'Risk Breakdown Structures' (RBS) utilize a top-down approach for identifying and categorizing project risks, and this is generally viewed as a sound technique.
Can you think of situations where the RBS approach would be non-ideal or inefficient?
Solution Summary
This solution presents the situations in which Risk Breakdown Structures are deemed to be non-ideal or inefficient. In general, Risk Breakdown Structures are treated to be an quite efficient approach in identifying and categorizing project risks.
Two IT acquisition planning teams worked together to study the same problem and develop alternative solutions for solving it. The teams then separated and each developed a work breakdown structure for the same alternative solution. The teams then compared the resulting work breakdownstructures and found that they were significa
It is said that communications in the analysis step often breaks down? Could you comment on this? Have you experienced this phenomenon? If not, would you accept this statement, and why?
1. Research work breakdownstructures and compare one created with MS Project and one created without software. Prepare to discuss. From the e-Activity, justify which work breakdown structure you prefer with supporting reasons.
2. Give an example of when a project would not need a WBS.
List and describe two techniques for risk identification, such as brainstorming, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), or a scenario analysis. What are advantages and disadvantages of each technique? How might these be suited for technical or construction projects?
