The following register identifies the key risks to the OIA culture assessment project. Each risk has been assessed for likelihood and impact, assigned a risk score, and paired with a mitigation strategy. The register is a living document, reviewed bi-weekly at steering committee meetings.
| ID | Risk Description | Likelihood | Impact | Score | Mitigation Strategy | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Low survey participation (below 60% response rate), undermining data reliability | Medium | High | High | Strong communication plan with CEO endorsement. Multiple reminder waves. Extend survey period if participation is low at mid-point. Make survey accessible on multiple devices. | Senior Consultant | Open |
| R2 | Stakeholder unavailability for scheduled interviews, delaying data collection | Medium | Medium | Medium | Schedule interviews early in the project with buffer time. Offer flexible timing including early morning and late afternoon slots. Provide virtual interview option as backup. | Lead Consultant | Open |
| R3 | Scope creep from additional client requests beyond the agreed project scope | Low | High | Medium | Clear scope definition in the project charter. Formal change control process requiring written approval. Regular scope check at steering committee meetings. | Lead Consultant | Open |
| R4 | Resistance to assessment findings from leaders who disagree with results or feel exposed | Medium | High | High | Early leadership engagement from the start of the project. Validation workshops where leaders can ask questions and see the evidence. Frame findings as opportunities, not criticisms. Evidence-based approach builds credibility. | Lead Consultant | Open |
| R5 | Data sensitivity concerns reducing honest feedback in surveys and focus groups | Medium | Medium | Medium | Clear anonymity protocols communicated to all participants. Trust-building communication before and during data collection. Third-party survey platform with no individual-level access for OIA. | Senior Consultant | Open |
| R6 | Illness or personal circumstances impacting team availability | Low | Medium | Low | Cross-trained team members who can cover for each other. Virtual delivery capability for all project activities. Documented processes and templates accessible to all team members. | Coordinator | Open |
| R7 | OIA organizational changes (restructuring, leadership changes) during the assessment period | Low | High | Medium | Flexible methodology that can adapt to structural changes. Checkpoint reviews at each gate to assess impact. Scope adjustment process defined in the charter. Close relationship with project sponsor for early warning. | Lead Consultant | Open |
| R8 | Language or cultural barriers affecting focus group quality and participant comfort | Low | Medium | Low | Bilingual facilitators on the Talent Arabia team. All materials available in both Arabic and English. Culturally sensitive facilitation approach. Participants can respond in their preferred language. | Senior Consultant | Open |
| R9 | Technology issues with the survey platform causing disruption or data loss | Low | Medium | Low | Thoroughly tested platform before launch. Dedicated technical support available during survey period. Paper-based backup option prepared in case of extended platform outage. | Coordinator | Open |
| R10 | Delayed feedback on deliverables from OIA, impacting project timeline | Medium | Medium | Medium | Agreed review timelines documented in the project charter (5 business days). Regular reminders sent before deadlines. Escalation to project sponsor if feedback is overdue. Build buffer time into the schedule for critical review points. | Lead Consultant | Open |
The risk matrix below plots all identified risks by their likelihood and impact. Risks in the upper-right quadrant require the most active management and monitoring. This visual helps the steering committee focus attention on the highest-priority risks at each review.
| Risk Level | Count | Risk IDs | Management Approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | 2 | R1, R4 | Active management with specific mitigation actions tracked weekly. Escalate to steering committee immediately if risk materializes. |
| Medium | 5 | R2, R3, R5, R7, R10 | Monitored bi-weekly at steering committee. Mitigation strategies in place and ready to activate if likelihood increases. |
| Low | 3 | R6, R8, R9 | Monitored monthly. Contingency plans documented but not actively managed unless status changes. |
Risks are reviewed at every steering committee meeting (bi-weekly). The project lead presents an updated risk register with any changes in likelihood, impact, or status. New risks identified since the last meeting are added and assessed. Risks that have been fully mitigated or are no longer relevant are closed with documentation of the resolution.
| Milestone | Week | Risk Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Gate 1: Mobilization complete | Week 3 | Validate R2 (stakeholder availability), R8 (language), R9 (technology). Confirm mitigations are in place before data collection begins. |
| Gate 2: Survey mid-point | Week 6 | Assess R1 (participation rate). Activate contingency plan if participation is below 50%. |
| Gate 3: Data collection complete | Week 12 | Review R5 (data sensitivity). Confirm data quality is sufficient. Reassess R10 (feedback delays) for the analysis phase. |
| Gate 4: Action plans submitted | Week 18 | Focus on R4 (resistance to findings). Monitor R3 (scope creep) carefully as additional requests often emerge at this stage. |
| Gate 5: Project close-out | Week 24 | Final risk review. Document lessons learned for future projects. Close all risk items with resolution notes. |