PMexpo16 - Leonardo - Sante Torino

1

© 2016 Leonardo-Finmeccanica - Società per azioni

Evento organizzato da Istituto Italiano di Project Management®

Project Risk Management in LEONARDO – Finmeccanica Managing Project Risks in Complex Scenarios

Sante Torino – Project Risk Management Dpt. [email protected]

Roma, 28 Novembre 2016

Project Risk Management in LEONARDO - Finmeccanica Managing Project Risks in Complex Scenarios Sante Torino – Project Risk Management Dpt.

3


2016: A new beginning

One Company, Stronger Together 1 January 2016: the One Company is born through merger operations for the incorporation of OTO Melara and WASS into Finmeccanica and the absorption of the activities carried out by AgustaWestland, Alenia Aermacchi and Selex ES. The industrial entity maintains Parent Company and Corporate Centre functions for DRS Technologies, MBDA, Telespazio, Thales Alenia Space, and ATR.

Finmeccanica is now Leonardo

28 April 2016: our name changes to Leonardo, inspired by Leonardo da Vinci, a universally recognised symbol of

creativity and innovation. Leonardo represents the ideal bridge between historical legacy and our future in the high-tech

industrial sectors.

4


SUMMARY

• LEONARDO - Finmeccanica overview: a challenging & risky project environment

• Think “One Company”: managing the Change to the unified Project Risk Management

• Effective Project Risk Analysis & Reporting

5


Our Business

Leonardo is a global high-tech company and one of the key actors in Aerospace, Defence and

Security worldwide.

HELICOPTERS SPACE

Helicopters

Aircraft

Security & Information Systems

Aerostructures

Airborne & Space Systems

Land & Naval Defence Electronics

Defence Systems

DIVISIONS

SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURES

DRS Technologies (100% Leonardo)

Telespazio (67% Leonardo and 33% Thales)

Thales Alenia Space (67% Thales and 33% Leonardo)

MBDA (37.5% BAE Systems, 37.5% Airbus Group, 25%

Leonardo)

ATR (50% Leonardo and 50% Airbus Group)

6


KEY FIGURES 2015

Group Results Full Year 2015 (in €bln.)

RESULTS 2015 in €mln.

Revenues 12,995

New Orders 12,371

Order Backlog 28,793

R&D 1,426

The subdivision by sectors reflects the Company’s organisation in 2015.

34% HELICOPTERS

41% DEFENCE AND SECURITY ELECTRONICS

24% AERONAUTICS

4% DEFENCE SYSTEMS

-5% ELIMINATIONS

2% OTHER ACTIVITIES

41% HELICOPTERS


21% AERONAUTICS

4% DEFENCE SYSTEMS

-3% ELIMINATIONS

1% OTHER ACTIVITIES

32% HELICOPTERS


14% AERONAUTICS

6% DEFENCE SYSTEMS

-7% ELIMINATIONS

1% OTHER ACTIVITIES

TOTAL SHAREHOLDER COMPOSITION

ORDER BACKLOG NEW ORDERS REVENUES

13.0 28.8 12.4

50.0% INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

30.2% ITALIAN MINISTRY OF ECONOMY AND FINANCE

19.8% RETAIL INVESTORS (ITALY ONLY)

9.4% ITALY

90.6% REST OF THE WORLD

7


With 218 sites worldwide, Leonardo has a strong industrial presence in four markets.

Domestic Markets

Data as of 31.12.2015

8


About 150 countries use our

products, systems, and services

Global Presence*

* Industrial Legal Entities, Partnerships (JVs-Consortia), Branch and Representative Offices

9


Responsibility

We fully embrace the responsibilities that come with being a corporate citizen. We develop our

business with a focus on sustainability, a key driver of our strategy; every phase of operations is

informed by this, from the design to the production and support, to the impact on the end user and

supply chain.

All our activities are planned with a view to the impact on the company, stakeholders, people and the

environment.

Leonardo’s ability to be proactive in the processes of development defines us as a sustainable

business and a socially responsible Group.

Member of DJSI since 2009-2010 Accession to CDP since 2008

10


Key International Cooperation Programmes

EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON

Advanced air defence and superiority fighter with multi-role capabilities.

F-35

New generation multi-role fighter with advanced air-to-ground capabilities and stealth characteristics.

NH90

Medium lift, multi-role military helicopter developed from NATO Staff requirements.

FREMM (European Multimission Frigate)

New generation frigates programme developed by a joint Italian-French cooperation project.

GALILEO

European global navigation satellite system.

nEUROn

European programme for a new unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) with stealth capabilities.

NATO-AGS (Alliance Ground Surveillance)

NATO system for intelligence, surveillance and recognition activities.

CLEAN SKY

European research programme for the development of breakthrough technologies to increase the environmental performances of air transport.

SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research)

European research programme for the modernisation of the air traffic management system.

11


Long term duration

Delivery of financial performances

High level of systems customization

Innovative contents and technical complexity

Large number of resources involved, both in house and outside

Large number of stakeholders

PRM approach starts analyzing Projects major Characteristics …

12


Key Success Factors

… manage the Key Success Factors and related Risks …

Focus on Customer

Capabilities

Suppliers/Partners

System of Systems Engineering / Integration

Sensors & SW Technology

Production

Customer Support

Management

Platforms

Subsystems

Global Solutions Provider

On time deliveries, within budget constraints,

within technical and operational requirements

Single contract interface

Major Risk Management Categories P

lann

ing

Customer

Technical

Subcontractor

Partner /

13


Example of Major Risks & Causes

Management of highly complex

programmes

Critical lead time

Technology/technical solutions not

readily available

Planning

Site/Shipset unavailable

Critical/unusual tests

Additional requests/changes

by the Customer

Non compliance/remarks

during qualification/tests

Critical/borderline

performance requirements

Baseline configuration

changes

Reliance on partners/suppliers (lead

time; single source)

Lack of valid offers (not received in

due time or not received at all)

Delay of partners/suppliers

(equipment, services, civil works)

Customer

Technical

Subcontractor

Partner /

… and perform dedicated Treatment Action Plans

• Analysis of the “Risk

Categories”

• Risk clustering according to

relevant risk category

• Identification of major causes

• Definition of cross response

plans and specific actions

Treatment Strategy

14


SUMMARY




15


ASSESS STRENGTHEN DEVELOP EXECUTE

Managing the Change in Project Risk Management

Risk Management Organization

Mature Process and Methodology

Integrated Supporting Tools

Training (Process and Tools)

Ch

ange

Le

vers

Co

mp

lexit

y &

Eff

ort

Communication and Sponsorship

Risk Managers Individual Approach

Think “One Company”

Nov-14 : CRO appointment Jan-16 : «One Company»

Risk Manager as the key Agent driving the

Change!

16


Risk Management Organization – Model

Risk Process,

Methodology, Tools,

TERRA Administration,

Central Risk Reporting,

Independent Review

CEO

Chief Risk Officer

Project Risk Management

Enterprise Risk Management

Risk Manager Helicopters

Risk Manager Aircraft

Risk Manager Aerostructures

Risk Manager Airborne & Space

Systems

Risk Manager Security &

Information Systems

Risk Manager Defense Systems

Risk Manager Land & Naval

Defense Electronics

Risk Manager TELESPAZIO

CEN

TRA

L D

EPA

RTM

ENT

OP

ERA

TIO

NA

L

functional link (divisional risk

management dpts have hierarchic

dependence from Divisions)

17


Change Levers: Risk Management Community

• Change Agents

• Subject Matter Experts

• Risk Knowledge Management and sharing

• Best practices and experiences sharing

• Risk Management teaching by doing

• Lessons learned reuse

• Certified Competences (PMI-RMP®)

One Team through Divisions One Culture approach One Language One Methodology One Tool 1

18


Project Risk Management Documents Framework

• Compliance with international standards and best practices

• Focus on Integrated Project Team and central role of the Project Manager supported by the Risk Manager

• Historical Project Risk Database, as vital One Company asset

• Process applied within the whole Project Life Cycle, since Bid phase, connecting Risks to Project Objectives / Milestones

• Risks, not Issues. Risks properly Treated. Risk isn’t Contingency

• Synthetic Key Risk Indicators, enabling effective situational awareness and decision support

GU

IDEL

INE

MA

NU

AL

OP

ERA

TIN

G

ISTR

UC

TIO

NS • Process Roles and Responsibilities

• Process Phases, Output, Timing

• Use of an unique One Company tool: TERRA (Tool for Evaluating Risks & Response Actions)

19


SUB-PROCESS ACTIVITY FLOW

Calculation of the net benefit of the mitigation actions identified, choice

and implementation of the actions.

With effects of the

mitigation actions

Risk Identification

Project Classification

Risk

Evaluation

Risk Treatment Action Plan

Contingency Management

Monitoring and Risk Review

Determination of the risk class of the projects/programs (A, B, C).

Identification of the risks (and of the Opportunities) of the project, with

the support of specific tools (e.g. Checklists, historical risk Archive), through

the precise analysis of the contractual scenario, of the activities subject of

supply and of the related budget. The identified risks may be of operating

(technical-industrial, contractual, patrimonial assets and marketing), strategic,

financial and of compliance nature.

Risk evaluation on the basis of previous experience and of historical data

related to similar risks, divided in: Qualitative Analysis, aimed at providing

a priority of risks to be subsequently treated and a Quantitative Analysis,

aimed at quantifying the probability of occurrence and of the impact of each

risk on the objectives, time schedules, costs of the project and performance

of the supply.

Risk treatment, in other words cause/risks/effects analysis and identification

of the mitigation actions to reduce the risk impact on the project. Identification

of the actions corresponding to causes common to various risks .

Determination, allocation and planning of the contingencies that are

budgeted in order to protect the risk resulting after the mitigation actions have

been carried out.

Periodic Monitoring and Review of the Risk and Actions, updating of the

relative risk sheets, increase and/or release of the contingencies, possible

inclusion of new risks an/or closure of previously identified ones. Creation

and management of the Reporting on risks and actions.

Project Risk Management Process

20


PLAN DESCRIPTION

Example of Risk Identification

Supporting Risk Meta-Languages

Statement examples

• DUE TO <one or more causes>, IF an <event> happens, THEN <one or more effects on project objectives > will turn out

• Because of <one or more causes>, an <event> might occur, which would lead to <one or more effects on project objectives>

EVENT (Uncertainty)

EFFECT (Consequence

on project’s objectives)

CAUSE (Fact/Condition)

20 20

Prevention Protection Threat

Response

Identification

: Treatment oriented

21


• At WBE level: focus on Risks and Actions

• At Project level: overall Risk trend

• In order to respect the budget (in terms of

costs and milestones date)

Management of Project Risks (inside the IPTs)

Risk DataBase

Analysis and Reporting

Management of Contingency

Risk Manager

Contingencies are managed

on the basis of the project’s

overall risk trend

• Provide different views on a project’s risk profile

• Find commonalities among business areas, products, project classes (cross risks), impacting on groups of projects, to define cross actions

Risk Register

• Collect and track risks history

• Share risks information

• Risk data re-use

IPT

Project Risk Management and Analysis

http://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjuqbvt6JPPAhWC5RoKHem0A2QQjRwIBw&url=http://blog.staytonic.it/come-unanalisi-potenziale-seo-sito-web/&bvm=bv.133053837,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNGLn_ppwwSDL-KBlChsP2sH9L3GgA&ust=1474112954574716

22


™

Max 1,1

Min 0,0

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

0 0,5 1 1,5 2Values in M€

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Baseline '09

Maggio '09

Settembre '09

ContingencyBaseline ‘09Baseline ‘09 May ‘09May ‘09 September ‘09September ‘09

Costs in M€

Pro

ba

bilit

y

Risk Register / RBS 051021

(K€)

1 draft 27-lug-06 PROPOSTO 6.3

2 draft 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3




6 draft 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5.3

7 draft 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5



10 draft 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5.2


FREMM - CMS

Date :

RISK FALL BACK PLAN REPORT(PIANO DI RECUPERO SUI RISCHI DI PROGETTO)

Action Status

Fall Back DateFall Back Plan

OwnerCompletion

Fall Back

CostIssue

no.Status

Risk

AreaFall Back PlanRisk ID Date

Start

PROJECT :

COR :

CLASS : A

T. STYLES

04/07/2007

IPT Leader/PM :

051021

Impact

(K€) (K€) (K€)

1 1 27-lug-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 3 6 01/02/08 HAT FOC ASW 30/04/12 30/04/12 YES

2 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 3 6 02/01/07 CDR 28/02/08 28/02/08 YES

3 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 2 4 01/09/10 FAT FOS GP#5 30/09/20 30/09/20

4 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 2 6 30/04/07 FAT FOC ASW 30/04/12 30/04/12 YES

5 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 5.2 2 4 28/02/08 FAT FOC ASW 30/04/12 30/04/12 YES

6 1 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5.3 2 6 01/06/09Rilascio Release

SW nave FOC GP31/07/10 31/07/10 YES

7 1 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5 2 4 01/02/08 FAT FOC ASW 31/08/11 31/08/11

8 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 5.1 1 2 01/05/10 SAT FOC GP#5 01/03/21 01/03/21


10 1 13-set-06 PROPOSTO 5.2 2 4 01/02/08 HAT FOC ASW 15/12/11 15/12/11


12 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.4 2 4 01/03/09Prima FAT HW

(nave GP)01/01/10 01/01/10

13 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.1 2 4 01/10/09 HAT FOC ASW 30/04/12 30/04/12

14 1 15-set-06 PROPOSTO 5 1 2 01/02/09 FAT FOS GP#5 30/04/20 30/04/20

15 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.1 2 4 01/02/08 FAT FOC SW 30/04/12 30/04/12

16 1 15-set-06 PROPOSTO 5.3 1 2 30/09/06Installazione FOC

GP15/12/10 15/12/10

18 1 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.1 2 4 03/08/06Prima FAT SW

(nave GP)01/11/09 01/11/09 YES

R. Veronesi

v. Mandese

Rischio di rivalsa economica da parte di OSN su

attività di installazione

Possibile sottostima delle funzionalità nuove CMS

Extra costi per la definizione, qualifica e produzione

della Multi Functional ConsoleV. Mandese

Modifiche al CMS a seguito dell'accettazione della

documentazione di progetto e della Valutazione

Operativa da parte del Cliente (MMI)

V. Mandese

Ridotta efficienza delle attività di bordo e SSIAC R. Veronesi

Prolungamento attività di integrazione e collaudo in

fabbricaR. Veronesi

Progettazione HW con bassa marginalità V. Mandese

Necessità di un aggiornamento Tecnologico V. Mandese

Riorganizzazione della società DATAMAT R. Veronesi

Necessità di realizzazione di simulatori R. Veronesi

Prolungamento attività a bordo R. Veronesi

Mancanza di risorse chiave o con skill adeguati per le

fasi di impostazione del progettoA. Neri

Risk Title Risk Owner

Impatti da mancato consolidamento Horizon/NUM A Neri

(RAPPORTO DI VALUTAZIONE DEI RISCHI DI PROGETTO)

T. STYLES

RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

IPT Leader / PM :

PROJECT : FREMM - CMS

COR :

Rilavorazione del SW per aggiornamento della

piattaformaA. Neri

Rilavorazioni/modifiche alla funzionalità (ASW) Anti-

Subsurface Warfare di nuova realizzazioneA. Neri

Rallentamento dei flussi informativi durante la fase di

progetto e realizzazione del sistema dovuto alla

complessità contrattuale

R. Veronesi

Rallentamento attività di testing in fabbrica R. Veronesi

Milestone

Affected by the

Risk Occurring

Action PlanTechn ManagPredicted

Start Date

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

Risk Exposure

Risk

Factor

Risk Value

Date : 04/07/2007

Proba-

bility

Risk

AreaRisk ID Date

Issue

no.Status

CLASS : A

TOTAL RISKS: TOTAL RISK EXP:

TOTAL CONTINGENCY:

051021

(K€)

1 draft 27-lug-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 01/09/06 01/02/08

2 draft 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 01/09/06 02/01/07

3 draft 20-gen-06 PROPOSTO 6.3 110 01/09/10

PROJECT :

COR :

CLASS : A

T. STYLES

04/07/2007

IPT Leader/PM :

Intervento sulla Direzione Generale per poter analizzare una

ponderata scelta di make or buy per poter far fronte

all'esigenza di un picco di fabbisogno di risorse con elevato

skill per le fasi di definizione dei requisiti di sistema, System

Design e definizione dei requisiti SW.

Al fine di ridurre il rischio temporale, e i conseguenti impatti sui

costi di programma, può essere effettuato un sistematico

monitoring delle evoluzioni del mercato e una conseguente

sperimentazione preliminare delle piattaforme aggiornate.

Inoltre possono essere perseguiti accordi quadro con i fornitori

delle piattaforme HW al fine di poter avere a disposizione le

piattaforme per le sperimentazioni. Il tutto può essere

effettuato a livello di struttura in maniera trasversale per i vari

programmi in essere (ASPS CMS Standard, NUM, etc.)

Risk ID Date

Completion

Issue

no.Status

Risk

AreaAction Plan Action Status

Action DateRisk

Reduction

Owner

Action Cost

T. Styles

Technical Head

Start

Date :

RISK ACTION REPORT(RAPPORTO DI INTERVENTO SUI RISCHI DI PROGETTO)

V. Mandese

Attivare tempestivamente le attività di Modelling del CMS

FREMM che devono come primo passaggio prendere atto in

modo preciso dello stato di avanzamento delle attività di

Modelling e di Valutazione Operativa di Horizon e NUM.

Mantenere un fortissimo collegamento con i team Horizon e

NUM. Possibilmente raggruppare le attività di Modelling di

Horizon, NUM e FREMM in un unico team con risorse guida

già coinvolte nei progetti Horizon e/o NUM.

FREMM - CMS

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3

1.1

1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4

1.2

1.3.1 1.3.2

1.3

1

ID DescrizioneRisk

Ownergen feb mar apr mag giu lug ago set ott nov dic mar giu set dic mar giu set dic

u

1Necessità di varianti all'architettura , agli sviluppi e alla documentazione per

aderire ai nuovi standard di conformità previsti per la safety.FERRANTE

PINO - BUAT6%

Analisi preliminare dei requisiti V2 per comprendere gli

impatti relativi all'adeguamento agli standard

Richiedere al cliente il riconoscimento dei costi aggiuntivi per

attenersi ai nuovi standard

FERRANTE PINO -

BUAT

FERRANTE PINO -

BUAT

5Oneri aggiuntivi relativi all'integrazione e testing a causa dell'innovazione

tecnologica della subfornitura (Data Distribution System)

MARESCA

GIUSEPPE -

INGE

5%Utilizzo di mock-up e simulatori in modo limitare i rischi

relativi all' integrazione con componenti non noti (es: DDS)MARESCA

GIUSEPPE - INGE

8 Oneri aggiuntivi per rilavorazioni del SWMARESCA

GIUSEPPE -

INGE

6%Rafforzamento della supervisione di BUSC relativamente alle

attività in carico ad IngegneriaFERRANTE PINO -

BUAT

10Prolungamento delle attività di analisi dei requisiti e sviluppo a causa risorse

non addestrate sufficientemente sul progetto

PAPALE

SALVATORE -

BUAT

9%Effettuare training di ulteriori risorse in modo da evitare

problemi legati al turn over o overlapping delle attività

PAPALE

SALVATORE -

BUAT

u

9Inefficenze legate alla parallelizzazione delle attività su V1 e V2, difficile

reperimento di risorse su V2

PAPALE

SALVATORE -

BUAT

6%

Training preventivo su risorse di ingegneria da addestrare

sulle attività di V2, in modo da evitare criticità nella

parallelizzazione di V1 e V2

MARESCA

GIUSEPPE - INGE

u

4Prolungamento delle attività di sincronizzazione deliverables nelle fasi di

integrazione intermedie

PAPALE

SALVATORE -

BUAT

11%

Utilizzare le lessons learnt del precedente contratto

COFLIGHT V1 per determinare le regole di 'concurrent

working' da utilizzare con Thales per COFLIGHT V2 (maggiori

meeting e occasioni di sincronizzazione)

PAPALE

SALVATORE -

BUAT

u

3Criticità nel soddisfacimento dei requisiti operativi e di performance richiesti dal

cliente .FERRANTE

PINO - BUAT28%

Ribaltare al cliente i costi da sostenersi per adeguamento

requisiti maggiore supporto durante l'operativitàFERRANTE PINO -

BUAT

2 Revisione dei requisiti da sviluppare come librerie comuni con ThalesMARESCA

GIUSEPPE -

INGE

6% 0

7 Oneri aggiuntivi delle attività di integrazione e validazione finaleMARESCA

GIUSEPPE -

INGE

8%

Addestrare altre risorse in modo da gestire sia la

parallellizzazione delle attività che il turn over del personale

impegnato su tali progetti

MARESCA

GIUSEPPE - INGE

11 Maggiori costi per adeguamento dei tools utilizzatiFERRANTE

PINO - BUAT6%

Condividere con Thales scelte implementative e tools

utilizzatiFERRANTE PINO -

BUAT

u

V2 IRR3

FAT IP V4

V2 IBB2 int

Milestone di Programma

FAT IP V2

20102009

V2 IBB2 dev

OL

TR

E

2011

20

12

20

13

Azione Action Owner

1211

6

5

1

00

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

M€

Data inizio / fine: Mar. ’03/Gen. ‘15 Garanzia: Apr. ‘16

Costi tecnici a finire: al 31/12/08: 16,9 M€; al 30/06/09: 18,5M€

Avanzamento al 30/06/09: 4%

Rischiosità residua

• Max: 2,1 M€

• Most Likely: 1,1 M€

• Contingency residue: 0,8 M€

Highlights

E’ auspicabile una pianificazione integrata fra il BPP

“Nuovi Centri” e quella del programma al fine di

evidenziare le eventuali criticità in tempi utili per

implementare opportune azioni di recupero.

Milestone Riskiness

N

Mlt da conseguire

Mlt non raggiunta

Mlt ad elevata criticità di slittamento (> 60%)

Mlt a media criticità di slittamento (40% 60%)

Incidenza su variazione profiloN%

Most Likely totale

N° Rischi attivi

Contingency

N

Mlt da conseguire

Mlt non raggiunta

Mlt ad elevata criticità di slittamento (> 60%)

Mlt a media criticità di slittamento (40% 60%)

Incidenza su variazione profiloN%

Most Likely totale

N° Rischi attivi

Contingency

Identification Assessment Mitigation

Review

connect

keep memory

analyze and synthesize

share

59%63%

57%

8%

8%

9%

33%29%

34%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Baseline '09 May '09 August '09

Risk Assessment

Nu

mb

er

of

Op

en

an

d O

cc

urr

ed

Ris

ks

Risks with “Medium” or “High” Risk Factor without actions

Risks with “Low” Risk Factor without actions

%Risks with actions defined

Residual Risk exposure vs Risk Register

9,2 M€ 11,2 M€ 11,2 M€Actions never

defined

Actions closed

with residual

Risk exposure

2 2

3 0

5 2

4 M€ 0,5 M€

36% 5%

Nu

mb

er

of

Ris

Ks

59%63%

57%

8%

8%

9%

33%29%

34%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Risk Assessment

Nu

mb

er

of

Op

en

an

d O

cc

urr

ed

Ris

ks

59%63%

57%

8%

8%

9%

33%29%

34%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Risk Assessment

Nu

mb

er

of

Op

en

an

d O

cc

urr

ed

Ris

ks









9,2 M€ 11,2 M€ 11,2 M€Actions never

defined

Actions closed

with residual

Risk exposure

2 2

3 0

5 2

4 M€ 0,5 M€

36% 5%

Nu

mb

er

of

Ris

Ks

•Technical Process improvement

•Test Bed facilities



Customer

Management

Suppliers

•Integration

•Specific

Contractual

Obligations

•Fast Prototyping

•Professional

Advice

•Product

Investment

Policy

•Integration

•Specific

Contractual

Obligations

•Fast Prototyping

•Professional

Advice

•Product

Investment

Policy

•Partnership

•Back to Back

Solutions

•Local Sourcing

•Partnership

•Back to Back

Solutions

•Local Sourcing

•Specific

Production

investments

•Manufacturing

Quality

Improvement

•Specific

Production

investments

•Manufacturing

Quality

Improvement

Others

Engineering

Production

Technology

•Life Cycle Management

•CMMI


•CMMI

•Specific R&D Investments•Specific R&D Investments





Customer

Management

Suppliers

•Integration

•Specific

Contractual

Obligations

•Fast Prototyping

•Professional

Advice

•Product

Investment

Policy

•Integration

•Specific

Contractual

Obligations

•Fast Prototyping

•Professional

Advice

•Product

Investment

Policy

•Partnership

•Back to Back

Solutions

•Local Sourcing

•Partnership

•Back to Back

Solutions

•Local Sourcing

•Specific

Production

investments

•Manufacturing

Quality

Improvement

•Specific

Production

investments

•Manufacturing

Quality

Improvement

Others

Engineering

Production

Technology


•CMMI


•CMMI

•Specific R&D Investments•Specific R&D Investments

Integrated Project Teams Approach

Web-based tool, easy access (intranet)

Risk Historical

detail

High detail of Risk information

Risk Knowledge One Company

Asset

+500 Users

Live Risk data over

Project lifecycle

Change Levers: Integrated Supporting Tool English &

Italian language

Modularity

ready

Scalability

23


SUMMARY




24


Business Unit

Division

One Company

Programme / Project

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4

Il SW previsto è la build 2 Polonia.

Potrebbero essere necessarie

maggiori personalizzazioni dovute a

differenze tra i due sistemi

Il sistema VTS Yemen prevede telecamere

diverse e un sistema di alimentazione ibrido

diesel/solare differenti dal sistema VTS Polonia

LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

1Inefficienza/disagio nelle attività di sito

(aree disagiate e lontane da Aden)

Condizioni ambientali/logistiche critiche in

particolare nelle aree lontane da Aden

BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT

450 300 - 80% AltoSAT area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

3Risorse locali con skill non adeguato

per attività di istallazione e setting-up

Per le attività di istallazione e setting-up dalla

seconda area in poi è previsto l'impiego di

risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE

450 200 - 60% AltoSAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14

Ritardi per eventi non dipendenti da

Selex-SI, in particolare - Ritardi da

parte del cliente nella messa a

disposizione delle aree per

l'esecuzione del progetto. - Ritardi

dovuti a tempi di sdoganamento

Le autorizzazzioni sono concesse da enti ed

organizzazzioni non direttamente controllabili.

L'iter procedurale in alcuni casi richiede tempi

lunghi. Vi sono anche tribù locali che spesso

impediscono l'inizio dei lavori

BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT

500 300 - 100% MedioSAT Area Khor

Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21

Ritardi nelle consegne dei subfornitori

(Antenna Aerial ed altri componenti

critici per la realizzazione del LYRA)

Delle varianti rispetto alla configurazione fornita

a Febbraio hanno portato a dover effettuare

acquisti di parti aggiuntive ed a richiedere

all'AERIAL, delle varianti sull'antenna

MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost

Risk ID Causa del RischioRisk Owner -

B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

4








LUISON ERALDO

- BUAT474 320 - 40% Medio

SAT Area

Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10





risorse locali

MOLINARI

MASSIMILIANO -

COLE


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

14












BODIN DE

CHATELARD

ENRICO - BUAT


Umayrah12.04.10 12.05.10

21








MAIMERI

MAURIZIO -

PROC


Shuqrah10.11.09 09.01.10

Committed

Cost


B.U./Function Max

Cost

Most

Likely

Cost

Risk Value

Descrizione

Risk

Factor

(Level)

Proba-

bility

(%)

Milestone

affected by the

Risk Occurring

Milestone Date

Planned Revised

0,32

0,36

0,42

0,43

0,461

2

3

4

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

6 9.5 13 16.5 20

…

…

…

Project Risk Management reporting levels

25


Project Risk level: The Project Risk Dashboard (Project Risk Synthesis)

Project Risk

Register

Summary

Economic

Risk Profile

and

Contingency

coverage

Project Top

Level

Milestones

(“Way Points”)

Top Five Risks and Mitigation

Actions with relevant Progress

Short term

Tactical View

Synthesis

Project Risk Overview

Medium / Long term

Project Risks and Actions Overview

Risks on

Milestones

Traffic Light

26


Project Risk level: The Project Schedule Risk Profile (Project Risk vs Milestones)

27


Major Project Risk Indicators at Company level (examples)

Example figures

Residual Risk

Protection

1.115 1.190

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

Company

Residual Risk Value (M€)

Total Contingency Protection (M€)

28


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

www.leonardocompany.com

PMexpo16 - Leonardo - Sante Torino

Leadership & Management

Transcript of PMexpo16 - Leonardo - Sante Torino