Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Risk & Opportunity Identification: Brainstorming (and Risk Checklists) CSEM04: Risk and Opportunities of Systems Change in Organisations Prof. Helen M Edwards & Dr Lynne Humphries

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Typical Risk Identification The most common ways of identifying risks are: –Questionnaires, interviews, brainstorming and checklists. –Historical information is also used as input to these techniques. This comes from: Common sense/experience/“I’ve seen that before”, or a formal risk repository How would you identify opportunities? The risk approaches rely on past experience (yours/someone else’s) –Except brainstorming – which tries to “free” people from current though patterns/expectations.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Rules Seek Quantity not Quality Defer Judgement Record the ideas so that they are visible to all. Build on one another's ideas.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Standard Procedure Select one member of the group as the recorder Put the topic to be considered on a flip chart/white board. (It may help to underline the key words). Ask for possible solutions/ideas to be called out. –Record these, without allowing any opinion on value or relevance to be expressed at this stage. Continue until ideas cease. THEN evaluate the ideas, and refine the proposals.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Warm Up In a group where this is a new approach have a “warm up” exercise –chose a “trivial” topic - such as: “List possible uses for a brick”. –If an explanation is asked for when a suggestion is made give it in this exercise but explain that this stops the flow of ideas. To use the technique correctly there should be no interruption. Once the group is comfortable with the technique it can be applied “for real”.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Our Procedure For the specified topic: –Put ideas on post-its (one per post-it) Go round the group and call them out Think again Put any new ideas on post-its Put the full set on the wall –Evaluate Examine your suggestions Group together “like” suggestions Identify emerging categories/concepts Record concept. –Propose Applications for emerging concepts Resources needed to support application.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Class Exercise Think of a paperclip. –Brainstorm uses for these (You have an unlimited number available) Process: –Follow the defined process (post-its and groups needed). Time –10 minutes (max)

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Class Exercise “The university has been given funding to invest in “swipecard” technology. –Brainstorm uses for this Process: –Follow the defined process (post-its and groups needed). Time –10 minutes (max)

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Brainstorming: Class Exercise “The university decided to change from manual monitoring of student attendance to using “swipecard” technology”. –Brainstorm risks and opportunities for this. Process: –Follow the defined process (post-its and groups needed). Time –20 minutes (max)

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Risk Checklists Brainstorming brings out the ideas of the group When this is not enough –Add from others’ past experience: In risk identification this is often done using risk checklists

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Risk Checklists Vary –from the simple in-house lists –to elaborate database repositories of risks. The idea is to assess current/proposed projects against known risks. –a two-way process Existing risk lists (repositories) are evaluated to see if likely to affect current project risks identified by other means are entered into the evolving risk list (repository). –A Project-specific risk list is constructed During project consider whether any of the risks can be deleted or retired.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Typical Risks The next few slides show typical risks that have been identified and published in the literature: –These are often the basis for formal repository lists. –These are all from a systems development perspective but it should be noted that very few of the risks are specific to that environment. They are generic risks

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Boehm’s “Top 10 risk items” People –Personnel shortfalls Resources –Unrealistic schedules and budgets Requirements –Developing wrong functions –Developing wrong UI –Gold plating –Changing requirements External risks –Shortfalls in externally produced components –Shortfalls in externally performed tasks Technology risks –Real-time performance inadequacies –Straining CS capabilities IEEE Software, January 1991.

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Common Risks from Keil et al 1.lack of top management commitment to the project 2.failure to gain user commitment 3.misunderstanding the requirements 4.lack of adequate user involvement 5.failure to manage end user expectations 6.changing scope/ objections 7.lack of required knowledge or skills in the project personnel 8.lack of frozen requirements 9.introduction of new technology 10.insufficient or inappropriate staffing 11.conflict between user departments. Identified by experienced software project managers from the USA, Hong Kong and Finland. In order of perceived importance, these factors are: “Framework for identifying software project risks” Communications of the ACM, vol 41 (11)

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Moynihan’s risks/concerns 1. Client’s understanding of the requirements/problem to be solved (12) 2. Seniority & commitment of the project patron/owner (9) 3. Level of IT competence, experience of the customers (9) 4. Need to integrate/interface with other systems (9) 5. Scale/coordination complexity of the project (need to share resources, subcontract, etc) (8) 6. Where project control resides (developer v client v third parties) (8) 7. Level of change to be experienced by the client (to procedures, workflow, structures, etc) (7) 8. The need to satisfy multiple groups of disparate users versus the need to satisfy one group of similar users (7) 9. Who we will be working through: users versus the IT department, individuals versus committees (7) 10. Developer’s familiarity with platform/environment/methods (7) (From 14 experienced systems developer managers in Ireland: developing systems for other companies)

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Moynihan’s risks 11. Developer’s previous experience with the application (6) 12. Level of enthusiasm/support/"energy" for the project in the client’s organization (5) 13. Logical complexity of the application (5) 14. Ease of solution validation (e.g. possibility of prototyping) (4) 15. Client’s willingness/capability to handle implementation (3) 16. Freedom of choice of platform/development environment (3) 17. Criticality/reversibility of the new system roll-out (2) 18. Maturity of the technology to be used (2) 19. Developer’s knowledge of country/culture/language (2) 20. Stability of the client’s business environment (2) 21. Developer’s knowledge of client’s business sector (2) IEEE Software 14(3) pp35-41

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Classic Problems – Process-Related Overly optimistic schedules Insufficient risk management Contractor failure Insufficient planning Stop planning under pressure Wasted time during fuzzy front end Short-changed upstream activities Inadequate design Short-changed quality assurance Insufficient management controls Premature or overly frequent convergence Omitting necessary tasks from estimates Planning to catch up later “Code-like-hell” programming

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Classic Problems – People-Related Undermined motivation Weak personnel Uncontrolled problem employees Heroics Adding people to a late project Noisy, crowded offices Friction between developers and clients Unrealistic expectations Lack of effective project sponsorship Lack of stakeholder buy-in Lack of user input Politics placed over substance Wishful thinking

Unit 7 University of Sunderland CSEM04 ROSCO Classic Problems – Product and Technology Related Product-Related Requirements gold- plating Feature creep Developer gold-plating Push-me, pull-me negotiations Research-oriented development Technology-Related Silver-bullet syndrome Over-estimated savings from new tools or methods Switching tools in mid- project Lack of automated source code control