Here we briefly discuss a few different takes on analysing risks.

The good

Making a list of all risks is a good thing, so you know what to expect. This helps in deciding and mapping what you can realistically expect to encounter, plus plan ahead for problems when they arise. Besides planning ahead, it is best to immediately create a list possible solutions and do a cost- benefit analyses on these problem solvers. It is also possible, and highly recommended, to create several scenarios, each of which require solutions and their respective expenses plus benefits. Besides working on a solution, another use is potentially deciding not to go through with the plan entirely, regrettable but that is why you do this analyses in the first place: Better to prevent than to blow a huge pile of money on something that is doomed to fail.

Putting a monetary value of every risk (based on factors such as likelihood and how much it is going to cost/reduce revenue), is also a good idea to see how bad it really is. Of course decisions can be made for reasons other than discussed financials; having multiple scenarios with solutions, does provide a good basis of  input to look at societal and ethical impact. This in turn allows for some further risk reduction, off a possible public backlash.

The bad

Modelling is likely based on past results, in a situation that involved other parties, who are unlikely to 100% replicate their exact behaviour or are not relevant to the situation in the least, so the result of such an analyses is likely to be different from what you would face if the plan is implemented as is. Think of it as statistical analyses; you assume that results and trends from the past are an exact replica of they are in the future.

Doing this process requires a rather large hour investment from, presumably, no less than two people. You could do a few risk analyses and decide afterwards if it was worth the trouble (likely prevented costs versus cash and hours spent on the analyses).