Asses project risks - Assignment Example

Project Risk The Jefferson irrigation project is one that must be accomplished within duration of time and which neither require that the cost remains as low as possible to ensure that the budget is nor exceeded. With a budget of $9452.43, Akina landscaping has to ensure that they minimize on some of the risks that has the potential of delaying the project and adversely increasing the project cost. The first event that poses a great risk to the project is the change in the weather conditions. In the event that the area experiences heavy rainfall, the project risks getting delayed and destroy the construction that shall have been made.

This would thus increase the cost of repairing the damages and increasing the labor cost. Furthermore, this risk is high since it is beyond the control of the project management. The second event that poses risk to the irrigation project is the delay in the delivery of the materials that will be necessary in constructing the water routes (Larson & Gray, 2011). The delay in such delivery risk bringing the project to a halt hence leading to non-achievement of the projects objective. This risk can be minimized by ensuring that reliable suppliers are contracted to deliver the materials and communications made in time.

The third event that poses the risk to the project is the destruction of the plants when being planted or pruned. In such cases, the cost of purchasing additional plants or that of paying for the additional labor cost will negatively affect the project implementation. It also has the risk of delaying the completion of the project. Furthermore, destruction of the plants may lead to poor delivery of substitute plants, which are not of the same quality. The fourth event that poses risk to the irrigation project is labor disputes.

In such a project, the number of persons employed is many and range from those with specialization and casual laborers (Linkov & Ramadan, 2004). Any delay in the payment of their remuneration or low rewards could make them down their tools and delay the timely completion of the project. Moreover, in the event that the equipments used in the building of the irrigation scheme is destroyed, the project could take longer periods. The cost of repairing the equipments will also increase the cost of the project hence resulting into total failure.

Breakdown in the equipments could also arise when the actual digging is taking place and substandardised equipments have the potential of derailing the quality of the future construction or buildings. Spraying of the plants by chemicals also poses a threat of destroying some of the plants. It has been proved that chemicals may affect the plants and in some cases could cause other diseases to which will thereafter translate into increased cost of treatment of the plants. At the same time, this could make the plants qualities deteriorate apart from posing a potential threat on the lives of the workers.

Potential delays in the delivery of the pipes and other necessary materials could also cause a problem to the irrigation project. Since the pipes to be used are plastic made, there will be unavoidable breakages which will result into cost increment and reduce the overall value of the project. This may later extend to derail the quality of the project. Besides, the coordination of the project could also cause a problem in case there were delays or communication breakdown (Larson & Gray, 2011).

Other events that would lead to risk include the problems at installation stage, floods, destruction during the cleaning times and addition of the bark. The project managers of the Jefferson project therefore need to mitigate all the events that are likely to increase losses and adversely affect the quality of the project. All projects irrespective of their nature are faced by different risks. What matters however is how well the management takes measures that reduce their impacts. ReferenceLarson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2011).

Project management: the managerial process (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Linkov, I., & Ramadan, A. (2004). Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.