Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
=
=
r
k
W H Z F
n
Y D B
n
k n k n n
e G e E s e C CQ A
1
* *
*
. .
*
[5]
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
[
=
r
k
Z F
n
B
n
k n
e E
s
CQ A
1
.
1 ln [6]
If a project or product is divided in 1 to n parts (e.g. phases or subsystems) equation [5]
describes on the left side of the equal sign the total number of events to be expected for project
part n multiplied by their average impact (equation[4]). The right side of equation [5] sums the
probability and impact for the k=1..r identified events for project part n. Equation [6] describes
the relation between the expected number of events and the individual event probabilities. As
discussed before, there are multiple types of impact and hence multiple types of risk: budget,
schedule, and mission performance risk could be assessed for example. The asterisk in
equation [5] can be replaced with either b, s or p to indicate these three different types of risk.
This means that the risk involved with project part n is described by four equations: three times
equation [5] and once equation [6].
In equation [5] and [6] s
n
is a multiplication factor to compensate for the problem introduced in
section one: it is impossible to assess all possible events. What does this variable s
n
describe in
practice? Let us discuss an example: Two project parts, part 1 and part 2, are compared with a
combination of both assessment approaches. According to the characteristic-based assessment,
part 1 constitutes high risk, part 2 constitutes low risk. However, for part 2 there are more risk
events and higher risk events identified. Comparing equations [5] and [6] for both parts will
show that the variable s
1
will be higher than s
2
. The higher s
1
provides an indication that the
event assessment of part 1 is less complete than for part 2 (or there are errors in the existing
assessment). Even without sufficient statistical data to determine values for the constants A to
H, such comparisons of the variable s
n
can be made in a qualitative manner by eliminating the
constants in equation [5] and [6] through devision .
Since for risk events it is so accurately described what goes wrong if they materialize, it is not
difficult to quantitatively estimate the probability of their occurrence nor their cost, schedule
and performance impact. In addition, a random error in these assessments cancels out over the
large number of events. The problem is that the project risk based on these event assessments is
never complete because the event assessment is never complete. A best fit solution to equation
[5] and [6] for multiple project parts based on quantitative probability and impact estimates for
the events can thus provide an additional evaluation of the total risk estimates that in addition
takes into consideration the risk events that have not been identified.
Figure 1 is a graphical presentation of an example constructed for the purpose of this paper in
which both assessment methods have been combined. Assume a new mars rover needs to be
developed and the propulsion system needs to be selected. The considered options are 1:
nuclear, 2: electrical and 3: liquid fuel. Based on the project and product characteristics, the
risk levels involved with the development and production of the propulsion subsystem have
been determined at the earliest stages of the project. These risk levels are depicted by the black
bars on the left side of the graph. Because the characteristic-based risk level is available early in
the project, it can be taken into consideration for the trade-off (not leading necessarily to the
selection of the lowest risk option). Also conscious modifications to the design, team or project
can be made based on a sensitivity analysis of the sources of the risk. In the example, this has
resulted in the selection of the electrical option 2 with some risk reducing modifications (the
fourth black bar in the graph).
Figure 1: This screenshot from the assessment tool RISK [Mathot, 2008] depicts the
level of risk that is determined by the combination of both assessment methods as
described in the example. The black vertical bars represent the risk as determined
using the characteristic based method where through a trade-off between three
options, a modified option 2 has been selected. The waterfall chart depicts the
different risk events whose influence is reduced over the course of the project. As
indicated by the hashed area, not all events are identified from the start of the project.
This total development and manufacturing risk of the electric propulsion system, as determined
based on the item risk, is equal to the total risk of all possible events that could negatively
impact the development and manufacturing. Even though these events are not yet identified, as
depicted by the black hash, this total risk level is known. The waterfall graph depicts how more
risk events get identified over the course of the project, shown by the receding hash, and how
the identified events are used to take risk reduction measures (aimed at reducing the probability
and impact of these events). Through these risk reduction measures, and by risk events
occurring or passing without occurring, risk is gradually reduced until the risk level reaches
zero at the end of the project.
Conclusion
The risk assessment approach commonly practiced identifies the events that could occur in a
project and if they occur would have a negative impact on the project outcome. An alternative
approach is to assess the project risk through the classification based on a number of relevant
project and product characteristics. While the event-based method describes the project risk
based on the possible risk outcome, the characteristic-based method assesses the risk based on
the causes. The most important advantage of event-based risk assessment is that it helps
smoothing operations as it allows to focus on preventing the events from occurring or reducing
their impact. The most important advantage of the characteristic-based method is that it
supports high impact decisions early in the project as the required information is available
earlier in the project and there is a direct link between the decision to be made and its influence
on the project risk. Next to supplementing each other, combining both methods allows more
reliable estimates of the total project risk through a combination of both assessments. The main
benefit of this more accurate total risk estimate is that it provides a better estimate of the total
programs likely amount of risk reserve funds needed, the amount of likely schedule delays, and
the amount of likely performance degradation. Statistically significant quantitative results will
require performance data on previous projects. On a qualitative basis the combined approach is
ready to be implemented and tools to support it are available.
References
Bijl, M.G.H., Hamann, R.J. 2004. User Requirements for a Technical Risk Assessment
Technique Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Symposium and the 4th
European Systems Engineering Conference of INCOSE, (Toulouse, France)
Deutz, A. 2008. Personal interview with Dutch Space Systems engineer (Leiden,
Netherlands)
European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) 2004Space project management,
risk management ESA-ESTEC (Noordwijk, Netherlands)
Hall D.C. 2011. Making Risk Assessments more Comparable and Repeatable Systems
Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Hoboken, US)
Hamann, R.J. 2007. Personal interview with Systems engineering specialist at the faculty of
aerospace engineering Delft University of Technology (Delft, Netherlands)
Mathot, T. 2008. Risk management in the space industry TU Delft (Delft, Netherlands)
Ship Structure Committee. 1994. The role of human error in design, construction, and
reliability of marine structures National Technical Information Service (Springfield,
US)
Swain, A.D.; Guttman H.E. 1983 Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on
nuclear power plant applications US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington,
US)
Whalen J., Wray R.B., Mc Kinney D. 2000. Systems Engineering Handbook, A "how to"
guide for all engineers INCOSE (Seattle, US)
Biography
Thijs Mathot received a Masters degree in Aerospace Engineering at Delft
University of Technology. Risk management in the space industry was the
subject of his Thesis. He also received a Masters degree in International
Business at ESCP-EAP in London. Since 2010 he works for Strukton on
multidisciplinairy construction projects in the Netherlands and is a partner at
Nuzo real estate projects. (mail@thijsmathot.com)
Eberhard Gill, born 1961 in Germany, received a diploma in physics and
holds a PhD in theoretical astrophysics of the Eberhard-Karls-University
Tuebingen, Germany. He holds a Master of Space Systems Engineering of the
Technical University Delft.
He worked as a researcher at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) from 1989
to 2006 in the field of precise satellite orbit determination, autonomous
navigation and spacecraft formation flying. He has been co-investigator on
several international missions, including Mars94-96, Mars-Express, Rosetta, Equator-S and
Champ. Dr. Gill acted as Principal Investigator on the PRISMA formation flying satellite
mission and has developed a GPS-based onboard navigation system which is operating on the
BIRD micro-satellite since 2001. Since 2007, he holds the Chair of Space Systems Engineering
of the Delft University of Technology. In this framework, the chair has developed the
nano-satellite Delfi-C3 which was launched in 2008 and is successfully operating since then.
The research interests of Prof. Gill are spacecraft autonomy, formation flying, GNSS
technology, and combined communication and navigation applications.
Dr. Gill has authored or co-authored more than 150 journal articles and conference papers. He
has also co-authored three text books: Relativity and the Earth's Rotation (Springer 1990),
Satellite Orbits (Springer 2000) and Applied Space Systems Engineering (2010). Dr. Gill holds
a patent in the field of Galileo and GNSS Applications. He has been awarded Senior Scientist
of DLR in 2006. He acts as research advisor for several universities and research institutions. In
2008, he was appointed program director of the SpaceTech post-graduate program of the Delft
University of Technology. He is corresponding member of the International Academy of
Astronautics. (E.K.A.Gill@tudelft.nl)
Rob Hamann received an Aerospace Engineering education at Delft University
of Technology in the Netherlands and Princeton University Graduate School,
USA. From 1974 to 2000 he worked at Dutch Space (formerly Fokker Space),
Leiden, the Netherlands as an Engineer and Systems Engineer for many space
projects. From 1990 he has been in charge of introducing, developing and
maintaining the Systems Engineering methodology at Fokker Space. Since that
time he has been a visiting lecturer on the subject at the Delft University of Technology,
Twente University in the Netherlands, and the Ecole des Mines de Nantes in France. From
2000 until 2009 he has been employed at the Delft University of Technology as Coordinator
Space Systems Engineering and Senior Lecturer. He has been the Project Manager of the first
Dutch University satellite Delfi-C
3
, launched in 2008 and still operational. He has authored and
co-authored more than 40 journal and conference papers.
Since July 2009 Rob is an independent SE consultant with SEc
2
and affiliated to Delft
University of Technology. He is currently a member of the European Sentinel 5p satellite Joint
Project Team at ESTEC. (rjhamann@ipact.nl)