Vol. 53 No. 4 (2025): Published December 30, 2025
DOI https://doi.org/10.18799/26584956/2025/4/2022
Analysis of universal risks in IT projects
The study conducted shows that during the creation of IT products, about 105 universal risks can materialize. It was found out as well that one of the criteria for the maturity of an IT entity in terms of creating high-quality IT products as part of the implementation of IT projects is the presence of effective and efficient preventive measures against these risks. The aim of the research was to analyze 105 universal risks that arise during the creation of IT products within the framework of sprints, phases of the life cycle of IT projects and (or) contracts. The methodological basis of the study was the theory of risk management and IT projects. The analysis of universal risks was carried out using the 5W, SWIFT and Harrington coefficients methods. The results of the analysis showed that the IT entity must, in advance, before concluding a contract, conduct an express assessment of universal risks and preventively affect them, including by formalizing in the text of the contract actions and (or) inactions that stakeholders must perform to eliminating the most dangerous risks. Schemes of cause-and-effect relationships of universal compliance and project risks were also created, which made it possible to identify the most common and most dangerous risk events. The created schemes allowed us to identify a negative scenario that demonstrated the worst-case option during the implementation of IT projects. This scenario allows IT entities to develop measures for «decent» risk-taking in advance, preventing the most drastic outcome.
Keywords:
project management, IT-product, IT project, IT-subject, risk, universal risk, project risk
References:
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Николаенко В.С. Негативные и позитивные риски в ИТ-проектах // Вестник московского университета. Серия 21: Управление (государство и общество). – 2018. – № 3. – С. 91-124.
2. Paladino B., Cuy L., Frigo M. Missed opportunities in performance and enterprise risk management // Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance. – 2009. – no. 20 (3). – pp. 43–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.20483
3. Nikolaenko V., Sidorov A. Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks // Journal of Risk and Financial Management. – 2023. – vol. 16. – issue 1. – article number 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010033 EDN: UOEIOH
4. Wijayanti D., Sukwika T., Ramli S. Analisis Insiden Fatality Akibat Covid-19 Menggunakan Metode 5 Why, SCAT, BowTie, dan Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) // Jurnal Migasian. – 2022. – no. 6 (1). – pp. 84–92.
5. Ефимов В.В. Сборник методов поиска новых идей и решений управления качеством. – Ульяновск: УлГТУ, 2011. – 194 с.
6. Sahu R., Choudhari B. R., Yadav S. Usages of six sigma in library services // Conference: Library as a Medium of Communication. – 2022. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364011786_Usages_of_six_sigma_in_library_services (дата обращения: 14.04.2025)
7. Card A., Ward J., Clarkson P. Beyond FMEA: The structured what-if technique (SWIFT) // Journal of Healthcare Risk Management. – 2012, – vol. 31. – issue 4. – pp. 23–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.20101
8. Petroșanu D., Pirjan A., Căruţaşu G., Tăbușcă A., Zirra D., Perju-Mitran A. E-commerce sales revenues forecasting by means of dynamically designing, developing and validating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) network for deep learning // Electronics. – 2022. – vol. 11. – issue 18. – article number 2940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11182940
9. Martínez P., Pérez I., Sánchez M., García. M., Pardo N. Wind speed analysis of hurricane sandy // Atmosphere. – 2021. – vol. 12. – issue 11. – article number 1480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111480
10. Николаенко В.С. Превентивный риск-менеджмент в ИТ-проектах // Государственное управление. Электронный вестник. – 2016. – № 55. – С. 76-96.
11. Миронов В. Профессия «бизнес-аналитик». – М.: Олимп-Бизнес, 2022. – 238 с.
12. Mazur K., Saleh M., Hornung M. Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in Conceptual Aircraft Design: A Comparative Tool Analysis // Aerospace. – 2024. – vol. 11. – issue 1. – article number 101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11010101
13. Filippov A., Romanov A., Skalkin A., Stroeva J., Yarushkina N. Approach to Formalizing Software Projects for Solving Design Automation and Project Management Tasks // Software. – 2023. – vol. 2. – issue 1. – pp. 133-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software2010006
14. Kiemel S., Rietdorf C., Schutzbach M., Miehe R. How to Simplify Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Applications – A Comprehensive Review // Sustainability. – 2022. – vol. 14. – issue 23. – article number 15704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315704
15. Kim I., Kim S., Kim H., Shin D. Mission-Based Cybersecurity Test and Evaluation of Weapon Systems in Association with Risk Management Framework // Symmetry. – 2022. – vol. 14. – issue 11. – article number 2361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14112361
16. Menezes T. A. Review to Find Elicitation Methods for Business Process Automation Software // Software. – 2023. – vol. 2. – issue 2. – pp. 177-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software2020008
17. Gonzalez-Granadillo G., Menesidou S. A., Papamartzivanos D., Romeu R., Navarro-Llobet D., Okoh C., Nifakos S., Xenakis C., Panaousis E. Automated Cyber and Privacy Risk Management Toolkit // Sensors. – 2021. – vol. 21. – issue 16. – article number 5493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21165493
18. Gupta V., Fernandez-Crehuet J.M., Hanne T. Freelancers in the Software Development Process: A Systematic Mapping Study // Processes. – 2020. – vol. 8. – issue 10. – article number 1215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8101215
19. Вигерс К., Битти Д. Разработка требований к программному обеспечению. – СПб.: БХВ, 2022. – 736 с.
20. Kuhail M.A., Lauesen S. User Story Quality in Practice: A Case Study // Software. – 2022. – vol. 1. – issue 3. – pp. 223-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software1030010
REFERENCES
1. Nikolaenko V.S. Negative and positive risks in IT projects. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 21: Management (State and Society), 2018, no. 3, pp. 91-124. (In Russ.).
2. Paladino B., Cuy L., Frigo M. Missed opportunities in performance and enterprise risk management. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 2009, no. 20 (3), pp. 43–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.20483
3. Nikolaenko V., Sidorov A. Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2023, vol. 16, issue 1, article number 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010033 EDN: UOEIOH
4. Wijayanti D., Sukwika T., Ramli S. Analisis Insiden Fatality Akibat Covid-19 Menggunakan Metode 5 Why, SCAT, BowTie, dan Interpretive Structural Model (ISM). Jurnal Migasian, 2022, no. 6 (1), pp. 84–92.
5. Efimov V.V. Collection of methods for searching for new ideas and solutions for quality management. Ulyanovsk, Ulyanovsk State Technical University, 2011. 194 p. (In Russ.).
6. Sahu R., Choudhari B.R., Yadav S. Usages of six sigma in library services. Conference: Library as a Medium of Communication, 2022. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364011786_Usages_of_six_sigma_in_library_services (accessed: 14.04.2025)
7. Card A., Ward J., Clarkson P. Beyond FMEA: The structured what-if technique (SWIFT). Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 2012, vol. 31, issue 4, pp. 23–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.20101
8. Petroșanu D., Pirjan A., Căruţaşu G., Tăbușcă A., Zirra D., Perju-Mitran A. E-commerce sales revenues forecasting by means of dynamically designing, developing and validating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) network for deep learning. Electronics, 2022, vol. 11, issue 18, article number 2940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11182940
9. Martínez P., Pérez I., Sánchez M., García. M., Pardo N. Wind speed analysis of hurricane sandy. Atmosphere, 2021, vol. 12, issue 11, article number 1480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111480
10. Nikolaenko V.S. Preventive risk management in IT-projects. Public Administration. Electronic newsletter, 2016, no. 55. pp. 76-96. (In Russ.).
11. Mironov V. Profession «business analyst». Moscow, Olimp-Business, 2022. 238 p. (In Russ.).
12. Mazur K., Saleh M., Hornung M. Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in Conceptual Aircraft Design: A Comparative Tool Analysis. Aerospace, 2024, vol. 11, issue 1, article number 101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11010101
13. Filippov A., Romanov A., Skalkin A., Stroeva J., Yarushkina N. Approach to Formalizing Software Projects for Solving Design Automation and Project Management Tasks. Software, 2023, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 133-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software2010006
14. Kiemel S., Rietdorf C., Schutzbach M., Miehe R. How to Simplify Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Applications – A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 23, article number 15704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315704
15. Kim I., Kim S., Kim H., Shin D. Mission-Based Cybersecurity Test and Evaluation of Weapon Systems in Association with Risk Management Framework. Symmetry, 2022, vol. 14, issue 11, article number 2361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14112361
16. Menezes T. A. Review to Find Elicitation Methods for Business Process Automation Software. Software, 2023, vol. 2, issue 2, pp. 177-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software2020008
17. Gonzalez-Granadillo G., Menesidou S. A., Papamartzivanos D., Romeu R., Navarro-Llobet D., Okoh C., Nifakos S., Xenakis C., Panaousis E. Automated Cyber and Privacy Risk Management Toolkit. Sensors, 2021, vol. 21, issue 16, article number 5493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21165493
18. Gupta V., Fernandez-Crehuet J.M., Hanne T. Freelancers in the Software Development Process: A Systematic Mapping Study. Processes, 2020, vol. 8, issue 10, article number 1215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8101215
19. Wiegers K., Beatty D. Development of software requirements. SPb., BHV, 2022. 736 p. (In Russ.).
20. Kuhail M.A., Lauesen S. User Story Quality in Practice: A Case Study. Software, 2022, vol. 1, issue 3, pp. 223-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/software1030010
