The document outlines the assessment for a module on People Management and Risk. It discusses the assignment, which involves critically examining risks associated with the UK COVID-19 vaccine rollout using various frameworks, theories and models covered in the module. Students must complete a 3500 word report analyzing culture and leadership approaches, evaluating two change models, developing a risk register identifying and analyzing 10 risks, and providing a 400 word summary of most significant risks. Guidance is provided on structuring the response, using appropriate sources, relating theory to the case study, and ensuring a logical structure.

1. People Management and Risk (PMR)
Module 20589
Lessons Learned
Assessment Workshop
Assessment Recap
1. This Module has one assessment.
2. You will do this individually.
3. The assessment is based on a Case Study.
4. The word count is 3500 words, in a Report format.
5. Your answer should be supported with evidence
from the literature to support your arguments,
including relevant theory and constructs covered
from this Module for the theoretical underpinning.”
6. Use a balance of the Academic Journals, academic
text books (e.g. see the module reading list on
Moodle). You may consult other credible sources
including professional websites, Industry websites
and government sources.
Assignment Objectives (Your Task) –
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS:
• Critically examine the significance of culture in projects and

2. how
culture, using Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions framework, can
be
applied to facilitate the successful rollout of the Covid-19
Vaccine
meeting the project’s aim. Justify your answer supported by
evidence from
the literature and linking to the case study (LO1).
• Critically examine project management leadership literature
covering
definitions of leadership using 2 project management leadership
theories covered on the module and recommend a leadership
style
appropriate for rolling out the Covid-19 Vaccine (LO2). Please
ensure you
relate theory to the case study.
• Critically review and evaluate 2 managing change models
(Kotter or
Kübler-Ross or Lewin’s model) covered on the module and
recommend one model that could be could be used or adapted as
a
suitable framework for rolling out the Covid-19 Vaccine thus
improving
people’s awareness and perception of the Covid-19 Vaccine and
take-up.
Justify your answer supported by the literature and link this to
the case study
(LO3).
Assignment Objectives (Your Task) –
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS:

3. Whilst the UK Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out encountered many
well documented
problems you are asked as a consultant to critically analyse
lessons learned and
the risks associated with the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out to
develop a risk
register in preparation for future vaccine rollouts. To meet this
requirement,
you will need to:
(i) Identify 10 risks
Review all the possible sources of risks related to the Covid-19
Vaccine roll-out.
Making use of the vaccine roll-out objectives identify 10 risks,
construct a risk
register (with headings in the risk register as covered on the
module workshop)
making use of the risk meta language to describe the risks;
(ii) Analyse 10 risks
Qualitatively analyse the 10 risks in the risk register making use
of the
Probability*Impact scoring and show risks on a
Probability*Impact Matrix
(iii) Respond to 10 risks
For the 10 risks develop risk mitigating strategies (threats and
opportunities) for
each of the risks and include whether approach a Threat or
Opportunity and
then a single sentence mitigation strategy alongside the risk
contained within the
register.
(IV) Summarised commentary – most significant risks
Provide a summarised commentary of around 400 words of the
most
significant risks on the project (LO4).

4. Lessons Learned
• Responding to the Question:
– Please read the question carefully and highlight key
words
– ‘Critically Examine’ Means?
– 2 Definitions
– 2 models covered on the Module
– 10 Risks
– Opportunity? or Threat? Then a mitigation sentence(s)
– Risk register with full headings as in workshop
– Meta language
– Ordinal Tables (VL to VH etc)
Lessons Learned
• Literature & References
– Wide range and current
– Journals
– Conference Papers
– Texts
– Professional websites (APM/PMI etc)
– National Audit Office
– NHS
– Geert Hofstede
– Non-conformance to APA 7
Lessons Learned
• Theory & Case Study

5. – Theory then Integration with the case
– One or two sentences on case not sufficient
– Personal views do not count in academia
– Justification critical:
• Literature
• Perspectives in literature/views
Lessons Learned
• Structural Cohesion
– Title Page
• Report Heading & Student Number (in every page)
– Contents page
– Logical and clear structure
– Third Person (no I’s and no We’s)
– Presentation
• Text
• Figures (no blurred images please!)
– Figures must be labelled (referenced if required)
– Tables must be labelled (referenced if required)
– Language/Wording
– Grammar
Qualitative Risk Assessment

6. Session objectives
l Understand the purpose of qualitative risk
Assessment
l Understand, apply and evaluate qualitative
risk assessment techniques
3
The Risk
Management
Process
(Gray and Larson, 2008)
Risk Assessment
l Qualitative assessment
l Performing a qualitative analysis of risks and
conditions in order to prioritise their impacts on project
objectives
l Quantitative assessment
l Estimating the probability and consequences of risks
and estimating the implications for project objectives
8

7. (Meredith and Mantel, 2010)
Qualitative risk assessment
(1):
l Following risk identification, qualitative risk
assessment can be used to assess the
probability and impact of individual risks,
for prioritisation,
l to assess the pattern of
project
l or identify any common
areas of high impact.
risks across the
causes of risk or
9
Qualitative risk assessment
(2):
l Qualitative risk assessment can be a
preliminary to quantitative risk analysis
l Quantitative risk assessment may not be
deemed necessary
l The methods, terms and definitions and

8. techniques to be used are pre-determined
the approach to risk management
in
10
Qualitative risk assessment
(3):
l Probabilities and impacts are rated and
expressed in terms such as high, medium,
low or on an ordinal (ranked) scale of, e.g.
5 or 1-10.
l Impacts are rated against the project
objectives (negative or positive).
1-
l The results of qualitative risk assessment
are documented in the risk register
12
Risk register layout
Gardiner (2005)
14
Project: Project Manager:
Date:

9. Risk No Description Likelihood Impact Strategy Previous status
Current status
Date closed Owner
1
2
3, etc
Risk status: Red = Active & impacting project; Amber = Active
but contained without impact to cost & schedule; Green = not
yet active.
Qualitative risk assessment
(4):
l Risks may be ranked according to:
l a)
l b)
l c)
Probability x Impact (P*I)
greater of probability and impact
probability + impact
l Probabilities and impacts are plotted onto a
probability impact matrix (P-I matrix or Risk
Assessment Matrix), to identify zones for
priority attention, using a ‘traffic light’ or
calculated approach.

10. 15
Probability Impact Diagram
PROBABILITY
IMPACT 17
Probability Scoring
18
Probability Ordinal Description
Rating value
Very Low 1 Very unlikely to occur, management
not required in
most cases. Strong Controls in Place
Low 2 Not likely to occur, management not required
in all cases. Controls have minor
limitations/uncertainties.
Moderate 3 May occur, management required in
some
cases. Controls exist with some uncertainties.
High 4 Highly likely to occur, most cases
require
management attention. Controls have significant
uncertainties.

11. Very High 5 Nearly certain to occur, requires
immediate
management attention. Controls have little or no
effect.
Oct-16 19
impact to to impact to to achieve
(Project
success) objectives/ workarounds workarounds workaround
project
≤£1M ≤£10M ≤£50M
delay to delay to delay delay to delay to major
requiring injury, illness or disabling
(e.g.
personnel) treatment incapacitation
Impact Scoring
Impact 1 2 3
4 5
Very Low Low Moderate High Very
High
Operations Negligible Minor impact Moderate
Major impact Unable to
project operations – operations – operations – major

12. operations available available not
objective
available
Cost ≤£100K >£100K but >£1M but
>£10M but >£50M
Schedule <1 month 1-3 month > 3-6 month
6-9 month >9 month
major major project to major major project
project
project milestone project milestone
milestone or
milestone milestone
cannot meet
major project
milestones
Safety Minor injury Moderate Severe injury,
Permanent Death
first aid illness or incapacitation injury
Dziadosz and Rejment (2015) Risk Analysis in Construction
Project – Chosen Method
Example Risk Register for a Project

13. Double
Matrix
Probability-Impact
VHI VHI
HIHI
MEDMED
LOLO
VLOVLO
VLO LO MED HI VHI VHI HI MED LO VLO
Negative impacts
(threats)
Positive impacts
(opportunities)
Hillson (2009) 21
Pr
ob
ab
ilit
y
Pr
ob

14. ab
ilit
y
Additional characteristics
l P-I matrices do not reflect other
characteristics of risk:
l The degree to which a risk can be
and/or managed
of risk
detected
l Potential impact beyond the project
l How soon the risk might occur
l The urgency with which it must be addressed
l These can be plotted via Bubble Diagrams,
and Risk Prioritisation Charts
24
Bubble Diagrams
(Bubble size – size of impact)
HI
URGENCY

15. LO
HI LOMANAGEABILITY
Large bubbles in
this area not
acceptable
Small bubbles in
this area
acceptable
25
Risk prioritisation chart
HI
R2
MED
LO
LO
MED
HI
R1
NOW 1 WEEK
URGENCY

16. 1 MONTH 3 MONTHS
26
IM
PA
C
T
PR
O
BA
BI
LI
TY
R4 R7
R8R6
R9R3 R5
Limitations of all qualitative
techniques
l Subjective
l Cannot assess the overall project exposure
to risk
32

17. References
Adair, J.(2007) Decision Making and Problem Solving
Strategies.
London: Kogan Page
Chapman, R. (1998) The effectiveness of working group risk
l
l
identification and assessment techniques International Journal
of
Project Management 16 (6) pp.333-343
Gardiner, PD (2005) Project Management: A Strategic Planning
Approach Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Gray, C.F. and Larson, E.W. (2008) Project management: the
managerial process (4th ed., pp. 197-226). New York: McGraw-
Hil
Irwin
Hillson, D. (2009) Managing Risk in Projects Farnham:Gower
Meredith, J.R. and Mantel, S.J. (2010) Project Management: A
Managerial Approach.(7th ed). Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons
Williams, T.M. (1996) The two-dimensionality of project risk.
International Journal of Project Management.Vol 14. No.3.
pp.185-
186.
l
l
l
l
l

18. . 39
Qualitative Risk Assessment
Session objectives
l Understand the purpose of qualitative risk
Assessment
l Understand, apply and evaluate qualitative
risk assessment techniques
3
The Risk
Management
Process
(Gray and Larson, 2008)
Risk Assessment
l Qualitative assessment
l Performing a qualitative analysis of risks and
conditions in order to prioritise their impacts on project
objectives

19. l Quantitative assessment
l Estimating the probability and consequences of risks
and estimating the implications for project objectives
8
(Meredith and Mantel, 2010)
Qualitative risk assessment
(1):
l Following risk identification, qualitative risk
assessment can be used to assess the
probability and impact of individual risks,
for prioritisation,
l to assess the pattern of
project
l or identify any common
areas of high impact.
risks across the
causes of risk or
9
Qualitative risk assessment
(2):

20. l Qualitative risk assessment can be a
preliminary to quantitative risk analysis
l Quantitative risk assessment may not be
deemed necessary
l The methods, terms and definitions and
techniques to be used are pre-determined
the approach to risk management
in
10
Qualitative risk assessment
(3):
l Probabilities and impacts are rated and
expressed in terms such as high, medium,
low or on an ordinal (ranked) scale of, e.g.
5 or 1-10.
l Impacts are rated against the project
objectives (negative or positive).
1-
l The results of qualitative risk assessment
are documented in the risk register
12

21. Risk register layout
Gardiner (2005)
14
Project: Project Manager:
Date:
Risk No Description Likelihood Impact Strategy Previous status
Current status
Date closed Owner
1
2
3, etc
Risk status: Red = Active & impacting project; Amber = Active
but contained without impact to cost & schedule; Green = not
yet active.
Qualitative risk assessment
(4):
l Risks may be ranked according to:
l a)
l b)
l c)
Probability x Impact (P*I)

22. greater of probability and impact
probability + impact
l Probabilities and impacts are plotted onto a
probability impact matrix (P-I matrix or Risk
Assessment Matrix), to identify zones for
priority attention, using a ‘traffic light’ or
calculated approach.
15
Probability Impact Diagram
PROBABILITY
IMPACT 17
Probability Scoring
18
Probability Ordinal Description
Rating value
Very Low 1 Very unlikely to occur, management
not required in
most cases. Strong Controls in Place
Low 2 Not likely to occur, management not required
in all cases. Controls have minor
limitations/uncertainties.

23. Moderate 3 May occur, management required in
some
cases. Controls exist with some uncertainties.
High 4 Highly likely to occur, most cases
require
management attention. Controls have significant
uncertainties.
Very High 5 Nearly certain to occur, requires
immediate
management attention. Controls have little or no
effect.
Oct-16 19
impact to to impact to to achieve
(Project
success) objectives/ workarounds workarounds workaround
project
≤£1M ≤£10M ≤£50M
delay to delay to delay delay to delay to major
requiring injury, illness or disabling
(e.g.
personnel) treatment incapacitation
Impact Scoring
Impact 1 2 3
4 5

24. Very Low Low Moderate High Very
High
Operations Negligible Minor impact Moderate
Major impact Unable to
project operations – operations – operations – major
operations available available not
objective
available
Cost ≤£100K >£100K but >£1M but
>£10M but >£50M
Schedule <1 month 1-3 month > 3-6 month
6-9 month >9 month
major major project to major major project
project
project milestone project milestone
milestone or
milestone milestone
cannot meet
major project
milestones
Safety Minor injury Moderate Severe injury,
Permanent Death

25. first aid illness or incapacitation injury
Dziadosz and Rejment (2015) Risk Analysis in Construction
Project – Chosen Method
Example Risk Register for a Project
Double
Matrix
Probability-Impact
VHI VHI
HIHI
MEDMED
LOLO
VLOVLO
VLO LO MED HI VHI VHI HI MED LO VLO
Negative impacts
(threats)
Positive impacts
(opportunities)
Hillson (2009) 21

26. Pr
ob
ab
ilit
y
Pr
ob
ab
ilit
y
Additional characteristics
l P-I matrices do not reflect other
characteristics of risk:
l The degree to which a risk can be
and/or managed
of risk
detected
l Potential impact beyond the project
l How soon the risk might occur
l The urgency with which it must be addressed
l These can be plotted via Bubble Diagrams,
and Risk Prioritisation Charts
24

27. Bubble Diagrams
(Bubble size – size of impact)
HI
URGENCY
LO
HI LOMANAGEABILITY
Large bubbles in
this area not
acceptable
Small bubbles in
this area
acceptable
25
Risk prioritisation chart
HI
R2
MED
LO
LO
MED

28. HI
R1
NOW 1 WEEK
URGENCY
1 MONTH 3 MONTHS
26
IM
PA
C
T
PR
O
BA
BI
LI
TY
R4 R7
R8R6
R9R3 R5
Limitations of all qualitative
techniques

29. l Subjective
l Cannot assess the overall project exposure
to risk
32
References
Adair, J.(2007) Decision Making and Problem Solving
Strategies.
London: Kogan Page
Chapman, R. (1998) The effectiveness of working group risk
l
l
identification and assessment techniques International Journal
of
Project Management 16 (6) pp.333-343
Gardiner, PD (2005) Project Management: A Strategic Planning
Approach Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Gray, C.F. and Larson, E.W. (2008) Project management: the
managerial process (4th ed., pp. 197-226). New York: McGraw-
Hil
Irwin
Hillson, D. (2009) Managing Risk in Projects Farnham:Gower
Meredith, J.R. and Mantel, S.J. (2010) Project Management: A
Managerial Approach.(7th ed). Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons
Williams, T.M. (1996) The two-dimensionality of project risk.
International Journal of Project Management.Vol 14. No.3.
pp.185-
186.
l

30. l
l
l
l
. 39
People Management and Risk (PMR)
Module 20589
Risk Assessment Workshop
Recap on Risk Register Requirements
• Project Objective(s) to be listed
• Composition of a Risk Register:
– Risk description - Using Risk metalanguage Three
part structured “risk statement” to describe the risk
– Probability of Occurrence (VL to VH or L to H)
– Impact (Cost) (VL to VH or L to H)
– Probability * Impact Score and ranked
– Risk Owner (covered Day 3)
– Mitigating Strategies (covered Day 3)
• Supported by separate Ordinal table to define

31. what is meant:
– Probability of Occurrence (VL to VH)
– Impact (Cost) (VL to VH)
Initial Risk Register & Ordinal Table
Scale
Probability
Of
Occurrence
Impact on Project Objective(s)
Timescale
(year/months)
Cost
(% Increase)
Quality/Safety/Performance
VL < 10% < 1 < 5% Failure to meet a minor criterion
Failure to meet more than one
minor criterion
Shortfall in meeting
acceptance criteria
Significant shortfall in meeting

32. acceptance criteria
Failure to meet acceptance criteria
L 10 - 30% 1 - 2 5 - 10%
M >30 - 50% 3 - 4 >10 - 15%
H >50 - 70 % 5 - 6 >15 - 30%
VH > 70% > 6 > 30%
Ordinal
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Risk
Ref
Risk Description (Meta language) Probability of
Occurrence (P)
Cost
Impact (I)
P*I

33. Score
(Ranked)Scale Ordinal
Value (P)
Scale Ordinal
Value (I)
1 As a result of using novel hardware,
Unexpected system integration errors may occur,
Which would lead to Overspend on the project
VH 5 M 3 15
2 As a result of using agency staff, additional
training may be required that would lead to Higher
costs on the project
VL 1 VH 5 5
To do in Groups
1. Project Objective(s) to be listed
2. In tabular form have columns for:
– Risk description - Using Risk metalanguage Three
part structured “risk statement” to describe the risk
– Probability of Occurrence (VL to VH or L to H)
– Impact (Cost) (VL to VH or L to H)
– Probability * Impact Score (P*I Score)
– Separate Ordinal table to define what is meant:
• Probability of Occurrence (VL to VH or L to H)

34. • Impact (Cost) (VL to VH or L to H)
Be prepared to present at least 5 risks from risk
register