EPM5700 Project Management and IT: Risk Software Analysis

This report, focusing on EPM5700 Project Management and Information Technology, investigates risk management software within the IT project industry. It begins with an executive summary and table of contents, followed by an introduction highlighting the importance of mitigating risks in IT projects. The investigation aims to identify suitable software through critical comparisons of Blueprint OneWorld, ADAudit Plus, and Corporater Business Management Platform, considering usability and sustainability. The report details available software, selects three for evaluation, and critically assesses each. It establishes evaluation criteria based on usability and sustainability, with detailed weighting and justification. An evaluation matrix is developed using MS Excel, and the results are analyzed, leading to conclusions and recommendations. The findings indicate that Blueprint OneWorld has the highest weighted score, offering strong documentation and usability. The report also discusses potential pitfalls and problems related to risk management software implementation and provides recommendations for improvement, supported by a comprehensive reference list and appendices.

EPM5700 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
1

Executive summary
In this report, discussion about different risk management software has been done.
In project management of IT industry, different risks like security and lack of
resources are related. These risks can be mitigated by incorporating different
software that can assess and mitigate risks. Some software is listed and proper
software is chosen. Critical evaluation of chosen software is done that has helped to
gain knowledge about this software. In addition, discussion is done on weighting
criteria by providing scores. Analysis regarding weighted evaluation is done by giving
proper justification of chosen criteria. Recommendations are given accordingly that
can help to improve the process of risk management.
2

Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................4
Investigation aim...........................................................................................................4
Significance of investigation.........................................................................................4
Findings........................................................................................................................4
Providing list and description of software available..................................................4
Selection of software for Risk management.............................................................5
Critical evaluation of chosen software.......................................................................5
Identification and setting criteria for assessment......................................................6
Discussion on weighting criteria................................................................................6
Evaluation matrix development.................................................................................7
Justification of weighting criteria...............................................................................7
Analysis.........................................................................................................................8
Discussing results.....................................................................................................8
Discussion on pitfall and problems............................................................................8
Conclusion and recommendation.................................................................................8
Reference list..............................................................................................................10
Appendix.....................................................................................................................11
3

Introduction
In this report, risk management of an IT project has been evaluated that can help to
eliminate risks of various threats. Different software can help IT, project controllers,
to monitor projects in a proper way. Several types of software help to analyze risks
and monitoring purpose of a project can be done properly. Impact of risk in an IT
project is huge that can cause a delay in the project and wastage of resources can
also happen. Hence, it is essential to adopt proper precaution in order to avoid risks.
In this report, different software of risk management has been discussed and
compared that can help to create a proper idea about this sector of project
management.
Investigation aim
Main aim of this report is to select proper software that can help in IT project
management. This can be done by comparing different software critically that helps
in project management of IT industry. Comparison can be done on the basis of
usability and sustainability of different software. As stated by Kerzner and Kerzner,
2017), development of a project needs to eliminate potential risks that can create
barrier in achieving desired outcomes.
Significance of investigation
Investigation regarding different risk management software can help to choose
appropriate software that can help to eliminate potential risk from an IT project.
Different IT projects comprise of various tasks like planning, organization of the
project and distribution of responsibilities to concerned persons. Choosing a risk
management software can help to eliminate risks by increasing security (Cagliano et
al. 2015). This investigation can also help in task management of a project. Improper
management of tasks creates risks of skipping different essential activities. Hence,
risk of project delay increases. Application of proper software in management of
tasks can help to eliminate the risk of delay.
This investigation about risk management software can help to choose proper
software that can help to enhance revenue from an IT project. It can be seen that
impact of any risks causes loss of resources. As mentioned by de Carvalho et al.
(2015), risk management in a project enables an organization to increase revenue
collection by diminishing expenses. Moreover, this investigation can help to increase
sense of accountability and responsibility among various stakeholders. They can be
motivated to apply proper remedy in order to manage risks in an IT project.
Increasing knowledge about different software to manage risks can be increased by
this investigation report.
Findings
Providing list and description of software available
Different risk management software is there that can help IT project industry to
manage risks. Blueprint OneWorld is one such software that helps to organize
corporate data and helps in record-keeping. For monitoring purpose in a project, this
4

software can be used (Blueprintoneworld.com, 2019). Optical smart is software that
helps in identification and storing of risk data. This software also defines different
scenarios of risk in a project. ADAudit Plus is another essential software of risk
management. This software helps by providing real-time alerts to project managers.
Audits.io is essential software that helps to conduct monitoring and inspection of a
project. Corporator is risk management software evaluate risks within different units
of a project and processes.
Selection of software for Risk management
Blueprint OneWorld
This software helps in the process of centralization of data regarding a project. This
helps to eliminate risk of loss of information. Hence, project team can control
essential data easily as this software also helps in record-keeping.
ADAudit Plus
This software is selected because it has some features like auditing, management of
internal controls and evaluation of potential risks in a project. This software centrally
monitors and evaluates different servers and security logs. Moreover, evaluation of
risks is done by the help of root and cause analysis (Manageengine.com,2019).
Corporater Business Management Platform
This software is selected because it increases capability of stakeholders by
incorporation of risk management system in an integrated way. This software tracks
all risks and analyzes them in a systematic way (Corporater.com, 2019).
Critical evaluation of chosen software
Chosen software can be used by IT project managers for eliminating risks from
projects. Audit plus has some features like auditing. As stated by Badewi (2016),
proper auditing helps to identify any gap in a project, which can create risks in future.
However, this software is unable to take any corrective actions that can be said as its
disadvantage. Moreover, this software helps to achieve real-time reports regarding
any issues in a project. Hence, risk assessment can be done easily and decisions
regarding mitigation of risks can be taken. On another hand, Blueprint OneWorld is
risk management software that detects issues and takes corrective actions. As
contradicted by Rehacek (2017), automatic evaluation of risks and implementation of
corrective actions increases efficiency of a project team. In addition, this software
helps in management of internal control. This feature enables to eliminate risks from
a particular project. Proper control in internal operations of a project helps to gain
desired objectives and revenue from a project. This software works with the
compliance system and hence eliminates any operational issues. Moreover, Niazi et
al. (2016) argued that risk management software needs to access and monitor
different requirements of a project. This helps a team to work in a proper way of
collecting essential resources. Blueprint one world software enables a team to
manage and evaluate different requirements of a project.
Corporater is essential software for managing risks in a project that is enabled to
send instant signals after detecting a risk. In addition, this software has features of
performing auditing and application of corrective actions (Corporater.com, 2019).
These features along with compliance management help this software to detect and
mitigate risks. Moreover, Qazi et al. (2016) contradicted that supportability is the
main feature of risk management software. This enables a project team to access
5

this software from various systems and devices. Corporater can open in any platform
like windows, mac. In addition, this software can be operated from cloud system.
This feature is not available in other software that is chosen. Adaudit can only be
operated from any windows system while blueprint can be operated from cloud
system. However, blueprint can send live reports about risks 24 hours, which is
absent in other two software. As opined by Hazır (2015), live reports about risks help
to increase efficiency of a project by decreasing impact of potential risk. Blueprint
software can also perform legal risk assessment that can help to eliminate any legal
issues concerned with a project in business. However, all the three software can
perform assessment of risk in a detailed way that can help a project team to achieve
desired objectives.
Identification and setting criteria for assessment
Criteria based software evaluation is helpful to choose the appropriate one for
particular section of project management industry. As opined by Wanderley et al.
(2015), three main criteria of evaluation are sustainability, maintainability, and
usability. Based on these three criteria software is evaluated. Project managers
record score on these criteria for each of the software and choose software as per
best result. Sub-criteria of sustainability and maintenance include licensing,
copyright, governance, testability, accessibility, portability, supportability, community,
analyzability, evolvability, changeability, interoperability and identity. On another
hand, sub-criteria of usability contain documentation, build-ability, understandability,
install-ability, and learnability. Based on these mentioned sub-categories, chosen
software such as, Blue OneWorld, ADAudit Plus and Corporater Business
Management Platform are being evaluated in order to select the best one for risk
management sector of project management industry.
Discussion on weighting criteria
Weighting for different criteria needs to be set before starting evaluation process.
Score in each category must be compared to predetermined weight of that
concerned criteria. As suggested by Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015), at the end total
weighted score needs to be compared for three softwares in order to identify the
appropriate one. In this case, weighting for each criterion are mentioned below,
 Weighting for usability
The main criteria for usability include documentation, buildability, understandability,
installability, and learnability. Based on importance of each of the sub-criteria weight
has been set out of 5. Score for concerned criteria and weigh value is being
multiplied in order to obtain total weighted score of software.
 Weighting for sustainability and maintainability
Weighting has been provided for e4ach of the sub-criteria under these main criteria
of evaluation. These criteria include 14 different sub-criteria such as governance,
licensing, copyright, testability, community, analyzability, evolvability, supportability,
changeability, identity, and interoperability. Weight for each of these sub-criteria has
been provided out of 5. Score against each sub-criterion has been put accordingly.
Finally, the weighted score has been found by multiplying the score and weight
value.
6

Evaluation of matrix development
Evaluation matrix has been developed by using MS Excel as a tool in order to
evaluate three of the chosen in the first column; the main criteria of evaluation have
been added. In the very next column, subcriteria are mentioned. Considering the
suggestion of Zou et al. (2017), weight has been put for each of the sub-criteria and
a score have been added as per information gathered about chosen software. Total
score has been calculated by multiplying weight value and the score. At the end of
this column, total weighted score for each of the software has been mentioned.
Computation of total weighted score for each of the software has been done
separately. Following figure is the evaluation matrix for this study.
Figure 1: Evaluation matrix
(Tool: MS Excel)
Justification of weighting criteria
As per the evaluation matrix, it can be seen that different scores are there for each of
the software. Well, structured documentation is present in case of Blueprint
OneWorld and this criterion is missing in case of other two softwares. Buildability is
similar in Blueprint and Corporator. On another hand, ADAudit has a lower score in
this section. Blueprint and Corporater are more easily understandable and
learnability of these softwares is higher than ADAudit. All of these selected softwares
have appropriate license. However, vendor has not mentioned detail information
regarding these sub-criteria. Copyright of each of the software is visible to all and
score have been provided based on detail information gathered about the owner of
this software. As suggested by Zheng et al. (2015), criterion governance has been
allocated with lower value as its design and management is understandable for all
software chosen. In case of testability and accessibility, Blueprint is better than other
two software of risk management. Blueprint and Corporater are better than ADAudit
in case of portability. However, all of these three softwares are supportable equally.
These softwares have been evaluated further based on rest of the weighting criteria
7

such as community, evolvability, changeability, interoperability, analyzability, and
identity. [Referred to Appendix 1]
Analysis
Discussing results
From the evaluation, it has been found that total weighted score of Blueprint is higher
than rest of the chosen software. Total weighted score of blueprint, ADAudit, and
Corporater are 273, 198 and 227 respectively. All criteria of evaluation have been
considered while evaluating these chosen softwares for risk management in It
project management. All aspects of three chosen software have been assessed and
it has been found that features of softwares are different from each other. Each of
the software has different ability to manage risks of IT projects. Hence, it can be
stated that Blueprint OneWorld is better choice than rest of the software for risk
management within project management industry. Effectiveness of this software can
help organizations to manage risks of IT projects with efficiency.
Discussion on pitfall and problems
Pitfall of this project includes inadequate documentation, developing poor definition
of goals, and communication gap between stakeholders. Avoiding these pitfalls may
help organizations to ensure success (Hu et al. 2016). In case of risk management
software development, these pitfalls must be ignored from the starting of project.
Proper definition of goals can help to gain trustworthy outcome at the end of project.
Adequate documentation must be there and all stakeholders must be involved in the
process of decision making for managing projects.
Lack of features in chosen software such as response management, predictive
analysis, and mobile access may create potential problem while managing risks.
Organizations need to figure out alternative solutions to mitigate these potential
problems. On another hand, online support is no available for Blueprint Company
and this can be considered as a problem in case of need for emergency assistance.
Lack of review of other customers can influence choice of project manager while
choosing risk management software.
Conclusion and recommendation
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that risk management in a project is
an essential task that needs to be achieved. Different software is evaluated in this
report that can help to obtain the task of risk management in an IT project. Above
analysis from weighted criteria shows that blueprint software will be more
appropriate for managing different risks. Different types of risks like shortage of
resources, breach of security and others can be solved by risk management
software. Several activities in a project can be monitored by these softwares in a
proper way that can help to increase efficiency of the project.
However, it can be recommended that a project team must be given proper training
for using and operating these softwares. Adequate training regarding operations and
features of these softwares can help to increase efficiency of team members.
Inadequate knowledge about risk management software can increase threat in a
project. In addition to this, regular update of this software must be taken by
8

concerned management team. This can help to increase efficiency of these
softwares and purpose of risk management can be fulfilled in a proper way.
Implementation of proper software and incorporation of recommendations can help
to mitigate risks in a project and desired objectives can be obtained.
9

Reference list
Ahimbisibwe, A., Cavana, R.Y. and Daellenbach, U., 2015. A contingency fit model
of critical success factors for software development projects: A comparison of agile
and traditional plan-based methodologies. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 28(1), pp.7-33.
Badewi, A., 2016. The impact of project management (PM) and benefits
management (BM) practices on project success: Towards developing a project
benefits governance framework. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4),
pp.761-778.
Cagliano, A.C., Grimaldi, S. and Rafele, C., 2015. Choosing project risk
management techniques. A theoretical framework. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2),
pp.232-248.
de Carvalho, M.M., Patah, L.A., and de Souza Bido, D., 2015. Project management
and its effects on project success: Cross-country and cross-industry comparisons.
International Journal of Project Management, 33(7), pp.1509-1522.
Hazır, Ö., 2015. A review of analytical models, approaches and decision support
tools in project monitoring and control. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(4), pp.808-815.[online] available at:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Review-of-Analytical-Models-%2C-
Approaches-and-in-Haz/ea068c55253e18b0c4499801819009df2c104708 [accessed
on 15th April 2019]
Hu, X., Cui, N., Demeulemeester, E. and Bie, L., 2016. Incorporation of activity
sensitivity measures into buffer management to manage project schedule
risk. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(2), pp.717-727.
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Qureshi, A.M., Faisal, K. and Cerpa, N.,
2016. Toward successful project management in global software
development. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), pp.1553-1567.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A., and Kirytopoulos, K., 2016. Project Complexity and
Risk Management (ProCRiM): Towards modelling project complexity driven risk
paths in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
pp.1183-1198.
Rehacek, P., 2017. Application and usage of the standards for project management
and their comparison. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 12(4), pp.994-
1002.
Schwalbe, K., 2015. Information technology project management. Cengage
Learning.
Wanderley, M., Menezes Jr, J., Gusmao, C. and Lima, F., 2015. Proposal of risk
management metrics for multiple project software development. Procedia Computer
Science, 64, pp.1001-1009.
Zheng, X., Le, Y., Chan, A.P., Hu, Y. and Li, Y., 2016. Review of the application of
social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management
research. International journal of project management, 34(7), pp.1214-1225.
Zou, Y., Kiviniemi, A. and Jones, S.W., 2017. A review of risk management through
BIM and BIM-related technologies. Safety science, 97, pp.88-98.
10

Appendix
Appendix 1: Comparison of softwares
(Source: www.capterra.com, 2019)
11