Blogs


How to assess risks at Field level of Master data tables

        In one of the earlier blogs, the purpose and process of developing master data tables were shared. This blog summarises key aspects to carry out risk assessment at the field level of master data tables as relevant for Design functions ie. (Design of Architect, Design of Interior, and Design of MEP)  Risk Assessment at - Field level of Master data tables Activities to assess risks at field level of Master data table level 1. Identify parameters that can influence “Field level” risks- w.r.t each Master data table Once Master data tables have been identified, HOD/functional team, in consultation with risk management or the Internal audit team, identifies a list of essential aspects that can facilitate the classification of “Field risks” as High or medium, or low. Some of the aspects are as below: ·       Purpose or ingredients of the field in business activity in which the intended “Field “is used. ·       Consequences of populating field inaccurately vis-à-vis project design or project Quality or project costs or statutory conformance This activity also necessitates the identification of Ingredients of Field that can influence the classification of risks in “Field” as High   or Medium or low are as below in case of i)              Field populated inaccurately  ii)             Fields accessed or amended unauthorizedly 2. Design a risk assessment template at the Field level vis-à-vis each Master Data Table 3. Software programming of risk template for Field level 4. Populate “Field” level risks vis-à-vis each Master data table 5. Affect Changes in above Few illustrations of risk classification at the field level of master data table levels:          Field Consequences if Ingredients of Field are inaccurate or unauthorizedly accessed & amended  Risk classification proposed at the Field level  Function: Design of Architect, Mater data table:  Drawings/specification master-Packages in Civil works Drawings & technical specifications for the scope of work, including for BOQ - Structure work’s packages Not meeting customer requirements and thus leading to adverse impact on sales volume due to non-robust design vis a vis below aspects.  i)Not meeting national building code standards or statutory specifications or ii) Compromise of safety or & iii)Compromise on Quality or & iv) Statutory/sanctioned or approved design or & drawing High Drawings & technical specifications - Civil Building work’s package As above High Drawings & technical specifications - Facade work’s package.  As above High Drawings & technical specifications - External development areas / Landscape /hardscape work package. As above High Drawings & technical specifications - Softscape work’s package     As above High And so on     Function:  Interior of buildings, Mater data table: Drawings/specification -master-Packages in Interior Design works  Drawings & technical specifications for the scope of work, including for BOQ -Finishing work’s/packages Not meeting customer requirements and thus leading to adverse impact on sales volume due to non-robust design vis a vis below aspects.  i)Not meeting national building code standards or statutory specifications or ii) Compromise of safety or & iii)Compromise on Quality or & iv) Statutory/sanctioned or approved design or & drawing High Drawings & technical specifications -Furnishing & Fixtures related packages As above High Drawings & technical specifications -Equipment packages, e.g. Gym, Bathroom, etc.  As above High Drawings & technical specifications -Artworks, Props, and other packages As above High And so on     Function: Design of MEP, Mater data table: Drawings/specification master-MEP Package  Drawings & technical specifications for the scope of work, including for BOQ -External Electrical work       Not meeting customer requirements and thus leading to adverse impact on sales volume due to non-robust design vis a vis below aspects.  i)Not meeting national building code standards or statutory specifications or ii) Compromise of safety or & iii)Compromise on Quality or & iv) Statutory/sanctioned or approved design or & drawing High Drawings & technical specifications -Internal Electrical work        As above High Drawings & technical specifications -Airconditioning or &VRV or & Heating work  As above High And so on       Activities that can adversely impact business ·       Inappropriate levels/positions of team members of “3 Design functions”  with  consequent inadequate skills for comprehending field-level risks of Master Data Tables ·        Inappropriate software development and workflow of risk templates making risk capturing of field level risks at master data table cumbersome and inefficient ·       Inadequate understanding and hence inappropriate capturing of the consequence of Incorrect accessing and use of Master data tables in “3 Design functions” *       ·       Inaccurate classification of Risk level High, Medium, or Low by team members of “3 Design functions” * ·       Non-periodic/non-timely review of previously populated risk template to incorporate changes in Master data tables level risks and so on *       Handbook of the author  A template illustrating risk classification, as High, Medium, or Low at the field level of Master data table level is included in chapter 10 (annex 16D) in the handbook of the author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “          


Risk assessments- At Field's level of configuration Tables

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                In one of the earlier blogs, the purpose and process of developing configuration tables were shared.This blog summarises key aspects to carry out risk assessment at the field choice level of the configuration table as relevant for Design functions. 2.1 Risk Assessment at - Field Choice level of configuration tables- Illustration of risks templates 1. Identify parameters that can influence “Configuration Table level” RisksOnce configuration table requirements /conceptualization has been done, the HOD/design functional team Identifies the consequences of incorrect accessing and use of specific /identified Configuration table vis-à-vis:·       Adverse impact on Package specifications or Project package design ·       Adverse impact on BOQ quality or construction quality ·        Adverse impact on Statutory conformance ·       Adverse impact on Project costs 2. Design a Risk assessment template at the field choice level of the configuration table level 3. Software Programming of the Risk Assessment template 4. Populate field choice level of the configuration table level risks in the template Function Field “Choices” vis a vis each field Code for field choice Parameters influencing risk classification Risk classification at the Field Choice level Design of Architecture Structure A01 Incorrect designing of Architecture of unit, area, or building Medium Civil works A02 Medium Façade A03 Medium External development A04 Medium Softscape A05 Medium And so on, other choices in this field xx XXXX Interior Designing Finishing B01 Incorrect designing of the Interior of the unit, area, or building Medium Furnishing & Fixtures B02 Medium Interior design equipment B03 Medium Artworks etc. B04 Medium And so on, other choices in this field BXX XXXX Design of MEP External electricals C01 Incorrect designing of MEP of the unit, area, or building   Incorrect designing of any other package relevant to the unit, area, or building Medium Internal electricals, C02 Medium Air conditioning C03 Medium Plumbing C04 Medium Fire fighting C05 Medium fire protection C06 Medium And so on, other choices in this Field CXX XXXX  A similar assessment is to be carried out for other Fields. 2.2 Activities that can adversely impact business ·       Inappropriate levels/positions of “Design functions” team members with consequent inadequate skills for comprehending Configuration tables level risks. ·       Inappropriate software development and risk template workflow make Risk capturing at the configuration table's field level cumbersome and inefficient.·       Inadequate understanding and hence inappropriate capturing of Consequence of Incorrect accessing and use of configuration tables in “Design functions” *      ·       Inaccurate classification of Risk at “Field choice level” of configuration table (High, Medium, or Low) by functional team member *·       Non-periodic/non-timely review of previously populated risk template to incorporate changes in Configuration tables level risks and so on *  Handbook of the author  A template illustrating risk classification as High, Medium, or Low at the field choice level of the Configuration table-level is included in chapter 10 (annex 15D) in the handbook of the author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services. “    


How to develop a Quantification model to determine Risk Scores in design activities

 List of activities performed by Architects, interior & MEP designers Below is a list of 225 activities usually performed by designers (for a typical mid-size construction project) during various design development stages. Architects: 118 design activities identified (For the design of the structure=7, building architect=65, Façade=22, external development=12, and softscape=12)Interior designers: 37 design activities identified (For the Design of finishing works, fixtures & equipment, and artwork)MEP designers: 70 design activities identified (For External &internal electricals=32 and Airconditioning using VRV and basement ventilation=38)A brief narration of these 225(118+37+70) design activities can be seen in annex 21A(2),21A(3 )&21A(4) respectively at the website https://www.ethicalprocesses.com  The number of activities can be more or less than 225 at the discretion of designers/organisation, depending on the type of organisation structure, project size, number of design packages and software used, etc.How to determine risksThe ultimate objective of risk assessment in design functions is to prevent risk occurrences by initiating countermeasures for preventing risks.The activities to assess risks include i. Designate Risks Assessment team (CFT-Cross-functional team)ii. Identify aspects that can contribute to core activity level risk iii. Design a risk assessment template for the core activity level iv. Software programming of risk templates.  v. Populate the “Risks” template by the design functions in consultation with CFT  Proposed Quantification Model for risk assessment - The template for quantifications is to be populated by assessing the Impact on the following in case design activities are performed incorrectly or without due diligence The Impact is to be ascertained on the following scales.  i)           Severity of Impact in case of risk occurrence (10-point scale)ii)         Detectability stage of risk being found out (10-point scale)iii)        Occurrence -likelihood of risk occurrence (10-point scale) The severity score: Determined based on 10 a point scale based on impact /adverse implications on aspects as below: i)Severity - adverse Impact on:a) Profitabilityb) Statutory compliancec) The strategic value of the company/company image affects customer retention d)Financial statement accuracy e) Reliability/effectiveness of design process being assessed Assigning scores ·                1 being the lowest adverse Impact on business. ·                10 being the highest adverse Impact on businessii)The detectability score: Determined based on a 10-point scale based on the detectability of adverse Impact at which stage as below: Detectability stage (any 1 of 5 stages)a) At the very 1st stage i.e. by the designer himself/herself while initiating or creating Design  b) At the design review /peer review or approval stage within the design function or outsourced consultant vetting design  c) At subsequent process/intermediate stage e.g construction stage of building  d) At the corporate (or in-house audit by the Project head) stage within the organization e) At the customer end after the handover of the building area (outside the organization)  Assigning scores ·                1 being the lowest adverse Impact on business (eg. Detection at Stage (a) above·                10 being the highest adverse Impact on business (eg. Detection at stage (e) above iii) Occurrence /likelihood score: Determined based on a 10-point scale based on design activity going wrong considering below cumulative factors: Assigning scores ·       1 being very low i.e.least number of causes from the below list ·       10 being extremely high i.e. large number of causes from the below list  a) Skill level of the designer performing an activityb) Segregation of duty for activities/role confusion c)Completeness of execution of design activity d)Validation at each stage of the design activity d)Correctness of source data (e.g. customer requirements, Quality standards, statutory requirements) e) Adequacy of internal controls f) Robustness of systems and updated SOPg) Authorisation norms for design activities creation, editing, deleting, viewing, and approvalh) Designing Process Logic correctness/accuracy of design assumptions  i) Other aspects: the complexity of business, change management, ethicsDetermining Risk score  For this Impact, the exposure matrix is to be developed based on the score to be computed as per the methodology below:·       Determining Impact score on a 100 Point scale (based on multiplication of score at (i) &(ii) above as per activity ·       Determining Exposure score on a 10 Point scale (based on the score at (iii) above as per activity In case, according to the design team, any of the activities marked as a), b), c) and so on onwards in point i), ii), iii) in the templates, that influence the score -determination are not relevant/not applicable, the same need not be considered for scoring. Illustration Template for one Key Core Process:  The below illustration is based on design activities performed for one package i.e. “Designing of building structure” but exactly 100% of the same template/model can be adopted for assessing risks vis a vis any package in Design of architecture or Interior design or MEP design. Activity vis a vis Core Process In “Designing of structure “   Impact score Out of 100 Exposure scores out of 10 Risk Classification Level Developing Concept designs and schemes (Based on design calculations of PCC/Reinforcements requirements based on a factor of safety/Earthquake zone etc.) and using software like STADD or ETAB. Say above 75 Say above 8 High Vetting of Design by proof consultant Say above 75 Say above 8 High Developing GFC and specifications for various structural elements like capturing TMT bar sizes, RMC, etc. for various structural elements  say 50 to 74 Say 5 to 8 Medium Preparing Tender (covering Tender drawings and specifications, technical specifications, Material brands, Quality standards, and so on)  say 50 to 74 Say 5 to 8 Medium Issuing Structural stability certificate Say above 75 Say above 8 High Making Cost estimates for structure Say above 75 Say above 8 High Issuing “As-built drawings” after the structure is complete and approved. Say 1-49 Say 1-4 low And so on in case of more number of design activities         The impact scores or exposure scores indicated in the above template are hypothetical and just for the reader’s understanding only. The scores may vary considerably as per the actual situation at the designer end based on the type of construction project, design software, and organisation.   Way-forward to Minimize the Risks Score  ·       Engaging professionally qualified designers ·       Ensuring design activities incorporate national &international quality standards·       Reviewing design activities from health & safety perspectives before approving ·       Ensuring transparency (amongst designers) of design calculations ·       Applying good design practices ·       Using licensed software·       Building internal controls to prevent giving and taking bribes·       Developing the following SOP·       Developing profiles at the granularity levels ·       Attaching profiles diligently ·       Implementing S-O-D (Segregation of duties) concepts while assigning roles ·       Assigning roles judiciously based on competency ·       Encouraging self-audit by designers·       Continuous competency enhancement of designers at each level·       Introducing performance measures through KPI       Handbook of the author   A template illustrating risk classification, as High, Medium, or Low at the core activity level is included in chapter 10 (annex 13E) in the handbook of the author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “               


Risk assessments: - At the organization level- Design Functions- Design of Architect, Interior designing, and Design of MEP

   Activities for Risk assessment The ultimate objective of risk assessment in design functions is to identify such risk occurrences, analyse these, and initiate countermeasures for preventing risks.The activities include i. Designate Risks Assessment team (CFT-Cross-functional team)ii. Identify aspects that can contribute to organization-level risk mentioned iii. Design risk assessment templates for the organization-level risk. iv. Software programming of risk templates.  v. Populating the “organization level Risks” template by the design functions in consultation with CFT 1.1 Organisation-level risks – Developing risk assessment templates  The design of the risk template ought to be comprehensive and should capture the following in a document. i)Risk statements developed by each Head of Department-HOD of the design functions i. e. Chief Architect or & Chief Interior designer or & Chief MEP engineer as applicable vis a vis the aspects such as:·       End customer’s changing needs  ·       Competitor’s offerings ·       Statutory policies·       Changes in economic, political, and social environments·       IT (Hardware, software, network) outages impacting design delivery, etc. ii) Thereafter, each risk statement is to be analyzed to capture the likely adverse impact of each risk on the organization  iii) After analysis of impact, HODs need to capture (in the same template) countermeasures, Timelines for implementation & responsibility for implementing countermeasures. This may require dialoguing/interfacing with HOD of other functions like sales, projects, purchases, and contracts, Finance & legal, IT, etc. iv) Top management comments on risk impact and countermeasures identified in the template. iii)Accordingly, categorizing the risk as High or medium, or low  1.2 Activities that can adversely impact business§  Inappropriate levels /positions of CFT members vis-à-vis “Design functions” and consequent inadequate skills for comprehending organization risks    §  Inadequate participation by a nominated member of “Design functions”             in deliberation meetings of CFT for identifying organization risks. §  Inappropriate software development and workflow of “organization level risks” template (standard for all functions) making risk capturing cumbersome and inefficient  §  Non-comprehensive review by CFT of all aspects vis-à-vis “Design functions -” that can contribute to Organisation risks in the Risk template resulting in inaccurate/non-comprehensive capturing of the following: * §  Risk statements §  Risk Analysis and implications·       Inaccurate classification by CFT of risk at the organization level (High, Medium, or Low) vis-à-vis “Design functions” due to improper risk analysis and implications *·       Inadequate time commitment by top management to review Risk template developed by CFT vis-à-vis “Design functions” and hence non-comprehensive or not accurate capturing of countermeasures *·       Non-periodic/non-timely review of previously populated risk template in “Design functions to incorporate changes in business environments like customer demands, statutory changes, economy changes, and so on *The above-listed activities, that are marked* reflect activities that can have adverse statutory implications.  Handbook of the author  You can read more about the 35 activities that can adversely impact business in Chapter 1 of my handbook ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “   Handbook of the author   A template illustrating an approach for classifying risks as High, Medium, or Low at the organization level is included in chapter 10 (annex 13C) in the handbook of the author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “