"
Team:Groningen/Project Plan/Risk List
From 2009.igem.org
[http://2009.igem.org/Team:Groningen http://2009.igem.org/wiki/images/f/f1/Igemhomelogo.png]
|
|---|
| Risk List | Tools and Documentation | Inception | Elaboration | Construction | Transition | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| apr. 20 | may 18 | jun. 01 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | okt. 15 | ||||||||||
[http://2009.igem.org/Team:Groningen/Project_Plan#UPEDU http://2009.igem.org/wiki/images/1/1f/GroningenPrevious.png]
[http://2009.igem.org/Team:Groningen/Brainstorm http://2009.igem.org/wiki/images/d/dd/Next.JPG]
Introduction
Every project has to deal with risks. To ensure a smoothly running project without too many large hiccups it is important to identify these risks and develop strategies to avoid them (and/or reduce their impact).
The table below, shows the possible risks that may influence the success of the iGEM project. It gives an outline of 5 main risks, namely problems which emerge from finances, time span, lab work, modeling and members / instructors. Possible risks were traced from the problems of iGEM Groningen 2008 and of the iGEM 2008 teams which were withdrawn from the competition.
Also see [http://www.upedu.org/upedu/process/artifact/ar_rskls.htm UPEDU's description of the Risk List] artifact and the enclosing artifact, our project plan.
Risks
For each risk the following is documented:
- Identifier: a descriptive (short) name
- Magnitude: ranking from 1-10, 1 is low risk and 10 is a high risk. Taking in account: how probable it is that the problem will happen during the project.
- Description: a brief description of the risk.
- Impact:
- L= low impact, if this risk can not be avoided, probably the team will decide to live with it.
- M= medium impact, there is a real problem but when it is noticed in an early stage it can be solved, not all members are affected.
- C = critical, there is a real problem but when it is noticed in an early stage it can probably be solved, all the project members are affected.
- H = high impact, the probability of the projects success is seriously affected. There is an immediate need for a meeting with the stakeholders.
- Indicators: when do we know this risk has materialized (or better yet, is about to materialize).
- Mitigation Strategy: how are we reducing the impact of this risk?
- Contingency Plan: what can we do if this risk does materialize?
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | There is just not enough money for all the expenses | C | Our budget should largely be covered before the summer.We already have some funds and are attempting to acquire more from (non)-governmental / university organisations and companies. | Try to get more funding from the University of Groningen, Centre of Synthetic Biology. Try to enconomize (on?). |
| 5 | PR letters do not work out well | C | Letters contain information about: Synthetic Biology, the iGEM competition, contact information. | Try to find out what went wrong, call the organisations and companies. Ask a specialist to have a look at the sponsor letter. |
| 4 | [TU München] Probably had too low budget because they started only in June with looking for sponsoring | H | A budget plan has been made. Roles are divided, two people are working on letters/flyers/poster for sponsoring. | Ask instructors for help, start with fundraising already before a final project is chosen. |
| 1 | Fraud | C | Speak with the treasurers, meet with instructors to sort it out. |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/6 | [Groningen]Making constructs is consuming to much time | C | Order synthesized plasmid, though this is pricy | |
| 1 | [Istanbul / TU München] Started too late with brainstorm sessions | C | Our project subject deadline is May 18 | Start immediately with fulltime working on the project when time becomes a real problem |
| 4 | [Taipei] Project plan without clear deadlines. People do not work according to the project plan. | H | UPEDO is used, we try to specify the project plan. | Make a sharp plan and keep everyone motivated to work according this plan. |
| 2 | People are taking holidays at the same time | M | A time schedule of 2009 is made, people are not allowed to take more than 1-2wk off | Try to get people to take holidays more spread over the summer time |
| 7/8 | Tasks are not accomplished before the deadlines | C | UPEDO is used, but the project plan has to be confined. | Keep everyone motivated to work accoring plan. |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Not enough results | C | Defined deadlines for evaluations are planned in the project plan, weekly labmeetings should be done. | Try to find the bottleneck in an early stage of the project, talk with experts regulary, start over again (use another method, try an easier project) |
| 7 | [Groningen] Getting DNA from paper (of the iGEM catalog) was problematic | M | Check DNA catalog / well-plates. Order stab cultures from HQ (try to be early). | |
| 8 | [Groningen] Promotor is leaky | M | Measure background signal (neg. control). For the HSL promotor use EZ medium as described by Groningen team, iGEM 2008 | |
| 4 | [Groningen] Ligation of BioBricks in plasmid is problematic | C | Dephosphorylize plasmid first | |
| 5 | [Groningen] Low transformation efficiency of BioBricks to E. coli | C | Use E. coli TOP10. Make new competent cells. | |
| 8 | [Groningen] BioBricks behave different than expected. | C | Check whether there are multiple BioBrick possibilities for the gene you want to use. | Sequence the generated plasmid to be sure that you are working on the right gene. Try to use another BioBrick. |
| 2 | [Motreal] False positives upon transformation, low yield for DNA isolation | H | Order a synthetic construct in an early stage, use DNA isolation kits. | |
| 1 | [Peru] To less biological knowledge | M | Try to get more biology students, ask people to give lectures. | |
| 5 | Ordering DNA takes too much time | M | Order in time, try to think ahead | Try to find a simillar gene / construct at the University of Groningen. |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | There are few results from modeling, the results are not compatible with the results from the lab. | H | Ask experts in an early stage for help. Try to get feedback in an early stage from the lab, on sub-problems. | Contact the iGEM 2008 team, try to find the bottlenecks |
| 6 | [Istanbul] Slow to decide which software would be used | M | The programs used by iGEM 2008 teams are searched and analysed | Start early (before the project is chosen) and make clear deadlines |
| 7 | Not enough knowledge in the team. | C | A Bio-informatics student is joining the team, since May 11 | Try to get more computer-engineering students, ask people to give lectures. |
| 6 | It is to late known which part of the project is used for modelling | H | The deadline for choosing a project is May 18. The modelling team will talk individually with the people working on the different possible projects. |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | [Toronto BlueGenes] Different instructor relative to previous years | M | Involve instructors & advisors monthly in meetings | |
| 1 | An instructor leaves the team. | C | Involve instructors & advisors monthly in meetings | |
| 8 | A undergraduate teammember leaves the team. | M | Keep people motivated for iGEM. | Start working in teams of (at least) 2 teammembers, to prevent a great loss of knowledge. |
| 5 | Teammembers loose motivation | C | Start with social events next to the normal (and somewhat boring ;) meetings | |
| 8/9 | There arises a conflict / disagreement in the group | L | Try to get a mediator. Depends on the problem. |
[TODO: Review risk list at least after every iteration]
