"
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]
|
|---|
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 Possible risks were traced from the problems of iGEM Groningen 2008 and of the iGEM 2008 teams which were withdrawn from the competition.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 and severe the problem is.
- Description: a brief description of the risk.
- Impact:
- 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.
- 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.
- L= low impact, if this risk can not be avoided, probably the team will decide to live with it.
- 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?
[NEW! The first risk table (might need revising ;)]
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | NoFunding. If we do not get any more funding we may not be able to cover our budget. This may mean that some things will not be possible. | C | Our budget should largely be covered before the summer.We already have some funds and are attempting to acquire more. | Send letters to (non)-governmental / university organisations and companies. |
| 7 | 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. |
| 6 | [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. |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | [Groningen]Making constructs is consuming to much time | C | Order synthesized plasmid, though this is pricy | |
| 8 | [Istanbul / TU München] Started too late with brainstorm sessions | C | Our project subject deadline is May 11 | Start immediately with fulltime working on the project when time becomes a real problem |
| 9 | [Taipei] Project plan without clear deadlines | H | UPEDO is used, we try to specify the project plan | Make a sharp plan and keep everyone motivated to work according this plan |
| 6 | 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 |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Not enough results | H | Defined deadlines for evaluations are planned in the project plan | Try to find the bottleneck in an early stage of the project, talk with experts regulary, start over again (use another method) |
| 9 | [Groningen] Getting DNA from paper (of the iGEM catalog) was problematic | M | Order stab cultures from iGEM HQ | |
| 6 | [Groningen] HSL promotor is leaky in LB / TY medium, probably other promotors behave the same | M/L | For the HSL promotor use EZ medium as described by Groningen team, iGEM 2008 | |
| 8 | [Groningen] Ligation of BioBricks in plasmid is problematic | C | Dephosphorylize plasmid first | |
| 7 | [Groningen] Low transformation efficiency of BioBricks to E. coli | C | Use E. coli TOP10 | |
| 8 | [Groningen] Strange behavior of BioBricks | C | Sequence the generated plasmid to be sure that you are working on the right gene | |
| 8 | [Motreal] False positives upon transformation, low yield for DNA isolation | H | Group was withdrawn probably because of the lack of progress, would have been better to order a synthetic construct |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | There are few results from modeling | H | Ask experts in an early stage for help | 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 |
| Magnitude | Description | Impact | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | [Peru] Group was withdrawn may be because of lack of biological knowledge | C | Try to get more students with a certain expertise which is still needed in the team | Try to get more biology students, ask to experts, ask people to give lectures of specific interest |
| 7 | [Toronto BlueGenes] Different instructor relative to previous years | M | Involve instructors & advisors monthly in meetings | Keep in contact with the previous instructor |
