Definitions
Mitigation
- Accept- Recognize that the risk exists and needs to be monitored but take no steps to affect the probability of the risk or to plan for action should the risk materialize
- Reduce/Enhance - Put active measures in place to reduce the threat of a negative risk occurring or enhance the chance of a positive risk occurring
- Transfer/Share- Take steps to move the risk from the project to a third party more capable of managing the risk
- Avoid/Exploit - Take steps to completely eliminate the possibility of a negative risk occurring (avoid) or guaranteeing that a positive risk will happen (exploit)
Probability
- High - Has happened at least 50% of the time or more
- Medium - Between low and high
- Low - Has happened only once before
Impact
- High - Requires change to agreed upon scope, budget, schedule and quality
- Medium - Risk can be accommodated but will require adjusting scope
- Low - Risk can be accommodated within existing agreed upon scope, budget, schedule and quality
| Risk Number | Description | Status | Mitigation | Probability | Overall Impact | Scope Impact | Budget Impact | Schedule Impact | Quality Impact | Resolution | Resolution Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The known Use Cases may only be a small fraction of the Use Cases the community requires. As such, our level of efforts estimates may not be enough to cover the effort required to meet the new use cases. | Not Active | Frequent communication with the NCI program leadership to prioritize Use Cases to use in the Prototyping and Production stages | High | Low | Moderate | Minor | Moderate | Low | |||
| 2 | Amount of data to be stored is larger than the free-storage can handle, so could exceed our estimated costs. | Not Active | Work with the NCI programs to identify this issue if it arises and evaluate options before implementing a solution | Low | Medium | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | |||
| 3 | The level of detail in the SOW is low and the Data Commons concept is new. So there are a lot of unknowns that will only be encountered during implementation. So this adds a lot of uncertainty to the timelines and the effort estimates | Not Active | Focus on uncovering those unknowns during the Prototyping stage so they do not arise late in the project at Production. At the completion of the Prototyping phase we will conduct an assessement of costs and schedule for the development of the Production system. | Medium | Medium | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Low | |||
| 4 | Unable to staff the project in a timely fashion with either/or FNL or subcontractor staff. This could delay progress towards meeting milestones | Not Active | The initial phases will focus on activities such as data inventory, harmonization and use case definition that utilize existing or soon to be hired staff (anticipated to be onboard before project starts). This will allow time to find any additional staff or subcontractors to staff up. | Low | Medium | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | |||
| 5 | The Gen3 architecture is still new and not extensively documented or field tested. It is possible there are missing elements needed to fully support the ICDC or there are performance gaps in functionality or stability. | Active | Gen3 was assembled by UChicago so by using UChicago as SME(s) during development we can be guided by them with respect to what features are incomplete and if there are roadmaps to complete those features. This will enable us to determine prioritization of ICDC system development to avoid any known issues and to plan around Gen3 development releases | Low | Medium | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Accept | 11/20/18 | We were informed yesterday that the dockerized version of Gen3 to which we had been pointed by UChicago staff was incomplete and outdated and was not planned to be supported. Meetings were held with UChicago staff yesterday and it was resolved that they would point us to current code and help us stand up a non-dockerized version over the course of the next few weeks. This has resulted in a loss of time/money for all work done on the system since Nov. 1, 2018. |
| 6 | The Sheepdog code in Gen3 is very specific to the GDC data model. We will have to interitively modify our data model YAML to get Sheepdog to accept it. This may cause a delay in loading the model and therefore loading the data to the system. | Active | Without modifying the Sheepdog code to be more generic, we cannot mitigate this risk. | High | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Accept | 1/10/19 | |
| 7 | There is a risk that Seven Bridges Genomics will not develop their interactions with the ICDC in time for our MVP release (Dec. 31, 2019). SGB has been delaying a decision about the manifest and whether that should be a complete copy of the study or simply a reference to the files of interest. Without knowing their desired strategy, we will not be able to provide interoperability between the two systems until it is decided. | Active | This risk is outside of our control and we therefore have to accept it. | High | Low | Low | Low | High | Accept | 9/30/19 | While the probability is high, the scope and cost do not change, simply the schedule. This will only impact our ability to deliver according to our internal timeline, not a contractual timeline. |
