"
Team:Groningen/Project Plan/Risk List
From 2009.igem.org
 |
|---|
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 Possible risks were traced from the problems of iGEM Groningen 2008 and of the iGEM 2008 teams which were withdrawn from the competition.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 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 |
