PHC Port | Order Efficiency

Need help making sense of this page?

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

Project: Houses of Parliament Refurbishment

Risk Maturity Status

The refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament is a major national programme involving one of the most important and complex public buildings in the United Kingdom. It is not simply a construction exercise, but a long-term effort to address deterioration, safety, heritage conservation, infrastructure renewal, accessibility, operational continuity, and public accountability within a uniquely sensitive political and historical setting. The scale of the undertaking is immense, with extensive records, technical information, stakeholder interests, and legacy issues already surrounding it. This creates a strong risk of people rushing into detailed activity before the full landscape of concerns is clearly understood. The project therefore requires disciplined attention to overall project health, with enough structure to help participants at all levels understand what matters most, what could go wrong, and how actions should be prioritised within such a highly visible and demanding environment.

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

Risk Register Quality

Avg: 1.83
[+]
RRQ_01: Risk descriptions clarity
2 - Acceptable (low)
1: <80% descriptions clear
2: >80% descriptions clear (minimum pass)
3: >80% descriptions clear (consistent; few ambiguities)
4: Risk descriptions clear without further reference.
RRQ_02: Register contains non-risk/common items / uncertainties
1 - Unacceptable
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
1 - Unacceptable
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
3 - Acceptable (high)
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: 2.25
[+]
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.
ASM_02: Correctness of risk assessments
3 - Acceptable (high)
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
1 - Unacceptable
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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

Avg: 1.4
[+]
RSP_01: Response plan descriptions are clear
2 - Acceptable (low)
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)
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
1 - Unacceptable
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
1 - Unacceptable
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
1 - Unacceptable
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

Avg: 1.5
[+]
IMP_01: Actions/risks are reviewed regularly between owners
1 - Unacceptable
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
1 - Unacceptable
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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

Avg: 2.5
[+]
RVM_01: Risk register review cadence (who reviews, how often)
3 - Acceptable (high)
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
3 - Acceptable (high)
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)
2 - Acceptable (low)
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)
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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
3 - Acceptable (high)
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

Avg: 1.5
[+]
ORGF_01: Risk roles and responsibilities are defined and understood (line of sight).
1 - Unacceptable
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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

Avg: 3
[+]
RCM_01: The project has a Risk Coordinator or Risk Manager
3 - Acceptable (high)
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

Avg: 2.5
[+]
INT_01: Risk management is integrated with the project schedule
3 - Acceptable (high)
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
2 - Acceptable (low)
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

Avg: 2
[+]
DEC_01: Risk information is used for project decision making
2 - Acceptable (low)
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