Kade Heyborne
48c6ddc066
- Complete planning documentation for 5-phase development - UI design specifications and integration - Domain architecture and directory templates - Technical specifications and requirements - Knowledge incorporation strategies - Dana language reference and integration notes
277 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
277 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# Risk Mitigation and Contingency Planning
|
|
|
|
This document identifies potential risks to the Advanced Second Brain PKM project and provides mitigation strategies and contingency plans.
|
|
|
|
## Risk Assessment Framework
|
|
|
|
### Risk Levels
|
|
- **CRITICAL**: Could cause project failure or major delays (>2 weeks)
|
|
- **HIGH**: Significant impact on timeline or quality (1-2 weeks delay)
|
|
- **MEDIUM**: Moderate impact, manageable with adjustments
|
|
- **LOW**: Minor impact, easily mitigated
|
|
|
|
### Risk Categories
|
|
- **Technical**: Technology integration, performance, scalability
|
|
- **Project**: Timeline, resources, dependencies
|
|
- **Product**: User adoption, feature complexity, market fit
|
|
- **External**: Third-party services, regulations, competition
|
|
|
|
## Critical Risks
|
|
|
|
### CRITICAL: Dana Language Integration Challenges
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Dana runtime integration proves more complex than anticipated, requiring significant custom development or architectural changes.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Could delay Phase 1 completion by 2-4 weeks, blocking all agent-related functionality.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Medium (Dana is a new language with limited ecosystem)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 1, Week 2-3 prototyping phase
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Early Prototyping**: Begin Dana integration in Week 1, not Week 3
|
|
2. **Fallback Options**: Develop simplified agent framework if Dana proves unsuitable
|
|
3. **Community Engagement**: Connect with Dana maintainers early
|
|
4. **Modular Design**: Ensure agent system can work with alternative scripting engines
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Switch to Lua/Python scripting with sandboxing
|
|
- **Plan B**: Implement rule-based agent system without custom language
|
|
- **Plan C**: Delay agent features to post-MVP, deliver knowledge browser first
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: >3 days of blocked progress on Dana integration
|
|
|
|
### CRITICAL: File System Monitoring Reliability
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Cross-platform file watching fails on certain operating systems or has unacceptable performance/latency.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Core functionality broken, users cannot add new content reliably.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Medium (file system APIs vary significantly across platforms)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 1, Week 2 testing across target platforms
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Multi-Platform Testing**: Test on Windows, macOS, Linux from Week 1
|
|
2. **Fallback Mechanisms**: Implement polling-based fallback for unreliable platforms
|
|
3. **Performance Benchmarking**: Establish acceptable latency thresholds (<5 seconds)
|
|
4. **User Communication**: Clear documentation of supported platforms
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Implement hybrid polling/watching approach
|
|
- **Plan B**: Require manual "sync" button for affected platforms
|
|
- **Plan C**: Limit initial release to well-supported platforms (macOS/Linux)
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: >50% failure rate on any target platform
|
|
|
|
## High Risks
|
|
|
|
### HIGH: Database Performance at Scale
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Knowledge graph queries become slow with realistic data volumes (1000+ documents, complex relationships).
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: UI becomes unresponsive, search takes >5 seconds, poor user experience.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: High (graph databases can have complex performance characteristics)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 1, Week 4 load testing with sample data
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Query Optimization**: Design with performance in mind from start
|
|
2. **Indexing Strategy**: Implement appropriate database indexes
|
|
3. **Caching Layer**: Add Redis caching for frequent queries
|
|
4. **Pagination**: Implement result pagination and limits
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Switch to simpler database (PostgreSQL with extensions)
|
|
- **Plan B**: Implement search-only MVP, defer complex graph features
|
|
- **Plan C**: Add "fast mode" with reduced functionality
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: Query response time >2 seconds with 100 documents
|
|
|
|
### HIGH: Third-Party API Dependencies
|
|
|
|
**Description**: OpenAI API, transcription services, or embedding providers experience outages or pricing changes.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Core AI features become unavailable or cost-prohibitive.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Medium (external APIs can be unreliable)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 1 integration testing, ongoing monitoring
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Multiple Providers**: Support multiple transcription/embedding services
|
|
2. **Local Fallbacks**: Implement local models where possible
|
|
3. **Caching Strategy**: Cache results to reduce API calls
|
|
4. **Cost Monitoring**: Implement usage tracking and alerts
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Switch to alternative providers (Google, Anthropic, etc.)
|
|
- **Plan B**: Implement offline/local processing mode
|
|
- **Plan C**: Make AI features optional, deliver core PKM functionality
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: >24 hour outage or 2x price increase
|
|
|
|
### HIGH: Scope Creep from Advanced Features
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Adding sophisticated features (multi-agent orchestration, complex Dana logic) expands scope beyond initial timeline.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Project timeline extends beyond 20 weeks, resources exhausted.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: High (ambitious feature set)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Weekly scope reviews, milestone assessments
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **MVP Focus**: Strictly prioritize Phase 2 completion before advanced features
|
|
2. **Feature Gating**: Implement feature flags for experimental functionality
|
|
3. **User Validation**: Test features with real users before full implementation
|
|
4. **Iterative Delivery**: Release working versions, gather feedback
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Deliver Phase 2 MVP, defer Phases 4-5 to future versions
|
|
- **Plan B**: Simplify orchestration to basic agent routing
|
|
- **Plan C**: Focus on single-domain excellence before cross-domain features
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: Phase 2 completion delayed beyond Week 10
|
|
|
|
## Medium Risks
|
|
|
|
### MEDIUM: UI/UX Complexity
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Three-pane layout and complex interactions prove difficult to implement or use.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Poor user experience, low adoption rates.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Medium (complex interface design)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 2, Week 1-2 prototyping
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **User Testing**: Regular UX testing throughout Phase 2
|
|
2. **Progressive Enhancement**: Ensure basic functionality works first
|
|
3. **Responsive Design**: Test across different screen sizes early
|
|
4. **Accessibility**: Implement WCAG guidelines from start
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Simplify to two-pane layout
|
|
- **Plan B**: Implement tabbed interface instead of panes
|
|
- **Plan C**: Focus on mobile-first responsive design
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: User testing shows <70% task completion rates
|
|
|
|
### MEDIUM: Team Resource Constraints
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Key team members unavailable or additional expertise needed for complex integrations.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Development slows, quality suffers.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Medium (small team, specialized skills needed)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Weekly capacity assessments
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Skill Assessment**: Identify gaps early, plan for training
|
|
2. **Pair Programming**: Cross-train team members
|
|
3. **External Resources**: Budget for contractors if needed
|
|
4. **Realistic Planning**: Build buffer time into schedule
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Hire contractors for specialized work
|
|
- **Plan B**: Simplify technical implementation
|
|
- **Plan C**: Extend timeline rather than reduce scope
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: >20% reduction in team capacity for >1 week
|
|
|
|
### MEDIUM: Data Privacy and Security Concerns
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Users concerned about local data handling, or security vulnerabilities discovered.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Low adoption, legal/compliance issues.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Low-Medium (local-first design mitigates most concerns)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Ongoing security reviews, user feedback
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Transparent Communication**: Clearly document data handling practices
|
|
2. **Security Audits**: Regular code security reviews
|
|
3. **Privacy by Design**: Build privacy controls into architecture
|
|
4. **Compliance**: Ensure GDPR/CCPA compliance where applicable
|
|
|
|
**Contingency Plans**:
|
|
- **Plan A**: Implement additional privacy controls and transparency features
|
|
- **Plan B**: Add enterprise features (encryption, access controls)
|
|
- **Plan C**: Focus on transparency and user education
|
|
|
|
**Trigger Conditions**: >10% of users express privacy concerns
|
|
|
|
## Low Risks
|
|
|
|
### LOW: Performance Issues
|
|
|
|
**Description**: System performance doesn't meet requirements on lower-end hardware.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Limited user base to high-end machines.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Low (modern web technologies are performant)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Phase 2 performance testing
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation**: Optimize bundle size, implement virtualization, add performance monitoring
|
|
|
|
### LOW: Browser Compatibility
|
|
|
|
**Description**: Features don't work on certain browsers.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Limited user base.
|
|
|
|
**Likelihood**: Low (targeting modern browsers)
|
|
|
|
**Detection**: Cross-browser testing in Phase 2
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation**: Progressive enhancement, polyfills, clear browser requirements
|
|
|
|
## Risk Monitoring and Response
|
|
|
|
### Weekly Risk Assessment
|
|
- **Monday Meetings**: Review risk status, update mitigation plans
|
|
- **Progress Tracking**: Monitor against early warning indicators
|
|
- **Contingency Planning**: Keep plans current and actionable
|
|
|
|
### Early Warning Indicators
|
|
- **Technical**: Integration tasks taking >2x estimated time
|
|
- **Project**: Milestone slippage >20%
|
|
- **Product**: User feedback indicates feature confusion
|
|
- **External**: Service outages or API changes
|
|
|
|
### Escalation Procedures
|
|
1. **Team Level**: Discuss in daily standups, adjust sprint plans
|
|
2. **Project Level**: Escalate to project lead, consider contingency plans
|
|
3. **Organization Level**: Involve stakeholders, consider project pivot
|
|
|
|
## Contingency Implementation Framework
|
|
|
|
### Decision Criteria
|
|
- **Impact Assessment**: Quantify cost of mitigation vs. impact of risk
|
|
- **Resource Availability**: Consider team capacity and budget
|
|
- **User Impact**: Prioritize changes that affect user experience
|
|
- **Technical Feasibility**: Ensure technical solutions are viable
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Steps
|
|
1. **Risk Confirmation**: Gather data to confirm risk materialization
|
|
2. **Option Evaluation**: Assess all contingency plan options
|
|
3. **Stakeholder Communication**: Explain changes and rationale
|
|
4. **Implementation Planning**: Create detailed rollout plan
|
|
5. **Execution**: Implement changes with monitoring
|
|
6. **Follow-up**: Assess impact and adjust as needed
|
|
|
|
## Success Metrics for Risk Management
|
|
|
|
- **Risk Prediction Accuracy**: >80% of critical risks identified pre-project
|
|
- **Response Time**: <24 hours for critical risk mitigation
|
|
- **Contingency Effectiveness**: >70% of implemented contingencies successful
|
|
- **Project Stability**: <10% timeline variance due to unforeseen risks
|
|
|
|
This risk mitigation plan provides a comprehensive framework for identifying, monitoring, and responding to potential project threats while maintaining development momentum and product quality.</content>
|
|
<parameter name="filePath">docs/plans/risk-mitigation/technical-risks.md |