Risk Register SSD 2012 -2013

RISK REGISTER

RISK REGISTER 2012Social Sciences Division (SSD)Risk 1: Loss of life and accidents

200820092010201120122013 trending

ImpactHighHighHighHighHigh High

LikelihoodMediumLowLowLowLowLow

Risk LevelHighMediumMediumMediumMediumMedium

Risk Source:

1. Physically hazardous environment - Identified sample geographical areas are risky for researchers (e.g. rebel infested areas, inaccessible areas, rough terrains)2. Natural calamities

Risk mitigations:1. Avoidance of risky area to conduct research and coordination with local government unit (LGU)2. SSS and TS Safety advisories and guidelines (SOP)

Additional actions to meet gaps:Resource requirementsResponsibilityTarget date of implementation

1. Close coordination with Safety and Security and PPS regarding transfer of assets to new bldg.Official cell phone (with roaming); IRRI vehicleLogisticsSSD staff, IPMO, and IRRI out-posted staffAdmin Coordinator, PPS, SSS, LazagaApr. Dec.2010

June-August 2011

Risk 2: Loss of research data

200820092010201120122013 trending

ImpactHighHighHighHighHigh

LikelihoodLowLowHighHighMedium

Risk LevelMediumMediumHighHighHigh

Risk Source:

1. Equipment/technological failure - defective hardware; limited storage (Mdrive); incompatibility issues (e.g. DELL laptops vs external drives); inaccessible OU central depository of data; backup procedures/old units due for replacement (since 2005-2008). 2. Physically hazardous environment - Fire, flood, and pests. Structural design of the building and location of office (proximity to high-risk areas)3. Inefficient data turnover of departing staff

4. Natural calamities3. Transfer of equipment and research data to new building (from NCBL to Drilon Hall)Risk mitigations:1. Regular backup of data to CD and external hard drive; ITS backup

2. Availability of safety gadgets like fire extinguisher, smoke sensor

3. Data management team in place

4. Proper turnover of data through IT and Admin Coordinator and respective secretaries

5. Disaster recovery plan in place for each server?

6. Established alternative back-up on-site7. Use of ITS clearance sheet. 8. Provision of UPS


1. Explore alternative back-up off-site

2. Dissemination of SSD Back-up retrieval procedure through training.3. Update SSD External Backup List and NETWIN Access.xls4. Timetable of PPS regarding the completion of the Bldg. renovation.5. Identify timetable during physical asset transfer. 1. Hiring of fulltime highly qualified staff2. Funding/ Training

3. Hiring of OJT

4. Close coordination with PPS/ Lazaga1. A. Rala and ITS

2. IT Coordinator and RMQA

3. IT Coordinator

4. IT Coordinator

5. IT/ Admin Coordinator/ PPS/ Lazaga1. Unspecified: (GIS will specify)2. May 2011(1st week)3. April-May 2011

4. Ongoing practice

5. May-August 2011

Risk 3: Inaccessible research data

200820092010201120122013 trending

ImpactMediumHighLow(9?)Low(9?)

LikelihoodHighLowLowLow

Risk LevelHighMediumLowLow

Risk Source:

1. Lack of coordination - Lack of standard in documentation and formatting of research data for public use.

2. Natural calamitiesRisk mitigations:1. Primary Data 50 %

2. Secondary Data: 80% (WRS, FHS, Geo Maps etc.) 3. Data management team in place


1. Develop standards for data documentation and formatting for public use2. Develop Data Access Policy for SSD? Hiring of fulltime highly qualified staffStaff time,

SSD staff and NARES partnersPie Moya, Sam Mohanty1. Jan-Feb 2011: Hired 2 staff for Database Management Team

2. Apr. Dec. 2010: Database Management team already set up its standard formatting and Documentation

3. Apr. Dec. 2010: Online availability

Risk 4: Inaccurate and low quality research data gathered

200820092010201120122013 trending

ImpactHighMediumMediumMedium

LikelihoodLowMediumMediumMedium

Risk LevelMediumMediumMediumMedium

Risk Source:

1. Human behavior (human error, poor judgment) - Mismatch research skills vis--vis research study requirements. 2. Inadequate training opportunities of NARES partnersRisk mitigations:1. Existing LOA between IRRI and NARES partners; 2. Training of NARES partners


1. On-site data audit (verification and evaluation of data quality) using latest technologies availableFunding and approval from IRS (SSD) and collaborating OUsSSD staff, collaborating OUs, NARES partners and DPPCApr-Dec. 2010

Risk 5: Delayed completion of data analysis and research reports

200820092010201120122013 trending

ImpactMediumLow (?)HighHigh

LikelihoodLowLowMediumMedium

Risk LevelLowLowHighHigh

Risk Source:

1. Equipment/ technological failure - Inadequate number of software licenses; computer failure*2. Physically hazardous environment - Delayed completion of data collection due to natural calamities, political unrest and insurgencies 3. Human behavior (human error, poor judgment) - Delayed completion of data collection due to under staff and unavailability of enumerators and respondents; Delayed completion of data analysis and research reports due to work overload of researcher4. Transfer of equipment and research data to new building (from NCBL to Drilon Hall)Risk mitigations:1. Renewal/purchase of licenses, and software's; Request ITS for service unit.*

2. Work overtime

3. Reschedule of data collection period 4. Constant follow-up through email, phone calls 5. Providing incentives to NARES partners through co-authorship of publication


1. Strictly implement control measures.

2. Updating of licenses is done through annual division CAPEX

3. Coordinate with ITS about the next phase of replacement.*4. Timetable of PPS regarding the completion of the building renovation.3. ITS to deliver replacement *

4. Identify timetable during physical asset transfer. Close coordination with PPS/ Lazaga1. SSD staff/ NARES Partners2. SSD Admin/ IT Coordinator

3. ITS*

4. IT/ Admin Coordinator/ PPS/ Lazaga1. Apr.Dec. 20102. Apr-Dec. 20103. Depending on ITS deliberation and user requirement. 20114. May-August 2011

Risk 6: Scientific misconduct

20082009201020112012 2013 trending

ImpactHighHigh

LikelihoodLowLow

Risk LevelMediumMedium

Risk Source:

1. Possibility of data fabrication by staff or partners/collaborators*

2. Career pressure to publish papers

3. Plagiarism; self-plagiarismRisk mitigations:1. Compliance with Code of Conduct

2. Peer reviews

3. Checking/validation of data from partners

4. Training of NARES partners

5. SSD Research Database Management Team performs quality checking (primary data) during re/entry to SSD farm household database.


Info campaign on new publication guidelines as soon as available

Training to enhance awareness on plagiarism

Develop Data Access Policy for SSD? DDG-R

DDG-R,

Resource Person (Outsourced)RMQA teamPei Moya, Sam MohantyAugust- Sept. 2011

Risk Level matrix

Risk Impact/Consequence

High Impact:

Failure of addressing the risk has the potential to significantly damage or destroy the effective functioning of IRRI or its future viability, particularly through loss of important donors confidence or major financial or reputation loss; Also includes potentially significant employee health and safety hazards. Impact will affect the whole institute.

Medium impact:

Failure of addressing the risk has the potential to damage important aspects of IRRIs functions or future viability, which would require management effort and time to recover. Impact will affect several units in the institute.

Low impact:

Failure of addressing the risk has the potential to damage particular aspects of IRRIs functions, drawing on significant management effort if an adverse event occurred, but not expected to damage the overall medium-long term operations of IRRI. Impact will affect the concerned unit only, or just a few units in the institute.

Risk Likelihood

High Likelihood:

Risk is almost certain or likely to happen

Medium Likelihood:

Risk is most likely to happen

Low likelihood:

Risk is unlikely or rare to happen

Defining the level of risks Once you find the intersection between the likelihood and the consequences, you have determined the level of risk. What does it mean in terms of managing the risk? High risk: Significant senior executive management attention is needed and investments in additional planned mitigating elements or (where the risks are external and cannot be controlled) closed monitoring of external factors together with contingency plans may be required. Medium risk: Periodic senior management attention should be given to these, through management information reporting. Control systems or contingency plans should be in place and regularly reviewed to ensure effectiveness/appropriateness. Low risk: Can be managed through routine procedures, unlikely to need significant application of resources. Subject to periodic evaluation in terms of whether the risk rating should be revised, Prepared by:

RMQA Officer(s)

RMQA IRS (as applicable)

Checked and approved by:

OU Unit HeadDate

Date

Date

Page 12013-01-07

Documents

Risk Register SSD 2012 -2013