This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Position statement on IBM £254m Variant Bid in South West One contract (signed 2am late Sep 2007)'.


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07 (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Programme
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
F2
risk linked to 
The costs of implementation outweighs the benefits (via business 
Resources DMT 20.09.05 discussed the budget targets for 06/07 and the potential 
C
2
RK/SA
R Kershaw 
01/07 - Evaluation: Price and Affordability segment panel will consider 
E2
Ongoing
Closed
P8
Commercials 
case).
impacts of budget cuts.
(lead)/A Hall
implementation costs and flag up issues to others in the evaluation 
PA2
workstream
Partner fails to deliver expected benefits.
CB feels this now presents a significant risk to ISIS in that
process
- it will undoubtedly reduce the quantum and therefore reduce the potential capital 
JS
A comprehensive due diligence is undertaken.  Robust contract terms 
investment
provide an incentive to the supplier to maintain the required service 
- it will divert management time
MP
MP
levels.  A strong Intelligent Client function is in place.
- it might weaken our services just as we are to present them to the Partnership
16.05.07  Transformation business cases should identify any 
Where the benefit is obtained by the supplier in reducing the cost of delivering 
implementation costs and benefits
Constabulary services, these savings are then distributed to the partners as a profit 
June-August 07:  Transformation supplements inform business cases 
share, diluting the benefit that the Constabulary receives for its contribution of 
forming legal schedule SPF13.  In addition transformation resource 
services to the JVCo.
plan identifies numbers of staff required; transformation projects will 

likely need to be phased over the first 18 months of the JVC.  Continue 
to monitor.  Still an issue about delivery of benefits but a delivery risk 
rather than programme/bid risk.  Once transformation projects 
agreed/reviewed by KPMG should be monitored or guaranteed by 
contract..  Suggest risk is reduced once outcomes from KPMG 
feedback received
03.09.07  revised pricing on transformation projects released last 
week.  Negotiations ongoing to reach agreement on scope/
cost by end of September; figures to go into the contract
Ongoing  - transferred to Risk JO3
end Sep 07
PF4
Resourced/skilled project/programme teams has project workload that  Timetable is not achieved.
B
2
A2
JS
JS
Capacity during transition - to be communicated by 
D2
Ongoing
Closed
exceeds available resources.
Timetable becomes increasingly challenging, particularly once negotiations are 
SROs to Heads of Service and in scope staff
underway.

MP
MP
Review Team comment 14.2.07: Programme Planning Away Day 15th 
 
The SoR timetable, in particular  the involvement of the in and out of scope services, 
B2
February to form the basis of urgent resource and capacity reviews, to 
is tight and should be closely monitored.
be owned by the Transition
Lack of contingency funding to bring resources in.
Following away day with IBM 27/28 March 07 central PMO to be 
Conflicting diary commitments for RD Heads of Service during 
Lack of proper engagement with front line services, resulting in lack of correct 
established and resourced to track issues and progress with 
August 06
Statement of Requirements work (Sept - Nov 05)  due to other high 
information feeding into the procurement process which could result in further costs to
workstreams.  For Due Diligence in and out of scope area managers to
priority projects within SCC (LAA project is time limited as is 
SCC/TDBC if Statement of Requirements are not as accurate as possible
appoint dedicated resource for Due Diligence work.  Single 
Leadership Programme) .  Unavailability of key staff (HoS) to define 
Programme Plan to be developed
requirements in Output Specifications
April 07:  PMO has chased workstream leads for updates on what 
Timescales for turn-around of these documents is too short to assimilate and gain 
resources they require.  Workstream leads were asked at JPMT if they 
Limited resources and time for lengthy/complex documents to be 
meaningful comments from all managers involved,  due to conflicting priorities
required more resources and all confirmed they did not.
agreed by all partners/stakeholders 
This is also a risk post contract sign for transformation projects. 
22.06.06  Resources not yet estimated for evaluation workstream.  Likely not all 
15.05.07  Joint Executive Partnership Board advised SROs to identify 
elements of evaluation will be resourced from project team but will include 
SMEs for transformation projects
12/06  Insufficient capacity by Authorities to deliver transition to same  consultants, ie KPMG, Property valuers, expert negotiators, commercial negotiators, 
July 07: KPMG resource for Councils on negotiations.  All resources 
level as Preferred Bidder
ICT specialists (SOCITM), resources around technical issues of contract to be 
identified within founding partners to contribute to legal schedules in the
considered.  This raises the cost of delivery further.  
contract and advised where their input is required.  Issues on resourcin
Impact of increased stakeholder engagement, information and
dealt with as they occur by SROs.   Continue to monitor.  
ongoing
communicating positive messages, and relating informal feedback
Suggest risk reduced in rating to B.
to the evaluation process.
Jan 08: Closed. Client Services Team in place
Due Diligence by bidders also raises capacity issues of whether staff within the 
organisations have capacity and resources to meet bidder demands for additional 
information
PF6a
Project lacks any formal Contingency Plan or withdrawal strategy
I.e. Contingency should a partner not be found
E
2
AJ/PJ
AJ/PJ
09/06  Review Team comment:
Closed
(see C14 for pre-contract)
The current round of bidder clarification meetings and due diligence 
MP
MP
should help protect the project from this eventuality, nevertheless it is 
still a risk.
The bidders will also be asked to submit a summary level of their bids  
to ensure that they are not misaligned to our expectations.

Retain at a low assessment level but monitor.
16.05.07  Risk is low because Preferred Bidder has been selected and 
working actively with founding partners to get to contract sign
July 07: continue to monitor throughout negotiations
Jan 08: Closed SW1 commenced
Ongoing
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
1 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07 (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
PF7
Single points of failure within the project team
Project delays or shortcuts.
A
3
JS
JS
09/06 RK appointed as SCC SRO - SCC project team meet regularly 
Ongoing
Closed
with RK.  Replacement for LW started end Jan, also being covered by 
11/06  failure to keep Programme Team together and operating 
A2
MP
MP
P Carter
efficiently - Team especially vulnerable to loss of key members

16.05.07  Accetp risk and manage as and when it occurs
July 07: continue to monitor, will be managed as it occurs.  Closer to 
A3
contract impact of risk diminishes.  Suggest reduce  impact to 3.
Jan 08: Closed
PF10
Inadequate preparation for Gateway Reviews
Gateway Review process impacts onto delivery of ISiS, thereby causing delays and 
D
3
RK/SA
RK/SA
Review Team comment 14.02.07: JPMT to discuss action.  4P’s to 
Feb07
Closed
resource constraints
C3
inform and advise.  Programme Plan to include GR when appropriate.  
April 07
MP
MP
Also consider timetable for fitting it in and any impact on approvals 
process

JPMT discussed 16 April 07:  As no Gateway Review 2 carried out we 
cannot do equaivalent of GR3.  Therefore agreed to use OGC 
D3
accredited individual, Colin Muid.  Sue Barnes to invite Colin to next 
JPMT 23.04.07
16.05.07  Independent Strategic Investment Decision Review by 
Maana Ltd preparation and interview schedule underway for dates to 
be advised in June.
Maana review carried out 19-21 June and 9 July. Background 
documentation sent in advance.
July 07: Maana report received by SROs; action plan devised.  
Suggest this risk is closed pre contract
R3
Cross partner senior management commitment to the Project is not 
Loss of credibility of management to implement change
D
2
JPB (RK)
RK
01/07  This risk is further complicated by inclusion of ASC senior 
Ongoing
Closed
sustained
management and in scope managers
MP
MP
16.05.07  Senior management meet weekly at JPMT.  All 3 Authorities 
C2
fully signed up to governance structure and actively participating

July 07: management within founding partners identified, briefed and 
contributing to populating legal schedules; number of senior managers 
D2
involveed in lock in negotiations.  Transition stage to ensure that senior
management remains advised of plans for the JVC.  Suggest risk is 
closed pre contract
R4
Agreed timetable for procuring the partner becomes unsustainable 
Benefits realisation is delayed
C
2
JS
JS
Review Team comment 14.02.07: All parties are aware of the schedule
D2
Closed
P2
- tight timescale between Preferred Bidder and contract close
Programme uses short cuts or omits necessary stages (e.g. ISOP)
and are working towards it.  Care will be needed in fitting in a Gateway 
- Police Aurthority acceptance/sign off of business case not until 13 
MP
MP
Review.  No specific actions at this point other than continued 
June 07
22.06.06  Contract sign date is set and timetable is rushed to work to that timescale
monitoring and planning.
March 07
Inability to fully engage with Preferred Bidder before contract signature
JPMT comment Feb 07: JPMT requested this risk to be CLOSED as 
01/07  KPMG and programme team have concern re inclusion of ASC and bid  
close monitoring of the schedule to an agreed tight timetable 
April 07
response time, giving sufficient time to evaluate ASC tenders to do a quality job.  This
continues.
extension of time means less time between Preferred Bidder and contract close 
April 07: Suggest risk could be re-rated but not closed.  Still potential 
(approx 2 months). 
significant impactors around setting contract sign date and achieving 
necessary contractual work, particularly with Police OBC not being 
The Preferred Bidder and the Constabulary are unable to develop completed Output 
signed off until 13 June 07
Specifications during negotiation phase.  As a consequence the service levels 
ISiS Team and Heads of Service ensure that sufficient resource is 
documented in the contract are not aligned to Constabulary needs.

allocated to developing the existing Service Briefs into detailed Service 
Output Specifications.  Documents are QA'd to ensure required 
standards are achieved.
16.05.07  Detailed programme plan in place, updated and consulted 
daily, with slippage reported to Joint Executive Partnership Board.
08.06.07  Revision of timescales announced across all parties. 
July 07: Councils working to populate legal schedules in 
readiness for contract sign date of 27 September.  
August 07:  ASC advise they will not be signing the contract at 
the same time as SCC/TDBC but later in November.  
Suggest risk is reviewed mid September
mid Sept 07
Jan 08 Procurement of partner complete
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
2 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07 (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
C4
risk linked to 
Robustness of SCC/TDBC Business Case including:
The OBC proposes that the precise scope will not be finalised until contract award. 
C
2
RK/ 
R Kershaw
Review Team comment 14.02.07: A review of the Business Case 
Closed
Commercials 
- scope
This carries a significant level of risk:-
B2
Sect. 151 
should be planned in following the Planning Away Day.  Clear 
workstream
- affordability
- to achieve best price and best chance of success the programme should agree as 
Officer
ownership for this is needed.
- Customer Access
much of the scope headings as you can at OJEU (or risk breach of procurement rules

RK/SA/MP
JPMT comment Feb 07: To be included in appropriate Workstream.
- Business Process Re-Engineering
by changing scope) and firm scope by ITT
C2
RK/SA/MP
Work started on reviewing budgets for business case review.  Should 
and level of definition of scope and requirements inadequate or not 
- flexible scope = risk premiums in pricing and uncertainty for partner. There are cost 
not underestimate effort of project team needs to spend on this.  
tested. Not getting the scope right.
implications for example with CYP needing to include a high degree of flexibility in 
Should be planned in to complete before Gateway or QA review is 
their SoRs to ensure that evolving educational and social care priorities can be 
considered.
12/06 business case objectives not met:
accomodated within day to day working.
16.05.07  Business cases for Councils and Police being 
March 07
- lack of review of business case in the light of changing 
-  likely to create staff unrest as they are uncertain if they are in scope or not and this 
refreshed/updated and included in programme plan
circumstances/ business case not refreshed regularly
has caused industrial action before now. 
17/18 July 07:  TDBC and SCC Executive Boards (Full Council for 
May 07
- capacity to align and analyse business case with ASC's business 
- Risk that the unions may challenge selective areas of the OBC, in particular the 
TDBC) approve latest business case.  JMAP and JPB briefed and had 
case/strategic options paper
thoroughness of the research into selected models and those rejected models.  This 
sight of full business case content.  Executive Boards agree to pass 
may be viewed as a bias in favour of a particular option and a failure to evaluate fully 
delegated authority to SROs and Portfolio Holders to sign contract at 
all relevant options.
mutually convenient time for all parties.  Maana Ltd reviewed business 
(Extract from 4P's review of OBC 16.08.05)
case and KPMG reviewing transformation supplements.  Suggest 
reduce to C
C9
Failure to set up implementation team early.
Poor contract relationship management from the outset
C
2
JS
JS
4/06  It is likely shortlisted suppliers will want to know who the 
Closed
Client teams availability and transition teams not in place and 
MP
MP
implementation teams will be.  Core Team to discuss
March 07
supported adequately
16.05.07  Operations workstream making good progress in getting 
C2
ready for transition - see weekly programme as of 15.05.07
May 07

July: Heads of Client functions either appointed or temporarily in place.
Client teams being appointed to.  
E3
August: Need to raise level of this risk ro C2 due to lack of detailed 
planning for next phase of programme
mid/end Sept 
Jan 08: Closed - Client Team in place
07
C11
Supplier's bidding team is different to the delivery team
Poor contract relationship management from the outset
C
3
CA
CA
Start planning Implementation as soon as possible.
Closed
MP
MP
Start Communication Planning as soon as possbile.
16.05.07  As part of the contract schedules IBM are having to identify 
March 07
their delivery team
Aug 07:  DG from IBM advises in most cases, certainly in 
April 07
transformation programme, the bid team will be become delivery team. 

This will not be the case for operations but will hand over to F/T 
delivery team but some senior managers will still be around.  This has 
become more of a risk becuase of delay in programme timescales.  
Any delay starting transf projects (eg Jan 08) will mean people working 
on bid currently will not be delivering.  Continue to monitor - suggest 
current rating remains
mid/end Sept 
Jan 08 - transferred to risk JO7
07
C14
A Partner pulls out during Procurement Phase
If SCC pulls out the procurement programme would cease
E
2
RK/SA/MP
RK/SA/MP
12/06  Post bid submission relationship meetings continued
Ongoing
Closed
If TDBC pulls out then SCC would need time to replan and rework prior to 
April 07: Memorandum of Understanding signed between SCC/TDBC.  
procurement
MoU yet to be signed between Councils/ASPA
16.05.07  MoU between Councils/ASPA being progressed, needs to be

signed by 23.05.07 in good time for Police Authority meeting on 13 
June
Aug 07:  Continue to monitor until contract closure - risk remains at low
rating
Jan 08: Closed - Procurement Phase complete
C14a
01/07 - reserve bidder is selected but declines offer
01/07 - project team are already at full capacity in handling preferred bidder issues 
F
2
MP
MP
16.05.07  Reserve bidder not appointed.  Councils reserving their 
01/04/2007
Closed
01/07 - failure to keep reserve bidder adequately informed of 
and may not have capacity to deal with reserve bidder liaison/demands
position on this until end May 2007.
developments and progress
Aug 07: risk remains low.  Suggest this risk is deleted mid September 
once Alcatel notice issued
mid/end Sept 
Jan 08 - Closed - Procurement Phase Complete
07
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
3 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07 (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
C16
In and out of scope services looking to their own internal partnerships  BPR savings will be made prior to the partnership forming,  therefore dimishing the 
D
3
RK/SA/MP
RK/SA/MP
Rveiew Team comment 14.02.07:  Assess the risk against the existing 
Closed
to make Gershon and all budget savings
scope of what efficiencies can be achieved
Business Case (Affordability) as appropriate.Is the Programme 
confident that current BPRE initiatives actually going to deliver any 
significant savings and how will these be measured?The structure and 
proceses of the JVCo (governance) and Client Function should take 
Feb 07
this risk into consideration.
April 07: the closer to contract sign the less risk this carries.  Guidance 
April/May 07
C3
had been issued across both Councils on the letting of contracts pre 

ISiS
16.05.07  SCC SMB, TDBC CMT and ASC COG updated weekly by 
D3
SROs, would would notify programme of any implications here
Aug 07: continue to monitor as part of post contract risk to ensure that 
Councils do not realise benefits without the JVC, particularly with 
regard to procurement - reduce risk rating to D for now
ongoing
Q7
Critical success factors and project performance measures 
Project ill-defined, focused and controlled
E
3
JS
JS
09/06  Review Team comment:
Feb07
Closed
P14
inadequately defined, monitored, reported and managed
The scope for benefits is not correctly understood. Service provision fails to meet 
MP
MP
This should be included in any formal project quality review to be 
Service Specifications and Measures are not fully and accurately 
expectations and requirements.  Business Case benefits not delivered.
planned in soon.
April 07
documented.
Service Heads authorised to devote sufficient time to the development 
of document set.  Support provided from Project Team.
16.05.07  Within the contract schedules there is provision for defining 

performance measures.  Also covered by the business case update
Aug 07: covered in a number of different legal schedules, particularly 
Output Specs (MSDC2) which have been debated with Heads of 
Service and IBM; and elements of Payment Arrangements (MSDC4).  
Continue to monitor
Jan 08: Transferred to risk CC3
ongoing
Q10
Defined QA strategy for programme potentially lacking post ITN and 
Evaluation process would require independent QA review
D
3
JS
JS
KPMG acted as process controllers during evaluation and QA officers 
Closed
with new Workstreams.  Particularly absence of Gateway Review could Need to ensure no bias and objectivity is maintained
MP
MP
sat on segment panels and Plenary Panel.  Internal QA carried out on 
lay founding partners open to challenge or weaken any case brought 
QA Gateway review 
evaluation process and proved satisfactory.
against them
Quality component within each workstream/work package/programme deliverable 
Gateway Review 3 (pre investment decision) planned in after 
lacking
appointment of Preferred Bidder (April 07).  S Coates from 4ps 
attending planning away day on 15 Feb
C3
April 07:  JPMT to decide if Gateway Review 3 at investment decision 
stage will go ahead

Feb 07
16.05.07  Independent Strategic Investment Decision Review planned 
D3
for June 2007 - see actions under PF10.  
April/May 07
July 07: Maana review  carried out, report submitted to SROs and 
action plan devised.  Executive Boards (via JMAP) agreed delegated 
authority to SROs and Portfolio Holder to sign contract, on approval of 
the business case.  In terms of QA for contract schedules SROs need 
to agree to content and lock down each.  Suggest this risk could be 
closed pre contract
PF5
Lack of strong and integrated project management disciplines and 
Expectations of project teams.
E
2
JS
JS
09/06  Review Team comment:
Closed
Org2
programme management across SCC and TDBC and ASC.  
Project gets out of control.
MP
MP
This area would benefit from a formal QA review and the Board should 
Feb 07
P16
Integrated Programme Plan, Risk Register and commonly accepted 
Project audit.
be informed of concerns.
set of deliverables should form the basis of controls.
Choose the wrong partner as a result lack of control, particularly over project 
Ensure proper legal advice is received and all decisions are correct 
April/May 07
timescales.
and defensible.
Insufficient Quality Assurance applied to project methodology.
Uncertainty develops over the effectiveness of Programme Governance and Roles & 
C2
16.05.07  Programme Plan, risk register, governance structure, rolled 
Responsibilities of various key stakeholders or stakeholder groups, conflicting or 

out and adhered to.  PMO centrally tracking updates.  Workstream 
inconsistent views of Governance.
leads feeding in
E2
July 07:  IBM and Councils PMO continue to track progress with legal 
12/06  further complicated by readmission of ASC as founding partner
schedules and escalate issues from worsktreams as appropriate to 
Executive level.  PMOs communicate daily.  Suggest risk could be 
The process is delayed and cost incurred in order to deal with a challenge from an 
closed pre contract
unsuccessful bidder on the legality of the process.
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
4 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07 (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
PMO1 risk added 21.05.07
Post 1st July PMO Set Up
Poor start to Transformation Programme
C
2
Plan the development early, and get a dedicated resource to develop 
18.05.07
Closed
MP
it.
Aug 07: risk remains.  All efforts being concentrated on content and 
agreement of legal schedules.  Continue to monitor.  Should be part of 
B2
Transition activity/phase end Sept/early October.  Likely JV will have a 

business office and there will be PMO for transformation projects - 
C2
MP/DG
roles and tasks identified for this function.  See transformation 
governance and overall governance plans.  About to start transition 
planning at lock in 3.  Suggest reduce to C rating
mid/end Sept 
Jan 08: Closed -Client Services team in place
07
PMO2 risk added 25.05.07
Programme plan uncertainty due to end date changes
Teams do not know what targets they are working to.  Reduces effective progress 
D
2
Executive team need to confirm end date, and workstreams need to 
05.06.07
Closed
monitoring
MP
reassess their individual plans
08.06.07  Executive team need to confirm impact of revised end date 
and what needs to be done to get to 18.07.07 and workstreams needs 
12.06.07
A2
to reassess their individual plans

July/Aug: all partners working towards contract being operational 
DG
D2
before end September 07 for Councils.  All involved made aware of 
milestones required to get legal schedules complete on time.  ASC 
timescales for signing clarified (end November).  Suggest rating could 
be reduced to D
ongoing
Jan 08 Closed - Procurement phase complete
PMO3 risk added 16.07.07
Insufficient resources to complete contract schedules which wil be 
Unable to close off sufficient contract schedules and contract issues to enable a 
C
1
SF
Replanning started 10.07.07 but needs further work.  Need to identify 
w/c 16.07.07
Closed
compounded by absences during the coming holiday period
contract to be signed end of September
resource requirements, obtain additional resources 
B1
20.07.07  SCC/TDBC/ASC managers briefed on requirement for 

completion of legal schedules and timescales.  Holiday cover 
SF
arrangements requested to be put in place (for Councils, Police and 
C1
IBM).  Continue to monitor.  Suggest reduce to C.  Schedules being 
mid/end Sept 
progressed via lock ins
07
Jan 08: Closed - Procurement Phase Complete
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review   GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
5 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
6 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
7 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
8 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
9 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
10 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Operations/Service 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Readiness
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
PF2b
Failure to maintain continuity of third party suppliers
Increase in costs due to transferring of licences etc
D
4
MJ
MJ
List of contracts for SCC and TDBC issued to bidders.  Bidders asked 
June 07
DQ9
Failure to maintain consistency of delivery from existing suppliers.    
In order to deliver savings (particularly procurement), it is likely that existing suppliers 
to identify priority contracts for novation.  
Failure to identify all contractually applicable contracts.
will be changed to those chosen by the supplier which could introduce risk and could 
Novation letters agreed. This piece of work if overdue and could hold 
disrupt service. 
C3
up contract close if auppliers have issues to be resolved.  

Aug:  as of 27 July 93% of contracts available in data room for IBM to 
view.  Right To Use (RTU) letters to be sent. Suggest risk is reduced to 
D4
D4, significant converation already with 3rd party suppliers.  If there 
were issues with this IBM would have let Councils know
03.09.07  VW input into text  of RTU letters for Councils.
Jan 08: Closed
Open
R2
Basic service Performance inadequate. Output Specs do not accurately  Existing service delivery standards fall resulting in low customer satisfaction.
D
2
In Scope HoS
MJ
All Output Specs to be refreshed (May 07) and tested with Directorate 
Jun-07
Closed
DQ2
reflect expected minimum service for clients. 
Failure to meet statutory requirements.
statements to ensure completeness. Comrehensive suite of PIs needed 
The effect of changes to the specifications on performance following 
Performance of in-scope services, and as a consequence out-of-scope services, is 
for every service line to ensure accuracy of base performance. 
discussions with preferred bidder are not properly considered resulting  adversely affected.  
Changes to output specifications to be identified, discussed with 
in decline in performance
C2
service managers and signed off by SROs.  Suggest risk is upgraded to 
C2

July/August:  Output Specifications revised following contractualisation 
and further joint discussions between Operations workstream, Heads of 
D2
Service and IBM.  Specs ready to be "locked down" as of 17 August 
subject to small amendments.  Suggest risk is reduced to D.
Jan 08: Transferred to Risk CC3
R11
risk links to 
Corporate commitment to the inclusion of additional out-of-scope areas  Business Case does not depend on these service areas but nevertheless wide support 
D
3
09/06  Review Team comment:
Closed
Commercials 
within the partnership
for the partnership is a necessary component in achieving Benefits Realisation.
MJ
MJ
Retain this risk at current rating B3 and review in one month.
workstream
  -  Late additions of out of scope services
B3
01/07   Standard bids based on in scope services.  Variants include 
April 07

other services.  Await Intelligent Client
April 07: risk review team advise reduce risk rating
D3
August 07: suggest risk is closed as no further services identified as in 
scope
C3
risk links to 
Failure to accurately assess baseline data
Insufficient evidence to support need to transform.
C
2
12/066  Stage 1 evaluation highlighted problem areas of bids
Closed
Commercials 
The underlying business need has not been fully formulated and agreed.
MJ
MJ
August 07: suggest risk is closed as information included as part of 
workstream
Best and final bid fails affordability check and project is deemed uneconomic.
MSD2 Output Specifications
The economics of the commitment to a strategic service delivery partnership have not 
been fully evaluated nor understood.
There is potential for the Gershon savings to be higher than planned, for example FM 
Feb 07
15% and ICT 10% in 2006; resulting in the need for baseline Stage 1 data to be re-

assessed.
Premier suppliers may feel that the model has been based largely on "guess-timation". 
They could either be turned off from bidding or will request detailed info to cost bid 
April 07
and we would then receive a massive set of questions resulting in potential delays on 
procurement.
Performance data not used effectively to accurately inform baseline.
C15
Risk of contract volume (reduction of certain part of a service) needing 
If anything is left out of the SOR by either in or out of scope services then additional 
C
2
01/07 subsequent bidder meetings with in scope managers and RFIS 
Ongoing
Closed
P14
to be cut post contract award.
charges might be levied immediately on commencement of contract, thereby impacting 
MJ
MJ
etc to be planned at Preferred Bidder due diligence stage - outcomes to 
Service Specifications and Measures are not fully and accurately 
the Affordability Model over the 10 year period .
be built into contract terms and conditions
documented.
The scope for benefits is not correctly understood. Service provision fails to meet 

expectations and requirements.  Business Case benefits not delivered. 'Corporate' 
Service Heads authorised to devote sufficient time to the development 
work not covered adequately because it was inadequately decribed. 
of document set.  Support provided from Project Team.
July/August:  suggest this eventuality should be covered by legal 
schedules other than MSDC 2 (Output Specifications), monitoring 
arrangements and change control processes will also cover 
mechanisms to reduce the price.  Suggest risk can be closed
Q5
risk links to 
Strategy for Customer Access not tested on communities
No evidence that Strategy matches what citizens of Somerset really want or need.
C
3
01/07  review as necessary, this is ongoing risk
Ongoing
Closed
DQ3
Communications 
    - Customer Access aspirations not realised
The successful bidder fails to properly understand the nature and operation of the 
MJ
Ensure this service is properly documented within the Output 
workstream
Insufficient understanding of Enquiry Office function (and other 
Enquiry Offices.  In trying to make changes in this area (perhaps when merging with a 
MJ
Specification.  Ensure the Constabulary's interests and represented 
customer access channels).
similar Council function), they fail to ensure that the service meets all the needs of the 
B3
and protected by the development of the Intelligent Clients.
Constabulary.
August 07:  clarified work in Output Specs.  IC in place to manage how 

Output Spec is conveyed to internal customers.  Suggest rating 
reduced to C but continue to monitor post contract risk.  Customer 
C3
Access was an original driver/objective of ISiS.  Should be monitored 
as benefit realisation from business case
Jan 08: Closed: Detailed in Customer Access Initiation Supllement
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
11 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
Q2
risk links to 
Failure to align service developments/improvements across the whole 
Impact on existing services and partnerships.
C
2
01/07  work with Preferred Bidder to cover this and monitor
Closed
Org6
Transformation/New 
Partnership 
Interim developments and improvements (e.g. increased take-up of calls through 
MJ
MJ
The role of CME must be correctly defined and aligned to the decision 
April 07
CP10
Business workstream
SomersetDirect) still need to happen in the period before the partner comes on board.

making and prioritisation process of the JVCo.
Management and delivery of change is not aligned to the Constabulary's needs.
August 07: risk remains particularly now Police timescale means later 
joining for partnership.  Continue to monitor and keep them aligned
Nov 07
Ops  1
risk added 24.04.07
Confidentiality clauses in the Councils’ third party contracts restrict IBM  Unable to complete third party contract verification – potential impact on solution 
D
4
Matt Jones 
Required Action: Provide list of top 10 critical contracts for each service 
27.04.07
from completing novation assessment  
(unable to novate contracts) and price (due to contract novation terms) 
MJ
Richard Sealy  line.  
A2
Mitigating Action: Council to ensure bidder access and facilitate 

novation work. 
July/August:  IBM have had view only access to contracts in data room.  
D4
Novation discussions with suppliers ongoing.  Outstanding issues will 
be covered in change control clauses in the contract.  Suggest risk is 
ongoing
closed or remain at D4 level
Closed
Ops  2
risk added 24.04.07 - 
Scope of Transformation projects
HBS/MP/IBM unable to agree dependenciescommit to prices, services levels or 
C
1
David Pye, 
Workshop to agree definition, solution, implementation of CRM, swing 
24.04.07
links to 
responsibilities etc
MJ
Gunnar 
space for consolidated contact centre, PDM
Transformation/New 
Maintzer, 
August 07: transformation workstream members populating project 
Business workstream
Hamish 
supplements, to form business cases (SPFA 13).  Council supplements 
Henderson, 
nearing completion.  Further work required post contract sign to 
John 
integrate ASC requirements.
Geoghegan, 
Jan 08: Closed - Supplements completed
Alex Clelland
Closed
Ops 3
risk added 24.04.07 - 
Lack of clarity on future ownership of third party contracts – JV Co, or 
Impact on price and risks
C
3
Hamish 
Obtain confirmation from Commercial Stream
24.04.07
links to Commercial 
IBM, HBS, MP?
MJ
Henderson
August 07: update required
workstream
Jan 08 - Closed
Closed
Ops 4
risk added 30.04.07 
Unable to confirm if JVC can use third party contracts at service 
JVC (and Councils?) will be in breach of third party contracts  or unable to deliver 
D
4
B4
All
Focus on reviewing contracts that are required to deliver the service. 
commencement - due to lack of physical copy of third party contracts
service

MJ
Completion of contracts in data room. 
August 07:  See comments under Ops 1 - suggest risk is closed or 
D4
reduce to D4
Closed
Ops 5
risk added 08.05.07 
JV Co may not be able to use some third party contracts to deliver 
Legal (financial) implications, possible delay in service commencement
C
1
Matt Jones, 
IBM/HBS/MP to engage in direct discussions for solution critical third 
asap
Closed
services to ISiS
MJ
Richard Sealy,  party contracts. Look into possibility of client 'holding' contracts and 
Garry Collier,  JVCo drawing down benefit on non-novatable contracts. 
Alex Clelland,  August 07: update required
Tony Williams
Jan 08: Transferred to Risk JC9
Ops 6
risk added 08.05.07 
Unable to identify staff that are in-scope for delivering the services and  Material impact on JV Co price to the Councils
C
2
Mark Tigwell
HR to deliver anonymous list of staff to JV Co 
04.05.07
to clarify with Service Heads capability of staff
MJ
16.05.07  SCC issued staff list to Mark Tigwell with one or two 
outstanding pieces of info. Service heads to reconcile in-scope staff to 
budgets.
July: In-scope staff lists issued to IBM
August 07:  In-scope staff lists provided as part of legal schedule MSD 
19 (Workforce information).  Suggest risk is closed
Closed
Ops 7
risk added 08.05.07 
Misalignment of CYP Directorate schools services with JV Co delivery 
Loss of Schools business and subsequent damage to Council reputation
D
2
Matt Jones, 
Workshop with CYP Directorate to agree approach to Schools. 
asap
model
MJ
Helen Stuckey,  Schedule to reflect Blue Book approach to form part of contract. 
David Crichton- July/August:  Traded Services Output Specification being developed 
Miller, Tony 
with CYPD staff (EK/SH) for inclusion in MSDC 2 to contract.  IBM/HBS 
Williams
continued contact with Schools Client Group
03.09.07 Traded services contracting principles being discussed at lock 
mid Sept 07
in 3 (EK and SH).  Suggest risk can be closed mid September
Closed
Ops 8
risk added 21.05.07 
Risk that ISiS/SCC could be accused of granting an unfair advantage to 
tba
tba
Mitigating actions involve Mouchel Parkman.  Due Diligence 
asap
an ISiS partner in the award of contracts.  Specifically relates to the 
MJ
information relating to this contract should not be uploaded to the 
way  Highways service operates and design contracts and any due 
online data room, Quickplace.
diligence work that is currently being carried out by the Procurement 
August 07: update required
Team and how available it is.
Closed
Ops 9
risk added  05.07 
Reconciliation of budgets
Not complete verification
B
1
Meetings with commercial, Heads of Service and HR
30.06.07
MJ
August 07:   this has been/is being done - via due diligence process as 
part of MSDC 4 - suggest risk is now closed
Closed
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
12 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Communications
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
PF2a
Failure to maintain stability of existing customers
Existing customers, and partners, are concerned that quality/cost of service will be 
C
3
RD Heads of 
RD Heads of  Communications Plan reviewed particularly with regard to schools and 
Ongoing
Open
P12
Key stakeholders lose confidence
affected by new arrangements.
Service/
Service/JS
registered Authorities who will benefit from the Framework Agreement
P5
Relationships are put under additional pressure.
SB
Stakeholder management
R5
Existing partners seek to withdraw from current arrangements impacting on business 
12/06 - various stakeholders included in evaluation of bids 
case.
RJ
RJ
including a) Directorates/out of scope services b) Schools Client Group 
Service directorates build stronger allegiance to external partners
c) OJEU signatories  d) Staff Forum   e)  Unions.  
Loss of credibility.  Loss of business and revenue.
All invited to feed back representations to Plenary Panel in Feb 07
Key contributors (such as Senior Management for in-scope services) and 
Ensure stakeholder involvement at each stage.  Communication plan 
beneficiaries (out-of-scope departments) lose confidence in the project.  The rate of 
engages at correct levels.  Benefits for in-scope SMT and out-of-scope 
progress is impacted and milestones missed.
departments are addressed.

May 07: Stakeholder matrix agreed.  Focus on priority stakeholders 
including out of scope services, in scope services, schools, Members, 
OJEU signatories, unions and staff side.  Ongoing communications, 
Collecting Q&A's.  Presentations as appropriate.  Communications 
plan being delivered.
June-August 07:  regular ISiS emails continue to be circulated within 
founding partners on progress.  Continue to monitor until and post 
contract sign
Jan 08 Transfer to risk JO1
PF8
risk linked to 
Failure to maintain stability of relationship with Schools
The impact of losing Schools business would be felt in particular by ICT and result in a
C
2
RK
RK
12/06  bidders have presented to Schools Client Group pre and 
Ongoing
Open
Governance 
loss of revenue.
post tender submission.  SCG reps attended evaluation training, were 
workstream
Impact may require more detailed analysis and assessment (e.g. the risk is to the unit 
RJ
RJ
sent copies of bids to evaluate and feed into process SCG asked to 
cost of ICT services but is a risk to the authority overall, not just ICT)
feedback to Plenary Panel in Feb 07.  Schools eager to be involved in 
governance of JVC
May 07: school stakeholder engagement plan being developed with 

IBM and partners.  Anne Brayley is the lead at SCC.
July/August:  Traded Services Output Specification being developed by
CYPD staff, to form MSD2;  IBM/HBS continue to attend Schools Client
Group meetings as appropriate and ISiS is regular agenda item.  
Continue to monitor until and post contract sign
Jan 08: Closed. Traded Services Output spec agreed and will be 
monitored along with rest of contract
R8
Failure to manage across the organisations the expectations of the 
Unrealistic expectations of the partnership on day 1.
C
2
CB/SA
CB/SA
01.07 Transition and implementation with Preferred Bidder to be 
Open
Partnership
Impact on existing services and partnerships.
managed/monitored also involves communications
Uncertain start to new relationship.

RJ
RJ
May 07: This is being managed by all partners as part of the ongoing 
April 07
stakeholder engagement plan and preparation for launch of JVCo.
August 07: update required
ongoing
Jan 08: Transferred to Risk JS1
R10
Unauthorised media contact
Negative press coverage
C
3
JG
JG
09/06  Review Team comment:
Ongoing
Closed
Increased concern within wider community
This should be considered further by the Communications workstream 
Negative effect on staff morale
RJ
RJ
and an aproach included in the Communications Strategy.
01/07  not expecting media interest until announcement of Preferred 
Bidder.  Press release to be prepared in advance for immediate 
release.

April 07: Communications workstream to establish protocol for dealing 
with media
May 07:  Communications workstream establishing protocol for dealing 
with media.  Work on launch, including PR to start week commencing 
14 May.
June/July : media protocol developed by comms workstream.  Do not 
anticipate media attention until contract sign.
PT1
Lack of Elected Member engagement
Members understanding and therefore support.
E
3
JG
JG
01/07  some JMAP attended evaluation training, site visits and acted 
Ongoing
Open
PT2
Political environment changes during the course of the procurement 
Possible consequences for indirect public understanding and consultation
as observers on segment panels and Plenary.  Bidders presented to 
P15
process
08.08.06  TDBC and SCC financial requirements are different therefore this could 
RJ
RJ
SCC Scrutiny and TDBC members on 30 Jan 07
- External Dependency of LGR impacts the Programme (see PT4b)
cause potential issue of debate between the 2 Authorities Council Members who will 
01/07  Aiming for appointment of Preferred Bidder prior to TDBC 
Lack of PA member involvement
have differing views regarding pricing and affordability of evaluation of bids
elections May 07
Potential for political restructuring during the project lifetime.
April 07: JVC aiming to be up and running July 07.  Proposing to hold 
TDBC election in May07 will coincide with point at which partnership commences.
weekly update meetings with JMAP between PB and contract close
The Police Authority members are not sufficiently engaged in the process to allow 
Ensure regular briefings of PA members.  Involve in site visits, 
them to make informed decisions on the Constabulary's involvement with ISiS

segment panels and plenary panel.
May 07:  Newly appointed TDBC and SCC members joined JMAP and 
are briefed by SROs
May - August:  JMAP continues to meet weekly, receiving updates on 
progress from SROs and workstream leads as appropriate on 
progress.  JMAP given access to full business case prior to Executive 
Board sign off on 17/18 July.  Suggest risk continues to be monitored
Jan 08 Transferred to CO10
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
13 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
PT3
Council  Founding partners identity
SCC and TDBC working together may have implications for individual identities.
D
3
JPB (RK)
RK
01/07  JMAP and JPB have agreed principles of branding.  To take 
Closed
CP4
ISiS branding in relation to "in Somerset" is a reputational risk for ASC The reputation of the Constabulary is damaged as entry into the JVCo is seen to 
RJ
RJ
foward with Preferred Bidder   
April 07
benefit Somerset to the detriment of other areas of the Constabulary.
Ensure an appropriate, new brand is chosen.  Ensure that other partner
members are aware and take account of this sensitivity.

June-August:  JVCo branding/logo workshops held with SROs.  JMAP 
members involved and consulted in developing brand via Coley Porter 
Bell.  w/c 27 August JVC logo awaiting final sign off from SROs.  
Continue to monitor but assume close risk on unveiling of logo.  
mid/end Sept 
Ongoing work to develop the JVC website
07
Jan 08 Closed - SW1 Branding has been launched
L3a
Judicial Review
Any challenge by a members of staff or public raising a significant number of FOIA 
C
2
SA/RK
SH
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   The potential areas of risk or 
Closed
requests leading to formal juducial review could halt the programme at a key point in 
challenge should be identified and an appropriate outline tactical plan 
the schedule, impacting on work with the preferred bidder and on internal resources to
RJ
RJ
of action developed in order that the authorities might mobilise rapidly 
divert to addressing the review.  This could all delay the programme.

should a review or challenge occur.  This should include consideration 
Feb 07
of resources.
(See additional note under PT4b re potential need to sign contract prior to Central 
August 07:  No JR raised as yet - continue to monitor but suggest this 
ongoing
Government final decision on unitary authority and freeze on signing large contracts)
could either be closed mid September.  Could also be a post contract 
risk
PF1
Differing values and cultures of partners are recognised but prove 
Founding partners are unable to reach agreement regarding priorities.
C
3
RK (PJ/AJ)
CB/J Rose
12/06  joint evaluation process taking place including joint Culture 
Closed
Org1
insurmountable (I.e. SCC & TDBC initially).
Resistance to being 'subsumed' within another organisation.
and Partnership Panel evaluating and scoring bids co-chaired by 
CP7
Cultural issues between county and districts
Inability to reach a single joint contract.
RJ
RJ
SDG (SCC) and KT (TDBC).  Joint scores to be agreed 
CP8
- Need to change internal mindset
Founding partners have differing expectations.
and fed to Plenary Panel
The JVCo does not share the Constabulary's approach to Diversity.
The Constabulary's reputation is damaged when its values are not represented by its 
The Constabulary ensures protection against this outcome via contract 
Differing cultures and values of partners cannot be transformed into 
strategic partner.
terms and development of common principles and practices.
Feb 07
common values. 
The operation of the JVCo and its delivery of service is compromised by partners 
Joint working arrangements developed during evaluation process 
representing their own rather than a common interest.
provide the foundation for closer working practice and the agreement of
April/May 07

a "protocol" that agrees principles of collaborative working.   The joint 
work around branding will pull all the work that values/culture together.  
Workshop on 14 May for Exec Team/representatives.
April - August: HR/Governance workstream working on this.  Council 
and ASC policies submitted to IBM for review.  Update required
Sept 07
Jan 08 - Closed
Comms  Risk added 24.04.07
ISiS Extranet perceived as ‘static’
We lose the initial momentum and the opportunity for effective and broad 
B
3
RJ
Exec Team and  Action on weekly exec meeting to determine key messages to add to 
1
communication of progress
Comms Team site to keep staff engaged. SH/FB to update current content.
A2
17.04.07 to 
August 07: top communications from PEB sent to RJ.  What happens 

start
to them?  Accept this risk will always be here. Suggest risk rating as 
B3
B3.  DG to find out how many hits per week on the site
ongoing
Open
                    1.
 = New items added since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
14 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
HR/Governance
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
PF3a
risk linked to 
Communications -
Resistance to changes that are discussed/proposed.
C
3
RK/JS
RK/JS
12/06  Staff Forum reps appointed to attend evaluation training, 
E1
Ongoing
Open
S1
Communications 
 - Lack of staff understanding of the need for the partnership and lack Low morale.
sign confidentiality agreements and included in site reference visits.  
workstream
of a consistent view of the nature of the project
Increased staff turnover/ retention of key staff.
Unions not included in evaluation process as they could not 
Staff deemed to be out of scope may not realise the impact of ISiS on them as they 
agree to terms of confidentiality letter.  Staff Forum reps and UNISON 
Staff perceive the Partnership to be a threat to their job security and 
may feel it will not affect them
invited to feedback views of bid teams during evaluation process.  
terms of service.  Staff Associations promote risks.   Transfer terms 
Outcomes of TDBC staff survey Nov 06 showed high %age of staff 
(i.e. TUPE vs. Secondment) are perceived as not in the best interests  22.06.06   Evaluation mode/process does not account for staff and schools informal 
supportive of investigating ISiS option.
of staff. 
feedback during ITN period in particular and the formal evaluation process should not 
include such feedback.   Staff and schools may feel their feedback is irrelevant to 
Regular and effective communications with staff that address concerns
evaluation of bids and could perceive an element of bias/objectivity to informal 
Benefits and opportunities of JVCo are promoted.  Early clarification 
feedback submitted.  NB evaluation model subsequently adapted to accommodate 

over transfer terms. Move towards secondment model. Preferred 
feedback from schools and staff representatives - refer to Evaluation Strategy
Bidder assumes risk of redundancies and promotes opportunities.
Decrease in morale and performance.  Staff may choose to leave the organisation.  
June-August 07:  regular email updates circulated to in and out of 
This could have a negative impact on service if they are “key” staff in specialised role
scope staff across all founding partners with progress updates; in 
Staff apply for out-of-scope posts.
particular in scope staff have attended briefings per service area with 
IBM to discuss respective service offerings and the future; in-scope 
staff were written to in detail regarding choice of secondment/TUPE for 
transferring to JVC.  Continue to monitor.  Communications need to co
beyond contract signing, particularly post 1 October
03.09.07  As of now staf are still uncertain of what changes mean
PF3b
risk linked to 
Communications - 
Failure to achieve buy-in.
D
3
B3
RK/JS
RK/JS
12/06  Reps from various services and stakeholders fully involved
Open
S1
Communications 
 - Although staff may now understand the programme there may still be Resistance to changes that are discussed/proposed.

 in evaluation of bids should begin to win hearts and minds 
Ongoing
workstream
some reluctance to accept  the outcomes, particularly if they feel there  Low morale.
which outcomes are fed back to wider stakeholder groups.  
D3
is a lack of transparency around the options and the OBC. Acceptance Increased staff turnover/ retention of key staff.
Likely that this will begin in earnest at appointment of Preferred 
would be made easier through clear communication of key decisions 
Bidder
and the rationale behind them.
June-August 07: see comments above re risk PF3a.  Suggest this risk 
could be reduced in rating to D.
PT6
Industrial action
Slow down/shut down of front line/back office functions
D
2
JPB (RK)
RK
01/07  monthly JCC meetings ongoing to reduce likelihood of this 
Ongoing
Closed
JS
JS
occurring.  Programme of interaction will be increased at Preferred 
22.06.06  Cultural disparities and conditions eg pay between SCC and 
Bidder stage
TDBC could result in industrial action

June-August 07: continue to monitor risk.  Regular meetings with 
Unions and Staff Forum reduce likelihood.  
L2
Changes in legislation to TUPE regulations resulting in many staff 
Significant changes to TUPE law could affect both Councils preferred option of 
D
3

RC/RN
MW/LWJ
Following outcome of Preferred Bidder and the model chosen this risk 
Closed
P9
exercising TUPE rights
secondment model
JS
JS
could be mitigated
April 07
PA8
A challenge is made to the legality of the Secondment Model for staff  The Constabulary is required to make a contribution to the LGPS fund of an amount 
March 07: letters sent to in-scope staff across SCC/TDBC outlining 
transfer or the law is changed and Secondment is no longer available. that impacts upon the financial case.
options of secondment/TUPE asking for decision by [insert date]
NB  No significant legislative changes to TUPE which would affect staff An employee tribunal process may be called.  If secondment is found to be 
Ensure benefits of secondment model to staff are fully explained.
take up - amended risk "Larger numbers of staff than expected 
unsustainable, the Constabulary could be liable for the retrospective costs of TUPE. 
Obtain suitable legal advice and ensure Secondment is fully legal befo
exercising option to take up TUPE"
Staff confidence in the process will be affected and losses may result.
proceeding with process.
June-August 07:  Counsel's advice sought on legality of secondment 
route by founding partners; much work put into drafting and agreement 
of letters to staff setting out employment options.  Letters sent to 
Councils in scope staff 14 June with return date of 4 July.  Outcome is 
that 1 member of staff only has chosen TUPE option.  Suggest risk 
continues to be monitored pending outcome of ASC staff employment 
end Sept 07
choice
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
15 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
C8
Failure to identify appropriate Client Management (Intelligent Client) 
Ability of partnership to influence change across 
the Council all partners
A
1
JS
JS
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   The Review Team recommend that 
Closed
Org3
structure and associated processes, and sufficient plans for 
RK
RK
this be raised to an “A” rating likelihood given that little appears to have 
Feb 07
DQ1
subsequent phases post-procurement.
JS
JS
been done about it to date.  This is a critical function an urgent work is 
DQ11

needed to define and deliver it.  A dedicated workstream should be 
April/May 07
Preparedness of Authorities to be ready for new partnership (Intelligent 
assigned to it.  
Client)
05.03.07  RK owns this work and will report to JPMT as appropriate.  
Head of Intelligent Client advert pending as at 04.04.07.  Consider 
Relationship between JVCo and out-of-scope services not well defined.In transferring from an in-house to external service provision, the relationship and 
reducing impact rating.
delivery process to out-of-scope service areas is poorly defined and service delivery is 
21.05.07  Arrangements in place in both Councils to appoint to Head of 
impacted.
Client and client structures.  TDBC ICF structure agreed; SCC 
structure to be advised once Head of ICF in post.  Matt Jones 
appointed to SCC Head of Client
A detailed SLA is developed that fully documents the products and 
delivery process.  A regime of account management is established with 
the Intelligent Client to ensure services can evolve and issues can be 
managed.
June-August 07: Details of these arrangements have been requested t
SROs, which are being discussed at SMB/CMT level.  Paper on 
structure of Client teams for SCC/TDBC released to risk review team b
further details awaited.  
03.09.07  risk discussed by risk review team.  Major concerns still exis
no visible progress made at this late stage pre contract - report drafted
ongoing
JPMT and for onward submission to Council Monitoring Officers
Jan 08 Transferred to Risk CO3
Q1
risk links to Comercials  Failure to adequately define client/strategic services/ partnership 
Difficult to monitor and control the quality of the contract and meeting of SLAs and 
C
1
JS
JS
01/07  Fortnightly meetings with bidders July-Oct covered this element
Closed
Org5
workstream
organisational structure (See also C8)
KPIs
Governance and Compliance panel looking at this area of bids
Feb 07
CP2
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   Discussions are underway on this, 
CP9
12/06  lack of agreement on JVC structure and ownership, 

including share issues.  JPMT to update actions as required.  The 
GC1
shareholding split, particularly with ASC joining:
organisational structure and governance will require specific activity, 
April/May 07
- wider share ownership, governance and arrangements for late joiners
perhaps within the Transition Workstream.  05.03.07  JPMT comment 
to be undertaken by Change/Transition workstream.
The risk that the organisational structure of the JVCo is not suited to 
the Constabulary's needs.  The Constabulary has insufficient influence The delivery of service and benefits is not aligned to the Constabulary's needs.  The 
The Constabulary must ensure that its late entry into this venture does 
within the management structure of the JVCo. 
expected benefits of the JVco are not realised.
not result in the other partners having a greater influence and 
Failure to adequately define client/strategic services/partnership 
opportunity to select the management team.
organisational structure
Governance and contract management is ineffective.  Quality of services received 
from JVCo is adversely affected.
Requirement is considered during due diligence phase with partners 
and Preferred Bidder.  Arrangements are supported by written 
agreement.
May 07: Commercial structure (shareholding split etc) being 
progressed through commercials workstream 
Structure of JV Company Boards tabled to SROs 15.05.07.  SROs due
to respond 29.05.07
July 07:  Separate Governance workstream created to deal with these 
ongoing
issues; continuing part of contract negotiations.  Governance 
arrangements form part of the JVA and legal schedules MSD12/SPF34
03.09.07  discussed by risk review team, concerns re lack of visibility o
governance arrangements - in scope staff do not know who manageme
is or who customers will be.  no evidence at present  that whole projec
are involved in devising structure
Q10
Lack of links to work of the founding partners internal Change 
The Corporate Change Management Board is not kept informed of ISiS development 
C
4
RK
CB
01/07  will become clear when we see proposed governance from 
Closed
Org8
Management Boards
and may impact on CPA Action Plan
JS
JS
Preferred Bidder.  All bids include these proposals.
April 07
CP11
Management and delivery of change is not aligned to the Constabulary's needs.
The role of CME must be correctly defined and aligned to the decision 
making and prioritisation process of the JVCo.
May 07:  Transformation workstream now up and running and linking to
B3
both Councils and Police

June-August 07:  Suggest risk is reduced in likelihood to C4.   FJC and
KT members of Transformation workstream and can report in to 
C4
Councils Change Boards.  In addition SMB and CMT regularly updated 
by SROs.  Will be Transformation Board post contract sign which will 
ongoing
link to Councils.  Continue to monitor and close when able to see 
Transformation Board ToR
Jan 08: Closed -  Transformation Board in place 
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
16 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
S4
Supplier "poaches" key Constabulary and Councils staff prior to, or 
The supplier may identify that they will gain more benefit with the best of the 
D
4
JS
JS
Early involvement of the Constabulary with the formation of the 
Ongoing
Closed
after, formation of JVCo.
Constabulary's staff working on other business than the JVCo's.  The JVCo's capacity
structure and roles of the JVCo.  Active participation by senior officers 
to deliver the highest levels of service may be compromised. 
to support the interests of the Constabulary and its staff.
May 07:  HR workstream currently identifying and agreeing retention 
plan for key personnel
July/August 07:  key personnel info form part of legal schedules 
MSD21/SPF3.  In addition Staffing Agreement details may cover this.  
VW advise element of legal schedule covers this possibility.  Continue 
to monitor
Jan 08: Transferred to risk CO7
HR 1
risk added 24.04.07
Pension provision for any in scope staff that choose to transfer under  If Pensions scheme is not set up by July 1st, contract signature may be delayed
B
1
JS
Mark Tigwell/ Ongoing work between IBM Pensions and Councils’ Pension staff - 
24.04.07
Closed
TUPE not agreed yet
Tim Richens
now have potential solution with Councils/Police for approval - meetig 
- Delay in agreeing pension scheme may in turn delay employee 
- Potential delay in setting up employment arrangements, plus potential cost 
Jill Sillifant 
being arranged for week ending 04  11.05.07 to progress
04.11.05.07
decision over TUPE /secondment
implications
/Catrin Oliver -Either reduce time period staff have to absorb information about new 
- 17.05.07 Follow on risk from JPB decision - DC scheme unacceptable
scheme, or
to staff and/or unions
- Delay date of decision making from 18 May to 25 May
16.05.07  Joint Programme Board agreed to offer TUPE with Defined 
Contribution scheme
Solution now dependent on commercials workstream
08.06.07  meeting held on 05.06.07 to agree way foward - still subject 
to resolution of commercial negotiations
15.06.07  Basic details for pension scheme agreed and details sent to 
staff.  Scheme now needs to be set up by 15.10.07
15.10.07
16.07.07  Document drafted to procure scheme provider 6 July
August 07:  suggest risk rating be reduced to C but only on asumption 
that contract gets signed in September or scheme will change post 1 
October Pension Act.  DC scheme not challenged by in-scope staff 
following release of employment choice letter 
Tim Richens agreed plan with IBM for setting up DC scheme.  Due to 
time slippage for ASC they will take into account legislation and will offer
 DB scheme.  Continue to monitor
HR 2
risk added 24.04.07
Delay in agreeing appointments protocol
May delay employee decision over TUPE /secondment
C

JS
Jill Sillifant 
Either reduce time period staff have to absorb information about new 
24.04.07
Closed
/Catrin Oliver scheme, or
- Delay date of decision making from 18 May
01 15.05.07
High level organisation structure and suggested timeline for interim 
arrangements and permanent appointment process tabled at Exec 
team on 15.05.07.  Responses from SROs due back on 29.05.07
29.05.07
04.06.07  Have agreed that there will be interim period from July-Oct 
where IBM hold JV Director roles while appointment proceess takes 
place.  Awaiting outcome of commercial discussions on JVC. Joint 
Programme Board to discuss 05.06.07
15.06.07  Dependent on commercial agreement on control of JVC
August 07: following discussions at lock-in 20-22 Aug agreement on 
key principles reached and JS drawn up note setting out agreed 
position and awaiting for SF and SROs to sign off before going to IBM.  
Review mid September
15.09.07
HR 3
risk added 08.05.07
Delay in availability of anonymised payroll data for in scope staff
May delay completion of due diligence and therefore staffing schedules
C

JS
Jill Sillifant 
SCC payroll to provide information 4/5 - Complete as at 16.05.07.  
08.05.07
Closed
/Catrin Oliver TDBC data sent to IBM/HBS - RISK CLOSED
11.05.07
04.06.07  04.06.07  Service line heads to agree with IBM/HBS/MP the 
in scope staff and Council HR leads to confirm staff costs by 08.06.07.
Analysis of discrepancies underway to be completed by 08.06.07
08.06.07  basic payroll data completed but stil need additional 
information such as training budgets relating to in scope staff
HR 4
risk added 08.05.07 - 
Delay in agreeing solution to secondary TUPE issue will delay sending Decreases time available between staff responses and July 1st – could delay contract 
B
1
JS
Mark 
Revisit whether there is an alternative and quicker solution through 
09.05.07
Closed
risk links to Commercial  out of TUPE/secondment letters.
signing
Tigwell/Catrin  changing the Commercial constructs.  Resolution now outside HR 
11.05.07
workstream
Oliver/Mark 
workstream and in commercials
asap
25.05.07  The commercial proposal incorporates secondary TUPE.  
As the expectation of staff was that they were to be TUPE'd to the JVCo a change to 
Lambert/Simon  25.05.07  Negotiations have been taking place and IBM are expected t
01.06.07
This is a change from expectations and may not be attractive to staff.   this may hit morale significantly.  The IBM proposition will be significantly altered if 
Humberstone submit proposals for a resolution on 25.05.07
secondary TUPE is removed the commercial proposition changes
secondary TUPE is removed
A1
04.06.07  Police w/s reports Secondary TUPE removed from 

proposals.  Risk Closed?
08.06.07  Potential resolution - dependent on outcome of commercial 
B1
negotiations
15.06.07  This is complete and letters were issued to staff 15.06.07.  
Risk rating reduced to B1
16.07.07  subject to commercial agreements, this is complete and 
letters have gone to staff.  Suggest risk is now closed 
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
17 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
18 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Police
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
P4
JVCo model inhibits police collaborative work
The Force finds itself unable to work on collaborative opportunities with other
C
3
TH
TH
Seek agreement from associated (ACPO?) bodies that the JVCo 
D4
Closed
police forces as the responsibility for a service (or an aspect of its delivery) has
can be enabled to act as the Force's agent on such matters. 
been transferred to the JVCo.
August 07: no active investigation on this; risk still applies; 
continue to monitor, probably post contract
P7
Failure to determine and align investment strategy
The Constabulary must determine how the investment offered by the private
D
3
TH
TH
Need to seek early agreement with the PA and the partners (both 
D4
Closed
sector partner is to be used in order to satisfy the strategic objectives of the
private and pubic) on an investment strategy that satisfies the 
Constabulary. This may need to be aligned with the investment strategy of the
Force's objectives.
other partners. Failure to agree an appropriate strategy could impact on the
August 07: Transformation pricing received.  Should be resolved 
benefits expected from partnership involvement.
pre end of September when Councils sign contract.
S2
SMT Transfer or Retention adversely impacts on service delivery.
The retention of SMT resources to provide strategic guidance and Intelligent Customer 
C
3
TH
TH
Early agreement of the resources required to satisfy both of these 
D4
Closed
(Client) services for the Constabulary leaves the in-scope activities with insufficient 
needs.
leadership to maintain service levels.  Conversely, the transfer of the SMT function to 
August 07:  Due Diligence report highlights this, now determining cost 
the JVCo leaves the Constabulary exposed without an internal function capable of 
impact of SMT retention.  Will be resolved as part of due 
providing strategic direction and Intelligent Customer and regulatory functions for the 
diligence.Continue to monitor
service provider.
S5
risk links to 
Late involvement of Constabulary into the process reduces the 
The influence of the Constabulary's staff within the JVCo, and therefore the capacity 
C
3
TH
TH
Early involvement of the Constabulary with the formation of the 
D4
Closed
HR/Governance 
opportunity for ASC staff to apply for key JVCo posts.
for JVCo to deliver the highest levels of service, is limited.  Key staff may perceive they 
structure and roles of the JVCo.  Active participation by senior officers 
workstream
have been denied career opportunities, become de-motivated and seek employment 
to support the interests of the Constabulary and its staff.
elsewhere. 
August 07: structures not yet defined but PA should not be 
disadvantaged - continue to monitor
DQ4
Will supplier understand key strategic requirements for the future; NPIA  The full cost of supporting these initiatives may not have been included within the 
C
3
TH
TH
Ensure that allowance is made in the contract terms for the supplier to 
C2
Closed
standards, UPSA, MOPI, etc.
bidders proposal.  The Constabulary may find it incurs further un-budgeted costs in 
absorb all reasonable costs.  Ensure that the pricing arrangement for 
implementing these programmes. 
service enhancements is fixed and cannot be exploited by a company in 
a position of a sole supplier.
August 07: PA to ensure that information is contained in the legal 
schedules and addressed.  continue to monitor
DQ7
A single network infrastructure for both the Constabulary and ISiS 
The supplier may see financial benefit in having a single network.  However the 
C
3
TH
TH
Ensure that the full cost of new systems implementation is understood 
D4
Closed
members may not be in the interests of the Constabulary. 
Constabulary may feel this approach will threaten its security accreditation and make 
before agreement to proceed.  Ensure that full training and BPR takes 
an exit from the JVCo extremely difficult.
place to minimise any adverse impact on out-of-scope areas
August 07:  PA discussed security solution for SAP - there will be a 
separate network for PA SAP with secure connection between PA 
network and SAP network.   Satisfies Police needs - Can close risk
DQ8
Service delivery quality varies throughout the Constabulary (a "postcode  Citizens become aware of a variation in service quality and the Constabulary suffers 
D
4
TH
TH
Ensure through negotiation of service levels that these shall be 
D4
Closed
lottery") due to a concentration of JVCo services in the southern part of 
damage to its reputation.
consistent throughout the force area.
the Constabulary.
August 07:  Single Output Spec for all District Offices which ensures 
cannot have variety of service provision.  This enables risk to be closed
DQ10
risk links to 
Supplier proposals to multi-skill staff result in reduced service quality.
In order to reduce staff numbers but provide the full breadth of service, the supplier 
D
4
TH
TH
Ensure a full impact assessment is undertaken of any such proposals.  
D4
Closed
HR/Governance 
may wish to train staff to provide for a broader range of disciplines (e.g. Admin staff 
Ensure that full staff consent is obtained and appropriate training given. 
workstream
supporting Enquiry Offices).  This may cause issues with staff job descriptions and 
August 07: Likely to be post contract risk - monitor in 6-9 months
may result in a reduced service in areas that require significant skill and experience.
CP3
Changes to the working practices of the Enquiry Offices and other 
The Constabulary becomes liable for some of the resource and cost implications of 
D
4
TH
TH
Ensure the Constabulary has an appropriate influence over process and 
D4
Closed
routes for Customer Access increase the call volumes to the Force 
changes made by the JVCo for Customer Access channels that are under the JVCo's 
operational changes to aspects of service that have an impact on Force 
Service Centre.
control. 
performance. Ensure that the Intelligent Client has the required 
authority under the terms of the contract.
August 07:  Will not know until JVC starts to deliver the service - monitor 
in 6-9 months.
Police 1 risk added 24.04.07
Pensions – the issue around pensions needs to be resolved in order 
We will not get the buy in that we need in order to make progress over the next few 
C
1
TH
Caitroina 
Cat will liaise with Mark Tigwell to establish where discussions have got 
27.04.07
Closed
risk links to 
that we can engage with both staff and the trade union and be able to 
weeks
McCusker
to in relation to the Council staff.
HR/Governance 
provide them with a satisfactory response.
27.04.07  Dreictor of HR Allan Johnston overseeing issue for ASC.  
workstream
Councis have made decision.  ASC still to take decision.  Decision 
required before any issue of notice to staff.  HR workstream to monitor 
process
16.05.07  Joint Programme Board agree to offer DC scheme to staff 
who wish to exercise TUPE option.  Letter to staff to be shared with 
SCC/TDBC UNISON before release
August 07:  letter has been shared with Police UNISON - letter due to 
be sent early September.  Mitigating actions in hand - suggest risk is 
closed mid September once letters to staff are sent
15.09.07
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
19 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Police 2 risk added 24.04.07  
Out put Specifications – availability of the Heads of Service over the 
If the milestone is missed this could impact on both the development of the business 
D
1
TH
RA/MC
Jackie Jagger to work closely with Richard Allen / Matt Coates through 
27.04.07
Closed
next 2 – 3 weeks is crucial if we are going to meet our deadline of being  case and the ongoing programme of work post 13th June.
the course of next week to ensure we have a complete schedule of 
able to produce draft Output Specification by the 18th May.
meetings after the kick off meeting with the Service Heads on the 20th 
Update 20th April –In addition to the formal reviews with Heads of 
IBM/HBS may not get such a comprehensive understanding of activities within the 
D
2
April.
Service also need to kick off familiarisation programme to meet staff in 
service areas.  Miss an opportunity to engage with staff and develop relationships
TH/RH
Sarah to liaise with Tracey Hayler and Rod to get these visits set up as 
the service areas
soon as possible
27.04.07  Service heads have made themselves available for the 
duration and see no issue with the proposed timetable.  By 01.05.07  
HBS will have met with each service head and commenced production 
of the output specs.  Familiarisation visits are being organised as 
required
22.05.07  Advised this risk can be closed as Output Specifications are 
now nearing completion
Police 3 risk added 24.04.07
Transformation – we need to agree on what the key transformation 
Unless we can identify 3 or 4 key areas to include within the business case there is a 
D
2
TH
Sarah 
Based on initial discussions this week we have now identified 6 
27.04.07
Closed
risk links to 
initiatives that are to be included in the business case will be.
danger that we provide too much information that doesn’t properly describe what we 
Remington
potential transformation themes that we will work through during the 
Transformation 
are trying to achieve through the transformation agenda.
course of the next 2 weeks to agree the final shape of the 
workstream
transformation proposition.
27.04.07  DCC Rob Beckley now leading the Transformation aspect of 
the Police workstream with ACC Mortimore leading estates element.  
01.05.07 
Linda Gerrard
Chief Officer Group meet 30.04.07 to finalise the transformation 
(decision on 
priorities for inclusion within the contract.  Additionally Police specific 
5 key 
initiatives are being explored.  Section on transformation to be included 
projects 
in Business Case for 23.05.07
required for 
04.05.07 update: Joint initiatives agreed.  Meetings taking place next 
JPEB)
week (w/c 07.05.07) to progress transformation section for the business 
case.  RISK CLOSED
Police 4 risk added 02.05.07
IBM and partners fail to identify and /or fail to take account of the 
C
2
TH
TH
A & S to facilitate full briefing of IBM & partners on the nature of the 
ongoing
Closed
specific characteristics of Constabulary work  compared to that of the 
police business through access to all relevant parties in the preparation 
councils ( law enforcement ) .Eg front office service treated as 
of the service briefs and familiarisation with the process in practice ;  
transactional only and does not take account of associated 
output specifications to reflect specific nature of the police business 
characteristics ie a piece of lost property relating to a crime scene with 
August 07: Briefings to IBM throughout due diligence.  Until Service 
an offender linked to it  : there is a threat to the  reputation of 
Delivery Plans and Method Statements are seen cannot see whether 
constabulary and quality of service provision to the public  . 
this risk has been taken into account.  Monitor in October
October
Police 5 risk added 16.05.07 - 
Consequences of timing of Job Evaluation in relation to announcement 
Staff could get confused with results of JE and TUPE/secondment decision and the 
tba
tba
TH
LP/JS
 Similar 90 day notice periods which require sequencing of 
ongoing
Closed
risk links to 
with TUPE/secondment decisions for staff
similar notice periods required
announcement.  Jill Sillifant and Linda Pope to consider risk, 
HR/Governance 
consequences and any mitigating actions.
workstream
16.05.07  JS advises the questions around impact of JE have been 
covered in answers to FAQs so staff should be aware of the position.  
ASC (and TDBC, JE results to be notified on 2 July) need to make clear 
in each communication that the 2 issues of notice periods for choice of 
TUPE/secondment and JE results are separate.
August 07:  JE not complete yet and not clear how results will be taken 
into JVC.  Risk ongoing - continue to monitor
Police 6 risk added 22.05.07
Councils fail to agree terms with IBM, resulting in the collapse of the 
Police would have to commence their own procurement process if they wished to 
D
2
TH
TH
ISiS work to date would accelerate Police procurement programme if 
ongoing
Closed
procurement process. 
consider strategic partnering
ISiS deal fails to materialise
Unable to identify mechanism for Police convergence to main ISiS 
Police still developing convergence mechanism with lawyers and ISiS 
programme
SROs
August 07:  continue to monitor until end September
Police 7 risk added 08.06.07
Resource availability - major phase of work to be conducted during 
Potential slippage against timescales
C
1
TH
RH, TH
Adequate resources need to be identified now to ensure delivery of key 
22.06.07 - in 
Closed
summer holiday period
products
line with next 
29.06.07  Team been strengthened; plan and resources wil be tightly 
phase plan 
monitored to ensure delivery
and team 
13.07.07  Finance team to be strengthened - 2 additional staff from w/c 
structure
16.07.07.  Regular weekly checks
August 07: resources continue to be tightly monitored weekly.  Because 
Police timescales have slipped this will negate risk of holiday period 
causing problems.  Agreed risk can be closed
Police 8 risk added 10.07.07
The overall timescale may not be reconcilable to the objectives to ASC
The tight timescale and the impact of any delays may:
C
1
TH
Commercial 
IBM/ASC to review timescales/objectives to ensure that the timescales 
20.07.07 
Closed
 - reduce the opportunity to develop innovative solutions;
A1
workstream
are balanced against the need for "fixed" prices and innovative 
(end of data 
  - increase the risk of IBM not being able to release a prie with the level of certainty 
solutions
gathering 
required

August 07:  IBM late with pricing therefore Police timescales re-planned - 
stage)
setting aside October for negotiation.  Amend likelihood to C rating in 
ongoing
C1
response to new timescales for Police.  Continue to monitor.
Police 9 risk added 10.07.07
3rd party contracts will not be fully reviewed within current timescales
Either the time fo complete the exercise needs to be extended or a mechanism 
C
2
TH
Jeremy 
IBM/ASC to prioritise contracts to be reviewed on the basis of 
06.07.07
Closed
devised to reflect price/risk implications
A2
Newman/ 
materiality.  Reconsider the balance between the need for firm prices 
Charles Garbett for contract signature vs short timescales and prices with caveats

August 07: ongoing beyond due diligence stage.  More time now to look 
at the contracts and to confirm assumptions.  Suggest rating is lowered 
ongoing
C2
to C 
Police 10 risk added 10.07.07
The DRP service may be uninsurable
The risk of some events occurring may need to remain with ASC or the cost of service 
A
3
A1
TH
Jackie Jagger/  JJ to report on findings once agreeing a PoV and report to the 
20.07.07 
Closed
provision may need to rise
Commercial 
commercial workstream
(end of data 

workstream
August 07:  Likelihood is likely to be 3; impact is that DPR may not be in 
gathering 
scope.  Have addressed insurance issue with IBM
stage)
A3
ongoing
Police 11 risk added 10.07.07
The service impacts of the new DPR system cannot be quantified 
The service is not taken on in the "first tranche" or taken on without any performance 
B
3
TH
Richard Allen  ASC to advise on plans for new DPR system (which system, when 
20.07.07 
Closed
before contract signature
measures
A2
(advice on 
implemented, when will "business as usual be achieved) in order to 
(end of data 

plans) Jackie  assess the service impacts
gathering 
Jagger (service  August 07:  no movement here.  Continue to monitor.  Suggest risk is 
stage)
B3
impact)
reduced to B3 due to slipped dates
ongoing
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
20 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Police 12 risk added 10.07.07
There is a risk that volumes and KPTIs will not be available for input to 
The service performance cannot be managed against empirical targets until these 
B
2
TH
ASC Service 
Service heads to identify key volumetric data and key KPIs by week 
03.08.07 
Closed
the contract
established
Heads
commencing 30.07.07
(before 
August 07:  New KPIs submitted to IBM.  Risk can be closed.
verification 
report is 
completed)
Police 13 risk added 17.08.07
UNISON have several concerns about the proces and relations with the  Potential impact on wider staff relations and consultation process
C
1
TH
Discussions continue
ongoing
Closed
Constabulary/PA.  Discussion with Director of HR continue
Police 14 risk added 17.08.07
Contract schedules - Police workstream timeline; no flexibility for 
Phase 1 schedules must be complete to enable firm pries to be released.  Potential 
D
1
C1
TH
TH/SH/SK
Involvement of key parties in progressing and monitoring delivery of 
w/c 23.07.07
Closed
slippage - delivery of contract schedules and firm pricing is key to 
slippage against timescales
contract schedules.
production of business case draft for 11/9

August 07: Revised Police timescales; business case not relying on 
Oct 07
schedules - business case being prepared Oct 07.  Reduce rating to D
D1
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review   GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
21 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Transformation
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
PT5
Lack of Council's ability to self generate innovation and ability to change
Will affect relationship management and confidence of supplier.
D
3
JPB (RK)
CB
01/07  Transformation Plan to be worked up with Preferred Bidder and 
Closed
Org4
Lack of transformational strategy and programme to deliver 
contractual arrangements
April 07
CP1
framework/governance change/effective change management boards
FJC
FJC
Readiness and capacity of Constabulary founding partners to accept 
The process re-engineering and transformation of in-scope services brought about by 
change/transformation.
the JVCo will have a substantial impact on the whole of the Constabulary.  All staff will 
B3
Ensure proper Change Management practices are introduced.  
have to accommodate new systems and ways of working.  Unless introduced with 

Communication and training needs are fully addressed. 
care, planning and training, many aspect of force performance could be adversely 
affected.
D3
June-August 07: Transformation workstream meets weekly to take 
forward development of 5 major transformation enbabling projects as 
platforms to remaining 34 projects.  Resource planning in developmen
Suggest risk is reduced to D.
DQ5
The Preferred Bidders proposal for significant systems enhancement  Partners finds that expected efficiency savings are not delivered as the use of new 
D
4
FJC
FJC
Ensure that the full cost of new systems implementation is understood 
ongoing
Closed
(e.g. SAP) proves costly and time consuming for out-of-scope areas.
systems transfers tasks from in-scope administrative staff to out-of-scope staff using 
before agreement to proceed.  Ensure that full training and BPR takes 
self-service functions. 
place to minimise any adverse impact on out-of-scope areas.
24.05.07  Pre contract processes will assess cumulative resourcing 
impact across all wave 1 projects as well as on a project by project 
basis
June-August 07: Iterations of SAP Back Office, SAP CRM and SAP 
Enablement project supplements being devised, in conjunction with 
Simon Kirkham and team.  Resource plans in place and resources 
being identified.
Jan 08: Transferred to JO3
DQ12
Capacity of JVCo to deliver, and Councils to accommodate, 
The benefits received from the JVCo are reduced as the full extent of the intended 
C
4
FJC
FJC
Detailed transformational plans must be developed.  Change 
ongoing
Open
transformational change is insufficient.
business transformation cannot be achieved. 
Management practices are adopted by both the JVCo and the Councils.
24.05.07  Both Councils have clear transformation plans in place and 
are clear about how the JVCo transformation programme wil deliver 
council objectives.  ASC has scoped their transformation vision which 
clearly links to agreed wave 1 projects
June-August 07: Transformation workstream addressing this risk.  
Resource planning in place and SROs being asked to identify adequate 
resources to get initial 5 transformation projects off the ground.  Projec
phasing likely over initial 18 months of JVC
Jan 08: Transferred to JO3
TR1
Risk added 24.04.07
Confirmation of project priority is delayed
Unable to complete activities to get to contract
C
1
FJC
FJC
Ensure that projects are debated and agreed between founding 
02.05.07
Closed
partners via SMB, CMT, COG and are prioritised as appropriate.  
24.05.07  Wave 1 priority projects confirmed by all partners
June-August 07:  Initial 5 major Wave 1  projects being taken forward 
as supplements/business cases to form part of the ISiS contract.  
Other projects will be phased over duration of contract.  Legal schedule
Sept07
SPF13 applies.  Suggest risk is closed once SPF13 locked down
TR2
Risk added 11.05.07 - 
Sufficient and consistent engagement of key stakeholders in construct  Lack of ownership / understanding of the projects commissioned. 
D
2
C2
FJC
All 
All efforts are being taken to engage relevant stakeholders, but there is 
23.05.07 
Closed
risk links to 
of project supplements/business cases
Transformation  a limit to what can be achieved in the time available.  SAP Back Office 
communications & 

Project Leads project most at risk due to breadth & complexity. 
change workstream
21.05.07  Engagement improving but ICT capacity affected this week 
due to competing pressures from Operations workstream to sign off 
D2
output specifications.  Leave arrangements over half term (28.05-
01.06) will also impact on progress
25.05.07  Improving.  Workshops and briefng meetings have filled key 
gaps over the last week
08.06.07  Suggest risk rating reduced to D2
15.06.07  Acknowledgement that some gaps will still exist in July.  
Opportunity remains to close gaps before final contract sign in 
September
August: continue to monitor risk up to contract close
ongoing
TR3
Risk added 11.05.07 - 
Standard of business cases
At worst time pressures result in business cases not being considered of sufficient 

1
FJC
Transformation  Mid stage review of business cases to be well structured.  
23.05.07
Closed
risk links to commercials
robustness to be included in Wave 1. 
workstream /  25.05.07  Risk to be reviewed when draft business cases issued on 8 
workstream
commercials  June
workstream
08.06.07  Business cases now expected 22.06.07
22.06.07
15.06.07  Acceptance that status of business cases likely to be 'outline
in July.  Focus is to complete Procurement business case to high 
standard
August 07: Risk can be closed for due diligence phase.  Construct of 
business cases now changed.  The commercial aspects for Wave 1 
projects will now appear within Schedule 13.  There will be a single 
overarching document which sets out the transformation benefits of 
Wave 1.  Formal detailed business cases for individual projects will be 
refined at blueprint phase once projects go live.
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
22 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
TR4
Risk added 11.05.07 - 
Lack of clarity over governance arrangements 
No clear arrangements for formal/final sign off of business cases. Pricing negotiations 
B
1
FJC
SROs
Governance model to be confirmed as a matter of urgency.  There is a 
15.05.07
Closed
risk links to HR & 
unstructured. 
need to keep timelines for approvals within individual organisations 
awaited
Governance workstream
aligned.
Need to clarify as part of governance arrangements who is/will coordinate/ensure 
compliance of the Las with their contracted liabilities and ensure funding where 
13.07.07  Action in hand to establish separate Governance 
additional resources is needed.  Links in with need for clarity around the organisation 
worsktream.
24.08.07
of retained and client services and the role of transition managers.
August 07:  JS will be asked to comment and provide update version of 
the Governance supplement.  Suggest rating is left and ask JS to 
clarify
Jan 08: Transferred to JS2
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review   GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
23 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07  (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Property
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
Prop 1 new risk added 24.04.07 Property – Option for Somerset Direct staff moving from County Hall to ISiS has no short term accommodation for staff prior to JV Co contract.  JV Co may 
B
3
Sam Monger,  IBM to review interim transitional accommodation arrangements & 
20.04.07
Closed
risk links to Operations/  temporary accommodation is no longer available.  New 
not have a solution Day 1 of contract
Claire Yabsley provide recommendation to ISiS
Service Readiness 
accommodation option required
workstream
Matt Jones 
ISiS to make a decision
24.04.07
Simon Hurrell
May 07: Quantock House options agreed by all parties.  Heads of 
Terms/lease arrangements being finalised.   RISK CLOSED - SEE 
PROP2 
Prop 2 new risk added 30.04.07 Failure to agree terms for Quantock House
PMO/IBM cannot relocate
D
2
Simon Hurrell   Appropriate leadership in place
Closed
PMO/IBM team have to look elsewhere
Claire Yabsley 04.05.07  Pursue negotiations with Donaldsons/DEFRA
08.05.07
Vic Freir
29.05.07  advice is that Councils will get possession of Quantock 
14.05.07
House on or around 14 June with 10 days required for sorting 
IT/telephony connectivity, and various decoration works.  Anticipated 
move in date of 2 July
August 07: Main terms now agreed. Possible possession mid 
September 2007, occupation late October 2007
Prop 3 new risk added 21.05.07 Failure to resource move to Quantock House adequately (base costs  Move ineffective
C
1
C1
Julie Burnett.  Project planning by partnership
18.06.06
Closed
plus enabling expenditure)

Louse Cook/  August 07: No project plan or manager in place now following recent 
02.07.07 
Chris Emin
decision to proceed
17.07.07 
D2
Vic Freir
03.09.07  SH advises VF taken over management of move to 
(date of 
Quantock House but RK has asked that IBM manage it …..
occupation)
Prop 4 new risk added 04.06.07 Risk management - workstream has first draft risk register for 
Existence and regular management of risk register is key project success factor
F
3
F3
Simon Hurrell   Application of world class programme management
18.06.06
Closed
accommodation on basis of pre contract, contract and delivery - this 

Post contract  August 07:  amend action owner; suggest risk is raised to F3
will be monitored weekly
lead
Oct07
F1
Prop 5 new risk added 08.06.07 Risk that wider stakeholders are not fully engaged enough in the 
Do not get right level of buy in by stakeholders
C
3
B2
Jake Roe/ 
Develop stakeholder map and engagement plan
22.06.07
Closed
process (of preparing the transformation supplements) by the 

Simon Hurrell August 07: amend action owner; Continues to be reviewed by 
workstream
Derek Tate 
workstream
ongoing
C3
(IBM)
Jan 08: Transferred to JO1
Prop6
new risk added 08.06.07 Out of scope stakeholders not adequately briefed
Do not get right level of buy in by stakeholders
C
2
B2
Jake Roe/ 
Develop stakeholder map and engagement plan
22.06.07
Closed

Simon Hurrell August 07: amend action owner; Will form part of engagement plan 
Derek Tate 
post-contract
ongoing
C2
(IBM)
Prop7
new risk added 08.06.07 Major challenge (to Taunton) over application from any proceeds of 
Inability to proceed or delays in accommodation proposals
A
1
SH
Post contract  Seek clear political guidance as between the Authorities (will come to a
Oct-07
Closed
sale
lead
head once final business cases proposed).  Discuss and agree as part 
of Accommodation Strategy post contract.
Prop8
new risk added 08.06.07 Lack of available decant space in Taunton
Lack of suitable space delays timescales and impacts on operations
B
1
SH
Post contract  Review decant possibilities with all ISiS partners.  Review with wider 
Oct-07
Closed
lead
public sector and private accommodation providers.  
Quantock House solution to decant space for initial phase.  Continue to
monitor.  Suggest reduce to D rating once Quantock House occupied
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
24 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
25 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07  (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Procurement
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
Proc1
new risk added 21.05.07 Failure to complete due diligence by 8th June
Delay to plan; Contract not signed on time
D
3
TT/ME/ISiS
Produce detailed project plan and manage jointly
ongoing
Closed
June/July 07:  Due Diligence report drafted, discussed and delta 
discussions ongoing.  CA confirms risk can now be closed
Proc2
new risk added 21.05.07 ISiS staff have insufficient time to support Due Diligence activities
Delay to plan; contract not signed on time
D
3
TT/ME/ISiS
Weekly meetings between ISiS and IBM Procurement
ongoing
Closed
June/July 07: meetings arranged and managed with appropriate 
personnel, in order to provide sufficient information for due diligence 
report.  CA confirms risk can now be closed
Proc3
new risk added 21.05.07 Ability to recruit Procurement IBM/ISiS resources in time for 1st July
Severe delay to Transformation plan
A
2
Post contract 
TT/ME/ISiS
ME to discuss with Catrin Oliver
29.05.07
Closed
risk
August 07:  Suggest risk reduced to D rating or closed because of 
31 August 07: reworded risk "ability to recruit suitably qualified and 
amendments to longer timescales.  The risk is not just around being 
capable Category Managers and Chief Procurement Officer"
able to recruit the right calibre of person but also refers to where these 
posts will sit ( ie. IBM, JVco, Council) but this is operational decision. 
CA has a meeting with IBM 30/8 and will ask what progress has/is 
being made.
31 August 07:  Discussions ongoing as to where this resource will be 
Oct07
placed ie IBM or JVC.  Recruitment process will not commence until 
contract has been signed.  Continue to monitor
Jan 08: complete
Proc4
new risk added 21.05.07 Ability to raise meetings with key stakeholders in the DD timescales
Reduced effectiveness of Due Diligence activity – increased risk around conclusions
B
3
TT/ME/CA/SL Prioritise key meetings. Escalation of issues as and when
ongoing
Closed
June/July 07: meetings arranged and managed with appropriate 
personnel, in order to provide sufficient information for due diligence 
report.  CA confirms risk can now be closed
Proc5
new risk added 21.05.07 Access to Financial Budget info to support spend analysis
Reduced effectiveness of Due Diligence activity – increased risk around conclusions
C
1
LP/ME
Item to be monitored and escalated if necessary
ongoing
Closed
June/July 07:  Councils Procurement personnel working with IBM to 
provide sufficient information on spend analysis.  CA confirms risk can 
now be closed
Proc6
new risk added 21.05.07 Insufficient data of sufficient quality available/accessible to carry out 
Contract not signed
C
2
TT/ME/ISiS
Co-ordination with ISiS colleagues – escalation of issues when they 
ongoing
Closed
due diligence
arise
June/July:  Councils working with IBM to provide timely and accurate 
information to inform due diligence report and subsequently negotiate 
delta position. CA confirms risk can now be closed
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
26 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
27 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Assessment of Risk
Risk 
Risk
Lead
Action
Target 
Commercial
Programme Risk
Consequences of Risk
@ April 07
Action Plan
Target Date
Status
Ref/s.
Movement
Officer
Owner
Level
Likelihood
Impact
F1
Initial underestimation of funding required - complex funding calculation Inadequate budgets are identified resulting in the need to return to respective 
B
2
RK/SA
R Kershaw 
09/06 Review comment:-
C3
Ongoing
Closed
P11
esp. legal costs.
Executive Boards for further funding part way through programme.
(lead)/A Hall
Escalating costs undermine the business case - a review of the 
CG/AH
business 
-    Sub-risk:  there is no Contingency fund.
Inability to access quality specialist support.
case should be planned in.
-    Sub-risk:  No allowance for Programme Director (SCC & TDBC)
Stability of the programme and project teams is undermined.
Asessment level B2 probably relevant
-    Significant additional costs have been identified; extra 
AH/LW/SH
Review Team comment 14.2.07:  No change.  Project funding is 
consultancy/BPR costs not yet known
01/07 - escalating costs will have an impact on the business case 
B2
understood even though overspent; registered as an issue and it is 
- 22.06.06  It is planned that Independent Process Controllers for the 
CG/AH
currently being monitored.
Evaluation workstream will be KPMG therefore raising their costs 
The project overspends, resulting in a requirement to seek other sources of funding to

JPMT comment Feb 07: This risk is recognised and continues to be 
beyond initial estimates.  
complete the project.  Potential impact on other projects and activities if funding has 
C3
monitored
- 01/07  Overuse of advisers, not adhering to agreed protocols and 
to be taken from alternative sources. 
Detailed accounting at all stages of project to control costs.  Agree 
channels to commission work
payment to Councils to compensate for their early project work.  Andy 
01/07 - lack of budgetary control and cost overruns 
Hall working on this.
05/07 - additional resources from KPMG acting as commercial 
April 07:  ASC have contributed towards the Councils procurement 
negotiators and extra project management support
costs
July 07: SROs requested further project funds at Exec Boards 17/18 
July Suggest risk rating reduced to C3
F4
Uncertainty over who owns the savings that arise out of out-of-scope 
Controlling the programme savings and Benefits Realisation (who gets to keep them 
B
2
RK/SA
R Kershaw 
12/06  Savings or efficiency gains to be stated in bids relating 
E2
Feb07
Closed
PA7
BPR activity.
& who manages what).
(lead)/A Hall
to the affordability model.  Cash savings to support variant bids have 
To be restated: Out of scope savings from BPRE are not captured by  Problems encountered in achieving BPR efficiencies and savings and lack of ability to 
been stated in tender prices
ongoing
ISiS and affordability model does not stack up
manage the required level and commitment to BPR across the organisation as a 
It is expected that the Price & Affordability Segment Evaluation team 
The supplier takes benefit from out-of-scope efficiency gains.
whole.
RK/SA
will have considered this and concluded accordingly within their report.  
Affordability model depends on 7-15% (check figures) BPR savings
This should be clarified by JPMT.
The savings achieved in out-of-scope areas are not fully realised as the supplier takes
CG
CG
JPMT comment Feb 07: This is a policy issue.BPRE was removed 
a share of the savings rather than returning these to the Constabulary.

from the Business Case.However ISiS Financial advisors advise that 
bids do include significant BPRE savings in o-o-s areas which should 
not be ignored.
Ensure that the contractual arrangements for out-of-scope benefits are 
clearly defined and that the costs of the supplier are fixed with benefit 
returning to the Constabulary.
July/August 07: update required
Jan 08 - Closed
PF6b
Project lacks any formal Exit/withdrawal strategy post-procurement
Potential financial impact
E
2
SB
SB
12/06 this may be highlighted from the Contract and Risk and 
Feb07
Closed
CR7
At the end of the contract term, the Constabulary does not wish to 
Uncertainty over what to do should the situation arise
Governance and Compliance evaluation panels
April/May 07
CR8
renew the Contract with the current private sector partner.
The process to exit the contract may cause considerable service disruption and 
CG
CG
Sufficient expert attention is given to this matter and contract terms are
CR9
Early term re-negotiation of contract (years 3-5)
financial loss.  The arrangements for ownership of assets do not benefit the 
agreed which address all aspects to suit the interests of the 
CR17
Cost and implication of contract termination is excessive.
Constabulary, requiring replacement or purchase at above market values.
Constabulary.
The Constabulary fails to ensure an adequate exit strategy from the 
The terms of the contract are not found to suit the interests of the Constabulary.  
D2
Ensure exit implications are properly considered within the Business 
JVCo.
There is a need to renegotiate the terms of the contract.  The Constabulary may not 
Case and addressed within the contract.
be in a strong negotiating position and relations with other partners could damaged.

The Constabulary exerts appropriate influence during the negotiations. 
The Constabulary finds that the JVCo is not appropriate to its needs, but the cost and 
Ensure appropriate agreement on exit is reached. 
impact of exiting from the arrangement precludes this course of action. 
E2
May 07: Exit strategy in course of preparation as part of commercial 
Due to the failure of the JVco to deliver the required benefits and the Constabulary 
negotiation.  Suggest risk is reduced in rating to E2
deciding that its best interests will be served by terminating its membership of the 
June-August 07:  this should be covered in contract/legal schedules - 
JVco, it is unable to do so without incurring significantly penalties. 
MSD0/MSD18 - being progressed in lock-ins.  Continue to monitor
end Sept 07
Jan 08: Transferred to Risk JC6
R6
risk links to Programme  Programme benefits/objectives agreed at the outset but support is not  Failure to realise the benefits.
C
3
JPB (RK)
RK 
09/06  Review Team comment:
Closed
CP1
workstream (business 
sustained 
Potential delay to delivery.
The risk assessment score is too low - suggest raising to C3 
Q8
case)
The underlying business need for undertaking the Programme is unclear or 
CG
CG
(Significant likelihood with Marginal impact)
misunderstood.
Although it is recognised that the key ISiS objectives and Key Results 
paper issued as part of ITN were based on the objectives stated in the 
April 07
Benefits Realisation model yet to be defined.
Involvement of relevant parties in the BR process from the outset.
OBC, there is no formal Benefits Realisation Plan as such. Bidders still 
need to see some form of clarification paper on what is expected from 
12/06 Failure to define BR model
12/06  If no benefits model defined by Councils at outset this will make it difficult to 
their bids (in hand) around benefits.
monitor performance of JVC in this regard
Also, there has been no Gateway or quality review recently, and there 
Readiness and capacity of Constabulary to accept 
The process re-engineering and transformation of in-scope services brought about by 
is a need to review the business case at some point.
change/transformation.
the JVCo will have a substantial impact on the whole of the Constabulary.  All staff wil
C3
12/06  all bids should contain proosals where benefits can be made 
have to accommodate new systems and ways of working.  Unless introduced with 
and produced via a benefits realisation plan - to be expanded with 
care, planning and training, many aspect of force performance could be adversely 

Preferred Bidder
affected.
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   A Business Case review is 
D3
needed.  This should comment on the status of the benefits specified 
and any benefits realisation plans that bidders might be proposing.  
Plans should be put in place to ensure that benefits are monitored in 
line with plans.
JPMT comment Feb 07: To be included within the Negotiation 
workstream.
Ensure proper Change Management practices are introduced.  
Communication and training needs are fully addressed. 
ongoing
May 07: Suggest risk rating is increased to C3.
June-August 07: Partly covered via legal schedules to the contract 
MSD3, MSD33, SPF2, SPF32.  Further update required
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
28 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
C5
Partner fails to deliver expected benefits within the contract
Contract not viable resulting in escalation procedures.
C
2
JS
JS
Review Team comment 14.02.07:  Subject to Evaluation selection and 
Feb07
Closed
PA2
Not selecting a robust partner
Price performance mechanism.
effective contract negotiations.  No specific actions at this point other 
The Constabulary fails to realise the financial and/or performance benefits expected.
CG
CG
than continued monitoring.
April/May 07
11/06  failure of evaluation process - too long, too complicated

JPMT comment Feb 07: This is about us failing to ensure the partner 
12/06  evaluation process fails to identify optimal bidder
delivers what we want.Build into negotiations.
A comprehensive due diligence is undertaken.  Robust contract terms 
provide an incentive to the supplier to maintain the required service 
levels.  A strong Intelligent Client function needs to be in place.
June-August 07:  Due Diligence reports produced and discussed - 
ongoing
delta price negotiated.  Continue to monitor - being discussed as part 
of negotiation discussions and lock ins
Jan 08: Transferred to Risk JO3
C7
Project fails due to an issue preventing closure eg LGR 
Issue arises with the partner previously un foreseen but which has serious impact.
C
2
RK/SA/CA 
Review Team comment 14.02.07:  No change.  Clarification meetings 
Closed
CR21
Contractual issue
and commercial discussions continue and issues have been identified. 
April 07
PT4a
12/06  failure to close or reach definitive agreement during commercial 
C1
CG
CG
Management of these issues will continue throughout the Preferred 
PT4b
negotiations, complicated by 4 parties agreement and their respective 

Bidder stage and form part of any “conditions” for successful closure.
GC3
political dimensions
JPMT comment Feb 07: Project will continue to pursue key issues right
PT4c
C2
up to the point of Preferred Bidder.Continue to monitor and manage.
National policy changes result in services and partnership being 
Affects the affordability & viability of the contract
Stakeholder management
amended by statute e.g. Social Services with Primary Care Trusts, 
4Ps advised that Revs & Bens should be out of scope in future strategic partnerships 
01/07  keep watching brief 
National Revenues and Benefits (including specifically Housing 
due to this impending change in HM Gov. policy on Revs. & Bens.
Benefits Reform programme launched in October 2002, Direct Grants  (Note: Comment refers to DO email 9.09.05)
to schools.
(Note: Refer to DO email 21.09.05 regards Schools Funding)
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   A key risk is around the 
Could have impact on potential bidder interest in a positive or negative way.
relationship between SCC and TDBC, and this should be managed 
Local Government Reorganisation is a potential policy change 
Should the Government announce its intentions for LGR this risk will need to be 
through the Stakeholder Engagement stream.However links should be 
formally assessed and may become a risk in its own right (see article from Western 
made with the LGR project to ensure that the delivery of ISiS is not 
Morning News 15.11.05 and front page of LGC 01.1205)
impacted by that project or that ISiS is included at the appropriate point
within any unitary structure.
LGR may result in the imposition of a freeze on any major new contracts, and there is 
JPMT comment Feb 07: There is a risk to the project from a “rival” 
a risk that this might coincide with the schedule for ISiS forming the contract with the 
submission.This risk should be monitored around timing and JPMT 
preferred bidder
asked that RK keep the group informed accordingly.
01/07 see also R4 re timetable becoming unsustainable
Could negatively affect TDBC business case with worst case scenario that TDBC 
01/07  R Sealy reports TDBC are awaiting the outcome to the Lyons 
Potential impact on Revenues & Benefits (TDBC) Service as a result of could withdraw from the partnership.
review of local govt funding.  The rumours are that nothing radical is be
any reorganisation brought in by central government
May 07: Liaison with DCLG suggests that whatever the outcome of LGR
this will not prevent closure.  Suggest risk rating is decreased to C2.
Sept/Oct 07
July 07:  LGR announcement that SCC unitary bid not successful.  
Continue risk and monitor - issues being discussed during lock-ins and 
negotiations with SROs
C10
risk links with 
Partner and/or sub contractors go out of business (in period between  Contractual issue
E
2
CA
CA
April 07: suggest risk is re-opened and remains separate to C7.  Due 
E3
01/10/2006
Closed
Operations/Service 
shortlisting and contract award)
RISK RE-
CG
CG
Diligence of Preferred Bidder and sub contractors still required
April/May 07
Readiness workstream
OPENED APRIL 
August 07:  Announcement that Mouchel Parkman have acquired HBS
07
Communicated to all staff.  Continue to monitor throughout contract 
negotiations
Sept 07
C10B
NEW RISK 03.09.07
Commitment of sub contractor post contract.  Risk raised as lack of 
IBM would have to find new sub contractor to deliver services which could result in dip
tba
tba
continue to monitor throughout negotiations and post contract.  
Ongoing
Closed
visibility of Mouchel Parkman pre contract
in service performance
Provisions for this eventuality should be made within content of 
NEW RISK
schedules to contract
L3
Judicial Review
Any challenge by a bidder via formal juducial review could halt the programme at a 
D
3
SA/RK
SH
Review Team comment 14.02.07:   The potential areas of risk or 
Closed
key point in the schedule, impacting on work with the preferred bidder and on internal 
challenge should be identified and an appropriate outline tactical plan o
resources to divert to addressing the review.  This could all delay the programme.  
C2
CG
CG
action developed in order that the authorities might mobilise rapidly 
Bidders have 13 weeks from the date of decision of Preferred Bidder within which to 

should a review or challenge occur.  This should include consideration 
Feb 07
make a claim (ie just prior to scheduled contract sign).
of resources.
D3
JPMT comment Feb 07: Veale Wasbrough will be asked to advise on 
April/May 07
(See additional note under PT4b re potential need to sign contract prior to Central 
“Alcatel” – SH to follow up with them.  23.03.07  Alcatel letters written 
Government final decision on unitary authority and freeze on signing large contracts)
to all who requested ISIS info pack Dec 05 re PB announcement.  
Need to write again within 10 days of contract close - MID JULY 
SEPTEMBER 07
April/May 07:  BT and Capita debriefing meetings arranged and 
completed.  Suggest risk is reduced to D3.
June-August 07: Continue to monitor.  No indication of JR received.  
ongoing
PMO getting advice on timing of sending Alcatel letters from Veale 
Wasbrough
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
29 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Q3
Failure to align service developments/improvements to other existing  Lack of Information Management Strategy and Information Asset register could affect 
E
3
RK/SA
CB/SA
01/07 Information and Knowledge management strategy not 
Closed
Org7
or potential strategies and objectives, Lack of policies/strategies 
the project in a number of ways:-
formalised - still relevant risk
Feb 07
GC5
including areas:-
-  Delivery of a single log of all relevant council services
CG 
CG
1.  Customer Access Strategy
-  Suppliers to be able to cost streamlining.
2.  Property Strategy
Lack of Customer Access Strategy outputs restricts the ability to define scope
April/May 07
3.  ICT Strategy
Detail of integrated customer access strategy
4.  Information Management Strategy
-  Prospective partners at point of procurement
5.  Other Council projects and efficiency improvements
-  Cross county future partners
6.  Corporate Planning and Strategic Planning driving the SSP, and the Any non-compliance on Priority Outcomes (PSOs) could affect the CPA inspection.  
LAA
The target for delivery of the PSOs will be pre-partner but there is potential for the 
7.  Other Central Government initiatives not included specifically in 
partner to deliver some of these, so do the authorities act now, in which case there is 
C3
plans (e.g. Priority Outcomes, GovConnect)
potential for wasted investment, or wait and risk non-compliance?

Failure to fully understand and integrate to the Customer Access 
We end up asking the partner to deliver the contract objectives until we know what we
Strategy and where they should reside
are transferring to them
E3
The Constabulary loses corporate governance and control over in-
The Constabulary must ensure that it retains ownership and/or control 
scope areas (e.g. property)
The JVCo is able to make decisions and exert influence over strategic matters that 
over those matters where delivery is critical to the objectives of the 
may not suit the needs of the Constabulary
organisation.
May 07: Authorities policies have now been issued; IBM see a need for 
harmonisation.  Reduce risk rating to C3
August 07:  SCC/TDBC/ASC policies forming legal schedule MSD22 
sent to IBM for review.  Continue to monitor but can reduce rating of 
end Sept 07
risk to E3 or close
PA3
The Constabulary does not receives an appropriate share of Where the benefit is obtained by the supplier in reducing the cost of delivering
D
3
CG
CG
Ensure that the pricing and contract arrangements entitle the 
Closed
CR18
savings made in the delivery of its services. Share of savings Constabulary services, these savings are then distributed to the partners as a
Constabulary to an appropriate share of the JVCo profit.
distributed and identifying where they are achieved so partner profit share, diluting the benefit that the Constabulary receives for its
Legal advice should be taken in how to protect the 
April/May 07
has fair proportion and there is no cross subsidy
contribution of services to the JVCo.
Constabulary's interests in this event.  Contingency measures 
The Constabulary carries a level of risk for Council services. A failure to deliver a high-risk Council service requires that the Constabulary
are drawn up.
bear a share of the financial penalty. 
May 07: This is currently subject to negotiation
Oct 07
August 07: likely to be resolved prior to contract sign.  Leave 
open
PA5
The scope of services that the Constabulary will take from the The savings achieved through involvement with the JVCo are diminished by
D
2
C2
CG
CG
Ensure that contract terms are in place that ensure fair pricing 
Closed
JVCo will evolve during the period of the contract. As a single having to pay higher than market rates for the provision of new services.
for contract enhancements and variations.
April/May 07
supplier of existing services, the JVCo may be able to exploit this

May 07: detailed negotiation on core services and transformation
position and charge high rates for new services.
D2
projects suggests that fair pricing will be achieved.  Reduce risk 
rating to D2
August 07: part of ongoing negotiation, part of legal schedules.  
Sept/Oct07
Continue to monitor
CR4
Insufficient allowance for asset and systems refresh
During the period of the contract there will be a need to refresh and replace
D
3
C3
CG
CG
Ensure this requirement is adequately documented with the 
Closed
many of the assets and systems used to deliver services. If the responsibility

service specifications and contract terms.
for this task is not unequivocally placed with the JVC, the Force may find itself
May 07: detailed negotiations on core services and 
April/May 07
with continuing liabilities which it had intended to divest.
D3
transfomration projects are including assets refresh.  Reduce 
risk rating to D3
end Sept 07
August 07: asset principles locked down by SROs.  Suggest risk 
is closed once MSD10 is closed
CR10
The private sector partner seeks to recover consequential costs When choosing to veto a proposal of the JVCo board in order to protect its
D
2
D3
CG
CG
Ensure that appropriate contractual protection is in place.
Closed
from members when they exercise their right of veto. 
organisational interests, the Constabulary finds itself liable for costs that the
April/May 07

JVCo incur (or savings it fails to make) as a consequence of not being able to
May 07: subject to current commercial negotiations.  Suggest 
pursue a course of action.
D2
raise of risk rating to D2
August 07: discussions ongoing with IBM/SROs on reserved 
end Sept 07
matters - will be resolved prior to contract signing
CR11
Some of the supplier's efficiency savings presume that they will Is this arrangement legal under the terms of the JVCo OJEU? If not, can all
D
4
CG
CG
Ensure legality of procurement arrangements.
Closed
supply equipment from their own supply channels without the required savings be delivered?
April/May 07
competing the procurement under local authority regulations.
May 07: subject to current commercial negotiations
August 07: ongoing discussions with IBM re procurement 
savings.  Standing Orders are a schedule to MSDC0 and 
ongoing
procurements should be according to Standing Orders.
CR16
The main supplier or its sub-contractors are sold or taken over The Constabulary may determine that the new owner is unacceptable to the
D
4
CG
CG
Ensure appropriate contractual safeguards.
Closed
April/May 07
CP6
during the term of the contract and is unacceptable to the organisation (e.g. foreign ownership raising security concerns). An untested
founding partners
supplier may not be able to deliver the level of service required.
August 07: being discussed in the context of reserved matters
ongoing
DQ14
Incidental
costs
of
service
transformation
fall
to
the Where the supplier receives benefit from transforming in-scope services, out-
C
4
CG
CG
Ensure that a process is established where the full costs of any 
Closed
Constabulary.
of-scope services may incur (possibly unforeseen) incidental costs that will not
JVCo initiated change are captured.  Determine who will be 
April/May 07
be absorbed by the JVCo (e.g. VoIP will require investment in ICCS
liable for these costs.
equipment).
August 07: should be covered in legal schedules.  Continue to 
monitor.  Who/where is this being picked up?  ASC to 
ongoing
investigate
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
30 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
Open
Last Formal Review 03.09.07   (updated 03.09.07)
Closed
Comme
Unknown how we will contract with external customers (£6m pa There will be no service in place for external customers post contract award;
D
2
C2 
CG
CG/SH
Authorities to clarify proposed contracting method and way of 
Closed
rc1
schools, £1m pa others)
without these revenues the commercial deal may be unworkable

operating these services going forward
04.05.07
May 07: subject to current detailed negotiation.  Suggest risk 
D2
rating is reduced to C2
August 07:  Traded Services Output Specification created as 
part of legal schedule MSD2 by Emma Kennedy/Shari 
Hallet/Matt Jones, subject to discussions and agreement with 
IBM.  Continue to monitor but could reduce rating of risk or close 
as actions are in hand
ongoing
Jan 08: Closed: Traded Services Output Spec in place
Comme risk added 04.05.07
Legal teams may slip into an adversarial way of working
May not make the 29th June 27th September signature date
C
2
C1 
CG
CG/SH
May 07:  current negotiations not unduly adversarial.  Suggest 
Closed
rc2

risk rating is reduced to C2
C2
July/August:  to move on negotiations 3 weeks of "lock-in" 
arrangements made for 20-22 Aug, 27-29 Aug, 3-7 September, 
together with personnel from Councils.  Continue to monitor but 
end Sept 07
suggest risk is reduced to D post lock in
Comme risk added 03.09.07
Authorities poorly represented during contractual negotiations, Should any Court action be taken post contract (ie Judicial Review) the Court
tba
tba
discussed at risk review 03.09.07.  SH has raised this issue with 
Closed
rc3
negotiations being driven by consultants or advisers
will want to look at the intent of the parties at the time of negotiation. If
SROs and SCC Monitoring Officer.  RK acknowledges concern 
Council Officers were not involved during negotiations the Authorities will be
and advises KPMG are seconded to SCC, acting on their behalf
at a disadvantage. Consultants and advisers will no longer be on hand and
ongoing
the Authorities will have no recourse.
                    1.
 = New items added  since  last Risk Review  GREEN  text has been added since last review
                    2.
This Register is based fundamentally on risks  pre-contract  award
                    3.
Cost analysis has not been included in the above record currently as there is no contingency budget available
4.
Risk Movement -  
   =  Risk downgraded
   =   Risk upgraded
  =   No change
Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
31 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
32 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
33 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
34 of 41
13:05

Pre contract Combined Risk Register for ISIS updated 070508
35 of 41
13:05


ISIS PROGRAMME
Programme Risk Movement
Assessment of Risk
@ 12.04.07
Risk No.
Apr-07
Likelihood
Impact
F1
B
2
2 B
F2
C
2
2 C
F3
 
F4
B
2
2 B
Risk No.
Assessment of Risk
Likelihood
Impact
PF1
#REF!
PF2a
C
3
3 C
PF2b
B
3
PF8
C
2
2 C
PF3a
C
3
3 C
PF3b
B
2
2 B
PF4
A
2
2 A
PF5
PF6a
E
2
2 E
PF6b
E
2
2 E
PF7
A
2
2 A
PF9
 
PF10
C
3
3 C
Risk No.
Assessment of Risk
Likelihood
Impact
R1
R2
D
2
2 D
R3
C
2
2 C
R4
C
2
2 C
R5
 
R6
D
3
3 D
R7
R8
C
2
2 C
R9
R11
D
3
3 D
R10
C
3
3 C
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
C1
C2
 
C3
C
2
2 C
C4
B
2
2 B
C5
C
2
2 C
C6
C7
C
1
1 C
C8
C9
C
3
3 C
C10
E
2
C11
C
3
3 C
C12
 
C13
 
C14
E
2
2 E
C15
C
2
2 C
C16
C
3
3 C
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
PT1
E
3
3 E
PT2
 
PT3
D
3
3 D
PT4a
 
PT4b
 
PT4c
PT5
PT6
D
2
2 D


PT7
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
Q1
#REF!
Q2
#REF!
Q3
#REF!
Q4
 
Q5
B
3
3 B
Q6
 
Q7
E
3
3 E
Q8
 
Q9
#REF!
Q10
C
3
3 C
Q11
#REF!
Risk
Assessment of Risk
 No.
Likelihood
Impact
L1
L2
D
3
3 D
L3
C
2
2 C
L3a
C
2
2 C
Risk
Assessment of Risk
 No.
Likelihood
Impact
Org1
C
3
3 C
Org2
C
2
2 C
Org3
A
1
1 A
Org4
B
3
3 B
Org5
C
1
1 C
Org6
C
2
2 C
Org7
B
2
2 B
Org8
B
3
3 B
Org9
 
1A
2
2A
2
3A
2
2A
2
2B
5
2C
12
3A
0
3B
3
PROGRAMME RISK MANAGEMENT MATRIX
ISiS Risk Movement
                             =              
Org 3           Prop7      
Police10
Comms1
A
Proc3                                 
1.2
14
Prop1   PF2b          Org8   Org4
                           F4     PF4    PF7     HR1   TR4  Ops9    Prop8    HR4
Proc4                                 
B
Ops4
                                 Police12
Police11
1
12
DQ12   
F2    C4
R4    C7
Commerc2
DQ14
C15   
Org6  
PF8  R8
       C11              Ops3   PF2a   
C3
Ops2   Org 5   HR2  Police1  TR1   
C
Org1   PF3a   P4   S2   S5   
L3a  R2
C5   
Prop2                              
10
DQ4   DQ7              R6     Org7  
HR3  Ops5  TR3   Proc5  Police7
y
0.8
Q5    Prop5     F1
Police13   PMO3   Police8
Police 4
Ops6
Proc6  C9
PMO1
Prop6
Police9
agor
8
S4   DQ8   
DQ10   
CP3   
PT6   
Police3
R11    PT3   L2   P7         PA3    
0.6
DQ5   CR11 
CR16
Ops1
_C16__________CR4
Ops7
R3
Police6
PF10   Q10   Proc1   Proc2   L3
Police2
isks by cat
D
PA5
PMO2
TR2
 R
6
PF3b
Commer
CR10
Prop3
. of
c1
o
N

0.4
4
       Q7   PT1
PF6a   C14   PF6b   C10   Org2
E
0.2
lihood  
2
e
k

Prop4
C14a
Li
F
0
0
= Current month 
4
3
2
 
1
1
= Previous month 
Catastrophic Impact
Impact
Critical Impact
Marginal Impact
Very High Likelihood
Very High Likelihood
Very High Likelihood
High Likelihood
High Likelihood
High Likelihood
NOTE: Police5, Ops8, C10B, Commerc3 have not been assessed yet
Significant 
Significant 
Low Likelihood
Very Low Likelihood


ISIS PROGRAMME
Programme Risk Movement
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
@ 5 April 06
@ May 06
@ June 06
@ July 06
@ August 06
@ September 06
@ October 06
@ November 06
@ December 06
@ January 07
@ February 07
April
May
June
July
August
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan-07
Feb-07
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
F1
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
F2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
F3
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
C
1
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
 
1 C
F4
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
Risk No.
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
PF1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PF2a
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
PF2b
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
PF8
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
PF3a
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
PF3b
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
PF4
B
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
 
2 B
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
PF5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PF6a
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
PF6b
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
PF7
E
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
 
2 E
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
PF9
 
 
 
 
 
PF10
C
3
C
3
3 C
3 C
Risk No.
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
R1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
R2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
R3
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
R4
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
R5
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
R6
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
R7
 
 
 
R8
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
R9
 
 
 
R11
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
R10
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
C1
 
 
 
 
 
C2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
C3
D
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 D
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
C4
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 B
 
2 B
C5
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 C
 
2 C
C6
 
 
 
C7
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
C
1
C
1
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
1 C
 
1 C
C8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C9
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
C10
 
 
 
 
 
C11
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
C12
A
2
A
2
 
 
 
 
 
2 A
2 A
C13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C14
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
E
2
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
 
2 E
C15
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 C
 
2 C
C16
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
PT1
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
PT2
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
PT3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
PT4a
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
PT4b
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
PT4c
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
PT5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PT6
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
PT7
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Risk No.
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
Q1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q4
D
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 D
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
Q5
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
Q6
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
A
2
D
2
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 A
 
2 D
Q7
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
E
3
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
 
3 E
Q8
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
Q9
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q10
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
 
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
Q11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
 No.
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
L1
 
 
 
L2
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
D
3
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
 
3 D
L3
C
2
C
2
 
C 2
2 C
2 C
 
 
 
Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
Assessment of Risk
 No.
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact
Likelihood
Impact Likelihood
Impact
Org1
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
C
3
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
 
3 C
Org2
D
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 D
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
Org3
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
1
A
1
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
1 B
 
1 A
Org4
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
Org5
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
D
2
C
1
C
1
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
2 D
 
1 C
 
1 C

Org6
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
C
2
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
 
2 C
Org7
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
Org8
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
B
3
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
 
3 B
Org9
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
B
2
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B
 
2 B


TOTALS
April
May
June
July
August
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan-07
Feb-07
1A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2A
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2B
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
2C
6
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
13
13
3A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3B
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
PROGRAMME RISK MANAGEMENT MATRIX
ISiS Risk Movement
Q6   PF7   PF4    C12
A
1
14
F1    F4                          C8         Q8   
PF3b   R11    PT5 Org4   Q5      Q10  
Q11    Org9     Q3  Org7    C4
Org 3
0.9
B
Org8
12
 R3         
0.8
PF4   R1
R4   C12
F2
          R10                C11      C16          
PF1  Org 1    PF2 a     PF3a   Q10   
10
C13    
Org5               L1          F3     C7    
0.7
C
Q3    Q8
PF10
PT7
ry
o

R1       R2  
0.6
R2   R5
R9   C2
8
R5
 catag
y

                        PF2b     R6   PT3    L2
   
0.5
D
C4   C5
C8    Q2
Q9
isks b
6
f R 0.4
. o
           PF6a                R7    C1            
o
4
C9    PT1     PT2    Q7
C6          C14                      Q9   PF6b
N
E
0.3
C10
ihood  
0.2 2
kel
Li

F
0.1 0
Feb-07
0
4
3
2
1
= Current month movement
Impact
Catastrophic Impact
= Previous month movement
Critical Impact
Marginal Impact
Very High Likelihood
Very High Likelihood
Very High Likelihood
High Likelihood
High Likelihood
High Likelihood
Significant Likelihood
Significant Likelihood
Low Likelihood
Very Low Likelihood


ISIS PROGRAMME
Corporate Standards for Risk Management
RISK MATRIX INDICATORS
RISK MANAGEMENT MATRIX
LIKELIHOOD
A
A
Very High
B
High
B
C
Significant
D
Low
C
E
Very low
F
Almost impossible
Shaded cells are below Risk Frontier
D
IMPACT
E
1
Catastrophic
ihood  
2
Critical
kel
Li

F
3
Marginal
4
Negligible
4
3
2
1
Impact

Document Outline