The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Project risk
Project risk analysis based on analysis
project characteristics
Anjali Shishodia
National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India
893
Vijaya Dixit
Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India, and Received 27 June 2017
Priyanka Verma Revised 5 October 2017
Accepted 6 October 2017
National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze risk profiles of projects based on project characteristics
and provide key managerial insights.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 37 project cases from engineering and construction (E&C),
information system/technology (IS/IT), and new product development (NPD) sectors with detailed
information on project characteristics and risks were identified from published literature. An integrated
framework was developed to analyze the prominent risk categories associated with novelty, technology,
complexity, and pace (NTCP) project characteristics.
Findings – Within-sector analysis revealed that schedule, resource, and scope risks are the most
prominent risk categories in E&C, IS/IT, and NPD projects, respectively. Similarly, interesting key insights
have been drawn from detailed cross-sector analysis, depicting different risk categories based on NTCP
project characteristics.
Research limitations/implications – The findings are based on the case studies adopted from the
literature that provides details of project characteristics and risk profiles.
Practical implications – Depending upon the risks associated with different project characteristics, an
integrated framework developed in the study can be used for the development of highly authentic risk
management plans at the onset.
Originality/value – This is one of the earliest studies to provide an integrated risk framework for projects
based on their NTCP characteristics. The two contrasting perspectives of within-sector and cross-sector
analyses were adopted. Overall, the study will enhance the future preparedness toward risks.
Keywords Technology, Project risk management, New product development,
Engineering and construction, Risk classification, Information system/information technology, Novelty,
Complexity, Pace model
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
A project-based firm’s project portfolio comprises of multiple projects with different
characteristics. Each project has a unique objective, scope, performance specification, budget,
and timeline (Smith, 1985). A project can be viewed as a temporary organization, production
function, as an agency for assigning resources to the management of change within the
functional organization, and as an agency for uncertainty management (Packendorff, 1995;
Turner and Müller, 2003). Projects comprise of numerous geographically dispersed but
interdependent activities, suppliers, and stakeholders that are exposed to different types and
degrees of risks. These risks can have a potential negative influence on the scope, baseline
cost, and schedule of a project. Moreover, because of the unique nature and dynamic
environment of projects, risks are inevitable. Therefore, project-based firms should develop a
culture, where changes are embraced and not denied, and problems are discussed and not
Benchmarking: An International
concealed. To ensure sustainable firm performance, organizations should adopt a project risk Journal
management (PRM) approach based on key project characteristics (Larson and Gray, 2013). Vol. 25 No. 3, 2018
pp. 893-918
PRM arranges business processes and personnel in a formal structured framework to identify, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
assess, monitor, and control project risks (Lechler et al., 2012). DOI 10.1108/BIJ-06-2017-0151
BIJ Multiple advancements have been made in PRM (Webb, 1994; Hastak and Shaked, 2000;
25,3 Chapman, 2003; Wallace et al., 2004a; Schaufelberger, 2005; Ling and Hoi, 2006; Han and
Huang, 2007; Choi and Ahn, 2010; Li and Zou, 2011; Porananond and Thawesaengskulthai,
2014; Kendrick, 2015; Salavati et al., 2016). Similarly, the research in project classification has
progressed since 1978 ( Blake, 1978; Henderson and Clark, 1990;Wheelwright and Clark, 1992;
Turner and Cochrane, 1993; Shenhar, 1993; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; D’ Herbemont and César,
894 1998; Pich et al., 2002; Archibald and Voropaev, 2003; Vaidyanathan, 2013; Bangsgaard, 2010;
Lechler et al., 2012; Besner and Hobbs, 2012). However, no study has adopted a perspective of
analyzing risks based on project characteristics. Project-based firms have a portfolio of projects
with different characteristics and risk profiles. Different projects require distinct project
management approaches to attain success, and the “one size fits all” approach may lead to
project failures (Shenhar, 2001). This diversity in project characteristics and risk profiles
provides an opportunity to develop an integrated framework for risk analysis.
The present study developed an integrated framework that characterized projects from
three sectors according to the novelty, technology, complexity, and pace (NTCP) framework by
Shenhar and Dvir (2007) and subsequently analyzed the risk profiles of the projects using the
risk categories, namely, scope, resource, and schedule risks, as suggested by Kendrick (2015).
Of the total 37 project cases, 15, 10, and 12 were from engineering and construction (E&C),
information system/technology (IS/IT), and new product development (NPD) sectors,
respectively. These sectors were selected because projects executed in these sectors are large
and technically complex, involve a combination of specialized skills, and require team
members from multidisciplinary domains, thus providing variable project risk profiles for
analysis. Within- and cross-sector analyses were performed to evaluate substantial risk
categories and their root causes based on prominent project characteristics. The presented
findings can enable project-based firms to effectively manage their project portfolios by using
distinct risk management strategies for different projects.

2. Literature review
This section is divided into two subsections. Section 2.1 reviews project classification
studies and justifies the use of the NTCP framework in this study. Section 2.2 reviews
various risk classification approaches and discusses the rationale behind adopting the risk
categories proposed by Kendrick (2015) in the present study.

2.1 Project classification

This section reviews typologies, classifications, and distinctions among project types.
Traditionally, project classification frameworks have been mainly influenced by disciplines,
such as innovation, organization structure, product development, and engineering. Blake
(1978) classified projects based on changes involved as minor (α) and major ( β) change
projects. Henderson and Clark (1990) classified projects on the basis of the degree of
innovation into radical, incremental, modular, and architectural projects, irrespective of the
industry type. Wheelwright and Clark (1992) classified projects in terms of the degree of
in-house product development changes in a company’s product portfolio that focused on
small projects and a single industry. Their typology included derivative, platform,
breakthrough, and research and development (R&D) projects. Turner and Cochrane (1993)
introduced two new dimensions for defining project types, namely, project goals and work
methods, which had been overlooked and considered as footnotes of the general project
management theory. Shenhar (1993) and Shenhar and Dvir (1996) acknowledged the
unavailability of a standard framework that can provide guidelines for managing distinct
projects. The authors challenged the universal concept of “one size fits all” because different
critical success factors influence distinct empirical project types, such as R&D and
construction projects. Furthermore, projects with different sizes and associated
uncertainties were identified. Shenhar and Dvir (1996) developed a three-dimensional Project risk
framework based on uncertainty, complexity, and pace for project analysis. D’ Herbemont analysis
and César (1998) classified projects on the basis of the origin of difficulty, that is, technical
and human difficulties. Pich et al. (2002) developed a model for appropriate strategy
selection based on available project information (in terms of ambiguity, complexity, and
uncertainty). Archibald and Voropaev (2003) established project categories and
subcategories based on project lifecycle and management processes. 895
Shehnar et al. (2004) believed that organizations require a project-specific framework
rather than a traditional framework based on responses to situational variables. Thereafter,
projects have been classified on the basis of several factors, including different perspectives
of engineers, managers and contractors, size, complexity, familiarity, industrial sectors,
project lifespan, contract types, organizational purposes (strategic and capability
alignment), and attributes used in project management practices (Andersen, 2006).
Vaidyanathan (2013) classified projects on the basis of three dimensions that represent
technological aspects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence. Bangsgaard
(2010) categorized projects into four groups: industrial, management, manufacturing, and
scientific research projects. Lechler et al. (2012) explored opportunities and uncertainties
associated with projects. They categorized the 20 investigated project cases into eight
groups: product development, IT/IS, construction, R&D, business realignment, market
prediction models, feasibility studies, and clinical trials. Besner and Hobbs (2012) classified
projects on the basis of sectors and contextual variables.
However, the aforementioned studies adopted a restricted perspective by using only one or
two context-specific dimensions for project classification. To overcome these limitations,
Shenhar and Dvir (2007) classified projects by using a four-dimensional NTCP framework for
selecting project management strategies. Novelty refers to the novelty of projects to customers
or markets; technology is defined as the level of technology usage; complexity is characterized
by the complexity of the organizational structure (people and processes); and pace refers to the
speed required for project completion. The NTCP framework encompasses all project
characteristics that have been identified to be crucial for the selection of appropriate project
management approaches and can enable the identification of project risks. It is not only a
context-free framework, irrespective of a specific industry, technology, or organization, but
also a generic framework that can be adopted for a broad range of projects. Therefore, the
present study adopted the NTCP framework for project classification.

2.2 Risk classification

Project risks are uncertainties that may lead to failures in accomplishing project goals in
terms of schedule, cost, quality, safety, security, and environment (Fang et al., 2012). Such
uncertainties or events may have a positive or negative influence on project outcomes
(scope, cost, quality, and schedule). Negative outcomes result in losses, which are
generally referred to as project risks (Webb, 1994; Chapman, 2003). The present study
reviewed major risks associated with projects in E&C, IS/IT, and NPD sectors, and
analyzed the projects of individual sectors in subsections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.
This subsection reviews various risk classification frameworks reported in the literature
and justifies the use of the risk classification framework proposed by Kendrick (2015)
in the present study.
The major risks in the E&C sector have been identified on the basis of project lifecycle,
the perspectives of entities involved in projects, and levels (micro, macro, or project) (Hastak
and Shaked, 2000; Schaufelberger, 2005; Ling and Hoi, 2006; Li and Zou, 2011). Similarly,
in the IS/IT sector, risks were classified on the basis of software development lifecycle,
organizational environment, user involvement, and team knowledge (Wallace et al., 2004a;
Han and Huang, 2007). NPD project risks are associated with market, technology adoption,
BIJ production, commercialization, and organization (Choi and Ahn, 2010; Porananond and
25,3 Thawesaengskulthai, 2014; Salavati et al., 2016). Appendix presents the project risks of the
three sectors.
Kendrick (2015) consolidated major risks and their root causes by exploring the project
cases across sectors from the Project Experience Risk Information Library database.
The database describes several project risks and classifies them into risk categories
896 (schedule, scope, and resource risks) and subcategories based on their root causes
(Figure 1). In addition, it provides empirical evidence on the frequency of risk occurrence
and degree of impact. Because the risk classification framework proposed by Kendrick is
generic and not context- or sector-specific, it was adopted as the risk classification
framework in this study.

3. Sector-specific analysis of projects

This study included multiple case studies with detailed project characteristics and risk
profiles from project management literature. Of the total 37 project cases, 15, 10, and 12 were
from E&C, IS/IT, and NPD sectors, respectively. Every sector encompasses a wide range of
projects: the E&C sector includes projects for bridges, highways, expressways, theme parks,
and pipeline laying; the IS/IT sector includes projects for developing different softwares and
upgrading existing systems; and the NPD sector includes projects for developing novel
products or new markets or modifying standard products.
The present study adopted a three-step approach. First, the projects were classified on the
basis of their characteristics by using the NTCP diamond framework. Each project case was
classified as derivative (D), platform (P), or breakthrough (B) in terms of novelty (N); low (L),
medium (M), high (H), or super high (SH) with regard to technology (T); assembly (AS), system
(SY), or array (AR) with respect to complexity (C); and regular (R), fast-competitive (FC), time-
critical (TC), or blitz (BL) in terms of pace (P). In the second step, risks of the projects were
categorized as scope (SCPR), resource (RESR), and schedule (SCHR) risks according to the risk
classification framework of Kendrick (2015). In the third step, the NTCP and Kendrick’ risk
classification frameworks were integrated to analyze significant risk categories and their major

Project Risks

Scope Risks Resource Risks Schedule Risks

Scope Scope
People Money Outsourcing Delays Estimates Dependencies
Changes Defects

Delayed Learning
ScopeGap Software Late Start Parts Legal
Start curve
defect
Late or
Scope poor Decision Deadlines Project
Hardware Temp loss
Creep defect output

Scope Permanent Hardware Judgment Infrastructure

Integration Loss
dependency
defect
Motivation Information

Figure 1. Queuing
Risk classification
framework
Source: Kendrick (2015)
root causes (MRCs) based on project characteristics. Furthermore, within- and cross-sector Project risk
analyses were performed to derive key insights, which can assist project managers in assessing analysis
risk profiles before project commencement.

3.1 E&C sector

Studies have reported that construction industry is more susceptible or exposed to risks and
uncertainties than other industries (Flanagan and Norman, 1993; Tah and Carr, 2000) 897
because construction processes are complex and involve unique and uncertain conditions
throughout the project lifespan, such as weather conditions, inflation, fluctuating company
profit margins, market competition, subcontractor failures, and on-site productivity
(Mustafa and Al-Bahar, 1991; Karimi Azari et al., 2011). These uncertainties eventually
result in project delays and cost overruns, and occasionally in termination prior to project
completion as well as affect the project team’s reputation.
Table I presents the detailed information on the 15 E&C project cases. These cases were
included in the study because each project possessed different characteristics and provided
sufficient information for risk assessment. The extant literature has identified the following
major risks in E&C project cases: physical, financial, and economic; political and regulation;
environmental; design-related; act-of-god/force majeure; contractual and legal; safety; and
lifecycle-stage risks (Mustafa and Al-Bahar, 1991; San Santoso et al., 2003; Ghosh
and Jintanapakanont, 2004; Schaufelberger, 2005; Iyer and Sagheer, 2009; Li and Zou, 2011;
Dey, 2012; Xiaopeng and Pheng, 2013; Chen and Leu, 2014). Table AI (Appendix) presents
the project risks in the E&C sector.

Project
name Project cases References

C_P 1 A bridge construction project in Tehran, Iran, undertaken by the Hashemi et al. (2011)
Municipality of Tehran
C_P 2 A cross-country petroleum pipeline-laying project in western India Dey (2009)
C_P 3 A housing construction project in Maharashtra, India Sharma (2013)
C_P 4 Installation of an extra high voltage overhead transmission line in Tummala and Burchett
Kowloon and the New Territories of the Hong Kong region (1999)
C_P 5 Mass rapid-transit underground rail project in Thailand Ghosh and
Jintanapakanont (2004)
C_P 6 A road construction project of an 11.37-km bypass road and a 0.75-km Thomas et al. (2006)
bridge under the build-operate-transfer arrangement
C_P 7 Development of the first expressway project in the mountainous area in Li and Zou (2011)
the north of He-Nan Province in China
C_P 8 Development of the first theme park, Hong Kong Disneyland, in Shen et al. (2006)
Hong Kong
C_P 9 Development of a residential-commercial complex in a northern city in Zhi (1995)
China, mainly for foreign businesspeople and their families
C_P 10 Construction of a 4,760-m long-span multipurpose bridge across the Mustafa and Al-Bahar
Jamuna River in Bangladesh (1991)
C_P 11 Implementation of building information modeling technology by the Chien et al. (2014)
largest military technology research institute in Taiwan in a
construction project
C_P 12 Development of an office building Mills (2001)
C_P 13 Construction of the Shahid Rajaee port in Tehran, which is located at a Hashemi et al. (2013)
unique geographical location in southern Iran
C_P 14 Metropolitan underground construction, including an underground Kuo and Lu (2013)
station for the Taipei Metro system, in a heavy traffic area Table I.
C_P 15 A road project in Sri Lanka Perera et al. (2009) E&C project cases
BIJ First, the 15 projects were mapped to the NTCP diamond framework based on their
25,3 characteristics (Figure 2). Appendix describes one case study. Similarly, other cases were
studied and mapped. Second, the significant risk categories and their possible root causes
were identified (Table AII, Appendix).
3.1.1 Analysis based on the integrated framework. Analyses of project characteristics
and the root causes of risks in the 15 E&C projects were compiled to derive the following
898 key insights. The construction projects of city-bridge (C_P 1), houses (C_P 3), road (C_P 6),
residential-complex (C_P 9) and official buildings (C_P 12), and road (C_P 15) were
characterized as derivative (novelty), low-tech (technology), assembly (low complexity), and
time-critical (pace) projects (Table II). Schedule risks were more prominent than other risks
in these projects because legal dependencies (permissions and approvals from the
government) and estimated deadlines lead to high schedule risks. The projects with

TECHNOLOGY

SH
H

L
COMPLEXITY AR SY AS D P B NOVELTY

Legend
FC C_P1 (Bridge)
C_P2 (Pipeline)
C_P3 (House)
C_P4 (transmission line)
TC
C_P5 (Rail)
BL C_P6 (Road)
C_P7 (Expressway)
PACE C_P8 (Theme park)
C_P9 (Residential building)
C_P10 (Bridge)
Figure 2. C_P11 (BIM)
Mapping of C_P12 (Office building)
E&C projects on the C_P13 (Port)
NTCP model C_P14 (Underground station)
C_P15 (Road)

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 12 D L AS FC | Delay in parts

C_P 1 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
C_P 3 D L AS TC | Estimated deadlines
C_P 6 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
Table II. C_P 9 D L SY FC | Delayed outsourcing
High-pace projects C_P 15 D L AS TC | | Delayed outsourcing and legal dependencies
assembly and system complexity, derivative novelty, low-tech, and fast-competitive/time- Project risk
critical pace have a higher level of complexity, which makes them vulnerable to resource as analysis
well as schedule risks. This vulnerability is mainly attributable to delay in parts and
delayed outsourcing by contractors.
Resource risks are more prominent in projects with derivative, medium-tech, high
complexity (array), and regular (pace) dimensions such as those observed in bridge (C_P 10),
port (C_P 13), pipeline-laying (C_P 2), and overhead transmission line (C_P 4) projects 899
(Table III). The main causes of such risks are disruptions due to delayed outsourcing or
substandard/late deliverables from contractors/suppliers because these projects are
generally executed in far-flung/remote areas. Furthermore, resource risks are the major risk
category in projects of low novelty, medium-tech, and high complexity (array), irrespective
of their pace. However, strict deadlines concurrently cause schedule risks, which usually
occur due to outsourcing problems, such as delayed start, late delivery or substandard
deliverables, and inadequate or unavailable funds.
An increase in project novelty ( from platform to breakthrough) increased the
uncertainties associated with market and technological requirements observed in the
construction of underground stations (C_P 14), underground rail (C_P 5), expressway
(C_P 5), technology implementation (C_P 11), and recreational facilities (theme parks;
C_P 8) (Table IV ). These projects are executed in a larger land; therefore, rehabilitation
concerns and permission, clearances, and approval by different government authorities
render them vulnerable to scope risks because of scope creep, defects, and dependencies.
Despite the market and technological uncertainties, unrealistic deadlines and outsourcing
problems occasionally render these projects vulnerable to schedule and resource risks,
which may impede project success.

3.2 IS/IT sector

The extant literature has identified following prominent risk dimensions in the IS/IT
sector: organizational environment risk, user risk, requirement management risk, project
complexity risk, planning and control risk, team/personnel management risk, scheduling
and timing risk, system functionality risk, and subcontracting risk (Boehm, 1991; Keil
et al., 1998; Ropponen and Lyytinen, 2000; Schmidt et al., 2001; Wallace et al., 2004a; Han
and Huang, 2007; Dasgupta and Mohanty, 2009; Mathiassen and Tuunanen, 2011).

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 10 D M AR R | Delayed outsourcing

C_P 13 D M AR R | Outsourcing late or poor output Table III.
C_P 2 D M AR FC | | Legal dependencies and money limitation High-complexity
C_P 4 D M AR TC | | Delayed outsourcing and estimated deadlines projects

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 11 P M SY FC | Scope software /integration defects

C_P 14 P M AR TC | | Scope dependencies and estimated deadlines
C_P 7 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output Table IV.
C_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep Platform and
C_P 8 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies breakthrough projects
BIJ Table AIII (Appendix) presents the project risks in the IS/IT sector. Table V presents the
25,3 detailed information on the ten IS/IT project cases.
The aforementioned project cases were mapped to the NTCP diamond framework
(Figure 3) according to their characteristics and risk profiles.
3.2.1 Analysis based on the integrated framework. Analyses of characteristics and the
root causes of risks in the ten projects were compiled (Table AIV, Appendix) to derive
900 the following key insights. In projects characterized as derivative, low/medium-tech,
assembly to array (i.e. low to high complexity), and regular pace, such as the IT realignment

Project
name Project cases References

S/W_P 1 Development of a management-tracking software application to monitor/ Dey et al. (2007)

control the building construction in Barbados
S/W_P 2 Development of an electronic commerce project Addison (2003)
S/W_P 3 An IT realignment software project for implementing a new (Oracle) Aloini et al. (2012)
enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in a company
S/W_P 4 Development of software for controlling a satellite experiment Boehm (1991)
S/W_P 5 Software for providing auto financing services for car dealers and customers Wan et al. (2013)
of their parent company’s related brands in Guangdong province
S/W_P 6 Development of software for identifying outsourcing business risks Wan et al. (2010)
S/W_P 7 Traditional software for distributed and web development Keshlaf and
Riddle (2010)
S/W_P 8 Risk identification in cloud computing-based IT projects in Tehran Adineh and Hariri
(2014)
S/W_P 9 Development of software for risk identification and management in offshore Sundararajan et al.
or outsourced software projects (2013)
Table V. S/W_P Implementation of an enterprise-wide/ERP management IS project using SAP Sumner (2000)
IS/IT project cases 10 package for a pharmaceutical manufacturer

TECHNOLOGY

SH
H

L
COMPLEXITY AR SY AS D P B NOVELTY

Legend
S/W_P1 (Application tracking)
FC S/W_P2 (E-commerece)
S/W_P3 (IT Realignment)
S/W_P4 (Control)
S/W_P5 (Financial Service)
S/W_P6 (Outsourcing)
Figure 3. TC S/W_P7 (Web development)
Mapping of IS/IT S/W_P8 (Cloud Computing)
projects on the BL S/W_P9 (Offshore)
NTCP model S/W_P10 (ERPMIS)
PACE
(S/W_P 3), outsourcing management (S/W_P 6), and offshore software (S/W_P 9) projects, Project risk
resource risks are more prominent than other risks (Table VI) because of people queuing, analysis
people loss, and delayed outsourcing that result in high resource risks. Projects with a
higher technology and fast-competitive pace are susceptible to schedule as well as resource
risks because of information delay (i.e. cultural differences, language barriers, distance, time
separation, and communication with project teams across different geographic locations).
In projects with high novelty (platform), technology, and complexity (array), irrespective 901
of their pace, such as those for software development for managing applications (S/W_P 1),
the development of traditional software for virtual teams (S/W_P 7), cloud computing-based
IT projects (S/W_P 8), the implementation of ERP managing IS (S/W_P 10), and the
development of e-commerce software (S/W_P 2), scope and resource risks are more
prominent risk categories (Table VII). The MRCs of risks are scope changes and defects as
well as inadequate or prior engagement of skilled/expert personnel in project teams for
managing international projects/centrally located domestic projects.
An increase in project novelty (breakthrough) increased the uncertainties associated
with high technological requirements observed in developing software for controlling
satellites (S/W_P 4) and medium technologies for developing financial software (S/W_P 5,
Table VIII). The MRCs were scope dependencies, requirement changes, the unavailability of
required infrastructure, and delay in required parts for development.

3.3 NPD sector

Kotler et al. (2003) defined new product as a good, service, or idea that is perceived by some
potential customers as new. Cooper (1993) and Lovelock (1996) presented six categories of
new products: major innovations, startup businesses, new-to-world products, new product

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

S/W_P 3 D L AR R | People loss Table VI.

S/W_P 6 D M AS FC | Delayed outsourcing Derivative IS/IT
S/W_P 9 D M SY FC | | People queuing, people loss, and information delay projects

Project
name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

S/W_P 1 P H AR TC | People queuing

S/W_P 7 P H AR FC | People queuing
S/W_P 8 P H AR R | Scope creep and hardware/software and integration
defects Table VII.
S/W_P 10 P H AR R | | People queuing, scope software, and integration defects Platform and high-
S/W_P 2 P H SY R | Scope creep tech IT/IS projects

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

Table VIII.
S/W_P 4 B H AR TC | | Scope and infrastructure dependencies Breakthrough
S/W_P 5 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts IS/IT projects
BIJ lines, line additions and extensions, and improvements to existing products. To efficiently
25,3 satisfy customer demands in this dynamic market environment, organizations are focusing
on detailed exploration and the reconsideration of approaches to activities/tasks in order to
adapt, develop, innovate, and attain a competitive advantage and achieve success. With an
increase in the level of innovation, the level of undesirable potential events, referred to as
risks, also increases (Marmier et al., 2014).
902 Studies on NPD have reported the most frequently perceived risk categories as follows:
consumer acceptance and marketing, organization and project management, product
technology, supply chain and sourcing, manufacturing technology, public acceptance,
intellectual property, competitor, and commercial viability risks (Cooper, 1979, 1981, 1993;
Rothwell et al., 1974; Montoya Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Keizer et al., 2005; Chin et al., 2009;
Park et al., 2011; Chaudhuri et al., 2013; Porananond and Thawesaengskulthai, 2014;
Salavati et al., 2016). Table AV (Appendix) presents the project risks in the NPD sector.
Table IX presents the detailed information on the 12 NPD project cases.
The aforementioned projects were mapped to the NTCP diamond framework (Figure 4).
3.3.1 Analysis based on the integrated framework. The characteristics and root causes of
the aforementioned 12 projects were compiled (Table AVI, Appendix) to derive the following
key insights. In projects characterized as derivative, low-tech, low complexity, and regular
pace, such as the project for the development of an event venue (NPD_P 12), resource risks
are the major risk category (Table X). The main causes of risks are outsourcing problems
and limited fund availability. An increase in the novelty level ( from derivative to platform)
results in a simultaneous increase in technological requirements and complexity levels,
which was observed in the projects involving the fabrication of special purpose garment
designs (NPD_P 1), helmets exclusively for surfers (NPD_P 3), the manufacturing of an

Project name Project cases References

NPD_P 1 Fabrication of high-visibility garments containing a new surface Jerrard et al. (2008)
design element for providing improved safety to children during
cycling and walking
NPD_P 2 Development of a loudspeaker for an integrated home- Jerrard et al. (2008)
entertainment system by a company
NPD_P 3 Design, development, and manufacturing of a range of safety Jerrard et al. (2008)
headwear (helmets) for rescue services, military organizations,
and recreational markets, but specifically for surfers
NPD_P 4 Design and manufacturing of a multielement hot plate Jerrard et al. (2008)
NPD_P 5 Design and development of innovative products, including new Jerrard et al. (2008)
desktop printers, for assisting visually impaired people
NPD_P 6 A complete service from generating ideas of machines and Susterova et al. (2012)
devices to preparing final assembly drawings
NPD_P 7 Pharmaceutical industry involved in drug development in Buyukozkan (2008)
Turkey
NPD_P 8 Manufacturing of hijabs in Indonesia Dewi et al. (2015)
NPD_P 9 Development of pet and animal food, livestock product, and Porananond and
fishery product segments in a food industry producing ready-to- Thawesaengskulthai
eat meal products (2014)
NPD_P 10 Development of a 2AAA penlight operated by AAA-size Chin (2009)
batteries with a major product requirement of a lock-feeling two-
way on-off switch
NPD_P 11 Development of a small satellite for a scientific mission based on Marmier et al. (2014)
two different platforms
Table IX. NPD_P 12 The renovation of event venues (church) to facilitate their Hassanien and Dale (2012)
NPD project cases commercial use
 TECHNOLOGY Project risk
analysis
SH

H
M
903
L
COMPLEXITY AR SY AS D P B NOVELTY

Legend
NPD_P1 (Garments)
NPD_P2 (Loudspeaker)
FC NPD_P3 (Helmet)
NPD_P4 (Hot plate)
NPD_P5 (Printer)
TC NPD_P6 (Machine)
NPD_P7 (Drugs)
NPD_P8 (Hijab) Figure 4.
BL NPD_P9 (Meal products) Mapping of NPD
NPD_P10 (Penlight) projects on the
PACE NPD_P11 (Satellite) NTCP model
NPD_P12 (Venue)

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_P 12 D L AS R | Delayed outsourcing and money limitations

NPD_P 1 P M SY TC | | Scope dependencies and outsourcing late or poor output
NPD_P 3 P H SY R | Scope creep
NPD_P 4 P H AR FC | | People queuing and information delay Table X.
NPD_P 2 P H AR TC | Information delay Platform NPD projects

innovative hot plate (NPD_4), and the development of a loudspeaker (NPD_P 2). Resource
risks are the major risk category in such projects, and occasionally scope risks are also
significant. However, to maintain market competitiveness and a higher pace, it is essential to
control schedule as well as resource risks.
In projects with breakthrough novelty, medium to high technology, medium to high
complexity (system to array), and regular pace, such as those for specially designing a
desktop printer for visually impaired people (NPD_P 5) and machine assembly (NPD_P 6),
scope risks are the major risk category due to scope (suppliers, shipment, customers, and
subcontractors) dependencies (Table XI). However, projects involving the manufacturing of
pharmaceutical drugs (NPD_P 7) and THE production of ready-to-eat meal products

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_P 6 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies

NPD_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep Table XI.
NPD_P 7 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts Breakthrough
NPD_P 9 B H AR TC | | Scope and infrastructure dependencies NPD projects
BIJ (NPD_P 9) are required to capture the market for increasing profit, sales, and turnovers as
25,3 well as maintaining good will through competitiveness. Therefore, in addition to scope risks,
such projects are vulnerable to schedule risks. The schedule risks may be due to a delay in
required parts, products due to unavailability or market shortage, and infrastructure for
developing and designing innovative products for a particular market segment.
In projects with medium or high novelty (platform/breakthrough), high-tech, medium to
904 high complexity (system/array), and regular or time-critical pace, such as those involving
the fabrication of hijabs (NPD_P 8), manufacturing of a penlight (NPD_P 10), and design
and development of a small satellite (NPD_P 11), scope and resource risks are major risk
categories (Table XII). The scope risks occurred due to scope change and defects, and
resource risks may be due to outsourcing problems (late or poor output) and manpower loss.

4. Cross-sector analysis based on the integrated framework

In this section, collective analysis of all projects, irrespective of sector, was performed.
Table AVII presents the NTCP characteristics, risks, and root causes of all projects. Table XIII
shows that in projects similar to C_P 12, C_P 1, C_P 3, C_P 6, and NPD_P 8 are of lower
novelty, technology, and complexity (if under any circumstance it increases to a higher level),
irrespective of the pace, wherein schedule risks are more significant than other risks. These
challenges may arise due to delay in parts, legal dependencies, and estimated deadlines.
In conclusion, low-novelty and low-tech projects are highly vulnerable to schedule risks alone.
As shown in Table XIV, if the project attributes are similar to NPD_1, S/W_P 3, C_P 9,
NPD_10, and NPD_12, which are of lower novelty and technology and high complexity
(system/array), irrespective of the pace (regular/fast competitive), resource risks due to

Project
name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_P 8 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output

Table XII. NPD_P 10 B H SY R | | Scope creep and people loss
High-tech NPD_P 11 P H AR TC | | Outsourcing late or poor output and software and
NPD projects integration defects

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 12 D L AS FC | Delay in parts

NPD_8 D L AS FC | Delay in parts
Table XIII. C_P 1 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
Low-novelty and C_P 3 D L AS TC | Estimated deadlines
low-tech projects C_P 6 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_1 D L SY R | People loss

S/W_P 3 D L AR R | People loss
Table XIV. C_P 9 D L SY FC | Delayed outsourcing
Low-novelty and high- NPD_P 10 D L SY FC | People loss
complexity projects NPD_P 12 D L AS R | Delayed outsourcing and money limitations
people loss and outsourcing (contract-related delays) problems are observed. Therefore, Project risk
low-tech and high-complexity projects are highly susceptible to resource risks alone. analysis
If project features are similar to those of C_P 2, C_P 4, C_P 15, S/W_P 9, and NPD_P 9, then
with an increase in complexity levels and deadlines, resource and schedule risks become
significant due to inadequate funds, people queuing, outsourcing problems, delay in parts, and
incorrect estimations, irrespective of novelty and technology levels (Table XV ). Therefore,
low-novelty and medium-tech projects are highly susceptible to resource and schedule risks. 905
Schedule risks were not observed in low-pace projects (Table XVI). Maintaining a constant
pace (regular) dimension and varying other NTCP dimensions results in varying risk categories.
For instance, if project characteristics are similar to those of C_P 10 and C_P 13 (i.e. derivative,
medium-tech, array, and regular pace), then resource risks arise due to outsourcing problems
(contract-related delays or late/poor output delivery by contractors/suppliers). In projects having
characteristics similar to those of NPD_P 2 (i.e. derivative, medium-tech, assembly, and regular
pace), scope risks are more prominent due to scope defects (hardware/integration). Furthermore,
if complexity and technological requirements are increased by one more level, as observed in
NPD_P 5 and NPD_P 11, resource risks are observed along with scope risks, which may impede
project progress. In S/W_P 2, when complexity, technology, and pace dimensions were kept
constant (as observed in NPD_P 5) and the novelty level of the project (i.e. platform) was
increased, scope risks due to scope creep were more prominent than other risks.
In projects having characteristics similar to those of NPD_P 3, NPD_P 4, and CP_P 11
(i.e. platform, medium-tech, low/medium complexity, and regular/fast pace), scope risks are the
major risk category (Table XVII). Furthermore, scope risks are observed in projects with
characteristics similar to those of NPD_P 6 and CP_P 14 (i.e. platform, medium-tech, system/
array, and time-critical pace). With an increase in the complexity of such projects, schedule risks
in CP_P 14 due to inappropriate time estimations and resource risks in NPD_P 6 due to
outsourcing problems (late/substandard output delivery) became significant due to scope creep,
dependencies, and software/integration defects. In conclusion, projects with platform novelty
and medium-tech are more vulnerable to scope risks, irrespective of their complexity and pace.
As shown in Table XVIII, if the projects having attributes similar to those of S/W_P 7
and S/W_P 1 (i.e. platform, high-tech, array, and fast-competitive/time-critical pace), then
resource risks arising mainly due to people queuing are more prominent than other risks

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 2 D M AR FC | | Legal dependencies and funds

C_P 4 D M AR TC | | Delayed outsourcing and estimated deadlines
C_P 15 D L AS TC | | Delayed outsourcing and legal dependencies Table XV.
NPD_9 D M SY FC | | People queuing and delay in parts Low-novelty and
S/W_P 9 D M SY FC | | People queuing, people loss, and information delay medium-tech projects

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 10 D M AR R | Delayed outsourcing

C_P 13 D M AR R | Outsourcing late or poor output
NPD_2 D M AS R | Scope hardware and integration defects
NPD_5 D H SY R | | People queuing and hardware defects
S/W_P 2 P H SY R | Scope creep
NPD_P 11 P H AR TC | | Outsourcing late or poor output and software and Table XVI.
integration defects Low-pace projects
BIJ and require monitoring. Therefore, projects with high novelty, technology, and complexity
25,3 are highly susceptible to resource risks.
In projects with high novelty, high-tech, medium complexity, and regular pace, such as
NPD_7, S/W_P 10, and C_P 7, scope risks due to scope creep and gap and resource risks due
to people loss and outsourcing delays are the major causes of project delays (Table XIX).
In addition, if project attributes are similar to those of C_P 5 and C_P 8 (i.e. breakthrough,
906 medium-tech, array, and regular/time-critical pace), scope risks due to scope creep and
dependencies are more prominent than other risks. Furthermore, if projects are similar to
S/W_P 4 and S/W_P5, that is, if the project is novel (breakthrough) and its technological
requirement ( from medium to high) and complexity level ( from system to time-critical)
increase and deadlines (pace) are tightened ( from fast-competitive to time-critical), scope
risks due to scope creep and dependencies as well as schedule risks due to infrastructure
delays and delay in parts become significant. In conclusion, high-novelty (breakthrough)
projects are more susceptible to scope risks than other risks.

5. Managerial implications
The integrated framework will provide an overview of the risks associated with the
project’s NTCP characteristics. This will help the managers in preparing strategies to
tackle risks, selection of appropriate tools and techniques at the onset or before actual
realization of the project. The managers/organizations will be in a better position to
foresee and execute risk mitigation strategies proactively concerning project management
aspects in this highly VUCA environment. This will equip them with enhanced decision-

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_3 P M AS R | Scope dependencies

NPD_4 P M AS FC | Scope creep
C_P 11 P M SY FC | Scope software and integration defects
C_P 14 P M AR TC | | Scope dependencies and estimated deadlines
Table XVII. NPD_6 P M SY TC | | Scope dependencies and outsourcing late or poor output
Platform and S/W_P 8 P H AR R | Scope creep and hardware, software and integration
medium-tech projects defects

Table XVIII. Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

High-novelty, high-
tech, and high- S/W_P 7 P H AR FC | People queuing
complexity projects S/W_P 1 P H AR TC | People queuing

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_7 B H SY R | | Scope creep and people loss

C_P 7 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output
S/W_P 10 P H AR R | | People queuing and scope software and integration
defects
C_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep
C_P 8 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies
Table XIX. S/W_P 4 B H AR TC | | Scope dependencies and infrastructure delay
High-novelty projects S/W_P 5 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts
making capabilities which, in turn, will help in sustaining the longevity of the Project risk
organization. Overall, with this study, the organization will be able to improvise, adapt, analysis
and overcome the unpredictable events.

6. Conclusion, limitations, and future scope

This study analyzed project risk profiles across E&C, IS/IT, and NPD sectors based on their
NTCP characteristics. Within-sector analysis reveals that schedule risk in E&C sector 907
projects, resource risk in IS/IT sector projects, and scope risk in NPD sector projects are the
most prominent project risk categories. Cross-sector analysis provided the following notable
insights. Projects involving lower degrees of novelty, technology, and complexity are highly
susceptible to schedule risks, and those with increased technology and complexity levels
are susceptible to resource risks. Projects requiring high novelty are more vulnerable to
scope risks, and those with high technology and complexity are susceptible to resource
risks. Furthermore, scope and resource risks are major risk categories for high-novelty,
high-tech, medium-complexity, and regular-pace projects.
The present study has three main contributions. First, it is one of the earliest studies to
provide an integrated risk framework for projects based on their generic characteristics in
terms of NTCP dimensions. The framework can be adopted by project-based firms to design
balanced project portfolios that ensure sustainable firm performance. Second, within-sector and
cross-sector analyses were conducted to derive key insights. Therefore, the present findings
represent both sector-specific and generic experiences of similar projects across sectors. Third,
the presented findings will enable project managers to analyze the absence or presence of risks
based on project characteristics, and accordingly develop highly authentic PRM plans.
However, the project case studies were obtained from the published literature, and
therefore, the findings are restricted. Despite this limitation, the developed integrated
framework can be adopted for analyzing and comparing real project cases. Moreover, these
are single case studies of one type of project in each sector. There can be multiple case
studies of similar type of projects and more rich insights can be further drawn based upon it.
Therefore, this work provides a future direction to analyze and compare all kinds of real
projects across multiple sectors based on an integrated common framework. Multiple case
studies in one specific type of projects can be further studied to identify the trends and risks
prevailing in it. This can be done in each sector and across sectors to enrich the study.

References
Addison, T. (2003), “E-commerce project development risks: evidence from a Delphi survey”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Adineh, M. and Hariri, N. (2014), “Risks identification and ranking in information technology projects
based on cloud computing”, Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 12, p. 216.
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. and Mininno, V. (2012), “Risk assessment in ERP projects”, Information Systems,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 183-199.
Andersen, E.S. (2006), “Toward a project management theory for renewal projects”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 15-30.
Archibald, R.D. and Voropaev, V.I. (2003), “Commonalities and differences in project management around
the world: a survey of project categories and life cycles”, 17th IPMA World Congress, Moscow.
Baccarini, D., Salm, G. and Love, P.E. (2004), “Management of risks in information technology projects”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 4, pp. 286-295.
Bangsgaard, A.M. (2010), “Method for risk analysis in regard of different types of projects
(master’s thesis)”, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus.
BIJ Bannerman, P.L. (2008), “Risk and risk management in software projects: a reassessment”, Journal of
25,3 Systems and Software, Vol. 81 No. 12, pp. 2118-2133.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2012), “An empirical identification of project management toolsets and a
comparison among project types”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 24-46.
Blake, S.B. (1978), Managing for Responsive Research and Development, Freeman and Co.,
San Francisco, CA.
908 Bhoola, V. (2015), “Impact of project success factors in managing software projects in India: an
empirical analysis”, Business Perspectives and Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 109-125.
Boehm, B.W. (1991), “Software risk management: principles and practices”, IEEE Software, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 32-41.
Buyukozkan, G. (2008), “Assessment of innovation risk factors in new product development”,
IEEE PICMET'08-2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering &
Technology, July, pp. 1145-1160.
Chapman, C. (2003), “Project risk management. Simple tools and techniques for enterprise risk
management”, 2nd ed., pp. 333-354.
Chaudhuri, A., Mohanty, B.K. and Singh, K.N. (2013), “Supply chain risk assessment during new
product development: a group decision making approach using numeric and linguistic data”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 2790-2804.
Chawan, P., Patil, J. and Naik, R. (2013), “Software risk management”, International Journal of
Computer Science and Mobile Computing, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 60-66.
Chen, T.T. and Leu, S.S. (2014), “Fall risk assessment of cantilever bridge projects using Bayesian
network”, Safety Science, Vol. 70, pp. 161-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.05.011
Chien, K.F., Wu, Z.H. and Huang, S.C. (2014), “Identifying and assessing critical risk factors for BIM
projects: empirical study”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 45, pp. 1-15.
Chin, K.S., Tang, D.W., Yang, J.B., Wong, S.Y. and Wang, H. (2009), “Assessing new product
development project risk by Bayesian network with a systematic probability generation
methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 9879-9890.
Choi, H.G. and Ahn, J. (2010), “Risk analysis models and risk degree determination in new product
development: a case study”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 110-124.
Cooper, R. (1979), “The Dimensions of Industrial New Product Success and Failure”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 93-103, doi: 10.2307/1250151.
Cooper, R.G. (1981), “An empirically derived new product project selection model”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 54-61, doi: 10.1109/TEM.1981.6448587.
Cooper, R.G. (1993), “Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch”, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 6-7.
Dasgupta, J. and Mohanty, R.P. (2009), “Towards evaluating the risks of software services outsourcing
industry”, Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 29-48.
D’Herbemont, O. and César, B. (1998), La stratégie du projet latéral, Comment réussir le changement
quand les forces politiques et sociales doutent ou s’y opposent, Dunod.
Dewi, D.S., Syairudin, B. and Nikmah, E.N. (2015), “Risk management in new product development
process for fashion industry: case study in Hijab industry”, Industrial Engineering and Service
Science, Vol. 4, pp. 383-391.
Dey, P. (2009), “Managing risks of large scale construction projects”, Cost Engineering, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 23-27.
Dey, P.K. (2012), “Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and
decision tree analysis: a case study of Indian oil refinery”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23
No. 12, pp. 903-921.
Dey, P.K., Kinch, J. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2007), “Managing risk in software development projects: a case Project risk
study”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 284-303. analysis
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T. and Han, S. (2007), “Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in
international construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 494-505.
Elzamly, A. and Hussin, B. (2014), “Managing software project risks (analysis phase) with proposed
fuzzy regression analysis modelling techniques with fuzzy concepts”, CIT: Journal of Computing 909
and Information Technology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 131-144.
Fang, C., Marle, F. and Zio, E. (2012), “Network theory-based analysis of risk interactions in large
engineering projects”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 106, pp. 1-10.
Flanagan, R. and Norman, G. (1993), Risk Management and Construction, Blackwell Science, London.
Ghosh, S. and Jintanapakanont, J. (2004), “Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an
underground rail project in Thailand: a factor analysis approach”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 633-643.
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2002), “Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for
infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-118.
Han, W.M. and Huang, S.J. (2007), “An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on
software projects”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 42-50.
Hashemi, H., Mousavi, S.M. and Mojtahedi, S.M.H. (2011), “Bootstrap technique for risk analysis with
interval numbers in bridge construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 137 No. 8, pp. 600-608.
Hashemi, H., Mousavi, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. and Gholipour, Y. (2013), “Compromise ranking
approach with bootstrap confidence intervals for risk assessment in port management projects”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 334-344.
Hassanien, A. and Dale, C. (2012), “Drivers and barriers of new product development and innovation in
event venues: a multiple case study”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-92.
Hastak, M. and Shaked, A. (2000), “ICRAM-1: model for international construction risk assessment”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-69.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K. (1990), “Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing
product technologies and the failure of established firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35,
pp. 9-30.
Iyer, K.C. and Sagheer, M. (2009), “Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks using interpretative
structural modeling”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 2,
pp. 151-159.
Jerrard, R.N., Barnes, N. and Reid, A. (2008), “Design, risk and new product development in five small
creative companies”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 2, pp. 21-40.
KarimiAzari, A., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S.F. and Hosseini, S. (2011), “Risk assessment model selection
in construction industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 9105-9111.
Keil, M., Cule, P.E., Lyytinen, K. and Schmidt, R.C. (1998), “A framework for identifying software
project risks”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 76-83.
Keizer, J.A., Vos, J.P. and Halman, J.I. (2005), “Risks in new product development: devising a reference
tool”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 297-309.
Kendrick, T. (2015), “Identifying and managing project risk: essential tools for failure-proofing your
project”, AMACOM, Div American Management Association, New York, NY.
Keshlaf, A.A. and Riddle, S. (2010), “Risk management for web and distributed software development
projects”, IEEE 2010 Fifth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection
(ICIMP), May, pp. 22-28.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J.T. and Makens, J. (2003), Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, NJ.
BIJ Kuo, Y.C. and Lu, S.T. (2013), “Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk
25,3 assessment for metropolitan construction projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 602-614.
Larson, E. and Gray, C. (2013), “Project management: the managerial process”, McGraw-Hill Professional.
Lechler, T.G., Edington, B.H. and Gao, T. (2012), “Challenging classic project management: turning project
uncertainties into business opportunities”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 59-69.
910 Li, J. and Zou, P.X. (2011), “Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects”, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 12, pp. 1205-1209.
Ling, F.Y.Y. and Hoi, L. (2006), “Risks faced by Singapore firms when undertaking construction
projects in India”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 261-270.
Liu, J., Zhao, X. and Yan, P. (2016), “Risk paths in international construction projects: case study from Chinese
contractors”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 6, p. 05016002.
Lovelock, C. (1996), Services Marketing, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, London.
Marmier, F., Deniaud, I.F. and Gourc, D. (2014), “Strategic decision-making in NPD projects according to
risk: application to satellites design projects”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 65 No. 8, pp. 1107-1114.
Mathiassen, L. and Tuunanen, T. (2011), “Managing requirements risks in it projects”, IT Professional,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 40-47, doi: 10.1109/MITP.2011.102.
Mills, A. (2001), “A systematic approach to risk management for construction”, Structural Survey,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 245-252.
Mustafa, M.A. and Al-Bahar, J.F. (1991), “Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 46-52.
Packendorff, J. (1995), “Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project
management research”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Park, S., Kim, J. and Choi, H.G. (2011), “A risk management system framework for new product
development (NPD)”, International Conference on Economics and Finance Research, Vol. 4, pp. 51-56.
Perera, B.A.K.S., Dhanasinghe, I. and Rameezdeen, R. (2009), “Risk management in road construction: the
case of Sri Lanka”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-102.
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H. and Meyer, A.D. (2002), “On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project
management”, Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 1008-1023.
Porananond, D. and Thawesaengskulthai, N. (2014), “Risk management for new product development
projects in food industry”, Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Ropponen, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2000), “Components of software development risk: how to address them?
A project manager survey”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 98-112.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974),
“SAPPHO updated-project SAPPHO phase II”, Research Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-291,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(74)90010-9
Sakthidaran, R.T. (2010), “How can an acquirer mitigate risks in software engineering projects?”, Open
Software Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 64-69.
Salavati, M., Tuyserkani, M., Mousavi, S.A., Falahi, N. and Abdi, F. (2016), “Improving new product
development performance by risk management”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 418-425.
San Santoso, D., Ogunlana, S.O. and Minato, T. (2003), “Assessment of risks in high rise building
construction in Jakarta”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Schaufelberger, J.E. (2005), “Risk management on build-operate-transfer projects”, Construction
Research Congress, Vol. 183 No. 91, pp. 1-10.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K. and Mark Keil, P.C. (2001), “Identifying software project risks: an
international Delphi study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 5-36.
Sharma, S.K. (2013), “Risk management in construction projects using combined analytic hierarchy Project risk
process and risk map framework”, IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 23-53. analysis
Shen, L.Y., Platten, A. and Deng, X.P. (2006), “Role of public private partnerships to manage risks in
public sector projects in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 587-594.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2004), “How projects differ, and what to do about it”, in Morris, P. and Pinto, J.
(Eds), The Wiley Guide to Managing Project, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 1265-1286. 911
Shenhar, A.J. (1993), “From low-to high-tech project management”, R&D Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 199-214.
Shenhar, A.J. (2001), “One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains”,
Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 394-414.
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (1996), “Toward a typological theory of project management”, Research
Policy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 607-632.
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to
Successful Growth and Innovation, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Sigmund, Z. and Radujković, M. (2014), “Risk breakdown structure for construction projects on
existing buildings”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 894-901, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.100
Smith, B. (1985), “Project concepts”, Effective Project Administration, Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, London
Sumner, M. (2000), “Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects”, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 317-327.
Sundararajan, S., Bhasi, M. and Pramod, K. (2013), “An empirical study of industry practices in
software development risk management”, International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Vol. 3 No. 6, p. 1.
Susterova, M., Lavin, J. and Riives, J. (2012), “Risk management in product development process”,
Annals of DAAAM, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 225-228.
Tah, J.H.M. and Carr, V. (2000), “A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy logic”,
Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Thomas, A.V., Kalidindi, S.N. and Ganesh, L.S. (2006), “Modelling and assessment of critical risks in
BOT road projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 407-424.
Tummala, V.R. and Burchett, J.F. (1999), “Applying a risk management process (RMP) to manage cost
risk for an EHV transmission line project”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 223-235.
Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993), “Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with
ill-defined goals and/or methods of achieving them”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 93-102.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Tüysüz, F. and Kahraman, C. (2006), “Project risk evaluation using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process:
an application to information technology projects”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 559-584.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2013), Project Management: Process, Technology and Practice, Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Wallace, L. and Keil, M. (2004), “Software project risks and their effect on outcomes”, Communications
of the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 68-73.
Wallace, L., Keil, M. and Rai, A. (2004a), “How software project risk affects project performance: an
investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35
No. 2, pp. 289-321.
BIJ Wallace, L., Keil, M. and Rai, A. (2004b), “Understanding software project risk: a cluster analysis”,
25,3 Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 115-125.
Wan, J., Cao, Y. and Hou, J. (2013), “Case Study on H Corp. software project risk management with
ISM”, Technology and Investment, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 145-152.
Wan, J., Wan, D. and Zhang, H. (2010), “Case study on business risk management for software
outsourcing service provider with ISM”, Technology and Investment, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 257-266.
912 Webb, A. (1994), Managing Innovative Projects, Chapman & Hall, London.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development, Free Press, New York, NY.
Xiaopeng, D. and Pheng, L.S. (2013), “Understanding the critical variables affecting the level of political
risks in international construction projects”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 895-907.
Zhi, H. (1995), “Risk management for overseas construction projects”, International Journal Of Project
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 231-237.

Further reading
Ahmed, A., Kayis, B. and Amornsawadwatana, S. (2007), “A review of techniques for risk management
in projects”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 22-36.
Aven, T. (2016), “Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their
foundation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Dvir, D., Shenhar, A.J. and Alkaher, S. (2003), “From a single discipline product to a multidisciplinary
system: adapting the right style to the right project”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 123-134.
Lam, K.C., Wang, D., Lee, P.T. and Tsang, Y.T. (2007), “Modeling risk allocation decision in
construction contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 485-493.
Lennon, E. (2015), “Applicability analysis of the model NTCP – novelty, complexity, technology and
pace in the eletrobras distribuição piauí projects”, International symposium on project
management, innovation and sustainability, Universidade Nove de Julho – UNINOVE, São
Paulo – SP, pp. 2317-8302.
Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R. and Shenhar, A.J. (2009), “Why projects fail? How contingency theory can
provide new insights – a comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 665-679.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., Ryan, M., Sage, A., Sauser, B.,
Srivannaboon, S. and Stefanovic, J. (2005), “Toward a NASA-specific project management
framework”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 8-16.

Appendix. Case study in detail

C_P 1 was a bridge (900 × 16 m) construction project in Tehran, Iran, undertaken by Municipality of
Tehran (TM). The project duration was 20 months, with contract price of US$ 100 million and scope of
excavation of 9,600 m3, filling with 7,000 m3, pouring of concrete of 7,800 m3, reinforcement of 810 tons,
and steel work of 3,200 tons (Hashemi et al., 2011).
Since TM had decades of experience in executing such city development projects, C_P 1 can be
identified as a “Derivative” project on novelty axis of NTCP. The derivative nature of the project
provided better familiarity with the work environment and users’ expectations. Thus, the risks
associated with the scope creep, change dependency during construction can be assessed to have a
lower probability of occurrence and impact. The scope gap risk may arise due to bridge height, which
may intervene with the radar signals and can create problems for flight paths. Therefore, the risk
associated will have a lower probability of occurrence and high impact. Though scope risks have a
lower probability of occurrence and impact, it may result in cost and time overrun and defective
deliverable. Similarly, schedule risks associated with estimation error and dependency had a lower
probability of occurrence and higher impact.
C_P 1 was a usual bridge project executed on normal topography with standard designs and
construction equipment available. Hence, it can be marked as low on technology axis of NTCP. Thus,
the risks associated with scope hardware software defect and integration due to the adoption of Project risk
insufficient technology can be assessed as low in probability and impact. Further, the degree of analysis
coordination and integration in terms of components, subsystems, was less, hence C_P 1 can be
mapped as low in the complexity axis of NTCP. Thus, risks associated with the organization and
formal procedures can be assessed low in probability and impact. EDOCT was the project management
consultancy of the project and ensured integration among contractors and subcontractors. This
controlled the resource risks arising due to the poor relationship among parties, outsourcing delay, and
outsourcing turnover will have lower probability and impact levels. However, risks associated with 913
people queuing, outsourcing late start, and money had a lower probability of occurrence but their
impact could have been higher on the project.
During THE execution of C_P 1, the traffic flow of the nearby road network was impacted and this
impacted multiple stakeholders. Therefore, completion of the project within time was critical. C_P 1 can
be mapped as time critical in the pace axis of the NTCP. The initial phase of the project involved
multiple government permits and approvals that required the active participation of EDOCT to
complete the initial formalities for executing the work and careful supervision of EDOCT workers as
per the approved plans and programs. Thus, risks due to legal dependencies had higher probability
and impact.

References Classification/framework

Mustafa and Al-Bahar Sources of risks were classified into seven groups, namely physical, financial and
(1991) economic, political, environmental, design, job site-related, and act-of-God risks
Hastak and Shaked (2000) Project risks were classified in a more general manner into macro-, project-, and
micro-level risks
Grimsey and Lewis (2002) Risks were identified in terms of entities involved, namely, procurers, sponsors,
and lenders
Santoso et al. (2003) Risks were classified into nine groups: physical, personal, technical, safety
accident, construction design-caused, political and regulation, financial,
contractual, and environmental regulation risks
Ghosh and All risks were categorized in nine groups: financial and economic, contractual and
Jintanapakanont (2004) legal, subcontracting, operational, safety and social, design, force majeure,
physical, and delay risks
Schaufelberger (2005) Project risks were classified into general and project-specific risks based on
macro environmental factors and construction project lifecycle (development,
construction, and operation), respectively
Ling and Hoi (2006) Risks were classified into two major groups: unique (political and social, economic
and financial, and cultural) and generic (regulatory, design, natural, managerial,
and plant and equipment) risks
Dikmen et al. (2007) All risks were categorized into eight groups: technical, managerial, resource,
productivity, design, payment, client, and subcontracting risks
Iyer and Sagheer (2009) Risks were classified as pre-investment, financial closure delay, resettlement and
rehabilitation, land acquisition delay, permit/approval, technology, design and latent
defect, cost overrun, schedule, direct political, Indian political, legal, financial,
nonpolitical, force majeure, partnering, environmental, and physical risks
Li and Zou (2011) Risks were classified on the basis of project lifecycle, that is, feasibility study,
tendering, financing, design, operation, and transfer stages
Dey (2012) Risks were grouped into four categories: management-related, design-related,
political, and legal risks. Some authors identified risks with respect to
stakeholders’ involvement
Xiaopeng and Pheng (2013) Only variables affecting political risks were identified
Sigmund and Radujković Risks were categorized into two major groups: external (legal, political and economic,
(2014) social, natural, and technical) and project (management, design documentation,
human factor, delivery, logistics, contractual, and project realization) risks
Chen and Leu (2014) Only factors affecting the fall-risk dimension were identified
Liu et al. (2016) All risks were classified into three major categories associated with international Table AI.
construction projects: country-, market-, and project-level risks E&C project risks
 BIJ
25,3

914

Table AII.
Risk assessment of

on the NTCP model

E&C projects based
Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

C_P 1 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies

C_P 2 D M AR FC | | Legal dependencies and funds
C_P 3 D L AS TC | Estimated deadlines
C_P 4 D M AR TC | | Delayed outsourcing and estimated deadlines
C_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep
C_P 6 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
C_P 7 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output
C_P 8 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies
C_P 9 D L SY FC | Delayed outsourcing
C_P 10 D M AR R | Delayed outsourcing
C_P 11 P M SY FC | Scope and software/integration defects
C_P 12 D L AS FC | Delay in parts
C_P 13 D M AR R | Outsourcing late or poor output
C_P 14 P M AR TC | | Scope dependencies and estimated deadlines
C_P 15 D L AS TC | | Delayed outsourcing and legal dependencies
References Classification/framework
Project risk
analysis
Boehm (1991) The top ten risk factors were identified as personnel deficits, unrealistic
schedules and budgets, the development of incorrect software functions, the
development of incorrect user interface, gold plating, continual requirement
changes, deficits in externally furnished components and externally
performed tasks, real-time performance deficits, and straining computer
science capabilities 915
Keil et al. (1998) and Wallace Risk factors were categorized into four quadrants, namely, customer
and Keil (2004) mandate, scope and requirements, execution, and environment, based on the
perceived relative importance of risks and perceived levels of control
required for managing each quadrant
Ropponen and Lyytinen (2000) Six risk components were identified: scheduling and timing, system
functionality, subcontracting, requirement management, resource usage and
performance, and personnel management risks
Schmidt et al. (2001) Risk factors were classified into 14 groups: corporate environment,
sponsorship/ownership, relationship management, project management,
scope, requirements, funding, scheduling, development processes,
personnel, staffing, technology, external dependencies, and planning
Addison (2003) The top ten risks are listed as follows: misunderstanding user requirements,
the absence of declared business benefits, narrow focus, ignorance of the
influence on distribution channels, inadequate security features, the lack of
experience, the lack of top management commitment and support, failure to
manage end user expectations, the lack of user commitment and
involvement, and insufficient procedures to ensure database integrity
Wallace et al. (2004b) A total of 27 risk factors were identified in terms of 6 dimensions, including
organizational environment, user, requirement, and project complexity risks
Baccarini et al. (2004) A total of 27 risk factors were categorized into seven groups: commercial
and legal relationship, economic circumstances, human behavior, political
circumstances, technology and technical concerns, management activities
and controls, and individual activities
Tüysüz and Kahraman (2006) A total of 28 risk factors were grouped into six categories: environmental
and ownership, relationship management, project management, resources
and planning, personnel and staffing, and technology
Han and Huang (2007) A total of 27 risk factors were grouped into six categories: user, requirement,
project complexity, planning and control, team, and organizational
environment risks
Bannerman (2008) The major risks prevailing in public sector software projects were identified
as project governance, project setup, partner engagement, business
proprietorship, project management, change management, problem
recognition, risk management, and benefit realization
Dasgupta and Mohanty (2009) Risk factors associated with software service outsourcing were identified as
follows: requirement clarity, solution complexity, execution capacity, and
customer- and contract-related
Sakthidaran (2010) Risk factors associated with user involvement, development methodologies,
interface requirements, user and management support, innovation
management, complexity, relevant experience, skill requirement, work
scope, statutory and legal requirements, cost and time estimation, project
management practices, subcontracting, developer selection, the
understanding of proposal request, software tools, and project information
were identified
Mathiassen and Tuunanen Requirement risks were identified, analyzed, and mitigated
(2011)
Chawan et al. (2013) Six major risk categories were identified: technical, management, financial,
contractual and legal, personnel, and resource risks
Table AIII.
(continued ) IT/IS project risks
BIJ References Classification/framework
25,3
Bhoola (2015) Four major risk categories were identified: project-specific, human resource,
environmental, and organizational risks
Elzamly and Hussin (2014) Risks factors identified in the analysis phase are listed as follows: unclear
requirements, failure to complete or missing detailed requirement analysis
and specification documentation, developer software for gold plating, the
916 lack of IT management, inadequately identified and mismatched
requirements, an inadequate knowledge of tools and programming
techniques, the lack of correctness and monitoring of project planning,
requirement changes after the project plan phase, changes in software
Table AIII. project specifications, and inadequate analysis for progress assessment

Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

S/W_P 1 P H AR TC | People queuing

S/W_P 2 P H SY R | Scope creep
S/W_P 3 D L AR R | People loss
S/W_P 4 B H AR TC | | Scope and infrastructure dependencies
S/W_P 5 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts
S/W_P 6 D M AS FC | Delayed outsourcing
S/W_P 7 P H AR FC | People queuing
S/W_P 8 P H AR R | Scope creep and hardware, software, and integration
Table AIV. defects
IS/IT project risk S/W_P 9 D M SY FC | | People queuing, people loss, and schedule information
assessment based on delay
the NTCP model S/W_P 10 P H AR R | | People queuing and scope software and integration defects

References Proposed risk classification

Keizer et al. (2005) The top ten risk factors are listed as follows: acceptance and marketing,
organization and project management, product technology, supply chain
and sourcing, manufacturing technology, public acceptance, competitor, and
commercial viability risks.
Chin et al. (2009) Four risks categories were identified: research and development, supply,
production, and product reliability risks
Choi and Ahn (2010) Risk factors related to product complexity, product technology, program
structure, competition, business relationship, team scope, resource tightness,
and schedule tightness were identified
Park et al. (2011) Risk factors were classified into five categories: people, technology,
resource, process/planning/scheduling, and other risks
Chaudhuri et al. (2013) Only factors affecting supply chain risks were identified
Porananond and A total of 20 risk factors were identified: schedule, organization structure,
Thawesaengskulthai (2014) project communication, economic, technical complexity, location selection,
resource planning, team knowledge, design, manufacturing technology,
intellectual property, sourcing and materials planning, customer
requirement, manufacturing capability, logistics and transportation
selection, procurement and contract, social, political, natural, and
compliance risks
Table AV. Salavati et al. (2016) Risk factors were classified into four categories: technological, marketing,
NPD project risks organizational, and commercialization risks
Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)

NPD_P 1 P M SY TC | | Scope dependencies and outsourcing late or poor output

NPD_P 2 P H AR TC | People queuing
NPD_P 3 P H SY R | Scope creep
NPD_P 4 P H AR FC | | People queuing and information delay
NPD_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep
NPD_P 6 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies
NPD_P 7 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts
NPD_P 8 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output
NPD_P 9 B H AR TC | | Scope dependencies and infrastructure delay
NPD_P 10 B H SY R | | Scope creep and people loss
NPD_P 11 P H AR TC | | Outsourcing late or poor output and scope software and integration defects
NPD_P 12 D L AS R | Delayed outsourcing and money limitations
analysis

917

assessment based on
NPD project risk
Project risk

Table AVI.

the NTCP model

BIJ Project name N T C P SCPR RESR SCHR MRC(s)
25,3
C_P 1 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
C_P 2 D M AR FC | | Legal dependencies and funds
C_P 3 D L AS TC | Estimated deadlines
C_P 4 D M AR TC | | Delayed outsourcing and estimated deadlines
C_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep
918 C_P 6 D L AS TC | Legal dependencies
C_P 7 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output
C_P 8 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies
C_P 9 D L SY FC | Delayed outsourcing
C_P 10 D M AR R | Delayed outsourcing
C_P 11 P M SY FC | Scope software and integration defects
C_P 12 D L AS FC | Delay in parts
C_P 13 D M AR R | Outsourcing late or poor output
C_P 14 P M AR TC | | Scope dependencies and estimated deadlines
C_P 15 D L AS TC | | Delayed outsourcing and schedule and legal
dependencies
S/W_P 1 P H AR TC | People queuing
S/W_P 2 P H SY R | Scope creep
S/W_P 3 D L AR R | People loss
S/W_P 4 B H AR TC | | Scope and infrastructure dependencies
S/W_P 5 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts
S/W_P 6 D M AS FC | Delayed outsourcing
S/W_P 7 P H AR FC | People queuing
S/W_P 8 P H AR R | Scope creep and hardware, software, and integration
defects
S/W_P 9 D M SY FC | | People queuing, people loss, and schedule information
delay
S/W_P 10 P H AR R | | People queuing and scope software and integration
defects
NPD_P 1 P M SY TC | | Scope dependencies and outsourcing late or poor
output
NPD_P 2 P H AR TC | People queuing
NPD_P 3 P H SY R | Scope creep
NPD_P 4 P H AR FC | | People queuing and information delay
NPD_P 5 B M AR R | Scope creep
NPD_P 6 B M AR TC | Scope dependencies
NPD_P 7 B M SY FC | | Scope creep and delay in parts
NPD_P 8 B H SY R | | Scope gap and outsourcing late or poor output
NPD_P 9 B H AR TC | | Scope dependencies and infrastructure delay
Table AVII. NPD_P 10 B H SY R | | Scope creep and people loss
Cross-sector project NPD_P 11 P H AR TC | | Outsourcing late or poor output and scope software
risk assessment based and integration defects
on the NTCP model NPD_P 12 D L AS R | Delayed outsourcing and money limitations

Corresponding author
Vijaya Dixit can be contacted at: movijaya@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.