1 / 8

Internal Information Services

Risk Management Team. Gay Infanti/John Driessnack Northrop Grumman 3 May 2005. Internal Information Services. Agenda. New charter Execution plan and schedule Plan will address prior working group’s recommendations in three areas: policy, process, and training Objectives for this team

amethyst-gardner
Download Presentation

Internal Information Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk Management Team Gay Infanti/John Driessnack Northrop Grumman 3 May 2005 Internal Information Services

  2. Agenda • New charter • Execution plan and schedule • Plan will address prior working group’s recommendations in three areas: policy, process, and training • Objectives for this team • Notional schedule • Membership

  3. Charter • Develop and recommend integrating techniques, policy, guidance, and training to support the integration of risk management with earned value management. Work with the risk management community to achieve process integration.

  4. Policy • Previous team recommended policy changes, along with implementing guidance, to identify benefits of integration and remove barriers such as lack of management commitment, internal/external culture, and emotional • Objectives • Review existing EVM policy, standards, and guidance to identify where risk management is/could be addressed • Identify existing risk management policy, standards and guidance to identify where process integration is/could be addressed • Perform a gap analysis and identify opportunities for • New policy/guidance (to ensure achievement of integration and benefits thereof) • Placement of new guidance • Develop and recommend policy/guidance for incorporation into the PM (EVM & RM) body of knowledge using results/recommendations of process sub-team • Criteria for successful integration • Guidance that addresses how to integrate

  5. Process • Prior working group identified two process-related issues • A need for solutions, i.e., guidance for how to integrate risk management and EVM • A major organizational barrier to process integration • RM and EVM usually have different process owners • RM and EVM usually have different process champions • Objectives • Reach out and partner with other communities to create the demand for process integration through cross-functional cooperation and to develop solutions • Involve PMI and INCOSE Risk SIGs to gain cooperation • Involve Tool suppliers to encourage implementation • Develop process solutions to facilitate integration • Pilot proposals with programs, gain feedback on usefulness • Encourage criteria based risk process similar to Earned Value

  6. Training • Previous team recommended training improvement to overcome: • Barriers associated with lack of process maturity and lack of knowledge/skills needed to achieve process integration • Perception that EVM is a financial tool, rather than a PM tool; both EVM and RM are core program management processes • Lack of understanding of the benefits available from RM and EVM integration • Lack of techniques and tools for achieving process integration • Objectives • Survey trainers within both communities to identify how the other addresses the EV or RM process within their curriculum • Identify the gaps in the training of both processes • Identify the areas within each process where process integration should be addressed, again using process sub-teams results • Recommend training improvements to address the integration of EV andRM

  7. Notional Schedule • Initial Effort • First meeting 17 March – drafted charter and objectives in three areas • Opened workspace on DAU Community of Practice (CoP) • http://acc.dau.mil/rmevm • Scheduled dinner meeting with PMI RISK SIG representatives on 3 May • Planned Effort • Form three sub-groups for Policy, Process, Training • Each sub-group will further develop its objectives and schedule • Subteams to meet virtually over CoP site/telecons monthly • Full working group meetings quarterly in DC area • Collaborate and participate in meetings, conferences, etc., as opportunities present themselves • PMI CPM Spring Conference – 10-13 May 05 • DAU Executive Risk Sessions (periodic) • Fall IPM Conference – Nov 05

  8. RM Working Group Membership • Membership • Wayne Abba, Abba Consulting • Gene Adams, Northrop Grumman • Ivan Bembers, NGA • Dick Coleman, Northrop Grumman • John Driessnack, MCR (Co-Lead) • Gay Infanti, Northrop Grumman (Co-Lead) • Richard Kitterman, Northrop Grumman and INCOSE RM WG • Craig Peterson, MITRE and PMI Risk SIG • Tom Rosati, Hamilton Sundstrand • Harry Sparrow, PMA Associates • Deborah Tomsic, OUSD (AT&L)/ARA/AM • Wilma Uribe, HQ DCMA • Dr. Steve Van Drew, NAVAIR • Greg Ward, Dekker Ltd. • Dennis White, Robbins Gioia • Mike Zsak, OSD, SE and Decisive Analytics • Other members needed, especially from industry

More Related