Risk Value Assessment Tool

Risk Value Assessment Tool - Definitions Value to Business Supports Mission and Goals Description The project supports MIT in fulfilling its Mission and Goals Risk to Business Compatible w/ Enterprise Systems Description The process proposed fits a standard process model in a package application or existing technology strategies The project fits within MIT, IT architecture guidelines Meets or Supports Compliance An existing or future compliance or regulatory requirement exists that the system will support, e.g. EPA compliance by Environmental Health & Safety The project will measurably increase MIT’s ability to conduct business efficiently, e.g. reduction in costs or hand-offs, or improved functionality The project mitigates known or probable business or operational risks Architecture Compliance Business Efficiency Unproven Technology The technology is new and unproven or would mean early adoption Business/ Operational Risk Confidence in Project Estimates (scope, cost, resources) The level of confidence in the project scope, cost, resource and overall sizing estimates. Complex efforts, spanning multiple years, are generally of higher risk Community, DLC and IS&T readiness and capacity for the project and management commitment to sponsor the project Project directly affects other projects and or is dependent on other project’s success The project will be easily accepted and used by the community or end-users System Health The project addresses a system or systems that have outlived their expected lifespan. Factors include supportability, scalability, maintainability & functional depth Institute Commitment Project Interactions & Dependencies Community Impact Risk Value Analysis Criteria Business Value Business Value Criteria Supports Mission and Goals Definition The project supports MIT in fulfilling its Mission and Goals Value (1 –5) 1. 3. 5. Meets or Supports Compliance (e.g., Regulatory) An existing or future compliance or regulatory requirement exists that the system will support, e.g. EPA compliance by Environmental Health & Safety The project will measurably increase MIT’s ability to conduct business efficiently, e.g. reduction in costs or handoffs, or improved functionality The project mitigates known or probable business or operational risks 1. 3. 5. 5 = Highest Value No strategic impact (e.g., operational project) Supports Institute mission and goals or significantly and directly advances a departments goals Provides significant and direct advancement of the Institute’s mission and goals No compliance requirements Meets anticipated future compliance or regulatory requirement Meets existing compliance or regulatory requirement Business Efficiency 1. 3. 5. No measurable business efficiency Provides at least one measurable business efficiency Provides numerous measurable business efficiencies Business & Operational Risk 1. 3. 5. No noticeable impact to reducing business or operational risk Project mitigates a known or potential business or operational risk Project mitigates a major business or operational risk Replaces healthy and highly functional system Replaces moderately healthy or adequately functional system Replaces a least healthy or poorly functional system Systems Health The project addresses a system or systems that have outlived their expected lifespan. Factors include supportability, scalability, maintainability & functional depth 1. 3. 5. Risk to Project Risk Criteria Compatibility w/ Enterprise Systems Definition The process proposed fits a standard process model in a package application or existing technology strategies Risk (1 –5) 1. 5 = Highest Risk 3. 5. The project seamlessly integrates with existing enterprise systems and MIT has similar interfaces in production The project integrates with existing enterprise systems but new interfaces are required The project is incompatible with existing enterprise systems Projects meets all required and recommended ITAG architectural statements and guidelines Project meets all required, but not all recommended, ITAG architectural statements and guidelines Project is not in compliance with required ITAG architectural statements and guidelines The technology exists today in MIT’s production environment The technology is either new OR unproven at MIT The technology is both new AND unproven at MIT Estimates are based an actuals from previous projects of the same size, scope and complexity IS&T has implemented similar projects of this size, scope, and complexity IS&T has no experience with projects of this size, scope, or complexity All stakeholders (community, Business Owners and IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained) resources, capacity and commitment Some stakeholders (community or Business Owners or IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained), resources, capacity and commitment No stakeholders (community, Business Owners or IS&T) have appropriate (skilled/trained) resources, capacity or commitment This project has no known interactions with other initiatives and no dependencies This project has limited known interactions with other initiatives and limited dependencies This project has extensive known interactions with other initiatives OR considerable dependencies on other projects or initiatives Project does not change the way we do business and thus should be easily accepted by end-users and/or community Project requires small changes or the change is limited to a small, identifiable community Project changes the way we do business and directly impacts a majority of the community Architecture Compliance The project fits within MIT, IT architecture guidelines 1. 3. 5. Unproven Technology The technology is new and unproven or would mean early adoption The level of confidence in the project scope, cost, resource and overall sizing estimates. Complex efforts, spanning multiple years, are generally of higher risk Community, DLC and IS&T readiness and capacity for the project and management commitment to sponsor the project 1. 3. 5. 1. 3. 5. 1. Confidence in Project Estimates (scope, schedule and cost) Institute Commitment 3. 5. Project Interactions and Dependencies Project directly affects other projects and or is dependent on other project’s success 1. 3. 5. Community Impact The project will be easily accepted and used by the community or end-users 1. 3. 5.