PHC Port | Order Efficiency

Need help making sense of this page?

Chet is typing...
View Chet CV Powered by PHC AI

Project: Power Integration

Risk Maturity Status

This project aims to transform Nigeria’s power sector by integrating existing energy sources—hydroelectric, gas, and renewables—into a unified system of modular refineries and decentralized mini-grids. Designed to boost national grid reliability and support cross-border electricity exports, the initiative will modernize grid infrastructure and expand energy access to underserved rural and industrial areas. With an estimated cost of $10–15 billion and a rollout period of 8–12 years, the project promises enhanced energy security, reduced transmission losses, economic growth, and environmental sustainability. By exporting surplus power, Nigeria can also strengthen its position as a regional energy leader in West Africa.

1: Unacceptable
2: Acceptable (low)
3: Acceptable (high)
4: Excellent

Risk Register Quality

Avg: 1
[+]
RRQ_01: Risk descriptions clarity
1 - Unacceptable
1: <80% descriptions clear
2: >80% descriptions clear (minimum pass)
3: >80% descriptions clear (consistent; few ambiguities)
4: Risk descriptions clear without further reference.
Notes First pass - pre-review.
RRQ_02: Register contains non-risk/common items / uncertainties
Unrated
1: >20% non-risk/common items
2: <20% issues/uncertainties (minimum pass)
3: <20% issues/uncertainties (stable; actively cleaned)
4: No issues/uncertainties in the register.
RRQ_03: Risks assessed for Manageability
Unrated
1: <80% of risks have been assessed for 'Manageability'
2: >80% of risks have been assessed for 'Manageability' (minimum pass)
3: >80% of risks have been assessed for 'Manageability' (consistent; quality checked)
4: All risks are assessed for 'Manageability'
RRQ_04: Risks approved by Sponsor
Unrated
1: <80% of risks in register approved by Sponsor
2: >80% of risks in register approved by Sponsor (minimum pass)
3: >80% of risks in register approved by Sponsor (consistent; approvals current)
4: All risks in register approved by Sponsor
RRQ_05: Register coverage across project aspects
Unrated
1: Covers only 1 aspect of project.
2: Covers most aspects of project (minimum pass)
3: Covers most aspects of project (consistent; no major blind spots)
4: Covers all aspect of project
RRQ_06: Register freshness: updates, new risks, closures
Unrated
1: Risk in register not updated, new risks not identified, old risks not closed > 2 months
2: Risks updated, new risks identified, old risks closed < 3 months (minimum pass)
3: Risks updated, new risks identified, old risks closed < 3 months (consistent; ageing controlled)
4: Risks register evergreen

Assessment

Avg: 3
[+]
ASM_01: RAM consistency and completeness
3 - Acceptable (high)
1: RAM inconsistent / incomplete.
2: RAM internally consistent (minimum pass).
3: RAM internally consistent (reliable; minimal rework).
4: Standard RAM in use.
Notes RAM is through PHC Service.
ASM_02: Correctness of risk assessments
Unrated
1: <80% risks correctly assessed.
2: >80% risks correctly assessed (minimum pass).
3: >80% risks correctly assessed (consistent; peer reviewed / calibrated).
4: All risks correctly assessed
ASM_03: Assessment logic and assumptions are logged
Unrated
1: Assessment logic logged <50%
2: >50% of assumptions logged (minimum pass).
3: >50% of assumptions logged (consistent; traceable).
4: Basis for risk assessments clear without further reference, all assumptions logged.
ASM_04: Key/urgent risks identified, prioritised, actively tracked
Unrated
1: Key risks not identified/understood.
2: Risks prioritised (minimum pass).
3: Risks prioritised (consistently; prioritisation drives action).
4: Urgent/critical risks identified, highlighted and actively tracked

Response plans

[+]
RSP_01: Response plan descriptions are clear
Unrated
1: <80% descriptions clear
2: >80% descriptions clear (minimum pass)
3: >80% descriptions clear (consistent; few ambiguities)
4: All descriptions clear without further reference
RSP_02: Response plans exist (in place)
Unrated
1: <80% plans in place
2: >80% plans in place (minimum pass)
3: >80% plans in place (consistent; gaps are rare/known)
4: All plans in place
RSP_03: Response plans are appropriate, realistic, approved, and resourced
Unrated
1: <80% plans appropriate, realistic, approved, resourced
2: >80% plans appropriate, realistic, approved, resourced (minimum pass)
3: >80% plans appropriate, realistic, approved, resourced (consistent; weak plans rare)
4: All plans appropriate, realistic, approved, resourced
RSP_04: Response plans are reflected in schedule / plans / resourcing
Unrated
1: <80% plans reflected in project schedule / plans / resourcing
2: >80% plans reflected in project schedule / plans / resourcing (minimum pass)
3: >80% plans reflected in project schedule / plans / resourcing (consistent; few orphan plans)
4: All plans reflected in project schedule / plans / resourcing
RSP_05: Recovery actions are in place for Top Risks and low-manageability risks
Unrated
1: Recovery Actions are in place for <80% of Top Risks and risks where manageability is low
2: Recovery Actions are in place for >80% of Top Risks and risks where manageability is low (minimum pass)
3: Recovery Actions are in place for >80% of Top Risks and risks where manageability is low (consistent; quality checked)
4: Recovery Actions are in place for Top Risks and risks where manageability is low

Implementation

[+]
IMP_01: Actions/risks are reviewed regularly between owners
Unrated
1: <80% actions/risks reviewed regularly between owners
2: >80% actions/risks reviewed regularly between owners (minimum pass)
3: >80% actions/risks reviewed regularly between owners (consistent cadence; exceptions tracked)
4: All actions/risks reviewed regularly between owners
IMP_02: Action deadlines are tracked
Unrated
1: <80% action deadlines tracked
2: >80% deadlines tracked monthly (minimum pass)
3: >80% deadlines tracked monthly (reliable; slippage visible and acted on)
4: All deadlines tracked weekly
IMP_03: Action progress is logged
Unrated
1: <80% action progress logged
2: >80% action progress logged (minimum pass)
3: >80% action progress logged (consistent; updates meaningful)
4: All action progress logged
IMP_04: Action closure is logged
Unrated
1: <80% action closure logged
2: >80% action closure logged (minimum pass)
3: >80% action closure logged (consistent; closure criteria used)
4: All action closure logged

Review and monitor

[+]
RVM_01: Risk register review cadence (who reviews, how often)
Unrated
1: Register only drafted or reviewed preceding an assurance event
2: Register reviewed regularly (weekly/monthly) (minimum pass)
3: Register reviewed regularly (weekly/monthly) (consistent; few missed cycles)
4: Register reviewed continuously (e.g., workstreams weekly; leadership monthly/quarterly)
RVM_02: Review structure and standard cycle
Unrated
1: Register reviewed in quarterly meetings (resulting in partial review of the risk register)
2: Register reviewed in monthly meetings (resulting in partial review of the risk register) (minimum pass)
3: Register reviewed in monthly meetings (resulting in partial review of the risk register) (reliable structure/cadence)
4: Standardised review cycle/meeting structure employed
RVM_03: Next Review Dates discipline (risks)
Unrated
1: For risks, >20% of "Next Review Dates" are overdue
2: For risks, <20% of "Next Review Dates" are overdue (minimum pass)
3: For risks, <20% of "Next Review Dates" are overdue (stable; overdue chased)
4: Risk review prioritisation agreed based on urgency/severity
RVM_04: Planned Finish Dates discipline (actions)
Unrated
1: For actions, >20% of "Planned Finish Dates" are overdue
2: For actions, <20% of "Planned Finish Dates" are overdue (minimum pass)
3: For actions, <20% of "Planned Finish Dates" are overdue (stable; overdue managed)
4: (New) team members know the top risks affecting their work and where to find the risk register
RVM_05: Regular risk reporting exists
Unrated
1: No demonstrable regular risk reporting
2: Regular non-standard risk reporting (minimum pass)
3: Regular non-standard risk reporting (consistent cadence; usable content)
4: Very limited overdue "risk review" or action "planned finish" dates
RVM_06: Quality of standardised risk reporting
Unrated
1: No standardised risk reporting of high standard
2: Regular standardised risk reporting of reasonable standard (minimum pass)
3: Regular standardised risk reporting of reasonable standard (reliable; decision-useful)
4: Regular standardised risk reporting of a high standard

Organisational framework

[+]
ORGF_01: Risk roles and responsibilities are defined and understood (line of sight).
Unrated
1: Individuals are not aware of their roles and responsibilities.
2: Line of sight is explicitly defined and individuals are aware of their risk management roles and responsibilities (minimum pass).
3: Line of sight is explicitly defined and individuals are aware of their risk management roles and responsibilities (stable/consistent).
4: Individuals take ownership of the risks affecting their work
ORGF_02: Availability of risk information for team members
Unrated
1: Risk Register is not easily accessible to relevant team members.
2: Relevant team members know where to find the Risk Register (minimum pass).
3: Relevant team members know where to find the Risk Register (stable access).
4: Relevant team members are able to view the status of risks affecting their work and the progress of related actions
ORGF_03: Escalation and reporting procedures
Unrated
1: Escalation and reporting procedures are not defined or understood.
2: Escalation and reporting procedures are defined (minimum pass).
3: Escalation and reporting procedures are defined and understood (stable/consistent).
4: Risks are actively escalated/reported in accordance with defined procedures

Risk Coordinator / Manager

[+]
RCM_01: The project has a Risk Coordinator or Risk Manager
Unrated
1: The project does not have a designated Risk Coordinator or Risk Manager.
2: The project has a designated Risk Coordinator or Risk Manager (minimum pass).
3: The project has a designated Risk Coordinator or Risk Manager (active/consistent).
4: The Risk Coordinator / Manager has the necessary seniority, skills and experience for the role

Integration with project plan

[+]
INT_01: Risk management is integrated with the project schedule
Unrated
1: The project schedule does not include risk-related actions or milestones.
2: Risk management actions or milestones are occasionally reflected in the project schedule (minimum pass).
3: Risk management is integrated with the project schedule (consistent).
4: Risks and their treatment actions are fully integrated with the project schedule
INT_02: Risk management is integrated with the project budget / cost plan
Unrated
1: The project budget / cost plan does not include risk-related costs or contingencies.
2: The project budget / cost plan includes some risk-related costs or contingencies (minimum pass).
3: Risk management is integrated with the project budget / cost plan (consistent).
4: Risks and their treatment costs are fully integrated with the project budget / cost plan

Decision making

[+]
DEC_01: Risk information is used for project decision making
Unrated
1: Project decisions are made without reference to risk information.
2: Project decisions occasionally refer to risk information (minimum pass).
3: Project decisions are consistently informed by risk information.
4: Risk information is central to project decision making