule Management - A roadmap or work breakdown structure may be included in this section along with a description of how scheduling will be managed, updated, and monitored. Roles and responsibilities related to scheduling should be made clear.
Change Management - Provide a clear process for handling program changes, including who can submit change requests, how and where those requests will be tracked, and who can approve changes.
Communications Management - A detailed communications plan can help prevent project issues and ensure that information is distributed appropriately. Use this section to define the frequency and type of communication to be provided, who will be providing and receiving the communications, and other guidelines or expectations.
Cost Management - This section may include detailed information on program budget and expenditures as well as the parties responsible for managing costs, who can approve changes to the program budget, how project budgets will be measured and monitored, and guidelines for reporting. Funding and funding issues.
Procurement Management - Describe responsibilities related to procurement throughout a program lifecycle. Identify who is responsible for vendor relationships, dealing with contracts, purchasing, and other activities.
Project Scope Management - Will the project scope be defined in a scope statement, WBS, or another method? How will the scope be measured? Who is responsible for managing and approving the program scope? Address these questions as well as any guidelines related to the scope change process that were not identified in the change management section.
Risk Management - Describe how risks will be reported, monitored, and assessed, including how they can be submitted and who is responsible for dealing with them.
Staffing Management - This section lists program requirements for staffing, including specific resources and the timeframes in which they are needed, plus training. It describes how staff will be managed for the duration of the program.
Stakeholder Management - Use this section to identify stakeholders and strategies for managing them, including who is responsible for collecting and reporting stakeholder information.
Program Governance - Describe any governing groups, what authority they have, and their responsibilities within the program. You can include information on how often they will meet, how escalated decisions should be presented to and handled by the governing groups, how their decisions will be communicated, and when program reviews will occur.
As a basis the following template should be used and adapted as required. As you develop the plan, include reference to AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines and outline how the proposed risk management system meets the requirements of the standard. Insert this information into the plan where relevant.
Once you have developed the Program Risk Management Plan create a report that will outline a leadership strategy to ensure that the plan is correctly implemented. The strategy and report must outline how you will:
manage the program in accordance with plans
review progress, analyse variance and initiate risk responses
ensure risks are assigned and monitored across the program at agreed intervals
assess issues for impact and remedial actions authorised
<Program Title>
Risk Management Plan
Version 0.A, dd-mm-yyyyCopy: Uncontrolled
The version number starts at one and increases by one for each release. It shows the release number and a revision letter if in draft. The original draft is 0.A and subsequent drafts are 0.B, 0.C etc. The first accepted and issued document is Version 1.0. Subsequent changes in draft form are 1.0A, 1.0B etc. The accepted and issued second version is 1.1 or 2.0, depending on the magnitude of the change.
Refer to the Program Management Fact Sheet: Document Control for more information.
DOCUMENT ACCEPTANCE and RELEASE NOTICE
This is <release/version> <n.n> of the <Program Title> Risk Management Plan.
The Risk Management Plan is a managed document. For identification of amendments each page contains a release number and a page number. Changes will only be issued as complete replacement. Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all signatures have been obtained.
PREPARED:DATE: ___/___/___
(for acceptance)(<name>, <Program Title>, Program Manager)
ACCEPTED:DATE: ___/___/___
(for release)(Program Sponsor, <name>)
on behalf of the <Program Title> Steering Committee
BUILD STATUS:
The most recent amendment first.
Version Date Author Reason Sections
<n.n> <dd mmm yyyy> <Name> <e.g. Initial Release> <All>
AMENDMENTS IN THIS RELEASE:
Section Title Section Number Amendment Summary
<e.g. This is the first release of this document.>
DISTRIBUTION:
Copy No Version Issue Date Issued To
1 <n.n> <dd mmm yyyy> <Name, Title, Organisation>
2 Electronic
Executive SummaryThe purpose of this document is to provide a management framework to ensure that levels of risk and uncertainty are properly managed for the remainder of the program. As risk management is an ongoing process over the life of a program, the Risk Register must be considered a snap shot of relevant risks at one point in time.
This document will achieve this by defining the following:
the process that will be/has been adopted by the Program to identify, analyse and evaluate risks during the remainder of the program;
how risk mitigation strategies will be developed and deployed to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of risks;
how often risks will be reviewed, the process for review and who will be involved;
roles and responsibilities for risk management;
how reporting on risk status, and changes to risk status, will be undertaken within the Program and to the Steering Committee;
a complete Risk Register containing all risks identified for the Program, their current gradings and the identified risk mitigation strategies to reduce the likelihood and seriousness of each risk.
IntroductionThe purpose of risk management is to ensure levels of risk and uncertainty are identified and then properly managed in a structured way, so any potential threat to the delivery of outputs (level of resourcing, time, cost and quality) and the realisation of outcomes/benefits by the Business Owner(s) is appropriately managed to ensure the program is completed successfully.
The objectives of the risk management approach in the <Program Title> Program are to identify, assess and mitigate risks where possible and to continually monitor risks throughout the remainder of the program as other risks or threats emerge or a risks impact or likelihood changes.
As risk management is an ongoing process over the life of a program, this Risk Management Plan and Risk Register must be considered a snap shot of relevant risks at one point in time.
Where required, the process of risk identification, assessment and the development of countermeasures will involve consultation with the Steering Committee members, the <Program Title> Reference Group, other relevant stakeholders and Program team members.
Risk AssessmentIdentificationRisk identification involves determining which risks or threats are likely to affect the program. It involves the identification of risks or threats that may lead to program outputs being delayed or reduced, outlays being advanced or increased and/or output quality (fitness for purpose) being reduced or compromised.
For most large/complex programs, a number of high-level risks should have been identified during the program initiation stage these should be used as the basis for a more thorough analysis of the risks facing the program.
One of the most difficult things is ensuring that all major risks are identified. A useful way of identifying relevant risks is defining causal categories under which risks might be identified. For example, corporate risks, business risks, program risks and infrastructure risks. These can be broken down even further into categories such as environmental, economic, political, human, etc. Another way is to categorise in terms of risks external to the program and those that are internal.
See the Program Management Risk Identification Tool for some useful prompts in identifying program risks. The Australian Standard for Risk Management AS/NZS 4360: 2004 Appendix D refers to generic sources of risk.
The wording or articulation of each risk should follow a simple two-step approach:
Consider what might be a trigger event or threat (e.g. poor quality materials cause costs to rise) several triggers may reveal the same inherent risk; then
Identify the risk - use a newspaper headline style statement short, sharp and snappy (e.g. budget blow out) then describe the nature of the risk and the impact on the program if the risk is not mitigated or managed (e.g. program delayed or abandoned, expenditure to date wasted, outcomes not realised, government embarrassed etc).
Use the Risk Register (see Appendix A) to document the results.
For large or complex programs, it can be beneficial to use an outside facilitator to conduct a number of meetings or brainstorming sessions involving (as a minimum) the Program Manager, Program Team members, Steering Committee members and external key stakeholders. Preparation may include an environmental scan, seeking views of key stakeholders etc.
For a small program, the Program Manager may develop the Risk Register perhaps with input from the Program Sponsor/Senior Manager and colleagues, or a small group of key stakeholders.
It is very easy to identify a range of risks that are outside the program and are actually risks to the business area during output delivery, transition or once operational mode has been established. These are not program risks and should not be included in the Program Risk Register, but referred to the relevant Business Owner. It may be appropriate to submit an Issues Paper to the Steering Committee recommending formal acceptance by the relevant Business Owner for ongoing monitoring and management of specific risks.
See the Program Management Fact Sheet: Developing a Risk Management Plan and the Risk Identification Tool for more information on how to undertake risk identification.
In this section specify:
what risk identification process has been undertaken (i.e. brainstorm, facilitated session, scan by Program Manager etc);
any categories used to assist in the identification or relevant risks;
when the risk identification process occurred; and
who was involved.
Analysis and EvaluationOnce risks have been identified they must be analysed by determining how they might affect the success of the program. Generally, the impact of a risk will realise one or any combination of the following consequences:
Program outcomes (benefits) are delayed or reduced;
Program output quality is reduced;
Timeframes are extended;
Costs are increased.
Once analysed, risks should be evaluated to determine the likelihood of a risk or threat being realised and the seriousness, or impact, should the risk occur.
'Likelihood'is a qualitative measure of probabilityto express the strength of our belief that the threat will emerge (generally ranked as Low (L), Medium (M) or High (H)).
'Seriousness' is a qualitative measure of negative impact to convey the overall loss of value from a program if the threat emerges, based on the extent of the damage (generally ranked as Low (L), Medium (M), High (H) or Extreme).
From this risk will be graded as A, B, C, D or N according to the following matrix:
Likelihood Seriousness
Low Medium High EXTREME
Low N D C A
Medium D C B A
High C B A A
The ratings for likelihood and seriousness determine a current grading for each risk that in turn provides a measure of the program risk exposure at the time of the evaluation.
In this section specify:
How the identified risks could potentially impact on the program in terms of the four categories of consequence (e.g. x has potential to delay or reduce program outcomes/reduce output quality etc);
Summarise the distribution of risks according to the grading (number of A Grade risks, B Grade risks etc)
List any A Grade risks.
Risk MitigationMitigation of risks involves the identification of actions to reduce the likelihood that a threat will occur (preventative action) and/or reduce the impact of a threat that does occur (contingency action). This strategy also involves identifying the stage of the program when the action should be undertaken, either prior to the start of or during the program.
Risk mitigation strategies to reduce the chance that a risk will be realised and/or reduce the seriousness of a risk if it is realised have been developed. The following table is useful to determine how risks will be treated in terms of preparation and/or deployment of mitigation strategies during the life of the Program. Mitigation strategies are usually only prepared and/or deployed for Grades A through to C, however where an existing risk graded at D appears likely to be upgraded, mitigation strategies should be prepared.
Grade Possible Action
A Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and implemented as soon as the program commences as a priority.
B Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and appropriate actions implemented during program execution.
C Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and costed for possible action if funds permit.
D To be noted; no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
N To be noted; no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
In this section specify:
The proportion of risk mitigation actions that are preventative (e.g. 30%);
The proportion of risk mitigation actions that are contingency (e.g. 70%);
Key stakeholders nominated as responsible for undertaking specific risk mitigation actions;
Any major budgetary implications
For any identified A Grade risks specify:
What type of mitigation action is proposed (preventative or contingency);
Who is responsible for undertaking the proposed action; and
Any cost implications for the program Budget.
Risk MonitoringRisk Management is an iterative process that should be built into the management processes for any program. It must be closely linked with Issues Management, as untreated issues may become significant risks. If prevention strategies are being effective, some of the Grade A and B Risks should be able to be downgraded fairly soon into the program.
In this section specify
How frequently a review of the Risk and Issues Registers will be undertaken (e.g. fortnightly, monthly);
Who will be involved in the review of the Risk and Issues Registers (e.g. the Program team);
How often risks will be monitored to ensure that appropriate action is taken should the likelihood, or impact, of identified risks change and to ensure that any emerging risks are appropriately dealt with (e.g. monthly);
If the Risk Register will be maintained as a separate document or as part of the Risk Management Plan;
How often the Steering Committee or Program Sponsor/Senior Manager will be provided with an updated Risk Register for consideration; and
How often Risk status will be reported in the Program Status Reports to the Steering Committee/Program Sponsor/Senior Manager (usually only Grade A and B risks).
Roles and Responsibilities
Steering CommitteeUltimate responsibility for ensuring appropriate risk management processes are applied rests with the Program Sponsor and Program Steering Committee, and they should be involved in the initial risk identification and analysis process. The Risk Management Plan and the Risk Register should provide the Program Sponsor and Program Steering Committee with clear statements of the program risks and the proposed risk management strategies to enable ongoing management and regular review.
The Steering Committee will review the Grade A and B program risks on a <specify frequency, e.g. monthly> basis via updated information provided in the Program Status Reports and provide advice and direction to the Program Manager. The Steering Committee will also be provided with an updated Risk Register for consideration, as required, when additional threats emerge or the likelihood or potential impact of a previously identified risk changes.
Program ManagerThe Program Manager will be responsible for:
Development and implementation of a Program Risk Management Plan;
Organisation of regular risk management sessions so that risks can be reviewed and new risks identified;
Assessment of identified risks and developing strategies to manage those risks for each phase of the program, as they are identified;
Ensure that risks given an A grading are closely monitored; and
Providing regular Status Reports to the Steering Committee noting any A Grade risks and specifying any changes to the risks identified during each phase of the program and the strategies adopted to manage them.
In large or complex programs, the Program Manager may choose to assign risk management activities to a separate Risk Manager, but they should still retain responsibility. It should be noted that large programs are a risk in themselves, and the need for the Program Manager to reassign this integral aspect of program management may be an indication that the program should be re-scoped, or divided into several sub-programs overseen by a Program Director.
Program Team
All members of the Program Team will be responsible for assisting the Program Manager in the risk management process. This includes the identification, analysis and evaluation of risks and continual monitoring throughout the program life cycle.
Appendix A:<Program Title> Risk Register (as at dd/mm/yy)Rating for Likelihood and Seriousness for each risk
L Rated as Low E Rated as Extreme (Used for Seriousness only)
M Rated as Medium NA Not Assessed
H Rated as High Grade: Combined effect of Likelihood/Seriousness
Seriousness
Likelihood low medium high EXTREME
low N D C A
medium D C B A
high C B A A
Recommended actions for grades of risk
Grade Risk mitigation actions
A Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and implemented as soon as the program commences as a priority.
B Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and appropriate actions implemented during program execution.
C Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and costed for possible action if funds permit.
D To be noted - no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
N To be noted - no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
Change to Grade since last assessment
NEW New risk Grading decreased
No change to Grade Grading increased
Id Description of Risk
Impact on Program (Identification of consequences) L
S
G
Change Date of Review Mitigation Actions
(Preventative or Contingency) Individual/Group responsible for mitigation action(s) Cost Timeline for mitigation action(s) WBS
<n> <A newspaper headline style statement. Also identify relevant triggers that may cause the risk to be realised.> <Describe the nature of the risk and the impact on the program if the risk is not mitigated or managed> <Change in Grade since last review> <Date of last review> <Specify planned mitigation strategies:
Preventative (implement immediately);
Contingency (implement if/when risk occurs).> <Specify who is responsible for undertaking each mitigation action(s)> <Specify timeframe for mitigation action(s) to be completed by> <n + 1>
Task 2 Risk Management Strategy Review
Instructions to Learners:
This summative assessment can be completed in class or at any other convenient location.
Students are required to complete this task using digital tools and ensure to submit in an acceptable format, e.g. .docx, .pdf, .pptx, or as advised by your assessor.
Please use the following formatting guidelines to complete this assessment task:
Font Size: 12; Line Spacing: Double; Font Style: Times New Roman
Assessment activities can be completed either in real workplace environment or in a simulated environment such as your classroom. In both cases, appropriate evidence of the assessment activities must be provided.
Instruction to Assessors:
You must assess students assessment according to the provided Marking Criteria.
You must complete and record any evidence related to assessment activities including role-plays and presentations using appropriate forms which must be attached with student assessment submission.
You must provide students with detailed feedback within 10 working days from submission.
This assessment task requires you to populate a risk register for the program as outlined in Task 1. Using the information from the register:
1. Determine program residual risk.
2. Develop a management strategy for each residual risk identified.
3. review and analyse program risk outcomes from the available information
4. Summarise the lessons learnt in such a way that they may be applied to future programs.
Compile a management report to outline each of the above points.
Note: Use the risk register template attached as a basis for this assessment task and add a minimum of 10 risks. The risks may be identified through stakeholder engagement and this engagement may be role played.
<Program Title>
Risk Register as at <Date>
File No.: <n>
Report for: (Optional) e.g. <Program Name> Steering Committee
Program Manager: <Name>
Program Objective: As stated in the Program Business Plan.
Rating for Likelihood and Seriousness for each risk
L Rated as Low E Rated as Extreme (Used for Seriousness only)
M Rated as Medium NA Not Assessed
H Rated as High Grade: Combined effect of Likelihood/Seriousness
Seriousness
Likelihood low medium high EXTREME
low N D C A
medium D C B A
high C B A A
Recommended actions for grades of risk
Grade Risk mitigation actions
A Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and implemented as soon as the program commences as a priority.
B Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and appropriate actions implemented during program execution.
C Mitigation actions, to reduce the likelihood and seriousness, to be identified and costed for possible action if funds permit.
D To be noted - no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
N To be noted - no action is needed unless grading increases over time.
Change to Grade since last assessment
NEW New risk Grading decreased
No change to Grade Grading increased
Id Description of Risk
(including any identified triggers) Impact on Program
(Identify consequences ) Assessment of
Likelihood Assessment of
Seriousness Grade (combined Likelihood and Seriousness)
Change Date of Review Mitigation Actions
(Preventative or Contingency) Responsibility for mitigation action(s) Cost Timeline for mitigation action(s) Work Breakdown Structure
<n> <A newspaper headline style statement. Also identify relevant triggers that may cause the risk to be realised.> <Describe the nature of the risk and the impact on the program if the risk is not mitigated or managed> <Change in Grade since last review> <Date of last review> <Specify planned mitigation strategies:
Preventative (implement immediately)
Contingency (implement if/when risk occurs).>
<Specify who is responsible for undertaking each mitigation action(s)> <Specify timeframe for mitigation action(s) to be completed by> This is to indicate that the identified mitigation action has been included in the WBS (workplan).
1 Steering Committee unavailable.
Identified triggers:
Steering Committee meetings repeatedly rescheduled due to lack of availability;
Members do not attend despite prior confirmation of attendance. Lack of availability will stall progress (ie. delayed decisions will defer output finalisation, extend program timelines and staff resources will be required for longer than anticipated) H H A NEW 15/02/06 Preventative:
Highlight strategic connection - link Program Objective to relevant Agency strategic objectives
Confirm 2006 meeting schedule in January
Confirm SC membership
Widen representation (include other Agencies) Program Manager NA 15/03/06 Y
2 Inadequate funding to complete the program
Identified triggers:
Funding is redirected;
Costs increase (poor quality materials/ inaccurate cost estimates) Budget blow out means cost savings must be identified ie. reduced output quality, timeframes are extended, outcomes (benefits) will be delayed and/or reduced. M M B No change 15/02/06 Contingency:
Re-scope program, focusing on time and resourcing Program Manager TBC TBC N
3 Staff reject new procedures
Triggers include
Staff dont participate in training (not prepared for new roles);
New procedures not applied (work-arounds still used). Rejection means additional time and resources required to achieve successful implementation - i.e. outputs languish; more training is required (additional cost, time delays); potential for falling back into old ways (more change mgt required); loss of credibility for program (perception of failure). H H A NEW 15/02/06 Preventative:
High level reinforcement of policy changes;
Provide opportunity for staff feedback prior to policy/procedure finalisation;
Develop Training Plan that allows for repeat attendance (perhaps 2 stage training?);
Identify staff champions to promote adoption of new procedures (buddy system);
Circulate information to staff that
promotes how new procedures have improved processes (e.g. 10 steps reduced to 4 steps etc);
proportion of staff that have successfully completed the training.
Identifies local buddies for troubleshooting. Sponsor
Program Manager
Consultant
Program Manager
Program Manager NA
NA
$3,000
NA
NA 21/02/06
21/02/06
30/03/06
30/03/06
30/04/06 Y
Y
N
N
N
