Difference between revisions of "Risk Register"
From MAGEEC
(Updated risks as a result of discussions with UoB) |
(Explicitly mention case study) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
! Work Package !! Description !! Likelihood !! Impact !! Risk !! Mitigation | ! Work Package !! Description !! Likelihood !! Impact !! Risk !! Mitigation | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | WP4 || Unable to find sufficient benchmark | + | | WP4 || Unable to find sufficient benchmark, test programs and case study |
| 9 || 2 || 18 | | 9 || 2 || 18 | ||
| Engagement with wider community to identify programs. Committing more resource to developing [http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Research/Micro/beebs.jsp BEEBS] and test programs (Bristol). Likelihood updated in Q2, more effort on community involvement will be promoted (Andrew Back). Simon Cook will run monthly phone review of progress. | | Engagement with wider community to identify programs. Committing more resource to developing [http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Research/Micro/beebs.jsp BEEBS] and test programs (Bristol). Likelihood updated in Q2, more effort on community involvement will be promoted (Andrew Back). Simon Cook will run monthly phone review of progress. | ||
Revision as of 08:38, 9 June 2014
The following describes the risks to this project, their likelihood and impact on the project, as well as procedures for mitigating the risk.
For each risk, the likelihood of it occurring is rated on a scale of 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (certain to happen) and the impact of this occurring is rated on a scale of 1 (minor impact), 2 (significant impact), 3 (total wipe out of the project). Risk is calculated as the product of the two numbers.
A risk mitigation strategy is provided when the risk is greater than or equal to 10 or where the impact is 3.
| Work Package | Description | Likelihood | Impact | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP4 | Unable to find sufficient benchmark, test programs and case study | 9 | 2 | 18 | Engagement with wider community to identify programs. Committing more resource to developing BEEBS and test programs (Bristol). Likelihood updated in Q2, more effort on community involvement will be promoted (Andrew Back). Simon Cook will run monthly phone review of progress. |
| WP4 | Data Gather phase taking too long due to board reliability | 6 | 2 | 12 | Exploration of a smaller data set (in terms of number of boards explored) whilst full data gather occurs and redundancy of boards. Updated in Q2 and Q4 to note that problem has occur, supply of v2 boards are mitigating this as is reducing number of boards for initial exploration. |
| All | Milestones not met | 6 | 2 | 12 | Regular meetings and prior experience in these fields. Manage interactions/dependencies between work packages and re-visit time allocations as more information arises. Likelihood increased in Q2, due to delay of deliverables 2.3, 4.1 and 4.2 and introduction of new deliverable 4.4. Mitigations are listed against specific issues in this risk register and the project plan. |
| WP7 | The compiler infrastructure does not work for energy | 3 | 3 | 9 | The system would be reconfigured for speed minimisation based on experience that a) this is possible (MILEPOST) and b) speed is a rough proxy for energy. However, this does not represent as significant advance on current knowledge, but does make it more accessible. Work carried out thoughout this project by the team and James Pallister is increasingly showing that compiling for energy demonstrates benefits. |
| WP10 | Failure to engage with open source communities. | 4 | 2 | 8 | Early and open discussions with the relevant communities (already started). Appointment of project member (Andrew Back, AB Open) charged with driving this very time consuming activity. Likelihood reduced in Q2, due to track record so far in attending community events. |
| WP9 | Compiler energy efficiency optimisation passes yield no measurable benefit | 3 | 2 | 6 | High likelihood is as this hasn't been attempted before. Decouple from infrastructure development, allowing parallel development and use appropriate expert staff (Joern Rennecke). Likelihood reduced in Q2, now we have concrete measurements for one optimization. |
| All | Loss of key personnel | 3 | 2 | 6 | Ensure the consortium has multiple people skilled in each area. Note that the area of compiler optimisation (WP8) has one person covering this, but is a smaller part of the project. Reduced in Q4 due to progress in project. |
| All | Unable to recruit suitable staff | 1 | 3 | 3 | Already mitigated through existing experience and staff from all consortium members. People pipeline from UoB ensures high quality candidates. |
| WP5 | Failure to identify viable features (technical issue) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Fallback is to use the MILEPOST features. We have started engagement with the MILEPOST team to gain from their experience as much as possible. Likelihood reduces in Q2, since we are now using the MILEPOST features. Still some risk that we are unable to use any new features. |
| WP1, WP2 | Compiler infrastructure cannot be made generic | 1 | 2 | 2 | Ensuring good interface design before building infrastructure. Note that non-fully generic solution still has value. Likelihood reduced in Q2, since implementation n progress appears to be completely viable for both GCC and LLVM via clean interfaces. |
| All | Failure of consortium to work together | 0 | 2 | 0 | Consortium has already worked together. |
| WP3 | MAGEEC v2 board doesn't work | 0 | 1 | 0 | Continue to use existing board. (MAGEEC v2 board is nice to have). Lowered in Q4 as we are successfully using v2 boards. |
