IAMOT_2005.doc.doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

IAMOT_2005.doc.doc

on

  • 752 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
752
Views on SlideShare
750
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

https://tasks.crowdflower.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

IAMOT_2005.doc.doc IAMOT_2005.doc.doc Document Transcript

  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 1 185 FMEA AND PMBOK APPLIED TO PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT Flávio Roberto Souza dos Santos, UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brazil Sandro Cabral, Business School - Federal University of Bahia, Salvador-BA, Brazil Abstract The process of acquiring and implementing new technology usually demands large efforts from organizations, since it involves factors like complexity, scarce resources (both financial and human) and tight schedules, among others. In order to face such difficulties, the process of new technology acquisition is generally addressed through projects. However, many of the projects fail, have a late schedule or incur in unforeseen costs. In order to avoid this scenario, the adoption of a project management methodology having an embedded risk control instrument becomes essential. This paper presents a risk management tool based on two well- known sets of concepts. The first is the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), widely used by manufacturing firms to prevent and resolve quality problems. The second is the risk management methodology of the Project Management Institute (PMI), which is part of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). The authors present an adherence analysis between the suggested model and PMBOK, and application of the method in a real case study. The adherence analysis showed that the proposed tool is complementary to the PMBOK. Comparison of the criteria used by the proposed model with PMBOK methodology showed that the former uses the probability criterion in the same way the latter does, uses the impact criterion in a broader manner, and introduces a new criterion to the analysis: detection. In addition, FMEA fulfills most of PMBOK´s demands regarding risk management. The suggested instrument was applied in ERP implementation at the largest Brazilian mail service and logistics organization. The proposed methodology was successful mainly because it identified and classified risks. Also, it documented the strategies and action plans needed to respond to those risks, providing managers with reliability to achieve the project's goals.
  • 2 IAMOT 2005 1) INTRODUCTION The acquisition and implementation of new technology normally require huge effort from organizations because they deal with factors such as complexity, innovation, scarce resources – both human and financial, tied schedules, among others. These factors are important challenges and in order to face them it is usual for companies to implement new technologies as special projects. The statistics concerning project success rates show that successful projects are a minority. The Standish Group stated that of 30,000 information technology projects executed in the United States, nearly 63% run late and 49% cost more than foreseen. The amount of money involved in project failure reaches roughly US$ 38 billion. On the other hand, success rates in terms of schedule and budget represents only 28% of the entire number of projects studied (STANDISH GROUP INTERNATIONAL, 2001 apud in HARTLEY, 2004). Thus, the development and implementation of successful project management methodologies, risk management projects in particular, are cornerstones of successful new technology projects. In the project management scenario, the Project Management Institute (PMI), a global community of 150,000 acting members in project management distributed across more than 150 countries, plays an important role. PMI works towards: developing and disseminating best practices, carrying out research, offering training, testing and certifification, among other activities. Project management best practices are consolidated in a publication entitled Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). The third edition of PMBOK is due to be published in 2005. Its contents cover the nine knowledge areas and processes of project management: integration, scope, time, costs, quality, human resources, communications, purchase and risk – the focus of this work. Concerns about risk management are not something new. As a matter of fact, some manufacturing experts have been using tools such as FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) to identify possible failures in products and processes (SLACK, 2002). From a combination of these two techniques, FMEA and PMBOK risk management, the main question of this paper emerges: Could the risk management model of PMBOK be utilized with FMEA to create a new model for project risk management? In order to answer this question a model derived from those two techniques is proposed. An adherence analysis between FMEA and PMBOK in a real case study is presented. It concerns the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) piece of software for billing at Brazil’s largest mail service company. However, before describing the empirical case certain theoretical concepts are shown. 2) THEORETICAL ISSUES 2.1) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is a tool originally developed by NASA in 1963 and later used by quality practitioners in the automobile industry. FMEA aims to identify and
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 3 to prioritize possible imperfections in products and processes (PUENTE, 2001) in several segments such as chemicals, metal-mechanics, nuclear energy, textiles and others (SANKAR, 2001; FERREIRA, 2003). The details of this technique are widely registered in literature and remain beyond the scope of this work (MIL-STD-1629A, 1980; MCDERMOTT, R. E. et alii, 1996 apud in NUNES, 1999 e PUENTE, 2001). According to Sankar (2001), the essential steps of FMEA can be listed as below:  To perform identification and description of the item to be analyzed;  To list the possible failure modes;  To estimate the imperfection severity;  To assess the possible causes of the imperfection;  To estimate the imperfection rate;  Description of the imperfection detection;  Estimation of the imperfection detection;  Calculation of the Risk Priority Number (RPN);  Recommendations of corrective actions. The Risk Priority Number is an index calculated by the multiplication of three factors: severity, occurrence (frequency) and detection, mentioned above. After calculating the RPN for each risk, they are listed in a decreasing order. The risks with greater RPN values are considered prioritary risks and should be analyzed in order to take corrective action. 2.2) Project Risk Management PMI considers the project as a temporary endeavor, unique, in line with the organization’s strategy and conceived to create a product that has never been carried through before. As the objective of a project is to generate an unknown product, normally it involves risks since the steps to achieve the proposed targets are not dominated by the people in charge of its execution. According to PMI, the concept of risk in projects is related to all events that involve the possibility of generating losses, damage or presenting threats to the generation of positive returns. Risks can be classified as internal, when the project team can influence or control them, and external when the project team are unable to control and influence them (PMI, 2000). Considering the nine areas of knowledge mentioned by the PMBOK, risk is the fourth most cited area in the relevant literature that documents research in Project management, with 10% of the quotes rating (KLOPPENBORG, 2002). There are several tools for risk management in projects. Most of them concern risk identification. They present a list of risks that have already occurred in other projects or critical success factors, as mentioned by Jiang (2000, 2001 and 2002), Datta (2001), Royer (2000) e Gambôa (2004). After the risks survey, it is necessary to know how to analyze them. Some researchers suggest making an evaluation of the risks based on criteria impact and magnitude of the impact. (NAKASHIMA, 2004), others consider impact and possibility of occurrence (PYRA, 2002; FERREIRA, 2003; PMI, 2000), observing that the impact can be
  • 4 IAMOT 2005 shown as Expected Monetary Value – EMV- (ROYER, 2000; PMI, 2000). Royer (2002) elaborated his tool of risk management creating links between utility theory and cognitive psychology. Ferreira (2003) suggests the application of a tool commonly used in manufacturing firms for solving shop-floor problems in project risk management. He suggests switching the detection criterion originally used in FMEA to effectiveness control. 3) METHODOLOGY The model considered in the present paper is tested in two ways. First, it compares the risk management model proposed by the authors with the rules recommended by PMI contained in PMBOK. After this, the proposed model is applied in a real case study related to the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning tool (ERP). The company observed is a state-owned enterprise which operates in the postal and logistics markets. However, due to the dimensions of the project the application of the model of risk management proposed was carried out only through in a sub-project. In fact, the project began in 2000 and by the end of 2004 had consumed around US$ 20 million. Only 60% of its original scope is running. The above-mentioned sub-project concerns the implementation of certain features of customer invoicing. According to the classification of case studies presented by Roesch (1999), this work used a hybrid strategy of research. In order to capture the characteristics of the case and to draw some conclusions this paper combines an exploratory and interpretative analysis. It is also uses the construction method theory (grounded theory), so that by applying certain concepts developed by other researchers in other fields, it is possible to expand the previously existing theory. The model uses the following steps: 1) To identify the macro objective to minimize risks; 2) To identify the risk groups; 3) To list the risks of each group; 4) To establish a numerical measure for the severity for each group or types of risks; 5) To establish a numerical measure for the probability of occurrence of each risk; 6) To establish a numerical measure for the ease of detection of each risk; 7) To calculate the risk factor; 8) To list the risks in descending order according to the risk factor; 9) To define the strategy of action for each risk; 10) To define the possible actions of each risk considering the adopted strategy. This model can be used at different stages in the project, from its initial planning to even specific sub-projects inside the main project. The products of this methodology are: a risk diagram, an evaluation matrix and an action list. The risk diagram can be elaborated immediately after step 3, as illustrated in figure 01. The generation of this product can be carried out with the aid of auxiliary techniques such as Ishikawa diagram, brainstorming, among others. The result shows a similar schematical
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 5 representation to an organization chart with the objective at the top, below the objective the groups of risks and inside these groups each risk. Figure 01: Schematic representation of the relation between steps 1 to 3 of the model and the Risk Diagram. Source: created by the authors. The evaluation matrix explores the risks for each group and aims to numerically measure: the severity criteria for the risk group, probability of occurrence and detection of each risk. These three factors, severity, probability and detection, are multiplied and the result is the risk index, similar to FMEA’s RPN. If more than one person carries out this step, the arithmetic mean should be used in order to calculate the risk index. The closure of step 7 coincides with the elaboration of an evaluation matrix, as illustrated in figure 02. Figure 02: schematic representation of steps 4 to 7 of the model and the Evaluation Matrix. Source: created by the authors. The action list is created through the decreasing ordering of risks from each risk index. For each risk a strategy is chosen from those suggested by PMI (avoidance, transference, mitigation, acceptance) and, within the scope of the chosen strategy, the possible actions to be adopted are listed. At the closure of step 10 the action list is created, as illustrated in figure 03. Figure 03: schematic representation of steps 8 to 10 of the model and the Action List. Source: created by the authors. As regards identification of risks, this suggested model can identify the risks related to activities mentioned on the WBS1 (work breakdown structure), as already considered for 1 Detailed list of activities necessary to execute the Project.
  • 6 IAMOT 2005 Ferreira (2003), or elaborated on the basis of critical success factors (Jiang 2000; 2001; 2002 - Datta, 2001 - Royer, 2000 - Gambôa, 2004). For the evaluation of risks and prioritising them, the considered model uses three criteria: impact, probability of occurrence and detection. Each criterion is expressed in valid numerical scales, without, however, making any kind financial evaluation of risks. In the development to the action plan to be used in risk treatment, the four strategies suggested by PMI are used before defining the individual actions. Choosing the strategy beforehand helps considerably in the choice of actions within the strategy scope. 4) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Following the methodology of this research, two approaches for the analysis were identified: gap analysis between FMEA and PMBOK’s chapter on risk management and the application of the risk management tool suggested in the case study. 4.1) Gap Analysis Between the Suggested Model and PMBOK’s Model of Risk Management Two main characteristics differentiate the risk management model suggested in this work from that recommended by PMI: the criteria of severity and detection. According to PMI severity must be expressed in monetary value (US$) based on the calculated value of the tasks involved and the probability of occurrence of the risk related to these tasks. The impact of an activity which has a low calculated value can cause great disturbance in a Project. A typical example can be the customs clearance of a spare-part or imported equipment, or even a license to be obtained from a regulatory agency. Furthermore, due to the varying sensitivity that the monetary values have for different people the exhibition of values should be limited to people responsible for the severity analysis. As well as this not everyone involved in the risk analysis need know the monetary value of the activities. The detection criterion does not appear directly in PMI’s methodology. The factor time is cited in PMBOK as important in risk identification and the adoption of the response actions to the risks, therefore an exact response adopted at the wrong time can led to unsatisfactory results. Detection is used in FMEA and the simple perception that some errors can be identified earlier than others in a project environment, makes its use worthy of serious consideration. The consequences of the appearance of a delayed problem are possibly greater than the consequence of the appearance of the same error in previous stages. Thus, ease of detection of an error, also in a timely manner, is important in the management of the risks and was incorporated into the model suggested. The gap analysis technique used checked if the existing recommendations in PMBOK are part of FMEA. The results of this analysis are shown in figures 04 to 09. The Risk Management Plan refered to in PMBOK is the process used to decide how risk management is going to work during the project and its product is the project’s risk
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 7 management plan. This plan includes: methodology, roles and responsibilities, budget, among other items (PMI, 2000). The suggested model’s adherence is low because PMBOK’s approach is more generic and has a broader scope than the suggested model. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Risk Management Plan (11.1) Low The suggested model has a narrower scope than PMBOK’s 11.1 process Figure 04: gap analysis between PMBOK’s requirements for Risk Management Plan and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. Risk Identification in PMBOK involves the risks that can affect the Project, either positively or negatively, and it has the following characteristics: list of risks, triggers and entrance for other processes (PMI, 2000). The gap analysis results reveal high adherence for the list of risks, because the model identifies a list of the risks the same way as PMBOK recommends. The gap analysis results showed high adherence for the triggers, because the criterion detection used in the Evaluation Matrix also deals with the signals that must be monitored in order to identify the risks in time to manage them. The inputs to other processes constitute a specific generic artifice of PMBOK that binds the analyzed process with others without entering into specific details. Thus, it is considered as having nothing to do with the model. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Risks (11.2) High Fulfilled by Risks’ Diagram Triggers (11.2) High Fulfilled by Detection Criterion of analysis at Evaluation Matrix Inputs to other processes (11.2) N/A PMBOK’s Specific item not directly related to risk management Figure 05: gap analysis between PMBOK’s requirements for Risks Identification and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. Qualitative Risk Analysis in PMBOK involves the evaluation of the impact and the probabilities of the identified risks. Its product gives us: overall risk ranking for the project, list of prioritized risks, list of risks for additional analysis and management and trends in qualitative risks analysis results (PMI, 2000). The gap analysis results showed a high adherence for the overall risk ranking for the project, because the suggested model calculates a risk factor whose analysis allows the evaluation of global risk. Gap analysis results have a high adherence for the List of Prioritized Risks and for the List of Risks for Additional Analysis and Management, because the same risk factor can be classified in a decreasing order and show the priority risks and those which need additional
  • 8 IAMOT 2005 management. Gap analysis results for the Trends in Qualitative Risks Analysis Results have a medium adherence and it only can be analyzed if the method were repeated several times. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Overall Risk Ranking for the Project High Fulfilled by RPN’s Evaluation (11.3) Matrix List of Prioritized Risks (11.3) High Fulfilled by RPN’s ordering in Evaluation Matrix List of Risks for Additional Analysis High Fulfilled by RPN’s ordering in and Management (11.3) Evaluation Matrix Trends in Qualitative Risks Analysis Medium Only if the model were repeated Results (11.3) several times Figure 06: gap analysis between PMBOK’s Qualitative Risk Analysis requirements and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. PMBOK’s Quantitative Risk Analysis involves impacts and the probabilities analysis of each risk. Its product is composed of: a prioritized list of quantified risks, probabilistic analysis of the project, and probability of achieving the objectives of cost and time and trends in quantitative risk analysis of results (PMI, 2000). The gap analysis results showed a high adherence for the prioritized list of quantified risks, because the suggested model allows managers to evaluate the impact of each priority risks. The gap analysis results have a low adherence for the probabilistic analysis of the project and probability of achieving the objectives of cost and time, because the method does not contemplate the required simulations and it does not globally evaluate the variables time and cost. The gap analysis results for the trends in quantitative risk analysis of results showed a medium adherence and it only can be analyzed if the method were repeated. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Prioritized List of Quantified Risks (11.4) High Fulfilled by RPN’s ordering in Evaluation Matrix Probabilistic Analysis of The Project (11.4) Low probability of achieving the objectives of cost Low and time (11.4) trends in quantitative risk analysis of results Medium Only if the model was (11.4) repeated several times Figure 07: gap analysis between the PMBOK’s Quantitative Risk Analysis requirements and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. PMBOK’s Risk Response Planning involves options development and the action’s determination to maximize the opportunities and to minimize the threats to Project’s objectives. Its product is composed of: the risk response plan itself, residual risks, secondary risks, contractual agreements, inputs for other processes and inputs for a revised Project plan (PMI, 2000).
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 9 The gap analysis results showed a high adherence for risk response plan, because the suggested model allows managers to establish a plan that contains the proper response to priority risks. For the residual risks and secondary risks the gap analysis results have a medium adherence, because the elaboration of the action list allows the evaluation of the new scenario for the project after the planned actions in actions’ list were taken. The gap analysis results for the contractual agreements showed a medium adherence and indicates a close link to the transference strategy that could be chosen for some actions. The inputs to other processes are a specific generic item of PMBOK that binds the analyzed process with others without going into specific details. The gap analysis results for the inputs for a revised plan of the project have a medium adherence, because the application of the suggested model provides excellent information for an eventual revision of the project plan. For example a particular project has been evaluated as having too many severe risks with high probability that could make Project execution impracticable or if a project has few risks and therefore can even have its schedule shortened or its scope increased. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Risk Response Plan (11.5) High Fulfilled by Action List Residual Risks (11.5) Medium Partially Fulfilled by Action List Secondary Risks (11.5) Medium Partially Fulfilled by Action List Contractual Agreements (11.5) Medium Identified from an action which strategy is transference Inputs for Other Processes (11.5) N/A PMBOK’s Specific item not directly related to risk management Inputs to a Revised Project Plan (11.5) Medium PMBOK’s Specific item not directly related to risk management Figure 08: gap analysis between PMBOK’s Risk Response Planning requirements and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. PMBOK’s Risk Monitoring and Control are a set of processes that occur throughout the project, because risks change during the project life cycle. It involves risks tracking, monitoring of residual and new risks risk that could occur after an action, the execution of the action plan and evaluation of this execution. Its product is composed of: workaround plans, corrective actions, project change requests, update to the risk response plan, risk database and updates to risk identification checklist (PMI, 2000). The gap analysis results showed a high adherence for workaround plans, because the actions’ list contains the activities that must be carried out, and also those that can be considered alternative actions or workarounds. The gap analysis results have a high adherence for the corrective actions, because these actions are part of the action list. The gap analysis results for project change requests showed a medium adherence, because the action list supplies elements that allow the project manager to analyze the demand for requests for change. The gap analysis results for update to the risk response plan have a medium adherence, because this can only be carried out if the suggested model were applied more than once during the project. The gap analysis results for risk database and updates to risk identification checklist showed a low adherence, because the model supplies some inputs for this database, however, it should
  • 10 IAMOT 2005 not be considered to be a specific repository for future projects, rather a tool for risk management of current projects. PMBOK’s Requirements Suggested Model’s Comments Adherence Workaround Plans (11.6) High Fulfilled by Action List Corrective Actions (11.6) High Fulfilled by Action List Project Change Requests (11.6) Medium Partially Fulfilled by Action List Updates to the Risk Response Plan Medium Fulfilled by Action List if the (11.6) suggested model was repeated several times Risk Database (11.6) Low This model is useful only for current projects Updates to Risk Identification Low This model is useful only for Checklists (11.6) current projects Figure 09: gap analysis between PMBOK’s Risk Monitoring and Control requirements and the suggested model. Source: created by the authors. The gap analysis for PMI’s methodology for risk management present in PMBOK is composed of the demands of the 24 processes of project risk management in PMBOK and FMEA’s characteristics as shown in figure 10. Most of the processes (71%) present high or medium adherence. This indicates that the FMEA is partially adherent to all or most of PMBOK’s project risks management demands, which leverages FMEA as a candidate tool for use in project risks management. Gap Analysis Between PMBOK's Requirements for Project Risk Management and FMEA 8% 38% 21% N/A Low Medium High 33% Figure 10: gap analysis between PMBOK’s project risks management requirements and FMEA’s characteristics. Source: created by the authors.
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 11 4.2) Case Study The organization chosen as the object of analysis in this work, Company A, has mixed capital and is the Brazilian market leader in postal services. It also works in the markets of logistic operations and communication services. The company invoiced US$ 2.45 billion in 2003 and is one of the largest companies in terms of number of employees in Brazil. In the year the 2000 it began an implementation project for an ERP system. The suggested model was applied in a specific sub-project: the billing process of a specific service, service X, that generates about 25% of their income. As for the specific issues of service X, the billing process demanded a high degree of customization in the original programs of the ERP system. The project managers decided that the billing process of service X would have to be the first to be implemented in the ERP system, while the other services would continue to be invoiced in the legacy systems. Because service X generates a considerable amount of Company A’s income and the complexity involved it was necessary to carry out a careful evaluation of the risks involved. One team made up of project managers, consultants and key-users executed the activities listed in the 10 steps model described in chapter 3 and generated the three products of the suggested model: Risk Diagram, Evaluation Matrix and Action List. Section 4.2.1 shows a summary of the products created in the sub-project at Company A for example purposes. 4.2.1) Risk Diagram Several meetings with risk management team were held in which steps 1 to 3 were carried out as described in chapter 3. The first step aimed to identify the objective to minimize risks: to implement service X’s billing process successfully, level 1 or FMEA’s objective, as showed in figure 11. The second step, level two or FMEA’s failure effect, lists the groups of possible problems that can threaten the objective identified in level 1. The third step, level three or FMEA’s cause of imperfection, lists the risks of each group described in level 2. These risks described in level 3 are the ones that composed the list of risks, process 11.2 in PMBOK. Figure 11: schematical representation of Risk Diagram. Source: created by the authors.
  • 12 IAMOT 2005 4.2.2) Evaluation Matrix With the list of risks drawn up as described in section 4.2.1 the criteria: severity, occurrence and detection could be evaluated. Furthermore, the compilation of these results in the form of the evaluation matrix could be done, as shown in figure 12. For simplification purposes only part of the risks are shown, the ones relating to team problems. Figure 12: schematic representation of Evaluation Matrix. Source: created by the authors. In the Failure Mode column the objective to be accomplished is shown: implementation of service X billing . The Failure Effect column must be filled with a group of possible risks that threaten the objective - in the example shown there are team problems of sub-project implementation. The column whose heading is “S”, is related to the value of severity, with 1 a very small impact and 10 a great impact. In the column Imperfection Cause the risks that make up the described group in the column Failure Effect are listed. In figure 12, three risks are listed: lack of users, users badly/not trained and lack of consultants. The column whose heading is “O” registers the value of the occurrence probability, with 1 representing a very low probability of occurrence and 10 representing an event of extremely high probability of occurrence. The risks associated with lack of users, users badly trained and lack of consultants were evaluated with probabilities of occurrence 8, 6 and 3, respectively. The Control column indicates a way of identifying that the risk occurred or is about to occur. The risks related to lack of users or consultants can be identified when an evaluation of the team is done. Furthermore, the risk relating to badly/not trained users can be identified and this generates performance reports. The column headed “D”, refers to the detection value, with 1 for risks to be monitored easily for listed controls and 10 for risks to be hardly monitored for the listed controls. The risks: lack of users, users badly/not trained and lack of consultants were evaluated with probability of occurrence 1, 3 and 1, respectively. RPN’s Column is the calculation of the risk index, calculated from the product of the criteria severity, occurrence
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 13 and detection. The risks: lack of users, users badly trained and lack of consultants were evaluated with risk index (RPN) 56, 126 and 35, respectively. 4.2.3) Action List With the calculated RPN described in section 4.2.2, the compilation of these results in the form of the action list the priority risks can be identified, an a strategy to deal with the risk and list the reasonable actions can be drawn up, as shown in figure 13. Figure 13: schematic representation of Action List. Source: created by the authors. In the column Failure Cause the risks are listed in decreasing order according to the RPN value, the column Risk Strategy shows which of the 4 strategies are recommended for PMBOK (to prevent, to transfer, to mitigate and to accept) was defined to guide the action to be taken to deal with the risks. For the risk Users not trained and Lack of users the chosen strategy was mitigation and for the risk Lack of consultants the chosen strategy was acceptance of the risk. The column Action shows the recommended actions to respond to each of the risks of the column Failure Cause. 5) CONCLUSIONS The gap analysis between PMBOK’s requirements for project risk management and the available tools in FMEA have demonstrated that FMEA fulfils 71% of PMBOK’s requirements to a high or average degree. This indicates that FMEA can be considered a tool to be tested in project risk management. The application of the suggested model in a real case proved effective because it allowed one to deal with the management of the risks in a real sub-project. Furthermore, it enabled the elaboration of the products which the suggested model should produce: the risk diagram, the Evaluation Matrix and the action list. The characteristics that differentiate the suggested model and PMI’s methodology for risk management present in PMBOK are: revealing severity in a numerical scale and not as monetary values and the inclusion of detection criterion. These two
  • 14 IAMOT 2005 differences were useful in Evaluation’s Matrix creation, because three fundamental criteria for risk analysis and monitoring had been used: severity, probability of occurrence and detection. Moreover, the construction of a numerical risk index (RPN) rather than in monetary values made it easier to compare with other risk measures without the influence and the classified aspects involved in showing monetary values. The suggested model was tested without the assistance of a specific information system for project management. The authors suggest the application of the model with the use of specific information system for project management. Thus, the suggested model’s robustness can be evaluated considering the characteristics present in such IT tools. 6) REFERENCES Datta, Sumit; Mukherjee, S K. Developing a risk management matrix for effective project planning - An Empirical Study. Project Management Journal; Jun 2001; 32, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 45. Ferreira, Antonio Geraldo Gomes. FMEA em Gerenciamento de Riscos em Projetos. Seminário Gestão de Projetos 2003 – SUCESU-SP. Gambôa, Fernando A. R. et al. Método para Gestão de Riscos em Implementações de Sistemas ERP Baseado em Fatores Críticos de Sucesso. Revista de Gestão da Tecnologia e Sistemas de Informação, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004, pp. 46-63. Jiang, James J; Klein, Gary; Means, Thomas L. Project Risk Impact on Software Development Team Performance. Project Management Journal; Dec 2000; 31, 4; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 19. Jiang, James J; Klein, Gary. Software Project Risks and Development Focus. Project Management Journal; Mar 2001; 32, 1; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 4. Jiang, James J; Klein, Gary; Ellis, T Selwyn. A Measure Of Software Development Risk. Project Management Journal; Sep 2002; 33, 3; ABI/INFORM Global. pg. 30. Kioppenborg, Timothy J; Opfer, Warren A. The current state of project management research: Trends, interpretations, and Predictions. Project Management Journal; Jun 2002; 33, 2; ABI/INFORM Global. pg. 5. Hartley, Kenneth O., Balestero, Gregory e O´Bray, Debbie. The State of the Project Management Profession, 2004. Available at www.pmi.org.uk. Accessed in 25/10/2004. McDermott, R. E. et alii. The Basics of FMEA. Quality Resources, USA, 1996. MIL-STD-1629A, 1980 Nakashima, Daniel T. V.; Carvalho, Marly M. de; Identificação de Riscos em Projetos de TI. XXIV Encontro Nac. de Eng. de Produção, 2004. Nunes, Maria do S. A.; Luz, Vicente. Análise dos Modos e Efeitos de Falha (FMEA) de Produto, à partir das Informações Provenientes dos Clientes, com Utilização do Desdobramento da Função Qualidade (QFD) no Estabelecimento das Ações Corretivas. Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Departamento de Engenharia de Sistemas, Relatório Técnico número 045/DE9/99, 1999. PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute. 2000 Edition.
  • FMEA and PMBOK Applied to Project Risk Management 15 Puente, Javier; Pino, Raul; Priore, Paolo; de la Fuente, David. A Decision Support System for Applying Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management; 2002; 19, 2/3; ABI/INFORM Global, pg. 137. Pyra, Jim; Trask, John. Risk management post analysis: Gauging the success of a simple strategy in a Complex Project. Project Management Journal; Jun 2002; 33, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 41. Roesch, S. Projetos de Estágio e de Pesquisa em Administração: Guia para Estágios, Trabalhos de Conclusão, Dissertações e Estudos de Caso. 2a Edição.Editora Atlas. São Paulo, Brasil.1999, 301 p. Royer, Paul S. Risk management: The undiscovered dimension of project management. Project Management Journal; Mar 2000; 31, 1; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 6. Sankar, Nune R.; Prabhu, Bantwal S. Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and Effects Analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management; 2001; 18, 3; ABI/INFORM Global. pg. 324. Slack, Nigel et al. Administração da Produção. Atlas. 2002. Standish Group International. Chaos Chronocles, 2001.