Risk management in satellite development projects: PMO coordination and stakeholder engagement

Risk Management on a Satellite Development Project

Enrolling a project requires risk assessment and management at various levels of implanting a project. This is based on the knowledge that quality of risk management determines the performance and outcome of the project. In any case, the Project Management Office (PMO) is mandated to spearhead a risk assessment and management plan. Risk management blueprints will later be implanted to each department. This analysis attempts to vindicate the role risk management in explaining the quality of output of this project. The commencing document is structured in two main parts. Firstly, a critical assessment on the fundamentality of risk. Secondly, the document will analyze the role of the team in responding to risk management stipulated by the PMO office (Charrel & Galarreta, 2007).

Issues arising from the lack of a risk plan.

Absence of a risk management plan would have affected this project negatively. Potential negativist challenging the project could have been identified as costing and budgetary allocation would result to funds being allocated to inappropriate destination. Besides, the project risk plan sought the aggregate commitment of all parties. If the project did not analyze the aggregate commitment of all parties, then various departments would not have functioned collectively, thus leading to optimal breakdown of project mechanism. Thirdly, the project risk assessment considered the usage and proper utilization of time. Absence of time management would mean that activities would not be scheduled leading to the crumbling of the project (Dar, 2013).

Besides, the risk assessment methodology sought to apply communication to respond various needs of the project. Failure to apply communication methods would incapacitate the project coordination mechanism. In any case, project stakeholders would be pursuing different agendas on aggregate. Fifthly, the risk management contingency plan adopts leadership mechanism to ensure activities are timely and prudently delegated. Absence of a risk management plan implies leadership and delegation will be constrained (Kerzner, 2013).

Value of risk plan

The central considerations of the proposed risk management will attempt to balance investment (cost) against returns (cost). For the members, it is appropriate to calculate steps ahead before the real project plan. This calls for the integration of futuristic results because many projects change as technology changes. For justification, the upcoming risk management plan will facilitate the formulation of better decision in the corporate strategy. Secondly, the plan enhances project agility. The project will respond appropriately to meet demands of a given cost. This Justification is adopted from Accenture Global Risk Management, which identifies a 98% percent of project participants often favor risk assessment and risk management before the commencement of a given project (Kloppenborg, (2012).

Ways of maintaining the current goal

Managing a geographically dispersed team presents significant challenges to the PMO. Consequently, the PMO is required to choose the appropriate team players. Satellite candidate should be self-motivated and have the ability to work at individual levels as well as, handling pressures. The satellite team should as well have coherent communication skills. Thirdly, the team should have optimistic results driven capacity. The above team will technically request minimal supervision on aggregate. This reduces the total cost of operations and boosts quality of work in individual located in diverse grounds (Dar, 2013).

Secondly, there is a need to reinstate the project objective regularly. The PMO has to emphasize on the need of ensuring that the project succeeds. This can be accomplished through constant evaluations, development of goals, objectives, and charters. The reinstatement intrinsically examines on the possibilities on the virtue of independence as a vital prerequisite required in managing the project office (Charrel & Galarreta, 2007).

Thirdly, it is important to initiate a constant project evaluation process using feedback and performance reward mechanism. This will require the integration of appropriate communication mechanism. For instance, the baseline ERP software should be integrated with a chat and forum software vital in enabling different project participants to share information regularly. In vital situation, it is appropriate to initiate a video communication channel with a goal of conveying a message to the panel differently. In most cases, new teams are often challenged by mobility factors, a feature not experienced in old teams (Kerzner, 2013).

Conclusion

This analysis has been integral in reflecting the necessity of risk management in enrolling and empowering the ongoing project. The presentation has singularized the essentiality of engaging risk management as an appropriate in reducing aggregate harm. In particular, the analysis has established team commitment, team agility and employee independence as resounding risk management plan.