A Framework For Process-Driven Risk Management in Construction Projects

A FRAMEWORK FOR PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK
MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Anita CeriC'
ResearchInstitute for the Built & Human Environment

School of Construction and Property Management
University of Salford, Salford, UK
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
..............................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES
vii
.....................................................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
x
.......................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
xii
.......................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xiii
...................................................................................
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
xiv
.........................................................................................
ABSTRACT
xv
...............................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
.............................................................................................
AIM OF THE RESEARCH
.............................................................................
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
............................................................................
HYPOTHESIS
.................................................................................................
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
.....................................................................
STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
.....................................................................
3
3
4
7
7
....................................................
7
1.6.2 CHAPTER 3: RISKIN CONSTRUCTION
.............................................
7
1.6.3 CHAPTER 4: PROCESSIN CONSTRUCTION
....................................
1.6.4 CHAPTER 5: PROCESSPROTOCOL
8
...................................................
1.6.1 CHAPTER 2: RISK MANAGEMENT
1.6.5 CHAPTER6: IDENTIFYING AND STRUCTURINGRISK WITHIN

PROCESSPROTOCOL
8
............................................................................
1.6.6 CHAPTER 7: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING RISKS IN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
8
.................................................................
1.6.7 CHAPTER 8: THE PP-Risk MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
9
............
1.6.8 CHAPTER 9: APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE
PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
1.6.9 CHAPTERIO:
9
...............
CONCLUSION AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE
WORK
9
........................................................................................................
1.7 SCOPE
10
...........................................................................................................
2
RISK MANAGEMENT
II
.......................................................................................
2.1 INTRODUCTION
11
.........................................................................................
I
11
...............................................
13
2.3 RISK EXPOSURE
.........................................................................................
14
2.4 RISK ACCEPTABILITY
..............................................................................
15
2.5 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
..............................................................
22
2.5.1 RISK IDENTIFICATION
........................................................................
22
2.5.1.1 Brainstorming
.................................................................................
22
2.5.1.2 Interviews
.......................................................................................
23
2.5.1.3 Questionnaires
................................................................................
23
2.5.1.4 The Delphi technique
.....................................................................
2.2 RISK, CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY
24
Expert systems
...............................................................................
24
2.5.2 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
............................................................
2.5.3 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS .....................................................25
26
2.5.3.1 Simple assessment
..........................................................................
26
2.5.3.2 Probabilistic analysis
......................................................................
2.5.1.5
27
Sensitivity analysis
.........................................................................
27
2.5.3.4 Decision trees
.................................................................................
27
2.5.3.5 Monte Carlo Simulation .................................................................
28
2.5.4 RISK RESPONSE
....................................................................................
28
2.5.4.1 Risk avoidance
...............................................................................
28
2.5.4.2 Risk transfer
...................................................................................
29
2.5.4.3 Risk sharing
....................................................................................
2.5.3.3
29
Risk retention
.................................................................................
29
2.5.4.5 Risk reduction
................................................................................
2.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................30
2.5.4.4
31
...............................................................................
31
3.1 INTRODUCTION
.........................................................................................
31
3.2 DEALING WITH RISK IN CONSTRUCTION
...........................................
3.3 CIRIA -A GUIDE TO THE SYSTEMATIC MANAGEMENT OF RISK
RISK IN CONSTRUCTION
FROM CONSTRUCTION
37
.....................................................................................
3.4 RISKMAN - RISK-DRIVEN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
39
.................................................................................................
42
3.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
............................................................
METHODOLOGY
ii
PROCESS IN CONSTRUCTION
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
44
.......................................................................
INTRODUCTION
44
.........................................................................................
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
44
........................................................................
PROJECT PHASES
47
.......................................................................................
RISK AND PROJECT PHASES
51
...................................................................
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
53
............................................................
54
......................................................................................
54
5.1 INTRODUCTION
.........................................................................................
56
5.2 THE CONCEPT OF THE PROCESSPROTOCOL
.....................................
58
5.3 STAGE-GATE PROCESS
............................................................................
60
5.4 PROCESS PROTOCOL STAGES/PHASES
................................................
60
5.4.1 PRE-PROJECT STAGE
..........................................................................
61
5.4.2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION STAGE
............................................................
61
5.4.3 CONSTRUCTION STAGE
.....................................................................
61
5.4.4 POST-CONSTRUCTION STAGE
..........................................................
61
5.5 ACTIVITY ZONES
.......................................................................................
63
5.6 PROCESS PROTOCOL MAPS
....................................................................
66
5.7 RISK AND PROCESSPROTOCOL
............................................................
68
............................................................
PROCESSPROTOCOL
IDENTIFYING AND STRUCTURING RISK
WITHIN THE PROCESS
PROTOCOL
69
...............................................................................................................
6.1 INTRODUCTION
69
.........................................................................................
6.2 IDENTIFYINGRISK IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
69
..........................
6.3 RISK IDENTIFICATION BASED ON PROCESS PROTOCOL
72
................
6.3.1 PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION OF NEED
79
.............................................
6.3.2 PHASE TWO - OUTLINE FEASIBILITY
80
............................................
6.3.3 PHASE THREE - SUBSTANTIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY &
OUTLINE FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
81
..................................................
6.3.4 PHASE FOUR - OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
82
.........................
6.3.5 PHASE FIVE - FULL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
83
..................................
iii
6.3.6 PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT & FULL

84
FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
....................................................................
85
6.3.7 PHASE SEVEN - PRODUCTION INFORMATION
............................
6.3.8 PHASE EIGHT - CONSTRUCTION
86
.....................................................
87
6.3.9 PHASE NINE - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
.............................
88
............................................................
7A
FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING RISKS IN CONSTRUCTION
89
PROJECTS
.................................................................................................................
89
7.1 INTRODUCTION
.........................................................................................
89
7.2 THE CYCLICAL RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
.................................
91
7.3 RISK PRIORITY LIST - QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
..........................
91
7.3.1 RISK PROBABILITY - QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
......................
93
7.3.2 RISK IMPACT- QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
..................................
97
7.3.3 RISK EXPOSURE- QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
.............................
98
7.4 RISK PRIORITY LIST - QUALITATIVE APPROACH
.............................
98
7.4.1 MULTI-ATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY
............................................
7.4.1.1
7.4.1.2
7.4.1.3
100
Risk probability - multi-attribute utility theory
............................
102
Risk impact - multi-attribute utility theory
..................................
107
Risk exposure - multi-attribute utility theory
...............................
7.4.2 FUZZY ANALYSIS

7.4.2.1
108
..............................................................................
Risk probability - fuzzy analysis
log
..................................................
Risk impact - fuzzy analysis

112
........................................................
7.4.2.3 Risk exposure- fuzzy analysis
116
.....................................................
7.4.3 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS(AHP)
118
.....................................
7.4.3.1 Risk probability - AHP
120
................................................................
7.4.2.2
Risk impact - AHP

122
.......................................................................
7.4.3.3 Risk exposure
130
...............................................................................
7.4.4 CHOOSING A QUALITATIVE APPROACH TECHNIQUE
131
.............
7.5 RISK PRIORITY LIST - MIXED APPROACH
137
.........................................
138
............................................................................
141
..........................................................
7.4-3.2
iv
8 The PP-RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
143
.............................................
8.1 INTRODUCTION
143
.......................................................................................
8.2 PP-RISK AS A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
144
......................................
8.2.1 INTERFACE
145
..........................................................................................
8.2.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
146
............................................
8.2.3 METHOD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
148
................................................
8.2.4 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
152
..........................................
8.2.5 BENEFITS OF THE PP-RISK PROGRAMME
153
....................................
153
..........................................................
9 APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
154
..........................................................................
9.1 INTRODUCTION
154
.......................................................................................
9.2 APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.2.3
9.2.4
155
............................................................................................
PHASE ZERO - DEMONSTRATING THE NEED
160
.............................
PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION OF NEED
161
...........................................
PHASE TWO - OUTLINE FEASIBILITY
162
..........................................
PHASE THREE - SUBSTANTIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY &
163
................................................
164
.......................
165
................................
9.2.7 PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT & FULL
FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
166
..................................................................
167
..........................
168
...................................................
169
...........................
9.3 VERIFICATION OF PDRMF
170
.....................................................................
177
..........................................................
10 CONCLUSION AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE WORK
179
.........................
10.1 CONCLUSIONS
179
..........................................................................................
10.1.1 LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
180
............................
10.1.2 PROVING THE HYPOTHESES
182
...........................................................
V
10.1.3 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
10.2FUTURE WORK
183
.................................................
185
..........................................................................................
APPENDIX 1: Description of the phasesin the construction process

according to the ProcessProtocol
APPENDIX 2: The ProcessProtocol maps
187
................................................
198
............................................................
APPENDIX 3: The set of SQL commandsfor creating the database

225
.....................
APPENDIX 4: Application of the ProcessDriven Risk Management Framework 228
APPENDIX 5: The Questionnaireform usedfor verification of the framework 269

...
LIST OF REFERENCES
273
.........................................................................................
vi
LIST OF TABLES
71
Table 6.1: Risk lists
.....................................................................................................
96
Table 7.1: Calculating normalised risk impact in Phase X
.........................................
Table 7.2: Calculating normalised risk impact in Phase X in cases when
priorities between time, cost and quality have not been defined ........... 96
97
Table 7.3: Calcualting risk exposure in Phase X
........................................................
97
Table 7A Priority list in Phase X
...............................................................................
Table 7.5: Probability assessment for each alternative with respect to risk
probability ............................................................................................
100
101
Table 7.6: Utility function value for risk probability
................................................
Table 7.7: Overall and normalised utility function for risk probability .................... 102
103
Table 7.8: Impact on time assessment
.......................................................................
103
Table 7.9: Impact on cost assessment
.......................................................................
103
Table 7.10: Impact on quality assessment
.................................................................
Table 7.11: Values of impact on time, cost and quality for discrete values of
104
functions
utility
....................................................................................
Table 7.12: Utility function values for the TIME criterion for the corresponding
105
p of each risk ........................................................................................
Table 7.13: Utility function values for the COST criterion for the corresponding
105
p of each risk ........................................................................................
Table 7.14: Utility function values for the QUALITY criterion for the
corresponding p of eachrisk ................................................................105
106
Table 7.15: Overall and normalised utility function for risk impact
.........................
Table 7.16: Calculating risk exposurein PhaseX
107
....................................................
Table 7.17: Priority list in PhaseX
107
...........................................................................
Table 7.18: Value of utility function for risk probability
110
.........................................
Table 7.19: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for risk probability
III
............
Table 7.20: Overall normalised utility function for risk probability
III
.........................
Table 7.2 1: Values of the utility function for TIME
113
.................................................
Table 7.22: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for TIME
113
...........................
Table 7.23: Values of the utility function for COST
113
................................................
vii
Table 7.24: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for COST ..........................114
Table 7.25: Values of the utility function for QUALITY .........................................114
Table 7.26: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for QUALITY ................... 114
Table 7.27: Overall and normalised utility function for risk impact.........................116
Table 7.28: Calculating risk exposurein PhaseX ....................................................116
Table 7.29: Priority list in PhaseX- fuzzy analysis.................................................117
Table 7.30: Comparative matrix for risk probability in PhaseX ..............................121
Table 7.3 1: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue Xqnax,
row n of the matrix,
for
CR
index
CI
risk probability
and consistencyratio
consistency
122
............................................................................................
Table 7.32: Comparative time, cost and quality matrix in PhaseX ..........................124
in PhaseX
Table 7.33: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue ,.,
for
CR
index
CI
time, cost and
ratio
and consistency
consistency
124
in
X
interdependency
Phase
quality
.....................................................
Table 7.34: Comparative matrix for risk impact on time for PhaseX ......................125
Table 7.35: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue ,. ax, row n of the matrix,
impact
for
CR
index
CI
on
risk
ratio
and consistency
consistency
125
time in PhaseX ....................................................................................
Table 7.36: Comparative matrix for risk impact on cost in PhaseX ........................126
Table 7.37: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue , a, the row n of the matrix,
impact
for
CR
index
CI
risk
on
ratio
and
consistency
consistency
127
.
....................................................................................
Table 7.38: Comparative matrix for risk impact on quality for PhaseX .................. 127
in
X
Phase
cost
Table 7.39: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue
for
impact
index
CR
CI
on
and
consistency
ratio
risk
consistency
128
in
X
Phase
quality
.
...............................................................................
129
Table 7.40: Calculating impact in PhaseX
...............................................................
130
Table 7.4 1: Calculating risk exposurein PhaseX
....................................................
130
...........................................................................
134
Table 7.43: Comparative time, cost and quality matrix in PhaseX
..........................
Table 7.44: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for risk impact on time, cost
135
for
two
and quality
risks.......................................................................
135
Table 7.45: Risk impact on time, cost and quality for two risks
...............................
viii
Table 7.46: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for risk impact on time, cost
136
andquality for threerisks.....................................................................
Table 7.47: Risk impact on time, cost and quality for three risks
137
.............................
Table 7.48: Risk evaluation dependingon risk exposure
138
.........................................
Table 7.49: Risk acceptability for PhaseX- quantitative approach
140
.........................
Table 7.50: Risk acceptability in PhaseX- qualitative approach
140
.............................
Table 9.1: Results of risk analysis for Phase0
160
.........................................................
161
Table 9.2: Result of risk analysis for PhaseI
...........................................................
162
Table 9.3: Result of risk analysis for Phase2
...........................................................
163
.........................................................
164
...........................................................
165
.........................................................
166
.........................................................
Table 9.8: Result of risk analysis in Phase7
167
.............................................................
168
...........................................................
Table 9.10: Results of risk analysis in Phase9
169
.........................................................
ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
6
Figure 1.1: Research methodology map
........................................................................
16
Figure 2.1: Linear risk management process, Perry and Hayes (1985)
......................
17
Figure 2.2: Cyclical risk management process, Carter et al. (1994)
...........................
17
Figure 2.3: Cyclical risk management process, Kliem and Ludin (1997)
..................
18
Figure 2A Cyclical risk management process, Baker, Ponniah and Smith (1998)
.....
19
Figure 2.5: Generic risk management process, Chapman (1997)
...............................
20
Figure 2.6: Cyclical risk management process, Grammer and Trollope (1993)
.........
21
Figure 2.7: Proposed cyclical risk management process
............................................
58
Figure 5.1: Stage-gate process (Cooper, 1990)
...........................................................
59
Figure 5.2: Third generation new product development process (Cooper, 1994)
......
74
Figure 6.1: Development of sub-processes
.................................................................
90
Figure 7.1: Risk list for Phase X with the corresponding designations
......................
Figure 7.2: Normalised or relative probabilities for the occurrence of each risk
in Phase X
92
..............................................................................................
93
Figure 7.3: Normalised impact of time, cost and quality on the project
.....................
Figure 7.4: Normalised risk impact on time in Phase X
............................................
Figure 7.5: Normalised risk impact on cost in Phase X
.............................................
Figure 7.6: Normalised risk impact on quality in Phase X
........................................
Figure 7.7: Hierarchical model structure
..................................................................
Figure 7.8: Hierarchical structure for risk probability in Phase X
............................
Figure 7.9: Hierarchical structure for risk impact in Phase X
...................................
Figure 8.1: Structure of decision support system
......................................................
Figure 8.2: Main menu
..............................................................................................
Figure 8.3: Databasestructure with its tables, fields and links
.
.
94
95
95
.
118
121
123
144
146
148
.................................
Figure 8.4: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for risk probability obtained by
PP-Risk
.................................................................................................
Figure 8.5: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for time, cost and quality
obtained by PP-Risk .............................................................................
Figure 8.6: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for impact on TIME obtained
by PP-Risk
............................................................................................
149
149
150
Figure8.7: Comparativematrix andeigenvectorfor impacton COSTobtained

by PP-Risk
150
............................................................................................
Figure8.8: Comparativematrix andeigenvectorfor impacton QUALITY
151
obtainedby PP-Risk.............................................................................
Figure 8.9: Overall risk impact obtained by PP-Risk
151
...............................................
Figure 8.10: Risk exposureand risk acceptability obtained by PP-Risk
152
..................
Figure 9.1: Zagreb-Macelj road map
156
........................................................................
159
Figure 9.2: Example of a form for the qualitative approachin Phase0
....................
160
Figure 9.3: Risk exposure in Phase0
........................................................................
161
Figure 9A Risk exposure in PhaseI
........................................................................
162
........................................................................
163
........................................................................
164
........................................................................
165
........................................................................
166
........................................................................
167
......................................................................
168
......................................................................
169
......................................................................
X1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to expressmy deep gratitude to:
Prof. Peter Brandon for his supervison, guidance, support and the person who made
this thesispossible.
Prof Mariza KatavIC'for her advice and support.
Colleaguesfrom following companieswho have helped in testing the framework:
Croatian Civil Engineering Institute
Croatian Motorway Company
Rijeka-Zagreb Motorway Company
Prof. GhassanAouad and Prof. Les Ruddock who helped me "to survive" my early
daysin Salfordandfor alwaysbelievingin me andmy work.

Prof Rachel Cooper and her team, especially to Mr Norman Gilkinson, Process
Network co-ordinator who provided me with information, data and papers on the
ProcessProtocol.
The Department of Construction Management and Economics, University of Zagreb
who trusted that I will finish this thesis even when I had some doubts.
Ms Hanneke Van Dyk and Ms Sandra Heyworth from the School of Construction
and Property Management for their assistance.
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AHP
Analytic Hierarchy Process
BPF
British Property Federations
CDM
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
CIRIA
Construction Industry Researchand Information Association
CPR
Construction ProcessRe-Engineering
DAO
Data Access Objects
DBMS
Data Based ManagementSystem
DDL
Data Definition Language
DML
Data Manipulation Language
DMS
Document ManagementSystem
DSS
Decision Support System
EPSRC
Engineering & Physical SciencesResearchCouncil
ITA
International Tunnel Association
JCT
Joint Contracts Tribunal
MMS
Method managementsystem
PDRM
PP-Risk
Process- Driven Risk Management

ProcessProtocol - Risk
RAMP
Risk Analysis and Managementfor Projects
RIBA
Royal Institution of British Architects
RISKMAN
A Risk-Driven Project ManagementMethodology
SPICE
Structured ProcessImprovement for Construction Enterprises
SQL
Structured Query Language
xiii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Activity Zones:
Structured set of sub-processes involving tasks which

guide and support work towards a common objective (for
example, to create an appropriate design solution).
Alternatives:
The candidates,or options from which the choice is to be

made.
Contingency Planning:
Preparing to handle a given circumstance that may arise in

the future.
Criterion:
A factor that influences a decision.
Decision Making:
Determining the appropriate action to accomplish goals

efficiently and effectively.
Hierarchy:
A tree-like structure. It can be used to representthe spread

of influence.
Legacy Archive:
Potentially an IT solution it represents a mechanism for

recording,
storing
and
retrieving
project/process
information which can be used by project participants in

current and future projects.
Pairwise comparisons:
The processof making comparison between all alternatives

of the same criterion, or all criterion of the goal, taken in
pairs.
Stakeholders:
Those persons or organizations whose views, interests

and/or requirementscan have an impact or are impacted by
the
initiation
and/or
formulation
implementation of the project solution.
xiv
and
eventual
ABSTRACT
This thesis describes the development of a framework for a systematic approach to
risk managementin construction projects, whose application in construction practice
would lead to changesand improvements in the construction industry. To verify and
apply the framework in future construction projects, the author developed the PPRisk computer programme as IT support.
Before showing how the framework was developed, there is a survey of what has
been written on the subject and a systematic analysis of risk management,risk in
construction and process in construction. This led to the conclusion that realising a
construction project is a process and that the risk management process should be
subordinated to the construction process. A new approach was therefore introduced
to managing risks: process-driven risk management.This approach will give all the
in
the project better understanding of the construction process, enable
participants
in
industry,
the
and contribute to improvement of quality and
changes
construction
efficiency in construction.
An analysis of published plans of work showed that the Construction Process
Protocol, developed at the University of Salford under the leadership of Professor
R.Cooper, is suitable and appropriate as a construction process in which the
framework for process-driven risk managementcan be placed.
Process-driven risk management implies a cyclical risk management process in all
the phases through which the construction project passes according to Process
Protocol. Key risks are identified in the framework, which are independent of the
size, type and purpose of the project being realized. Project related risks should be
separately identified for each specific project. Depending on available data,
quantitative and qualitative analysis is carried out for the identified risks, their risk
probability and risk impact determined, and the corresponding risk exposure
calculated. Then the adequate risk response is given for each identified risk,
depending on its exposure. As the process unfolds new risks appear in each phase
and the risk managementprocessbegins a new.
xv
ChapterI
Introduction
I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The construction industry has many specific features and is inert, becauseof which it
lags behind other industries in keeping to deadlines and realising production with
minimum expenses and satisfactory quality, in other words, in developing an
efficient production process (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998; Egan, 2002). The
development of construction as an industry depends on improving process in
construction (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Love and Li, 1998; Kagioglou, Cooper
and Aouad, 1999; Finnemore et al., 2000; Holt, Love and Nesan, 2000).
Every construction project passes through phases, each of which has a purpose,
duration and scope of work. Breaking the project down into phases is an important
from
The
start
some kind of
project must
part of every construction process.
definition of need, after which follow design, contracting, construction and project
inherent
in
(Hughes,
2000).
Risk
are
all the phases
completion
and uncertainty
through which the construction project passes, from Demonstrating the Need do
Operation and Maintenance. Latham (1994) said that no construction project is risk
free. Risk can be managed, minimised, shared, transferred or accepted. It cannot be
ignored. Risks do not appear only in major projects. Although size may be a causeof
factors
that affect time, cost
site
and
many
other
complexity,
construction
speed,
risk,
degree
be
lesser
to
cannot
and quality
a greater or
overlooked. All the participants in
the deciding process should observe risks and their effects on all key points of
decision-making before and during project realisation.
Process in construction needs important changes and should be continuously

improved. The processitself, and the changesand improvementsmade to it, are
accompaniedby risks whoseadverseeffectsmay increaseplannedcostsandthe time
necessaryfor project completion, and decreaseexecution quality. Efficient and
quality managementof risks shouldmakethesechangesin the constructionindustry
possible and enhancequality and efficiency. The ProcessProtocol developedby
R.Cooper et aL provides a structure for managingrisk in constructionprojects.
I
ChapterI
Introduction
Process Protocol is used to manage the project from Recognition of a Need to
Operation and Maintenance and is basically a generic process. It is a result of a
research project at the University of Salford headed by Professor R.Cooper in
cooperation with several companies which were in various ways included in the
construction industry (Cooper et al., 1998; Kagioglou et al. 1998a.; Kagioglou et al.,
1998b; Kagioglou et al., 1998c; Aouad et. al,, 1998; Kagioglou, Cooper and Aouad,
1999; Wu, Aouad and Cooper, 2000; Fleming et al., 2000; Lee, Cooper and Aouad;
2000; Wu et al., 2001). Chapter 5 explains the reasonswhy the ProcessProtocol was
chosenas the basis for the proposed framework in this thesis.
Changes may be brought to the construction industry through improved risk

management in several ways. One possibility is to study the causes of risks, their
probability and their impact on time, cost and quality for a particular type and size of
facility. In this case it is possible to muster the help of experts in that field, to identify
the risks in all the phases of the project life cycle in great detail, to use a large
databasecompiled from prior experiences on similar facilities, and to propose the
most adequate risk response. Another is to improve risk management developing
quantitative and qualitative risk analysis techniquesand use them in particular phases
of the project life cycle. Finally, risk managementmay be improved by developing a
decision support system under conditions of uncertainty, which would considerably
decreasethe risk of poor risk management.
The above approaches to improved risk management are partial solutions with
limited applicability. This researchstarts from the fact that executing a construction
is
project a processandrisk management
shouldbe adaptedto this process.
Risk management is a continuous process needing an integral risk management
system in all the phases that the construction project passes through, which is
accomplished by developing a framework for process-driven risk management.The
framework should be generic by nature and bring together all the above approaches
to improve risk management. It is necessaryto identify the key risks that appear in
all the phases through which the construction project passes,regardless of the type
facility.
Risk analysis dependson the quality of the data available, so
the
of
and size
ChapterI
Introduction
the system should include both qualitative and quantitative risk analysis. Risk
responseshould be continuously developed on the basis of what has been learned in
earlier cases, but it is also necessary to allow changes to take place in the
construction industry.
1.2 AIM OF THE RESEARCH

The primary aim of this research is to develop a framework that will provide a
from
in
for
the
construction,
approach
managing
risk
systematic process-driven
beginning of the project to operation and maintenance.Moreover, if companiesadopt
this approach as an integral part of managing projects it will enable the project
managementteam to monitor improvement in construction performance.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectivesof this researchare :
To investigatehow to dealwith risks anduncertaintiesin eachphaseof the project.
To investigateandassesskey-risksin eachphaseof the project.
To suggestrisk responsefor identifiedkey-risks.
To identify and develop a suitable framework and IT support for implementing
process-drivenrisk management.
To implement and test the proposed framework using a real case which will
demonstratethe benefit of the proposedframework.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS
A framework for managing risk in constructionprojects, based on the Process
Protocol developedby Cooper et al., is an improvementon current construction
projectpractice.
Improvementcanbe recognisedin:
ChapterI
Introduction
1. Better understanding of the construction process by all participants in
projectrealisation.
2. Identifying the key risks in every phase of the construction process that
are independentof the size, type and purpose of the facility.
3. Enabling a combination of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment
from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and Maintenance.
4. Introducing a new approach to risk management by placing it in the
function of the construction process, i. e., by implementing process-driven
risk management.
1.5 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The researchwas carriedout in five phases:

PhaseI -Literature review
The first step was to systematically review earlier writings so as to learn more about
the subject and about different approachesto connecting risk managementwith the
construction processas a basis for developing an integral system for managing risk in
construction projects. The knowledge gathered about Risk managementis presented
in Chapter 2, Risk in Construction in Chapter 3, Process in Construction in Chapter 4
and Process Protocol in Chapter 5.
Phase11- Identifying and structuring risk within ProcessProtocol
EachProcessProtocol phaseis divided into sub-processes,

activities that shouldbe
during
the phase.A systematicanalysisof the division helpedidentify and
performed
describethe key risks that appearin all constructionprojects,regardlessof size or
type.
PhaseIII - Developing a framework for managing risk in construction projects
The results of Phase I and Phase II served as a foundation for developing a
framework for managing risk in the construction project. The framework provides
holistic risk assessment

from Demonstratingthe Needto OperationandMaintenance.
4
ChapterI
Introduction
After determiningrisk probability and risk impact, and thus also risk exposure,for
each identified key risk or project related risk, a priority risk list is formed and,
dependingon risk acceptability,a strategyof risk response.If risk responseleadsto
the appearance
of new risks, a new cycle of identification,analysisandrisk response
begins.
PhaseIV - Developing an IT Support for the proposed framework
In this phase an integral decision support system was developed, the PP-Risk
computer programme, which supports all the elements of the framework for processdriven risk managementdeveloped in the preceding phase.
Phase V-
Application and Verification of the process-driven risk management
framework
The last phaseshowsthe applicationandverification of the proposedprocess-driven
risk management framework using the PP-Risk computer programme developed in
the preceding phase.
Figure 1.1 shows the researchmethodology map.
ChapterI
Introduction
Literaturereview
cu
b4
. 44
Risk Managem
2z
Risk in Construction
"0
"C
u
rA
0
Processin Construction
ProcessProtocol
0.
t.
"0
"0
Figure 1.1: Researchmethodology map
0
t.
0
c34
"Z
r.
ChapterI
Introduction
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

This thesis consists of 10 chapters, including this one. The contents of the other
chaptersare as follows:
1.6.1 CHAPTER 2: RISK MANAGEMENT

The first part of the chapter defines and explains the concepts of risk, certainty,
uncertainty, risk exposure and risk acceptability. The second part analyses several
risk management processes, and shows and gives a detailed explanation of the
development of cyclical risk management,which will be part of the framework for
managing risks in construction projects that is proposed in this work.
1.6.2 CHAPTER 3: RISKIN
CONSTRUCTION
This chapter shows research on risk management in construction that had an

influence on the development of the framework proposed in this work. It showestwo
integral but different approachesto systematic risk managementin construction, the
CIRIA Guide to the Systematic Management of Risk from Construction and the
RISKMAN as a Risk-driven Project Management Methodology. It shows the need
for a new approach to managing risks as part of the construction process. This kind
of approach is implemented in the framework for risk management in construction
proposed in this work.
1.6.3 CHAPTER 4: PROCESS IN CONSTRUCTION

This chapter shows research into process in construction and its specific features in
relation to process in other industries, which make it more difficult to introduce
changes that would lead to continuous process improvement. It shows that the
process in construction, and changes and improvements that are made to it, are
accompanied by risks inherent in the process itself. If the risk managementprocess
becomespart of the construction processany improvements in risk managementwill
automatically lead to process improvement. The framework for risk managementin
ChapterI
Introduction
construction proposed in this work hinges on process-driven risk managementand
the risk management

processis completelysubjectedto the constructionprocess.
1.6.4 CHAPTER 5: PROCESSPROTOCOL

This chapter shows the concept and principles underlying the Construction Process
Protocol as a generic construction process and as a plan of work that makes it
possible to manage the project from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and
Maintenance. It shows the advantagesof Process Protocol as an industry standard,
which is why it was chosen as the construction process for the development of the
proposed framework for process-drivenrisk management.
1.6.5 CHAPTER 6: IDENTIFYING

PROCESS PROTOCOL
AND STRUCTURING RISK WITHIN
This chapter shows the identification of the key risks in all phasesthrough which the
construction project passes according to Process Protocol. The process of
identification starts from the fact that every phasethe project passesthrough contains
sub-processes,elementary activities that should be performed for the successful
realisation of that project phase.These activities are a source of risk and can be used
as the basis for making a list of key risks in each phase. The key risks are part of the
proposed framework. The managementof key risks identified in this way is in the
service of the construction process, and leads to the better understanding of process
and processimprovement.
1.6.6 CHAPTER 7: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING

RISKS IN
This chapter shows the development of the framework for process-driven risk
management in construction projects. The framework contains the cyclical risk
managementprocess shown in Chapter 2, the approach to risk managementshown in
Chapter 3, process-driven risk managementshown in Chapter 4, and is based on the
Construction Process Protocol shown in Chapter 5. It contains the list of key risks
ChapterI
Introduction
identified in Chapter6 and enablesthe identificationof project relatedrisks in every

to forming the risk priority list.
phase.The chapteralso showsvariousapproaches
1.6.7 CHAPTER 8: THE PP-RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

This chapter shows the PP-Risk computer programme as a Decision Support System
developed by the author for the proposed framework for risk managementin Process
Protocol based construction projects. The program is made in MS Visual Basic 6 on
a Microsoft Windows platform.
1.6.8 CHAPTER 9: APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE

PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This chaptertestsand verifies the proposedframeworkon the exampleof the future

Svetatri kralja tunnel plannedas part of the future Zagreb-MaceljMotorway, that
will connectthe capital of the Republic of Croatia with the Republic of Slovenia.
Eighteenexperts,who had in variouswayssignificantlyparticipatedin the execution
in
of similar projects the past and who are expectedto significantly participatein
future projects, helped verify the efficiency and applicability of the proposed
frameworkandthe PP-Riskcomputerprogramme.
1.6.9 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE

WORK
This chapter gives the conclusionof the thesis and recommendationsfor future
research.
ChapterI
Introduction
1.7 SCOPE
The proposed framework for process-driven risk management can be applied to all
kinds of construction projects regardlessof their size or type. The proposed approach
to risk management may also be extended to other industries if the plan of work is
adapted to their production process. Risk management is often limited by the nonexistence of a relevant, statistically significant databaseabout similar past projects,
which could be used for quantitative analysis of the identified risks. The proposed
framework, through the PP-Risk computer programme developed, enables the
formation and updating of such a databasethat would be accessibleto all, and at the
sametime provides for qualitative risk analysis if no such databaseis available.
10
Chapter2
Risk management
2 RISK MANAGEMENT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The first part of this chapter defines and explains the basic conceptsconnectedto risk
management,such as risk, certainty, uncertainty, risk exposure and risk acceptability.
These concepts are not linked only to risk managementin the construction industry,
they are part of the conditions and circumstancesof the decision-making process as
such. People make decisions every day, in private life, in all kinds of business
organisations, fields of industry, and on all levels of the business cycle. It could
easily be said that human life is one endless sequence of decision-making. Most
simple decisions are reached spontaneously without much thought and analysis.
However, a certain number of complex, even very complex decisions dependson the
systematic study of many factors of influence, adequate and quality information,
choosing among numerous alternatives, and using suitable models and techniques for
choosing the optimum, i. e. the most favourable alternative.
I
The secondpart of the chapteranalysesthe role of processin risk managementand

the role of risk managementin project management.It gives an analysisof several
published risk managementprocessesthat served as a foundation for the
developmentof the cyclical risk managementprocess,which will be part of the
frameworkfor managingrisks in constructionprojectsthat is proposedin this work.
2.2 RISK, CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

Decision-making occurs under conditions of certainty, risk or uncertainty. Certainty
is a condition in which all the factors of influence can be quantified and where the
use of adequatedecision-making methods results in an exactly predictable outcome.
This happensvery rarely and is met only in closed systems. Construction practically
never runs under conditions of certainty.
11
Chapter2
Risk manaRement
If two or more alternatives are to be decided among, in which all the factors of
influence cannot be quantified, then decision-making occurs under conditions of risk
or uncertainty. A decision is made under conditions of risk if the decision-maker is
able to assessrationally or intuitively, with a degree of certainty, the probability that
a particular event will take place, using as a basis his information about similar past
events or his personal experience. An example for deciding under conditions of risk
is a cost estimate for the foundations of a structure made prior to research defining
the load on the foundations. This estimate can be made, with a degree of certainty or
a degree of risk, on the basis of existing information about similar structures built
under similar ground conditions and on the basis of the estimator's experience. If
there is no such information, and if the estimator has no experience with similar
structures and ground conditions, then decisions are made under conditions of
uncertainty. Risk, therefore, becomes uncertainty when sufficient information or
experience to make a mathematical model and predict the probable result are not
available.
One of the basic roles of modem businessesmanagementis to maximally reduce the

probability of risk, i. e. to gather sufficient information or experience to turn
uncertainty into risk and make it easierto reach a decision.
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English definesrisk as a chanceor possibility of

loss or adverseconsequences.
Chapmanand Cooper(1983) define risk as exposure
to the possibility of economicor financiallossor gains,physicaldamageor injury or
delay as a consequenceof the uncertainty associatedwith pursuing a course of
action. Wideman (1986) definesrisk as a chanceof certain occurrencesadversely
affectingproject objectives.It is the degreeof exposureto negativeevents,andtheir
Godfrey(1996)definesrisk as a chanceof an adverseevent,
probableconsequences.
dependingon circumstances.Kliem and Ludin (1997) define risk as the occurrence
for, or impactson, projects.According to Smith
of an event that has consequences
(1999), risk exists when a decision is expressedin terms of a range of possible
outcomesandwhenknown probabilitiescanbe attachedto the outcomes.
12
Chapter2
Risk management
2.3 RISK EXPOSURE

Commonto all the above definitions of risk is that it includes two independent
components: risk probability and risk impact. Both these components should be
quantified if different risks are to be analysed,compared and classified.
In the exact mathematical sense risk probability, i. e. the probability of an adverse
its
is
event,
a random variable with
own probability distribution, and statistical
dispersion,
be
to
the
the
event,
mean,
methods can
used
calculate
probability of
confidence interval and all the other statistically significant parameters. This
demandsan extensive and statistically relevant databaseabout similar past events on
is
difficult
base
distribution.
In
to achieve
this
to
the
very
practice
which
probability
becauserelevant databasesexist for a very small number of potentially risky events.
Whenthere is no relevantdatabaseto draw from, risk is determinedsubjectivelyon

the basis of available information and greatly dependson the experienceand
knowledgeof the managerwho assesses
probability. If thereis sufficient information
between
is
0 and 1. If thereis little
value
at
a
numerical
probability usually estimated
is
little
information
or very
risk probability verbally assessedas low, medium or
high.
Risk can impact a project in various ways. It can adversely affect planned expenses,
final
issue
duration
In
both longer duration and
the
quality.
project
and project
increased
loss
be
through
quality
expressed
may
expenses. If there is enough
information risk impact can be calculated. But in practice it is often impossible to
calculate risk impact quantitatively so a qualitative appraisal is made estimating the
impact as a low, medium or high.
Risk quantification should reflect both the above components, either quantitative or
qualitative. This is done by introducing risk exposure, which is the product of risk
impact:
and
risk
probability
risk exposure= risk probability x risk impact (Carteret
al., 1994).
13
Chapter2
Risk management
Risk exposure has no importance in the case of a single risk. If only one risk was
analysed in a particular project phase,it would be enough to calculate its probability
and its impact on the project. However, if two or more risks may occur risk exposure
can be used to compare them and decide about how to respond to each of them.
An example of determining priorities among three risks will be used to show how
risk managersuse risk exposureto reach decisions.
Three risks shall be analysed: RI, R2 and R3.
RI has 0.1 probability and 10,000 impact.
The exposure for risk RI is 0.1x 10,000= 1,000.
R2 has 0.02 probability and 50,000 impact.
The exposure for risk R2 is 0.02x5O,OOO
= 1,000.
R3 has 0.7 probability and 2,000 impact.
The exposure for risk R3 is 0.7 x 2,000 = 1,400.
Risks RI and R2 have different probabilities and impacts but the same exposure.
Risk R3 has a high probability but a relatively low impact. Risk R3 has the highest
determining
in
have
top
risk response.
priority
exposureand will

Depending on the level of risk exposure, risks are classed as unacceptable,
is
how
to manage each
and
a
plan
negligible,
made
or
about
undesirable, acceptable
one. Godfrey (1996) suggestedrisk categories and the appropriate way of managing
each category:
UNACCEPTABLE
UNDESIRABLE
be
Intolerable,
transferred.
must
eliminated
or
if
be
To
detailed
avoided
reasonably
practicable,
investigation and cost benefit justification required, top level
ACCEPTABLE
approvalneeded,monitoringessential.
be
Can
is
the
accepted
provided
risk
managed.
-
NEGLIGIBLE
further
No
consideration needed.
-
14
Chapter2
Risk mannement
For eachproject a decisioncanbe madeto link a certainlevel of risk exposurewith a

for
thus
the
also
with
risk management.
category,
and
proposed
plan
particular
If the risk probability has been qualitatively assessed as improbable, remote,
impact
frequent
(Godfrey,
1996)
the
as negligible,
and
risk
occasional, probable and
be
the
can
each
risk
acceptability of
marginal, serious, critical and catastrophic
assessedindependently of any others.
This may be as follows (Godfrey, 1996):
frequent probability and catastrophic impact = unacceptablerisk.
impact
= unacceptablerisk.
probable probability and critical
impact
= undesirable risk.
occasional probability and serious
impact
= acceptablerisk.
marginal
remote probability and
improbable probability and negligible impact = negligible risk.
2.5 RISK MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
Risk managementis a disciplinefor living with thepossibility thatfuture eventsmay

1993).
In
Norman,
(Flanagan
the global sense, risk
and
cause adverse effects
be
done
that
that
is
that,
the
ensures
all
can
carried
out,
when
process
management
will be done to achievethe objectiveof the project, within the constraintsof the
basic
The
1990).
is
Needler,
(Clark,
Pledger
goal
of
project
management
and
project
to realisethe projectwithin the predictedtime, plannedcostsandsatisfactoryquality.
Contraryto this is project realisationunder conditionsof uncertainty,and when the
be
is
foreseen
This
predicted
cannot
with
events
certainty.
all
what
outcomesof
into
it
to
turn
risk, andto managethat risk.
uncertainty
makes necessary
The management of risk is a continuous process and should span all the phases of
the project (Smith, 1999). Risks and their effects should be observed on all the key
in
decision-making
by
throughout
the
the
the
project
and
sites of
all
participants
decision-making process. All through the project's life cycle it is necessary to
continuously identify causes that may have a detrimental effect on the project,
The
them.
to
their
possible
adverse
analyse
consequencesand prepare a response
15
Chapter2
Risk rnanagement
investor and his project managerhave the greatestresponsibility for identifying risks,
do
Project
them
to
them.
all they can to
and
responding
managers
should
analysing
realise the project, undertaking activities that decreaseor eliminate the effects of risk
or uncertainty. Thus risk managementis inseparable from project managementand
cannot be viewed as a separateactivity.
The risk management process may consist of elements more or less closely
(1985),
Hayes
According
Perry
the risk management process
to
and
connected.
consists of three phases(see Fig. 2.1):
1. risk identification;
2. risk analysis;
3. risk response.
oo
'N
0-
RISK
RISK
IDENTIFICATION
ANALYSIS
10
RISK
RESPONSE
Figure 2.1: Linear risk managementprocess,Perry and Hayes (1985)
During the project's entire life cycle, qualitative or quantitative analysis are carried
kind
This
identified
for
prepared.
of process
risk and an adequateresponse
out
every
is linear by nature and is a good starting point for successfulrisk management.
However,any activity undertakenas a risk responsemay producenew risks, which

shouldbe in their turn be identified, analysedand respondedto. Thus someauthors
view risk managementas a cyclical process.
According to Carter et al. (1994), the risk managementprocess consists of 6 phases

that cyclically repeat themselves(see Fig. 2.2):
1. Risk identification and documentation;
2. Risk quantification and classification;
3. Risk modelling (often called risk analysis);
4. Risk reporting and strategy development;
16
Chapter2
Risk management
5. Risk mitigation,reductionand/oroptimisation;
6. Risk monitoringandcontrol.
RiskRisk
identi
identification
ication
'i anddcmonitOrm
documandcontro entati
entation
Risk
The
Risk
mitigalio
mitigation,
Risk
quantire uction
reduction
fication and
an(yo
an,
r..
.Managenicil
clas
classiS"
i i
optimis0.
Process
fication
lication
at
ation
0
Risk
Risk
modclling
reportingand (oftencalled
strategy
risk
development
developmentanalysis)
analysis)
Figure 2.2: Cyclical risk management process, Carter et al. (1994)
Kliem and Ludin (1997) divided the risk management process into 4 phases
(seeFig 2.3):
1. Risk identification;
2. Risk analysis;
3. Risk control;
4. Risk reporting.
Do
Plan
Risk
identifcation
Risk
analysis
Risk
management
ent
Risk
control
Risk
reporting
Act
Check
Figure 2.3: Cyclical risk managementprocess,Kliem and Ludin (1997)
17
Chapter2
Risk management
Baker,Ponniahand Smith (1998)dividedthe risk management

processinto 5 phases
(seeFig. 2.4):
1. Risk identification;
2. Risk estimation;
3. Risk evaluation;
4. Risk response;
5. Risk monitoring.
-dekI
FJKs
Ae
t:i:o:n:
ntifi ca
[Riisk:M: itring
co
Risk
Analysis
Risk
Control
Risk Esti,
IRisk
uafionj
Figure 2.4: Cyclical risk managementprocess,Baker, Ponniah and Smith (1998)
Chapman (1997) suggestedthe generic risk managementprocess divided in 9 phases

(see Fig. 2.5):
1. Define;
2. Focus;
3. Identify;
4. Structure;
5. Ownership;
6. Estimate;
7. Evaluate;
8. Plan;
9. Manage.
18
Chapter2
Risk manaRement
Define
Focus
Identify
Structure
Ownership
Estimate
Evaluate
Plan
Manage
Figure 2.5: Generic risk managementprocess,Chapman (1997)
Grammer and Trollope (1993) realised the cyclical risk managementprocess divided
in 5 phases (see Fig. 2-6):
1. Identify risks;
2. Analyse risks;
3. Reduce risks;
4. Plan against and managerisks;
5. Review risks;
19
Chapter2
Risk management
Step 1:
Identify risks
Find and defined risks
Step 2:
Analyse risks
Decide the probability of risks

happening
Assess likely impact of the
risks
Step 3:
Reduce risks
Take immediate
addresskey risks
Step 4:
Plan against and
managerisks
I
Create a risk reduction plan for

ongoing key risks-business
MD/GM
needsto underwrite this plan
Step 5:
Review risks
action
to
Review and update risk

management plans throughout
the lifecycle
Figure 2.6: Cyclical risk managementprocess,Grammer and Trollope (1993)
The continuation will show in detail all the elementsof the cyclical risk management
basis
in
for
framework
the
this
the
as
served
work,
which
proposed
proposed
process
for managing risks throughout the project's life cycle (see fig. 2.7).
20
Chapter2
Risk manaizement
Risk Identification
itative or QuantitativeRisk
isk is unaccet)tablel I Risk is undesirable
Avoid risk II
Transfer rik
Risk is acceptable II
Risk is negligible
Retainrisk II
Ignorerisk
Avoid risk
ITransfer
riskj
Sharerisfl
Risk monitoring
Reduce riskl
Figure 2.7: Proposed cyclical risk managementprocess
The proposed cyclical risk managementprocessbasically contains the sameelements

as the published risk management processes that are shown, and is adapted to
computer programming. The process begins by risk identification, followed by
qualitative or quantitative assessment of risk probability and risk impact, and
calculation of the corresponding risk exposure. Depending on the value of risk
exposure a decision is made about risk acceptability, which serves as the basis for
one of the methods of risk response.The application of risk response is followed by
if
and
monitoring,
new risks appear the process returns to the beginning, that is,
risk
to their identification.
21
Chapter2
Risk management
2.5.1 RISK IDENTIFICATION
Risk managementalwaysstartswith risk identification,which may be consideredthe

important
most
phaseof the risk managementprocess(Baker, Ponniahand Smith,
1998).Its purposeis to compile a list of risks importantfor a particularproject.To
form this list, it is first necessaryto researchthe potential sourcesof risk, adverse
include
that
risk, andthe unfavourableeffectsof an undesirablescenario.For
events
example,weatheris a sourceof risk, extremelybad weatheris an adverseevent,and
its effect is work running behindscheduledue to extremelybad weatherconditions.
Risk identification greatly dependson the manager'sexperience.If his experience
with particularmethodsandtechniquesof risk identificationis goodhe will continue
to use them, whereasbad experienceleadsto avoiding approachespreparedearlier.
Managersusevarioustechniquesfor risk identification,the best-knownof which are:
brainstorming,interviews,questionnaires,
Delphi technique,expertsystems,etc.
2.5.1.1 Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a meaningful and open discussion in which participants discuss
their views on possible sources of risk in the project, on how uncertainty is
manifested and how to turn it into risk, on risk probability, on potential risk impact,
and on possible risk responses(Smith, 1999). The project or risk manager usually
depends
discussion
the
on his experience in conducting
chairs
and successgreatly
discussions of this kind. This method is efficient and often results in a very
comprehensive risk list. A problem may be the participation of a very authoritarian
and domineering personality who dominates others and imposes his stands. The
number of participants is also important becausediscussions with a large number of
participants become inefficient and long-lasting.
2.5.1.2 Interviews
The interview is a technique in which the respondentanswersprepared questionsand
discussesthe issues involved (Carteret al. 1994). The purpose of the interview is to
register answers to questions, and later use them as a basis for analysis. The
be
can
unstructured, freely formulated, allowing the respondent to answer
questions
them as he chooses. Structured questions require a yes or no answer from the
22
Chapter2
Risk management
respondent,or that he accepts one of several alternatives offered. The project or risk
manager, who frames the questions and conducts the interview, should have great
knowledge and experience, primarily in formulating and drawing up questions but
also in conducting interviews. There are two forms of interview: one to one and
several to one. A one to one interview enablesgreater depth in identifying each risk,
while the several to one interview makes it possible to approach the respondent's
knowledge from several angles. This technique is very time consuming becauseafter
the interview its results should be systernatisedand analysed.
2.5.1.3 Questionnaires
Questionnaires are definitely the fastest and most efficient way of leaming the
opinion of all the project team members and allowing these opinions to be analysed
and compared (Godfrey, 1996). Questions can be structured or unstructured. The
main disadvantage of this method is that is does not stimulate creative thinking.
Question quality depends on the person who compiled the questionnaire, but unlike
the case of the interview, the respondentscannot discuss their answers nor present
any standsoutside the questions.
2.5.1.4 The Delphi technique

The Delphi technique is an attempt to obtain objective results from a subjective
discussion (Powel, 1996). It starts by the risk managerhanding out a questionnaireto
all the project team members, who answer the questions and return the questionnaire
to the risk manager. Then the risk manager hands out the answers to all the project
team members, who use them to reconsider their approach, give new answersto the
same questions and return them to the risk manager. The revised results are again
distributed to the team members, who are again asked to reconsider their stands and
give new answers. This iterative process continues until the risk manager decided
that a consensushas been reached and that there is no more need to examine the
stands of all the team members. The main advantage of this technique is that the
project team members are independent and that there is no predominance of "strong
personalities". The disadvantage is that a very large number of iterations are often
necessaryfor a consensusto be reached,which can be very time consuming.
23
Chapter2
Risk manaRement
2.5.1.5 Expert systems
An expert systemis developedby using knowledgeabout earlier projects and the

experiencesof all the participantsin the project to identify potentialrisks (Carteret
al., 1994). The expert system will not expose all the hidden risks, but it will
incorporateall the experiencesfrom earlierprojects.One of the basiccharacteristics
of expertsystemsis that they provide an explanationof how a problemwas solved,
thus providing the user both with the knowledgethey contain and the reasoning
mechanismusedto reachit, which he may examine.This significantlycontributesto
the confidencepeoplehave in expertsystemsand why they acceptthem as reliable
tools for risk identification.
2.5.2 QUALITATIVE
ASSESSMENT
Once all the major risks have been identified and the risk list compiled, it is
necessaryto make a qualitativerisk assessment
and record it in a documentcalled
the risk register (Pattersonand Neailey, 2002). The first step in forming the risk
register is a short descriptionof each particular risk, which should be clear and
unambiguousto avoid confusingrisks. When they have been described,the risks
shouldbe classedinto categoriesaccordingto their sources.The categoriesshould
cover as many risk sources as possible. Godfrey (1996) proposed one such
categorisation:
political
government policy, public opinion, change in ideology, dogma,

legislation,disorder
environmentalcontaminatedland, pollution liability, noise, permissions,internal

corporate policy,
environmental
law or regulations
or practice or
"impact" requirements
planning
permission requirements, policy and practice, land use, socioeconomic impacts, public opinion
market
demand,competition,obsolescence,
customersatisfaction,fashion
treasury policy, taxation, cost inflation, interest rates, exchange
economic
rates
financial
bankruptcy, margins, insurance,risk share
24
Chapter2
Risk management
natural
unforeseen ground conditions, weather, earthquake, fire or

explosion,archaeologicaldiscovery
project
definition,
technical
programme,labourandresources,communications,culture
designadequacy,operationalefficiency,reliability
procurement strategy, performance requirements,

standards,leadership, organisation,planning and quality control,
human
error, incompetence,ignorance, tiredness, communication ability,

culture,work in the dark or at night
criminal
lack of security,vandalism,theft, fraud,corruption
safety
CDM
regulations, Health
and
Safety work,
hazardous,
substances,collisions, collapse, flooding, fire and explosion

When the sources have been defined it is necessaryto determine, for each risk, the
adverse event that will produce the risk. This is especially important for the later
establishment of risk response.Risks are often interconnected, which should also be
defined. For example, an activity undertaken as risk response may give rise to
another risk. In this phase of risk managementit is necessaryto allocate a person or
team responsible for every identified risk.
After determining the probability and impact of every risk, and thus also its
exposure, a risk list can be compiled according to priority and, depending on risk
acceptability, the strategy of responsedefined.
Once risks have been qualitatively assessedand measurestaken to respond to them,

they are monitored and in this process new risks will probably be discovered
resulting from risk response. Since new risks should be treated in the same way as
the original risks, risk managementbecomesa cyclical process.
2.5.3
QUANTITATIVE
RISK ANALYSIS
Risks are quantitatively analysed if it is possible to estimate the probability of an

event on the basis of available information about similar past events, or information
reachedin anotherway, or on the basisof personalexperience.

25
Chapter2
Risk management
Many methods of quantitative risk analysis are in use today, the best-known being:
simple assessment,probabilistic analysis, sensitivity analysis, decision trees and
Monte Carlo Simulation (Evans and Olson, 1998; Baker, Ponniah and Smith, 1998;
Vose, 2000).
2.5.3.1 Simple assessment

This is a relatively simple arithmetical method that addresses significant risks
is
(Powell,
1996).
The
total
the
evaluation
effect
potential
separately and examines
based on calculating the expected impact of every significant risk. The impacts are
then added up and the sum impact is used as the foundation for a contingency plan.
This technique is satisfactory for small and simple projects
2.5.3.2 Probabilistic analysis
This is a statisticalmethodthat enablescalculatingthe exposurefor every separate

(Powell,
1996).
First
for
the
optimistic, mostprobableand
a
project as whole
risk or
for
For
time
event.
example,an
every
are
given
and
estimates
pessimistic cost
flats
be
building
block
500/m2,
for
may
construction
a
of
optimistic price estimate
is
1,000/m2.
750/m2,
and a pessimisticprice estimate
will most probably cost
Thenthe probability for eachevaluationis subjectivelydefined.For example,let the
for
be
0.3,
for
the mostprobable
the
the
probability
evaluation
optimistic
probability
is
for
0.1.
important
It
0.6,
the
the
pessimisticevaluation
and
probability
evaluation
for the sum of all the probabilitiesto equal 1. Multiplying the estimatedconstruction
costs with the correspondingprobabilities and adding up the products gives
exposure,i.e. the ExpectedValue (EV). In the above example EV = 500*0.3 +
750*0.6 + 1000*0.1= 700/m2.The EV differs from the optimistic evaluationby
200/m2,from the most probableevaluationby 50/m2,and from the pessimistic
evaluation by 300/m2. This means that the pessimistic evaluation that is the
maximum likely risk and representsthe basis for making the contingencyplan.
Probabilistic analysis is simple to use and very understandable,but subjective
it
dependent
makes
on the experienceandknowledgeof the risk manager
evaluation
who makesit.
26
Chapter 2
Risk management
2.5.3.3 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivityanalysisshowsthe impactof every separaterisk, i. e. the unwantedeffect

of an event on the project (Flanaganand Norman, 1993).All the parametersthat
influencethe exposurevalue are varied and how their changesaffect the final result
is followed. The percentageof parameterchangedivided by the percentageof result
change caused by that parameterchange is called the sensitivity factor. The
sensitivity factor is not of great importanceif the impact of one parameteronly is
examined.It comesto expressionwhen comparingthe sensitivity factorsof several
is
This
technique
the
parametersaffecting result.
useful for finding the parameterthat
affects the final risk exposuremost, but it does not show the probability that
parameterswill changewithin the rangerank in which the sensitivity analysiswas
carriedout.
2.5.3.4 Decision trees
Decisions are made when there are severalalternatives(Godfrey, 1996). If each

this
alternativehas sub-alternatives,and each sub-alternativesub-sub-alternatives,
fonns a tree structureshowing all the possiblepaths of deciding. If the impact of
its
be
the
tree
assessed
and
probability evaluated,
every alternative on
can
subjectivelyor in someotherway, this will result in exposure,that is in an Expected
Value (EV) which will definethe risk level of everyalternative.
2.53.5
Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo Simulation is a statistical simulation technique (Wall, 1997). Every

parameter that influences a particular risk exposure is treated as a random variable
with the corresponding
value rank and probability distribution function. The
distribution function is determined from existing databases or evaluated from

experience. One value of each parameter is randomly chosen and its probability
determined from the distribution function. The chosen parameter values and the
corresponding probabilities are used to calculate the corresponding exposure. This
random selection procedure is repeated from 100 to 1,000 times, when exposure
becomes a random variable as well. It is now possible to calculate the Expected
Value, maximum likely risk, the probability for exposure to assumea value within a
27
Chapter2
Risk manaRement
particular interval, etc. Considering the large number of calculations, this technique
demandscomputeruse.
2.5.4 RISK RESPONSE
Each identified risk, depending on the level of risk exposure, is classed as

unacceptable,undesirable,acceptableor negligible. This classificationaffects the
decisionabouthow to respondto it (Baker,PonniahandSmith, 1999).
If a risk is classedas unacceptablethe responseto it may be risk avoidanceor risk
transfer.
If a risk is classedas undesirablethe responseto it may be risk avoidance,risk
transfer,risk reductionor risk sharingwith the appropriaterisk monitoring.
If a risk is classedas acceptablethe responseto it may be risk retentionwith the
appropriaterisk monitoring.
If the risk is classedasnegligibleno responseto it is necessary.
2.5.4.1 Risk avoidance
In practice risk avoidance means refusing to accept the risk at all (Flanagan and
Norman, 1993). Qualitative assessmenthas shown such high risk exposure that the
risk should simply be eliminated. To eliminate the risk, research is necessaryinto
whether the potential source of risk can be eliminated, the unfavourable event in
drastic
is
inherent.
The
the
way of avoiding risk is not to accept the
most
which
risk
be
Risks
to
the
also
avoided by introducing a contract
can
contract, give up
project.
clausewhereby some risks, that is their consequences,shall not be accepted.
2.5.4.2 Risk transfer

This response means transferring the risk to any other participant in the project but
the investor through contracting (Carter et al. 1994). The investor can transfer the
risk to the contractor or the designer, the contractor to his sub-contractors or, the
investor, contractor or sub-contractors to the insurance company, and the contractor
and sub-contractors to their guarantee. When choosing a risk transfer strategy
through contracting, account should always be taken of which participant in the
28
Chapter2
Risk management
project can best control events that may lead to the appearanceof the risk. Account
be
should takenof which participantcanbestcontrol the risk if it occurs,or assumea
risk that cannot be controlled.
2.5.4.3 Risk sharing

When a project participant cannot control risk exposure then he can share it with
other participants (Barnes, 1991). Part of the risk may be transferred but part should
be assumedand one of the risk responsesapplied.
2.5.4.4 Risk retention
When a project participant estimates that the risk probability is small, or that its
impact is acceptable, the risk is simply retained and no response is made (Powell,
1996). This does not mean that the risk is ignored; it is monitored and controlled and
its exposure is constantly checked.
2.5.4.5 Risk reduction

Most risks need not be avoided or transferred, they need not be shared with other
be
they
simply
retained and not responded to (Baker,
project participants nor need
Ponniah and Smith, 1999). Certain measures can be undertaken to reduce risk
exposure, that is to decrease the probability of an event with adverse effects, or
decreasethe impact of these effects on the project. Risk reduction demands certain
initial investment. It goes without saying that this investment should be smaller than
the expensesentailed by the occurrence of the adverse event. For example, tunnel
excavation in weak rock mass is subject to the risk of rock-mass stability loss due to
inadequatesubstructuring or water penetration. Additional researchis an expensebut
considerably decreasesthese risks. The costs of additional researchshould be smaller
than the costs of repair if caving does occur. Risk reduction also provides new
knowledge about the project and the conditions under which it is being performed.
An attempt to reduce risk may lead to more detailed designing plans, an alternative
contracting strategy or some other method for executing the project.
29
Chapter2
Risk management

This chapter researched the role of risk management in decision-making
independently of the industry in which the decisions are made. It explained all the
elements of the risk management process and proposed cyclical risk management,
which will be part of the framework for managing risks in construction projects
proposed in this work.
Decisions are made by all the participants in the execution of a project but are
teamthat hasthe task of executingthe projectin

realisedby the project management
the given time, with planned costs and a satisfactory quality.
To successfully realiSe a project it is necessaryto identify events that may cause
unwanted effects, this means, to identify potential risk sources. Once a risk is
identified, it is necessaryto assessthe probability that it will occur, risk probability,
and to estimate the damage that it may causeto the project, risk impact. The concept
of risk exposure as the product of risk probability and risk impact is introduced to
enable the relative comparison of several risks within a project. The values of risk
exposure are used to make a risk priority list and define the appropriate responseto
each risk depending on its exposure and position on the risk priority list. Risk
responsemay produce new events that may adversely affect the project and which it
is necessaryto identify, analyse and anticipate the appropriate response.This is why
the risk managementprocess is by its nature cyclical, and why risk managementis
part of project managementand cannot be viewed as a separatewhole.
The next chapter will show research on managing risks in construction projects,
various approaches to risk management, and propose a new approach to risk
management that will be implemented in the framework for managing risks in
construction projects proposed in this work.
30
Chapter3
Risk in construction
3 RISKIN
CONSTRUCTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter researched the role of risk management in project
management,showed all the elements of the risk managementprocess and proposed
cyclical risk management as part of the framework for managing risks in
construction projects proposed in this work.
This chapter will show various approaches to risk management in construction
projects and show the need for a new approach to managing risks as part of the
construction process.
A lot of researchhas beenperformedand many paperspublishedon the subjectof

risk management.Methodshavebeensoughtfor risk identification, qualitativeand
quantitativerisk analysisand risk response.Various risk managementmodelshave
beenproposedthroughoutthe project life cycle. Theoreticrisk managementmodels
have been used in the construction industry with more or less success.An
explanationfollows of the publishedresearchresultsthat influencedthe model for
the risk managementframeworkin constructionprojectsproposedin this work. After
that CIRIA -A Guideto the SystematicManagementof Riskfrom Constructionand
RISKMAN-, 4 Risk-drivenProjectManagementMethodologywill be shown,both of
which are complete but different approachesto systematicrisk managementin
construction.
3.2 DEALING WITH RISK IN CONSTRUCTION

Constructioncompaniesare more at risk than other industrial sectors.Almost sixty
percentof all contractingand constructioncompaniesare at risk of failure or forced
financial restructuring,making building the weakest industrial sector in the UK
(Ruddock,1994).Between1982and 1985,ProfessorPeterThompsonand Dr. John
Perryof the University of ManchesterInstituteof ScienceandTechnology(UMIST),
supportedby the Scienceand EngineeringResearchCouncil, carried out important
31
Chapter3
in
in
how
deal
This
the report
to
resulted
construction.
research
with risk
researchon
Risk Managementin EngineeringConstruction(Hayesat el, 1986).

During research they realised that in construction projects risk was too often either
ignored or treated in a completely arbitrary, that is, a simplified way. For standard
building
10%
to
the
estimated
contingency was simply added
construction projects a
different
thereby
for
deadlines,
percentage,
a
projects
non-standard
and
or
costs
for
does
kind
This
allow
not
of approach
covering all uncertainty or possible risks.
the specific features of every construction project and in fact excludes risk
management.
The UMIST team proposed that instead of contingency, the risk in evaluating total
introducing
by
top
be
the
duration
most
probable
quantified
should
project costs or
This
thus
tolerance,
in
time.
bottom
also
and
the
tolerance
and
costs
estimated
and
life
the
throughout
cycle.
project
total
the estimate of
costs, would change
Hamburger (1990) described the role of the project manager as contingency planner,
Murray, Rarnsaur and Andersen (1983) showed project reserves as a key to
(2001),
Mak
(1998),
Picken
Picken
Wong
Mak,
and
and
and
managing cost risks.
(ERA).
According
for
analysis
risk
using
capital cost estimating
used a methodology
becomes
identified
for
the
events
risk
to them, the sum of the averagerisk allowance
developed
(2002)
to
Flanagan
Jackson
a
systematic
approach
and
contingency.
Odeyinka
Love
(2002)
during
budget
and
appraisal.
project
risks
managing
investigated the risk factors responsible for variation between the forecast and actual
construction cash flow.
The UMIST teamconcludedthat the greatestuncertaintiesand/orrisks appearin the

life
the
cycle, and that risk managementas part of project
project
earliestphasesof
shouldbe a continuousactivity throughoutthe project life cycle.Franke
management
(1987) also madea similar conclusion:Being a dynamicprocess,risk management
development
in
to
the
order
analyse
of the project
presupposesregular updating
(1984)
Traylor
addressedproject managementunder
et
al.
risks continuously.
conditionsof uncertainty.
32
Chapter3
Smith (1999) confirms that risk diminisheswith the advanceof project realisation:
Riskschangethroughthe life cycle of a project. The earlieststagesof the projectare
concernedmorewith risks than otherstages.As a projectprogressesrisk diminishes.
is a continuousprocess:At the endof
He also showshis views that risk management
each phase an appraisal and assessmentcan be made of the risk involved in
proceedingwith the project. The managementof risk is therefore a continuous
processandshouldspanall the phasesof the project.
The project team, under the project manager, is required to design, engineer and
construct thefacilities, to an agreed specification, budget and time, without sacrifice
of quality, safety, operability or maintainability - in other words, fitfor the purpose
(Baker, 1986). Chapman (1990) researched the role of risk engineering in risk
management.According to Perry (1986), risk management should be implemented
creatively, not as a set of rules. Mikkelsen (1990) introduced risk management in
product development projects. White (1995) showed the Application of Systems
Thinking to Risk Management. Mills (2001) described a systematic approach to risk
managementin construction.
Risk and uncertainty are inherent in all construction work no matter what the size of
the project (Hayes et al., 1986). Lam (1999), and also Songer, Diekmann and Pecsok
(1997), researchedrisk identification in major infrastructural projects such as power,
telecommunication and processplants. BqJaJ,Olowoye and Lenard (1997) researched
the contractor's approachesto risk identification
Willams (1994) considers that the risk register should be central to the risk
managementprocess.In addition to identifying risks, the risk register includesrisk
impact,
thereby also risk exposure,and in the final issue,
risk
probability and
dependingon risk acceptability,also the strategyof risk response.Pattersonand
Neailey (2002) proposeda very comprehensive
risk register database.Ward (1999)
also worked on the contentof the risk register.In his opinion, organisingthe risk
registershould start from the fact that resourcesavailable for risk managementare
limited andthat risk management
shouldbe costeffective.
33
Chapter3
Meeting time and cost objectives in complex projects presents additional specific
(Haabison,
1985).
Raz and Michael (2001) showed how various tools can be
risks
used as support in different phasesof the risk managementprocess. They analysed
which tools successfulcompaniesuse as support in risk managementand what theses
do
do
that
companies
others
not. Their survey categorises 38 tools and techniques
and is a good guide and starting basis for successfulrisk management.
Baker, Ponniah and Smith (1998) researched and compared the frequency with
which different qualitative and quantitative risk analysis techniques were used. They
showed that about 80% project managers combine qualitative and quantitative
methods and the remaining 20% use qualitative techniques. A very small percentage
of managersuse quantitative techniquesonly. Akintoye and MacLeod (1997) showed
a similar trend in the methods used for qualitative and quantitative risk analysis.
Raftery, Csete and Hui (2001) carried out the qualitative analysis: Are Risk Attitudes
Robust Kartam and Levitt (1991) used an artificial intelligence approach in
how
logic
(2000)
fuzzy
is used in
Carr
Tah
showed
and
qualitative risk analysis.
qualitative risk analysis. Al-Bahar (1991), Dey, Tabucanon and Ongunlana (1994),
Dey (1999) and Dey (2001) used An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in
Quantitativerisk analysisgreatly dependson the availability of dataand experience

from similar earlier projects.The mostreliable andmost completedataareprovided
by the company'sown experienceand databasesfrom similar past projects.Other
importantdata sourcesare the experienceof the project managementteam and the
experienceof other companiesthat executedsimilar projects in the past.Numerous
techniquesare availablefor the quantitativeanalysis of project risk, but without
data
theyare worthless(Bowers,1994).
competent
Hayes et al. (1986) emphasisedthe importanceof analytical techniquesin risk
assessment,
and Ward and Chapman(1991) researchedthe role of risk analysisin
project management.Cooper, D.F., MacDonald,D.H and Chapman,C.B. (1985)
researchedthe role of risk analysis in construction cost estimate. Yeo (1991)
34
Chapter3
analysed project cost sensitivity. Berny and Towsend (1993) addressed macrosimulation analysis, and Orman (199 1) showed the use of simulation risk analysis in
project insurance. Newton (1991) showed Monte Carlo Simulation in analysing risks
from innovative design alternatives, and Hull
(1990) showed Monte Carlo
Simulation in proposal assessment.Williams (1990) applied risk analysis using an

embedded CPA package. Kangari and Riggs (1988) described the role of risk
analysis in portfolio
management in construction. Wall
(1997) researched
distributions and correlations in Monte Carlo Simulation. Xu and Tiong (2001)

implemented risk assessmenton contractors'pricing strategies.
In construction, as in life in general, it is necessaryto strike a balance between rigid
adherenceto the status quo, avoiding all risks on the one hand, and rash risk-seeking
behaviour on the other (Raftery, 1994). Baker, Ponniah and Smith (1999) analysed
risk responsetechniques in major construction projects. Their main conclusion is that
in
is
a
response
practically 90% cases. Barnes (1991,
risk reduction
used as risk
1983) showed risk sharing in contracts and how to allocate risks in construction
contracts. Berkeley, Humphreys and Thomas (1991) described the role of risk action
management in project management. Flanagan and Norman (1993) addressedthe
client's role in risk management. They say: Clients can have very different
headings
be
but
the
their
of time, cost, quality.
objectives,
grouped under
needs can
Time can mean both the need for rapid construction and completion on the stipulated
date. Cost means obtaining value for money and completing the project within
budget. Quality is used to cover technical standards, including such areas as safety
and fitness for purpose. The relative importance of time, cost and quality will vary
from client to client (and between similar clients in different countries). What is,
however, certain is that the clients of the industry do not want surprises. They want
to achieve their desired objective and to this end a professional approach to risk
managementis required. Thompson (1991) also wrote about the client's role in risk
management.Katavic (1994) showed risk reduction in early phasesof the investment
project.
Baccarini and Archer (2001) developed a methodology of project choice based on

estimating the project's total risk and comparing this with the risks of other projects
35
Chapter3
by introducing the overall risk rating. Moselhi and Deb (1993) used the multiobjective decision-criteria method to choose a project under conditions of
uncertainty.Burchett,U., and TummalaV.M.R. (1998) showeda risk management
model for project selection.Wong, Norman and Flanagan(2000) showeda fuzzy
stochastictechniquefor projectselection.
Risk is minimised using one of the existing optimisation methods known as search
techniques. The better-known methods include: genetic algorithms (Mitchell, 1996),
simulated annealing (Kirkpatrick, 1983), and hill climbing (Ferry and Brandon,
1991). Winston (1998,1999) showed the use of computers in decision making under
uncertainty.
The literature review shows that most authors have tended to focus on different
techniques for quantitative or qualitative risk assessment,risk registers, the role of
risk management in project management,and other mechanisms.This thesis argues
that realising a construction project is a processand that the risk managementprocess
should be subordinated to the construction process
Therefore, the proposed framework introduces a new approach to risk management
by embedding it within the construction process, and has thereby developed
process-driven risk managementapproach.
This chapter will show two approachesto risk managementin construction projects:
Firstly one developed by CIRIA -A Guide to the systematic management of risk
from construction and secondly the RISKMAN methodology developed by Eureka
researchprogramme. Both approacheshave provided useful guidance for developing
proposed framework. They give a sytematic approach to risk managementfrom risk
identification to risk responsein all construction projects regardless of the size, type
and purpose of the project.
36
Chapter3
3.3 CIRIA -A GUIDE TO THE SYSTEMATIC MANAGEMENT

OF RISK FROM CONSTRUCTION
Godfrey (1996) showed a comprehensiveapproachto systematic risk managementin
construction. In 1993-1995 the Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA) funded researchin risk management,undertakenby Sir William
Halcrow and Partners Ltd, in co-operation with Professor Peter Thompson,
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and Professor Philip
Capper, King's College, University of London.
The researchresulted in a Guide by Patrick Godfrey (1996), made to help implement
the systematic risk managementprocess.
The objectiveof the Guidewasto:

introduce
identifying,
a
simple,
method
of
assessing,
0
practical
monitoringand
managingrisk from constructionin an informedandstructuredway;
0 provide adviceon how to developand implementrisk control strategythat is
appropriateto your business;
0 identify when and how to seekand evaluatespecialistadvice in assessing
risks.
Systematicrisk management
makesit possibleto:
0 identify, assessandrank risks makingrisks explicit;
0 focuson the major risks from project;
0 makeinformeddecisionson provisionfor adversity,e.g. mitigation measures;
0 minimisepotentialdamageshouldthe worst happen;
0 control the uncertainaspectsof constructionprojects;
0 clarify and formaliseyour role andthe roles of othersin the risk management
process;
0 identify opportunitiesto enhanceprojectperformance.
The Guide contains 4 toolboxes designed as a step-by-step procedure for
implementing a systematicrisk managementprocess in practice. Using these 4
37
Chapter3
toolboxesenablessystematicrisk management
regardlessof the type and volumeof
a constructionproject.
Toolbox 1: Risk identification techniquesis a tool that can be used to identify risks in
the systematic risk managementprocess.The Guide shows the practical use of some
identification
techniques, such as:
the
most widespread risk
of
brainstonning,
free
o
andstructured
o
lists,
prompt
use of records and
o structuredinterviews.
Toolbox 2: Risk registers and risk assessmentsis a tool that helps form and update
the risk register and implement risk assessment.The Guide suggestsa risk register
that can be directly implemented in practice. In its simplest form risk register will:
o
describe the existing risk and
record possible nsk reduction or mitigation actions.
Depending on circumstances,it can also provide:

subdivision of risk into more detail,
impact,
0a measureof probability and
identification of ownership of the risks,
importance/cost/acceptability of the risk,
practicality of mitigation actions,
cost and ownership of action,
timing of action,
of residualrisk andmeasureof costbenefit.

o assessment
Toolbox 3: Systematic capture of the problem is a tool that shows the use of some
advanced techniques in quantitative risk analysis. The Guide describes the practical
following
techniques:
the
of
use
Decision
trees,
o
o
Fault trees,
Event trees,
38
Chapter3
o
Sensitivity analysis,
Cost contingency analysis and
Programme risk analysis.
Toolbox 4: Methods ofpresentation of risk analysis result is a tool that shows the use
of some advanced techniques of presenting the results of risk analysis. The Guide
describesthe use of the following techniques:
o
Improving estimates,
Retiring contingency during the project,
Decision consequencemodel and
Cost and time plot.
3.4 RISKMAN - RISK-DRIVEN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

METHODOLOGY
Carter et al. (1994) showed a methodology of risk management throughout the life
cycle of a structure.The methodologyresulted from studiesmade as part of the

Eurekaresearchprogrammein 1990-1993.
The objective of the RISKMAN
methodology is forming a framework for
professional analysis, controlling
project risks and providing
guidance for
implementing the framework proposed. The RISKMAN methodology approaches

risk management in all its complexity. The following
guidelines show the
foundations of this risk managementmethodology:

o
Risk, or uncertainty, is an integral, inevitable and important feature of all

project scenarios,and one which has not been given sufficient attention since
the advent of critical path analysis in the 1960s;
Risk should be respected,but not feared. It should be handled systematically

and carefully;
The pro-active control of significant risks and threats to the achievement of

project objectives is so important, that it should be the highest priority for the
project manager;
39
Chapter3
o
When managed professionally, risk-taking can provide real opportunities to
maximisepotential benefitsfor all concerned,and yield higher profit and/or

benefit returns than low-risk enterprises;
o
If risk is to be managed professionally, an analytical and quantitative

approach is essential, combined with a real understanding of probability and
uncertainty theory;
The mathematical approach is essential, combined with a real understanding

of probability and uncertainty theory;
The mathematical approach is essential for the evaluation of risk, but alone it
is impotent. Peopleshould be involved if risk is to be controlled and risk

opportunities exploited. The human approach should run kind with the
mathematical approach;
o
Since the project manager must bring in all project deliverables within
budgetedtime and cost, that budget should include a contingencybudget

sufficient to addressall uncertaintiesor risks asbestcanbe forecast.This also
means that the contingencyshould be justified explicitly in advanceof
commitmentto the budget;
o
Advance justification of risk contingency will encourage honesty in the

estimating process and the acceptanceof progressive managementcombining
opennesswith responsibility;
Risks must be owned by individuals. Risk causes must also be owned,

monitored and mitigated. Early action is usually lower in cost and more
effective than managementby crisis.
The basic goals of the RISKMAN methodology are:

o
To increase professional capability in the taking of risks in project
environments.
o
To promote general understanding of risk and probabilistic theory amongst

managementand staff at all levels.
To provide general principles for effective risk management.
To provide specific guidance on a framework within which project risk can
be effectively managed.
40
Chapter3
o To clarify terminology which may form a sound basis for effective

communicationaboutrisk.
o
To examine, clarify, assess and provide guidance on the methods and

techniques available for risk analysis and management.
The RISKMAN methodology demands:
identified
that
all risks areuniquely
anddescribed;
o
risks andcombinationsof risks;
o that careis takento includeconsequential
o
impact
be
for
to
of
potential
risk
assessed probability
occurrence and
on the
programme, cost or performance;
all non-cost impacts to be calculated out on their cost implications;
each major risk to have a mitigation strategy;
major risks to be assigneda trigger event in the project programme;
its
have
for
to
management;
each risk
an owner responsible
risk to be prioritised;
risk to be reviewed at regular intervals;
intervals;
be
to
reported at regular
risk status
0a
risk model to be developed, that contains all the uncertainties and risk
estimatesthat may effect the programme timescales or costs;
risk contingencies to be identified against the event that will incur the risk;
be
for
to
assessed
risks;
subcontractors
risk management plans to be in place.
The RISKMAN methodology has eight steps: risk identification, risk assessment,
risk
evaluation, risk mitigation, risk budget provisioning, risk monitoring and
control, risk audits and continuous improvement.
Risk managementtakes place through risk audits in all the stages of the structure's
life cycle. The objectives of the project risk audit are:
o to confirm that risk managementin accordance with the company's

procedureshasbeenappliedat eachstagein the project life-cycle;
o to confirm that the project is well managedand that the risks are under
control;
41
Chapter3
o
to verify that the project reporting and project managementis effective;
o to assistin the transferacrossprojectsof experiencegainedin resolvingrisks;

o
to assist in identifying early signs of deterioration and the profit potential of

the project;
to verify that the project history file is maintained.
The risk managementprocessis repeatedat every stage in a project lifecycle so that a

continuity and growing assessmentof risk to successare obtained.

This chapter showed how various authors in the construction industry have tried to
answer the question How to deal with risk in construction? With the purpose of
improving risk management, investigations were made about the importance of all
the project participants in minimizing the adverse effects of risks, about risk
identification, qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, minimizing risk by using
optimisation techniques, and risk response.
It also showed and gave a detailed analysis of two approaches to systematic risk
CIRIA,
in
construction
projects,
management
Guide to the Systematic
Management of Risk from Construction, and RISKMAN, A Risk-driven Project

Management Methodology. Both approaches have provided useful guidance for
developing proposed framework. They give a sytematic approach to risk
management from risk identification to risk response in all construction projects
regardlessof the syze, type and purpose of the project.
The CIRIA Guide contains a step-by-step procedure for implementing systematic

risk management in construction projects. A step-by-step procedure can be an
effective way of managing and controlling risk in construction. Risk should be
managed throughout the structure life cycle. Different phases of the life cycle have
their own specific features, they continue one onto another and demand a separate
approach to risk management. The least that can be done is to prescribe a set of
42
Chapter3
procedures for managing risk in every separate phase. Furthermore, the risk
management
processshouldbe adaptedto the structure'slife cycle asa process.
RISKMAN is a risk-driven project methodology. However, even this methodology
does not make an allowance for the fact that the construction's life cycle is a process
and that risk management should be adapted to this process. Therefore, what is
necessaryis process-driven risk management.
The next chapter will show the specific features of the construction industry that
make it more difficult
to introduce changes leading to construction process
improvement. It will researchthe breakdown of the construction process into phases

so as to discover the group of activities necessary during the realisation of any
construction project. Finally,
it will
research the connection between risk
managementand the construction process.
43
Chapter4
Processin construction
4 PROCESS IN CONSTRUCTION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter analysedvarious approachesto managing risks in construction
in
for
the
to
the
management
risk
a new approach
need
projects and showed
The first part of this chapter will show the specific features of the construction
it
industry
from
it
different
more
make
and
which
that
processes
other
make
process
difficult to introduce changes leading to construction process improvement. The
developed
be
for
and
product realisation should
group of activities necessary
industry
Every
including
industry,
for
construction.
every
continuously advanced
strives to create products as quickly as possible, with minimum expenses and of
inertia,
features
its
the
Because
construction
and
specific
of
quality.
satisfactory
industry lags considerably behind other industries in the achievement of these goals,
Egan,
(Latham,
1994;
1998;
developing
is,
in
process
that
production
an efficient
Egan, 2002).
The secondpart of the chapter will researchvarious approachesto breaking down the
has
its
duration
discrete
into
purpose,
each
of
which
and
phases,
construction process
it
introduce
to
To
managing
risks,
studies the
approach
new
a
scope of work.
the
between
and
management
risk
connection
4.2 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

A process is a series ofactivities (tasks,steps, events,operations) that takes an input,
(product,
it,
to
output
service, or information) for a
and produces an
adds value
Customers
1998).
(Anjard,
those
thatprocess
who
receive
all
are
output
customer.
In comparison with other industries, many special features burden process in
construction and this makes changes leading to process improvement difficult.
Structures are often very large and complex and it is necessary to organise
construction processes on the building site according to space and time, while
44
Chapter4
making optimum use of existing capacities. A production process of this kind is
almost impossible to simply transfer among structures of different sizes and
complexities. Production processesin construction last for a very long time, which
increases the probability of detrimental events and the risk of running behind
its
level
In
schedule.
of mechanisation construction still lags significantly behind
other industries, and although machinery is increasingly replacing human work this
is taking place much more slowly than elsewhere.Unlike industries predominatedby
production for an unknown client, structures are almost as a rule commissioned by a
client or investor who stipulates the location, size, quality and purpose of the future
product. Thus the investor should take part in the production process. Investors are
usually inexperienced in this, which makes process development in construction
additionally difficult.
Constructiondevelopedas an industry when the approachto it changedand the

in
in
building.
introduced
Many
research
works
on
process
construction,
processwas
implemented in the last ten or so years, show this.
Latham (1994) made a joint review of procurement and contractual arrangementsin
the UK construction industry with the objectives of making recommendationsto the
Government, the construction industry and its clients regarding reform to reduce
industry's
litigation
the
productivity and competitiveness.
and
encourage
conflict and
He studied current procurement and contractual arrangements and current roles,
including
the
the client. He noticed
participants,
of
responsibilities and performance
that, due to the character of the production process, poor communication among all
the participants in the project is a great drawback. He concluded that real savings of
up to 30 % of construction costs are possible with a will to change.
Egan (1998) reported on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK
construction. Construction should learn from other industries how to change and
improve the process through which it delivers its projects with the aim of achieving
improvement
in its performance and products. For Egan construction is a
continuous
repeated process. He considers that not only are many buildings, such as houses,
essentially repeat products which can be continually improved, but, more
45
Chapter4
importantly, the process of construction is itself repeatedin its essentialsfrom project
to project. His research suggeststhat up to 80% of inputs into buildings is repeated.
Much repair and maintenancework also uses a repeat process. A problem is the lack
of integration in the process, evidenced by the largely sequential and separate
operations undertaken by individual designers, contractors and suppliers with little
commitment to the overall success of the project. Egan considers it especially
important to establish a system for measuring process improvements in terms of
predictability, cost, time and quality. The results of such measurementswould enable
clients to recognise those companies that have improved performance through
industry
development.
He
UK
that
targets
of
should
process
concluded
construction
include annual reductions of 10% in construction cost and construction time, and
defects in projects should be reducedby 20% per year.
To acceleratechange Egan (2002) identifies three key drivers, to secure a culture of
help
industry,
improvement,
to
transform
the
starting with
continuous
which will
those sectors where the leadership exists and where the ideas for change and
improvement can most readily be taken up:
1. The needfor client leadership,

2. The need for itegrated teams,
3. The need to address'people issues',especially health and safety.
Hammer and Champy (1993) define Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) as the
fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve
dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measuresof performance, such as
cost, quality, service and speed.
Love and Li (1998) concluded that BPR can only improve the intra-organisational
business process of an organisation and cannot be applied for inter-organisational
processesused to procure a project. That is why they proposed a conceptual projectbased approach to re-engineering in construction, which they call Construction
Process Re-Engineering (CPR). They define CPR as an integrated and holistic
approach that focuses on managing and optimising process flows and eliminating
waste whilst simultaneously fulfilling
customer requirements and satisfying the
46
Chapter4
individual businessneedsof eachparticipatingorganisationin a project so that the

added-valueto the final productis enhanced.
SPICE (Structured Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises) is a research
project that developed a process improvement framework for the construction
industry (Sarshar, 1998; Finnemore and Sarshar, 2000; Finnemore, Sarshar and
Haigh, 2000, Finnemore et al., 2000). According to its authors, the SPICE
framework is not prescriptive. It does not tell an organisation how to improve. SPICE
describesthe major process characteristics of an organisation at each maturity level,
without prescribing the means for getting there. However, part of the SPICE
methodology is to encourage a systematic approach to process improvement in
construction taking the lessons from other industries, particularly the software and
aircraft industries. This thesis attemptsto provide part of that systematic approachby
embedding risk management in the overall process of design and occupation of
buildings.
Holt, Love and Nesan (2000) developed an implementation model for process
improvement. Tzortzopoulos, Betts and Cooper (2002) engagedin implementing the
processmodel in construction companies.Kamara, Anumba and Evbuomwan (2000)
developed the process model for client requirementsprocessing in construction. They
too, encourageda systematic approach.
4.3 PROJECT PHASES

It has been recognisedfor some time that projects exhibit a life cycle comprising a
number ofdiscrete stages (Smith, 1999).
Every project can be divided into discrete phases each of which has its purpose,
duration and scope of work. The end of every phase is a decision point where past
progress is revised and all key decisions made for the continuation of the project.
Thus the division of the project into phases,i. e. the plan of work, is an important part
of every process.
47
Chapter4
The division of the project into phasesresulted from the desire to find a set of
activities that should be carried out in the realisationof every constructionproject.
This is the first stepin establishingthe constructionprocess.
Flanaganand Norman (1993) divided the construction processin 4 phases:
1. Investment Decision (Appraisal / Feasibility / Budget),
2. Design,
3. Construction,
4. Occupancy.
The RIBA Plan of Work (Philips and Lupton, 2000) proposes II phases:
1. Appraisal
2. Strategic Briefing
3. Outline Proposals
4. Detailed Proposals
5. Final Proposals
6. Production Information
7. Tender Documentation
8. Tender Action
9. Mobilisation
10. Construction to Practical Completion
11. Construction After Practical Completion
The BPF Manual (British Property Federation, 1983) proposes 5 phases:

1. Concept
2. Preparation to brief
3. Design development
4. Tendering
5. Construction
48
Chaptcr4
The ConstructionIndustry Board (ConstructionIndustry Board, 1997)also divides

the processin constructionin 5 phases:
1. Gettingstarted
2. Defining the project
3. Assemblingthe team
4. Designingandconstructing
5. Completionandevaluation
The ProcessProtocol Map (Kagioglou, et al. 1998a) divides the construction process
in 10 phases:
1. Demonstrating the Need
2. Conception of Need
3. Outline Feasibility
4. Substantive Feasibility Study & Outline Financial Authority
5. Outline Conceptual Design
6. Full Conceptual Design
7. Coordinated Design, Procurement& Full Financial Authority
8. Production Management
9. Construction
10. Operation and Maintenance
According to Hughes (1991), every project goes through similar phases in its
intensity,
in
depending on the project.
The
and
size
evolution.
phases may vary
Hughes compared 7 plans of work published to date and concluded that many of
them are more than a check list. Activities in construction projects to make up plans
of work should be described in as much detail and in such a way that different
projects may be compared. It is much more useful to concentrate on common aspects
among projects than to begin analysis by describing the unique points of each
project. He stated that the uniqueness is at a greater level of detail than the
commonality, and therefore it should be modelled as such. Comparing plans of work
resulted in a list of 8 phasesthat are common to all construction projects:
1. Inception. Define need and determine financial implications and sources.
2. Feasibility. Preliminary design, costing and investigations of alternatives.
49
Chapter4
3. SchemeDesign. Programming, budgeting, briefing, outline design etc.
4. Detail Design. Development of all sub-systems within the design, detailed
cost control, technical details etc.
5. Contract.
Contract
specification,
pricing
mechanism,
sufficient
documentation for selection of contractor etc.

6. Construction. Execution and control of all site work and associatedactivities,
further contract documentation.
7. Commissioning. Snagging, operating instructions, maintenance manuals,
opening ceremonies, occupation, evaluation, managing the facility, staff
training etc.
Hughes (2000) carried out similar research in which he analysed and compared 9
begin
He
that
a project must always
with some kind of
concluded
plans of work.
definition of what will be built, followed by the design. After the design follows the
contracting process, construction work and the completion of the project. This leads
to the compilation of 5 basic phasesthrough which every construction project must
pass.
1. Defining the project. There are usually two steps in the process of defining
the project: selecting appropriate expert advisors and using their advice to
define the purpose of the project. Generally, the work at this phase involves
some kind of feasibility study, an assessment of the extent to which a
fulfil
the client's needs, planning the control and
project
will
construction
ideas
initial
for
the design of the project.
managementstrategies,and
2. Design work. There is a broad consensusamong plans of work that an initial
idea for the project arisesduring the earlieststagesof brief developmentand

assessingthe need for a project. This then forms the basis for three distinct
design,
differ
from
eachother in that eachaddssignificantly
of
which
stages
to the detail of the previousstageas the various aspectsand sub-systemsof
the designarerationalisedanddocumented.
3. Contractformation.Betweendesignand construction,a decisionis generally
is
about
required
who going to build the project, and under what contractual
conditions.The processat this point often incorporatesthe developmentof
bills of quantity,or someotherdocumentationfor pricing, andthe preparation
50
Chapter4
of highly specific production information, which may be dependent on a
propriety installer. Contract formation seems generally to encompassthree
distinct types of activity: information for site work, information for tendering
and contractor selection (tendering).
4. Construction work. Once the contractor is appointed, work starts on site.
Most plans of work acknowledge the impossibility of documenting

everything before construction work begins, by identifying continuing
documentationduring the constructionprocess.Construction is the most
obviousphaseof a building project,but thereis muchvariability in the detail
of the varioussourcedocuments.
5. Completionof the project. This later phasemay include such activities as
putting right defective work, commissioning and ascertainment of the final
account.
4.4 RISK AND PROJECT PHASES

Risk is inherent in each phase of the life cycle of a construction project regardlessof
the size of the project. As every project can be divided into several phases,and there
are setsof common activities in eachproject, this suggeststhat there is a generic way
looking
i.
it
be
possible to establish a generic risk management
of
at risk, e. may
approach for all construction projects which could be adopted by the whole of the
construction industry. Different phasesthrough which the project passeshave their
specific points, they continue one after another and require a different approach to
risk management. The planned risk management process is implemented for each
phase.At the end of each phaserisks are re-identified and analysed for the remaining
how
decision
is
to managethe risks in them.
the
about
made
and
phases
Smith (1999) statedthat the earliestphasesof the project are concernedwith value
managementto improve the definition of design objectives; the design stage is
concernedmore with value engineeringto achievenecessaryfunction at minimum
is
the
to ensurethat
centredaroundquality management
construction
phase
and
cost;
the designis constructedcorrectlywithout the needfor costly rework.
51
Chapter4
Every phasecontains several key requirements that must be satisfied before making
the decision to continue the process. As the project progresses information is
obtainedthat confirms or denies the starting assumptions.If the starting assumptions
are denied then completely new risks may appear,which have to be managed.Smith
(1999) stated that, generally speaking, risks should diminish as the project
progresses.
Uncertainties and risks are the greatest in early phasesof the project. As the project
advancesthe number of unknowns decreases.The level of uncertainties is inversely
proportional with the progression of the project. Godfrey (1996) stated that as a
project progresses, cost assumptions become facts and cost uncertainty therefore
reduces.Contingency can be retired progressively giving better control of the project
by preventing surplusesbeing used later to cover up mismanagement.
Risks, that is, their exposure, can change within a project phase. Construction
projects are long lasting and one phase can take several months or even years to
it
identification
This
to
risk
and analysis during
necessary
predict
makes
complete.
the phase,not only at its end.
Risk managementis a continuous processand takes place throughout the processlife
does
be
It
interrupted
However,
the
not
run
continuously.
project
may
often
cycle.
lack
for
as
such
of resources, market changes,
several
reasons,
within a phase
is
This
on.
one of the crucial risks and does not dependon a
political reasonsand so
particular phase.
All that has been said shows that risk managementmust be subjectedto the
constructionprocess,not to the phasesthroughwhich the project passes.All parties
involved in decisionmaking shouldconsiderrisk and its impact through the whole
life cycle of a project. Risk managementshould therefore be process-drivenrisk
improvement
Risk
management
must be a compositepart of process
management.
improvement.
52
Chapter4

This chaptershowedthe specific featuresof the constructionprocessin comparison
with other industry processes,breaking down the project into the phasesevery
projectmust passthrough during its realisation,and the role of risk managementin
theconstructionprocess.
All the above research concluded that the Process in construction needs significant
changes and continuous improvement. These changes and improvements are
accompaniedby risks that may have a detrimental effect on planned costs, project
duration and project quality. Efficient risk management must enable changes in
construction and contribute to quality improvement and greater efficiency.
The frameworkfor risk managementin constructionproposedin this work is based

on process-drivenrisk management,which completely subordinatesthe risk
managementprocessto the construction process.
The next chapter will show the concept of and the principles underlying the
Construction Process Protocol as a generic construction process within which the
framework for process-driven risk managementwill be developed.
53
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
5 PROCESS PROTOCOL
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter showed the specific features of the construction process,how
the project is broken down into phases, and the role of risk management in the
construction process. The conclusion was that the risk managementprocess should
be subordinatedto the construction processthrough process-driven risk management.
This chapter will show the concept and principles underlying the Construction
Process Protocol that makes it possible to manage the construction process from
Demonstrating the Need to Operation and Maintenance. It will show the advantages
of Process Protocol over other plans of work, which is why it was chosen as the
for
development
framework
for
the
the
of
proposed
processdriven risk management.
TheProcessProtocol is a commonset of definitions, documentations andprocedures
that will provide the basics to allow the wide range of organisations involved in a
constructionproject to work together seamlessly(Kagioglou et al. 1998a).
The GenericDesign and ConstructionProcessProtocolwas developedas the result

by
Salford
Professor
University
R.Cooper and her
the
of
at
a
research
project
of
team, in cooperationwith severalcompaniesthat were in various ways connected
industry.
EPSRC
(Engineering
The
the
construction
and Physical Sciences
with
ResearchCouncil) underthe IMI (InnovativeManufacturingInitiative) financedthe
project.
The following is a summary of the main findings of the Generic Design and
ConstructionProcessProtocolproject(Kagioglouet al. 1998b):
o The front-endof the designandconstructionprocessis frequentlyvery fuzzy,
lack
of effective combined process and IT focus in many
often with a
companies.
54
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
do
large
With
the
the
of
companies
some
majority
exception
of
organisations
o
design
and construction process.
employ
a
not
in
IT
Frequently
the
aspects of a project are poorly co-ordinated resulting
o
non-compliance and compatibility issues.
is
involvement
in
design
The
often
and
project
a
construction
stakeholder
o
limited to thosepersonsor bodiesthat have a financial stakein the project

ignoring
thus
the needsand/orrequirementsof the wider group of
outcome,
that could havean impactor be impactedby the projectsolution,
stakeholders
formulationand/orimplementation.
design
The
teams
a
and construction project could enable
of
within
utilisation
o
in
improve
information
particular
visibility,
effective communications and
framework.
IT
and
when operating under a consistentprocess
design
The
andconstructionprocesscould enableeffective
use
of
a
consistent
o
project co-ordination in conjunction with traditional tools such as project
management.
design
The
and construction project are at a
operational
aspects
of
a
process
o
definedmaturity level but what is lacking is a strategicprocesswhich is only

observedin its infancy in the majority of organisations in construction.
o There is a need for key principles which are used in manufacturing and could
be transferredsuccessfullyto construction.
oA
method of process and IT alignment through the application of technology

is
framework
a
process
presented.
within
o The culture within
an organisation will
play a significant part in
implementinga 'new' designandconstructionprocess.

legacy archive IT system could enable the effective collection and
oA
interactive exchange of project and product data about current and past
data
of
visibility
project
improving
and communications between
projects,
the project participants.
55
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
5.2 THE CONCEPT OF THE PROCESS PROTOCOL

The concept of the ProcessProtocol was based on the following (Kagioglou, Cooper
and Aouad, 1999):
0A
interests
is
diverse
for
the
of
a model which capable of representing
need
is
involved
in
the
the
able to provide
construction
process
or
which
parties
all
a complete overview.
but
be
best
for
There
a generic and adaptable
all
circumstances
will
no
way
0
set of principles will allow a consistent application of principles in a
form.
repeatable
oA
for
a coherent and explicit set of process-relatedprinciples, a new
need
breadth
be
the
across
managed
and
reviewed
paradigm,
which
can
process
focuses
depth
industry,
the
on changing and systernatisingthe
of
which
and
in
the
processes
common
management
potentially
strategic management of
construction
accommodating
whilst
the
fragmentary
production
idiosyncrasies.
oA
need for design and construction operations to form part of a common

integrated
best
by
controlled
an
system
process
oA
is
definable
for
sufficiently
a
process
protocol
which
repeatable
and
need
to allow IT to be devised to support its management and information
interfaces
between
to
the
allow
systematic
and
also
consistent
management;
existing practices and IT practice-support tools to be operated. Simplicity in
the protocol and its operation are essential.There should be clarity in ten-nsof
from
is
for
and
whom,
when,
with
required,
whose
cooperation,
what
whom,
for what purposes,and how it will be evaluated.
Standardiseddeliverables and roles associatedwith achieving, managing and

reviewing the process.
Requirement
for
Industry-Wide
Coordinated
Process Improvement
programme.
0A
future
for
development
IT
to
the
support
needs
plan
clear
of a repeatable
and generic protocol.
0A
into
functionaries.
key
for
the
the
entry
process
philosophy of early
Emphasise effort on design and planning to minimise error and reworking
56
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
during construction. An extended process - earlier entry than traditional to
allow a coordinated and recognisable/manageableprofessional contribution to
the requirements capture and pre-project phases of client project planning termed pre-project phases.
o Extension of the recognised construction industry involvement in the process
beyond completion -a post-completion phase.
The Process Protocol is based on 6 key principles taken from the manufacturing
industry (Kagioglou et al. 1998c):
1. Whole Project View. The process of design and construction has to cover the
whole 'life' of the project from recognition of a need to the operation and
maintenanceof the finished facility. This approach ensuresthat all the issues
are considered from both a business and a technical point of view as well as
ensuring informed decision making at the 'front-end' of the design and
construction development process.
2. Progressive Design Fixity. Drawing from the 'stage-gate' approach in
manufacturing new product development (NPD) processes, the Process
Protocol adopts a PhaseReview Processwhich applies a consistent planning
and review procedure throughout the project. The benefit of this approach is
fundamentally the progressive fixing of design information throughout the
Process,allowing for increasedpredictability of construction works.
3. A Consistent Process. The generic properties of the ProcessProtocol allow a
consistent application of the PhaseReview Processirrespective of the project
in hand. This together with the adoption of a standard approach to
performance measurement,evaluation and control, will facilitate the process
of continual improvement in design and construction.
4. Stakeholder Involvement / Teamwork. Project success relies upon the right
information
having
the
right
at the right time. The pro-active
people
resourcing of phases through the adoption of a 'stakeholder' view should
ensure that appropriate participants (from each of the key functions) are
is
in
than
traditionally the case.Furthermore, the
the
process
earlier
consulted
correct identification and prioritisation of the stakeholders and their needs
life
decision
the
throughout
cycle.
project
making
should enable effective
57
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
5. Co-ordination. The need for effective co-ordination between the project team
membersis paramount. Appointed by the client, ProcessManagementwill be
delegated authority to co-ordinate the participants and activities of each
phase, throughout the process. With a focus on the design and construction
process, Process Management ensuresthe correct application of the Process
Protocol to the project in hand.
6. Feedback. Successand failure can offer important lessonsfor the future. The
PhaseReview Process facilitates a means by which project experiencescan
be recorded, updated and used throughout the Process, thereby informing
later Phases and future projects. The creation, maintenance and use of a
Legacy Archive will aid a process of Continual Improvement in design and
construction.
5.3 STAGE-GATE PROCESS

One of the main characteristics of the Process Protocol is the stage-gate process
taken from manufacturing industry. From idea to realisation, every product passes
through a certain number of phases (stages). Each phase incorporates a set of
if
be
that
must
undertaken the production process is to continue. At the end
activities
of each phase there are gates that represent a checkpoint where prior activities are
reviewed and a decision is made to commencethe following stage.The gate is a soOne
Go/Kill
control
checkpoint.
such stage-gateprocess is shown in
quality
called
Fig. 5.1. (Cooper, 1990).
Btild
BUSine33
Case
Prdimimry
Ime3figation
> lo- StageI Pi-<>
GateI-
Gale2
TestSt
Vdidate
Deyd opment
<
lo- Stage2 10-<>Oo Stage3 Oo,
Gate3-
TodW3dage-We process.
Figure 5.1: Stage-gateprocess(Cooper, 1990)
58
> 0,3age 4 lp-<>
Gatc4
Gate5
etc.
No-
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
The stage-gateprocess shown has certain deficiencies that decrease its practical
efficiency (Cooper, 1994):
1. The project must wait at each gate until all tasks have been completed. Thus,
projects can be slowed down for the sake of one activity that remains to be
completed.
2. The overlapping of activities is not possible.
3. Projects must go through all stagesand gates,where in some circumstancesit
might be quicker to eliminate or bypass some activities, especially for small
firms.
4. The system does not lead to project prioritisation and focus, as it was
originally designed for single projects.
5. Some new product processesare very detailed, accounting for minute details
of the process,andthereforemakingit hardto understand,manageandlearn.

6. Sometime it tends to be bureaucratic, making the processtoo slow.
To overcome these deficiencies, Cooper (1994) proposed a "third generation new
product developmentprocess(see Fig. 5.2.).
StageI
Stage23
Prdim
Investi 'on
GateI
Stage4
BWness
Gate2
Gate3
Devdopmerit
GateI
Te3t
& Validate
etc.
Gate5
Tm orruV3ThirdGenad onPfocesswithovedapongfitid3t&ge3
deCi3ionsal
and'fuzrf orconditionalGo
gates.
Figure 5.2: Third generationnew productdevelopmentprocess(Cooper,1994)

The basic characteristic of the new proposal is that stagesmay overlap so the project
be
for
before
to
a
stage
activity
within
completed
each
wait
not
moving on to
need
the following stage. The process conditionally continues until this activity is
decided
how
it
has
it
is
affected the project as a whole. This
completed, after which
implementing
in
flexibility
and speed
projects.
enablesgreater
59
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
The processis still sequential in nature, which means that stagescannot be skipped
or eliminated.
The processprotocol has two types of gates: 'soft' gates and 'hard' gates.A 'soft' gate
allows conditionally moving on to the following phase without completing all
activities of the preceding phase.A 'hard' gate cannot be passeduntil all the activities
of the preceding phaseshave been completed and the decision made to continue or
not to continue the project.
5.4 PROCESS PROTOCOL
STAGES/PHASES
According to the ProcessProtocol, the constructionprocesscan be divided into 4

stagesthat comprise 10 phases(seeAppendix 1). The stagesare:
Stage 1: Pre-Project Stage
Stage2: Pre-Construction Stage
Stage3: Construction Stage
Stage4: Post-Construction Stage
5.4.1 PRE-PROJECT STAGE

The Pre-Project Stage is geared to researching or investigating all the project
solutions that will best satisfy the client's need, and ensuring the outline financial
for
It
those
to
solutions.
containsphases0,1,2 and3:
proceed
authority
Phase0: Demonstratingthe Need
Phase1: Conceptionof Need
Phase2: Outline Feasibility
Phase3: SubstantiveFeasibilityStudy& Outline FinancialAuthority
60
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
5.4.2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION STAGE

The Pre-Construction Stage turns the client's needs into the appropriate project on
It
full
financial
levels
to
proceed.
and
ensures
authority
completion
of
various
containsphases4,5 and 6:
Phase4: Outline Conceptual Design
Phase5: Full Conceptual Design
Phase6: Coordinated Design, Procurement& Full Financial Authority
5.4.3 CONSTRUCTION STAGE

The Construction Stage is that of executing the structure, i. e. it produces the project
8:
It
7
contains
phases
and
solution.
Phase7: Production Management
Phase8: Construction
5.4.4 POST-CONSTRUCTION
STAGE
The Post-Construction Stage has the purpose of managing structure maintenance.It

containsphase9:
Phase9: OperationandMaintenance
5.5 ACTIVITY
ZONES
The ProcessProtocol classifies project participants in Activity Zones. Each project

by
his
for
is
determined
responsibility
project realisation. In a small
participant
project one person can perform all the tasks of an activity zone. In complex projects
include
several participants or even several companies. The
may
zone
one activity
zones are multifunctional, overlapping and are a structured set of tasks and
for
They
the
spectrum
of
skills
needed
whole
a construction project.
cover
processes.
According to Kagiogolu, et al. 1998a,the ProcessProtocol contains 9 activity zones:
61
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol
1. Development Management is responsible for creating and maintaining
business focus throughout the project, which satisfies both relevant
organisational.and stakeholderobjectives and constraints.
2. Project
Management is
responsible for
effectively
and efficiently
implementing the project to agreed performance measures, in close

collaboration with ProcessManagement.
3. Resources Management is responsible for the planning, co-ordination,
procurement and monitoring of all financial, human and material resources.
4. Design Management is responsible for the design processwhich translatesthe
business case and project brief into an appropriate product definition. It
guides and integrates all design input from other activity zones
5. Production Management is responsible for ensuring the optimal solution for
the buildability of the design, the construction logistics and organization for
delivery of the product.
6. Facilities Management is responsible for ensuring the cost efficient
management of assets and the creation of an environment that strongly
supportsthe primary objectives of the building owner and/ or user.
7. Health & Safety, Statutory and Legal Management is responsible for the
identification, consideration and managementof all regulatory, statutory and
environmental aspectsof the project.
8. Process Management develops and operationalises the Process Protocol and
is responsible for planning and monitoring each phase.
9. Change Management is responsible for effectively communicating project
changesto all relevant activity zones and the development and operation of
the legacy archive.
62
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
5.6 PROCESS PROTOCOL MAPS

A processmap is a visual aid for picturing work processeswhich shows how inputs,
is
how
linked.
A
thinking
tasks
about
work
are
process
map
prompts
new
outputs and
done. It highlights major steps taken to produce an output, who performs the steps,
Carr
(2001)
(Anjard,
Winch
1998).
these
and
problems consistently occur
and where
explored empirically the use of processmaps and protocols. A ProcessProtocol map
(Cooper et al., 1998) is shown in Fig. 5.3.
The protocol IT map was developed as a support tool for a generic design and
construction process(Aouad et. al, 1998). The IT map is shown in Fig. 5.4.
The ProcessProtocol toolkit was developedto automateprocessmap creationby

framework,
Process
Protocol
a
as
and to allow usersto createand customise
using
their specific project processmap and managethe processand project information
(Wu, AouadandCooper,2000;Wu,et al, 2000;Wu,et al, 2001,Fleminget al, 2000).
63
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
Wim
6"L
.;
ik-
CL
....
.........
3 C II
------------
.............
----
64
--
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
ku
--x
11
CL
---
65
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
5.7 RISK AND PROCESS PROTOCOL

The construction process consists of a group of activities that must be carried out
within
every phase through
which
the construction
project
passes during
its
execution. These activities are potential risk sources and are the foundation for risk
identification. If there is no division into activities, that is of processes into sublevels,
it
is
difficult
on
several
much
more
processes
Work, BPF Manual or Constructing
to apply the RIBA Plan of
Industry Board Guide for identifying
and
structuring key risks that appear in every project phase. The Construction Process
Protocol gives a division of activities in sub-processes on 3 levels and enables the
risk management process to be subordinated to the construction process.
Lee, Cooper and Aouad, 2000, gave some advantagesof the Process Protocol as an
industry standard.It is these advantagesthat form the basis for an efficient

framework for managing risk in construction projects:
1. It takes a whole project view. Process Protocol manages the project from
recognitionof the needfor a building to its operationand maintenanceand it

is basically a genericprocess.Risk must also be managedthrough all the
independently
of projecttype and size.Risk management
phases
project
must
be placedin the function of the genericprocess,which meansit is necessary
to developprocess-drivenrisk management.
2. It recognisesthe interdependencyof activities throughout the duration of
projects. Every activity that takesplace within a project includespotentially
risky events.Identification,analysisand responseto theserisks are the basis
framework.
However, some activities are
management
every
risk
of
interdependent,overlappingor stretchthrough one or severalphasesof the

interdependence
This
carriesnew risks which the framework must
project.
manage.
3. It focuses on thefront-end activities,paying attention to the identification,

definition and evaluationof client requirements.This makesit possible,at the
end of each phase, to implement a new identification, analysis and find an
appropriate responseto the risks of the following phase.
66
Chapter 5
ProcessProtocol
4. It provides the potential to establishconsistencyto reduceambiguity,and it

provides the adoptionof a standardapproachto performancemeasurement,
evaluationand control to facilitate continuousimprovementin construction.
Consistency,performancemeasurementand continuous improvement in
constructionare the foundationon which every risk managementframework
mustdevelop.
5. Thestage-gatelphase-review
processapproachusedfacilitates concurrency
andprogressivefixity andlor approval of information throughout the process.
It illustrates the need for completing all necessary phase activities before
proceeding to the next phase (hard gates) or allows concurrency (soft gates)
without jeopardising the overall project success.Some types and/or sources
of risk stretch through several project phases. Gates are the checkpoints
where prior activities are reviewed and the decision made to start the next
hard
be
directly
The
gate/soft
gate
philosophy
may
phase.
applied to the risk
in
Thus
acceptancy philosophy.
risk terminology hard gate means that the
is
be
unacceptable
and
must
eliminated or transferred, and soft gate
risk
meansthat the risk is acceptableprovided it is managed.
6. It enables co-ordination of the participants and activities in construction
projects and identifies the responsible parties. Process Protocol groups
project participants in Activity Zones according to their responsibilities. In
Process Protocol risk is managed by introducing a new Activity Zone: risk
management.
7. It
encourages the establishment of multi-functional
teams including
stakeholders. This fosters a team environment and encourages appropriate

decision
timely
making. One of the greatest risks in
and
communication and
the early phasesof the project is misunderstanding the client's real demands.
As an answer to this risk, Process Protocol anticipates the client's active
in
participation all the project phases.
8. It facilitates a legacy arch ive whereby all project information is collectively
learning
is
be
legacy
The
used as afuture
vehicle.
archive a
stored and can
very good place for accommodating the Risk Register and databasethat may
identify,
to
or analyserisk.
serve
67
Chapter5
ProcessProtocol

This chaptershowedthe ConstructionProcessProtocolwithin which the framework
for process-drivenrisk managementwill be developed.It showedthe principleson
which it was developed,the state-gateprocess,ProcessProtocol Stages/Phases,
Activity Zones,andthe ProcessProtocolandIT Map.
It also showed the advantagesof ProcessProtocol in comparison with other plans of
is
it
was chosen as the construction process within which the
which
why
work,
developed.
for
framework
risk
management
was
process-driven
proposed
The next chapter will show the identification of the key risks in all the phases
throughwhich the constructionprojectpassesaccordingto ProcessProtocol.
68
Chapter6
Identifying andstructuringrisk within the ProcessProtocol
6 IDENTIFYING
WITHIN
AND STRUCTURING RISK
THE PROCESS PROTOCOL
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter presented the idea of the Process Protocol and described the
principles on which it developed. It showed the division into phasesthrough which,
according to the Process Protocol, every construction project passes in its
development.It showed the advantagesof the ProcessProtocol with respect to other
plans of work. The risk managementframework in construction projects proposed in
this paper is basedon the ProcessProtocol developed by Cooper R. et al ( 1998).
In this chapter the key risks that may appearin all construction projects, regardlessof
size or type, are identified and describedfrom the aspectof the description, goals and
statusof each phase in the ProcessProtocol and the activities that must be performed
before and during the phase.The list of key risks and identification of project-related
in
first
implementing
the
the proposed framework. Using this
are
step
risks
framework, risk will be managedin all the project phases,regardless of the type and
size of the project. Risk managementwill become part of a generic process and lead
to the development of process-drivenrisk management.
6.2 IDENTIFYING
RISK IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
As it unfolds the constructionprojectspassesthrough severalphasesand in eachof

them it is possibleto identify a large number of potential risks, i.e. eventswhose
be
for
outcome
may
adverse
project success.Somethingcould go
unfavourable
in
during
any
activity
projectrealisation.It would be very difficult
practically
wrong
to make a generallist of all the risks for constructionprojects of any size or type,
which would cover all the specificfeaturesof a particularproject. A list of this kind
high-exposure
a
certain
number
of
contain
risks, but also a greatnumberof
would
is
risks whoseexposure suchthat they could practically be neglected.Therewould
data
for
be
a quantitativeanalysisof a largenumberof risks,whereasa
never enough
large
be
number
a time-consumingprocess
of risks would
qualitative analysisof a
69
Chapter6
subject to inconsistent assessmentsbecauseof the great number of decisions that the
risk managerwould have to make to obtain their exposureand determinerisk

acceptability.
Referencesourcesprovide a large number of attempts to compile a specific risk list
in construction projects (Table 6.1.). Most of these lists group risks in categoriesthus
forming a hierarchical risk structure. The risk manager may analyse and compare the
he
key
of
entire
risk
categories,
may
select
one
or
more
risks from a
risk exposures
category and disregard all the others, or he may analyse risk acceptability for all the
identified risks in a particular category.
Table 6.1 shows risk categories in construction projects according to several authors
(Carter et aL, 1994; Godfrey, 1996; Smith, 1999; Dey, 2001; RAMP, 2002). The risk
industries
be
in
These
appear
categories other
are similar.
risks may
and analysed in
all construction projects regardless of size or type. Although similar risks often
appearunder different names, the table shows the great diversity in identifying risk
categoriesamong different authors. The five risk lists in the table contain as many as
31 risk categories.
Risk identification with the help of previously existing risk lists is completely
adapted to risk-driven project management and does not take into account that
is
a process and that risk management must be
executing a construction project
subordinated to that process. Thus none of the risk lists in the table, or their
combination, can be used for process-drivenrisk management,which is the approach
to risk managementproposed in this work.
70
Chapter 6
Identifying and structuring risk within the ProcessProtocol
Table 6.1: Risk lists

CARTER at GODFREY
RISK
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(1996)
a]. (1994)
Political
Environmental
Planning
Market
Economic
Financial
Natural/Act of God
Project
Technical
Human
Criminal
Safety
Strategic
Contractual
Master Plan
Definition
Process
Product
Organisational
Operational
Maintenance
External
Legal
Social
Communications
Geographical
Geotechnical
Construction
_Tec
nological
Statutory clearancerisk
_
_
Business
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SMITH
DEY
RAMP
(1999)
(2001)
(2002)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F- x
71
Chapter6
Identifyinizandstructurinp,
Protocol
riskwithintheProcess
6.3 RISK IDENTIFICATION
PROTOCOL
BASED ON PROCESS
Process-drivenrisk managementimplies that the risk managementprocess, and thus

also risk identification, which is part of it, are subordinated to the construction
is
A
process
a group of activities undertaken with the goal of successful
process.
project realisation, and these activities are potential risk sources that may lead to an
unsuccessfulProject. The construction process consists of phasesthrough which the
key
Regardless
the
the
passes.
of
project
characteristics,
project
risks of the
in
the
that
the
are
may
construction project
risks
prevent
goals of a particular phase
the processfrom being achieved.
The goals of each phase depend on several activities or processesthat affect phase
realisation in various ways. Not achieving the goals of one or more of these
processesmay lead to non-achievement of the goals of the phase they belong to.
Depending on their complexity, some processescontain sub-processesthat may be
broken down even further.
Independently of level, the processesin a particular phase that have the greatest
probability and the greatest impact on the time, cost and quality, and thus also the
greatest bearing on successfully achieving the goals of that phase, are the optimum
choice as sources of key risks that are not project related. This means that the key
risks on which the successof the process depends can be reached by analysing the
construction process. In this way risk management is placed in the service of the
improvement.
leads
to
and
process
construction process,
ProcessProtocol 11,developed by R.Cooper at Salford University in cooperation with

Loughborough University, resulted in breaking down high level processes(Level 1)
into sub-processes(Level II and Level III) in each phasethrough which, according to
Process Protocol, the construction project passes from Demonstrating the Need to
operation and Maintenance (Wu, Aouad and Cooper, 2000). Process maps were
made for each level. These process maps show the advantage of Process Protocol
because
better
insight
into
they
the elements of the
provide
plans
of
work
over other
into
identification.
6.1
Figure
thus
shows an example of
also
risk
and
process
72
Chapter6
dividing a process into sub-processesaccording to Process Protocol 11.For Phase
Zero, Demonstrating the Need, it shows the division of the high-level process
Establish the Needfor a Project (Level I) into sub-processes(Level II and Level III).
The author of this research used process maps of this kind (see Appendix 2) to
compile the proposed list of key risks (see Figures 6.2,6.3 and 6.4) for all the phases
through which the project passesaccording to ProcessProtocol, from Demonstrating
the Need to Operation and Maintenance. It should by emphasized that this is the
proposed list of key risks. In the future this list might be modified and extended
applying the framework to construction projects in practice.
73
Chapter6
Level I
PHASEZERO-DEMONSTRATINGTHE NEED
Activity zone(s)which own the

level
irrespective
of
process
Processname
Participationfrom other Activity
Development Management
Establish The Need For A
Project
Dev
Praj
Res
Des
Prod
FM
H&S I Proc
Statement Of
Need
(Initial)
Level II
Level III
Figure 6.1: Development of sub-processes

Abbreviations: Dev - Development Management, Proj - Project Management, Res Resource Management, Des - Design Management, Prod - Production Management,
FM - Facility Management, H&S - Health and Safety Management, Proc - Process
Management
74
Chapter 6
Identifyiniz and structurin risk within the ProcessProtocol
11.
42
::
bb
Ei
92u
9b
2
o0
12
t- Id
4)
Ei-,
0
Pl.
-0-
C,
2
-2
4-
1-3
;
ZAZ0
k25
q),.,
k4
Co
t
P4
"0
124
0
q,
go
-
GO
J.,
C)
k7.
u0pl
ri2
Ei
KA
2-0
ti
w
x
tu
pl
P.
q) tn
e> rn
C)
E<se
_A
"0
-bi
.2-
%
-4:
0
kam
km"
75
42
Na"
Chapter6
Identifyin andstructuringrisk within the ProcessProtocol
e -1 :
D-
50
. vi
F. F10
in
0
(3
9
0
C)
le
tu
p4
12
Z
21
vl
Q
42
co
4i
K:
0
P4
Z1
13
cd
en,
1b
ti
gi 0
r/2
00<
0 ty Z
u 04 ,'
-ka
.0
>
F
A
12
:i
9-
c311
Q)
(V
'tn
0
0
V)
te
1Z9 M
U
0
to
CZ
cz
-0
cli
Id
cu
VL
Eh
*00
-czs
.- 9)
4.A
t12
1t
%A
r.
.2
i
12-
Ki
>c)
(Kg
-5
U5
F-
k.4
14
(V
16
wo
76
Chapter6
Identifying andstructurinRrisk within the ProcessProtocol
XmI11
t"
13
tZI
"0
W_
:1
913
z
0Z
M
)pq
10
:
Z
2
F-
Id
.el
8 -Z
Ei
p
-20
0 (,
G
CRS
03
(lu
0
Z!
v
0
0
'd
8
tn,
4-4
P4
tn
.2
tn
77
P4
pq
-8
.0
tn
CIS
Chapter6
Risk 0-1: Unsatisfactory Market Research
In this earliest project phase it is necessary to research the market of existing
structureswhich may help the client expresshis requirements or demandsas clearly
as possible. This is especially important as some of the stakeholders will be
participating in the realisation of such a project for the first and only time. When they
see what they could obtain, clients will be able to express what they really want
much more clearly. Without market research and the presentation of the research
results to clients there is a significant risk that the goals of phase zero will not be
fulfilled.
Risk 0-2: Ill-defined Initial StatementqfNeed

All the client's needs, goals and demands should be described in as much detail as
possible in a document according to Process Protocol called Statement of Need. In
this early project phase it is very difficult to define all the demands and needs. In
further project phasesthe elaboration and evaluation of potential solutions will lead
to their reduction or may even extend the demandsof the client, i. e. the stakeholder.
Risk 0-3: Incomplete StakeholderList

Each stakeholder has his needs and demands, depending on his investment in the
list
impossible
it
incomplete
An
to form all sources of
makes
stakeholder
project.
funding and means that demands differing from earlier ones may appear. An
incomplete stakeholder list is a risk for the entire phase zero not fulfilling its basic
goals.
Risk 0-4: No Historical Data Analysis

In the earliest project phase, after the client's needs, goals and demands have been
defined, it is necessary to analyse available data about all risk sources on similar
projects that have already been executed. There is also a risk of leaving out of the
risk list a risk that in the past showed significant risk exposure in a project phase.
Analysing available data considerably contributes to a better understanding of the
problem.
78
Chapter 6
Identifying and structuring risk within the ProcessProtocol
Risk 0-5: Poor Communication
In the earliestproject phaseit is necessaryto establisha communicationstrategy

within the managementteam participating in the project phase (development,
resources,facilities, project andprocessmanagement)and betweenthe management
team and the client and stakeholders.Successin realising the goals of phasezero
greatlydependson this communication.
6.3.1 PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION OF NEED
Risk 1-1: Ill-defined Final StatementofNeed
In this phase all the client's needs, goals and demands should be finally defined and
the Statement of Need finalised. This will serve as the basis for defining potential
solutions. There is a risk of leaving out potentially good solutions because all the
client's needswere not sufficiently investigated.
Risk 1-2: Changesin Stakeholder List

Since this is the phase when potential solutions are proposed any change in the
stakeholderlist leads to the risk that introducing new stakeholderswill change earlier
demandsand in fact lead to the rejection of some solutions already proposed.
Risk 1-3: Poor Assessment

ofStakeholderImpact
A stakeholder's investment in the project defines his impact. The greater a
his
impact
higher
the
needswill rank over the needsof others.A poor
stakeholder's
lead
impact
to stakeholderswith a smaller impact
may
of
stakeholder
assessment
having their needssatisfiedand stakeholderswho considerthey were assignedtoo
small an impact in relation to their investmentbeing dissatisfiedand abandoningthe
project.
The communicationstrategymust be addedto in every project phase.In this phase

there is a risk of bad communicationbetweenall the previous participantsand the
design management,which joins the project in this phaseand proposespotential
investigations
basis
the
of needs,
andenvironmentalimpactassessment.
solutionson
79
Chapter6
Risk 1-5: IncompleteIdentificationofPotential Solutionto theNeed

The designmanagementshouldproposea sufficient numberof potentialsolutionsto
be usedas a basisfor feasibility studies.All the proposedsolutionsmust be as well
defined as possible, must be practicable,contain a description of the necessary
investigationsanda preliminaryanalysisof possibleenvironmentalimpact.
6.3.2 PHASE TWO - OUTLINE FEASIBILITY
The design management,which proposed the potential solutions, must among other
things exchange additional information with the management team about needs,
investigations, environmental impact and funding, and carry out feasibility studies
for every potential solution. Bad communication may directly affect feasibility study
inaccessible.
information
because
the
all
relevant
remains
results
Risk 2-2: Poor Consideration ofSite Investigations

Various kinds, volume and intensity of investigations must be planned for every
is
information
it
In
to
the
this
gather
all
available
phase
necessary
potential solution.
detailed
is
for
the
the
and
make
plans
on
which
object
planned
all the
soil
about
investigations necessary for each option, so as to assessthe costs of investigations
and foundations. Investigation work is expensive as a rule and its inadequate
planning risks entering the feasibility study with a wrong estimate of investigation
for
foundation.
the
solution
choosing
wrong
costs and
Risk 2-3: Poor Consideration ofEnvironmental Impact

Any potential solution must be satisfactorily incorporated in the environment. Poor
later
impact
risks
analysis showing that the solution
consideration of environmental
must be rejected or that its realisation will cost too much. It is necessary for the
feasibility study to exhaustively predict how the facility will affect the environment
be
for
any potential solution, so that the costs
must
undertaken
measures
and which
be
calculated.
may
80
Chapter6
Risk 2-4: Ill-defined Structure ofFunding and Financial Options
To make a feasibility study for every proposedsolution detailedknowledgeof the

sources,structure and manner of funding is necessary.
Risk 2-5: Unrealistic Completion Datesfor Each Option

Unrealistic assessmentof completion dates for each option greatly affects feasibility
study results.
Risk 2-6: Inadequate CostlBenefit Analysisfor Each Option

A costibenefit analysis must be made for each option on the basis of available
information, not doing this risks the optimal option not being chosen.
6.3.3 PHASE THREE - SUBSTANTIVE FEASIBILITY
STUDY &

This phase covers, among others, site investigations, environmental impact
feasibility
information
Quality
and
substantive
assessment
study.
exchangebetween
site, laboratory and office is necessaryto realise the goals of this phase.
Risk3-2: UnsatisfactorySiteInvestigations
Plannedsite and laboratoryinvestigationsfor the chosensolution are carried out in
this phase.The quality and scopeof investigationsis especiallyimportantbecause
their results serve to choosethe foundationconcept,estimatecosts and make the
substantivefeasibility study. Risk exposureevaluationmust take into accountthat
designing will begin in future phases and that this will require additional
investigation. The risk become very great if additional investigation is not
in
design
the
phases.
undertaken
Risk 3-3: Poor Assessment
ofEnvironmentalImpact
The costs of environmentalimpact assessment
that are included in the feasibility
study of the solution chosen.The design solution that will be developedin the
following phasesmay changethe results of the environmentalimpact assessment
81
Chapter6
Identifyin andstructuringrisk within the ProcessProtocol
if
investigations,
in
in
become
As
this
the
case
significant
of
risk
made
phase.
environmentalimpact is not assessedin future phasesaccording to the design
developed.
solution
Risk 3-4: Ill-defined Structure ofFunding and Financial Options

It is necessary to precisely define the structure and manner of funding, with all
elements, for the needs of the substantive feasibility study. There must be no more
in
funding
the
this phase.
about
structure
of
unknowns
Risk 3-5: Inadequate Substantive Cost-BenefitAnalysis

It is always possible that the cost-benefit analysis chosen might be inadequate, or
poorly implemented. Its results strongly impact the entire feasibility study and thus
also the successof this phase.

Making the outline conceptual design requires good communication and coordination
between the designing office, the site where the necessary onsite investigations are
laboratory
investigations
laboratory
the
the
necessary
where
performed and
are
becomes
important
Good
even
communication
more
when we consider
performed.
that making the outline conceptual design is an iterative process.
Risk 4-2: Lack ofSite Investigations Update

Investigations carried out for the needs of the substantive feasibility study are not
design.
into
is
It
the
to
turn
the
outline
option
necessary for each design
sufficient
foundation
demands
the
to
concept,
which
predict
additional information
solution
investigations.
this
the
means
new
site
and
about
Update
Risk4-3: Lack ofEnvironmentalImpactAssessment
A new environmentalimpact assessment
must be made for every design solution
becausethis can considerably influence the option chosen.
82
Chapter6
Risk 4-4: Inadequate Evaluation of Outline ConceptDesign Alternatives
Several design solutions are presented in this phase, which are evaluated and one
chosenfor further elaboration. The criteria are costs, functionality, aesthetics,fitting
into the environment etc. The variety of the criteria makes it very difficult to carry
out the evaluation and select the optimum design solution. After this phase only one
conceptualdesign is left.
Risk 4-5: Inaccurate Total Cost of ChosenOutline Conceptual Design Estimate

The estimate of total costs for the chosen outline conceptual design dependson how
far the design solution has been elaborated and is important for closing the structure
financing.
details
Considering
the
that must still be resolved, significant
many
of
mistakes are possible. Estimating total costs already in this phase of the project
makes it possible to keep planned expensesfor project realisation under control.

For the needs of the full conceptual design, the communication system now also
includes information
about what potential
suppliers can provide.
Good
communication and coordination between the designing office, the site where the
necessaryonsite investigations are performed and the laboratory where the necessary
laboratory investigations are performed continues to be necessary.
Risk 5-2: Poor SchematicDesignfor Elements of ChosenSolution

Deficiencies in an inadequate elaboration of the full conceptual design are a limiting
factor for making the coordinated design in the next phase. In this phase the full
in
design
be
must
elaborated
as much detail as possible on the basis of
conceptual
information.
available
Risk5-3: InadequateMaintenancePlan
In this phaseit is necessaryto definethe maintenancestrategyto be implementedin
Phase 9. Periodic inspections must be planned, maintenancework defined,
forecasts
and
made for work organisation,human
maintenancecosts estimated,
83
Chapter6
resource requirements and cost and quality control. An adequatemaintenanceplan
be
for
to
the
maintenance work
must provide adequate maintenance resources
building
is
the
that
any
particular
maintenance
work
on
necessary
performed, ensure
and inevitable, and provide an answer to whether spending more on maintenance
would be advantageous.
Risk 5-4: Inadequate Health and Safetyplan

In accordance with valid CDM regulations, all the necessary measures must be
is
health
in
It
the
to
the
ensure
safety
and
of
all
participants
construction.
anticipated
client's responsibility to comply with the CDM regulations and therefore provisions
for reporting on those issuesshould be made.
Risk 5-5: Inaccurate Total Cost of ChosenConceptDesign Solution Estimate
Total costs can be calculated with considerable precision on the basis of the full
conceptual design becauseall the elements that significantly affect costs are known.
Thus the cost estimate in this phaseis very important becausesignificant changescan
lower
in
be
the
to
costs.
project
achieve
still
made
6.3.6 PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT
FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
& FULL

In this phaseall the major elementsare finally designed.All the main details of
execution, supply and funding are elaboratedthus completing the coordinated
for
is
indispensable
It
goodcommunicationand coordinationto exist
model.
product
betweenall previousparticipantsin the project.
Risk 6-2: Poor Detailed Design for Elements of ChosenSolution
Deficiencies in an inadequate elaboration of the coordinated design make it
impossible to execute the facility. Designing must also address issues such as
possibilities of supplying material, number of workers and amount of equipment that
can be used at the same time and all the other elements that affect the construction
process.
84
Chapter6
IdentiNin andstructuringrisk within the ProcessProtocol
Risk 6-3: Lack ofSite Investigations Update
Detailed designing that includes execution technology may demand additional

investigations for adapting the coordinated design to the given technology.
Risk 6-4: Poor Contractual Strategy

A good contracting strategy identifies events and factors that could affect the quality,
time and costs for completing the facility. In developing an adequate contracting
in
bear
in
it
is
the
to
of
organisation
structure
mind
selection
necessary
strategy
project control, type of contract, method of choosing contractors, selection and
execution of tender documentation, including contract clauses that allow shifting
insurance.
investor
between
and
and
contractor,
sub-contractors,
suppliers
risks
Risk 6-5: Unsatisfactory Potential Suppliers Skills and Inability
to Fuffll
Requirements
Before execution it is necessaryto analysewhether potential suppliers can satisfy all
the demands that will be placed before them. Their capacities and limitations may
affect some of the design solutions and building planned speed.

Preparationsfor constructionrequiregoodcommunicationand coordinationbetween
all the project participants.
Risk 7-2: UnsatisfactoryHealth andSafetyPlan

Before construction begins it is necessaryto complete a Health & Safety Plan in
accordancewith current CDM regulations.
Risk 7-3 UnsatisfactoryMaintenancePlan

Immediatelybefore constructionbegins it is necessaryto completea maintenance
Maintenance
plan.
a
maintenance
shouldbe viewed in the context
strategyandmake
The
the
maintenanceplan also containsa maintenance
process.
entireconstruction
of
85
Chapter6
Wentifying and structuring risk within the ProcessProtocol
cost estimateduring the life cycle of the structure, so an unsatisfactorymaintenance

plan may threatenthe future function and safety of the facility.
Risk 7-4: UnsatisfactoryProcurementPlan

Immediately before construction begins all the participants in construction must be
known, their human and mechanical resourcesand their material supply potentials.
Constructionmust be divided into work packagesto the smallestdetail.
Risk 7-5: Inability to Finalise Total CostBasedon Production Information

In this phasesufficient information must be available to calculate total construction
costs with significant ccrtainty. The risk of exceeding construction costs must be
solvedthrough a contract with the contractor.
6.3.8 PRASE EIGHT-
CONSTRUMON
Risk 8-1: Inappropriate Changes to Design Resultingfrom Construction Phase

Unexpected circumstances always appear during construction that demand changes
in project solutions to adapt them to the situation onsite. The design management
must adapt quickly, that is find new solution to continue construction with the
necessary quality, minimum costs and in the planned time.
Risk 8-2: OnsatisfactotyMonitoring of Quality of Construction Mork

Constructionwork quality control must run parallel with construction. In addition to
quality control required by standards,it is necessaryto monitor whether work is
running according to project demands.If there is deviation from project demands
leading to decreasedsafety, changesmust be made in the project and their cffects
monitored.
Risk 8-3: UnsatisfactoryMonitoring of Cost of Construction Work

Controlling costs during construction must ensurethat the forecastedtotal costs are
not overstepped.If this should occur the reasonsmust be analysedand necessary
measuresundertaken to return costs to the planned level. Although the risk of
86
Chapter6
Wentifying and structurinizrisk within the ProcessProtocol
exceedingconstruction costs is solved through contracts with the contractor, these

costsmust neverthelessbe properly monitored.
Risk 8-4: UnsatisfactoryAfonitoring ofProgress of Construction

Monitoring construction progress enables keeping given construction deadlines
under control. Poor construction progresscould be the contractor's fault, but it could
also arise from circumstancesno one can control, such as bad weatherand the like.
Risk 8-5: Lack of Onsite ResourcesAnd Labour Management

Any lack of planned onsite resources and poor labour management lead to
oversteppingthe planned deadline,inadequatequality and increaseof plannedcosts.
6.3.9 PHASE NINE- OPERATION&
MAINTENANCE
Risk 9-1: UnsatisfactoryBuilding PerformanceMeasurement

To ensurea satisfactory level of the structure's safety and functionality during its life
cycle it is necessaryto make building performancemeasurementsat the appropriate
level and of appropriatequality.
Risk 9-2: Lack ofAfaintenance StrategiesUpdate

Maintenancestrategiesmust often be changedand supplementedduring the facility's
use.It is especially important to determinemaintenancepriorities in accordancewith
plannedand ensuredresources.
Risk 9-3: Lack oftifecycle BudgetaryRequirementsUpdate
Expenses unforeseen in the maintenance plan will appear during the facility's
lifecycle. The safety and functionality of the facility depends on whether new
maintenancefunding can be obtained,and how much.
87
Chapter 6

6.4
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has shown the identification
of key risks for every Process Protocol
based construction project. Every risk management process in the construction

industry (see Chapter 3) starts with the identification
of risks in such a way that risks
are chosen from the proposed risk list or risk categories, which are the same for all
projects, after which project related risks are added to them. The risk exposures of
entire risk categories can be analysed and compared, or one or more key risks may be
selected from a particular category. A risk identification
methodology of this kind is
adapted to what is known as risk-driven project management.
To increaseefficiency in the construction industry it is also necessaryto develop and

to continuously advance the group of activities needed for successful project
realisation. Process Protocol I resulted in 10 phasesthrough which the construction
in
its
have
be
High-level
that
to
passes
evolution.
processes
performed are
project
identified in each phase.ProcessProtocol II proclaimed these high-level processesas
Level I, and then proceeded to divide the Level I processes into Level II subin
into
if
Level III sub-processes.Thus the
these,
turn
and
and
necessary,
processes,
is
broken
into
of
any
construction
project
up
elementary processes. The
realisation
processeson any level are potential risk sourcesand may serve as the basis for a risk
list in each phase.The risk list in the proposed framework has a total of 49 risks, that
is, an averageof 5 risks per phase,to which project related risks can be added in each
phase. This makes risk management part of a generic process leading to the
developmentof process-driven risk management.
The next chapter shows how the framework for managing risk in construction
is
developed.
framework
for
The
calls
cyclical risk management in every
projects
phasethe construction project passesthrough according to the ProcessProtocol. The
described
in
be
identification
followed by quantitative or
this
chapter
will
risk
determination
the
of risk exposure and risk acceptability,
qualitative risk analysis,
Risk
risk
response.
of
adequate
response may produce new risks in
and a proposal
the same or in the next phase, which must be included in process-driven risk
management.
88
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor managingrisks in constructionproiects
7A
FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING

RISKS IN
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter provided the proposed generic list of key risks that appear in
all construction projects, for each phase of the project according to the Process
Protocol, from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and Maintenance. The risk
managementteam may also identify other project-related risks in eachphase.
This chapter shows the framework for process-driven risk management in Process
Protocol basedconstruction projects. The ProcessProtocol divides the execution of a
construction project in the 10 phasesshown in Chapter 5. According to the proposed
framework, cyclical risk managementin performed in each phase of the construction
impact
determined
identified
for
First
key
are
process.
risk probability and risk
each
list
is formed and a risk
then
thus
also
a
risk exposure, and
risk priority
risk, and
defined,
depending
strategy
on risk acceptability. If risk response leads to
response
the appearanceof new risks, a new cycle of risk identification, analysis and response
begins. Risk managementis a dynamic processbecauseit is carried out continuously
in every subsequentproject phase in accordancewith the changeablecircumstances
in which the processruns.
7.2 THE CYCLICAL
RISK MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
Chapter2 showsthe cyclical risk management

process,which is part of the proposed
frameworkandwhich is carriedout independentlyfor eachphaseof the construction
project in accordancewith the ProcessProtocol. It is necessaryto determinerisk
impact
for
identified
in
risk
each
risk
and
a particularphase,calculatethe
probability
correspondingrisk exposure,anddependingon risk acceptabilitydefinea strategyof
is
for
The
risk response. procedure repeated eachsuccessivephase.
The risk list analysed in a particular phase is compiled by adding to the risk list
list
to
a
risk
projects,
connected to that specific project.
all construction
common
89
Chapter 7
A Framework for managini,,risks in construction projects
These specific risks are identified after investigating potential risk sources linked
with the project, unfavourable events that include risks and unfavourable effects that
have
becri
After
the
take
risks
scenario
place.
will occur should an undesirable
for
by
is
designated
A
three-digit
number,
a
risk
identified, they are numbered.
(tile
first
digit
The
503.
the
Risk
the
analysis
of
phase
under
marks
number
example:
5th phase in the example), i. e. the phase that the risk appears in according to tile
ProcessProtocol. Since the Process Protocol has phases from 0 to 9, one digit is
digits
The
designate
two
the
to
other
show the order of tile risk in
phase.
sufficient
the phaseunder analysis (risk no. 3 on the list belonging to Phase5). Two digits are
less
99
key
list
because
for
than
risks
this
each
contain
will
purpose
quite sufficient
list
7.1
Figure
the
for
the
corresponding
the
risk
with
shows
phase.
important
designations.
PHASE X
Risk X01
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk X04
Risk XOS
Figure 7.1: Risk list for PhaseX with the corresponding designations
For each identified risk it is necessary to determine risk exposure, and depending oil
Risk
exposure is the product of risk probability and risk impact.
it risk acceptability.
Risk probability is a dimensionless value. Risk may impact time, cost or quality, but
in the end any impact can be expressed in monetary units. This means that risk
Consequently,
dimension
has
the
the
monetary
unit
used
of
in
calculations.
exposure
for
a particular
risk exposure
risk may acquire any value and It Is calculated
The
the
the
in
phase.
risks
other
all
absolute value of risk exposure
of
independently
90
Chapter 7
A Framework for manaRinRrisks in construction proiects
for a particular risk, viewed in itself, has practically no usable value so it is important
to determine how much smaller or larger the risk exposure of a particular risk is with
in
the
the phase. Determining the risk
to
the
of
risk exposures
other risks
respect
identified
in
in
the
them
all
risks
and
an
of
a
particular
phase
placing
exposures
interrelationship allows the formation of a risk priority list. The position of the risk in
this list, that is the relative value of its exposure with reference to that of the other
risks in the phase, determines which resources will be engaged in the planned risk
response.The risk priority list can be determined using a quantitative, qualitative or
mixed approach.
7.3 RISK PRIORITY LIST - QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH
The quantitative approach in forming the priority list implies that risk probability and
known
impact
be
the
one
of
quantitative risk
can
explicitly calculated using
risk
analysis methods. For this a relevant databasemust be available, to use in forming
the probability distribution, i. e. to enable the direct calculation of impact on time,
determined
In
this
completely
and
quality.
case
a
and consistent procedure can
cost
be used to determine the priority list, which is shown below.
7.3.1 RISK PROBABILITY - QUANTITATIVE APPROACH

Risk probability must be determined for each identified risk. The probability that a
certain risk will occur can be calculated if all the necessaryelements for this kind of
database
a
statistically
exist,
especially
relevant
about past experiencesand
analysis
be
basis
for
distribution
function.
the
can
as
a
used
similar events,which
After the probability associated with each risk has been determined by one of the
known methods of quantitative analysis, all the risks in a particular phase are
is,
that
their
the order of risks according to their
to
values,
relative
weighted obtain
dividing
by
The
is
or
normalisation
of
probability
weighting
probability.
carried out
the risk probability of each risk with the sum of the risk probabilities of all the risks
91
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction projects
in the phase.This gives new probabilities whose sum is 1, which meansthat the risks
in the phasehave now become a random variable.
Let, for example, the probabilities of the 5 risks in Phase X be, respectively, 0.32,
0.21,0.75,0.93
and 0.44.
The sum of all the probabilities is 0.32 + 0.21 + 0.75 + 0.93 + 0.44 = 2.65.
The normallsed probabilities are now, respectively:
pXO I=0.3 2/2.65 = 0.12
pX02 = 0.21/2.65 = 0.08
pX03 = 0.75/2.65 = 0.28
pX04 = 0.93/2.65 = 0.36
pX05 = 0.44/2.65 = 0.16.
The sum of all the normalised probabilities is 0.12 + 0.08 + 0.28 + 0.36 + 0.16 = 1.
Figure 7.2 shows the normalised or relative probabilities for the above example.
Thesenormaliscd probabilitics xvill be usedto calculate risk exposure.
RISK PROBABILITY
PHASE X
Risk XO 1
X01-> 0.32
XO 1 --> 0.121
Risk X02
X02-> 0.21
X02-> 0.079
Risk X03
X03-*
0.75
1:
X03-> 0.283
Risk X04
absolute
0.93
X04->
probability
norma ised
0.351
X04-+
prob, hilltv
Risk X05
XOS-> 0.44
XOS-* 0.166
1.000
Figure 7.2: Normallsed or relative probabilities for the occurrence of each risk in
PhaseX
92
Chapter 7
7.3.2 RISK IMPACT- QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH
There are many ways in which a risk source can affect the project unfavourably. Tile
consequencescan vary, but they show as longer construction, that is project
realisation, decreasedquality and, finally, increasedcosts. Tile basic purpose of risk
managementIn a project is to keep under control the impacts oil time, cost and
quality.
Impacts on time, cost and quality are not interdependent although the prolongation of
planned construction time and the decrease of quality may, for most pro Jects, finally
,
be expressed in terms of money so that every risk impact has the dimension of a
monetary unit. However, for a certain number of projects it is not enough to express
all impacts through money, instead, priorities
must be clearly determined with
in
has
be
finished
Often
to
the
to
time,
a givell time
project
respect
cost and quality.
so additional resources must be engaged to increase efficiency. This leads to higher
lasted
longer
had
the
than
work
using the existing resources. In this case the
costs
goal is to weight the risk sources that affect time higher than those that affect cost.
There are also cases when quality is much more important than costs, so risks that
affect quality but have low costs, should they be realised, must be given greater
but
higher
than
those
time
that
costs.
cause
affect
impact
Time, cost and quality are weighted by defining their norniallsed interdependency,
i.e. their relative impacts on the project where the surn of all the impacts is 1. Figure
7.3 shows an example of weighting.
PHASE X
4
- --
w-p-,
TIME
TIME
0.25
COST
COST
0.65
QUALITY
normallsed
influence
QUALITY
0.10
E
Figure 7.3: Normalised impact of time, cost and quality on the I)i-oj'cct
93
1.00
Chapter 7
It is impossible to determine these values exactly becausethey reflect stakeholdergeneratedpriorities. If no such priorities have been given, and time and quality may
be expressedthrough increased costs, then it is enough to assign all the impacts the
value of 1/3 of the project and thus avoid any kind of preference between time, cost
and quality.
After weighting and finding the interdependency of time, cost and quality, the impact
of each identified risk in the phase under analysis must be determined independently
of time, cost and quality. Impacts on time may be expressed in arbitrary units, for
example in days, and impacts on quality in expected percentage of quality loss. Tills
is irrelevant for the proposed framework because all the impacts are normallsed to
obtain their comparative interdependency. Norniallsation
way as for probability,
is performed in the same
by dividing the impact of each risk on time, cost or quality
with the surn of all the impacts in the phase, thus making the SUM ofall
the illipacts
equal to I.
Figures 7.4,7.5 and 7.6 show an example of this kind of normalisation.

ir
IMPACT
ON TIME
11
PHASE X
SIR VI PIMMI
IV
Risk XO 1
X01-*
10 days
X01-+
0.100
Risk X02
X02-),
15 days
X02->
0.150
Risk X03
X03 -+ 5 days
X03-*
0.050
Risk X04
LIbSOILIte
X04-+ 45 days
impact
normalised
X04--> 0.450
impact
XOS--> 25 days
X05--+ 0.250
Risk XOS
E=1.000
Figure 7.4: Normallsed risk impact on time in PhaseX
94
Chapter 7
ON COST
IMPACT
PHASE X
Risk X01
xol->
10000 ie
Risk X02
X02
8000 &
xol->
X02-> 0.094
rz
Risk X03
absolute
Impact
Risk X04
Risk XOS
IN
12000 L
X03
0.118
X03-> 0.141
X04-+ 35000
normallsed
X04-+ 0.412
impact
X05--+ 20000
XOS--->0.235
Y, = 1.000
Figure 7.5: Normalised risk impact on cost in Phase X
1r -7
MPACT
ON QUALITY
PHASE X
Risk X01
xol-
15
XO 1--> 0.127
Risk X02
X02
12 %
X02->
0.102
X03->
0.212
1=
Risk X03
Risk X04
Risk XOS
X03
absolute
Iflillact
X04-+
25 %
20 %
normalised
lillpact
XOS-+ 46 %
X04---> 0.169
XOS-+ 0.390
Y, = 1.000
Figure 7.6: Normallsed risk impact on quality in PhaseX

95
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction Proiects
The final normalisedrisk impact for every identified risk in eachphaseis obtained
by combiningthe normalisedimpactsof time, costandquality on the projectwith the
individual impactsof the analysedrisks on time, cost and quality. This is doneby
in
Table
7.1.
the
shown
with
averaging
method of simple weighting
using
Table 7.1: Calculating normalised risk impact in PhaseX
I
COST
TIME
QUALITY
Risk impact
RiskX01
0.25x 0.100
0.65x 0.118
0.10x 0.127
0.114
=
Risk X02
0.25 x 0.150
0.65x 0.094
0.10x 0.102
= 0.109
Risk X03
0.25x 0.050
0.65x 0.141
0.10 x 0.212
= 0.126
Risk X04
0.25x 0.450
0.65x 0.412
0.10 x 0.169
= 0.397
0.25 x 0.250
0.65x 0.235
0.10x0.390
= 0.254
Risk X05
Total = 1.000
Table 7.2 shows the calculation of risk impact in caseswhen priorities between time,
is
defined.
have
been
In
them
this
case
each
of
assignedthe
not
cost and quality
1/3.
of
normalisedvalue
Table 7.2: Calculating normalised risk impact in PhaseX in caseswhen priorities
betweentime, costandquality havenot beendefined

COST
TIME
QUALITY
Risk impact
Risk XO1
1/3 x 0.100
1/3 x 0.118
1/3 x 0.127
= 0.115
Risk X02
1/3 x 0.150
1/3 x 0.094
1/3 x 0.102
= 0.115
Risk X03
1/3 x 0.050
1/3 x 0.141
1/3 x 0.212
= 0.134
Risk X04
1/3 x 0.450
1/3 x 0.412
1/3 x 0.169
= 0.344
Risk X05
1/3 x 0.250
1/3 x 0.235
13 x 0.390
= 0.292
Total = 1.000
The aboveexampleshowsthat when there are specialpriorities betweentime, cost

increases
impact
decreases,
impact
the
the
risks
of
some
others
and
of
and quality,
but on the whole this hasno significantinfluence.

96
Chapter 7
A Framework for manaizinizrisks in construction lproiects
7.3.3 RISK EXPOSURE- QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH
After risk probability and risk impact have been deten-ninedfor every risk in Phase
X, risk exposure can be calculated as the product of risk probability and risk impact.
Table 7.3 shows the calculation.
Table 7.3: Calcualting risk exposurein PhaseX

PHASE X PROBABILITY
IMPACT
RISK EXPOSURE
Risk XO1
0.121
0.114
0.014
Risk X02
0.179
0.109
0.020
Risk X03
0.283
0.126
0.036
Risk X04
0.351
0.397
0.139
Risk X05
0.166
0.254
0.042
The risk exposures obtained serve to fonn a risk priority list, which will be used to
plan risk responseand anticipateand distributethe resourcesto implementit. Table

7.4 shows the priority list in PhaseX.
PHASE X RISK EXPOSURE
Risk X04
0.139
Risk X05
0.042
Risk X03
0.036
Risk X02
0.020
Risk XO1
0.014
97
Chapter7
7.4 RISK PRIORITY LIST - QUALITATIVE
APPROACH
teamdoesnot have
Whathappensmost often in real life is that the risk management
be
form
database
to
disposal
its
that
the
could
used
aboutearlierprojects
relevant
at
the probability distribution function and determinerisk probability. It doesnot have,
is
for
directly
indicators
that
the
the
the
effects,
calculating
necessary
either, all
impactthe risky event would have on time, cost and quality. In suchcasesthe risk
for
determined
by
list
is
the
three
techniques
qualitativerisk
one
of
using
priority
in
These
have
that
are:
risk
already
management.
authors
used
analysis various
1. Multi-attribute Utility Theory,
2. Fuzzy Analysis,
3. Analytical Hierarchy Process.
A short description and the possible use of these techniquesin the proposed
framework follows, including the reasons why one of them is more suitable for
forming the risk priority list within the proposed framework than the other two.
7.4.1 MULTI-ATTRIBUTE
UTILITY
THEORY
The multi-attribute utility theory is a well-known decision-making technique used

(Luce
Raiffa,
and
conditions
of
uncertainty
under conditions of certainty and under
1957; Keeney and Raiffa, 1976, Chankone and Haimes, 1983, Saaty, 1994; Flanagan
best
in
is
be
1993).
It
Norman,
the
cases
alternative
used
when
solution
must
and
list
for
i.
a
priority
of the alternatives offered. Alternatives are
compiling
chosen, e.
weighted with respect to one or more given criteria with the purpose of calculating
the overall utility function for each alternative. The value of the overall utility
function is used to form the priority list of alternatives, that is, to provide the best
(1981),
Boyer
Hwang and Yoon (1981), Ibbs and Crandall
Kangari
and
alternative.
(1982), Moselhi and Deb (1993) and others used the multi-attribute utility theory as
for
technique
a
The value of the overall utility function for each alternative is calculated in 4 steps.
98
Chapter 7
The first stepis defining one or more criteria or attributeswith respectto which the
alternativesofferedwill be valued.
The second step is weighting the given criteria. All criteria are not equally important
for the decision-maker. He assigns each criterion the corresponding importance or
1.
In
this step alternatives
taking
that
the
the
care
sum
of
all
weights
equals
weight
into
have
they
taken
consideration
and
no effect on the result.
are not
The third step is determining the utility function for each given criterion. First each
alternative is assessedwith respectto the given criteria. The values may be expressed
numerically or statistically by their distribution function. Qualitative assessmentsby
decision-making managers are turned into a statistical distribution function used to
calculate the statistical parametersof the distribution, such as mean, variance etc. For
the sake of simplicity this presentation of how to apply the multi-attribute utility
theory in the proposed framework will use only the mean (p). Moselhi and Deb
(1993) showed the use of the other statistical parameters.A utility function is then
formed for each criterion, using the so-called certainty equivalent method in which
the decision-maker subjectively assessesthe discrete values of the utility function,
fitted
logarithmic
these
are
an
exponential,
values
using
or polynomial
after which
function.
The fourth step is calculating the overall utility function for each alternativeby
adding up the products of the weight of each criterion and the value of the
correspondingutility function. Determiningthe overall utility function in this way,
by simply adding up the aboveproducts,is possibleonly if the given criteria are
independentof the given goal. The priority list of alternativesis formedaccordingto
the valueof the overall utility function.
The procedurefor determiningrisk probability,risk impact andrisk exposurefor one
in
Protocol,
is
Process
the
the
theory,
using
multi-attribute
shown
phase
utility
below.
99
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor manaizinp,
risks in constructionProiects
7.4.1.1 Risk probability - multi-attribute
utility theory
No additional criteria are given for determining risk probability, that is, risk
is
probability the goal and the only criterion with respect to which the alternatives are
to be weighted. This is an essential simplification and the following is a singlecriterion analysis. The alternatives are the risks in PhaseX.
A qualitative assessmentis first made for the occurrence of each identified risk in
PhaseX, by assessingits minimum, most likely and maximum probability. Table 7.5
showsonesuchassessment.
Table 7.5: Probability assessmentfor each alternative with respectto risk probability
I
Most likely Maximum
Minimum
Risk probability
Risk X01
0.20
0.24
0.30
Risk X02
0.10
0.16
0.20
Risk X03
0.46
0.54
0.60
Risk X04
0.60
0.70
0.80
Risk X05
0.24
0.30
0.36
After this the utility function is detenninedfor the criterion of risk probability. First
the minimum and maximum probabilitiesfor all the alternativesare taken and the
function
0
I
values
of
and
are assigned to them. If U(riskprob) is the utility
utility
function, then U(O.I 0)=O, and U(O.80)= 1.
Now the decision-makeris given the option of choosingwhich probability of risk

drawing
he
lots.
Drawing lots or tossinga coin
than
accept,
rather
occurrence will
meansthat he will acceptthe minimum risk of 0.1 for heads,and the risk of 0.8 for
tails. Sinceevery decision-makershouldbe able to managerisks, that is, to rely on
his decisions and not on chance, there is always a value that he is ready to accept.
The expected risk value is 0.5*0.1 + 0.5*0.8 = 0.45. The value of the utility function
is 0.5*1 + 0.5*0 = 0.5. The decision-maker should accept a risk greater than 0.45
is
decision-maker
Let
that
the
the
than
on
chance,
expected
value.
on
rely
rather
100
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor managingrisks in constructionprojects
instead
he
is
0.58
to
the
the
as
smallestvalue
ready accept
accept risk probability of
in
is
lots.
U(0.58)=0.5.
The
drawing
Now
sucha way that the
procedure
continued
of
decision-makermust accepta risk probability between0.1 and 0.58 for the value of
the utility function 0.5*0 + 0.5*0.5 = 0.25. The expected risk value is 0.5*0.1
0.5*0.58 = 0.34. Let the accepted value be 0.37, as the smallest value that the
decision-maker is ready to accept instead of drawing lots. Now U(0.37)=0.25. The
for
by
between
0.58
0.8
the
the
can
end
accepting
risk
probability
and
procedure
value of the utility function of 0.5*0.5 + 0.5*1.0 = 0.75. The expected risk value is
0.5*0.58+ 0.5*0.8 = 0.69.Let the acceptedvaluebe 0.71 asthe largestvaluethat the

decision-maker is ready to accept instead of drawing lots. Then U(0.71)=0.75. Table
7.6 shows the value of the utility function obtained in this way for risk probability in
Phase X.
Table 7.6: Utility function valuefor risk probability

Risk probability
U(riskprob)
0.10
0.00
0.37
0.25
0.58
0.50
0.71
0.75
0.80
1.00
The values of the utility function shown in Table 7.6 are fitted by a polynomial
functionas follows:
3-2.54623541
2.917367244*riskprob
U(riskprob) =
*riskprob 2
+ 1.589225759*riskprob - 0.1364856845
Any distribution may be assumedfor eachidentified risk in PhaseX, and eachrisk

depending
distribution
have
different
on risk type, and on the experienceof
a
may
the managerwho makesdecision.If a betadistribution is assumedfor eachidentified
Deb,
1993)
(minimum
(Moselhi
is
in
X
Phase
the
and
probability
mean
=
risk
4*most likely + maximum)/6.Sincethere is no more than one criterion, the utility
101
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction proiects
function values for t are the overall utility function (T) for each alternative.The
is
for
in
function
normalised eachalternativeas shown Section7.3 and
overallutility
this representsthe final risk probability that will be used to calculate exposure(Table
7.7).
Table 7.7: Overall and normalised utility function for risk probability
Risk probability
11
U(p)=T
normalised
T
Risk XO1
0.247
0.141
0.091
Risk X02
0.157
0.061
0.039
Risk X03
0.537
0.434
0.279
Risk X04
0.700
0.729
0.469
Risk X05
0.300
0.190
0.122
Total = 1.000
7.4.1.2 Risk impact - multi-attribute
utility theory
Three criteria or attributes are given in determining risk impact: time, cost and
in
Phase
X.
The
the
are
risks
alternatives
quality.
The weight interrelations among the given criteria are defined first in such a way that
the sum of all the weights equals 1. Let the following weight values be assessedfor
the criteria in PhaseX:

WTIME
-"0.3
WCOST
-"0.6
WQUALITY " 0- 1
The impact of every identified risk in Phase X on time, cost and quality is then
its
in
likely
that
such
a
way
minimum,
assessed,
most
and maximum
qualitatively
7.10).
defined
(Tables
7.8,7.9
and
valuesare
102
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor managingrisksin constructionproiects
Table 7.8: Impact on time assessment
TIME (days)
Minimum
Most likely
Maximum
Risk X01
11
15
Risk X02
12
16
20
Risk X03
10
Risk X04
42
45
50
Risk X05
22
26
31
Table 7.9: Impact on cost assessment

I
Most likely
COST (f)
Minimum
Maximum
Risk X01
5000
12000
18000
Risk X02
5000
8000
12000
Risk X03
10000
13000
15000
Risk X04
30000
35000
40000
Risk X05
18000
22000
25000
Table 7.10: Impact on quality assessment
11
Minimum
Most likely
Maximum
Risk XO1
10
15
20
Risk X02
10
14
19
Risk X03
20
26
33
Risk X04
15
23
30
Risk X05
35
45
60
QUALITY (%)
103
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor managingrisks in constructionProiects
Now all the elementsexist for determiningthe utility function for eachcriterion,and
the proceduredescribedin Section 7.4.1.1 is repeated.The procedureresults in
functions
for
discrete
impact
time,
the
quality
cost
and
of
utility
of
on
values
values
(Table7.11).
Table 7.11: Values of impact on time, cost and quality for discrete values of utility
functions
U(TIME, COST
AND QUALITY)
TIME
(days)
COST
(i)
QUALITY
0.00
5000
10
0.25
21
16000
26
0.50
32
25000
39
0.75
42
33000
50
1.00
50
40000
60
The values of the utility functions shown in Table 7.11 are fitted by polynomial
functions as follows:
2+0.0
*TIME
0.0002175018285
102269454*TIME - 0.05710946609
U(TIME) =
U(COST) = 2.417766721E-0 10*COST2+ 1.766638533E-005*COST - 0.09429739803
U(QUALITY)=0.0001297253121*QUALITy2+0.01 092973123*QUALITY-0.1222607449
Tables 7.12,7.13 and 7.14 show the values of the utility functions for the p of each
identifiedrisk.
104
Chapter7
Table 7.12: Utility function values for the TIME criterion for the corresponding t of
eachrisk
I
TIME
UTIME(P)
It
Risk XO1
10.667
0.077
Risk X02
16.000
0.162
Risk X03
7.833
0.036
Risk X04
45.333
0.854
Risk X05
26.167
0.359
Table 7.13: Utility function values for the COST criterion for the corresponding p of
eachrisk
UCOST OA)
COST
Risk X01
11833
0.149
Risk X02
8167
0.066
Risk X03
12833
0.172
Risk X04
35000
0.820
Risk X05
21833
0.407
Table 7.14: Utility function values for the QUALITY criterion for the corresponding
Lof each risk
QUALITY
UQUALITY(A)
Risk XO1
15.000
0.071
Risk X02
14.167
0.059
Risk X03
26.167
0.253
Risk X04
22.667
0.192
Risk X05
45.833 t
0.651
105
Chapter7
The overall utility function for each identified risk in PhaseX is calculatedas
follows:
T=
WTIME
* UTIME
+ WCOST * UCOST + WQUALITY
* UQUALITY
For risk XO1- Txol = 0.3*0.077 + 0.6*0.149 + 0.1*0.071 = 0.120

For risk X02 - Tx02= 0.3*0.162 + 0.6*0.066 + 0.1*0.059 = 0.094
For risk X03 -Tx03 =0.3*0.036 +0.6*0.172+0.1*0.253 =0.139
For risk X04 - Tx04= 0.3*0.854 + 0.6*0.820 + 0.1*0.192 = 0.767
For risk X05 - Tx05= 0.3*0.359 + 0.6*0.407 + 0.1*0.651 = 0.417
Table 7.15 shows the normalised values of the overall utility function that represent
the risk impact in PhaseX.
normalised
Risk impact
Risk X01
0.120
0.078
Risk X02
0.094
0.061
Risk X03
0.139
0.090
Risk X04
0.767
0.499
Risk X05
0.417
0.271
Total = 1.000
106
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction lproiects
7.4.1.3 Risk exposure - multi-attribute
utility theory
After risk probability and risk impact have been determined for every risk in Phase
X, risk exposure can be calculated as the product of risk probability and risk impact.
Table 7.16 shows this calculation.

PHASE X PROBABILITY
IMPACT
RISK EXPOSURE
Risk XO1
0.091
0.078
0.007
Risk X02
0.039
0.061
0.002
Risk X03
0.279
0.090
0.025
Risk X04
0.469
0.499
0.234
Risk X05
0.122
0.271
0.033
The risk exposure is used to form the risk priority list on the basis of which risk
be
list
in
Table
7.17
PhaseX.
the
will
planned.
shows
priority
response
Risk X04
0.234
Risk X05
0.033
Risk X03
0.025
Risk X01
0.007
Risk X02
0.002
107
Chapter 7
7.4.2 FUZZY ANALYSIS

Often measured or forecast values are used as input data in decision-making. To
obtain a reliable assessmentof measurementor forecasting results these values may
be expressed in the form of fuzzy numbers, that is, as intervals that are used in
further analysis. This analysis is called a fuzzy analysis (Dubois and Prade, 1985;
Klir and Yuan, 1995; Cox, 1999). Ross and Donald, 1995; Kangari and Rigs, 1988;
Tah and Carr, 2000; Wong, Norman and Flanagan, 2000, and others, used fuzzy
analysis in risk management.
To avoid assuming distribution functions for the utility function, Wong, Norman and
Flanagan (2000) incorporated fuzzy numbers into the multi-attribute utility theory.
The minimum, most likely and maximum value of each utility function is expressed
in the form of fuzzy numbers, and the overall utility function for each identified risk
is also obtained in the form of a fuzzy number. Their idea served as the starting point
for the qualitative risk analysis technique proposed in this framework.
The risk priority list is calculated in 5 steps.
The first, second and third step are almost the same as in the multi-attribute utility
theory. In the first step one or more criteria are defined with respect to which the
be
interdependency
In
the
second
alternatives
will
weighted.
step
weight
of
offered
the given criteria is defined. In the third step the utility function is formed for every
in
decisionthe
the
certainty
so-called
equivalent
using
method
which
criterion,
discrete
the
of
a
subjective
assessment
gives
values of the utility function,
maker
fitted
these
are
using an exponential, logarithmic or polynomial
values
after which
function.
In the fourth step the minimum, most likely and maximum values of the utility
function are calculatedfor eachalternativewith respectto all the criteria given, after
into
fuzzy
the
turned
these
corresponding
are
values
numbers.
which
In the fifth step the fuzzy representationof the overall utility function is calculated
for each alternative, and certain arithmetical operations on elements of the fuzzy
108
Chapter 7
function
discrete
the
representation
of
accordingto
a
overall
utility
numbersgive
is
formed.
list
the
alternatives
of
priority
which
The continuation will show how fuzzy analysis is used to determine risk probability,
for
in
impact
the ProcessProtocol.
one
phase
and risk exposure
risk
7.4.2.1 Risk probability - fuzzy analysis
Risk probability is the only criterion with respectto which alternativesareweighted.

This is a caseof single-criterion analysis. The alternatives are the risks of PhaseX.
A qualitative assessmentis first made for the occurrence of each identified risk in
PhaseX, by assessingits minimum, most likely and maximum probability. Since this
step is the same as the one shown in Section 7.4.1.1, the assessmentsin Table 7.5.
be
may used.
Thenthe utility function is determinedfor the risk probability criterion is in the same
function
for
in
Section
7.4.1.1.
Table
7.6
the
the
shows
values
of
utility
risk
way as
probability in PhaseX obtained in this way.
The values of the utility function shown in Table 7.6 are fitted by a polynomial
function asfollows:
3-2.54623541
2
*riskprob
2.917367244*riskprob
U(riskprob) =
1.589225759*riskprob- 0.1364856845
Then the minimum, most likely and maximum values of the utility function are
7.18
for
Table
shows the calculation for PhaseX.
alternative.
each
calculated
109
Chapter7
Table 7.18: Value of utility functionfor risk probability

U(riskprob)
Minimum
I Most likely
Maximum
Risk XO1
0.103
0.139
0.190
Risk X02
0.000
0.065
0.103
Risk X03
0.340
0.439
0.531
Risk X04
0.531
0.729
1.000
Risk X05
0.139
0.190
0.242
The minimum, most likely and maximum utility function value for each identified
risk in PhaseX must be turned into the corresponding fuzzy numbers. The sameL-R
representationof fuzzy numbersas the one used by Wang, Norman and Flanagan
(2000), will be used. A fuzzy number M is called an L-R fuzzy number if its
is
defined
by
function
membership
L[(m - x) / a]
x>m, a>O
X-=M
pm(x)=I
R[(x - m) / fil
X>M, fl>O
functions,
is
L
R
the meanvalue of M
are
monotonic
non-increasing
and
m
where
and a and 6 are called the left andright spreads,respectively.When the spreadsare
increase,
is
As
becomes
fuzzier.
M
M
the
spreads
a
crisp
number.
zero,
Symbolically, the L-R fuzzy numberM is representedby tree parametersand is
denotedby M= (m,
C4 ALR-
Table 7.19 shows the fuzzy representation of the minimum, most likely and
for
identified
function
each
values
risk in Phase X, that is, the
maximum utility
fuzzy
numbers.
corresponding
110
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction proiects
Table 7.19: Fuzzyrepresentation

of the utility function for risk probability
Fuzzy numbers
Risk X01
0.144
0.041
0.046
Risk X02
0.056
0.056
0.047
Risk X03
0.436
0.097
0.094
Risk X04
0.753
0.222
0.246
Risk X05
0.190
0.051
0.052
Fuzzy numbers are used to obtain reliable risk probability assessment.The mean
value m representsthe measuredvalue, and a and 8 representvariability, that is the
unreliability of the assessed

value.The smallerthey are the greaterthe confidencein
the assessed
value.This is why the meanvaluem, decreasedby the averageof the a
is
P
spreads,
a good representative of the overall utility function. Table 7.20
and
shows the calculation of the overall utility function for risk probability, and its
normalised value that will serve to calculate risk exposure.
Table 7.20: Overall nonnalised utility function for risk probability
normalised
Risk probability T= m-((x+p)/2
T
Risk XO1
0.100
0.091
Risk X02
0.004
0.004
Risk X03
0.341
0.309
Risk X04
0.519
0.471
Risk X05
0.138
0.125
Total = 1.000
ill
Chapter 7
7.4.2.2 Risk impact - fuzzy analysis
There are three criteria or attributes for determiningrisk impact: time, cost and
in
The
the
are
alternatives
risks PhaseX.
quality.
First the weighting and interdependency of the given criteria are defined in such a
way that the sum of all the weights equals 1. Let the same weight values as in
Section 7.4.1.2 be assessedfor PhaseX:
WTIME
0.3
WCOST
0.6
WQUALITY
-`
0-1
A qualitative assessmentof impact on time, cost and quality is made for each
identified risk in Phase X by defining its minimum, most likely and maximum
in
is
Since
the
that
this
step
same as
shown Section 7.4.1.2, the assessments
values.
in Tables 7.8,7.9 and 7.10 may be used.
Then the corresponding utility functions are determined for all the criteria in the
in
Section 7.4.1.1. Table 7.11 shows the discrete values of the utility
as
same way
functions thus obtained for risk probabilites in PhaseX.
The values of the utility functions shown in Table 7.11 are fitted by polynomial
functionsasfollows:
2+0.0102269454*TIME
0.0002175018285
*TIME
0.05710946609
U(TIME) =
U(COST)= 2.417766721E-0 I O*COST2+ 1.766638533E-005*COST - 0.09429739803
U(QUALITY)=0.0001297253121 *QUALITy2+0.0 1092973123*QUALITY-0.1222607449
After that the minimum, most likely and maximum values of the utility functions for
each alternative with respect to all the given criteria are calculated and they are
turned into fuzzy numbers. Tables 7.21,7.22,7.23,7.24,7.25
for
calculation PhaseX.
112
and 7.26 show the
Chapter7
Table 7.21: Values of the utility function for TIME
I
I
Minimum
U(TIME)
Most likely
Maximum
Risk XO1
0.000
0.082
0.145
Risk X02
0.097
0.162
0.234
Risk X03
0.000
0.039
0.067
Risk X04
0.756
0.844
1.000
Risk X05
0.273
0.356
0.469
Table 7.22: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for TIME

L-m
I
I
TIME fuzzy
p(x
Risk XO1
0.076
0.076
0.070
Risk X02
0.165
0.068
0.070
Risk X03
0.036
0.036
0.032
Risk X04
0.866
0.110
0.132
Risk X05
0.366
0.093
0.103
Table 7.23: Values of the utility function for COST

U(COST)
Minimum
Most likely
Maximum
Risk XO1
0.000
0.153
0.302
Risk X02
0.000
0.063
0.153
Risk X03
0.107
0.176
0.225
Risk X04
0.653
0.820
1.000
Risk X05
0.302
0.411
0.498
113
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor manaRiniz
Table 7.24: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for COST
COST fuzzy
(I
Risk X01
0.152
0.151
0.150
Risk X02
0.072
0.072
0.081
Risk X03
0.169
0.063
0.056
Risk X04
0.824
0.171
0.175
Risk X05
0.404
0.102
0.095
Table 7.25: Values of the utility function for QUALITY
Most likely
Maximum
0.000
0.071
0.148
Risk X02
0.000
0.056
0.132
Risk X03
0.148
0.250
0.380
Risk X04
0.071
0.198
0.322
Risk X05
0.419
0.632
1.000
U(QUALITY)
Minimum
Risk XO1
Table 7.26: Fuzzy representationof the utility function for QUALITY
QUALITY fuzzy
cc
Risk X01
0.073
0.073
0.075
Risk X02
0.063
0.063
0.069
Risk X03
0.259
0.111
0.121
Risk X04
0.197
0.126
0.125
Risk X05
0.684
0.265
0.317
114
Chapter 7
The overall utility function for each identified risk in PhaseX is calculatedas
follows:
T WTIME * UTIME + WCOST * UCOST + WQUALITY * UQUALITY
for m
For risk XOI - Txoi =0.3*0.076+0.6*0.152 +0.1*0.073 =0.121
For risk X02 - Tx02= 0.3*0.165 + 0.6*0.072 + 0.1*0.063 = 0.099
For risk X03 - Tx03= 0.3*0.036 + 0.6*0.169 + 0.1*0.259 = 0.138
For risk X04 - Txo4= 0.3*0.866 + 0.6*0.824 + 0.1*0.197 = 0.774
For risk X05 - Tx05= 0.3*0.366 + 0.6*0.404 + 0.1*0.684 = 0.421
for a
For risk XOI -Txol =0.3*0.076+0.6*0.151 +0.1*0.073 = 0.121
For risk X02 - Tx02= 0.3*0.068 + 0.6*0.072 + 0.1*0.063 = 0.070
ForriskX03 - Tx03= 0.3*0.036 + 0.6*0.063 + 0.1*0.111 = 0.060
ForriskX04 - TxO4= 0.3*0.110 + 0.6*0.171 + 0.1*0.126 = 0.148
ForriskXO5 - Txo5= 0.3*0.093 + 0.6*0.102 + 0.1*0.265 = 0.116
for, 6
For risk XOI -Txoi =0.3*0.070+0.6*0.150+0.1*0.075
=0.119
For risk X02 - Tx02= 0.3*0.070 + 0.6*0.081 + 0.1*0.069 = 0.077
For risk X03 -Tx03 =0.3*0.032+0.6*0.056+0.1*0.121
=0.055
For risk X04 - Txo4= 0.3*0.132 + 0.6*0.175 + 0.1*0.125 = 0.157
For risk X05 -Txo5=0.3*0.103 +0.6*0.095 +0.1*0.317 =0.120
for T=m -(a +, 6) 12
For risk XOI -average Txo1=0.121 - (0.121 + 0.119)/2 = 0.00 1
For risk X02 -average Tx02= 0-099 - (0.070 + 0.077)/2 = 0.026
For risk X03 -average Tx03= 0.138 - (0.060 + 0.055)/2 = 0.081
For risk X04 -average TX04= 0.774 - (0.148 + 0.157)/2 = 0.622
For risk X05 -average Txos= 0.421 - (0.116 + 0.120)/2 = 0.303
115
Chapter7
Table7.27 showsthe normalisedvaluesof the overall utility function that represent

therisk impactin PhaseX.
Risk impact
normalised
T
RiskXOI
0.001
0.001
Risk X02
0.026
0.025
Risk X03
0.081
0.078
Risk X04
0.622
0.602
Risk X05
0.303
0.293
Total = 1.000
7.4.2.3 Risk exposure - fuzzy analysis

After risk probability and risk impact have been determined for each risk in PhaseX,
is
risk exposure calculated as a product of risk probability and risk impact. Table
7.28 shows the calculation.
TabIe 7.28: Calculating risk exposure in PhaseX

I
PHASE X PROBABILITY
IMPACT_
RISK EXPOSURE
Risk XO1
0.091
0.001
0.000
Risk X02
0.004
0.025
0.000
Risk X03
0.309
0.078
0.024
Risk X04
0.471
0.602
0.284
Risk X05
0.125
0.293
0.037
116
Chapter7
The risk exposureobtainedis usedto form a risk priority list, which will serveto
planrisk response.Table7.29 showsthe priority list in PhaseX.
Table 7.29: Priority list in PhaseX- fuzzy analysis
I
PHASE X1 RISK EXPOSURE
Risk X04
0.284
Risk X05
0.037
Risk X03
0.024
Risk XO1
0.000
Risk X02
0.000
117
Chapter7
7.4.3 ANALYTIC
HIERARCHY
PROCESS (AHP)
Thomas L. Saaty (1980) developed the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) as an aid

to managers in making decisions. Subjective assessmentsand objective facts are
incorporated into a logical hierarchical AHP framework to provide decision-makers
with an intuitive and common senseapproach in quantifying the importance of each
decision element through a comparison process. This process enables decisionmakers to reduce a complex problem to a hierarchical form with several levels
(Saatyand Forman, 1993).
Mustafaand Al-Bahar (1991), Dey, Tabucanonand Ongunlana(1994), Dey (1999)

in
(2001)
Dey
AHP
the
and
used
Generally, the hierarchy has at least three levels: goal, criteria and alternatives
(Saaty, 1995). Criteria may have sub-criteria (Figure 7.7.).
Goal
Criteria
Sub-criteria
LJ
EEl i-i
Altematives
LJ
LJ
LJ
Figure 7.7: Hierarchical model structure
The processstartsby determiningthe relative importanceof particular alternatives

with respectto the criteria and the sub-criteria(Saatyand Kearns, 1991).Then the
criteria are comparedwith respectto the goal. Finally the results of these two
by
importanceof the alternatives
calculatingthe
are
synthesised
analyses
_relative
The
is
the
to
goal.
process
achieving
comparison
of
respect
representedby
with
118
Chapter7
forming a comparative matrix (Saaty, 1992). If the analyst has at his disposal n
alternatives,or criteria that form the comparativematrix, thenhe mustmaken(n-l)/2

evaluations(SaatyandVargas,1991).
The eigenvector of each comparative matrix is the priority list, while the eigenvalue
gives the measure of consistency in making the assessmentor comparison. The
synthesisedeigenvector is the global sequence of the alternatives with respect to
achieving the goal. A global consistency coefficient smaller than 0.10 is acceptable,
otherwise the assessmentsmust be revised.
The eigenvector and the maximum eignevalue of the comparative matrix are
determinedby solving the general problem of eignevalues:
AW =
XmaxW
where
A- comparative matrix,
W=(W
I 'W
2,
3,
4,
5)T
- eigenvector, and
- maximum eigenvalue.
AHP can best be used for multi-criteria problems in which it is not possibleto
preciselyquantifyhow alternativesimpactdecision-making.
The risk priority list is calculated in 5 steps.
The first stepin applyingthis modelis dividing the probleminto one or morecriteria
be
usedto weight the alternativesoffered.This meansthat it is necessary
will
which
to definethe hierarchicallevels:goal,criteria,sub-criteriaandalternatives.
The secondstepis forming comparativematricesfor all hierarchicallevels.
The third step is calculating regional eigenvectors and eigenvalues for the
hierarchical
levels.
for
On
the level of criteria the regional
all
matrices
comparative
eigenvectordefinesthe priority, with respectto weight, of the individual criteria for
119
Chapter7
achievingthe goal,while on the level of alternativesthe regionaleigenvectordefines

the priority of the alternativeswith respectto the given criterion.
The fourth step is calculating the consistency coefficient for each comparative matrix
on all levels, and this is determined from the eigenvalue of the comparative matrix. If
the consistency coefficient exceeds0.10 then inconsistent assessmentswere made in
forming the comparative matrices on particular hierarchical levels and such matrices
be
formed
anew. If the consistency coefficient is smaller than 0.10 then it is
must
possible to move on to the next step.
The fifth step is synthesising the calculation results from all levels and weighting
each alternative in relation to achieving the goal. The global eigenvector and the
global consistency index are calculated. If the global consistency index exceeds0.10
then inconsistent judgments still exist and the comparative matrices must be
redefined. If the consistency index is smaller than 0.10 then the process of defining
the weight and interdependencyof the alternatives with respect to the given goal has
been concluded.
7.4.3.1 Risk probability - AHP
When there is no databasefor a particular risk and it is impossibleto assessthe

probability of its occurrencequantitatively, a qualitative assessmentis made by
how much more or lessprobablethe occurrenceof this risk is with respect
assessing
to all the other risks in the phase.Successivequalitative assessments
using AHP
leadsto a relativedistributionof risk probability in a particularphase.This makesthe
sumof the probabilitiesof all the risks in a phaseequalto 1.
For Phase X, whose priority list is being deten-nined, the procedure begins by
fonning the hierarchical structure. The goal is the risk probability. There are no
criteria and sub-criteria. The risks of PhaseX are the alternatives. Fig. 7.8 shows the
hierarchicalstructure.
120
Chapter 7
Goal
Alternati"'O"
Risk probability
Risk
X01
Risk
X02
Risk
X03
Risk
X04
Risk
X05
Figure 7.8: Hierarchical structure for risk probability in Phase X
After the hierarchical structure has been defined, the comparative matrix is fornied in
which the relative interdependencyis defined of the probabilities for the appearance
of all identified risks in PhaseX.
Table 7.30 shows a comparative matrix for PhaseX. A total of 10 assessmentswere

made for the relative probability of all the identified risks in PhaseX. For example,
risk XOI was assessedto be 3 tinies more probable than risk X02 and 4 times less
probable than risk X03.
Table 7.30: Comparative niatrix for risk probability in Phase X

I
T-Risk
Risk XO I
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk probability
X04
Risk X05
Risk XO 1
1/1
3/1
1/4
115
1/3
Risk X02
1/3
1/1
1/6
1/7
1/5
Risk X03
4/1
6/1
1/1
1/2
4/1
Risk X04
511
7/1
2/1
1/1
51'l
Risk X05
3/1
511
1/4
115
1/1
Solving the general problem of eigenvalues gives the eigenvector that represents the
Table
7.31 shows the eigenvector, maxIIIILIIII
risk
probability.
corresponding
eigenvalue
row n of the matrix, consistency index Cl and consistency ratio CR.
121
Chapter7
Table 7.31: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue ,,
in
X
index
CI
CR
for
Phase
consistency
and
ratio
risk
probability
consistency
Risk probability
Risk X01
0.076
Risk X02
0.039
Risk X03
0.302
Risk X04
0.448
Risk X05
0.136
5.312
ci
CR
0.078
0.070
E=1.000
Since CR < 0.1 it may be assumedthat consistentjudgmentsweremade.
7.4.3.2 Risk impact - AHP

When risk impact cannot be quantitatively calculated it is necessaryto qualitatively
impacts
in
the
the
of
all
risks
a phasewith respect to time, costs and quality.
weight
For PhaseX, whosepriority list is being detenninedhere,a hierarchicalstructureis

formed on two levels. The goal is the risk impact. The criteria are time, cost and
in
Phase
X.
Fig.
7.9
The
There
the
are
are
no
sub-criteria.
alternatives
risks
quality.
hierarchical
the
structure.
shows
122
Chapter 7
A Framework for manag risks in
ging
Goal
Risk impact
Risk X01
Altematives
-construction
projects
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk X04
Risk XOS
Risk X01
Risk XO 1
Risk X02
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk X03
Risk X04
Risk X04
Risk X05
Risk X05
Figure 7.9: Hierarchical structure for risk impact in Phase X
Priorities with respect to time, cost and quality differ among various construction
projects depending on many factors. Although it is important to keep the planned
costs under control in every project, often the deadline for finishing a project is n1LICh
more important than increased costs, and when life-threatening
situations appear In
the execution of a facility, then quality control becomes much more important than
both deadlines and costs. This is why the first step for every project phase Must be to
assess the interdependency of lengthening time, increasing costs and decreasing
quality.
Table 7.32 gives an example of a comparative matrix showing the Interdependency

for
Phase X. A total of 3 assessments were made. In Phase
time,
and
quality
cost
of
X time was assessed to be 3 times less important than costs and twice more important
than quality, while costs are 6 times more important than quality.
123
Chapter7
Table 7.32: Comparative time, cost and quality matrix in PhaseX
Risk impact
TIME
COST
QUALITY
TIME
1/1
1/3
2/1
COST
3/1
1/1
6/1
QUALITY
1/2
1/6
1/1
Solving the general problem of eigenvalues gives the eigenvector that representsthe
time, cost and quality interdependencyin PhaseX. Table 7.33 shows the eigenvector,
maximum eigenvalue kmax , row n of the matrix, consistency index CI and
consistencyratio CR.
Table 7.33: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue Xmaxrow n of the matrix,

9
consistencyindex CI and consistencyratio CR for time, cost and quality
interdependencyin PhaseX
Risk impact
TIME
0.222
COST
0.667
QUALITY
0.111
Xax
CI
CR
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
E=1.000
The consistency index CI and consistency ratio CR equal zero because completely
consistentjudgments were made. In this case the eigenvalue is equal to the row of
the comparativematrix.
The next step is weighting the impact of risks in PhaseX on time, cost and quality.
First the impact of identified risks in a particular phase on time is observed. In some
cases it is possible to calculate the impact precisely, in others a qualitative

is
is
Each
risk viewed with respectto its greateror smaller
assessment necessary.
in
impact
time
comparisonwith that of all the other risks in the phase.
on
assessed
AHP gives weighting and interdependency
of all the risks in a phasewith respectto
time.
124
Chapter7
Table 7.34 showsthe comparativematrix for PhaseX. A total of 10 assessments

it
interdependency
impact
in
X.
For
Phase
time
the
example,
of risk
on
weremadeof
impacts
6
3
X03,
X04
time
times
times
than
that
and
risk
more
risk
was estimated
less than risk X04.
Table 7.34: Comparative matrix for risk impact on time for PhaseX
I
I
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk X04
Risk X01
TIME
Risk X05
Risk XO1
1/1
1/2
3/1
1/6
1/4
Risk X02
2/1
1/1
4/1
115
1/3
Risk X03
1/3
1/4
1/1
1/8
1/5
Risk X04
6/1
511
8/1
1/1
3/1
Risk X05
4/1
3/1
511
1/3
1/1
Solving the general problem of eigenvaluesgives the eigenvector that representsthe
impactof eachrisk on time. Table 7.35 showsthe eigenvector,maximumeigenvalue

X,
index
Cl
CR.
the
consistency
and
consistency
ratio
matrix,
n
of
a, row
Table 7.35: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue krnax row n of the matrix,

1,
consistencyindex CI and consistencyratio CR for risk impact on time in PhaseX
TIME
Risk X01
0.078
Risk X02
0.120
Risk X03
0.041
Risk X04
0.511
Risk X05
0.250
Xmax
5.180
ci
0.048
7, = 1.000
Since CR < 0.1 it may be consideredthat consistentjudments were made.
125
CR
0.040
Chapter7
The processcontinues by weighting the impact of the risks in PhaseX on costs. AHP
gives weighting and interdependencyof all the risks in the phasewith respectto
costs.
Table 7.36 is an example of a comparative matrix for Phase X. A total of 10
of risk impact on cost in

assessments
were madeaboutthe relative interdependency
PhaseX. For example, Risk XOI was assessedto have a twice greater impact on cost
than risk X02 and the sameimpact on cost as risk X03.
Table 7.36: Comparative matrix for risk impact on cost in PhaseX
I
Risk X04
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk X03
COST
Risk X05
Risk XO1
1/1
2/1
1/1
1/4
1/2
Risk X02
1/2
1/1
1/2
1/4
1/4
Risk X03
1/1
2/1
1/1
1/3
1/2
Risk X04
4/1
4/1
3/1
1/1
2/1
Risk X05
2/1
4/1
2/1
1/2
1/1
Solving the general problem of eigenvalues gives a eigenvector that representsthe

impact of each risk on cost. Table 7.37 shows the eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue
index
Cl
CR.
%,,
the
the
n
of
matrix,
consistency
and
consistency
ratio
row
, a,,,
126
Chapter7
Table 7.37: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue krnax)the row n of the matrix,
consistencyindex Cl and consistencyratio CR for risk impact on cost in PhaseX
COST
Risk X01
0.126
Risk X02
0.073
Risk X03
0.132
Risk X04
0.418
Risk X05
0.251
Xax
cl
CR
0.011
0.010
5.045
E=1.000
SinceCR < 0.1 it may be consideredthat consistentjudgmentsweremade.

The procedure ends in the weighting the risk impact on quality in Phase X. AHP
gives weighting and interdependency of all the risks in one phase with respect to
quality.
Table 7.38 is an example of a comparative matrix for Phase X. A total of 10
of risk impacton quality in PhaseX.

weremadefor the interdependency
assessments
For example,Risk XOI was assessed
to have the sameimpact on quality as Risk
X02, and a4 times smaller impact than Risk X05.
Table 7.38: Comparative matrix for risk impact on quality for PhaseX
QUALITY
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk XO1
1/1
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk X0.4
Risk X05
1/1
1/2
1/3
1/4
1/1
1/1
115
1/4
1/6
Risk X03
2/1
511
1/1
2/1
1/2
Risk X04
3/1
4/1
1/2
1/1
1/2
Risk X05
4/1
6/1
2/1
2/1
1/1
127
Chapter7
Solvingthe generalproblemof eigenvaluesgives an eigenvectorthat representsthe

impact of each risk on quality. Table 7.39 shows the eigenvector,maximum
kmax,
index
Cl andconsistencyratio CR.
the
row
n
of
matrix,
consistency
eigenvalue
Table 7.39: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue X.., row n of the matrix,
consistencyindex CI and consistencyratio CR for risk impact on quality in PhaseX
LITY
Risk X01
0.086
Risk X02
0.062
Risk X03
0.259
Risk X04
0.200
Risk X05
Xax
5.136
ci
CR
0.034
0.030
0.393
E=1.000
Since CR < 0.1 it may be assumedthat consistentjudgments were made.

After all these judgments have been made the calculation results on all levels are
The
synthesised. global eigenvectorandglobal consistencycoefficientarecalculated.
The global eigenvectoris the risk impactof PhaseX for eachidentified risk, andthe
index
is
the total evaluation of assessmentconsistency on all
consistency
global
levels.
As in the caseof the quantitativeapproach,the global eigenvectoris calculatedby

the simple technique of weighting with averaging.The eigenvectorsof Level I
by
Level
2,
the
eigenvectors
of
and added up for each criterion, give the
multiplied
Table
7.40
shows this calculation.
eigenvector.
global
128
Chapter7
Table 7.40: Calculatingimpactin PhaseX

COST
TIME
QUALITY
Risk impact
Risk X01
0.222 x 0.078
0.667 x 0.126
0.111 x 0.086
= 0.111
Risk X02
0.222 x 0.120
0.667 x 0.073
0.111 xO. 062
0.082
=
Risk X03
0.222 x 0.041
0.667 x 0.132
0.111 x 0.259
= 0.126_
Risk X04
0.222 x 0.511
0.667 x 0.418
0.111 x 0.200
= 0.414
Risk X05
0.222 x 0.250
0.667 x 0.251
0.111 x 0.393 1=0.267

Total = 1.000
The global consistency ratio is calculated by simply averaging the regional
2.
Phase
X:
I
For
Levels
on
and
ratios
consistency
CR = (0.00 + 0.04 + 0.01 + 0.03) /4=0.02
As the global consistencyratio CR=0.02< 0.10 it is consideredthat assessment

was
consistent.
129
Chapter7
7.4.3.3 Risk exposure
After risk probability andrisk impacthavebeendeterminedfor eachrisk in PhaseX,

impact.
be
the
and
risk
of
risk
probability
calculated
as
product
risk exposure can
Table 7.41 shows this calculation.
PHASE X PROBABILITY
IMPACT
RISK EXPOSURE
0.008
Risk XO1
0.076
0.111
Risk X02
0.039
0.082
0.003
Risk X03
0.302
0.126
0.038
Risk X04
0.448
0.414
0.185
Risk X05
0.136
0.267
0.036
The priority risk list is formed on the basis of risk exposure,and will be used in
list
in
Phase
X.
Table
7.42
the
shows
priority
planning risk response.
Risk X04
0.185
Risk X03
0.038
Risk X05
0.036
Risk XO1
0.008
Risk X02
0.003
130
Chapter7
7.4.4 CHOOSING A QUALITATIVE
APPROACH TECHNIQUE
All the three techniquesdescribedcan be used for qualitative risk analysisin the
be
be
included
in
framework.
They
the
can
all
can
programmedand
proposed
correspondingsoftware support for decision-making.The presentationof all the
methodsfor PhaseX showedthat their useis not complicatedor time consuming.
The multi-attribute utility theory is the oldest and certainly the most widespread
decision-making support technique. For the decision-maker to use it in the proposed
framework, he must have certain knowledge of and experience in statistics and
because
data
be
by
theory
the
the corresponding
assessed
must
replaced
probability
in
distribution
function.
In
the
applying
risk analysis a certain
method
probability
amount of experience is necessaryto assesswhich distribution to choose and how
many of its statistical parametersto use in analysis. In the example shown for Phase
X one parameter (mean) was used. Since the other statistical moments (variance,
)
etc.
show a measure of uncertainty or reliability of the assessedvalues
skewness,
in
in
their
the
quite
certainly
enhance
confidence
analysis,
use
would
used
impartiality of the technique itself. However, a greater number of statistical
in
in
distribution
degree
a
a
chosen
results
proportionately
greater
of
parameters
derivability of the utility functions for each criterion. The higher the degree of
derivability, the greater the need of discrete utility-function values for its better
'
in
by
these
the
series
and
are
reached
of
assessments
made
approximation,
decision-maker using the so-called certainty equivalent method. Considering that this
is a qualitative technique and that the input data are assessedvalues, it is rather
introduce
larger
in
to
that
their turn
number
of
statistical
a
parameters
questionable
for
in
Thus
the
the use of this technique
making
additional
assessments.
need
result
in the proposed framework demandsa degreeof experience.
The introduction of fuzzy numbers and fuzzy analysis in calculating the overall
better
is
function
or
a modification, of the multi-attribute utility
an
extension,
utility
theory. It is used to avoid assuming the type of the probability distribution function
for input data, which are in any case an assessmentof the values of the criteria or
by
fuzzy
In
the
this
their
assessed
values
method
are
replaced
alternatives.
determined
is
increasingly
is
being
completely
and
used to
representation which
131
Chapter 7
A Framework for managing risks in construction moiects
obtain reliable measurement or forecasting results. It is also used to avoid assessing
the number of statistical parameters to be used in analysis, and thus also the need for
the utility functions to have a higher degree of derivability. Although the final result,
the risk priority
list, will be rather similar because the technique is basically the
same, this kind of approach is simpler, more understandable and faster for the
decision-maker. It does not require any additional requirements and is a better
solution than the multi-attribute
utility theory.
Whereasrisk probability, that is risk impacton time, cost andquality are determined
independentlyof one another in the multi-attribute utility theory and in fuzzy
analysis,by calculatingthe values of the overall utility function, in AHP the risk
priority list is calculatedthroughtheir comparison.Whenthereis not enoughdatato
quantifyparticularvaluesa qualitativeapproachis used.It is thereforemore natural
for
decision-maker
intuitive
the
to comparethosevalueswith oneanotherthanto
and
try to determiningtheir edge values, or at least their minimum, most likely and
maximumvalues.For example,availableinformation and experienceoften makeit
easierto assessthat an eventwill do twice more damagethan anotherevent,than to
try to quantify the extent of the actualdamagecausedby either or both of them. It
has alreadybeen said that the risk exposureof one risk is of no usablevalue and
gainssignificanceonly when comparedwith the risk exposureof oneor severalother
framework
is
in
Since
the
the
proposed
risk exposure,usedto
goal
parameter
risks.
determinerisk acceptabilityandrisk response,comparingthe elementsthat makeup
the risk exposureof all the identified risks in a phaseimposesitself as the most
knowledge
is
In
AHP
technique.
no
necessaryof statistics, probability
natural
distribution functions or fuzzy numbersand their meaning.It is only necessaryto
consistentlycomparealternativeswith respectto criteria and criteria with respectto
the goal.
The most important reason to give AHP priority over the other two techniques is the
fact that it is the only method that enables, i. e. allows, what is known as rank
reversal. One of the axioms of the utility theory says that adding a new alternative to
the decision problem can never change the order of the old alternatives, i. e. that a
become
by
optimal
cannot
adding a new non-optimal
alternative
non-optimal
132
Chapter7
alternativeto the decision problem (Luce and Raiffa, 1957).If, for example,the
valueof the overall utility function for the new alternativeis smallerthan the value
function
for
the
all the other alternatives,then the new alternative
of
overall utility
last
list
have
the
take
the
place
on
and
will
no effect on the order of the
will
it.
is
in
because
it
fuzzy
The
true
usesthe same
same
analysis
alternativesabove
techniquefor determiningthe priority list. This situation is logical, expectedand
desirablein most decisionproblems.However,there are certain situations,suchas
multi-criteria decisionproblems,in which the aboveaxiom essentiallyrestrictsall
utility theories, i.e. does not allow the decision-makingtechnique to give the
expectedresults.Luce and Raiffa (1957) showedone suchexamplethat restrictsthe
usability of utility techniques.At a restaurantof unknownquality, a man who loves
broiled
less
salmonor more expensive
expensive
andcanafford steak,when offered
steak,orderssalmonratherthanrisking paying doublethe price of salmonfor a steak
is
He
then quickly told, with an apology,that the restaurant
of questionablequality.
also has fried snails and frog legs at a price comparableto that of steak.The man
but
them,
the
thought
then changeshis order from
eating
of
shuddersquietly at
is
high
discrimination
He
this
to
that
a
culinary
restaurantof
salmon steak. reasons
andwould servea goodsteak.Thus,the presenceof a non-optimalalternative(snails
legs,
he
hates)
frog
Although
the
the
can
affect
rank
of
an
alternative.
old
which
and
kind
food
in
life
chooses
a
of
a
restaurant
guests
particular
real
why
are
reasons
by
understandable,
applying the utility technique steak could never
completely
becomemore desirablethan broiled salmonjust becauseof the appearance
of snails
dishes.
by
legs,
frog
However,
the
the
as
most
of
all
undesirable
using AHP
and
list.
for
jump
broiled
food
Let
the
the
priority
salmon
criteria
choosing
on
can
steak
be benefitsandrisks. The appearance
of a new dish will not affect the hierarchywith
hates
because
benefits
frog
legs.
However,
the
the
to
guest
snails
and
respect
dish
hierarchy
the
the
new
will
essentially
affect
of
with respectto risks
appearance
becauseits appearanceconsiderablydecreasedthe risk, in the guest'seyes,that the
Salmon
does
lose
the advantageit hadover
good
steak.
not
serve
will
now
restaurant
benefit
By
to
risk.
combining
and risk, steakwill passsalmonon
respect
steakwith
the list and snails and frog legs will remain in bottom place, thus leading to rank
reversal.
133
Chapter7
A Frameworkfor manaRiniz
The restaurantsituation describedaboveis very similar to what happenswhen the

risk priority list is formed, where rank reversal is expected.In the proposed
framework risk impact is determined and risks are given priority with respect to time,
in
is
The
each phase
cyclical
risk
management
process
carried
out
cost and quality.
have
impact
been
After
the
and
risk
risk probability
of
detenninedfor every key risk identified, and thus also risk exposure,a priority risk
list is forined and risk responsestrategy is defined, depending on risk acceptability. If
new risks appear as the result of risk response, a new cycle of risk identification,
impact
is
begins.
When
risk
compared with that of the risks
analysis and response
identified earlier, the new risk may have a very great impact on time, a negligible or
impact
This
impact
on cost and quality.
great
on time of the new risk will
equal
decreasethe relative value of the impacts on time of risks that previously dominated
in this sense,so risks that dominatedwith respectto cost or quality may now climb
higheron the risk list. In otherwords,when a new risk appearedthat may essentially
in
less
longer
time
then
the
time
construction
earlier risks got
affect construction
impact than the costs that this prolongation might produce, so rank reversal is natural
andexpected.
Rank reversal cannot occur in the multi-attribute utility theory or fuzzy analysis. The
kind
be
below.
AHP
to
this
solve
cases
of
shown
will
capacity of
Let a risk priority list of only two risks be formed in a phase.Let time, cost and
important
for
be
Table
7.43
the
equally
project.
shows the comparative
quality
for
time, costandquality.
eigenvector
corresponding
and
matrix
Table 7.43: Comparative time, cost and quality matrix in PhaseX.
Risk impact
TIME
COST
QUALITY
TIME
1/1
0.333
COST
1/1
0.333
QUALITY
1/1
0.333
134
Chapter7
Now the impact of the two risks on time, cost and quality is weighted. Table 7.44
for
impact
the
the
on
correspondingeigenvector
comparativematricesand
shows
time, cost and quality for both risks. The comparative matrix shows that Risk XOI
is
inferior
X02
Risk
to
time,
respect
with respect to cost, and
with
predominatesover
theyboth havethe sameimpact on quality. All thejudgmentswere madecompletely

decision-making.
levels
the
consistency
ratios
equal
on
all
of
so
zero
consistently
Table 7.44: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for risk impact on time, cost and
for
two risks
quality
Risk XOII
Risk X02
Risk XO1
1/1
3/1
0.750
Risk X02
1/3
1/1
0.250
COST
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk XO1
1/1
1/2
0.333
Risk X02
2/1
1/1
0.667
QUALITY
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk XO1
1/1
1/1
0.500
Risk X02
1/1
1/1
0.500
TIME
Synthesisingthe calculationresultson all levelsof decision-makinggives the global

list.
Table
7.45
the
that
risk
priority
represents
shows the calculation
eigenvector
has
impact
be
Risk
X01
It
that
than Risk X02.
a
greater
result. can seen
Table 7.45: Risk impact on time, cost and quality for two risks
135
Chapter 7
11
Risk impact
Risk X01
0.528
Risk X02
0.472
Let a new Risk X03 now appear, which will predominate with respect to time, be
inferior with respect to cost and equal to the other risks with respect to quality. Table
7.46 shows the comparative matrix and corresponding eigenvector for time, cost and
quality.
Table 7.46: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for risk impact on time, cost and
quality for threerisks

Risk XOII
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk XO1
1/1
3/1
1/2
0.300
Risk X02
1/3
1/1
1/6
0.100
Risk X03
2/1
6/1
1/1
0.600
COST
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk XO1
1/1
1/2
4/1
0.308
Risk X02
2/1
1/1
8/1
0.615
Risk X03
1/4
1/8
1/1
0.077
QUALITY
Risk XOI
Risk X02
Risk X03
Risk XO1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0.333
Risk X02
1/1
1/1
1/1
0.333
Risk X03
1/1
1/1
1/1
0.333
TIME
136
Chapter7
Synthesisingthe calculationresultson all levels of decision-makinggivesthe global

eigenvectorthat representsthe risk priority list. Table 7.47 showsthe calculation
be
It
results. can seenthat now Risk X01 has a smallerimpact than Risk X02, and
that Risk X03 is the lowest-ranking; its predominance with respect to time of has
decreasedthe importance of the predominance of Risk X02 with respect to time and
increasedthe importance of the predominanceof Risk X02 with respect to cost.
Table 7.47: Risk impact on time, cost and quality for three risks
I
Risk impact
Risk X01
0.359
Risk X02
0.395
Risk X03
0.245
From all the above it may be concluded that AHP is the most suitable technique for
in
framework.
the
analysis
proposed
qualitative risk
7.5 RISK PRIORITY LIST - MIXED APPROACH

The most usual casein real life is a combinationof the quantitativeand qualitative
in
be
Phase
X
database
for
For
there
some
risks
a
will
assessingtheir
approach.
is,
impact
For
be
time,
that
their
this
on
cost
quality.
or
others
will
not
probability,
be
If
available. risk probability can calculatedfor all the risks in PhaseX then the
be
i.
should
used,
method
e. the quantitativeapproach.If it cannotbe
normalisation
least
for
for
then
the
one
risk,
risks
at
which calculation is possible should
calculated
be norinalised, and the qualitative approach used for the interdependency of the
for
the
those
one
which calculation is not possible.The
risks
and
of
probabilities
impact
be
for
risk
used
on time, cost or quality.
sameprocedureshould
137
Chapter7

is madefor eachidentified risk in PhaseX, depending
An acceptabilityassessment
it.
(1996)
defined
for
Godfrey
its
managing
risk exposure, and methods are
on
for
the
each
risk
management
corresponding
proposed a risk classification and
category:
UNACCEPTABLE - Intolerable, must be eliminated or transferred.
UNDESIRABLE
detailed investigation
if
be
To
reasonably
practicable,
avoided
and cost benefit justification required, top level approval
needed,monitoring essential.
ACCEPTABLE
is
be
Can
the
managed.
risk
acceptedprovided
-
NEGLIGIBLE
further
No
consideration needed.
-
The link between risk acceptability and risk exposure results from the policy of the
facility,
depends
It
the
the
type
team.
of
on
and
complexity
and on
risk management
the experience gained in constructing similar facilities. Depending on the successof
from
link
be
this
phaseto phase.
changed
may
projectrealisation,
In the lack of experiencethe starting link may be as shown in Table 7.48.
Table 7.48: Risk evaluation depending on risk exposure
F
RISK EXPOSUR. E
RISKI ACCEPTABILITY
0.25-1.00
RISK
UNACCEPTABLE
UNDESIRABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NEGLIGIBLE
0.11-0.25
RISK
0.01-0.11
RISK
0.00-0.01
RISK
138
Chapter7
Thevaluesin the tablewereobtainedas follows:

" If risk probability and risk impact are greaterthan 1/2 then risk acceptability
is greaterthan 0.25 (0.5*0.5=0.25)and,of course,smallerthan 1. This means
that the risk has a high probability and a greatimpact,which meansthat this
risk is moreprobablethanall the otherrisks of the phaseput togetherandthat
it hasa greaterimpactthanall the otherrisks of the phaseput together.If risk
probability falls below 0.5 by 20% (0.8*0.5 = 0.4) then risk impact must
grow over 0.5 by 25% (1.25*0.5=0.625)for risk acceptability to remain
within this category.The oppositeis also true. If the risk satisfiesall these
conditions then it is unacceptableand the responseto it may be risk
"
avoidanceor risk transfer.

If risk probability and risk impact are greaterthan 1/3 and smallerthan 1/2
then risk acceptabilityis between0.11 and 0.25 (0.333*0.333=0.11).This
meansthat the risk hasa meanvalue and meanimpact,and that this risk has
betweenonethird andonehalf probability and impactof all the otherrisks of
the phase put together. Similarly as in the preceding category, if risk
probability changesby, for example,20% with referenceto the valuesof 1/3
and 1/2, risk impact must changeby 25% for the risk to remain in this
category.Of course,the oppositeis also true. If the risk satisfiesall these
conditionsthen it is undesirableandthe risk responsemay be risk avoidance,
risk transfer,risk reductionor risk sharingwith the necessaryrisk monitoring.

o If risk probability and risk impact are greaterthan 1/10 and smallerthan 1/3
then risk acceptabilityis between0.01 and 0.11 (0.1*0.1=0.01). This means
that the risk hasa small probability and small impact,and it hasbetweenone
tenth and one third probability and impact of all the other risks in the phase
put together. Similarly as in the preceding categories,if risk probability
for
by,
20%
example,
with referenceto 1/3 and 1/2,risk impactmust
changes
in
for
by
25%
the
to
this category.Of course,the opposite
risk
remain
change
is true as well. If the risk satisfiestheseconditionsthen it is acceptableand
the responseto it may be risk retentionwith the necessaryrisk monitoring.
impact
If
are smallerthan I/ 10thenrisk acceptability
and
risk
risk probability
0
is between0.0 and 0.01.This meansthat the risk hasa negligible probability
impact,
has
less
that
this
than one tenth probability
and
risk
and negligible
139
Chapter 7
and impact of all the otherrisks in the phaseput together.Similarly as in the

if
categories,
risk probability changesby, for example,20% with
preceding
reference to the values of 1/3 and 1/2, risk impact must change by 25% for
the risk to remain in this category. Of course, the opposite holds true as well.
If the risk satisfiestheseconditionsthen it is negligibleandno responseto it

is needed.
Table 7.49 shows risk acceptability in PhaseX for the quantitative approach.
Table 7.50 shows risk acceptability in PhaseX for the qualitative approach.
Table 7.49: Risk acceptability for PhaseX- quantitative approach
PHASE X
RISK EXPOSURE
RISK ACCEPTABILITY
RISK RESPONSE
Risk X01
0.014
ACCEPTABLE
risk retention and monitoring
Risk X02
0.020
ACCEPTABLE
Risk X03
0.036
ACCEPTABLE
Risk X04
0.139
UNDESIRABLE
risk sharing and monitoring
Risk X05
0.042
ACCEPTABLE
Table 7.50: Risk acceptability in PhaseX- qualitative approach

PHASE X
RISK EXPOSURE
RISK ACCEPTABILITY
RISK RESPONSE
Risk XO1
0.008
NEGLIGIBLE
none needed
Risk X02
0.003
NEGLIGIBLE
none needed
Risk X03
0.038
ACCEPTABLE
Risk X04
0.185
UNDESIRABLE
risk sharing and monitoring
Risk X05
0.036
ACCEPTABLE
This kind of risk analysis is performed for each phase separately. If some activities,
from
onephaseto another,the correspondingrisk
or somecausesof risk, are carried
is also transferred. Therefore it is necessary,after every phase, to once more single
in
be
the next phase.
that
the
analysed
will
risks
out all
140
Chapter 7

This chapter has shown the framework for process-drivenrisk managementin
constructionprojects basedon the ProcessProtocol. For each identified risk in a
particular phaseit is necessaryto determinerisk probability and risk impact, and
calculatethe correspondingrisk exposure.By determiningrisk exposurefor all the
identified risks in a phaseand finding their interrelationship,a priority list can be
formed.Dependingon the position of the risk in the risk priority list, that is on the
its
in
the phase,resources
to
the
of
reference
other
exposure
with
risks
relativevalue
list
be
for
be
The
the
response.
risk
priority
engaged
anticipated
risk
can
will
determinedusing a quantitative,qualitativeor mixed approach.
The quantitative approach to forming the risk priority list implies that risk probability
and risk impact can be explicitly calculated using one of the known quantitative
database
be
do
To
the
this
of
risk
analysis.
relevant
must
available to serve
methods
for forming the probability distribution, that is to enable the direct calculation of the
impact on time, cost and quality.
The priority list is created using the qualitative approach when there is no database
for
to
the probability distribution function and for
projects
use
about earlier
determining risk probability. All the necessaryindicators for the direct calculation of
the consequences,that is the impact that the risky event would have on time, cost or
quality, are also missing. Three techniques are offered for qualitative risk analysis in
the proposed framework: Multi-attribute
Utility
Theory, Fuzzy Analysis and
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AEP). All the three are programmable and can be
included in the corresponding software for decision-making support. A detailed
AHP
is
techniques
the
three
that
the most complete and most
shows
all
of
analysis
adaptable.
What usuallyhappensin real life is a combinationof the quantitativeandqualitative

approach.
141
Chapter7
For eachidentified risk in PhaseX, dependingon its risk exposure,a decisionis

madeaboutits acceptability,that is, methodsfor managingit are defined.The link
betweenrisk acceptabilityand risk exposureis the result of the risk management
team's policy. This dependson the type and complexity of the facility, and on
by
gained
constructing similar facilities. Depending on successin
experience
realisingthe project,this link canchangefrom phaseto phase.
The next chapter deals with the IT support for risk management in construction
projects according to the ProcessProtocol and basedon the framework described.
142
Chapter 8
IT support
8 THE PP-RISK MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMME
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter the framework was developed for process-driven risk
managementin ProcessProtocol based construction projects. The verification of the
framework,
in
following
the
shown
proposed
chapter, and its application in future
be
very time consuming without the use of infori-nation technology.
projects, would
This chapter shows the PP-Risk computer programme developed by the author,
which supports all the elements of the framework for process-driven risk
management presented in the preceding chapter. PP-Risk is an independent
information system that satisfies all the elements of a decision support system.
Holsapple and Whinston (1996) define a decision support system as a computer
system that supports the decision-making process by helping the decision-maker to
organise information, identify and access information necessary for making a
decision, analyse and transform this information, choose methods and models
for
solving the problem, apply those methods and models, and analyse the
suitable
for
decision-maker.
According to Stoner and
the
the
results
of
needs
modelling
Wankel (1986), a decision support system is an interactive computer system easily
accessiblefor experts and decision-makerswho are not IT specialists, that helps them
in the functions of planning and deciding in business.
PP-Risk improves communication among all the Activity Zones of the Process
Protocol by integrating all the information relevant for project realisation. Since the
includes
large
of
a
construction
project
realisation
a
number of people with various
levels of qualification, knowledge and interests, there is always a problem of
information
and
exchange among them. Brandon and Betts (1995)
communication
integrating
information.
and
ways
of
show possibilities
Aouad et al. (1997), Betts, (1992); Brandon (1993); Miyatake and Kangari (1993),
Nam and Tatum (1992), Oliver (1994), Tucker el aL (1994), Wu et aL (2000) gave a
how
information
to
technology in the
of
apply
presentation
comprehensive
143
Chapter8
IT suivort
benefits
industry
the
and
of this application. Major projects on creating
construction
development
for
information
integrated
of are
environment
construction project
an
ICON (Aouad et al., 1994), OSCON (Aouad et al., 1997), SPACE (Alshawi et al.,
1996), COMMIT (Rezgui, 1996), IDAC-2 (Powel, 1996), COMBINE (Augenbroe,
1993; Dubois, 1995), ATLAS
(OTH,
(Atlas, 1992), MOB
1994), COMBI
(Ammerman, 1994), RATAS (13jork, 1989), IRMA (Luiten, 1993).
8.2 PP-RISK AS A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM

As an IT support for risk management in Process Protocol based construction
Support
System
(DSS),
Decision
PP-Risk
the
a
as
computer
programme,
projects
developmental
Microsoft
6
in
Visual
Basic
developed
MS
the
environment
on
a
was
Windows platform. The basic components of PP-Risk are databases, methods,
documentsand user interface. Databases,methods and documentsare accessedusing
the corresponding management systems, and the user accessesthe entire system
through a single user interface. Figure 8.1 shows the PP-Risk structure.
User
Interface
Database
Management
System
Method
Management
System
Databases
Methods
Figure 8.1: Structure of decision support system
144
Document
Management
System
Documents
Chapter8
IT support
8.2.1 INTERFACE
User interface includes the mechanisms necessaryfor data input, model application
important
is
decision
data
It
the
support
an
extremely
component
of
output.
and
system becausefor the user the interface is in fact the system itself Obviously the
but
for
in
interface
the
a
system,
weaknesses
other
parts
of
cannot
make
up
user
badly designed interface may put users off even if the other parts of the system are
well made.
The highest quality of user interfaceshould be designed,accordingto Cook and

Russell (1989), on the following principles:
1. Setting standardsfor the appearanceof the screen.
2. Intuitive system use.
3. Easy-to-managesystem (changing to different operations).
4. Possibility of changing interface parameters.
5. Short system responsetime.
6. All the parts, that is modules of the system must be operational from the
main menu.
7. Use of standardbusinessterms generally known to users.
8. Involving interface users in interface design.
The first five principles are automaticallysatisfiedby using the NIS Visual Basic 6
developmentalenvironment for designing DSS. The appearanceof the screen,
interface
parametersand responsetime
methodof systemuse,managementprocess,
in
the
as
all standard Windows applications (Word, Excel, Access,
same
are
PowerPoint) to which a large number of potential system users are already
Visual
is
MS
Basic
6
justified
The
for this kind of
thus
of
application
accustomed.
it
because
from
from
departing
the
the
precludes
practically
programmer
application
givenprinciples.
The appearance of part of the main menu of PP-Risk, shown in Figure 8.2,
demonstrateshow Principle 6 has been satisfied. It can be seen that it is possible,
from the main menu, to update the projects list, user list for a particular project, and
is,
be
the
key
that
that
list
of
risks
will
analysed in each phase.
the
risks,
of
145
Chapter 8
IT support
Furthermore, it is possible to determine risk probability and risk impact, which

determinerisk exposure. Finally, it is possible to directly determine risk acceptability
provided that all the necessarydecisions have been made and stored in the database.
7777777
1
t
PP-Risk
Efle Edit
-ok,
1Ij
View
al
RiskPrchnbilify
iILA
IL-Uj
Riskimpaci
Risk Acceptability
A ifm-
BiskList
-UserList
belp
Figure 8.2: Main menu
Figure 8.2 also shows the satisfaction of Principle 7 because the terms used, such as
risk probability,
risk impact and risk acceptability, are generally accepted in risk
management (see Chapter 2).
Principle 8 is satisfied by including the potential user in the process of fi-arnework

verification, which is shown in the following chapter.
8.2.2
DATABASE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
According to Smith and Amundsen (1998) the relation database is ail integrated set
kinds
is
data
of
entries,
and
completely
saved
in
various
of
Independent of tile
programme package that uses the database. Entries are interconnected through tile
databases.
the
the
among
saved
of
relationship
meaning
The Database Management System (DBMS)
allows the creation, use and
databases.
interrelated
According to Norton and Groh ( 1998), the
preservation of
DBMS must provide its users with sevenbasic functions:
1. Definition - The system must ensure a method for creating and changing data
structure.
2. Integrity - The system should use rules for data input or editing
.
3. Storage - DBMS must contain data structurally defined according to its own
rules.
4. Manipulation - System users must be able to add new, edit existing and
delete unnecessarydata in databases.
146
Chapter8
IT support
5. Recall - Users must be enabled to accessand view data in the base.
6. Datashare-Severalusersmustbe ableto accessdatasimultaneously.

7. Security - The system must prevent data damage and data access by
unauthorised users.
Databasesmanagedby MS Visual Basic 6 using the set of tools in Data Access

Objects(DAO) consistof tables,which in turn consistof fields. Setsof similar data
identifies
link
it
key
interconnect
A
keys
tables.
the
can
an
entry
and
with
called
from
from
table
the
anothertableor othertables.
or entries
same
otherentries
StructuredQuery Language(SQL) is used to accessand manipulatethe database.
This is a programmelanguagethat mostcomputerprogrammesuseto accessdatasetin
from
data
databases.
It
tables
to
one or more
one
or
more
access
serves
oriented
delete
data
in
databases,
tables,
the
add,
or updateentries, and obtain
manipulate
final information on data in the tables,such as total numberof entries,minimum,
is,
it
has
in
is
divided
SQL
that
two
two types
parts,
maximumand averagevalues.
of commands:
1. Creating or defining the database itself, called Data Definition Language
(DDL).
2. Databaseaccess,called Data Manipulation Language (DML).
The databaseneeded for the realisation of the proposed framework was createdusing
SQL. This database consists of 9 tables: Phases, RiskList, User, TCQ, Criteria,
Probability, ImpactTime, ImpactCost and ImpactQuality. The set of SQL commands
that servedto create tables and the corresponding keys is shown in Appendix 3.
Figure 8.3 showsa graphic presentationof databasetableswith the corresponding

fields and the links amongthem. Field qualifiers are usedto establishlinks among
is a qualifier field that servesto link the Phases
the tables.For example,PhaseCode
is
known
"one
is,
links
it
link,
RiskList
tables
to
that
as
a
one
what
using
many"
and
in
RiskList
have
in
Phases
the
the
table
the same
table
that
the
all
entries
with
entry
PhaseCode
value.
147
Chapter 8
IT support
Figure 8.3: Databasestructure with its tables, fields and links
8.2.3
METHOD
MANAGEMENT
The Method Management
SYSTEM
System (MMS)
allows the use of several methods
in
As
the preceding chapter, three methods
to
shown
analyse
alternatives.
necessary
determine
list
be
the
to
risk
successfully
priority
used
of qualitative risk analysis may
within
the proposed framework.
These methods are the Multi-Attribute
Utility
Theory, Fuzzy Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process. All the three methods
decision
be
be
the
appropriate
support software
included in
programmed and can
can
later
date.
found,
in
Since
felt
AHP
it
the preceding chapter,
at
a
was
appropriate
if is
to be the most suitable method of qualitative
risk analysis in the frarnework
included
date
it
is
PP-Risk.
the
to
only
one
in
proposed,
The accuracy of the programme code for using the AHP technique was tested on the
It
in
the
chapter.
gave the same results, which was tile first
preceding
example
indicator of successful programming. Results obtained by using PP-Risk and manual
calculation were tested on many examples and showed themselves Identical. Figures
8.4 to 8.10 show the results of analysis using PP-Risk, which are identical with those
obtained in the preceding chapter.
148
Chapter 8
IT support
-iolx
Rl,-,
RISK PROBABELrFY
User
LIC'!
. : 1. ,
Phase
:, ,
--a
I'l
PiLkSEONE (ONCET'IIONOFNW)
RiskCode.
1101
TT01
A Hl-i
Ll4i4]Risk I im
I Oil
Probobility
, ol
0,076
102
0,039
103
0,302
104
0,448
105
0,136
Cl - 0.08 Consistentjudgments
T_T,
j
TT,
I Tr)
104
U,2
101,
0,333
103
0,16 :,
0.143,
104
T:",
102
0,5
4
105
1T,)
I C,4
11 l.U
calculate
0,2
104
1 03
16bIe
1105
TTI)
C)jq 61 AX
7F
bk
Exit
It IIF IM
-IMIXI
C=RlA
Use(
Phase
le"M
CONTARISON
I-l'-11
11fI
CI
AW, m
A' II
Weight
M-1111-
in
INI
k, PJ- fPI
ION 01 NI 1 1)
L14H Pliases
CriteneiCode:
0m
TIME
0,22'
COST
0.667
OUALITY
0111
Cl - 0,00 - Consistentjudgments
ri.
User C do I Phase Code I

U01
1
Uo 11
Uo 11
Cdtena II
TIME
TIME
COST
Critena 2T
COST
QUALITY
QUAI ITY
score
0.333
2
6
& -- J
-
Exit
Figure 8.5: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for time, cost and quality obtained
by PP-Risk
149
Chapter 8
IT support
RISI,
UAPACT ON TEVIE
User,
Aiam, S-tvit,
1 [1)
Phase
Risk Code:
FIHASf, ONL
101
CONCEPTIONOFNEED
111defined Final Statement
, 01
0.079
102
0,120
103
0,041
104
0510
105
0,250
Nosai,
104
L14j4jPhases
11,101
L14J-41
Risk Lisl
ut Need
User Code I Ph se Code I Risk Code 1 1 Risk Code 21

U01
1
101
102
LJO
1
1
101
103
U01
1
101
104
U01
1
101
105
U01
1
102
103
U01
1
102
104
LJ01
1
102
10")
LJO
1
1
103
104
105
103
U01
1
U01
Impau on TIME
Score
0,5
3
0.167
0.25
4
0,2
0,3313
0.128
Cl- 0,05- Consistent

judgments
1
II
..
F-_I-- I-C
-.
--
Exit
0.2
105
Figure 8.6: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for impact on TIME obtained by
PP-Risk
1191XI
x]
Phase
ucj I
Anow
101
PHA9F ON[-
Ill-defined
User Code I Phase Code

1
U01
U01
1
1
U01
U01
1
U01
1
1
LJOl
1
U01
U01
1
LJO
1
1
1
U01
ImpectonCOST
01
0,126
02
0,073
103
0,132
104
0,418
105
0.21
Nw-m
CON(TI'TION
01 WED
L1414jllhirs-tjol
R)sk Code
v
RISI,
RAPACT ON COST
User.
Final Statement
LH L4J Risk List
of Need
Risk Code 1 1 Risk Code 21

102
101
103
101
104
101
105
101
103
102
104
102
105
102
104
103
105
103
104
Score
2
1
0,25
0,5
O's
0,25
0,25
0,333
0,5
1011)
Cl - 0,01 - Cunsistentludgrimits
OK
[aiui]
Exit
Figure 8.7: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for impact on COST obtained by
PP-Risk
150
Chapter 8
IT support
-Itg
i)w
.91
X1
iLLW
I r7lI Xj
IMPACT
RISK
ON QUALITY
L11-1
1
Use,
Phase
Ant(in
PHASE
RskCode
101
Nosim
ONE - CONCEPTION
111defined
I inal
Statement
User Code I Phase Code j Risk Code I

1
U01
101
U01
1
101
U01
1
101
U01
1
101
U01
1
102
U01
1
102
Uol
1
102
U01
1
103
U01
1
103
104
U01
1
OF NEF 1)
L14[4JI'liases
Jlil
[_1414JRi, k L ist
tit Need
I Risk,Code 21
102
103
104
105
103
104
105
104
105
Score
1
05
0.333
0.25
0,2
0,25
0,167
2
0,5
105
O's
ImpaclonQuality
, 01
0.086
'02
0,061
103
0,259
104
0,200
105
0,393
Cl - 0,04 -Consistent judgments

ji
OK
E?5it
Figure 8.8: Comparative matrix and eigenvector for impact on QUALITY
obtaffled
by PP-Risk
t ".
DJQJ&j
",,
61
GILM
B111V
1191XI
EINIM
_jL
L:iL-Lj
Phase:
Risk Code
101
PHASE
ONE - CONCEPTION
111dotined
Final
Slatument
Of NF[
L!! L4 111--
L14]4j Risk List
(if Nmd
[-B -sk -pa

i i-m ctI
Ezit
Figure 8.9: Overall risk impact obtained by PP-Risk
151
-=
Oj
102
0,082
103
0,126
104
0,414
105
0.167
Cl -0 UO- C,vi,tent judgments
Chapter 8
IT support
r st
RISK
ACCEPTABIL=
User
LIC!1
Phase
RUskCode.
101
FIFIASI ONE
01
CONCI 11TION 01 NI ID
111defined Final Statement
RISK
L!]User
Anim, S, ivil N,,,,, i,
Bisk acceptabi
P,obob,l,zy
LHL41 Risk t im
tif Nued
E?sit
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
101
0,076
0.111
0.008
NEGLIGIBLE
102
0.039
0.082
0.003
NEGLIGIBLE
103
0,302
0.126
0,038
ACCEPTA13LE
104
0.448
0.414
0.186
UNDESIRABLE
105
0,136
0,267
0.036
ACCEPTABLE
Figure 8.10: Risk exposure and risk acceptability obtained by PP-Risk
8.2.4
DOCUMENT
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
The Document Management System (DMS) implemented in PP-Rlsk enables the

data.
kinds
Documents are information usually
to
use various
of unstructured
system
tied to a narrow topic and mostly consist of text, graphs, pictures, voice and video
entries. Examples of documents are reports, user letters, internal messages, news
documents
be
in
decision-making
If
to
they 111LISt
are
messages.
used
electronic
and
be efficiently
stored and it must be possible to interpret and search them. Online
databases, for various projects, are major data sources available on the Internet. 'File
combination
of e-mail,
discussion groups, online databases and other Internet
lot
for
allows
a
of
information
relevant
making a decision to be gathered
services
quickly,
so it is of great practical use to include these activities
support system.
152
in the decision
Chapter8
IT support
8.2.5 BENEFITS OF THE PP-RISK PROGRAMME
The PP-Risk programme has been developed as an IT support for the proposed
framework. PP-Risk incorporates a data base with the proposedrisk list and the AHP
techniquesfor establishing the risk priority list.
The following list illustrates the benefits of using this programme:

1) easierimplementation of the proposed framework in the practice
2) improvement in communication throughout all the Activity Zones
3) help to Project managersin their decision making and improving the consistency
ofjudgments
4) better presentation as outputs are shown quantitatively and graphically
5) easieranslysis and understandingthe results obtained

This chapter has shown the PP-Risk computer programme, as a Decision Support
System (DSS) developed for the proposed framework for process-driven risk
managementin Process Protocol based construction projects. PP-Risk provides an
improvement in communication among all Activity
Zones within the Process
Protocol by integrating, with the help of IT, all the information relevant for project
realisation.
PP-Risk was designed on the MS Windows platform using the MS Visual Basic 6
developmental environment. The DSS follows given principles (Cook and Russell,
1989) and consists of four integrated modules: User Interface, DatabaseManagement
System,Method Management System and Document Management System.
Programme code accuracy was tested on the example shown in the preceding
Comparison
the
results.
and
gave
same
of the time necessary for manual
chapter,
PP-Risk
analysis showed the great advantageof PP-Risk
and
analysis
qualitative risk
in
its
development.
invested
justified
the
efforts
and
In the next chapter the proposed framework will
153
be verified using PP-Risk.
Chapter9
framework
Applicationandverificationof theprocess-driven
risk management
9 APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE

PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter showed the PP-Risk computer programme the author
developed as a decision support system for the proposed framework for processdriven risk managementbasedon ProcessProtocol.
This chapter will show the application and verification of the proposed framework
Application
IT
PP-Risk
the
support.
and verification
as
computer
programme
using
for
following
the
reasons:
arecarriedout
1. To test the applicability of and verify the proposedframeworkon a specific
example.
2. To verify
the efficiency and applicability
of the PP-Risk computer
programme described in the preceding chapter.

3. To verify the hypothesesin this research.
Application and verification will be tested on a construction project involving a
tunnel as a major infrastructure facility. Dudeck (1987); John (1997); ITA (1988)
in
(1993)
Smith
important
tunnel
construction.
on
risk
gave a
research
performed
during
preparations to
risk
assessments
and
analysis
performed
case study showing
design, construct and operatethe Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Eighteenexperts,who had in variousways significantlyparticipatedin the execution

in
in
the
to
and
past
who
are
expected
significantly
projects
participate
similar
of
future projects, helped in the application and verification of the proposed framework.
The experts applied the proposed framework using the PP-Risk computer
identification
in
key
First
the
the
the
they
confirmed
of
proposed
risks
programme.
implemented
Protocol,
Process
then
they
a quality risk analysis
various phasesof
finally
they
the
gave
and
relevant risk response.
phase,
a
particular
within
154
Chapter9
framework
Applicationandverificationof the process-driven
risk management
To verify the proposed framework, the experts first used PP-Risk to managethe risks
in particularphasesandthen filled in a structuredquestionnaire.
9.2 APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
In order to test the Framework it would be possible to create a hypothetical example
or to use a real case study. The framework had been developed by using a
hypothetical example and therefore it was felt important to apply the approachwithin
the context of a real project. A real example will provide information on applicability
of the framework in practice and give some valuable lessonsfor the future.
The application of the PDRMF (Process-Driven Risk Management Framework) was
demonstratedon the Sveta tri kraIja Tunnel. This tunnel is planned as part of the
Zagreb-MaceIj Motorway that will link the capital of the Republic of Croatia with
the Republic of Slovenia (see Fig. 9.1). Motorway Zagreb-Macelj (E-59, M-11) is
part of the Pyhrns roadway in Croatia that links North and West Europe with
SoutheastEurope and Mediterranean. The total length of Pyhms route in Croatia is
30 miles.
The tunnel will be more than 5 km long, mostly running through the weakest rock
categoriesof the hard soil-soft rock type, with high levels of groundwater and many
natural landslides.
The reasonswhy the tunnelSvetatri kraIja waschosenfor testingare,firstly that the

tunnelsare a well known subjectfor risk managementas so manyunknownsexist at
the start of a project, and secondly,expertswho haveworked on similar projectsin
the past were willing to participate in the application and verification of the
framework. This enabledsatisfactorytesting with an informed group who could
makeusefuljudgmentsaboutthe proposalsbeingmade.
155
Chapter 9
Application and verification of the process-drivenrisk managementframework
.......
jwgcxve
Vorlldlri
Trwvec
'14ri-ca
"Po',
D-P
Lpbe6..
Pelm
M..
q
jrmkim
=11,
e- Cjy.
Ludbrog,
X-ze
swr
Konoo4o
'choima
P'. etu
Loke pn
Z
Spodno Recica
ada
P-p
Rrnske TOPICe
,,
V
HMsk.
Jkist.
RWe6e
Lk. p,.
Rk
M., Iu
C..
SL0VENIA
vd.
Kope
D. Im
luilevei,
K-4
Kfiko
L Wpri KrUem
Topice
11"',
KoslsM
Krki
Zagreb
c"o
~a
CRJIA
I IA
'Samow
om-*
soi. 0
Figure 9.1: Zagreb-Macelj road map
Road construction is of special importance in the Republic of Croatia becauseof

tourism, which is one of the main industrial branches,so the Government made it all
investment priority. To secure the efficient execution of infi-astructurc projects, the
Croatian Government founded several firms to engagesolely in the construction and
firm,
One
of
motorways.
maintenance
such
in the name of the Government, is the
investor in this tunnel.
The application of the proposed framework was tested in several steps.

The first step was choice of experts to participate in the testing. A total of 18 experts
took part, who had played an important role in the realisation of similar facilities in
the past. Considering that the execution of such major facilities is very complex,
starting from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and Maintenance, not one ol'the
in
experts participated all the phasesthat the project goes through. For this rcason thc
experts were divided in 4 groups of their own choice, in accordance with tile stages
framework
No
Protocol.
in more than one stagc. The
Process
tested
the
expert
of
follows:
as
experts
per
stage
was
of
number
Stage 1: Pre-Project Stage
-4 experts
Stage 2: Pre-Construction Stage
-6 experts
Stage 3: Construction Stage
-4 experts
Stage 4: Post-Construction Stage
-4 experts
156
Chapter9
framework
risk management
In the secondstep all the experts were given the list of key risks. Since the tunnel is a
future project whose execution has not yet started, all the experts agreed that the
proposed list was appropriate for first analysis and that project-related risks may
appearduring project execution.
The third step was to determine risk exposure and form the risk priority list for each
phase through which the tunnel project would pass according to Process Protocol.
Since project realisation had not yet begun, a qualitative approach was chosen for
follows:
Qualitative
analysis
was
carried
out
as
analysis.
risk
1. Questionnaire-type forms made for each phase separately were distributed to all
the experts, to serve as the first iteration in the process of determining risk
forms
for
identified
The
each
risk.
were adaptedto the AHP method and
exposure
enabled making a series of judgments about interrelationships among the
identified risks with reference to probability, time, cost and quality, and defining
the mutual significance of time, cost and quality in each phase. Figure 9.2 shows
form
for
Phase 0. The experts were allowed as much time as
the
example
of
an
they required to fill in the forms.
2. The comparison results were entered in the databaseof the PP-Risk computer
degree
inconsistency
in
judgments
a
and
of
appeared in a certain
programme,
inconsistencies
have
The
been
of
cases.
could
avoided had the interview
number
method been used, during which the author of PP-Risk would have directly
enteredthe judgments after which they would have been correcteduntil the
in
deciding
consistency
wasreached.This methodwasnot usedbecause
necessary
a largenumberofjudgmentssareneededwithin onephase,which would haveled
to exhaustionand loss of concentrationamong the respondents.For 5 risks
is
in
it
necessaryto make 10judgmentsfor risk probability, 10
analysed onephase
for impact on time, 10 for impact on cost, 10 for impact on quality and 3 to
determinethe mutual significanceof time, cost and quality. This is a total of 43
judgmentsfor onephase.
3. After the resultswere enteredin the databasea two-part interview wasperformed
first
In
the
part the experts used the PP-Risk computer
with each respondent.
judgments
their
to
so as to achieveconsistencyin deciding.
correct
programme
The processwas fast and efficient becausethe expertswere now well acquainted
157
Chapter9
framework
risk manaizement
with the risks, hadbeengiven time to think aboutthemmore,andeasilyachieved

in
consistency deciding. In the secondpart of the interview the expertswere
requestedto providethe appropriaterisk response.
4. Finally the author of the researchassumedthe role of the project managerand
madeher ownjudgmentssandrisk responsesfor all the projectphases,takinginto
judgments
by
the
the experts,as well as the exposuresand the
made
all
account
appropriaterisk responsesobtained(seeAppendix4).
The risk exposure of a particular risk may be directly correlated with the assets
available to manage that risk in a particular phaseby calculating the participation of
its risk exposure in the total risk exposure of that phase. The total risk exposure is
obtained by adding up all the exposuresin a phaseexcept the exposuresof negligible
investment
is
disregarded
because
these
so
no
necessaryto respond to
risks
are
risks,
them.
For Phase 0, for example, the total risk exposure is 0.044 (risk 001) + 0.022 (risk
002) + 0.015 (risk 004) + 0.058 (risk 005) = 0.239. Risk 003 is negligible so its
exposure is not taken into account. Thus, for example, 0.058/0.239 = 0.508 can be
is,
002,
51% of the total assets available for risk
Risk
that
to
manage
used
in
be
for
0.242/0.239
0.242
Risk 005, that is,
this
and
can
phase,
=
used
management
24 % of the assets.
This calculationof the participationof a particular risk in the total assetsavailable

for risk managementis madefor eachanalysedrisk and is included in the relevant
risk response.
The form and results of the application of the framework in all the phases,are shown
below.
158
Chapter9
framework
risk manaRement
PHASE ZERO - DEMONSTRATING
THE NEED
Possibleresultsof comparison:1/10.1/9,1/8,...
Risk pEobability
001
002
003
.
004
002
003
1/3,1/2,1,2,3,...,
004
8,9,10
005
**"**
............................................
..........
. .....................................
....................................
.............................
Risk impact
TIME
COST
COST
QUALITY
Impact on TIME
001
002
003
004
002
003
004
005
........................
................................
.
...........................................
....................................
............................
002
003
004
005
Impact on COST
001
002
003
..................................
................................
004
....................................
............. ..........................................................................
003
004
002
005
Impact on QUALITY11
001
002
003
...........
......
004
...............................................................................
....................................
Risk List
001: Unsatisfactory Market Research
002: Ill-defined Initial Statement of Need
003: IncompleteStakeholderList
004: No Historical Data Analysis
005: Poor Communications
Figure 9.2: Example of a form for the qualitative approach in Phase0
159
Chapter 9
9.2.1
THE NEED
Risk list
001: Unsatisfactory Market Research
002: Ill-defined Initial Statementof Need
003: Incomplete Stakeholder List
004: No Historical Data Analysis
Table 9.1: Results of risk analysis for Phase 0
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
001
0.320
0.137
0.044
Acceptable
002
0.339
0.360
0.122
Undesirable
003
0.038
0.051
0.002
Negligible
004
0.131
0.118
0.015
Acceptable
005
0.173
0.335
0.058
Acceptable

160
Chapter 9
Application and verification of tile process--drivenrisk managementframework
9.2.2
PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION
OF NEED
Risk list
101: Ill-defined Final Statement of Need
102: Changes in Stakeholder List
103: Poor Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
105: Incomplete Identification of Potential Solution to the Need
Table 9.2: Result oft-Isk analysis for Phase I

Risk
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
101
0.245
0.251
0.061
Acceptable
102
0.044
0.068
0.003
Negligible
103
0.043
0.076
0.003
Negligible
104
0.184
0.189
0.035
Acceptable
105
0.485
0.416
0.202
Undesirable
Figure 9.4: Risk exposure in PhaseI
161
Chapter 9
9.2.3
PHASE TWO - OUTLINE
FEASIBILITY
Risk list
20 1: Poor Communications
202: Poor Consideration of Site Investigations

203: Poor Consideration of Environmental Impact
204: Ill-defined Structure of Funding and Financial Options
205: Unrealistic Completion Dates for Each Option
206: Inadequate Cost/Benefit Analysis for Each Option
Table 9.3: Result of risk analysis for Phase
Risk
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
201
0.144
0.126
0.018
Acceptable
202
0.289
0.251
0.073
Acceptable
203
0.213
0.162
0.034
Acceptable
204
0.073
0.120
0.009
Negligible
205
0.092
0.153
0.014
Acceptable
206
0.189
0.188
0.036
Acceptable

162
Chapter 9
9.2.4
PHASE THREE - SUBSTANTIVE

FEASIBILITY
STUDY &
OUTLINE FINANCIAL
AUTHORITY
Risk list
302: Unsatisfactory Site Investigations
303: Poor Assessment of Environmental Impact
304: Ill-defined Structure of Funding and Financial Options
305: Inadequate Substantive Cost-Benefit Analysis
Table 9.4: Results ofrisk analysis for Phase 3
Risk
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
301
0.204
0.171
0.035
Acceptable
302
0.384
0.406
0.156
Undesirable
303
0.224
0.259
0.058
Acceptable
304
0.069
0.042
0.003
Negligible
305
0.119
0.12-1
0.015
Acceptable

163
Chapter 9
9.2.5
PHASE FOUR - OUTLINE
CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
Risk list
402: Lack of Site Investigations Update
403: Lack of Environmental Impact Assessment Update
404: Inadequate Evaluation of Outline Conceptual Design Alternatives
405: Inaccurate Total Cost of Chosen Outline Conceptual Design Estimate
Table 9.5: Result of risk analysis Im Phtse4
-F
Risk
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
401
0.141
0.134
0.019
Acceptable
402
0.237
0.172
0.041
Acceptable
403
0.136
0.145
0.020
Acceptable
404
0.412
0.342
0.141
Undesirable
405
0.074
0.207
0.015
Acceptable

164
Chapter 9
Application and verification of the process-drivenrisk nianaqementtraillework
9.2.6
PHASE FIVE - FULL CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
Risk list
502: Poor Schematic Design for Elements of Chosen Solution
503: Inadequate Maintenance Plan
504: Inadequate Health and safety Plan
505: Inaccurate Total Cost of Chosen Concept Design Solution Estimate
Table 9.6: Results of risk analysis for Phase 5
EXPOSUre
Acceptability
Probability
Impact
501
0.185
0.143
0.026
Acceptable
502
0.460
0.377
0.173
Undesirable
503
0.144
0.127
0.018
Acceptable
0.138
0.122
0.017
Acceptable
0.072
0.231
0.017
Acceptable
505

165
Chapter 9
Application and verification of the Process-drivenrisk managementframework
9.2.7
PHASE SIX - COORDINATED

FINANCIAL
AUTHORITY
DESIGN, PROCUREMENT
& FULL
Risk list
60 1: Poor Cornrill-Ill i cations
602: Poor Detailed Design for Elements of Chosen Solution

603: Inaccurate Total Cost Based on Detailed Design Estimate
604: Poor contractual strategy
605: Unsatisfactory Potential Suppliers Skills and Inability to Fulfil Rcquiremcnts
Table 9.7: ReSLIItSof risk analysis for Phase 6
Acceptability
Risk
Probability
601
0.169
0.154
0.026
Acceptable
602
0.258
0.178
0.046
Acceptable
603
0.086
0.132
0.011
Acceptable
604
0.332
0.344
0.114
Undesirable
605
0.154
0.193
0.030
Acceptable
Impact
Figure 9.9: Risk exposure in Phase 6
166
Exposurej
Chapter 9
Application and veri.fication of the process-drivenrisk managementframework
9.2.8
PHASE SEVEN - PRODUCTION
INFORMATION
Risk list
702: Unsatisfactory Health and Safety Plan

703 Unsatisfactory Maintenance Plan
704: Unsatisfactory Procurement Plan
705: Inability to Finalise Total Cost Based on Production Information
Table 9.8: Result of risk analysis in Phase 7
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
701
0.358
0.302
0.108
Acceptable
702
0.089
0.174
0.015
Acceptable
703
0.191
0.115
0.022
Acceptable
704
0.249
0.216
0.054
Acceptable
705
0.113
0.194
0.022
Acceptable
0,120
0,100
167
Chapter 9
Applic.ation andverification of the process-drivenrisk managementframework

Risk list
801: Inappropriate Changes to Design Resulting from Construction Phase
802: Unsatisfactory Monitoring of Quality of Construction Work

803: Unsatisfactory Monitoring of Cost of Construction Work
804: Unsatisfactory Monitoring of Progress of Construction
805: Lack of On-Site Resources And Labour Management
Table 9.9: Result of risk analysis for Phase 8
Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
801
0.477
0.287
0.137
Undesirable
802
0.194
0.206
0.040
Acceptable
803
0.090
0.205
0.018
Acceptable
804
0.095
0.133
0.013
Acceptable
805
0.145
0.169
0.024
Acceptable
168
Chapter 9
Application and verification of the process-drivenrisk manm-,
ement framework

Risk list
901: Unsatisfactory Building PerformanceMeasurement
902: Lack of Maintenance Strategies Update
903: Lack of Lifecycle Budgetary Requirements Update
Table 9.10: Results of risk analysis in Phase 9

Probability
Impact
Exposure
Acceptability
901
0.524
0.492
0.258
Unacceptable
902
0.279
0.331
0.092
Acceptable
903
0.197
0.177
0.035
Acceptable
169
Chapter 9
framework
risk management
9.3
VERIFICATION
OF PDRMF
The proposedframeworkwas verified using the questionnairemethod.The experts

filled in the questionnaireafter they had suggested,with the supportof PP-Rlsk,the
appropriaterisk responseand after they were shownthe resultsof risk management
in all the phasesthroughwhich the constructionproject passesaccordingto Process
Protocol. The structural questionnairehas 10 questions (see Appendix 5) that
requiredthe expertsto chooseone of the answersoffered. The explanationof each
question,the answersprovidedby the expertsand the conclusionsin connectionto
the answersare shownbelow.
1. What do you think about the proposed breakdown of the construction project in
10 phaseswithin 4 stages?
0,
a)
C))
C
0
d
z
Very
Appropriate Generally
appropriate
appropriate
Less
appropriate
Not
appropriate
The experts were not acquainted with Process Protocol and this question was
asked to obtain their verification of the group of activities necessary during tile
reallsation
construction
of any construction
project,
as the first
step In setting up a
process. 12 experts considered the proposed breakdown
in 10
phases within 4 stages Appropriate, 4 considered it Generalv Aly)rol)riate and 2

considered it Vei, Appropriate.
Appropriate
No experts considered the breakdown Lcss
or Not Appropi-iate. The experts thus verified the breakdown of the
project in the phases proposed in Process Protocol, which is especially important

for the potential application of the framework in future projects.
170
Chapter 9
2. How generally satisfied are you with the proposed approach whereby risk
managementbecomespart of the construction process?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very satisficd
Satistled
Reasonably
Dissitisficd
satisfied
Wry
dissatisfied
Starting from the fact that executing a construction project is a process, the
proposed framework offers process driven risk management as in alteriiativc
approach to risk driven project management. This question was asked to verify
the fourth hypothesis of this research. The experts confirmed that this is I
it,
because
Satifled
II
5 were ReasonablY
thern
approach
of
were
suitable
with
Sati,fied and 2 were Vety Satified. None of the experts were Dissalislied
or
Vety Dissatified with the approach. The answers obtained verify the starting
hypothesis.
3. Do you find the proposed framework useful for risk managementin constructioli
projects?
18
16
14
12
10
8
C5 6
z
4
2
0
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat
useful
171
Neutral
Not useful
Chapter 9
This question tested the whether the goal of this research was successfully
realised and the experts' answers are very encouraging. 16 experts considered
the framework Veo, Useful and the remaining 2 considered it Ust,ful.
.
4. What do you think of the proposed key risks in the construction process
regardlessof the project's type and size?
18
16
14
12
10
0
C5 6
z
4
2
0
Very
acceptable
Acceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Very
acceptable
unacceptable
The experts did not know how the key risks had been identified so this qLICStIO11
for
key
the
the
to
identification
process
verify
risks described in
was asked
Chapter 6, that is, to verify the second starting hypothesis in this rcscarch. All
the 18 respondentsansweredthat the key risks proposed are Acceplable, and this
is the only answer in which consensuswas achieved. In this way the expci-ts
hypothesis.
the
starting
verified
5. To what extent does using the proposed framework improve your understanding
in
process
construction?
of
18
16
14
12
In
0
10
8
06
z
4
2
0
Very much
Much
Z7
Not much
172
Some
Not at all
Chapter 9
This question was asked to verify the first starting hypothesis in this research. 14
experts considered that using the proposed framework gave them a Ve),Much
better understanding of the construction process, and 4 experts gave the answer
Much. No experts answeredNot Much, Soine or Not at All. These answered are
consideredverification of the starting hypothesis.
6. Is the proposed framework appropriate for a risk assessment in the stage in
which you managed risks'?
0
C5
z
Very
Appropriate
appropriate
Generally
Less
appropriate
appropriate
Not ippmpriMe
This question was also asked to verify the third starting hypothesis in this
research. The framework anticipates a quantitative, qualitative or mixcd

approach to risk assessmentin each project phase. The experts appraised the
success in implementing these approaches. 15 experts considered them with
Very Appropriate and 3 considered them Appi-opriate. No experts gave the
Generalv
Appropriate,
answers
Less Appropriate
verified the starting hypothesis.
173
or Nol Appropriale.
This
Chapter 9
7. What do you think about the acceptability of AHP for qualitative risk analysis in
the decision making process?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very
Acceptal)lu
Rua)onably
Un'IcCoPLIblo
acceptable
acceptable
Very
unacceptable
For some of the experts this had been the first encounter with this technique
whereby the decision making process unfolds through a series of judgments
about the interrelationships of alternatives with reference to given criteria alid
given goal. 10 experts gave the answer Acceptable, 5 experts the answer
Reasonably Acceptable and 2 experts Vet-yAcceptable. None of tile experts
considered this technique Unacceptableor Veil, Unacceptable. This has verified
the use of AHP for quantitative risk analysis in the proposed fi-amework.
8. How suited is PP-Risk as a Decision Support System for the proposed

framework'?
18
16
14
12
cn
0
66
z
10
8
4
2
o
Very suitable
Suitable
Somewhat
suitable
174
Neutral
Not suitable
Chapter 9
The PP-Risk computer programme, as a decision support system, completely

supports all the elements of the proposed framework. 16 experts considered it
Vety Suitable, 2 considered it Suitable and none considered PP-Risk Soinevihat
Suitable, Neuti-al or Not Suitable. The experts' views encourage tile author to
continue improving and increasing the potentials of the programme.
9. How satisfied are you with the PP-Risk user interface?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ur,, t, jtisfiud
SItltstjcl
kejof-.
Irly
V(my dl, ,,ltl, Ilwd
satisfied
PP-Risk was developed on the NIS Visual Basic 6 developmental crivironincilt

on a Microsoft Windows platform. The appearance of the screen, way of' using
the system, management procedure, interface parameters and response time are
the same as in all standard Windows applications to which a large millibcr of'
Still,
10
the
accustomed.
experts said they were
are
of
system
potential users
Satisfied with the user interface, 8 were Reasonabli, atisfied. No experts were
Dissatified
or Very Dissatisfied with the user interface, nor wcre any Vci:i-
SatiVied.
175
Chapter 9
10. Assessthe benefits of using the proposed framework supported by PP-Risk for
from
the aspect of time, cost and quality
risk
management,
process-driven
management?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
a
.. ....
......
Z=.
0
I It
Majuf
%ludIuI II
Some
II IVIA
The experts gave great weight to the fact that the relative values of time, cost
and quality could be changed in each project phase, which made it possible to
manage them at will. Thus 16 experts considered the benefits Sqnificant and 2
experts considered them Major. None of the experts considered tile benclits
Medium, Someor Trivial.
176
Chapter9
framework
risk management

In this chapterthe proposedframework for processdriven risk managementwas
appliedto andverified on the exampleof the future Svetatri kralja tunnelplannedas
part of the future Zagreb-MaceljMotorway that is to connect the capital of the
Republic of Croatiawith the Republic of Slovenia.The efficiency and applicability
of the PP-Risk computer programme,described in the preceding chapter, was
verified as a decisionsupportsystem.The startinghypothesesin this researchwere
alsoverified.
Eighteen experts, who had significantly participated in the realisation of similar
projects in the past, took part in the application and verification of the proposed
framework. All the experts were shown the breakdown of the project into 10 phases
within 4 stages. Since none of the experts had previously participated in all the
phases through which the project passesaccording to Process Protocol, they were
divided in 4 groups. None of the experts tested the framework in more than one
stage. This deficiency was compensatedfor by showing all the experts, before the
verification process took place, the results of risk management in all the phases
through which the project goes from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and
Maintenance.
The application of the proposed framework is the implementation of the risk

managementprocess described in Chapter 2, which is carried out separately for each
phase of the construction project in accordance with Process Protocol. After the
experts confirmed the identification of the key risks in each phase, they used the PPRisk computer programme to determine risk probability and risk impact, and
depending on risk exposure and risk acceptability they proposed the appropriate
strategy of risk response.They repeatedthe procedure for each phase within a stage.
in this way, beforethe projectbeginsto

Applying the frameworkto risk management
be executed,hasthe drawbackof loss of the cyclical natureof the risk management
process.During project executionrisk responsemay lead to the appearanceof new
in
later
in
the
the
or
one
of
analysis
phase
under
phases.Sincenew risks should
risks
177
Chapter9
framework
risk management
be treatedequally as the initial risks, risk managementis by its nature a cyclical

before
is
if
framework
Furthermore,
the
to
the
applied
risk
management
process.
in
fact
fundamental
is
begins
taken
the
that
of
changesmay occur
no account
project
the relativevaluesof time, cost andquality dependingon successin the realisationof
in
is
the
the
which
and
environment
project
on
circumstances
phases
and
preceding
being executed.This fundamentallyaffectsrisk impact,and thus also risk exposure,
risk acceptability,and finally risk response.Thus processdriven risk management,
framework,
if
it
is
full
the
the
can
of
proposed
only
realised
applied
application
and
to a project during its execution, from Describing the Need to Operation and
Maintenance.
After application the proposed framework was verified using the method of the
structural questionnaire, which the experts filled in after being shown the results of
in
risk management all the phases through which the construction project passes
according to ProcessProtocol.
In their answersthe expertsverified the breakdownof the project in phasessuggested

in ProcessProtocol,the proposedrisk list andprocessdriven risk management.
They
markedthe PP-Riskcomputerprogramme,as the implementationof IT supportfor
the proposed framework, as Very Suitable. They marked the user interface as
Satisfactory.All the expertsfound that using the proposedframeworkhelpedthem
better,
in
Much
Very
Much
the
construction
or
process
whereby they
understand
forth
in
first
hypothesis
this work. They also agreedthat the proposed
the
set
verified
frameworkis Appropriate or VeryAppropriatefor a holistic assessment
of risk in the
in
stage which they managedrisks, wherebythey verified the secondhypothesisin
this work.
for future research
The next chapterwill showthe conclusionandrecommendations
178
Chapter10
Conclusionsandj,,,
uidelinesfor futurework
10 CONCLUSION AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE

WORK
This chapter gives an overview of the main conclusions and contributions of this
for
future
work.
research,and suggestsguidelines
10.1 CONCLUSIONS
The authordevelopedand verified a frameworkfor risk managementin construction
projects, and the PP-Risk computer programmeas IT support for the proposed
framework.
The development of the framework was preceded by systematic analysis of prior
studies of risk management and construction process, which resulted in several
conclusions that were used for developing the framework for risk management in
construction:
o
Risk management is by nature a cyclical process. Risks must be identified

before the beginning of project realisation or the realisation of any phase
through which the project passes.The environment in which the project is
realised produces new risks during project realisation. The new risks must be
identified
those
together
and analysed earlier, in a continuous
analysed
with
attempt to assessthe probability and adverseeffect of new risks in relation to
existing ones. This creates the need for continuous risk management in all
phasesof project realisation.
The execution of a construction project is a process. The process in

construction contains many special features in comparison with the processof
other industries, which are an impediment for changes leading to process
improvement. The risk that the project might be unsuccessful is in fact the
in
the construction process might be
that
risk
particular elements
be
Risk
management
should
subordinated to the construction
unsuccessful.
process. This means that the approach to risk management in construction
should be changed from risk-driven project management to process-driven
179
Chapter10
Conclusionsandguidelinesfor futurework
risk management.Improving certain elementsof risk managementlead to

better understandingand to changes,in other words, to improvementof the
is
one of the main goals of the construction
constructionprocess,which
industry.
is
by
Protocol
is
Construction
Process
The
thus
a
nature
generic
process
and
o
for
framework
for
the
the
construction
suitable
process within which
processdriven risk management will be situated. As a plan of work, Process Protocol
enables managing the project from Demonstrating the Need to Operation and
Maintenance regardless of the type, size and purpose of the project that is
being realised. According to Process Protocol, every project can be executed
through the successful execution of 10 phases grouped in 4 stages. Every
phase contains so-called high-level processes as a group of activities that
must be realised for the successful conclusion
of that phase. High-level
into
in
levels
broken
down
sub-processes
as many
as the
processes are
Protocol user deems necessary for the project. The break down of the process
in sub-processes provides a good foundation for identifying key risks that are
independent of the project being realised. Sub-processes are potential risk
sources so risk management in fact means ensuring the success of each subprocess within
the entire construction
process. Ensuring
the successful
execution of the construction process leads to process improvement, which

Protocol.
Process
to
gives additional weight
10.1.1 LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The frameworkfor process-drivenrisk managementin constructionprojects,based

on ProcessProtocol and the PP-Risk computerprogrammeas IT support for the
proposedframework,were testedandverified on the exampleof a tunnel plannedin
the near future. A group of experts,who in variousways played a major part in the
in
the past and who are expectedto have major
of
similar
projects
realization
in
helped
in
future
the application and verification of the
projects,
participation
proposedframework.
180
Chapter10
The applicationof the proposedframeworkandthe experts'verificationhasprovided

be
lessons
for
future
The
lessons
summarizedas
and
application.
can
research
useful
follows:
1. The experts supported the division of the project into 10 phases following the
(see
Protocol
Process
the
chapter 5). The Construction ProcessProtocol
structure of
is a generic process and thus provides a good basis for generic process-driven risk
management.
2. The proposed list of key risks for all the phasesthrough which the project passes
first
6)
is
for
but
(see
Process
Protocol
the
the
to
chapter
appropriate
analysis
related
it might be modified in the future as the project develops incorporating the projectrelated risks which may appearduring project execution.
3. The AHP technique was found appropriate for establishing the risk priority list in
the each phase of the construction process. Some participants were not familiar with
this technique, so it is possible that this problem might occur in the future. This
be
fully
AHP
that
the
technique
should
made
aware
suggest
all
participants
of
would
before beginning to use the system.
4. Therewas somedifficulty experiencedby the expertsin trying to be consistentin

by
but
judgments,
PP-Risk
the
computerprogrammeparticipantswere able
aided
all
to achieveconsistencyin their judgments.It was found diffilcult to make a large
keep
judgments
Therefore,
it has been
the
at
once
and
consistency.
of
number
is
suggesteduse madeof the PP-Riskcomputerprogrammeat the beginningof the
led
This
to the conclusionthat eachparticipant should be provided in
analysis.
risk
the futurewith the PP-Riskcomputerprogrammeto avoid this problem.
5. All the expertsfound that the proposedframework helped them understandthe
better
and the assessmentof risk.
181
Chapter10
6. The proposedframeworkimprovescommunicationthroughoutall Activity Zones.

Projectmanagersgatherinformationon risk from all the relevantparticipantsin the
in.
Zone
Activity
they
the
participate
which
projectsno matter
10.1.2 PROVING THE HYPOTHESIS
The Hypothesis is:
A framework for managing risk in construction projects, based on the Process
Protocol developed by Cooper et al., is an improvement on current construction
project practice.
Improvement can be recognised in:
1. Better understanding of the construction process by all participants in project
realisation.
2. Identifying the key risks in every phase of the construction process that are
independentof the size, type and purpose of the facility.
3. Enabling a combination of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment from
Demonstrating the Need to Operation and Maintenance.
4. Introducing a new approachto risk managementby placing it in the function of the
by
implementing
i.
process-driven risk management.
construction process, e.,
After analysingthe applicability of the proposedframework and the corresponding

IT support,and their verification by the experts,the following conclusionsmay be
drawn:
for
framework
The
process-driven risk management is an
proposed
o
improvementon current constructionproject practice becauseit provides
betterunderstandingof the constructionprocessfor all participantsin project
is,
identify
To
that
eventsthat may threatenthe successful
risks,
realisation.
realisationof a project phase,andto analysethoserisks and find an adequate
in
the processmust understandthe construction
all
participants
risk response,
level.
higher
a
much
on
process
for
identification
in
key
framework
the
The
calls
risks
of
proposed
0
independent
that
of the size,type andpurposeof the
are
constructionprojects
form
it
database
that
PP-Risk
to
would
and
possible
a
update
makes
project.
182
Chapter10
contain the key risks and be accessibleto all interestedproject managers.This
databasewill help improvecurrentconstructionprojectpractice.

o
If documented experiences from earlier executed projects exist, it will be

in
implement
to
subjectivity
quantitative
risk
analysis
and
avoid
any
possible
deciding. If such experiences do not exist the proposed framework provides
in
constant
control
of
consistency
subjective
qualitative risk analysis with
decision-making.
Furthermore,
the
framework
enables
combining
quantitative and qualitative risk analysis, thus allowing a holistic assessment

is
Operation
from
Need
Maintenance.
This
Demonstrating
to
the
and
of risk
an improvement on current construction project practice.
o
The proposed framework, together with the IT support, inaugurates a new

by
it
to
placing
within the construction process,
approach risk management
Implementingthis approachis
i. e. it appliesprocess-drivenrisk management.
an improvement on current construction project practice.
It may generally be concluded that the primary goal of this research has been
developed
has
been
framework
because
enabling a systematic approachto
a
achieved
in
in
application
projects,
whose
construction practice
construction
risk management
improvements
in
industry.
In addition a
the
construction
changes
and
enable
would
PP-Risk computer programme has been developed as an IT support for the proposed
framework.
10.1.3 CONTRIBUTION
TO KNOWLEDGE
The main outcomeof this researchis an advanceof knowledgewithin the application

to constructionprojects.
of risk management
A new approach for managing risk in construction has been developed which has is
based on a recently establishedProcessProtocol which is now being widely adopted.
This has enabled a process-driven risk management system to be developed which
for
basic
Protocol
This
Process
be
the
maps
activities
operations.
on
and
overlaid
can
is the first time to the author's knowledge that such a protocol has been used for such
183
Chapter10
in
for
basis
It
to
a
provides a
generic approach
a purpose.
risk management
constructionprojects.
Phillips (1991) made a compilation of 21 definitions of "originality " in her studies of
how
in
PhD
to
studies
establish
a thesis
order
and
students
undertaking
supervisors
definitions
knowledge.
Of
21
the
the originality of this thesis
to
could contribute
her
in
following
list:
be
found
the
within
may
1. Making a synthesis of things that have not been put together before
The Process Protocol, developed by Cooper et al. at the University of Salford is a
generic process and assistsin the managementof a project from recognition of need
for a building to its operation and maintenance.It was found that ProcessProtocol is
a suitable vehicle for a variety of managementcontrol systemsbut to date no on had
developed a risk management system which could overlay the whole process. This
thesis outlines such an approach.
2. Adding to knowledge in a way that has not been done before
Every contruction project passesthrough phases,each of which has purpose, duration
and scope of work.
Risk and uncertainty are inherent in all the phases of
The literature review shows that most authors have tended to focus on different
techniques for quantitative or qualitative risk assessment,risk registers, the role of
in
risk management project management,and other mechanisms. This thesis argues
that realising a construction project is a processand that the risk managementprocess
should be subordinated to the construction process
Therefore, the proposed framework introduces a new approach to risk management
by embedding it within the construction process. It has thereby developed
is
approach
which
risk
management
appropriate to process related
process-driven
protocols.
184
Chapter10
for futurework
Conclusions
andguidelines
10.2 FUTURE WORK
Riskis a partof everydaylife andthefutureis largelyunknown.it is notpossibleto

but
it
is
influence
future
to
their outcomes.
possible
colonise
events
predictor
Consideration of the future always requires thinking. We can never have full
information about thefuture, and yet our actions are going to take place, and have
consequences,in the future. Socreative thinking can be required to foresee the
further
to
generate
alternatives for consideration (de
consequencesof action and
Bono, 1993).
The proposed framework attempts to establish a creative approach to risk

in
framework
the
the
time
same
construction
and
at
proposed
management
provides
for
in
tool
risk
construction and will assist project
and
usable
managing
a practical
managersat the time they need to make decisions.
The framework proposed provides a basis for future evolution and development. As
the framework is used in practice so it can be refined and developed. It will also be
able to be tailored to the needs of particular applications. This study has shown its
usefulness as a generic tool and its application in a single project. The evidence
for
in
that
the
management
potential
risk
other types of project is
suggests
significant.
Future research should rely on experiences gained in the application of the
framework and might concentrateon three aspects:
o Extend or revise the databasethat containsthe list of key risks identified in

eachphasethroughwhich the constructionproject passesin its development
accordingto ProcessProtocol,andwhich are independentof its type, sizeand
purpose.
Research
and quantify criteria of acceptability of the identified risks
o
dependingon the percentageto which the exposure of a particular risk
participates in the total risk exposureof the phase in which the risk appears.
185
Appendix I
APPENDIX 1: Description of the phases in the construction process

Process
Protocol
to
the
according
186
AppendixI
THE NEED
The purpose of phasezero is to answer the question: 'What is the problemT
Description ofPhase
o
It is important to establish and demonstrate the client's business needs and

defined
in
detail.
key
Identifying
the
are
stakeholders and
ensure problems
their requirements will enable the development of the Business Case as part
business
the
client's
objectives.
of
overall
Before the Phase

o
oA
The 'user' i. e. business,customer is communicating the problem to the client.

be
issues)
(of
the
client's strategic
should available.
master plan
During the Phase

o
Bring together the businesscase,facilities manageemnt(client and users).
Carry out the necessaryactivities to produce the deliverables.
Goals
for
business
Establish
to
the
the
satisfy
a
client's
need
project
requirements.
o
1.
Phase
Gain
to
to
approval
proceed
o
GateStatus
o
'Soft'gate.
187
Appendix I
PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION
OF NEED
The purposeof phaseone is to answer the question: What are the options and how
%rillthey be addresscdT
Description ofPhase
o The initial statement of need becomesincreasingly defined and developed
into a structured brief To this end, all the project stakeholdersneed to be
identified and their requirementscaptured. The purpose of this phase is to
answerthe question 'What are the options and how will they be addressedT
Before Me Phase
o Approval to proceedobtained.
o Approval for funding obtained (probably up to phase3 dependingon the size
of the project).
o Resultsof studiesto dcfine need(s)are available.
o Initial stakeholdersare identified.
During the Phase
o Identify and refine the statementof need(s).

o Develop the project brief accordingto the businesscasedevelopedin phase0.
o Updatestakeholderlist/group mambership.
o Identify options i. e. do nothing, managethe problem, developa solution.
Goals
o Identify potential solutionsto the needand plan for feasibility (phasetwo).
o Gain authority and financial approvalto proceedto phase2.
GateStatus
'SoWgatc
188
Appendix I
PHASE TNVO - OUrLINE
FEASIBILITY
The purpose of phase two is to answer the question: 'Which option(s) should be
consideredfurtherT
Description of Phase
o Many options could be presented as possible solutions to the identified
problem. The purposeof this phaseis to examine the feasibility of the project
the solutions that should be considered further. These
and narrow do%%m
solutions should offer the best match'"ith the client's objectives and business
needs.
Before Me Phase
o Facilitate for the introduction of new project participants.
o Appoint thecore tearnsthat will fonn the activity zones.
During the Phase
o Undertake feasibility studies for all options including necessaryplanning
approvals.
o
Revise Business Case.
Goals
o Examine the feasibility of the options presentedin phase I and decide which
onesshould be consideredfor substantivefeasibility.
0 Gain approval to proceedto phase3 (Substantivefeasibility study and outline
financial authority).
GateStatus
o 'Soft'gate
189
Appendix I
PHASE TIIREE-SUBSTMNTIVE
OUTLINE
FINANCIAL
The purpose of
FEASIBILITY
STUDY&
AUTHORITY
phase three is to answer the question: 'Should the proposed
solution(s) be financed.for development?'

decision to develop a solution or solutions ffirther will need to be
infonned by the results of the substantive feasibility study or studies. The
o Ile
purpose of this phase is to finance the 'right! solution for concept design
developmentand outline planning approval.
Before the Phase
o Re-define the project briefibusiness case and project objectives based on
outline feasibility results.
o As the options become more defined, consider project successcriteria and
performancemeasures.
During the Phase
o Challengethe need(syopportimities.
o Conductsubstantivecost/bcnefitanalyses.
0 Submit application(s) for statutoryapproval(s).
o Producethe conceptdesignplan.
Goals
0 Gain approval to proceedto phase4.
o Gain financial approval (perhapsuntil phase5).
GateStatus
0 Ilard'gatc
190
Appendix I
PHASE FOUR - OUTLINE
CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
The purposeof phasefour is to answerthe question:'How doesthe solution translate

to an outline design?
o The puipose of this phase is to translate the chosen option into an outline
design solution according to the project brief A number of potential design
solutions are identified and presentedfor selection. Someof the major design
elementsshould be identified.
Before the Phase
0 Derine the systemsi.e. sub-assemblies.
0 Define the criteria for mmluatingthe systemse.g. production time scale,cost,
resourcesrequired, etc.
0 Identify major system interfaces and interactions to enable communications
and facilitate the introduction of project design teams.
0 Facilitate the introduction of key systemsuppliers.
During Me Phase
0 Iterative developmentof outline conceptdesign.
0 Refine project / systemsolutions
0
Develop basic schematics i. e. plans, elcvatons, etc.
0 Identify the implications of system solutions in relation to other system

solutions and to the overall projecL
0 Identify production supply chain.
Goals
0 Identify major designelementsbasedon the options presented.
o Gain approval to proccedto phascS.
GateStatus
o 'Soir gate
191
Appendix I
PHASE FIVE - FULL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

The purpose of phase five is to answer the question: 'Can we apply for planning
permissionT
Description ofPhase
o
The conceptual design should present the chosen solution in more detailed
form to include M&E, architecture, etc. A number of buildability and design
studies might be produced to prepare the design for detailed planning
approval.
Before the Phase

o
Review membership of design teams.
Review evaluation criteria for concept design.
Some of the major systemsare identified.
During the Phase

o
Develop system concept design.
System interface studies.
Identify resourcing requirements.
Goals
o
o
Conceptual design and all deliverables ready for detailed planning approval.
Gain approval to proceed to phase6.
GateStatus
o 'Hard'gate
192
AppendixI
PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT &

FULL FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
The purpose of phase six is to answer the question: 'Are the Major design elements
fixedT
Description ofPhase
0 The purpose of this phase is to ensure the coordination of the design
information.
The
detailed information
provided
should enable the
design,
issues
amongst
production and maintenance
predictability of cost,
others. Full financial authority will ensure the enactment of production and
construction works.
Before the Phase

o
Review evaluation criteria for co-ordinated design.
Major building elementsare fixed.
During the Phase

o Assemble the co-ordinated product model.
o
Review and update major deliverables.
Review supply chain analysis.
Goals
design
Fix
all
major
elementsto allow the project to proceedto phase7.
o
(in
7
Gain
to
to
and
most cases)throughto the endof
phase
proceed
approval
o
the project.
for
full
financial
Gain
the project.
approval
o
GateStatus
o
'Hard' gate
193
Appendix I
PHASE SEVEN - PRODUCTION INFORMATION

The purpose of
phase seven is to answer the question: 'Is the detail 'right' for
constructionT
Description ofPhase
o
The detail of the design should be determined to enable the planning of

construction including assembly and enabling works. Preferably no more
changes in the design should occur after this stage. Every effort should be
design
lifecycle
to
the
the
after
consideration
of
whole
made optimise
of the
product.
Beforethe Phase
o
Review evaluation criteria for co-ordinated design (ideally design 100%

complete).
Review and update communication strategy.
During the Phase

0
Develop co-ordinated fabrication design/detail for the co-ordinated product

model.
Develop production process map for on and off-site activities for each
system/work package.
Start 'enabling works'.
Goals
o
Finalise all major deliverables and proceed to the construction phase.
Gain approval to proceed through to phase9.
GateStatus
o
'Soft'gate
194
Appendix I
PHASE EIGHT - CONSTRUCTION

The purpose of phaseeight is to answer the question: 'Are we ready to hand-over the
facility? '
Description ofPhase
o The design fixity and careful consideration of all constraints achieved at the
'trouble-free'
the
construction of the product.
ensure
should
phase
previous
Any problems identified should be analysedto ensurethat they do not re-ocur
in future projects.
Before the Phase

0
Finalise all major deliverables such as the project brief, businesscase,project

execution plan, etc.
Finalise drawings for construction along with production information.
Ensure that all supplier bodies are in place.
Formulate contingency plans to accommodate possible obstructive elements

such as weather.
During the Phase

0
Undertake construction works.
Manage and monitor costs, materials, equipment and quality of supplier's

work.
Manage the construction process and review and implement handover plan.
Manage health and safety.
Liaise with stakeholdersfor future needs.
Goals
building
Produce
that satisfiesall client requirements.
a
o
o Handoverthe building asplanned.
GateStatus
'Hard'gate.
o
195
Appendix I
PHASE NINE - OPERATION & NIAINTENANCE

The purpose of phasenine is to answer the question: 'What can we learn?'
Description ofPhase
0
The facility is handed over to the client as planned. The post project review
should identify any areas that need to be more considered more carefully in
future projects. The emphasis should be in creating a learning environment
for everybody involved. As built designs are documented and finalised
information is deposited in the Legacy Archive for future use.
Before the Phase

0
Construct building as planned.
Handover the facility with all the relevant documentation.
Store all the project information and learning lessonsin the Legacy Archive.
Plan for on-going feedback from the client's organisation.
Management team liaise with contractor team to plan handover.
During the Phase

0
Undertake a post project review to examine the level of satisfaction by the

client.
Examine the fulfilment of all successand performance criteria.
Establish continuous communications with the client.
Ongoing review of assetswith regards to: functionality, health and safety and
maintining assetinformation.
GateStatus
formal
in
Although
the process,care should be paid in
there
gates
are
no
o
improvement
that is communicated
continuous
of
establishinga programme
throughoutthe companyandthe company'sorganisation.
196
Appendix2
APPENDIX
2: The Process Protocol maps
197
Appendix 2
ON
.,, 'I. p 1.1 d...
j. j. d..
**S -..
jjljjDV
d, vvjS...
198
qd
Appendix 2
slielap
0 c ew a jejedas
OSS -MOIOb OS214daq4joi
15upodaid
777
SOj)jAjjDV OSINdIO PU3
c%i 2=
sm Z.
I a. t
ff
7T
199
Appendix 2
2.
m
I-
-1
''
r
I.
i
,.
11111.p Jol dew alciodas
1.
DOS SOIJIAi;oV cn-pejS
200
OSUL4d
Appendix 2
CL
co
-. I.
201
is
Appendix 2
aI itlap
ol de.
als iv des DOS MOIAaj as vt4,1 aqjoj
5upedaid
So4! A!IDV OS914d10 PU3
E
c
F== -TT
-, -- - ,, -
E
;
.2t.
--Z
q)
202
Appendix 2
,.
0
Tj
W7
L
i
-
TL
S1,21ap Jo d...
J. 19d.
s oaS - s., 1-jaV
d,
203
, elS.
-4d
Appendix 2
I
dew o4ejv dos
sI
",.islop
"p joi
'0, ".
"4
OaS
alAa8
as RL4d aL41jol Buuedaid
SaljlAjj3V
Mt4d
;0 Pu3
w
a'*,
Of
I,
iz
777"
c
..
204
-Z
Appendix 2
IM8=9
IA-A
MZ
ti
.
0
.
el z
C,
cc
I
! to
-i
-Z ;
0-
'JI . J. P oj dew algiedes
asS - S4lJ!Aq3V dVeJS
205
i`62L4d
Appendix 2
,a
(N-o
C
f:
!
______
------------------i,
______
-0
-------------------
UT
'z
11
----------
206
-Z
Appendix 2
sl! elop joi do w alue dos OOS- MWAOtjas RL4dat4l JO; Buuedaid
SOIJJAIJOVOSeL4d;0 PU3
IF
ii;
'
4"
,:
-:
TT
11
207
Appendix 2
qi
;
o
slielopiol
dew olvieclas
QQS- S01jWjDVcn-v.;
208
S 2664d
Appendix 2
iL
LM-
209
Appendix 2
211240pjoi de w aZeiedos *0 S- MO1h% $$eL4d ok41jo; uutdaid
SO41AI; DV Qsgtix4J0 PU3
___
oa
---------1
X'';. 'L ,
.
E-
----------
Li
-Z
210
Appendix 2
----------
------------------
----------
--------------
'
E
P"7
-T
-
sl, elap jol dew alejeclas oa S
SOIIIAFIDVdn-; jelS 862LId
211
Appendix 2
-------------------
------------------
212
Appendix 2
sI i2jap joi dzw elgi. das Q4S - *IAO'd Ostqd at4ljoj
5uuedojd
S3111AIJVMl4d
10 PuB
CL
l.
a-,
E
(1)
a-
!
IL
"P
__
7Tr
213
-Z
Appendix 2
---------
--------
IT
...............
co
sliulap jol dvw olviedas
aa S
SQljlAq3V dn-vejS
214
asvWd
Appendix 2
0. '
l D
Ai,
oc
-Jti
U htl
J 11i
Ij.
a.
IL
11
Li
.
215
-Z
Appendix 2
s I! olop jol duw al uedas
6upedaid
aOS- MalAaU ase4d at4ljoj
54111A13V4se Lid JO PU3
r4
i -L
F
n
jy
f,
to
IF
216
Appendix 2
a. t
!!
!i:
H
;!!
C)
jtj
-------------------------
slielap -j
dew oluj2das aaS- SOIJIMpVdjjv; S 9694d
217
-Z
Appendix 2
TZ
A;
1, Ai
N!
4.. 1
----------
---------
--------
- ------------
--------------j
218
Appendix 2
i.
0. t
F
E
ow
219
Appendix 2
slielap jo; dew 412, edlas &QS MQlA4N $seL4d a4ljoj
5upedoid
solliAll3v
see Lid JO Pu3
cn
F1
220
Appendix 2
IE
--
sm
u
D
E
---------
--
;4
----------
F
Li,
'ILA
dn-4jelS 8scLid
spejapiol dew ojejudas oaS- SQIIIAIIDV
221
Appendix 2
spopp
jo; dew alvied as aaS -Mal AQb OS24d aLRJ0J BuPeclaid 'SO JlAlj3V OseLid ;0 PU3
If
CL
U'r
D
Al
I
'
l
T il
i -,
_.
222
Appendix 2
spelop joj dew aleirclas
OaS - MWA4b OS24d ot4jjoj
Buuvdajd
SO4,1A!
IDV Qsvt4d 10 PU3
7E
7
V-j
-,.
A1112
H
223
Appendix3
APPENDIX 3: The set of SQL commandsfor creating the database
224
Appendix3
CREATE TABLE
(PhaseCode
Phases
CONSTRAINT PKPhaseCode
TEXT(l)
PRIMARY KEY,
PhaseName TEXT(100));
CREATE TABLE RiskList
(PhaseCode
CONSTRAINT FKPhaseCode
TEXT(1)
REFERENCES
Phases(PhaseCode),
RiskCode
TEXT(3),
RiskName
TEXT(100),
CONSTRAINT PKRiskCode
PRIMARY KEY(PhaseCode,
RiskCode));
CREATE TABLE User

(UserCode
TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT PKUserCode
PRIMARY KEY,
Name TEXT(30),
Title
TEXT(20),
Position
TEXT(50));
CREATE TABLE TCQ

(TCQCode TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT PKTCQCode PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE Criteria

(UserCode
TEXT(10)
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT FKUserCriteria
User(UserCode),
PhaseCode
TEXT(1)
CONSTRAINT FKPhaseCriteria
REFERENCES
Phases(PhaseCode),
TCQCodel
TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT FKTCQCode1 REFERENCES TCQ(TCQCode),
TCQCode2 TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT FKTCQCode2 REFERENCES TCQ(TCQCode),
Score
Double);
CREATE TABLE Probability

(UserCode
TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT FKUserProbability
REFERENCES
User(UserCode),
PhaseCode
TEXT(1)
CONSTRAINT FKPhaseProbability
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT FKProbabilityCodel
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT FKProbabilityCode2
REFERENCES
Phases(PhaseCode),
RiskCodel
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
RiskCode2
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
Score
Double);
CREATE TABLE ImpactTime

(UserCode
TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT FKUserTime
REFERENCES
User(UserCode),
PhaseCode
TEXT(1)
CONSTRAINT FKPhaseTime
Phases(PhaseCode),
225
REFERENCES
Appendix3
RiskCodel
TEXT(3)
CONSTRAINT
FKTimeCodel
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKTimeCode2
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKUserCost
CONSTRAINT
FKPhaseCost
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKCostCodel
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKCostCode2
REFERENCES
RiskList(RiskCode),
RiskCode2
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
Score
Double);
CREATE TABLE
(UserCode
ImpactCost
TEXT(10)
REFERENCES
User(UserCode),
PhaseCode
TEXT(1)
Phases(PhaseCode),
RiskCodel
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
RiskCode2
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
Score
Double);
CREATE TABLE
(UserCode
ImpactQuality
TEXT(10)
CONSTRAINT
FKUserQuality
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKPhaseQuality
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKQualityCodel
REFERENCES
CONSTRAINT
FKQualityCode2
REFERENCES
User(UserCode),
PhaseCode
TEXT(1)
Phases(PhaseCode),
RiskCodel
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
RiskCode2
TEXT(3)
RiskList(RiskCode),
Score
Double);
226
Appendix4
APPENDIX 4: Application of the ProcessDriven Risk Management

Framework
227
Appendix 4
LIIj
'Il
1191XI
III
"'IuI
RISK PROBABEL=
usw
ljlc4
Phase
!! ' , !;
RiskCode
PMASF.
7.F.RO DFAIONSTRATTNGTIRNII-1-
L114LJ416.
k,I i. t
tOI
TT19
001
Oo,l
TJjQ
001
01)"
111')
002
o03
002
004
002
0013
003
004
TI10
IT],
TIo
IT
f)
003
001.
II
f)
004
005
Calculate
11.
1 Alt
Phasc 0: Risk probability

- comparative matrix
-A X1
L. 161
ol.,
Iu
&JIFIM
4m Criteria Comparison
,
CMERIA
171 X
CONTARISON
Use,
I -jp-t
Phose
PIIAS1
Ditene
Code
User Code
L
ll
11 110
111
141 41Pb. ". "
114
.i
PhiI
[119
U19
U19
Phase 0: Critel-l'a colliparlsoll
0
0
1Iml
COSII
1Iml
COSI
OIJAI 11Y
01 )A[ I lY
- colliparative
111itl-l\
228
I
1
loll
k1l
Appendix 4
lepi
X1
-
IWACT
ON TIW
User
1_11-1
Phase
PlIA!; I /IkO
I!
RiskCode.
0I MON!;] HAIING fill
f](11
User Code IP ase Code I Risk Coc

ki 19
Nill,
T -score I
00 1
002
00 1
003
H19
00 1
004
?. f)
Ii 19
00 1
00!,
002
003
t 119
002
004
3, f)
tilf)
U 19
002
003
00!,
004
2
O'S
003
OM
004
OW,
019
ti 19
li 19
o! )
C4114:
11141111
it
.1
0.33
F
Phase 0: Inipact on TIMI
- coiliiiii-, tti\/c inatrix
loel
xj
fljkIjj
HIIIUI
uIIH
mpact on Cost
-IMI
X1
UVWACT ON COST
User
11.1A
Pmjvfl
Phase
I1lIA!; I /I
Risk Code,
(A) I
Hn,,
11414 It
111mimp-1
IM
III MON!;
IIIAIINi.
IIH
NI I 1-
M. uki! t Hi ...... u, h
ilishwlmy
0
0
(X)1
00 1
00: ,
003
0.2f)
2
019
(9)1
004
019
00 1
00'>
02
0 19
M2
(MM
(>
UM
002
004
0 19
(X)2
OW)
0. f,
(119
019
(x)3
004
f). l,
IM)
gut
(X)4
Phase 0: Impact on COST - comparative 11,1ti,

ix
229
loll
01011
14.14
(119
1)19
I-,
111"
10
joll
11
11
-.
-.
--
Appendix 4
lepi
- Xi
DIIIj
IqII DI1HJI lIiI

IMPACT
ON QUALITY
Use,
111
-1
Phase
RiskCode.
Oci1
User Code
U19
0
019
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
"1 5)
til()
M9
1141:
41,11.1,
Pmjurl
PHAIA 11 RO
0EMON!; lkAllN(,
1,hisalistactmy
Mm ket I tesem ch
Ph se Code
0
0
0
0
0
lilt
Risk Code 2
00?
003
004
oo! )
003
004
005
004
()()f)
OOS
Risk Code I
001
Ool
001
00 1
00?
002
002
003
003
004
:ON
N1 1 [1
TK
1 kIi, I
Score
0.33
O,f
0.33
10
11calmilutoI
1
0.2!)
0
.2
Exit
Phase0: Impact oil QUALITY - comparativc niatrix
i
M
.j -?
XjLt,,jCM njilu
Z),
W.191:0
XI
IC11.
RISK ACCEPTABILITY
11414 111-0
User
Phase.
Il 1ASI /I I tO I)i MI)tJ: II tA 1IP4-.1111NI II
11-41
4
RiskCode
UIl%;lti%I,wtwy
114141oI
mmwqv,
I Alt
Bisk acceptability
I J.-
I -p-mrp
Acuppimbdity
Uill
0 320
0 131
0,044
ACCEPTAEJIL
002
0.339
0,360
01a,
UNDESIPABI 1
003
0,030
0.051
0001,
NEGLIGIBLE
004
0,131
0,118
0,016
ACCEPTABLE
005
0,173
a 335
0058
A("-l P rAl H(
J!
)I,
Phase 0: Risk expostire and risk accclitability obtaille(I 1)\, pp-RI.

sk
'130
1011
loll
oil
Appendix 4
lepi
X1
)JL6101 ij
UlmiLLUU il!!
lug
rimi.Risk Probability
RISK
-1O1x
PROBABILnY
User
111-4
Phase
Risk Code
)()I
PHASiON1.
IIIi.
CONOP)IONOtIN111)
01 oil
! IT,."! i IT AIItII
Fmf-iflbrik
Im0 loll
User Codej Ftase CodeIj Ris Codel
IT 1
j
__RtskCode2]
101
104
Score
10?
'I
1
104
I
101
104
IN
10
Eyjt
Phase 1: Risk probability - comparative matrix
vl
xI
-I
flIcIuIJ
l'Ld 'lila!
X1
CRITFRIA
COMPARISON
1
141 4 111-,
I ''. I. II ..........
Phase
PHA! J
I )NI
I, ONCI
I'l
It IN M
Criteria Code
User_Code Phase C"Od

1.1
j V)
I Imi
I V)
t 119
Cnteda Ii
11101
COS
CItea 2T
()', 1
(11 IN
COIO
I
Is oil
114j40
loll
IIYI
(31 IAI IIYI
I
--..
Phase 1: 0-11cria coillpari soil - coilipal"ItiVe
MIMI\
231
loll
1141
NI I1
Appendix 4
OPI
XI
-I
ijle LLu
-L&lljl
__aj ok, Impact
-! on TIME-Lrill
Iml xi
ON TlW
rMPACT
User
11114
Pheise
I'lly-cl
IASI ON[ CONCl 111ION 01 NI 1 1)

111
RiskCode
11)l
........ I,
III dialim-il I inal Stali-mvia ijt Nevil
User Code I Ph se Code I Risk Code I

Ulf)
I
Wl
101
1
M9
101
()If)
1
10 1
tj 19
1
102
IjM1
I(V
019
1
101,
U If)
1
I 11-10-FMI
I Risk Code 2-1- -Score

102
1011
104
2
10!,
W,
103
1
104
0,)
0.1
1o!)
0 19
10:
104
0.3
103
10"
1) 19
104
1W,
0 1
,
(M)
Utll(:ijlnttt
xil
-II
I'll"Isc 1: Impact oil TIMF - Comparative illatrix
.r
x
-imix
fMPACTON COST
U'Hf
II 1II
Phase
Rsk Code
U19
019
U19
1115)
Ii 19
I) 19
019
ifli
'1
1m.......
I'l IA!; l ONI
III duhm-d
1
1
1
120!
1
1
1
1141
CONCI
I mA
I'l
', Imi-mrw
1141
ION I )I N1 111
[141
id N, -, d
10'.)
103
104
1o!)
103
104
( )
M
10!
10"
101
10?
1011
:()
()3
103
104
Phase 1: Impact Oil COST - Comparative matrix
232
0.,
1
0.:t:1
0.:,
0
40
40
401
callilliall)
loll
loll
oil
lorl.xl
Appendix 4
1091
X1
-
ollj
kII
111111
'il'l'i
-!
0.
I..
1--?
XCJ
117-1
-
IMPACT ON QUALrrY
Use,
ill
-KA11
I'miect
Phase
I 4WA
ON1
Risk Code.
Ill if0himl
COW
I I'l
It -N tI1 1`41Ill
I mal Stmenwni
User Code I Phase Code I Risk Code 11

1
IN
019
iol
U19
I
Ft4T.
47,1011
of Nt-rd
Risk Coc,
1012 _21013
S---om
4
1
U19
101
104
019
101
1o!)
019
102
103
U19
H19
I,j 19
1
1
1
102
102
103
104
lo')
104
o"',
0': 1
0.5
019
103
10!,
0.! )
[jig
104
1(Y)
0,5
Phase 1: Impact on QUALITY - comparative matrix
f .o ,; I
njwilw iij
XILI)ICM
fl.
j
ml!
A4.
]., Iul &Isla]

-!!
RISK ACCEPTABILITY
User
Phase:
Risk Code
II I- iI
IH
Jill
I4A
'I,, )...
I 1..
IA!;[ ONI CONI I I'l I(IN 01 NI I 11
III 1111im-dI
01011
40
...... ..
I Ail
Hisk acceptubilityj
-1
k;:. 1
Impacl
L-I,,,, u,,,
Accopt&bilify
101
0,245
0,151
0.061
A'
102
0,044
0.066
R003
NEGLIGIDU
103
0043
0.076
000)
NEGLIGIN 1
104
0,184
0,189
0,035
ACCT.PIA13i I
105
0.485
0,416
0,202
UNDESIPAM f,
Fl-' WK-- 11
Phase I: Risk cxposure and nsk acccplability obtaill
233
0 loll
PR isk
loll
Appendix 4
1AIJ AAI
-A-x
WPM
I r-1I-xj
RISK PROBABEL=
Use,
'I'l
Phase:
FA
PILISi
MO
OUIHNI
Rsk Code
ololl
IJ14 J414-,
iFASIM1,111
kloll
11
IT I
.1
201
20 1
2101
201
IT 12
IT[
202
06
203
TTI,
202
204
U19
202
205
202
2 06
203
" 04
201
70"
ITIQ
U12
ITI
Phase2: Risk probability - comparative matrix
Fl
X1
-!,
okIIj
yl'II
Blilul ulla]
(IIU*rEPJA CONVARISON
usef
IIII
Phaser
IIIWA
IWO
OUIIINI
IIA!;
1111111'.
CriteriaCode
User Code
H19
019
15)
Phase Codej ---nfejria
1IMI
I
Iml
COS I
rI ena
II
COS
(11WIIYI
(J( IN IIYI
Phasc2: Criteria comparison - comparativc matrix
'134
ror" F
11
0 loll
Appendix 4
lepi
Xi
B11u
MPACT
CN TME
LL4
Use,
Phase
PHASE TWO
PiskCode
1
L)
-
Ll 4LL4
OUTLINE FEASIBILITY
Risk Code 1
201
201
201
201
201
202
202
202
202
203
203
203
01m
Phases
01
4L 4j Risk LM0
Poor Conlin Uoi catio n
User Code Phase Code

2
L119
U19
2
2
U19
2
U19
U19
2
2
U19
U19
2
2
U19
U19
2
U19
2
U19
2
LJ19
2
UseF
Risk Code 2
202
203
204
205
206
203
204
205
206
204
205
206
Score
0.5
1
4
0,5
0,8
1.5
8
1
1,5
5
0,5
1
aicutei
Exit
Phase 2: Impact on TIME comparative matrix

-
1-91
XI
-
uI'u
Iwil
IMPACT ON COST
Pi olet'l manaqei
LL4U4 Usm
Phase
LL4U4 PhA,..,
R,sk Code,
Pont (onimunication
User.
I_I')
r Risk Code 11
User Code I Ph i-se-Co-de201
019
2
201
M9
2
201
U19
2
201
U19
2
Ul 9
201
2
U19
2
202
U19
2
202
LJ19
2
202
U19
2
202
U19
2
203
U19
2
203
U19
2
203
'110
0
Risk Code 2F
202
203
204
20')
206
203
204
205
206
204
205
206
nk
Phase 2: Impact on COST comparative niatrix

-
235
Scoie__0,2
0.5
1
1
O'S
2
2.5
3.5
2
1.5
2
1
1 11 1
-
LkIculate
Exit
Appendix 4
IONXI
lu"I
a
rl
MPACT ON QTTALrFY
User
I'l
III ....... 1w
Phase
JIjArl
IWO
Risk Code
P"III
11414 111-,
IIA!;
OMIINI
IlIliIIY
r!4T4 I-F4m
1
201
202
2013
201
204
0. P,
M9
M9
019
(119
2
2
2
2
201
201
20?
202
20S
Axi
203
204
0")
1
oj!
IM)
AW
2M
U19
202
2(m;
:1.5
W,
019
203
204
0.8
203
M!,
AM
;)()ii
H 15)
A) 1
U19
t 119
U 15)
01 lj
0.0
Phase2: liiil), Icl ()1,Qt_j/\1_11,

y - c()1111,
11.
Illve 11jIII-Ix
idi
. l(i
(1liIl
j JLJ ithJ ! i! I! i
Itil X1
RISK ACCEPTABITTFY
LI'.vII
wI, ,I
Phmsa
Risk Code
I 'I IN ;II
.,III
4 111-
nm"'Jv'
Wl I,
11
A'. 11111
IIIIIII
Pim, C'millmilicati
4 Im"
......
[lisk ncimpinhility
I.
01 oll
P' 01
Iw
I Ait
-I
U 144
0 .'1,
(1010
ACCEPTADII*
202
0,209
0,261
0,073
ACCEPtAULt
203
0213
0.162
0034
ACCEPTAnt r.
204
OW3
0120
0 ooq
NEGLIGOLE
205
0.092
0.153
0014
ACCEMAnt r
206
0,169
0,199
01111,
A(
I VVII
Atli
L-iI
Phasc 2: Risk exposure and risk accel)tabilli oblailled 1).
\ IT 1\'i,,k
236
Olml
Appendix 4
OPI
XI
-I
D [Lj; 61 al
-1i
[m DIIJU
RISK PROBABILFFY
User,
i- 19
LK!i
11-1
L14i4i Iltidsps
MSTITDYANI)
TBII,
SI'BSTANTRTFE4'.;
PHASFTTflZFF
At-I'HORUY
Otrn,M HMONCLkL
Phase
PiskCode.
301
PhaseCode
UserCode
TTI
Tj;
Tj19
ul
19
-T
TTIQ
:,.. ., ,:!.
UJI 4
I ml
_Jllisk
RiSkCoje7 j
3
3
3101
301
302
3 02
Tj 10
30',
T1
score
"o"
304
305
301
104
I
2
1,
[,cm..Im.I
304
EXit
30-,
zIits
u ilsAl
! x
iiii, Criteria Comparis on
CRUERIA
lol
,-
CONMAMSON
Phose
PHASL THRLE-SU13S lANIIVLFFASIlIltllY

SI UOY ANO OU IL INE I INANCIAJ AU I HOI tj I
L14J-41Ic
CritenoCode:
User Code
Phase Code I
Critena 1
IJ19
31
IME
019
TIMF
U19
cosi
1 Criteria 2T
COS 11
QUAI IIY
QUALIIY
Scoro
1
I
Exit
Phase3: Criteria comparison - comparative matrix
237
X-
Appendix
Dlc.Iwl al x1gullft "'I'lu
MPACT
w1gla
ON TIME
User
Ki-lllll
lllatlofjtl
Phase
-ON,
SUBSIANJIVI
PHASE THREE
I ODY AND OU I-LINE I INAW
Risk Code.
201
flout Comnitinivatin
II
Al Ail II
L14U4 Risk I i, I
its
II
I Calculate
Fxit
Phase 3: Impact on TIME - comparative matrix
IRI
- X1
al
w ChIn
HIrIu
ir I IF Im
DOACT ON COST
Uset.
Phase
RiskCode.
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
u91
u ,9
U19
K4
"matit-I
K1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fi-lllll
SUW3TANIIVL fI AS11311
PHASE IMIEL
I IY
!; TUDY AND OUTLINF FINANCiAl AUTHOI III-Y
Ll41 I'lld.
-41
Poor cmillimilicittioli,
E,,
FFl
302
303
304
305
303
304
305
304
305
305
301
301
301
301
302
302
302
303
303
304
Phase3: Impact on COST - comparative matrix
238
0.25
0A
3
0.5
1,5
10
2
8
1.5
02
1: Calculate
Ezit
Appendix 4
012
0 11:
al
ilLFLM
RAPACT ON QUALrrY
User
Phase
F'flASElHREE
Sl UDY AND OUTt
Risk Code.
301
INF I INANCIAI
Phase 3: Impact on QUALITY
AU I HOT il I,
L14Lj4ltisk
Poor Crillimullicawins
- iFsk
- Code 21
Risk Cod-- l - T- R
302
301
301
303
304
301
305
301
302
303
304
302
305
302
304
303
30!)
303
304
305
User Code I Ph se Code

_ .
U19
3
U19
3
U19
3
U19
3
U19
3
U19
3
U19
3
019
3
U19
3
019
3
j HIu
E) GiPI&I I69ij
_Jltd?
SU13STAN FIVE I'l AS31311

I I', '
Score
0.8
1
6
IF
I im
0i, 01
_j
QuIculate.
1
8
4
8
I Ail
--I
O'S
- comparative niatrix
wIaI -m
-Ifjxj
RISK ACCEPTABELM'
User
Phase.
Risk Code
111-1
II
1', ,1,, 1 mm, 'p-I
0-1011
111WI
111111 1 !; 1If 1!il AN I IVI II MM 11111',
SI UOY AND OU II IM I INANt IA1 Al IIII I) I if IY
I'mil
11414114,1,11,,
01111111unicotmil,
Bisk
Exit
acceplability
RiskAcceptability
RI ISI,
F-brih,
lity
Impact
E"pos"Ie
Acceptability
301
0,204
0.171
0,035
ACCEPTA13LE
302
0,384
0,406
0,156
UNDESIRA13LE
303
0.224
0259
0.058
ACCEPTABLE
304
0.069
0,042
OM3
NEGLIGIBLE
305
0.119
0 122
0111;
A'-,-FPTAIII
I
OK
Phase 3: Risk exposure and risk acceptability obtained by I'll-Risk
239
loll
0 loll
Appendix 4
llI
BIIUI
DIIj
RISK PROBABILM'
Use,
111
Phase
:-
PIVISEFOUR
Risk Code.
.1.::.
401
T ,, i,
User Code P ase Code
', i: yi:, jrji,
TTI
,.t ii
L14]4]lii. k I Ist
i-
RiSk Code 1
Rvs-kCode 2
)1
-1
4fI1
ITI
Olrn, TNF.CON('FYT11AI. DESI(; N
.1,.,
401
-11)"
4104
401
4M
u1
402
403
IT 1
402
404
U19
402
405
403
4 04
403
4 o,
404
405
TT1
.1
4
UIO
Tj 1
U 19
Score
I
0.4
I
(,; alctjlikle
7
1
'
EKit
1,!
Pj
I
-.
[)jV.;
jjjj
aj
Y. Iltnle
11: 191M
BJJIJU
CRITERIA CONTARISON
User.
I 'I. y-cl 1,1,'110111-1
11414 111-.
Phase
PI IASI I OM k 00 11INI CON( I PI UAI III !; I(mN
11414 111--.
-
oI oil
1111411
CriteriaCode
- i;
us "
t jv
0 19
U19
I. IIi
--Z-ritena
PN
-Iie-na 2--T-
-Score
1Iml
COS I
1Iml
OHAI 11Y
011AI IlY
Phase4: Criteria comparison - comparative matrix
240
1 1)
1,1oil
Qnl(: tilntn
loll
Appendix 4
1.
n! Il
II
DlUI
RIPACT
ON TTME
User
li i ij c,(:I inariaq t!r
Phase
Risk Code
4-l1
User Code
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
11HASEFOUll
LHL41 Hisk I ist
Poor Communications
Phase Code
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
iEl
OUTLINECONCEPTUALDESiGN
Risk Code I
401
401
401
401
402
402
402
403
403
404
Risk Code 2
402
403
404
405
403
404
405
404
405
405
Score
O's
0,6
0.5
1
1,5
1
2
(U)
I'S
25
alc.(iIiwte
E2it
Phase 4: Impact on TIME - comparative matrix
IOPI
Xi
-
PaACT
ON COST
User
Phese
Risk Code.
User Code
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
U19
PHASL
401
Poor
Phase Code
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FOUR
OUTLINE
CON(J
PI UAL D[ :AGN
Cnininunications
Risk Cod
401
401
401
401
402
402
402
403
403
404
402
403
404
405
403
404
405
404
405
405
Phase4: Impact on COST - comparative matrix
241
1
1
0,2
0.2
1
0,2
0,25
0.25
0,25
1
L
ENIt
Appendix 4
1 12(1
IMPACT ON QUALrrY
User
I'mit, ut manager
Phase
PHASE FOUR - OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
RiskCode.
Pont Communications
se Code I Risk Code I

401
4
401
4
401
4
401
4
402
4
402
4
402
4
User
U19
U19
U19
U19
LJ19
U19
U19
ER
LIJU4 Risk I
ist
I Risk Code 2
402
403
404
405
403
404
405
Score
1.2!)
1.25
0,11)
1.5
1
0,5
1.3
U19
403
404
0")
U19
403
405
13
1119
404
405
FQ
alculate
Egit
Phase4: Impact on QUALITY - comparative matrix
xl1tj(f%
Bj. 'ju
WIN13M
RISK ACCEPTABILITY
User
Phase
RiskCode
!
-I
4
401
'I op
F4E IIse
I
IIImIMJV
111
IA'sEFOUR- OUI LIN[ CONCL
PI LIM DESIGN
Pool Cooonulucafion
Exit
Bisk acceptability
F,I-, r
F, Dbb, i,
Exposure
RP80
Acceptability
401
0,141
0,134
0,019
ACCEPTA13LE
402
0.237
0.172
0,041
ACCEPTABLE
403
0,136
0,145
0,020
ACCEPTABLE
404
0.412
0.342
DIII
UNDESIRABLE
405
0,074
0,207
0 015
AlAEPIABO-
Phase4: Risk exposure and risk acceptability obtained by PP-Risk
242
k LH
Appendix 4
Ini
I%.Risk Probability
FJSK
PROBABILMY
Usei
11i
Phase
MIt H111,1ON,11.11\1,DI
RiskCode
5()l
iI
[L-4N,
"I :
User Code Ph se Code
Risk Code I
Risk Code 2
502
502
502
"03
5
5
TI1
Illy
IIIQ
TII
01
I
_
Score
I'
U1111:
11111111
', 04
51)"
"04
lxii
Phasc 5: Risk probability - comparative matrix
xlq.
)Iem
-11
it-Isla
Blflu
CRITFRIA
U. ef
COMPARISON
,I,
Phase:
II,
. 1. .I.
1141
......... I...
I'IIA!; l I IVI
1 (111
1 I'l I Al II
CrdenaCode
MO jPhaS elfej
m
N
rJiG6-8
' : ( ' '
Crittma 1
Z :
COS I
II l 1A1 I lII
(A JAI IIYI
Phase 5: Critcria comparison - comparati\c malrix
243
liji
111-.
loll
1141411'1
.......
0 loll
11414jII
I
jo Oil
')
Appendix 4
ill, Impact on TIME
1191X1
-Irlix
ROPACT ON TlW,
U-
11.1
Phase
RiskCode
I Ult
fI JA; j I Vt
CONCA I'l
I lAl
1-1 ; 11,N
F-141:
4T--k
I
111)111
('0111111111licatillil
,ill
UM
W1
W7
0.5
H 19
W1
! )o3
t 115)
f)o 1
')04
Gillekelltte
1")
5W1W,
UM
!)o2
! )o2
504
! )o2
!)O)
! )o"
f)04
W, 3
W)
0,8
504
50! )
O,f)
U19
Egil
-1
*1
Pliasc 5: Impact on TIMF - comparativc matrix
1
el.
x
-A
L)I-
61164
j
.!
Jl Jul Ir-jul-Al
Larg=.. rij
IMPAC'FON COST
IIIII,,
I J'm
1141 4]11,..,
II, I... .....
Phase
II WA
Risk Code
l"Im
I IVI
I1 1111111
11414111.
%IkI ,,
Code I Risk Code 11

51!,
U,eFC46-TPfiase
H 19
(I MS
I 119
I 119
11414 1H..
"",
'Al 10 I,. 14
1,1Oil
0 loll
NrA '..udo
M,
W1
W3
W1
WIW!
S04
)
W3
0,: ",
t
(119
AV
M9
IIV)
tII ()
!,W
NV
W3
W4
NY)
!>04
II 19
!, 03
WS
0"",
M9
', 04
!,0',
0."
1)
S
0 loll
5: Impact oil ('()S'I' - Colllpal-atIvc Illatrix

1111"Isc
244
3
0!,
1
I
c"11:1111111t
Appcildlx 4
1191Xi
-
ilLt e
IMPACT ON QUALrFY
t J-i,
1 11-1
P-jrll
Phase
I 'I IANI I IVI
Risk Code
Poill Collillitillwallml,
IHI
CONtIl P] 1,JAI 01 !; IktN
I . 1
User Code 1_Phasegoej RLI skoe-i

_
W1
2
W:,
50 1
! )o
U19
W1
! )04
0 19
W1
W)
119
! )o2
!, 03
2, )
(119
! )02
504
2, )
0 15)
502
50! )
115)
! )03
!, 04
UM
503
W4
(119
JE
[E
li Calculate
-. - -
I xil
:I
j
--
Phase5: Impact oil Qt JAHTY - comparative matrix
--iffl-JAJ
-Irllxl
RTSK ACCEPTABBITY
Uspi
11111
Phase
1,
RiskCode
.III
1 ''p, I ......... I'l

I'l IA!;l I IVI
I III II 'It4l III
(IAI 111 Jljj
CmIIIIIIJI111:
41hol,
I lisk iwceptability
IPact
E. Pasurs
01 till
U 143
0,026
ACCEPTABLE
502
0460
0.377
0,173
UNDESIRAPI-I
503
0,144
0,127
0010
ACCEMAM 1
504
0,138
0,122
0,017
ACCEPTABLF
505
0 07'
0.231
1)(11
,"
Acceplabil,ty
I'llasc 5: Rlsk exposure and risk acccptability ohtamcd by IT-Risk
24S
Appendix 4
['Ijj
rl'I't
nx
RISK PROBABBIFY
Use,
Nose
I'liX. M NIX
OORDINAIIDII ISl(; N. )'Ro( IT F%II, I N',1,

At rill 01?111
I 111A,HNANCIAL
RiskCode
J4
1-41
loll
7:
Usergod e] Phase Code]

-
Rsk_qode
I
Risk Code 2
Score
IT
TT19
1119
calcullito
TT19
0;
(A?
6tI
602
(102
60-1
;W
).1
1).
ITI
Ill,,
elf)4
e,w
0.',
tI I)
"'M
60'.
1
1411
Phasc 6: Risk probability

- comparativc matrix
X1
ini_j
CRITERIA COMPARISON
usel
I ''y,.?
Phase
I 'I WA !; IX I (101OINA I1 1) 1it .1,Jj

I 'I Ott I If 11MI NI ANI II1 1111 JNAN- I At
At III PH It 1'
mmlaqv'
Odevia Code
W
Code
[ K-9
_OdeTWase
IM)
II V)
-11ml
61
Iml
Phase 6: Critcria
comparison
iife 9-8*'1
COSI
c.tefln2
OIIAI
IIY
Ul IN IIY
i\
- compjjrjjj\, c 111,1ti,
246
1141
1oil
1141
0 loll
1141
411
0 loll
Appendix 4
n JU; 1lill
jjlM
FM
jjV
_!
LMPAC'r ON TW
Uset
1,
-tToll
Phase
I'l IA!;l !; IX ('001 MINA I1 1) 111'; I(, N

l'it"((Ili[MINIANI)I
IIIIIINAt4llAI
AH11101ill',
RtskCode.
1,(11)1
01111111111licallim,
1.11)
User Code I Ph Se Code I Risk Co6-e 1 -1 Rislt-Codc,2

0-
s(Or"
(m)
019
60 1
60 1
t 119
601
604
019
60 1
60! )
tI 19
61W
603
?., )
I 119
602
604
0",
lilf)
602
6W.
I,II ()
II V)
(gilt
604
(),:,
603
60'
0,2',
I 119
601
1,0'.
Phase 6: Impact on TIMF
- comparative
60?
603
O'B
W)
0,6
II
i
mati-i\
Iopl
X1
-.
flJL! UJ
iii1
'il/Jul !;iI! i
rI
IMIIA('I*
ON ('()S F
I,J:;mIII,
11414 it
1"'.
I '1. .1,-, :1
0 loll
II IA!; l !; IX ( (11il WINA II () DI !; II, PJ

11101 111il MI NI ANII I 11111 INAN, IAI
At III I(II il 1',
Phase
Risk Code
o loll
141401
1'(1111
1.(11
!!T
Legod
1115)
M9
v* (.ufjo
,k( odf, )I
W) I
110,
t
0.4
1,01
604
0,4
6
6
1911
60?
11"
603
0!,
11.8
1119
602
11.1,
U 19
6W
1,04
1;0"
I 119
1i
(;(): 1
(1,P,
II 11)
11
6
WKI
I!,
1,04
19Y,
Phase 6: Impact on COST

Itl\, c jjjjjjj*jx
- colill), 11-,
247
oil
sI-corto
1119
I 119
019
1
calmllnttl
1
It
_.___I...
_j
Appendix 4
lepi
- X1
1'ilM1 1 ]Ji
"]'tul
IMPACTON
QUALFI'Y
Usel
In
Phase
Rik Code
I.-I
I'l IAIA ! AX COOI IDINA I1 1) 111'; h N

IINANIIAI
I'll"( 111(i MINI ANDIIHI
A1111101411Y
F14TT4HI.
1Ii,I
1,1)111
0111illmilicallillis
1.111
User Code I Phase Code I Risk Code I

60 1
01115)
6
t 119
6
60 1
(A) 1
(i
I 119
I Risk Code 21
602
603
Score
l, f)
2.!)
604
0.! )
Offi
t 119
60 1
Ii 19
602
603
I 119
6
0
60?
604
II 19
602
OM
0. P
1119
603
604
(1.;",
kI 19
(i
6
603
60"
604
6(y,
( 115)
Cnivillattl
0!,
_'LJ
Phasc6: Impact oil Qt IAHTY - comparativc nialrix
II11..
.1"
111.1
t.
$jjI
xkllmol, lu
AN Xii
RISK ACCI-TTABILITY
User
I,
Phase
Rsk Code
hi II
I',,
1vt 1 1,
J."
14 IA!; l !; IX II Il )111IINA I1 1) 1 It '; ll IN

ANI)l
Ill II INAN, IAI
HlW
tillf
MINI
At III II)l tI II I'
1141
I'l
1141
I Cm .....
i 1,1It
t,
Ill...
11-1--
lwk
"q-
1 . 1',
10
A, , pifibilily
t1ill
a 164
0,154
0.026
ACCEPTABLE
602
0.258
0178
0046
ACCEPTAStf-
603
0006
0 13,
0011
ACMPTAFJLL
604
0331
0,344
0114
UNDESIPAUltE
605
0 154
0191
It f) W
A, If PI At It I
I'liasc 6: Risk exposurc and risk acccptahiloy obtallic(l by PP-Risk
24
loll
I hit
I 0%kacceptability
II
141 4
loll
loll
Appendix 4
1091
X1
Gi;
PJ
JL-)jc j
Ju
Jv
-!
mmismew-
In 1-t
RISK PROBABILMY
I
Phase
NMI
Rel, Code
I, -t ,
Illy
%1%'fN PROW
--kl
oil
102
03
1 Kit
If
Tlj-
Phase 7: Risk probability

- comparativc inatrix
IM.;
.1;
Ilill
L)JL,.;
citril-RIA
COMPARISON
usef
A,I"1. .. A... ". -J. ,
Phalle
PI W; I !; I VI N1 '1
11414 1111I-, A1114INA 114.4 Ih IN
Cidena Code
UserCods
,
II
II(I
PhasstoiWF
Criteria I
Iml
I Iml
V, I
nimm
A (VII
01 oil
114140
loll
11414iIo
loll
AIt IAI III

Ail JAI IIYI
Exit
Phasc 7: Critcria comparison cojjjp; ji-,tj%c 111j,

11,1\
-
241)
, .v I X1
Appendix 4
. walimi'll
"I INilml -
-IRIXI
IMI X1
Impact on TIME
IMPACTONUME
us.,
111-1
Phase
1 111- 1 ..........
I'l IA!; i
11
Risk Code
Oll
WI ION INI
/0 1
M1
Ij 19
Ij 19
Il i0l)l
MW
/03
tI 19
t91
I
/04
1M1
U19
)I IMA I IWJ
I'llof
1) 19
!; [ VI N
1.!)
4
A) 1
/0"
102
103
102
104
IM,
101,1
/03
AM
0. "
AM
/M
/04
Ail
Phase 7: Impact oil TIMF. - comparativc inalrix
Lfflj.
j
..
LDJ-j
I)N C()ST
IMPACT,
I l'i
U. 01
1'mp-,
I III..,.
''T
ii
I 'I IA'; l '; I INII
Phase
III-.
1111111 111r4 It 41 1 -t IJ, ' III
11414
I.
Risk Lode
1141A jm, I
,,
Pmlf Ulmm I'll 1'. ilm"

.
/III
Phjse-_toaP I Risk Codo 111,1,1,1
/113
1114
103
/04
103
/0"
104
Ar,
IIN
119
lfj'
/03
AM
0. '.
19
if)
I115)
Phasc 7: Impact on COST - comparativc matrix
250
i, I oil
do 2
MI
AH
/M
AW
1011)
t 119
I..
Exit
0",
Appendix 4
JOPIX)
wI. lil
ii111111
: iii1
ril v
IMPA(70N
li"Of
QuAt, rrY
I11,1',
phesse
RiskCode
PIWA !; IVIN
11
/III
F,4=4
"1'.. 1.......... p-I
him
I'MOO(AlONINI-MMAIII-N
541 4 F,
Cmillmillicall
ir'f-od-e-FPhese
Code I RiskCode
A)I
I 119
A) I
/0 1
/0 1
I(W
102
AW
AM
104
/0!,
103
/04
/0S
III )
IWJ
/03
AM
/03
IM
/04
/OS
Phasc 7: Impact on QUALITY
oj oij
RiskCvOy
/W,
I 119
IIN
ljll
kill)
IM)
019
1111)
I ., t
1!,
:1
1 Kit
,I
inatri\
]
?!
Ipj
la Ij
&I
x,jII)IcmI
'III lul EINIMI
RISK ACCITTABILrry
t 15@,
11,
hy.
Phase
PIWA
Risk Code
I ..........
'3 VI NI
-I tODO
I I[ IN INI III MA
I If IN
141 41m. 6 I im
I Ouk mcvlonhilily
1 p. -I.
ALcoplab-Isiv
, . '1 .11,
1 1- 1
101
0.3be
0 302
0,100
ACCEPTAULL
702
0.009
0174
0015
ACCtr I Alit 1
703
0191
OM
0.0.12
ACICEPI Alit 1
704
0249
0,216
0054
ACf-t- I 'TAIJI 1
705
011)
a 144
110.1.1
At iI
PTAI I[ I
!1 10,
I'liasc 7: Risk cxposurc and risk acceptability oblaincd by I'll-Risk
)51
loll
Appendl\ 4
-I epiXI
IV]
ell
RISK PRORABILITY
phelse
PHANFIRAll
CONSIRUC110',
11414111-1
0 loll
1MI 4-11-,1.-.,
0 loll
11414]1-1---
10
RiskCode
1,
OrCode Phase Code
Risk Code I
Ris
ode 2
loll
Scom
01
MQ
604
RI)
'102
$02
804
804
Po2
III
Soi
SIM
:1o
A04
801.
80
II)tll
II
Phase X: Risk probability - comparative matri\
I
l
er
x,
tI
nl-IgA icILI-)IIN
(WITRIA
('ONWARISON
wr
11414
I ... I1
Phase
I It. 1III-
ItV IW 11 111114
Code
19
11414 11.1--
114141,0
CrdenaCode
-Ot
01011
loll
P4si
it
I iml
("OS 1
ul IN IIYI
01 IAI IIYI
I Ail
Phase 8: Criteria Comparison - Comparative Illatrix
252
01 oil
Appendix 4
1.51
Xi
-
Iiii]
uIilu tIwIiI
rMPA('r
ONTIMF
U'or
I! J.;
Phase
I'IIA!; t
: '
RiskCods
..........
1141
(J I1
Illappillpliale
C11.111111-S
III
C1111,1111cli'mI 111.1%v
Risk Code I - 1-I-Sk ode 2

It() 1
802
User Code
M9
Phase Code
8
I 119
801
8W
I 119
It
it() 1
804
0 19
80 1
1 1,
1) 19
802
IN! )
803
IM)
802
804
1119
802
HIP.
kill)
803
8011
oj"
H 19
11
803
8W,
I 115)
11
804
liw.
I'llasc 8: Impact Oil TIMF

- conlparall\c
Sco-re
2
3
cilliallotil
I Il
0. "
I
limIrIx
JIII I
-m,.
! )IL-; 16]1 al
YjLjhjjM
BJIJUJ
RIMINI
IMPACTON COST
III-,
Ow
HIM
Phase
Risk Code
'o, h
I WC.
1 10h
WIN
14
III. ippi "I" Im'. I 11,if I'll-S I., I )v , 1.1"
EaSe-Cqde
RLIStl60'
Risk (-.0do
80.1
......
'Scofn
1
I 111)
1101
11111
11
1
111)
1103
t 111)
80 1
HIM
:I
II 111
It() I
I MY,
1'!
MI)
1;
1102
U03
IM)
W2
ItO4
1119
MW
8M
1119
it
IM3
AN
tI 19
It
IHM
110"
1104
HO!,
U 15)
I'llase 8: Impact Oil COST

- collip'll-at"'C
11111trix
253
1I'l
.......
11414 jllii, I-0
ololl
0 loll
loll
Appendix 4
__________
"
-'
nIIlj
".t
--.
I'll
nI'! ul IIl
M)ACT
ON QUALM*
F-14T
411111
Phase
I 'I I A! ;I11,
II
Risk Code.
rj!
lilt( iall!
II
User Code IF
ode I
801
80 1
lit) 1
80 1
80?
MV
8012
803
8
8
H
a
13
8
8
8
i 119
Ij 19
t 119
9
9
k119
1,119
019
8
8
lilt)
I'll, isc
. 111
II (I 1 I I, rj
lim,
lit
kCqq
(e2
_EKiLs
MW
803
804
MY.
MY3
H04
80!,
804
141 4
jvl
oil
i, 1011
mj, I
Scoro
0,8
4
:1
2",
1)f
803
80!
W.
804
HO!,
I Ail
.
111'Pact
on Ql JAITIN - comparative 111jill-ix
1]-; 161141 '1' t, 17] 8111_91 M IV I RI
IMPA(-r
User
ON Q1JALrry
III,
Phaso
Rok Code
'41
I 'I III
11414 111,
-.
t III. M. 1111-1
11 IANI 1 11.111 1 (IN!, II it It I I-)?j
ImIIIIII ()III wtv

( : 411IN11,101m,
......
(I V)
IIN
0
II
801
It() 1
1W)
80 1
IIN
O(W
803
1102
804
OW
80"
803
1104
0"'
0!,
ON
803
1119
HIM
M)'
1119
804
8W.
1,1oil
114140
loll
1141 jlu.
4
I ,,
0 loll
Pliasc 8: Risk cxposurc and risk acceptahilify ohlamed hy IT-Risk
254
Ini X1
Appendix 4
lepi
X1
-
lqll
iLi]
ujijul null
RISK PROBABILITY
Uer
I 141 11",
IlPi
Phimse
141AN!, NiNt
RiskCade
)ill
1-141
01-1.11AHON AND MAIN"1114 V11
I Ili I. Im, I --I ! ''I
[I, ,t i.,
01 Oil
1141
Ix, ,t
1,1
Oil
II uIllmillito
AR
Phase 9: Risk probability - comparativc matrix
JAW
pj
811jul ItIalm
lL7W4qllr=. I!r-=,,
-Jnj. j
CRITERIA COMPARISON
usm
1: 1 ,
Phase
IIII
I'ml.
,t
A'; 1N1 Nj
141 1IA II () N AN II MAI NIIN., \ f 4,1
CriteriaCode
h,or Code I rhaSe Code I

111.1
H19
1141411
Critono I
1Iml
11tona21
I Imi
OIJAI IIY
(: (),; I
OkJAI IIY
,"01
scoto
I Ail
255
kil
Appendix 4
lJOIN
iu-j
il!
__a]
-Fm
Ir-11xil
IMPACTONTIMF.
141
..........
Phase
Risk Cude
I 'I fA!; I NINI
ql
II
OPI I IA I ION ANOMAIN
111.
Ili, hwfmy htilldmil
mr. 1%till-11,111
01 oil
411k.,
II NAN It
114J41H, 6
1
I'vitmill'u"
01]
-i -kC&d-02
--
Oser Code J? ase Codw I RISkCode II

- -- --I
90A
CuIi: iilat, t
I :It
PIMSC'):
lllll)ilCt
011TIMF
I
J.
J!
N lj-Jul &Isla
'I-,;Iwj ail XIQA)I!
ri IX
62M
IMPA(TON
COST
Uset
I '-p-i
Phase
I'l I A!; I NINI
Risk Code
i 111,, ifjhwt
11414111..,
I it ........ J.-I
f)H
(kA II I) N AN II MAINI
1 I'vif
(11yI1,1,11,1
User od. I Phow Codo I Risk
...........
IN At 41 1
1141
1141
0j oil
4jII
do 1C
CnIvidnin
I'llase 9: Impact oll COST - colliparillivc
fliall"I\
250
Appendix 4
1151X1
B 1.1 1U
WISIS
Qviumso
INVACT
ON QUAL=
User
Phase
RiskCode.
! (
-11
901
[11ole'; I manaller
PHASLNINE OFILRATIONAND MAINI ENANCI
UnsatisfactoiyBuilding
Me, .mt!
User Code
U19
U19
U19
L14J4
jRi. kLi. 1 0101
Petfoiniance
it it! rit
Phase Code I Risk Code 1 1 Risk Code 21

9
901
902
9
901
903
9
902
903
Score
2
5
3
calculate
Exit
Phase9: Impact on QUALITY - comparative matrix
NOW-
RISK ACCEPTABELITY
User
PHASLININE
Phase
RiskCode
RJlll-
90,1
Insalisfautory
OFIERAI
ION AND
MAIN]
P,Lbdbility
RJTF---
Buildmy Performarwi,
Bi sk acceptabifity
P111f
I NANCI
Exposure
Acceptability
901
0,524
0.492
0.259
UNACCEPTABLE
902
0,279
0.331
0,092
ACCEPTABLE
903
0,197
0.177
0,035
ACCEPTABLE
F-
-OK- -j
Phase 9: Risk exposure and risk acceptability obtained by PP-Risk
257
Im
OTO],
Egit
Impact
-1-1111
Appendix4
RISK RESPONSES
Risk 002: Ill-defined Initial Statementof Need. Risk is undesirable.Response
methods:Risk sharing and reduction. Responsibility for a possible unfavourable
outcomemust be defined more precisely,that is, sharedout betweendevelopment,
facilities and project managements,
and measurestaken for their additionaltraining
in
including
and
new people managementteams.Managethis risk using 51% of the
total assets available in this phase, including continuous monitoring and reduring
the
of
exposure
value
examinationof
current
phaserealisation.
Risk 005:
Poor Communications. Risk is acceptable. Response method: Risk
reduction. Engage additional resources to establish a complete and efficient

communication strategy within the management team participating in this project
in
24%
Use
total
this phase for defining a
the
assets
available
of
phase.
communication strategy. Continuously monitor cost-effectiveness of investments in
improving communications during the realisation of this phase.
Risk 001: Unsatisfactory Market Research. Risk is acceptable. Response method:
Risk retention. As the government founded several firms for infrastructure
construction, the managementteam should avail itself of the opportunity (the same
owner) of exchanging experiences with other firms that have already constructed
funds
be
invested
for
facilities.
No
need
similar
managing this risk and the
additional
19% of the assets available should be used for further personnel training through
seminars,study trips and other forms of further education.
Risk 004: No Historical Data Analysis. Risk is acceptable. Responsemethods: Risk
retention. No systernatised database about risk sources in earlier similar projects
is
impossible
it
to do anything except continuous monitoring. Therefore this
so
exists
be
may
neglected. Still, the 6% assetsavailable should be used for forming and
risk
continuously updating the databasefor this project.
Risk 003: Incomplete Stakeholder List. Risk is negligible. Response methods: No
is
This
result expected becausethe government is the only stakeholder through
need.
the firms it founded.
258
Appendix4
PHASE ONE - CONCEPTION OF NEED

Risk 105: Incomplete Identification of Potential Solution to the Need. Risk is
undesirable.Responsemethods:Risk reduction.Reducerisk by engagingconsulting
firms and/or independentconsultantswith the necessaryexperiencein designing
similar facilities. This will help designmanagementto proposea sufficient number
of potentialsolutionsas the basesfor a feasibility study.Managethis risk using 68%
of the total assetsavailable in this phase,including continuousmonitoring and reexaminationof the currentvalue of exposureduring phaserealisation.
Risk 101: Ill-defined Final StatementofNeed. Risk is acceptable.Responsemethod:
Risk retention. Form an expert group to review the Final Statement of Need and
assesswhether the Government's needs, goals and demands have been completely
defined. Use 20% of the total assetsavailable in this phaseto manage this risk.
Risk 104: Poor Communications.Risk is acceptable.Responsemethod: Risk

retention. Include the design managementteam in the communication chain
alongsideall the project participantsthus far. Continuously monitor and upgrade
communicationsquality and level and communicationsinfrastructure,using 12% of
the total assetsavailablein this phase.
Risk 102: Changes in Stakeholder List. Risk is negligible. Response methods: No
need.The only stakeholderis the government,that is, the govemment-foundedfin-n

for managinginfrastructurefacilities. Thusthis risk may be disregarded.
Risk 103: Poor Assessmentof StakeholderImpact. Risk is negligible. Response
methods:No need.This risk may be disregardedfor the samereasonas Risk 102.
259
Appendix4

Risk 202: Poor Considerationof Site Investigations.Risk is acceptable.Response
determine
investigations
Site
Risk
excavation and
results
reduction.
methods:
it
is
longitudinal
Tunnels
practically
structures and
are
supporting methods.
impossibleto predict the scopeof investigationsthat will significantly reducethis
in
hands
by
be
42%
the
The
the
available
of
assets
placing
risk.
risk canonly reduced
of geotechnical experts, who will foresee the optimal volume and type of
investigations.
Risk 206.- Inadequate Cost/BeneflitAnalysis for Each Option. Risk is acceptable.
Responsemethod: Risk reduction. Use 21% of the assetsavailable in this phase on
additional feasibility studies for particular methods and approaches to particular
for
including
each option.
a cost/benefit analysis
solutions,
Risk 203: Poor Consideration of Environmental Impact. Risk is acceptable.
Responsemethod: Risk reduction. Reduce risk by additional analysis of measures
necessaryfor quality environmental analysis. Use 9% of the total assetsavailable in
this phaseto managethis risk.
Risk 201: Poor Communications. Risk is acceptable. Response methods: Risk
improve
Continuously
and
quality of communications and the
retention.
monitor
in
infrastructure
accordance with the adopted communications
communications
in
10%
this phase.
the
available
of
assets
strategy, using
Risk 205: Unrealistic Completion Dates for Each Option. Risk is acceptable.
Response methods: Risk retention. The risk does not have a large exposure and
during
8%
be
this
the
of
phase,
realisation
using
continuously
monitored
should only
of the assetsavailable.
Risk 204: Ill-defined Structure offunding and Financial Options. Risk is negligible.
Responsemethods: No need. Major government-fiandedinfrastructure projects have
funding
defined
structure.
a clearly
260
Appendix4
PHASE THREE - SUBSTANTIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY &

Risk 302: UnsatisfactorySiteInvestigations.Risk is undesirable.Responsemethods:
Risk reduction.Unsatisfactorysite investigationsin tunnel constructionmay lead to
of the supportsystemalong the tunnel and fundamentally
an unrealisticassessment
impact the results of feasibility studies.Reducethe risk by engaginga specialised
site investigationsinstitution with experienceon similar facilities and additionally
training geotechnicians in the design management team to supervise site
investigations.Managethis risk using 59% of the total assetsavailablein this phase.
Risk 303: Poor Assessmentof Environmental Impact. Risk is acceptable. Response
method: Risk reduction. Reduce risk by engaging an independent reviewer to assess
the existing analysis and to act as consultant in making an appropriate impact
in
22%
Manage
the
total
this phase.
this
assets
available
analysis.
of
risk using
Risk 301: Poor Communications. Risk is acceptable. Response method: Risk
retention. Ensure quality information exchange between building site and research
laboratories, and offices for assessingenvironmental impact and making substantive
feasibility
studies, with
continuous monitoring and improving
the adopted
communications strategy and renewing the communications infrastructure. Use 13%

of the assetsavailable in this phase.
Risk 305: Inadequate Substantive Cost-Benefit Analysis. Risk is acceptable.
Response methods: Risk retention. Considering that assets were set aside in the
preceding phase to reduce the risk of inadequatecost/benefit analysis for each option,
the risk exposure is small so the risk should only be monitored and its current
exposure re-examined during the realisation of this phase. Use the 6% assets
available to manage the other risks of this phase.
Risk 304: Ill-defined Structure ofFunding and Financial Options. Risk is negligible.
Responsemethods: No need. Major government-fanded infrastructure projects have
a completelydefinedfunding structurefor a substantivefeasibility study.
261
Appendix4
PHASE FOUR - OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Risk 404: InadequateEvaluationof Outline ConceptualDesignAlternatives.Risk is
undesirable.Responsemethods: Risk reduction. Design alternatives in tunnel
construction are proposed on the basis of prior investigations and on
recommendationsdrawn from the experiencesof tunnel builders under similar
conditions.Use 60% of the assetson an independentanalysisof the acceptabilityof
for eachdesignalternative.
the recommendations
Risk 402: Lack of Site Investigations Update. Risk is acceptable. Responsemethod:
Risk retention. The relatively small exposure results from the fact that this tunnel is
investigations
krn
long
5
that
cannot cover all the unknowns. Use
over
additional
and
the 17% assets available to monitor the risk and continuously re-examine its
exposureduring the realisation of this phase.
Risk 403: Lack of Environmental Impact Assessment Update. Risk is acceptable.
Responsemethod: Risk retention. The environmental impact assessmentmade in the
substantive feasibility study is usually sufficient for tunnels so use the 8% assets
available for monitoring during the realisation of this phase.
retention. Use the 8% assetsand time available for risk monitoring and improving
infrastructure.
communicationsstrategyand
Risk 405: Inaccurate Total Cost of ChosenOutline ConceptualDesign Estimate.
Risk is acceptable.Responsemethods:Risk retention.Due to the impossibility of
investigatingall the 5 krn of the tunnel in detail, it is impossibleto exactly anticipate
the distributionof the supportsystemandthe excavationmethodso calculationof the
its significance.The 6%
total costsis only an outline, which fundamentallydecreases
assetsavailableshouldbe usedto additionallytrain personnelfor analysingthe costs
of this kind of facility.
262
Appendix4
PHASE FIVE - FULL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Risk 502: Poor Schematic Design for Elements of Chosen Solution. Risk is
undesirable. Responsemethods: Risk reduction. This risk strongly dominates Phase
5. To reduce it, engage a specialist institution with significant experience in tunnel
design to make the schematic design. Manage this risk using 69% of the total assets
available in this phase, including continuous monitoring and re-examination of the
current value of exposure during phaserealisation.
Risk 505:
Poor Communications. Risk is acceptable. Response method: Risk
for
10%
Use
time
the
available
risk monitoring and improving
assetsand
retention.
the communications strategy and infrastructure.
Risk 503: Inadequate Maintenance Plan. Risk is acceptable.Responsemethod: Risk
because
is
The
small
maintenance strategy is
relatively
retention.
risk exposure
been
has
for
defined
tested on tunnels constructed earlier.
tunnels
and
relatively well
This risk may be disregarded and the 7% assets available used for perfecting
maintenancemanagement.
Risk 504: Inadequate Health and Safety Plan. Risk is acceptable.Responsemethods:
Risk retention. The risk exposure is relatively small because the health and safety
plan used in tunnel construction is detailed and has been tested on tunnels
disregarded
be
This
and the 7% assets available
risk may
constructed earlier.
invested in risk monitoring during the realisation of this phase.
Risk 505: Inaccurate Total Cost of Chosen Concept Design Solution Estimate. Risk
is acceptable.Responsemethods: Risk retention. In this phase of tunnel construction
the calculation of total costs is only an outline, which fundamentally decreasesits
significance. The 7% assetsavailable should be used for the further training of staff
to analyse the costs of facilities of this kind.
263
Appendix4
PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT & FULL

FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
Risk 604: Poor contractual strategy. Risk is undesirable.Responsemethods:Risk
sharingand reduction.Use 50% of the assetsavailablein this phaseto find the best
contractingstrategy for all project participants.Pay special attention to choice of
contracttype and contractor selectionmethod,and ensurethat the contract covers
risk sharingbetweeninvestor and contractor,subcontractor,supplier and insurance
company.
Risk 602: Poor Detailed Designfor Elements of Chosen Solution. Risk is acceptable.
Response method: Risk reduction. The risk can be reduced if the detailed design
includes work technology and the human and material resources available during
tunnel construction. Use 20% of the total assetsavailable in this phaseto managethis
risk.
Risk 605: Unsatisfactory Potential Suppliers Skills and Inability
to Fuull
Requirements. Risk is acceptable. Response method: Risk retention. This risk has
relatively small exposure because of positive experiences on tunnels constructed
earlier. Use the 13% assets available to continuously monitor and re-examine the
current risk exposure during phaserealisation.
retention. Include the potential material and equipment supplies and the contractor in
the communications chain as effectively as possible, using 11% of the assets
available.
Risk 603: Inaccurate Total Cost Based on Detailed Design Estimate. Risk is
acceptable.Responsemethods:Risk retention.Many unknownsencumberthe total
costs calculation so this risk may be disregarded.Use the 5% assetsavailable for
additionallytraining personnelin costsanalysisfor facilities of this kind.
264
Appendix4
PHASE SEVEN - PRODUCTION INFORMATION

Risk 701: Poor Communications.Risk is undesirable.Responsemethods: Risk
directly
This
precedesconstructionand all preparationsshouldnow
phase
reduction.
be made. Considering that communications between designer, material and
equipmentsupplied and contractoris very important in tunnel construction,invest
49% of the assetsavailablein this phasein communicationsstrategywith continuous
monitoring and re-examining of the current value of exposure during phase
realisation.
Risk 704: Unsatisfactory Procurement Plan. Risk is acceptable. Response method:
Risk reduction. The risk can be reduced by breaking the construction process into
work packages down to the smallest details and by additionally adapting the
procurement plan to the contractor, his human and mechanical resources and to the
24%
Manage
this
of the total assets
risk
using
material.
possibilities of acquiring
available in this phase.
Risk 703 Unsatisfactory Maintenance Plan. Risk is acceptable. Response method:
Risk retention. The maintenance strategy for tunnels built to date is considered
satisfactory. The risk may be disregarded and the 10% assets available used for
perfecting facility maintenancemanagement.
Risk 705: Inability to Finalise Total Cost Based on Production Information. Risk is
acceptable.Responsemethods: Risk retention. Any calculation of the cost of tunnel
be
disregarded.
is
imprecise
has
begun
Use
before
this
so
may
risk
construction
work
the 10% assetsand time available to additionally train personnel to analyse the costs
of facilities of this kind.
Risk 702: Unsatisfactory Health and Safety Plan. Risk is acceptable. Response
methods: Risk retention. The Health and Safety Plan for tunnels remains practically
the same as in Phase 5. The risk may be disregarded and the 7% assets available
invested in monitoring the realisation of this project phase.
265
Appendix4
PHASE EIGHT - CONSTRUCTION

Risk 801: Inappropriate Changesto DesignResultingfrom ConstructionPhase.Risk
is undesirable.Responsemethods:Risk reduction. Becauseof the differencesin
because
the
the
of
soil,
or
engineering-geological
profile
actual
predictions and
design
introduces
been
have
team
the
management
satisfied,
not
project criteria
during
in
the
tunnel
the
system
and
excavation
methods
support
work.
manychanges
Reducethe risk of inappropriatechangesby engagingconsultantsto help the design
in
59%
decide.
Manage
the
total
this
this
of
assets
available
risk
using
management
phase,including continuousmonitoring and re-examinationof the current value of
exposureduring phaserealisation.
Risk 802: Unsatisfactory Monitoring of Quality of Construction Work. Risk is
incomplete
Due
Risk
to
Response
standardsand work
reduction.
method:
acceptable.
in
by
be
tunnel
experts
this
quality-control
engaging
reduced
complexity
risk may
for
the
unquestionable
necessary measures
construction who will anticipate all
Use
17%
of
realising
project
requirements.
control
construction quality control and
of the assetsavailable in this phaseto supplementthe monitoring programme.
Risk 805: Lack of On-Site ResourcesAnd Labour Management. Risk is acceptable.
Response method: Risk retention. Prior experience in government-funded tunnel
be
disregarded
10%
has
the
this
that
and
assets
risk
may
construction
shown
for
availableused enhancingprojectmanagement.
Risk 803: Unsatisfactory Monitoring of Cost of Construction Work. Risk is
infrastructure
Firms
Risk
Response
that
manage
retention.
acceptable.
methods:
designed
have
in
the
the
a well
system of
government
name of
construction
further
Use
8%
the
the
on
assets
available
work.
monitoring costs of construction
training of monitors.
Risk 804: Unsatisfactory Monitoring ofProgress of Construction. Risk is acceptable.
Responsemethods: Risk retention. Firms that manage infrastructure construction in
the name of the government have a well designed system of monitoring construction
6%
further
Use
the
the
training of monitors.
assets
available
on
progress.
266
Appendix4
PHASE NINE - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Risk 901: Unsatisfactory Building Performance Measurement. Risk is unacceptable.
Risk Response:Risk transfer. Eliminate the risk by contractually transferring it to an
institution that will continually measurebuilding performance during the exploitation
in
67%
facility.
Manage
this
the
total
the
this phase.
assets
available
risk using
of
of
Risk 902: Lack of Maintenance Strategies Update. Risk is acceptable. Response
improving
by
in
Reduce
Risk
the
risk
maintenance
reduction.
management
method:
the government institution that manages infrastructure facilites. Maintenance
strategies should be continuously monitored and improved during the realisation of
this phase, for which use 24% of the total assetsavailable.
Risk 903: Lack of Lifecycle Budgetary Requirements Update. Risk is acceptable.
Response method: Risk retention. Since tunnels are infrastructure facilities of
budgetary
lack
lifecycle
be
interest
the
requirements
update
may
of
national
disregarded.Use the 9% assetsavailable to respond to the other risks in this phase.
267
5
endix
FP
APPENDIX 5: The Questionnaire form used for verification of the

framework
268
Appendix5
1. What do you think about the proposedbreakdown of the construction

project in 10phaseswithin 4 stages?
0 Very appropriate
0 Appropriate
0 Generallyappropriate
0 Lessappropriate
0 Not appropriate
2. How generally satisfied are you with the proposed approach whereby risk
becomes
part of the construction process?
management
0 Very satisfied
0 Satisfied
0 Reasonably satisfied
0 Dissatisfied
0 Very dissatisfied
3. Do you find the proposed framework useful for risk management in

construction projects?
0 Very useful
0 Useful
0 Somewhatuseful
0 Neutral
0 Not useful
4. What do you think of the proposedkey risks in the constructionprocess

regardlessof the project's type andsize?
0 Very acceptable
0 Acceptable
0 Reasonablyacceptable
0 Unacceptable
0 Very Unacceptable
269
Appendix5
5. To what extent does using the proposed framework improve your

in
understandingof process construction?
0 Very much
0 Much
0 Not much
0 Some
0 Not at all
6. Is the proposed framework appropriate for a risk assessmentin the stage
in which you managedrisks?
0 Very appropriate
0 Appropriate
0 Generally appropriate
0 Less appropriate
0 Not appropriate
7. What do you think about the acceptability of AHP for qualitative risk
decision
in
the
making process?
analysis
0 Very acceptable
0 Acceptable
0 Reasonably acceptable
0 Unacceptable
0 Very Unacceptable
8. How suited is PP-Risk as a Decision Support System for the proposed

framework?
0 Very suitable
0 Suitable
0 Somewhat suitable
0 Neutral
0 Not suitable
270
Appendix5
9. How satisfiedareyou with the PP-Riskuserinterface?

0 Very satisfied
0 Satisfied
0 Reasonablysatisfied
0 Dissatisfied
0 Very dissatisfied
10. Assess the benefits of using the proposed framework supported by PPRisk for process-driven risk management, from the aspect of time, cost
and quality management?
0 Significant
0 Major
0 Medium
0 Some
0 Trivial
271
List of references
LIST OF REFERENCES
Akintoye, A. S., MacLeod, M. (1997), Risk analysis and managementin construction,
Internationa Journal ofProject Management, Vol 15, No. 1. pp 31-38.
Alshawi M. (1996), SPACE: integrated environment. Internal Paper, University of
Salford, July 1996.
Ammermann, E, Junge, R, Katranuschkov, P and Scherer, RJ (1994), Concept of
an Object-Oriented Product Model for Building Design; Technische
Universitat, Dresden.
Anjard, R. (1998), Process mapping: a valuable tool for construction management
and other professionals, Facilities, Vol. 16, No. 3/4, pp.79-8 1.
Aouad, G, Alshawi, M and Bee, S. (1997), Priority topics for construction IT
Construction
Winter
IT,
1997.
Journal
The
International
of
research.;
Aouad G., Betts M., Brandon P., Brown F., Child T., Cooper G., Ford S., Kirkham J.,
Oxman R., Sarshar A
and Young B. (1994), Integrated databasesfor
design and construction: Final Report. University of Salford (Internal

1994.
July
report),
Aouad G., Marir F., Child T., Brandon P. and Kawooya A. (1997), Construction
Integrated Databases-Linking design, planning and estimating, The
OSCON approach. International Conference on the Rehabilitation and
Development of Civil Engineering Infrastructures. American University of
Beirut, June 1997.
Aouad, G. Hinks, J. Cooper, R. Sheath, D, Kagioglou, M. & Sexton, M. (1998) An
IT map for a generic design and construction process protocol. Journal of
Construction Procurement, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 132-15 1.
ATLAS (1992), Architecture, Methodology and Tools for Computer Integrated
Large Scale Engineering - ESPRIT Project 7280, Technical Annex Part 1,
GeneralProjectOverview.
Augenbroe, G (1993), COMBINE, Final Report. Delft University.
Baccarini, D., Archer, R. (2001), The risk ranking of projects: a methodology,
Internationa Journal ofProject Management, Vol 19, pp 139-145.
272
List of references
Bajaj, D., Olowoye,J. andLenard,D. (1997),An analysisof contractors'approaches

to risk identification in New South Wales, Australia, Construction
Management and Economics, 15, pp.363-369.
Baker, F-W. (1986), Handling Uncertainty, Project Management, Vol 4, No 4
pp205-210
Baker S., Ponniah D., Smith S. (1998), Techniques for the analysis of risk in major
projects, Journal of the Operational ResearchSociety, Vol 49, pp 567-572.
Baker S., Ponniah D., Smith S. (1999), Risk responsetechniques employed currently
for major projects, Construction Management and Economics, 17, pp.205213.
Barnes, M. (1983), How to Allocate Risks in Construction Contracts, Project
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 24-57.
Barnes,A (1991),Risk sharing in contracts,Civil Engineeringprocedurein the EC,

Thomas Telford, London.
Berkeley, D., Humphreys, P.S., and Thomas, R.D. (1991), Project Risk Action
Management, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 3-17
Berny, J. and Townsend, P.R.F. (1993), Macrosimulation of Project Risks '- a
Practical Way Forward, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol.
11, No. 4, pp. 201 - 208.
Betts, A
(1992), Information TechnologyPlanning Frameworksfor Computer

Integrated Construction,ConstructionEconomicsResearchUnit, Schoolof
Building and Estate Management,National University of Singapore.
Bjork, B.C. (1989), Basic structureof a proposedbuilding productmodel; Computer

Aided Design, vol. 21 number 2, March 1989. pp 71-78.
Bowers, J.A. (1994), Data for Project Risk Analysis, Internationa Journal ofProject
Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Brandon, P.S. (1993), Intelligence and Integration - Agenda for the next decade,
Department of Surveying, University of Salford.
Brandon, P and Betts, M. (1995), Integrated ConstructionInformation, E& FN

Spon, London.
273
List of references
British Property Federation(1983), Manual of the BPF System,London, British

PropertyFederation.
Burchett, J.F., Tummala, V. M. R. (1998), The aplication of the risk management
decisions
investemnt
for
in
line
EHV
transmision
capital
projects.
process
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 235-244.
Carter, B., Hancoc, T., Morin, J-M. and Robins, N. (1994), Introducing Riskman The European Project Risk Management Methodology, NCC Blackwell
Chapman, C.B. (1990), A risk engineering approach to project risk management,
Project Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5-15.
Chapman, C.B. and Cooper, D. F. (1983), Risk analysis: testing some prejudices,
European Journal of Operational Research,Vol 14, pp. 238-247
Chapman C.B (1997) Project risk analysis and management - PRAM the generic
Vol
15,
Project
Management,
No.
5,
Journal
International
pp.
of
process,
273-281
Clark, R.C., Pledger and Needler, H. M. J. (1990), Risk analysis in the evaluation of
Vol.
8,
No.
1,
Risk
pp. 17-23.
management,
non-aerospaceprojects,
Construction Industry Board (1997), Constructing success: code of practice for
Industry,
London,
Telford.
the
construction
of
clients
Cook, T. M., Russell, R.A. (1989), Introduction to Management Science, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Cooper, D. F., MacDonald, D. H. and Chapman, C.B. (1985), Risk Analysis of a
ConstructionCost Estimate,InternationalJournal of Project Management,

Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 141-149.
Cooper, R.G. (1994) Third-Generation new product processes.Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 11,3-14.
Cooper, R.G. (1990) Stage-Gate System: A New Tool for Managing New Products,
BusinessHorisons, May-June, pp.44-54.
Cooper, R.G., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexston, M. and Sheath, D.
(1998), The Development of a Generic Design and Construction Process,
274
List of references
European Conference,Product Data Technology(PDT) Days, Building

ResearchEstablishment,March 1998,Watford, UK.
Cox, E. (1999), The Fuzzy Systems Handbook, 2nd Edn. Academic Press, New
York..
De Bono, E. (1993), Serious Creativity, Advanced Practical Thinking Training Inc.
Des Moines.
Dey, P.K. (1999), Process re-engineering for effective implementation of projects,
Internationa Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 147-159.
Dey, P.K. (2001), Decision support system for risk management: a case study,
Management Decision, 39/8, pp. 634-649.
Dey, P.K., Tabucanon, M. T., Ogunlana S.O. (1994), Planning for project control
through risk analysis: a petroleum pipeline-laying project, International
Journal ofProject Management, 12, pp. 23-33.
Dubois. A. M. et al., (1995), Conceptual Modelling Approaches in the COMBINE
in
COMBINE
Dublin.
the
seminar,
project.; presented
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1985), Fuzzy cardinality and the modeling of imprecise
Systems,
16,
199-230.
Sets
Fuzzy
pp.
and
quantification,
Dudeck, H. (1987), Risk Assesment and Risk Sharing in Tunneling, Tunneling and
UndergraundSpaceTechnology,Vol. 2. No.3.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force,
London.
Egan, J. (2002), Rethinking Construction: Acceleraeting Change, A consultation
for
Construction,
London.
by
Forum
Strategic
the
paper
Evans, J.R., Olson, D. L. (1998), Introduction to simulation and risk analysis,
Prentice Hall.
Ferry, D. J., Brandon, P.S. (1991), Cost Planning of Buildings. BSP Professional
Books.
Finnemore, M., Sarshar, M., (2000), Linking Construction Process Improvement to
Business Benefit, Bizarre Fruit National Conference, University of Salford
pp.94-105.
275
List of references
Finnemore,M., Sarshar,M., Haigh, R., Hutchinson,A., Timms,R. (2000),SPICE:A

Structured Process Improvement Tool for Construction, CIB TG36
International Conferenceon Impkementationof ConstructionQuality and
Related Systems,Lisbon.
Finnemore, M., Sarshar, M., Haigh, R. (2000), Case studies in construction process
improvement, ARCOM Doctoral
Workshop on Construction Process
Research, Loughborough University.

Flanagan,R. and Norman, G. (1993), Risk Management and Construction, Blackwell
ScienceLtd
Fleming, A., Lee, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R.G. (2000), The development of a process
mapping methodology for The Process Protocol Level 2, Third European
Conference on Product and Process Modelling in the Building and Related
Industries, Portugal.
Franke, A. (1987), Risk Analysis in Project Management,Project Management, Vol.
5, No. 1, pp. 29-34.

Godfrey, P.S. Sir Halcrow, W. and Partners Ltd (1996), Control OfRisk -A Guide
,
to the SystematicManagement ofRiskfrom Construction, CIRIA
Grammer, J, Trollope, S. (1993), Lifecycke Management: Managing Risk, GPT
Limited.
Hamburger, D. (1990), The project manager: Risk taker and contingency planner,
Project managementJournal, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 11-20.
Hammer, M. and Champy (1993), Re-ingeneering the Corporation, Nicholas
Brealey, London.
Heyes,R.W., Perry, J.G., Thompson,P.A., Willmer G. (1987),Risk Managementin

Engineering Construction, An SERC Project Report.
Holsapple, C.W., Whinston, A. B. (1996), Decision Support Systems:A KnowledgeBased Approach, West Publishing Company, Minneapolis.
Holt, G.D., Love, P.E.D., Nesan, L. J. (2000), Employee empowerment in
Team
for
improvement,
implementation
model
process
construction: an
PerformanceManagement,Vol.6, No. 3/4, pp. 47-51.
276
List of references
Hughes, W. (1991), Modeling the construction process using plans of work,

Construction Project Modelling and Productivity, Proceedings of an
International Conference CIB W65, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Hughes, W. (2000), Roles in construction projects: Analysis & Terminology, A
ResearchReport undertaken for the Joint Contracts Tribunal Limited, JCT.
Hull, J.K. ( 1990), Application of risk analysis techniques in proposal assessment,
Project Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 152-157.
Hwang, C.L. G. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods
Berlin.
Springer-Verlag,
Applications,
and
Ibbs, C.W. and Crandall, K. C. (1982), Construction risk multi-attribute approach,
Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, 108, no. C02, pp. 187-200.
ITA (1988), Recommendations on Contractual Sharing of Risks, Tunneling and
UndergroundSpaceTechnology,Vol. 3, pp. 103-140.

John,M. (1997), Sharing of risks under changedground conditions in design1build
Schubert,
Balkenma,
&
Roterdam.
for
Hinkel
People,
Tunnels
contracts,
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G. (1999), Re-Engineering The UK Constructin
Industry: The Process Protocol, Second International
Conference on
Construction Process Re-Engineering - CPR99.

Kagioglou, M, Cooper, R, Aouad, G, Hinks, J, Sexton, M&
Sheath, D. (1998a) A
University
design
to
the
process
construction
protocol.
and
generic guide
of Salford, UK, ISBN: 0-902896-17-2.
Kagioglou, M. Cooper, R. Aouad, G. Hinks, J. Sexton, M. & Sheath, D. (1998b)
Final report: generic design and construction process protocol. Upiversity
of Salford, UK ISBN: 0-02896-19-9.
Kagioglou, M, Cooper, R, Aouad, G, Sexton, M, Hinks, J, and Sheath, D. (1998c)
Cross-Industry leaming: the development of a generic design and

construction process based on stage/gate new product development
processesfound in the manufacturing industry. Engineering Design
Conference'98, eds. Sivaloganathan,S. and Shahin,T.M.M., 23rd - 25th
June,Brunel University,UK, 595-602.
Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J., Evbuomwan, N. F.O. (2000), Process model for client
requirements processing in construction, Business Process Management,
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 251-279.
277
List of references
Kangari, R. and Boyer, L.T. (1981), Project selectionunder risk, Journal of the
ConstructionDivision, ASCE, 107,pp. 597-607.
Kartam, N.A., Levitt, R.E. (1991), An artificial intelligence approachto project
plannig underuncertainty,Project ManagementJournal, Vol. XXII, No. 2,
pp. 7-11.
Katavic, M. (1994), ReducingRisks at the Early Stageof the InvestmentProject,
InvestmentStrategiesand Managementof Construction,Brijuni, Croatia
pp. 20-24.
Kenney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference
and Value Trade-offs, John Willey and Sons,New York.
Kangari, R. and Riggs, L. S. (1988), Portfolio management in constrution,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 161-169.
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt C.D., Vecchi, M. P. (1983), Optimization by Simulated
Annealing. Science, 220, pp. 671-680.
Kliern R.L., Ludin I. S. (1997), Reducingproject risk, Gower.
Klir, G.J. and Yuan, B. (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Systems, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ..
Lam, P.T. I. (1999), A sectoral review of risk associated with major infrastructure
projects, Internationa Journal of Project Management, Vol 17, No. 2. pp
77-89.
Latham,M. (1994),Constructingthe team,H.M. S.O.

Lee, A., Cooper, R.G., Aouad, G. (2000), A Methodology for Designing
Performance Measured for The UK Construction Industry, Bizarre Fruit
Postgraduate Research Conference on the Built and Human Environment,
Salford.
Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (1998), From BPR to CPR - conceptualising re-engineering
in construction, BusinessProcessManagement, Vol. 4, No. 4., pp. 291-305.
Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H. (1957) Gamesand Decisions, New York: Wiley..
Luiten, B et al. (1993), An Information Reference Model for Architecture,
Engineering and Construction.; in (Mathur, K.; Betts, M.; Tham, K. eds.)
Management ofInformation Technologyfor Construction, World Scientific
& Global Publication Services, Singapore,1993, pp. 391-406.
278
List of references
Mak, S., Wong, J., Picken,D. (1998),The effect on contingencyallowancesof using

in
capital cost estimating: a Hong Kong case study,
risk analysis
ConstructionManagementand Economics,16,pp. 615-619.
Mikkelsen, H. (1990), Risk managementin product developmentprojects,Project
4,
217-221
8,
No
Vol
pp.
mamagement,
Mills, A. (2001), A systematicapproachto risk managementfor construction,
Structural Survey,Vol. 19,No. 5, pp. 245-252.
Mitchell, M. (1996), An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Cambridge,
The MIT Press.
Massachusetts.
Miyatake, Y. and Kangari, R. (1993), Experiencing Computer Integrated
Construction.,Journal of Construction,Engineeringand Management,Vol.
119,No. 2, June 1993.
MOB (1994), Rapport Final, Modeles Objet Batiment, Appel d'offres du Plan
Construction et Architecture, Programme Communication/Construction,
(11).
Moselhi, 0. and Deb, B. (1993), Project SelectionConsideringRisk, Construction
Management and Economics, 11, pp. 45-52.
Murray, J.W. and Rarnsaur,W. F. (1983), Project ReservesA Key To Managing Cost
Risks, Project Management Quarterly, pp. 71-77.
Mustafa,M. A. and Al-Bahar, JR (1991),Projectrisk assessment

using the Analytic
HierarchyProcess,IEEE TransportatinEngineeringManagement,Vol. 38,
No. 1, pp. 46-52.
Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1992), Strategies for technology push: Lessons from
construction innovations, Journal of Construction, Engineering and
Management, Vol. 118, No. 3, September1992.
Newton, S. (1991), Risk Analysis - Escaping the Straight Jacket, Innovation and
Economics in Building Conference,Brisbane Australia.
Norton, P. and Groh, M. (1998), Peter Norton's Guide to Visual Basic 6, Sams
publishing.
Oliver, S. (1994), Identifying the future of Information Technologies within the
Changing Trends of the Architectural Profession, Department of Surveying,
University of Salford.
279
List of references
Orman, G.A. E. (1991), New applications of ris analysis in project insurances,

International Journal ofProject Management,Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.131-138
Patterson F.D., Neailey, K. (2002), A Risk Register Database System to aid the
Management,
Project
Journal
Internationa
of
management of project risk,
Vol 19, pp. 139-145.
Perry, J. G. (1986), Risk management- an Approach for Project Managers, Project
Managers, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 211-216.
Perry, J.G. and Hayes, R.W. (1985), Risk and Its Management in Construction
Project, Proc. Inc. Civ.Engrs, Part 1, pp. 499-521
Philips, R., Lupton, S. (2000),. 4rchitect's plan oftork,
London, RIBA Publications.
Philips, E.M. (1992), Definitions of originality, Seminar for PhD Supervisors,
November1994,Bristol.
Picken, D. H, Mak, S. (2001), Risk analysis in cost planning and its cffcts on
budgeting,
Logistic
Information
Mamnagement,
in
cost
capital
efficiency
Vol. 14, No. 516,pp. 318-327.
Powell, C. (1996), Guide to Risk Analysis and Management, Laxtons, Tweeds.
Powell, J. (1995), Virtual reality and rapid prototyping for Engineering, Proceedings
Information
the
of
Technology Awareness Workshop, January 1995,
University of Salford.
RAMP (2002), Risk Analysis and Managements for Projects, Thomas, Telfbed
books.
Raftery, J. (1994), Risk Analysis in Project Management, E& FN Spon.
Raftery, J., Csete, J., Hui, S.K. F. (2001), Are risk attitudes robust? Qualitative
inflection,
business
before
Construction
after
a
and
cycle
evidence
Management and Economics, 19, pp. 155-164.
Raz, T., Michael, E. (2001), Use and benefits of tools for project risk management,
International Journal ofProject Management,Vol 19,pp. 9-17.

Rezgui,Y, A, Brown, G, Cooper,G, Aouad,J, Kirkham and P, Brandon,(1996),An
integratedframework for evolving constructionmodels. TheInternational
Journal of Construction IT, vol 4, No 1,1996, pp 47-60.
280
List of references
Ross, T. and Donald, S. (1995), A fuzzy multi-objective approach to risk

Computing
Civil
in
Engineering, Vol. 2, ASCE, New Yoork,
management,
pp. 1400-1403.
Ruddock, L. (1994), A Risky Bussines,the Need for Financial Reconstruction in UK
Construction Companies, International Confenerce Investment Strategies
131-137.
Construction,
Brijuni,
Croatia,
Management
pp.
of
and
Saaty,T. L., (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Decision Making - The Analytic Hierarchy
Process, RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
Saaty, T. L., (1992), Multicriteria
Vol. 1, AHP Series.

Saaty, T. L., (1995), Decision Making for
Leaders, RWS Publications, 4922
Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Vol. 11,AHP Series.
Saaty,T.L., (1994),FundamentalsofDecision Making and Priority Theorywith the

Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Ave.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213.Vol. VI, AHP Series.
Saaty, T. L., Fomian, E. (1993), The Hierarchon, RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth
Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213.Vol. V, AHP Series.
Saaty, T. L., Kearns, K., (1991), Analytical Planning, RWS Publications, 4922
Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Vol. IV, AHP Series.
Saaty,T.L., Vargas, L. G. (1991), TheLogic of Priorities, RWS Publications,4922

Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.Vol. III, AHP Series.
Sarshar,M., (1998), StandardisedProcessImprovement for Construction Enterprises
(SPICE). Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Product and
Process Modeling, Watford.
Smith,N.J. (1999),ManagingRisk in ConstructionProject, Blackwell ScienceLtd

Smith, C. and Amundsen, M. (1998), Teach Yourself Database Programming with
Visual Basic 6 in 21 Days, Samspublishing.
Stoner, J.A. F. and Wanke, C. (1986), Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Yersey.
Songer, A.D., Diekmann, J., Pecsok, R.S (1997), Risk analysis for revenue
dependent inftrastructure projects, Construction Management and
Economics, 15, pp. 377-382.
281
List of references
Tah, J.H.M., Carr, V. (2000), A proposalfor constructionproject risk assessment

logic,
fuzzy
Construction
18,
491Management
Economics,
pp.
and
using
500.
Thompson, P (1991), The client role in project management, Project Management,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 90-92.
Traylor, R.C, Stinson R.C., Madsen J.L., Bell R. S. and Brown K. R., Project
Management Under Uncertainty, Project Managemnet Journal, pp. 67- 75.
Tucker, PLL., O'Connor, J.T., Gatton, T. M., Gibson, G.E., Haas, C.T. and Hudson,
D.N. (1994), The impact of computer technology on construction's future.,
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Tzortzopoulos, P., Betts, M, Cooper, R. (2002), Product development process
implementation - exploratory case studies in construction and
manufacturing, Proceedings IGLC-10, Gramado, Brasil.
Vose, D, (2000), Risk analysis, A quantitative guide, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wall, D. M. (1997), Distributions and correlations in Monte Carlo simulation,
Construction Management and Economics, 15, pp. 241-258.
Ward, S.C. (1999), Assesing and managing important risks, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol 19, No. 6, pp. 331-336.
Ward, S.C. and Chapman C.B. (1991), Extending the use of risk analysis in project
management,Project Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 117-123.
White, D. (1995), Application
of Systems Thinking
to Risk Management,
Management Decision, Vol 33, No 10 pp 35-45

Wideman, R.M. (1986), Risk Management,Project Management Journal, pp 21-26.
Williams, T. M. (1990), Risk analysis using an embedded CPA package, Project
mamagement,Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 84-88.
Williams, T. M. (1994), Using a Risk Registreter to Inegrate Risk Management in
Project Definition, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 17-22

Winch, G.M. and Carr, B. (2001),Processes,
mapsand protocols:understandingthe
shape of the construction process, Construction Management and
Economics, 19, pp. 519-531.
Winston., W. (1998), Financial Models Using Simulation and Optimisation, Palisade.
282
List of references
Winston., W. (1999), Decision Making Under Uncertainty with RISKOptimiser,

Palisade.
Wong, E.T.T, Norinan, G., Flanagan,R. (2000), A fuzzy stochastictechniquefor
40718,
Construction
Management
Economics,
pp.
and
project selection,
414.
Wu, S., Aouad, G., Cooper,R.G. (2000), IT Supportfor ProcessProtocol, Bizarre
Fruit Postgraduate Research Conference on the Built and Human
Environment, Salford.
Wu, S., Lee, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R. G. (2000), Process protocol toolkit, an IT
European
Conference
Yhird
Protocol,
Process
on Product
solution
and
Process Modelling in the Building and Related Industries, Portugal.
Wu, S., Fleming, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R.G. (2001), The Development of the
Process Protocol
Mapping
Methodology
and
Tool,
International
PostgraduateResearchin the Built and Human Environment.

Yeo, K. T. (1991), Project Cost Sensitivity and variability
analysis, Project
Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. II 1-116.

Xu, T, Tiong R.L. K. (2001), Risk assesment on contractors' pricing strategies,
Construction Management and Economics, 19, pp. 77-84.
283

A Framework For Process-Driven Risk Management in Construction Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Framework For Process-Driven Risk Management in Construction Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Framework For Process-Driven Risk Management in Construction Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A FRAMEWORK FOR PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK

MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

ResearchInstitute for the Built & Human Environment

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the

1.6.5 CHAPTER6: IDENTIFYING AND STRUCTURINGRISK WITHIN

2.2 RISK, CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

IDENTIFYING AND STRUCTURING RISK

WITHIN THE PROCESS

6.3.6 PHASE SIX - COORDINATED DESIGN, PROCUREMENT & FULL

FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING RISKS IN CONSTRUCTION

7.4.2 FUZZY ANALYSIS

Risk impact - fuzzy analysis

Risk impact - AHP

8 The PP-RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

9 APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE PROCESS-DRIVEN RISK

10.1.3 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

APPENDIX 1: Description of the phasesin the construction process

APPENDIX 2: The ProcessProtocol maps

APPENDIX 3: The set of SQL commandsfor creating the database

APPENDIX 5: The Questionnaireform usedfor verification of the framework 269

Table 6.1: Risk lists

Table 7.33: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue ,.,

row n of the matrix,

Table 7.39: Eigenvector, maximum eigenvalue

row n of the matrix,

Table 7.42: Priority list in PhaseX

Figure 8.3: Databasestructure with its tables, fields and links

Figure8.7: Comparativematrix andeigenvectorfor impacton COSTobtained

daysin Salfordandfor alwaysbelievingin me andmy work.

Analytic Hierarchy Process

British Property Federations

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations

Construction Industry Researchand Information Association

Data Access Objects

Data Based ManagementSystem

Data Definition Language

Data Manipulation Language

Decision Support System

Engineering & Physical SciencesResearchCouncil

International Tunnel Association

Joint Contracts Tribunal

Process- Driven Risk Management

Risk Analysis and Managementfor Projects

Royal Institution of British Architects

A Risk-Driven Project ManagementMethodology

Structured ProcessImprovement for Construction Enterprises

Structured Query Language

Structured set of sub-processes involving tasks which

The candidates,or options from which the choice is to be

Preparing to handle a given circumstance that may arise in

A factor that influences a decision.

Determining the appropriate action to accomplish goals

A tree-like structure. It can be used to representthe spread

Potentially an IT solution it represents a mechanism for

information which can be used by project participants in

The processof making comparison between all alternatives

Those persons or organizations whose views, interests

implementation of the project solution.