Laserfiche WebLink
8. Major Challenges/Risks <br />Based on our experience with ERP procurement and implementation projects, NexLevel has compiled a <br />number of risks that could be associated with this project. As sampling of those risks, their potential <br />impact, impact justification, probability of occurrence, risk response strategy, response strategy <br />measures, and contingency plans are shown in Table 8. As part of the project, we will review and update <br />these risks with the Cities. <br />Table 8 – Sampling of Potential ERP Procurement and Implementation Risks <br /> <br /> <br />Risk Statement <br />Impact (H,M,L)Impact Justification Probability (H,M,L)Symptom/Warning Signs <br />(that risk will or has occurred) <br />Response <br />Strategy <br />(Accept <br />Avoid <br />Mitigate <br />Transfer) <br />Response Strategy Measures <br />Contingency Plan <br />(plan if risk is realized; <br />enter 'none' if there is no <br />plan) <br />If the Cities are unable to <br />obtain quality proposals <br />from experieced vendors <br />then the Cities will be <br />unable to replace their <br />UDBMS <br />H Cities will be unable to <br />replace their systems <br />L - Responses to RFPs <br />submitted do not meet <br />minimum standards <br />- Responses are received from <br />vendors with little or no <br />experience in the technology <br />Mitigate - Identify and contact qualified <br />vendors before the RFP is <br />released <br />- Ensure RFP response <br />requirements are comprehensive <br />and clear <br />Continue with status quo <br />systems <br />If the Cities fails to select <br />the best fit solution, it might <br />not meet ROI expectations <br />H Cities functions depending <br />on the new ERP <br />technology may be <br />inefficient or ineffective, <br />potentially causing the <br />Cities money and <br />employee frustration. <br />Potential PR issues if <br />there are delays or <br />impacts to citizen facing <br />functions. <br />L During implementation or <br />training, the solution is not able <br />to meet business needs <br />Mitigate - Provide thorough RFP <br />requirements <br />- Vet solution through <br />comprehensive proof-of- <br />capabilities (POC) demonstration <br />Update and re-issue <br />RFP <br />If the Cities fails to identify <br />all their unique <br />requirements, the solution <br />may not be able to meet <br />business needs or will <br />require customization that <br />increases cost and/or <br />delays project <br />M Varies depending upon the <br />unique requirements <br />missed <br />M During implementation, it is <br />determined that the solution is <br />not able to support unique <br />functions <br />Mitigate - Conduct thorough review of RFP <br />requirements by Cities SMEs to <br />ensure all uniqure requirements <br />are documented <br />- Set aside additional dollars in <br />case additional development is <br />required <br />- Include slack time in the <br />implementation schedule to <br />address additional scope <br />development <br />Identify work-arounds if <br />possible and implement <br />If the Cities fail to identify all <br />interface requirement(s), the <br />solution may not be able to <br />support specific interfaces <br />or interfaces not previously <br />identified; additional cost to <br />support or will require <br />customization that <br />increases costs and/or <br />causes project delays <br />M Varies depending upon the <br />interface missed. Impact <br />will primarly be to IT who <br />will need to support <br />manual workarounds. <br />L - During implementation, it is <br />determined that the solution is <br />not able to support itdentified <br />interface(s) or new interfaces <br />are identified <br />Mitigate - Conduct thorough review of RFP <br />inteface requirements by Cities <br />SMEs to ensure all are properly <br />identified and accounted for <br />Continue with status quo <br />system <br />If Cities doesn't provide <br />sufficient, qualified <br />resources to meet project <br />needs during procument <br />process, they may not end <br />up choosing the best fit <br />solution <br />H Cities functions depending <br />on the new ERP <br />technology may be <br />inefficient or ineffective, <br />potentially causing the <br />Cities money and <br />employee frustration. <br />Potential PR issues if <br />there are delays or <br />impacts to citizen facing <br />functions. <br />M During implementation, the <br />solution is not able to meet <br />business needs <br />Mitigate Cities Sponsor commitment to <br />ensure appropriate resources are <br />avialable to participate in the <br />process <br />None <br />Attachment 1 to Exhibit A <br />REV: 06-15-17 JS <br />ATTY/AGR/2017.127/NEXLEVEL-FSR CONSULTANT <br />Page 27 of 28 <br />6.1.E. - Page 42