[TOC]
Standard Risks
This purpose of this page is to provide a menu of risks that me be relevant to your project. The structure is less important than the content in helping provide insight into risks.
Instructions for Use
- This risk register contains common risks encountered in GitLab Professional Services engagements
- For each project, review all applicable categories and identify relevant risks
- Copy relevant risks to your project risk register and customize as needed
Risk Rating Matrix
The levels provided below and subsequent risk score calculation help to visualize severity of risks.
Impact Levels
- Critical (5): Major project failure, contractual breach, significant financial/reputational damage
- High (4): Serious delay to critical path, major scope compromise, significant cost overrun
- Medium (3): Moderate delay, noticeable impact to deliverables, budget impact
- Low (2): Minor delay, small adjustments to scope, minimal budget impact
- Negligible (1): Barely noticeable impact to timeline, scope, or budget
Probability Levels
- Very Likely (5): 80-100% chance of occurrence
- Likely (4): 60-80% chance of occurrence
- Possible (3): 40-60% chance of occurrence
- Unlikely (2): 20-40% chance of occurrence
- Rare (1): 0-20% chance of occurrence
Risk Score Calculation
- Risk Score = Impact × Probability
- High Risk: 15-25
- Medium Risk: 8-14
- Low Risk: 1-7
1. Product-Specific Risks
1.1 GitLab Migration Projects
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIG-001 | Source system data quality issues causing migration failures | 4 | 4 | • Conduct thorough data assessment before migration • Implement data cleansing procedures • Run test migrations with representative data samples |
| MIG-002 | Complex custom workflows in source system requiring special handling | 4 | 3 | • Early discovery of custom workflows • Develop custom migration scripts for edge cases • Document required workflow changes |
| MIG-003 | Incomplete or inaccurate mapping between source and target systems | 5 | 3 | • Involve SMEs from both systems in mapping • Validate mapping with stakeholders • Iterative approach to refine mapping |
| MIG-004 | Data volume exceeds expected migration window | 4 | 3 | • Accurate sizing assessment • Implement migration in batches • Test with representative volume |
| MIG-005 | Integration dependencies with other systems not identified | 4 | 3 | • Comprehensive system integration discovery • Map all integrations and APIs • Develop integration test plan |
| MIG-006 | Source system API limitations or rate limiting impacting migration | 3 | 4 | • Early API testing • Request temporary rate limit increases • Design migration to work within limitations |
| MIG-007 | Inadequate downtime window for cutover | 5 | 3 | • Accurate estimation of cutover time • Practice runs to validate timing • Phased approach if possible |
| MIG-008 | Historical data loss or corruption during migration | 5 | 2 | • Complete backup before migration • Validation scripts to verify data integrity • Rollback capability |
| MIG-009 | User acceptance issues with workflow changes | 3 | 4 | • Early user involvement • Change management program • Training on new workflows |
| MIG-010 | Security or compliance requirements not met in target system | 5 | 2 | • Early security/compliance assessment • Involve security team in planning • Formal sign-off on compliance requirements |
| MIG-011 | POC phase reveals unexpected environment-specific challenges | 4 | 4 | • Set clear expectations about POC purpose • Buffer time in schedule for issue resolution • Document and prioritize findings for resolution |
1.2 GitLab Geo Implementation
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GEO-001 | Network bandwidth limitations between sites affecting replication | 4 | 4 | • Network assessment before implementation • Bandwidth optimization strategies • Initial seeding via physical media if necessary |
| GEO-002 | Complex firewall rules or network configurations blocking replication | 4 | 3 | • Early involvement of network team • Documented network requirements • Test environment to validate configurations |
| GEO-003 | Storage capacity underestimated for repository data | 3 | 3 | • Accurate sizing assessment • Growth projections • Storage monitoring and alerts |
| GEO-004 | Database replication lag impacting failover capabilities | 4 | 3 | • Performance testing under load • Monitoring for replication lag • Optimize database configuration |
| GEO-005 | Failover procedures not adequately tested | 5 | 3 | • Comprehensive failover testing plan • Regular scheduled testing • Documented recovery procedures |
| GEO-006 | Custom modifications to GitLab affecting Geo functionality | 4 | 2 | • Inventory of customizations • Test each modification with Geo • Remediation plan for incompatibilities |
| GEO-007 | SSL certificate management issues across sites | 3 | 3 | • Centralized certificate management • Automation for certificate renewal • Monitoring for certificate expiration |
| GEO-008 | User authentication/authorization inconsistencies between sites | 4 | 2 | • Unified authentication strategy • Test user access scenarios • Monitoring for permission drift |
| GEO-009 | Inadequate monitoring and alerting for Geo health | 3 | 3 | • Comprehensive monitoring strategy • Alert thresholds and escalation paths • Dashboard for Geo health |
| GEO-010 | Disaster recovery procedures not aligned with business requirements | 5 | 3 | • Document RPO/RTO requirements • Test recovery scenarios • Validate against business requirements |
1.3 GitLab Upgrade Projects
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPG-001 | Custom code or integrations incompatible with target version | 4 | 4 | • Inventory of customizations • Review release notes for breaking changes • Test in staging environment |
| UPG-002 | Database schema migration failures during upgrade | 5 | 3 | • Database health check before upgrade • Full backup before proceeding • Test migrations in staging |
| UPG-003 | Performance degradation after upgrade | 4 | 3 | • Baseline performance metrics • Performance testing in staging • Resource scaling plan if needed |
| UPG-004 | Inadequate rollback plan if upgrade fails | 5 | 3 | • Comprehensive rollback procedure • Full backup strategy • Test rollback in staging |
| UPG-005 | Skipping multiple versions leading to complex upgrade path | 4 | 3 | • Review recommended upgrade path • Consider incremental upgrades • Extended testing for large version jumps |
| UPG-006 | CI/CD pipeline incompatibilities with new version | 4 | 3 | • Inventory of all pipeline configurations • Test representative pipelines • Update pipeline syntax proactively |
| UPG-007 | User interface changes impacting user productivity | 3 | 4 | • Document UI changes • User training plan • Provide quick reference guides |
| UPG-008 | Exceeded downtime window during upgrade | 4 | 3 | • Accurate timing estimation • Practice runs in staging • Optimize upgrade steps |
| UPG-009 | Infrastructure requirements changed for new version | 3 | 3 | • Review resource requirements • Capacity planning • Infrastructure upgrades in advance |
| UPG-010 | Security features or settings reset during upgrade | 4 | 2 | • Document security configurations • Validation plan post-upgrade • Security compliance check |
1.4 CI/CD Pipeline Implementation
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CICD-001 | Build environments not matching production environments | 4 | 4 | • Container-based build strategy • Environment parity validation • Infrastructure as code approach |
| CICD-002 | Pipeline performance issues with large repositories/projects | 3 | 4 | • Pipeline optimization review • Caching strategies • Runner capacity planning |
| CICD-003 | Sensitive credentials exposed in pipeline configurations | 5 | 3 | • Secrets management strategy • Security scanning for credentials • Use of CI/CD variables and masked values |
| CICD-004 | Lack of standardization across team pipelines | 3 | 4 | • Pipeline templates • Documentation standards • Pipeline linting/validation |
| CICD-005 | Complex deployment requirements not supported by standard jobs | 4 | 3 | • Early discovery of requirements • Custom deployment scripts • Testing of complex scenarios |
| CICD-006 | Integration with external tools/systems failing | 3 | 3 | • Integration testing strategy • Fallback procedures • Monitoring of integrations |
| CICD-007 | Pipeline changes breaking existing workflows | 4 | 3 | • Change management process • Parallel pipelines during transition • Rollback capability |
| CICD-008 | Inadequate test coverage in automated pipelines | 4 | 3 | • Test coverage metrics • Incremental improvement plan • Critical path testing priorities |
| CICD-009 | Resource constraints for CI/CD runners | 3 | 4 | • Runner capacity planning • Autoscaling configuration • Resource monitoring and alerts |
| CICD-010 | Compliance requirements not met in pipeline processes | 5 | 2 | • Compliance requirements documentation • Audit trail implementation • Compliance validation steps |
1.5 GitLab Implementation/Onboarding
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-001 | User adoption resistance due to workflow changes | 4 | 4 | • Change management program • Champions network • Phased approach with quick wins |
| IMP-002 | Project structure not aligned with organizational needs | 4 | 3 | • Requirements workshops • Prototyping and feedback • Flexibility for organizational changes |
| IMP-003 | Authentication/authorization strategy complexity | 4 | 3 | • Early planning with security team • Phased implementation • Testing with representative users |
| IMP-004 | Incomplete requirements for integrations with existing tools | 4 | 3 | • Integration discovery workshops • Prioritization of integrations • API compatibility assessment |
| IMP-005 | Performance issues with large-scale implementation | 4 | 3 | • Sizing assessment • Performance testing • Scalability planning |
| IMP-006 | Data migration scope creep from legacy systems | 3 | 4 | • Clear migration scope definition • Decision matrix for migration items • Phased migration approach |
| IMP-007 | Training program inadequate for user needs | 3 | 3 | • Training needs assessment • Role-based training materials • Ongoing learning resources |
| IMP-008 | Security or compliance requirements not identified | 5 | 2 | • Security/compliance workshops • Documentation of requirements • Validation testing |
| IMP-009 | Governance model not established for long-term management | 3 | 4 | • Governance framework development • Roles and responsibilities definition • Documentation of processes |
| IMP-010 | Incomplete visibility of total cost of ownership | 3 | 3 | • TCO analysis • Resource requirements documentation • Ongoing maintenance planning |
2. General Project Risks
2.1 Resource and Staffing Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RES-001 | Key team member unavailability (illness, resignation) | 4 | 3 | • Cross-training team members • Documentation of key knowledge • Backup resources identified |
| RES-002 | Resource allocation conflicts with other projects | 3 | 4 | • Resource management in Kantata • Early escalation of conflicts • Buffer in resource planning |
| RES-003 | Skill gaps in project team for specific requirements | 3 | 3 | • Skills assessment early in project • Training plan for gaps • External resources if needed |
| RES-004 | Customer resource availability lower than expected | 4 | 4 | • Clear RACI chart • Escalation to sponsors • Adjusted timeline based on availability |
| RES-005 | Multiple project dependencies on scarce specialist resources | 4 | 3 | • Resource capacity planning • Task sequencing to optimize resources • Knowledge transfer plan |
2.2 Schedule and Timeline Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCH-001 | Optimistic estimation of task durations | 3 | 4 | • Historical data review • Buffer in critical path • Regular reassessment of estimates |
| SCH-002 | Dependencies on external systems/teams not in project control | 4 | 4 | • Identify all external dependencies • Buffer for external delays • Early engagement with external teams |
| SCH-003 | Scope creep extending timeline | 4 | 4 | • Clear scope definition • Change control process • Regular scope reviews |
| SCH-004 | Approval and decision delays | 3 | 4 | • Decision framework established • Escalation path for delayed decisions • Regular stakeholder meetings |
| SCH-005 | Inadequate time allocated for testing and validation | 4 | 3 | • Test planning early in project • Time buffers for defect remediation • Risk-based testing approach |
2.3 Technical and Implementation Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TECH-001 | Infrastructure provisioning delays | 3 | 4 | • Early infrastructure requirements • Infrastructure as code • Regular status checks |
| TECH-002 | Security or compliance requirements changing mid-project | 4 | 3 | • Early security/compliance involvement • Regular reviews • Change impact assessment |
| TECH-003 | Performance issues in production environment | 4 | 3 | • Performance testing strategy • Scalability planning • Monitoring implementation |
| TECH-004 | Integration complexity underestimated | 4 | 3 | • Technical spike for complex integrations • Proof of concept for high-risk areas • Early integration testing |
| TECH-005 | Technical debt accumulated due to tight deadlines | 3 | 4 | • Definition of done including quality • Technical debt tracking • Refactoring plan |
2.4 Customer and Stakeholder Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-001 | Stakeholder expectations misaligned with project scope | 4 | 4 | • Stakeholder management plan • Regular expectation setting • Clear documentation of scope |
| STK-002 | Key stakeholder changes during project | 3 | 3 | • Stakeholder onboarding process • Documentation of key decisions • Regular project status updates |
| STK-003 | User resistance to new processes or tools | 4 | 3 | • Change management plan • User involvement in design • Training and support strategy |
| STK-004 | Stakeholder communication breakdowns | 3 | 3 | • Communication plan • Regular touch points • Multiple communication channels |
| STK-005 | Executive sponsor disengagement | 4 | 2 | • Regular executive updates • Clear escalation path • Value demonstration throughout project |
2.5 Commercial and Contractual Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COM-001 | Scope interpretation differences between teams | 4 | 3 | • Detailed SOW with clear deliverables • Acceptance criteria for deliverables • Regular scope reviews |
| COM-002 | Change requests without proper cost/timeline adjustments | 4 | 4 | • Formal change control process • Impact assessment for all changes • No work without approved changes |
| COM-003 | Work exceeding allocated budget | 4 | 3 | • Regular budget tracking • Early warning indicators • Proactive scope management |
| COM-004 | Delayed payment affecting project resources | 3 | 2 | • Clear payment milestones • Regular financial reporting • Escalation path for payment issues |
| COM-005 | Contractual deliverables acceptance criteria unclear | 4 | 3 | • Detailed acceptance criteria in SOW • Sample deliverables where possible • Progressive deliverable review |
2.6 Organizational and Environmental Risks
| Risk ID | Risk Description | Impact | Probability | Common Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORG-001 | Organizational restructuring affecting project | 4 | 3 | • Sponsor commitment during changes • Regular reassessment of impacts • Flexible project approach |
| ORG-002 | Competing priorities within customer organization | 3 | 4 | • Executive alignment on priorities • Regular priority reviews • Escalation process for conflicts |
| ORG-003 | IT policy or governance changes affecting implementation | 3 | 3 | • Early IT governance involvement • Regular compliance checks • Flexibility in implementation approach |
| ORG-004 | Working environment challenges (remote work, different time zones) | 2 | 4 | • Collaboration tools strategy • Clear working agreements • Overlap hours for key meetings |
| ORG-005 | External factors (market changes, acquisitions, regulations) | 4 | 2 | • Regular business context reviews • Flexible project approach • Business impact assessments |
POC Migration Strategy and Expectations
Purpose of the POC Phase
The Proof of Concept (POC) migration phase is a critical discovery period designed to:
- Validate the migration approach in the customer's specific environment
- Identify unique technical challenges before full-scale migration
- Test customized migration scripts with representative data
- Establish baseline metrics for planning larger migration waves
Setting Proper Customer Expectations
When communicating about the POC phase with customers, emphasize these key points:
-
Exploratory Nature: The POC is intentionally designed to uncover issues early when they're easier and less costly to address. Issues found during POC should be viewed as valuable discoveries rather than failures.
-
Custom Solutions: Each migration requires engineering teams to build customer-specific solutions based on unique requirements and environments. This customization process may require multiple iterations.
-
Anticipated Challenges: During the POC migration phase, engineering teams must build customized solutions based on each customer's unique project requirements and environment. While we anticipate encountering customer-specific challenges, the variable nature of these issues may lead to unexpected complexities that could potentially delay the migration start date.
-
Timeline Flexibility: The POC is a test and isn't always intended to be smooth. We want to see what issues may arise so we can be proactive in resolving them before moving into the migration waves. Schedule buffer should be incorporated after the POC phase.