Proper use of risk management in implementing new software upgrades on pre-existing systems. The installation of a new software system is multifaceted, and requires lots of preparations. The project manager needs to consider all relevant factors, and have access to the existing systems’ requirements, and documentation during the planning phase so that the right hardware, software, applications can accommodate existing functionalities that are not changing. The lack of preparation can doom a project before it has even started. Software upgrades, and replacements need to me incorporated into existing systems, and also have to have the ability to be scalable, and they have to have an adaptability to allow for future innovations to maintain their relevance and avoid another system upgrade. This is why implementing and using risk management is so essential to a successful. The Initiation/planning phase of the project implementation should have an expert or group of experts familiar with the task at hand present during the initial planning meeting. This allows them a platform to discuss their expertise and prior experience in front of all of the managers/supervisors.1 This ability to have an open meeting about risk identification is beneficial because it allows all the knowledge to be openly shared so that the project managers can make a tentative work breakdown structure.2 This can allow for slack days and listing of sequential tasks. The knowledge of task order and also having milestones allows the project manager to have an idea of how to gauge the projects progress and if it is running behind or ahead of schedule. The use of straw men is done to illustrate the projects path forward, and the intended plan of completion. This is when a risk management plan will be developed after milestones are established, and timelines are worked out. The decision to use software to help identify the project manager in identifying the risk is dependent on the preferences of the company or project manager. This project will use a SWOT analysis as the main tools for risk management. I prefer this because I feel like while it may not be initially as accurate, the discussions that come from this tool, allow for a more complete solution. This is also supported by the concept of garbage in garbage out. That is true when working with tools that base everything off solely what’s input. This allows for drastic errors if data is not input correctly, or if the wrong data is inserted. By keeping things in the project managers’ hands it allows them a more control in gauging and monitoring the risk involved for the software implementation. The SWOT analysis also balances the strengths versus weakness aspect so while in some cases something might be classed as a risk, when put into appropriate context the reward outweighs the potential negative. This is done on a case by case basis but the benefit is that the tool allows for the identified risk to be properly identified, and have multiple solutions available. The budget of the project will be set and agreed upon by both the client and project manager. This will then be followed by an agreed upon change management procedure that is done to keep everything in order and to prevent client side scope creep. This also will protect the projects bottom line, and allow us to ask for more money in the case of new requirements or additional deliverables. The improper use of risk management can be equally as detrimental as ignoring the risk. Some tools will run simulations even if the data input was incorrect or invalid. This is why it is important to make sure when using tools that the inputs are all correct.
The implementation phase is where the updating of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) occurs and more unknowns become known.3 This is consistent with most iterative projects. In highly technical environments knowing how some widgets will interact when the framework is changed. The actual results will not
