|
Risk ID
|
Risk Description
|
Impact on Time
|
Impact on Cost
|
Impact on Quality
|
Impact on Require-ments
|
Mitigation Actions
|
Respon-sibility for Mitigation
|
| (High,
Medium, Low) |
|
INF01
|
Development Platform Strategy not in place
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
High
|
Assumed that a Java 2 solution on Sun hardware with Oracle
RDBMS solutions fits best with current thinking
|
Project Manager
|
|
INF02
|
Emerging Internet (W3C org) and Government standards may
contradict and nullify any standards we introduce
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
High
|
Strategy Section and the design team will need to list all
relevant external standards, and compare the ongoing design
against these standards for conformance, on an ongoing basis.
|
Project Manager
|
|
INF03
|
Many Partners in various initiatives have a significant interest
in using this projects solution. It is possible that we may
not deliver a solution that meets their requirements
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
In order to progress, we must attempt to work in isolation,
(to some extent). Regular feedback from interested parties
will allow us to ‘tweak’ the solution to other requirements,
(if it’s flexible enough!). It is assumed that it will easier
and more effective to have external, (and to some extent internal),
parties critique a part built solution that redesign an abstract
idea.
|
Project Manager
|
|
INF04
|
The late discovery of a top level tag in the metadata framework,
(i.e. a major change to the schema), will nullify any collation
of metadata that has already taken place.
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Medium
|
Attempt to delay the large scale collection of metadata until
the Schema has received thorough peer review.
|
Project Manager
|
