A query on Time Management
Submitted by akashpopli on Mon, 04/29/2013 - 17:48
Q: A project has 4 critical paths. the project risk levels are unacceptable by the customer as they demanded to make the project within acceptable risk levels. Which of the following statements best describes the suitable action.
1. The project manager should try and reduce the critical paths to as minimum as possible., or,
2. The Risk Management Plan needs to be reworked to reduce the risk., or,
3. The project Manager should reassure the customer that he would deliver the project within given constraints.
Please explain the suitale answer and why?
Thanks in Advance.
Forums:
crushPMP
Mon, 04/29/2013 - 18:01
Permalink
A? I think because more the
A? I think because more the CP's, more failure (risk) points.
siddus
Mon, 04/29/2013 - 18:11
Permalink
My 2 cents - Although it is
My 2 cents -
Although it is acceptable to have multiple critical paths (or near-critical paths) on a project, this usually results in increased risk for the project. Reworking the Risk Management Plan may not guarantee that the risk levels will come down to a level "acceptable" to the customer. Since risk is considered a project constraints (along with cost, scope, schedule, resources, etc) and the customer is not risk tolerant, it means the PM might have to compromise on the other constraints to reduce risk - which means, reducing the critical path by schedule compression - specifically by crashing the schedule as fast-tracking tends to increase risk. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with the current Risk Management plan, hence reworking it might not help.
Look forward to your views.
sspawar
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 03:27
Permalink
2project is beyond
Option 2, is correct
Project is beyond organization risk tolerance
option 1 ----4 critical path- again reducing cp , will raise risk more.
option 3 is not relevant in light of above situation.
Jgrind07
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 03:57
Permalink
I'm also in favor of Option 2
I'm also in favor of Option 2 thinking that the initial risk assessment was not done correctly or defined the risk tolerance was not correct.
Also, while planning the Risk, the Stakeholder should have been participated (PMBOK 4 Page 279 - Planning meetings an analysis) and he knew the risk levels asses and the tolerance level right? If so, option 2 is not correct it seems.
Pawar, can you please shed some light in my view?
What is the 4rth choice?
Thanks
Jai
sspawar
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 05:49
Permalink
Bro, it is all going in
Bro, it is all going in planning stage.
siddus
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 05:17
Permalink
@sspawar - Does reducing the
@sspawar - Does reducing the CP always increase risk?
Akash, can we have the right option along with the explanation.
sspawar
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 06:02
Permalink
yes risk means either excess
yes
risk means either excess money or hazards
how do you reduce a CP
by
CRASHING----IMPACT ON MONEY
or
by
FAST TRACKING ------ WILL BE RISKFUL (Hazardous)
siddus
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 07:13
Permalink
"risk means excess money" -
"risk means excess money" - respectfully, I disagree with that statement. I am not sure about the right answer to this question, but I think you wrong about schedule compression. Crashing trades off time for cost.
Cost does not necessarily increase risk. In any project, the customer or the sponsor decides the order of importance for the project contraints (i.e. schedule, scope, cost, risk, resources, quality). If risk (due to rigid deadlines) is the top priority for the customer/sponsor, then the PM might be allowed to compromise on other contraints, viz. cost, quality, scope or resources. Of course if cost is top priority, then Crashing may not be an appropriate option.
sspawar
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 07:58
Permalink
REDUCING RISK
REDUCING RISK MEANS EXCESS MONEY else live with the hazards
get the meaning in continuetion of earlier discussion.
siddus
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 08:29
Permalink
Sorry, I dont "get the
Sorry, I dont "get the meaning in continuetion of earlier discussion"
Akash, please share the answer and the explanation. Thank you.
sspawar
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 08:39
Permalink
I think this question is not
I think this question is not so critical
Question contents states that:
The customer as they demanded to make the project within acceptable risk levels.
In my view by reducing CP - RISK level can not be reduced, there is no relevancy in these 2 things, rather by applying CRASING, cost wise risk will be more, by FAST TRACKING risk of parallel activities will be more (refer pmbok - fast tracking)
hence option 1 -- The project manager should try and reduce the critical paths to as minimum as possible, how could be the answer.
My participation in replying posts or in the discussion is only because it is open forum, if any body feels that my reply is not correct, then I never bother for.
I never suppose , that I should never be wrong.
It is altogather , my own view, personal, it may or may not be correct.
we discuss and listen all views to reach to the facts, this is only the aim.
If I m wrong, definitely i will learn from others, learning has no bar.
I never compell that - only my point is correct, it is all depends , on person to person that how and how much he can absorb the facts, i am also one of them.
So opinion may be different.
Consider, as per your understanding, what is correct or not.
siddus
Tue, 04/30/2013 - 09:02
Permalink
I think you misunderstood me.
I think you misunderstood me. I appreciate your inputs on this and many other questions on the forum. Personally, I have had the chance to learn many aspects of project management from you. So thanks for that. Please accept my sincere apologies if I offended you in any way. I was merely providing my counter view. Anyways, I think this was a good discussion. Let's wait for the OP to respond. Perhaps I may eventually be wrong.