Background
The Acme Medical Device Company has been looking for the future of the organization and upgrade in the existing IT network has been considered as the most crucial aspect for the successful delivery of the transformation needed for tackling the current environment of the industry. This new implementation will also have many risks associated with the project execution and hence, it is considerable fact to determine the severity of the risks and being prepared for the strategies those are helpful in limiting the impacts of the identified risks. This report will consider the eight important sectors of the project those are crucial and vulnerable to the risks and related risks have been identified. A Monte Carlo analysis has been executed in this report considering the identified risks and their quantitative values for the proposition of the results those could be utilized for developing the strategies those could lead to efficient and effective project execution.
Figure 1: Change Management Processes
(Source: Created by Author)
The above demonstrated flow chart describes the change management process that needs to be considered while executing the transformation in the existing system of the Acme Company. Two sections have been divided for the entire process that includes change request and change status value and the process starts with making the request for the change and follow to the review process where the changes requests will be reviewed and permissions would be granted accordingly. Thereafter, the process move on the assessing and planning that has three sub-processes as mentioned in the above diagram that lead to two possibilities whether there are standard changes or not and whether they have been approved or not and if the conditions move on to yes then the implementation procedure will be executed. After the verification, implementation will be completed. Change status value will start from the prepared draft that will reaches to approval after review that will led to the planning and implementation of the strategies those have been planned accordingly.
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
|
Planning |
30.0 |
20 |
30 |
40 |
|
Design |
20.0 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
|
Build |
20.0 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
|
Test |
20.0 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
|
Roll Out |
12.0 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
|
Close Out |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
106.0 |
77.0 |
106.0 |
135.0 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 106 |
51.51% |
106 |
||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
115 |
95% |
||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
9 |
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Sampled |
|
Plan |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
11.31486295 |
|
Design – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Planning |
20.0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
14.39791483 |
|
Design – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Execution |
20.0 |
15 |
20 |
25 |
20.17929024 |
|
Design – Matilda v6.3 CAD |
20.0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
26.38433564 |
|
Design – Matilda v6.3 CAE |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
11.41426448 |
|
Design – Pipedrive CRM v2.2.6 |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.890742833 |
|
Build – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Planning |
20.0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
19.05241141 |
|
Build – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Execution |
20.0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
22.42161839 |
|
Build – Matilda v6.3 CAD |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
5.277929236 |
|
Build – Matilda v6.3 CAE |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3.569906758 |
|
Build – Pipedrive CRM v2.2.6 |
5.0 |
2 |
4 |
12 |
3.374377605 |
|
Test – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Planning |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.418785546 |
|
Test – Matilda v6.3 Manufacturing Execution |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
12.14546102 |
|
Test – Matilda v6.3 CAD |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.758033829 |
|
Test – Matilda v6.3 CAE |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.978134612 |
|
Test – Pipedrive CRM v2.2.6 |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3.328817578 |
|
Test – Matilda v6.3 and Hot Backup |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
2.897501869 |
|
Train |
10.0 |
4 |
8 |
24 |
12.56760315 |
|
Roll Out |
9.0 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
7.493737012 |
|
Close Out |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1.288440094 |
|
194.0 |
102.0 |
191.0 |
298.0 |
201.1541691 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 194 |
41.41% |
191 |
|||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
210 |
95% |
|||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
16 |
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Sampled |
|
Plan |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.140903869 |
|
Design – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
5.795458391 |
|
Build – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
6.570660004 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.286114966 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and v12.2.3 A/P |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3.535163506 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and v12.2.3 A/R |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
5.48489448 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and v12.2.3 F/A |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.15929623 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and Matilda v6.3 |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
2.467330352 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and Hot Backup |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.803184161 |
|
Test – Oracle EBS v12.2.9 G/L and Pipedrive CRM v2.2.6 |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.852755395 |
|
Train |
6.0 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
6.560832339 |
|
Roll Out |
10.0 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
10.2295143 |
|
Close Out |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2.779901245 |
|
74.0 |
41.0 |
74.0 |
107.0 |
70.66600923 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 74 |
47.44% |
74 |
|||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
80 |
95% |
|||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
6 |
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Sampled |
|
Planning |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.306947817 |
|
Design |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.594274851 |
|
Build – ESB and G/L |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
5.038802668 |
|
Build – ESB and A/P, A/R & F/A |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
11.38901146 |
|
Build – ESB and HRMS |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
10.61459867 |
|
Build – ESB and Security |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.513632026 |
|
Build – ESB and Matilda |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
6.198391213 |
|
Build – ESB and CRM |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
10.93378658 |
|
Test – ESB and G/L |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
7.119045715 |
|
Test – ESB and A/P, A/R & F/A |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
6.841023829 |
|
Test – ESB and HRMS |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
4.895014368 |
|
Test – ESB and Security |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
6.75665225 |
|
Test – ESB and Matilda |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
7.058649108 |
|
Test – ESB and CRM |
6.0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
5.532622325 |
|
Train |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3.553999687 |
|
Roll Out |
20.0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
25.75037748 |
|
Close Out |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2.437956886 |
|
136.0 |
68.0 |
136.0 |
204.0 |
142.5347869 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 136 |
50.21% |
136 |
|||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
147 |
95% |
|||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
11 |
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Sampled |
|
Plan |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
10.09571269 |
|
Design – IBM Cloud Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
7.130357288 |
|
Design – IBM Security Intelligence and Analytics |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
9.780514944 |
|
Design – IBM Data Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
4.67383807 |
|
Design – IBM Network Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
5.079395297 |
|
Build – IBM Cloud Security |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3.502715271 |
|
Build – IBM Security Intelligence and Analytics |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2.312769557 |
|
Build – IBM Data Security |
16.0 |
8 |
16 |
24 |
11.39156031 |
|
Build – IBM Network Security |
12.0 |
8 |
12 |
16 |
12.61765799 |
|
Test – IBM Cloud Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
5.17084047 |
|
Test – IBM Security Intelligence and Analytics |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
10.08927718 |
|
Test – IBM Data Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
6.936401249 |
|
Test – IBM Network Security |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
9.656058974 |
|
Train |
8.0 |
4 |
8 |
12 |
6.0728229 |
|
Roll Out |
12.0 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
12.37185419 |
|
Close Out |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1.90237692 |
|
128.0 |
70.0 |
128.0 |
186.0 |
118.7841533 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 128 |
52.30% |
128 |
|||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
137 |
95% |
|||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
9 |
|
Phase |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Sampled |
|
Plan |
6.0 |
2 |
6 |
10 |
4.965895049 |
|
Design – 5 Servers |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.905187821 |
|
Design – ESB |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
7.866979553 |
|
Build – 5 Servers |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
8.706114739 |
|
Build – ESB |
10.0 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9.921604623 |
|
Test – 5 Servers |
10.0 |
8 |
10 |
12 |
9.358495145 |
|
Test – ESB |
4.0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4.461108018 |
|
Train |
6.0 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
4.870521249 |
|
Roll Out |
12.0 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
11.89019026 |
|
Close Out |
2.0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1.345651549 |
|
80.0 |
47.0 |
80.0 |
113.0 |
73.29174801 |
|
|
Probability of meeting value of 80 |
45.94% |
80 |
|||
|
Total budget required for 95.0% confidence |
86 |
95% |
|||
|
Contingency required for 95.0% confidence |
6 |
|
Team |
Calc Estimate |
Perfect |
Likely |
Outrageous |
Comments |
% |
|
PMO |
106.0 |
77.0 |
106.0 |
135.0 |
Testing and roll out risks |
15% |
|
MIS |
194.0 |
102.0 |
191.0 |
298.0 |
Testing risks between Oracle and Matilda |
27% |
|
Finance |
74.0 |
41.0 |
74.0 |
107.0 |
Testing risks between new and old Oracle versions |
10% |
|
ESB |
136.0 |
68.0 |
136.0 |
204.0 |
ESB design and testing risks |
19% |
|
Security |
128.0 |
70.0 |
128.0 |
186.0 |
Server design and testing risks |
18% |
|
Infrastructure |
80.0 |
47.0 |
80.0 |
113.0 |
Server design and testing risks |
11% |
|
Total |
718.0 |
405.0 |
715.0 |
1,043.0 |
100% |
|
Team |
Plan |
Design |
Build |
Test |
Roll Out |
Close Out |
Total |
% of Total |
|
PMO |
30 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
12 |
4 |
106.0 |
15% |
|
MIS |
10 |
74 |
53 |
36 |
19 |
2 |
194.0 |
27% |
|
Finance |
10 |
10 |
8 |
28 |
16 |
2 |
74.0 |
10% |
|
ESB |
10 |
10 |
54 |
36 |
24 |
2 |
136.0 |
19% |
|
Security |
8 |
32 |
34 |
32 |
20 |
2 |
128.0 |
18% |
|
Infrastructure |
6 |
20 |
20 |
14 |
18 |
2 |
80.0 |
11% |
|
Total |
74 |
166 |
189 |
166 |
109 |
14 |
718.0 |
100% |
Conclusion
The above report explains the risk associated with the risks those might arise or being raised during the execution of the project. Monte Carlo analysis through using @Risk 7.5 industrial trial application that helped in generating the random figures as demonstrated in the above report. The proposed result can be utilized for the further proceeding with the risk handling and how the strategies could be implemented those could lead to the execution of an efficient project.
The Acme medical device company can utilize the above proposed results for better implementation strategies. The future work will emphasize on compliance of the policies with the newly proposed systems and the existing systems considering the privacy and security of the data and information being calculated.
Acebes, F., Pereda, M., Poza, D., Pajares, J., & Galán, J. M. (2015). Stochastic earned value analysis using Monte Carlo simulation and statistical learning techniques. International Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1597-1609.
Arnold, U., & Yildiz, Ö. (2015). Economic risk analysis of decentralized renewable energy infrastructures–A Monte Carlo Simulation approach. Renewable Energy, 77, 227-239.
Brandimarte, P. (2014). Handbook in Monte Carlo simulation: applications in financial engineering, risk management, and economics. John Wiley & Sons.
Bryson, J. (2017). Effective library and information centre management. Routledge.
Galliers, R. D., & Leidner, D. E. (2014). Strategic information management: challenges and strategies in managing information systems. Routledge.
Hashemi-Dezaki, H., Hamzeh, M., Askarian-Abyaneh, H., & Haeri-Khiavi, H. (2015). Risk management of smart grids based on managed charging of PHEVs and vehicle-to-grid strategy using Monte Carlo simulation. Energy conversion and management, 100, 262-276.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2015). Management information systems (Vol. 8). Prentice Hall.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2016). Management information system. Pearson Education India.
Marchewka, J. T. (2014). Information technology project management. John Wiley & Sons.
Obeidat, B. Y., Al-Dmour, R. H., & Tarhini, A. (2015). Knowledge management strategies as intermediary variables between itbusiness strategic alignment and firm performance. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 11(7).
Powers, M. A., Bardsley, J., Cypress, M., Duker, P., Funnell, M. M., Fischl, A. H., … & Vivian, E. (2017). Diabetes self-management education and support in type 2 diabetes: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The Diabetes Educator, 43(1), 40-53.
Ren, L., He, L., Lu, H., & Chen, Y. (2016). Monte Carlo-based interval transformation analysis for multi-criteria decision analysis of groundwater management strategies under uncertain naphthalene concentrations and health risks. Journal of Hydrology, 539, 468-477.
Robson, W. (2015). Strategic management and information systems. Pearson Higher Ed.
Smith, L. C., & Wong, M. A. (Eds.). (2016). Reference and Information Services: An Introduction: An Introduction. ABC-CLIO.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
