Risk Register

Question is the attachment in the form of PDF 

The solution needs to be filled in the excel sheet

2

>Risk Register Risk ID Risk Statement Probability Impact Risk Rating Risk Type EMV Cost EMV Dur Trigger Risk Response Residual Risk Secondary Risk Contingency Plan Fallback Plan Risk Re-Assessment Prob.

Impact Risk Rating EMV Cost EMV Dur

Comments 1

Practical 1

P2

1

very low threat $2 2.

0

0 P

3 mitigate Yes

Yes Yes

P

4 4%

1 very low

$4 4.00 Test risk 2 0

0%

0 0 0

$0 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0 0.00 $0 0.00 0.00
3 0 0% 0 0 0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0 0.00 $0 0.00 0.00
4 0 0% 0 0 0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0 0.00 $0 0.00 0.00
5

0 0% 0 0 0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0 0.00 $0 0.00 0.00
Do not make updates to this sheet, it will auto-populate.
Scroll to the right to see the entire table

Practical 1

Risk ID

Risk Statement

1 Practical 1

Practical 1 Practical 1

2
3
4
5

Cause	Event	Effect
Pracital 1
Include the cause, event and effect before generating the final risk statement.

Practical 2

Risk ID Risk Statement Probability Impact Risk Rating Risk Type

EMV Cost

EMV Dur

1 Practical 1 P2 1 very low threat P2

te:
Place final value here. Remember to check negative and positive

P2

2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0

EMV Cost Show Your Work	EMV Duration Show Your Work
$2 Lisa Pollard:	No		2.00 Lisa Pollard: Note: Place final value here. Remember to check negative and positive
Hover over the red tab to see notes Fill in the blanks, use the drop down options where provided Column A and B auto-populate

Practical 3

Risk ID Risk Statement Probability Impact Risk Rating Risk Type EMV Cost EMV Dur Trigger Risk Response

Residual Risk

Secondary Risk

1 Practical 1 P2 1 very low threat

2

mitigate P3 Yes P3 Yes P3

2 0 0% 0 0 0

0

3 0 0% 0 0 0 $0.00 0
4 0 0% 0 0 0 $0.00 0
5 0 0% 0 0 0 $0.00 0

Why was response selected	Describe Risidual Risk if Applicable	Describe Secondary Risk if Applicable
	$2.00					P3
							$0.00
Column A – H auto-populate

Practical 4

Risk ID Risk Statement Probability Impact Risk Rating Risk Type EMV Cost EMV Dur Trigger Risk Response Residual Risk Contingency Plan

Fallback Plan

Risk Re-Assessment Comments

Probability Impact Risk Rating EMV Cost EMV Dur Comments
1 Practical 1 P2 1 very low threat $2.00 2.00
Lisa Pollard: Note:
Place final value here. Remember to check negative and positive
P3 mitigate Yes Yes

Yes P4 4% 1 very low $4 4.00 Test risk

2 0 0% 0 0% 0 $0.00 0.00 0 0 0
3 0 0% 0 0% 0 $0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4 0 0% 0 0% 0 $0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5 0 0% 0 0% 0 $0.00 0.00 0 0 0

Describe Contingency Plan if Applicable	Describe Fallback Plan if Applicable
	P4

List

Impact Risk Rating Risk Type

Risk Response

1

Yes

2

No

3

4

5

Y/N
Low	Threat	Accept
Very Low	Opportunity	Avoid
Medium	Enhance
High	Escalate
Very High	Exploit
Mitigate
Share
Transfer

Practical3 Updated Case Study:. Risk Register – Tier 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER

Prof. Shaila Aranha Sec 3 & 9 MGMT 8370.

1

IMPORTANT: Practical assignments are individual independent work.

Kindly safeguard your assignments and work on it without collaboration.

Practical 3: DUE DATE : November 14, Saturday by 11.59 pm (Week 10)

1. Use the information in the updated case study for Practical 3.

2. Continue to work on the risk register template Practical 3 tab for all 5 of your risk statements.

3. Submit in dropbox Risk Register 3. Excel workbook with completed tabs of Practical 1, 2 & 3.

NOTE: Practical 4 will be an updated version and will be available to you closer to the due date

of Practical 4.

CASE STUDY

Risk Register Case Study: TIER 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER

Pineapple Wheels Inc. (“Pineapple”) was a Tier 1 automotive supplier located in Algoma, ON

originally started by Melanie Daoust in her garage 30-years ago. Residing in the same town

since 1990, Pineapple had gradually shifted from supplying utility carts and trailers to trucks and

cars. The main customers had headquarters in Detroit, but a sophisticated combination of rail

and long-distance haulers allowed Pineapple to ship wheels throughout Canada, US, and

Mexico as Algoma had a commercial railroad station.

The customer base was steady, but the projected annual domestic wheel sales show a decline

of 4% starting in 2022 (domestics = plants in Canada, US, and Mexico). Upper management at

Pineapple was led by the CEO, Murray Daoust, who was the eldest son. Murray had worked in

the business since he finished school and felt a strong connection to the workforce and the local

region. Understanding the projections, Murray had developed a sales strategy to expand into

Asian vehicle manufacturers. Finally, after 4+ years of hard work, Murray’s first success was a

new $28M project to supply tires to support the 2021 launch of the latest line of SUMO vehicles

from the Tata Motor Company (“Tata”).

A successful launch was the responsibility of the project manager, Tommy Gendron. Having

significant automotive experience, Tommy moved from Detroit to Algoma’s quieter city to find

work/life balance and take part in Murray’s ambitious business plans. Tommy understood a

similar budget had supported the earlier Ford F150 launch, except the F150 only required

domestic transportation and used a wheel design previously tested on another truck program. In

comparison, the Tata wheel was a new design but was on a compressed release schedule with

a timeline of 28-months compared to a standard 48-months. However, the Tata design was very

similar to the F150 design. It used standard material the existing Pineapple machinery and

assembly personnel were comfortable handling. As a unionized shop led by Mario Tremblay,

there were always discussions and tension when new changes were introduced.

As a new design, Pineapple had no test data against domestic or Tata specifications. Terry

Calhoun was the quality manager who had overseen the Ford F150 project and felt the

Practical 3 Updated Case Study:. Risk Register – Tier 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER

Prof. Shaila Aranha Sec 3 & 9 MGMT 8370.

2

differences in specifications were inconsequential. The project timeline could be compressed by

months if test data from the Ford F150 was deemed as an acceptable substitute by the

customer. However, Tata had no experience with domestic wheel testing standards and relied

on Pineapple’s recommendations on which specification differences could be ignored.

Tata had also introduced Pineapple to new suppliers that Tata had previously done business

with. The purchaser for Pineapple was Wanda Daoust and a new supplier was Amoli Rubber

Inc. (“Amoli”) located in Jaipur, India. Wanda was the youngest child and eager to make an

impression on Melanie. Her enthusiasm sometimes covered over a lack of preparation and this

often was a source of conflict with Murray who preferred planning over trusting a “gut feeling”.

Amoli made a verbal offer to Wanda that would reduce the raw material costs by 40% compared

to the current Pineapple suppliers if “more business” beyond the Tata program was switched to

Amoli. Wanda had not exchanged hard figures yet, but the potential savings were significant.

As the PM, Tommy had independent discussions with the key stakeholders throughout and was

comfortable with their respective areas of expertise. He had a meeting scheduled with Murray

next week to decide whether to release the 1st round of funding to purchase materials and

machinery. Tommy needed to use this meeting to provide an accurate project status and

evaluation of the risks and opportunities so that Murray, as the project sponsor, can make the

appropriate choices.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Expanded Case Study

Pineapple was responsible for completing domestic wheel testing that included NVH (noise-

vehicle-harshness), crash, and durability tests (km before failure). A standard testing process

had subcontractor quotations of at least $1.6M and 16-weeks of time. There were accelerated

testing labs that compressed timing to 12-weeks, but this increased testing costs to $2.5M. In

both scenarios, Pineapple supplied a total of 24 tire sets to the subcontractor.

In parallel, Tata was responsible for completing 6 sets of vehicle tests. The fixed test schedule

required Pineapple to provide 6 tire sets for weeks 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, and 28. Along with the

physical tire sets, Pineapple covered all costs to get tire sets to Tata (at least $25K / vehicle test

for logistics, shipping, insurance, etc …).

For the prototype tire sets used in testing, Tommy combined costs for prototype molds, raw

materials, and labour. The estimated cost was at least $20K per prototype tire set. Also, a 12-

week period had to elapse before any prototype tire sets could be produced. This meant tire

sets would only be available starting in week 13 at a rate of 6 tire sets / week.

The 28-month project duration was supported by 11 team members including Tommy, Terry,

Wanda, and Mario. Combining software licenses and overhead, Tommy estimated each team

member costs around $11K / month. Murray had asked Tommy for a larger team because of the

Practical 3 Updated Case Study:. Risk Register – Tier 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER
Prof. Shaila Aranha Sec 3 & 9 MGMT 8370.

3

schedule, but Tommy felt an 8 member team was more flexible and would still get the work

done. Tata had a $100K / day penalty for every business day beyond the 28-weeks where tire

sets were unavailable. The contract language was ambiguous and Murray wasn’t convinced

Tata wouldn’t apply the penalty even if delays weren’t Pineapple’s fault.

The SUMO vehicle program had a $28M budget for the 28-months to test and release a new tire

design and a further 48-months to produce tire sets to support SUMO vehicle production. Early

production volumes were 16K annually from 2021 to 2024 with Tata paying a selling price of

$330 / tire set that was non-negotiable until 2024. Murray expected to increase the selling price

to $360 / tire set and SUMO volumes to rise to 18K annually in 2024 for the 2nd generation.

Production costs for tire sets were much cheaper at $240. Tommy estimated this figure based

on the shop floor wages (40% of cost), overhead (20% of cost), and material (40% of cost). The

union contract is up in 2024 and preliminary discussions indicated wages could rise by 1.5x.

The last union contract came after a 90-day strike, so Mario is an aggressive negotiator.

Thinking further ahead, Murray had secured a tentative 4-year commitment for the Tata TIAGO

vehicle line. Starting in 2024, Murray used a conservative estimate of flat growth for all 4 years

(60K / year) with a selling price of $325 / tire set and estimated production cost of $300 / tire set.

However, this future business was heavily dependent on a successful SUMO launch.

Additional Project Details

Use this information while completing the risk register.

Duration. 28 weeks

Budget . $28M

Contingency. $2.8M

Constraints. The project is schedule-constrained due to the many fixed dates and lead time

Notes. 1 tire set = 4 tires, all customer volumes are in tire sets

Business week = Monday to Friday

M = Million(s)

K = Thousand(s)

No constraints on the ability to meet production volumes after 28-weeks

Domestic Wheel Testing

Option A. Standard testing – 16 weeks

6 tire sets tested every 4 weeks

Testing execution and final report – cost $1.6M

Option B. Accelerated testing – 12 weeks

8 tire sets tested every 4 weeks

Testing execution and final report – cost $2.5M

Practical 3 Updated Case Study:. Risk Register – Tier 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER
Prof. Shaila Aranha Sec 3 & 9 MGMT 8370.

4

Fixed Cost. 24 tire sets

$0K / test (shipping, insurance, logistics)

Prototype Vehicle Testing

Number of prototype tests. 6 tests

Number of tire sets / test. 6 tire sets required

Prototype vehicle testing schedule in weeks 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, and 28

Fixed Cost. 36 tire sets

$25K / test (shipping, insurance, logistics)

Prototype Volume, Constraints, and Cost (weeks 1 to 28)

Prototype volume. 6 tire sets / week

Lead time for tire sets. 12 weeks (week 13 is earliest tire sets can be tested)

Fixed Cost. $20K / tire set

Other Project Costs

Option A. 11-team members – $110K/week (including salaries, overhead, etc …)

Duration – 28 weeks starting week 1

Option B. 8-team members – $88K/week (including salaries, overhead, etc …)

Duration – 28 weeks starting week 1

Production Volumes + Revenue + Cost (after week 28)

2021 – 2024 16K sets of tires per year

SUMO Actual selling price $330 / set

Estimated production cost = $240 / set (40% shop floor wages + 20%

overhead + 40% material)

2024 – 2028 18K sets of tires per year

SUMO (2nd Gen) Estimated selling price $360 / set

Estimated production cost = $288 / set (estimated shop floor wages

increase by 1.5x compared to 2021-2024, estimated overhead + material

are same as 2021-2024)

2024 – 2028 60K sets of tires per year

TIAGO Actual selling price $325 / set

Estimated production cost = $300

Production Penalties (after week 28)

Penalty $100K / business day when tire sets unavailable to Tata

manufacturing facilities

Duration SUMO is 2021 to 2024 (only applies after week 28)

Practical 3 Updated Case Study:. Risk Register – Tier 1 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIER
Prof. Shaila Aranha Sec 3 & 9 MGMT 8370.

5

Supplemental: Heat Map

Supplemental: Impact Table

Impact Rating Cost ($K) Time (days)

5 —
High impact

> 4 business days

4
High impact

> $500K

Medium impact

2 to 4 business days

3
Medium impact

$201K to $500 K

Low impact

< 2 business days

2
Low impact

$50K < $200K ---

1
Very low impact

< $50K ---

Note. Time is captured in Business Days, not weeks