Project Risks
Project risks relate to team dynamics, coordination, and delivery execution.
P1: Team Availability and Continuity
Level: Medium
Description
Dedicated team availability over 48-month engagement:
- Personnel changes: Staff transitions during long engagement
- Competing priorities: Other projects may impact allocation
- Knowledge concentration: Key person dependencies
Mitigation
- Named resources: Committed team members
- Documentation: Comprehensive knowledge capture
- Pair programming: Cross-training within team
- Succession planning: Backup for key roles
Contingency
- Transition period for personnel changes
- Knowledge transfer before departures
- Consultant replacement process
P2: Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness
Level: Medium
Description
YPF/Aerotec teams must be able to operate and extend platform post-MVP:
- Technical complexity: AI/ML requires specialized skills
- Time constraints: Operations staff have limited availability
- Learning curve: New technology adoption
Mitigation
- Embedded approach: Knowledge transfer throughout engagement
- Comprehensive documentation: Runbooks, architecture docs
- Training sessions: Recorded for reference
- Gradual handover: Progressive responsibility transfer
Contingency
- Extended support period
- Additional training modules
- Retained services agreement
P3: Aerotec/Trifork Coordination
Level: Low
Description
Partnership coordination across companies:
- Communication gaps: Information not flowing between teams
- Scope boundaries: Unclear responsibilities
- Decision authority: Slow approvals
- Cultural differences: Working style alignment
Mitigation
- Clear RACI: Documented responsibilities
- Regular syncs: Scheduled coordination meetings
- Shared tools: Common project management
- Single escalation: Defined decision path
Contingency
- Escalation to principals
- RACI clarification sessions
- Process adjustments
P4: YPF Stakeholder Alignment
Level: Medium
Description
Multiple YPF stakeholders with different priorities:
- Technical vs. commercial: Different evaluation criteria
- Field vs. HQ: Operational vs. strategic perspectives
- Decision delays: Approval bottlenecks
Mitigation
- Stakeholder mapping: Understand decision structure
- Regular updates: Keep all stakeholders informed
- Executive sponsorship: VP-level champion
- Clear success criteria: Agreed metrics
Contingency
- Aerotec relationship for navigation
- Focused engagement on key decision-makers
- Phased approach allows course correction