Risk is identified in project management literature as an important factor influencing ITprojects success, andit is relevant for both academic and practitioners’ communities. The paper presents the past and current approaches to riskmanagementinITprojects. The objective of this paper is to compare the different approachesand relate them to existing practices. Project management literature and practice have brought different approaches to riskmanagement, and as a result, many projects ended in failure. We present how riskmanagement is considered in the literature, and we compare the main two approaches: the evaluation approach and the management approach. The contingency approach does not consider riskmanagement to be a specific process as it is an embedded process in the other project management processes. Then, we present the main practicesinriskmanagement. The methodology applied is based on documentary study review and analysis of the concepts used by the literature. We analyzed the literature published between 1978 and 2011 from the main journals for IT project managementand found out that the essence of project management is riskmanagement. The riskmanagementpractices have a considerable influence on stakeholders’ perception of project success. But, regardless of the chosen approach, a standard method for identifying, assessing, and responding to risks should be included in any project as this influences the outcome of the project.
Information Technologies (IT) and Information Systems (IS) play a fundamental role in or- ganizations. We have witnessed a IS transition from a support role to a business partner role. This increased responsibility and impact in business performance leads to a tighter control and higher demand on IS Departments. To respond to these requirements, organi- zations turn themselves to Service Management frameworks, ITIL being the most widely used. However, many ITIL projects fail, and the most commonly documented cause is organizational resistance. The goal of this work is to test the hypothesis that using best practices described in the People CMM framework for improving organizational maturity has impact on achieving a greater ITIL maturity as well.
The separation regarding pharmaceuticals and cytotoxic wastes (Group IV) presents 73.7% and 35.7%, respectively, of wrong answers. The adequate treatment for pharmaceuticals and cytotoxic wastes are incineration according with national legislation, and should be colleted in red bags. However, most medical staff (87.9 %) separates these wastes in white bags, which will lead to a pre-treatment (e.g. autoclaving) (Table 6). The autoclave of these wastes is inadequate andit will result in negative impacts to the workers, because of the workers exposition to volatile compounds between treatment cycles (WHO, 2005b). Some pharmaceutics wastes are collected in black bags and, therefore, follows to landfill as municipal wastes (inadequate disposal), which could lead to contamination of soil and water resources. Inadequate waste separation has negative impacts in medical workers and environment.
The IT entrepreneur works basically with projectsandin this context the team leadership it is very important because he needs to motivate teams to support organizational goals and to develop staff skills and capabilities effectively. He also needs to create stakeholder partnerships, managing competing stakeholder needs and communicating effectively. Other major capability is to manage risk, anticipating and effectively mitigating major risks and aligns decisions with company’s risk profile executing standard project management methodology and linkage project goals with business context.
for each line in the financial statement. Based on this there is a self-assessment of the controls’ effectiveness, followed by a series of field tests and verifications aimed at proving control efficiency. The company has four main risk areas that are the object of more detailed analysis - in the form of pilot projects. The risk implementation project foresees the gradual inclusion of new risks combined with the maturing and internal consolidation of the methodology. The adoption of a riskmanagement system was not prompted by one factor alone. Although it started with adjustments to the Sarbanes-Oxley Law, it was also the result of a natural evolution of the organization’s management system, which was expected to have a positive impact on the organization’s results.
On the questionnaire, the author asked some basic questions about DevOps, like what practices the interviewee knows about and what they apply or had applied on previous/current projects. When enquiring about the practices already applied, the author made a scale from 1 to 3, where 1 meant didn’t apply, 2 meant partially applied and 3 meant fully applied. One should assume partial implementation as a practice that is incomplete or could not be implemented in the entire context it was expected to work. For example, for deployment automation, a developer cannot use the deployment automation tool for production deployments while a team leader has permission to do it. Table 20 shows the results for these two questions. From Table 20 one can see that the interviewees have considerable knowledge about the existence of DevOps practices. From the 12 practices described in Section 3.1, Shift-left and Infrastructure as Code were the only practices that the interviewees had no prior knowledge of. Furthermore, from Table 20 one can conclude that the most known practices are being fully or partially applied. The author also noted that there appears to exist a relation between the experience of the interviewee and the practices implemented. For example, the deployment automation practice is fully applied by interviewees E, B and F, while the others only applied it partially. The CI is being fully applied by most of the team, likely because it is an intuitive and easy practice to employ due to the existence of tools that allow this practice, like Jenkins.
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) estimates and totals up the equivalent money value of the benefits and costs to the community of projects to establish whether they are worthwhile. The idea of this economic accounting originated with Jules Dupuit, a French engineer. The British economist, Alfred Marshall, formulated some of the formal concepts that are at the foundation of CBA. But the practical development of CBA came as a result of the impetus provided by the Federal Navigation Act of 1936. This act required that the U.S. Corps of Engineers carry out projects for the improvement of the waterway system when the total benefits of a project to whomsoever they accrue exceed the costs of that project. Thus, the Corps of Engineers had created systematic methods for measuring such benefits and costs. The engineers of the Corps did this without much, if any, assistance from the economics profession. It wasn't until about twenty years later in the 1950's that economists tried to provide a rigorous, consistent set of methods for measuring benefits and costs and deciding whether a project is worthwhile. Some technical issues of CBA have not been wholly resolved even now but the fundamental presented in the following are well established (3). If until the '60, cost benefit analysis (CBA) was used to assess investment projects such as water management plant (using water as a resource or as a means of transport - to prevent flooding, hydroelectric works, water supply, sewers, hydro-transport, etc.), since the 1970s, the method has been translated and used in other projects with public funding (and not only), which generates an impact on the environment (1).
Based on this information, this article aims to present a review, classiication, and analysis of the current literature on riskmanagementin software development projects, thereby enabling the assessment of trends and gaps in the literature on the use of riskmanagementin micro and small incubated technology-based companies. This work is theoretical and conceptual in nature. It is a discussion arising from a literature review, which resulted in the raising of a number of relevant points (Miguel, 2007; Wacker, 2004). To develop the study we carried out a literature review of the riskmanagement process, which sought to identify in the scientiic literature works whose primary or secondary theme addressed riskmanagementin software development projects. For this search we used the database of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), a foundation within Brazil’s Ministry of Education, selected because of its wide scope and ease of access for most Brazilian researchers (Carnevalli & Miguel, 2007).
No project is free of risk . Various reasons have been given for prevalence of risks. These include the fact that practitioners poorly understand the area of software engineering risk assessment even though it is an important issue, which can save millions of dollars in the projects, . Another reason is the intangible nature and uniqueness of software, which means that traditional processes for managing industrial projects are not effective . This makes it more difficult to plan, model and predict the progress of a software project . Other reasons include; users’ high expectations of the software, constant review of computer systems where new technologies replace the existing technologies which are obsolete and impractical for new developments. Market competition is also high, which requires organizations to keep constant pace with Information Technology (IT). These rapid changes and growing expectations have led to decreased stability and increased software development complexity bringing along new risks to the software projects .
As referred to in the previous sections, there are several methods and processes to manage IS/ITprojectsin such a way as to help realize the expected business benefits. The question remains as to whether these methods are actually being used in practice by organizations. Ashurst et al. [Ashurst et al. 2008] clearly states that they are not. In fact, they assert that “there is little evidence that organizations have been able to translate these academic prescriptions into effective working practices” [Ashurst et al. 2008]. Every year, billions of dollars are spent by organizations on management training andmanagement consultancy, but this is often ineffective in changing the way practitioners manage organizational change [Pfeffer & Sutton 1999]. The problem, as those authors bluntly state, is not knowing, it is doing it.
Requirements engineering is one of the challenging and crucial phase in the development of software products. One of the key reasons found in literature survey the failure of software projects due to poor project managementand requirement management activity. This paper mainly addresses 1. Formulate a mixed organization structure of both traditional approachesand agile approaches, to apply KM practices for both the approaches to achieve requirements issues such as missing and inconsistency of requirements and improve the project management activities in a global software development environment. 2. Propose requirements metrics to measure and manage software process during the development of information systems. The major contribution of this paper is well-founded methods to manage the project and effective requirements management metrics to measure changing requirements while giving particular attention to the requirements engineering issues such as completeness and consistency. Two hypotheses have been formulated and tested this problem through statistical techniques and validate the same.
A riskmanagement team for the highway project is formed to manage risks in the planning phase of the highway project. Establishing the team is the main predecessor of risk analysis process with the highway project. It is concerned with extending a structure for the risk tasks to follow. It deserves more attention because it reduces preventable problems. The team establishment steps are needed to provide the organizational and highway project environment in which analyzing the risks is taking place and to decide the main vision, goals, objectives and outcomes required. To set the whole objectives together play an indispensable part of empowering the team for analyzing the project risks. The main goal of the team is to identify and analyze potential risks of the highway project to find their priorities for further measures. Size, budget, location, available resources and unique aspects of the highway project are some factors that influence the selection of a riskmanagement team for the highway project.
According to the customer´s requirements, during the design phase, several new processes were added, some were changed, and one process was eliminated. It did not plan any software customization. The information flow inside the organization was quite slow, based on informal telephone calls and verbal communication. Only the reports and sanction would be presented via post or electronic mail. It has been planned to have a formal project team meeting at the beginning and the end of each phase. Also, each team would report to the stream lead, and twice a month a stream leads meeting would be organized. No communication plan rather than this has been introduced. Among the project´s outcomes, completion within budget was considered to be the most important to company X, followed by benefit realization and user satisfaction. Among the list of top risk factors, lack of top management support and involvement was considered as the one that has the most significant impact, on a second place was Business processes re-engendering, as Company X was adopting new processes in Human Resources module regarding employees’ positions structure, followed by communication risk. These three considered being the critical factors that may impede the ERP system implementation from success. When asked about the aversion to different failures, failure to deliver expected benefits is ranked the highest one. On a second position, it was to meet system design requirements. The Customer would identify this project as a failed one if the requirements are not fully met and ERP solution will not provide all expected benefits.
First forged during the heat of the industrial revolution, evolving during the demanding production times of WW2, Project Management as we know it only appeared in the middle of the 20th century. The needs had changed andit became obvious that complex projects needed to be managed in a more efficient way. During times of war, meeting the time-to-market, or in this case, the time-to-battlefield, became life-threateningly crucial, andin face of such odds, there came a necessity to improve current management styles, to increase the number of various war machines delivered to the battlefield. Benefits of Project Management became clear to all and good practices spread rapidly to several different industry types. The world was changing rapidly and business leaders were seeking new ways to handle change and growing markets in a more and more competitive world and global economy.
A forma tradicional de gerir um projecto complexo é dar especial atenção ao projecto em si, estudando os seus detalhes e determinando o que é possível prever sobre o seu desenvolvimento, tendo em conta as suas características únicas. Esta visão a partir do interior causa opiniões parciais e demasiado optimistas, Kahneman and Tversky  sugerem que os analistas devem fazer todos os esforços para encontrar projectos semelhantes ao projecto presente, de modo a utilizar toda a informação estatística disponível sobre estes e consequentemente prever as ocorrências possíveis no projecto presente. Isto permite obter um visão do projecto a partir do exterior.
From a theoretical point of view, the study of born globals seems to be still at a pre- paradigmatic stage (Kuhn, 1962). In fact, albeit born globals are at crossroads of different theoretical approaches, there is not so far a sound theoretical basis to analyse the phenomenon. A look at the papers shows that several of them even lack a theoretical anchor. A number of papers is descriptive, concerned with the creation of born global firms, how did they started and what are their main characteristics, often contrasting this new breed with well established international firms. Recently, however, a host of papers with strong theoretical concerns, aimed at testing hypotheses and propositions derived from the literature, gained ground. Theoretical anchors come, however, from different strands, as indicated above (industrial networks, social capital, international entrepreneurship, resource based view, knowledge managementand learning, and company location and clustering). Ironically, in spite of the multitude of theoretical approaches, international business theories, with exception of the Nordic approach, appear to be sub-utilised.
The texts that make up the sections of issue 41 of Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação portray the special attention given by this journal to manifestations of the diversity of academic disciplines, topics, subjects and theoretical-methodological approaches, at the same time that these converge towards the major themes emphasized in the journal’s editorial line that are so pertinent in the debate around possible dialogue among the different fields of knowledge andpractices within healthcare. Prominent among these are contributions on the meanings and sense of professional practicesand rationales within the field of healthcare and their possible relationship to service users; the presence of biomedical rationales in the media; and significant learning among users in their educative processes and also among healthcare professionals in their specific training processes. In analytical texts or in reports on experiences resulting from field research, the choice of qualitative methodology is highlighted: this is more appropriate for the topics covered and is coincidentally the topic of the book by Ana Maria Canzonieri, “Metodologia da pesquisa qualitativa na saúde”
231 www.hrmars.com/journals generated by three categories of causes: insufficient capital (due to the huge dimension of losses which exceed the socially acceptable hurdle for insolvency); model errors (i.e. misestimating of outcomes distribution due to errors occurred inrisk measurement); andrisk ig o a e i.e. fi s a ilit of a agi g thei e uit apital a d easu e thei e posu es is directly linked to their capacity of acting as buffers against errors inriskmanagement). Similarly, Kimball (2000) states that risk mitigation andmanagement system can fail for more subtle and indirect reasons. He identifies three major reasons why riskmanagement fails: agency risk; shift or changes in the form or risk; and incremental failure (Kimball, 2000). Firstly, according to him, perhaps the best known reason for failure of riskmanagement system is agency risk. Agency risk refers to the risk that a manager or employee, inadvertently or purposefully, fails to follow policies or procedures designed to mitigate and manage risks (Kimball, 2000). Secondly, there is tendency for risk to shift or change form. While a firm may mitigate its risk by hedging or purchasing insurance, these actions do not reduce systematic riskin the economy. Systematic risks (sometimes identified as uncontrollable or unavoidable risks) are risks associated with the overall market or the economy. Such risks are outside the control of the firms operating in the market or the economy. Thus, hedging or purchasing insurance does not really eliminate risk, but simply transforms the nature of the risk (Kimball, 2000). Thirdly, there is tendency for riskmanagement process to fail incrementally over a long period of time. The incremental failure is often caused by a long incubator period arising from a gradual degradation of the riskmanagement processes, which accumulate over a long period of time (Kimball, 2000). However, riskmanagement incremental failure can be avoided through regular review of risk exposures and the riskmanagement framework (Grabowski and Roberts, 1997; Kimball, 2000; Charette, 2002; Bozek and Tworek, 2011).
Anexo I | 8 intended as an exemplar of joined up team practice, integrating professional skills and knowledge towards a common service user focused goal, and promoting interdependency through partnership. New Labour's policy themes often conflict however and implementation has not been easy. The problem of youth offending and solutions to it are capable of being interpreted in many different ways by power holders. The YOT model appears to have been built upon flawed assumptions about what teams are, and what they are capable of achieving in the absence of fundamental changes to how the public sector is organised and managed. YOTs do not have the authority to sustain the high level of interdependency required of them and they lack many of the characteristics of effective teams. There is uncertainty about what interprofessional practice is and how it can be facilitated. Youth justice professionals have demonstrated that dynamic interprofessional team practice is possible, and has the potential to deliver joined up youth offending services. It will be argued however that the changes introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 lacked a clear philosophical foundation. The weaknesses of the YOT model, and the muddled language of the joined up imperative, demonstrate the difficulty of attempting to launch multiple changes in a conceptual vacuum. The new youth justice system may disadvantage growing numbers of children and young people, while failing to achieve its main aim of reducing youth crime. The continued support of youth justice practitioners is not guaranteed.
In the phase of evidence collection, the researchers adopted the following procedures: first, they conducted the maximum number of interviews involving employees of the BU and corporate headquarters; second, the researchers resorted to data and method triangulation; third, they considered the importance of data and sources; fourth, the researchers then resorted to key informers to validate collected evidence and the interpretation that were formulated. Data were coded using the key theoretical constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994) looking for patterns and exceptions. Still in the analysis phase, the researchers replicated some of the results gathered, through the collection of additional data, and discussed the results obtained with the key informers. The researchers tested the coherence of the results of this case study comparing the results obtained with the results of other investigations on the BSC and on the Simons’ framework. The results were registered in a report, in narrative format, following logic of theory construction (Yin, 2003).