Susmit - Final Thesis - Chap5 - Conclusion

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 22

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

199
Results, Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the results obtained from different studies carried out during

the course of this research. The results and analysis of these studies are discussed and

summarized in this chapter with respect to their individual contribution and their

overall contribution to the main research. No research work can conclude without

discussing the limitations. This chapter aims at fulfilling this task too. Further, an

attempt is made to assess the contribution of the study from an academic as well as

from an industry perspective. The chapter ends with a recommendation for further

research.

5.2 Summary – Findings of the survey and expert interview

The main objective with which this research study was undertaken was to have an

understanding of the risk management framework in the organization as well as to

identify the critical risks and their management in brownfield construction projects in

steel plants. The study also endeavoured to find out if a correlation exists between the

project complexity and the criticality of the risk. Further, an effort was also made to

explore the effect of risk response factors and risk response options. The study was

initiated through a literature survey in two specific areas of construction project risks

and project complexity. Thereafter, the identified risks and project complexity

attributes and indicators were subjected to questionnaire survey in different phases.

The objective of the pilot survey was to identify the major risks that are present in

brownfield construction projects in steel plants. The pilot survey was preceded by a

focus group discussion which finalized the group of construction project risks which

200
are relevant to construction projects in existing steel plants. The major risks identified

from the pilot survey along with other suggested risks from the second focus group

discussion were subjected to main survey to finally identify the select group of critical

risks from the perception of the respondents. In the final stage, expert interview was

conducted to validate the findings of the main survey and to have some insight about

the relationship. The following Table 5.1 sketches the journey of the author from

initiation to culmination.

Table 5.1:Stages of Study and the research focus addressed


Focus of Research 1st Pilot 2nd Expert Main Expert
Focus survey Focus survey Survey Opinio
Group Group complexity n
attributes/
indicators
Identification of major/ critical √ √ √ √
risks
Identification of Project √ √ √ √ √
Complexity attributes/
indicators & their weights
Relationship of Project √
complexity and criticality of
risks
Relationship of risk response √
factors with risk response
options
Relationship of Risk response √
factors and criticality of risks
and complexity of projects.
Assessment of Risk √
Management Framework in
organisation
Validity of research findings √

(Compiled by Author)

From the above table it is clear that apart from expert interview all the other stages are

mainly devoted in the identification of risks and complexity indicators. Thus all the

stages basically aimed towards findings. The following figure 5.1 illustrates the

movement of the study.

201
Figure 5.1: Flow of the Study

Identification Assessment Findings Validation

Each stage of research generated a new finding which k ept up the tempo of this

academic task. The findings of the study in each of the stages and the fulfilment of

research objectives is given in the table 5.2 below:

Table 5.2: Summary of findings of the study with fulfilment of Research Objective

Expert
survey to
identify
Research 1st Focus 2nd Focus Fulfilment of
Pilot survey weights of Main Survey
Objectives Group Group Objectives
complexity
attributes/
indicators

• 36 major risks
assessed and 16
critical risks
identified based
on RPS and cut-
• Three risks off normalization
Based on the of economic
To ascertain the factor of 0.5.
Risk nature The critical risk
overall risk included in • Overall Risk
Potential events identified
potential of 48 risks main survey. Potential of the
Score and and the overall
brownfield were
cut-off • Addl 4 risks brownfield
risk potential of
construction identified were construction
normalizatio brownfield
projects in steel for pilot included as project is
n factor of suggested by construction
plants survey. assessed based
0.5 only 29 the projects in steel
on Fuzzy
risks respondents plant assessed.
of pilot. Synthetic
identified.
Analysis.
Overall Risk
Potential found
out to be
between medium
and high.

• Responses Responses on
Some on these complexity
To investigate the parameter parameters indicators were
relationship of s/ taken. taken and overall Significant
Complexity Weights of
criticality of risk attributes • No complexity of positive
attributes indicators
with the the of correlation project assessed. correlation exist
and finalized
complexity of complexit studied between project
indicators based on
project. y between Positive complexity and
finalized. responses.
wereprim complexity correlation exists risk criticality.
arily and risk between Project
decided. potential complexity and
scores. criticality of risk

Contd.
202
• Risk Response
Option and risk
• Risk Response
Response Factors against
Options each risk
To explore the
nomenclat evaluated.
effect of Risk
ure • Both the Influence of Risk
Response Factors
finalized Response factors Response factors
on the Risk
• Risk have statistically on the risk
Response Options
Response same level of response option
selected for each
Factors influence on 3 studied and
risk.
were risk response analysed.
discussed options
and their • Human response
scales factors have
finalized. more influence
in case of other 2
response options.

• Positive
Correlation
exists between
risk response While there is
To determine the
factors and significant
relationship of
criticality of correlation
these factors with
risks. between risk
the complexity of
• Positive response factors
the project and
Correlation with criticality of
criticality of risk.
exists in most risks, it is weak
cases between in case of project
risk response complexity.
factors and
complexity of
project.

The findings of the study corresponding to each research area are discussed below:

i) Risk Management Framework in Organisations

In the second focus group discussion it was decided that questions relating to the

existence of a structured framework for project risk management are to be included.

From the responses on the framework of risks identification and management in

organization in the main survey it was found that part of the respondents agree that

they have identified some risk in their projects. However, lesser proportion of them

indicate that they have assessments made for those risks and further lesser

203
proportion mentioned that they have a plan for responding to those risks. When

asked about formal documentation, a far less number indicated that they have

documentation of response plan for their risks. Among the 8 organisations from

where the respondents have taken part only one organization has been found to have

a proper framework and documentation of the risk response.

ii) Major Risk Events in Brownfield Construction Projects in steel plants.

One of the main objectives of this study was to identify risks which are critical to

brownfield construction projects in steel plants. With this objective the study arrived

at the major risks after the pilot survey and finally arrived at 16 critical risks after

the main survey. Based on the Risk Potential Score (RPS) at an overall level

“Unrealistic time estimates of activities….” has topped the critical risk list followed

by “Delayed Supply of equipment…..”.The project owner group, which are the

subject of this study consisting of project executives, plant executives associated

with projects and consultant executives, have slightly differing view point about the

top critical risk. While project and consultant executives felt that “Delayed Supply

of equipment…..” is the top critical risk, the plant executive felt that “Unrealistic

time estimates of activities….” is more important risk. Two more risks which are

typical of brownfield construction projects have found place in this select list of

critical risks. These are “Work Fronts/ shutdown not being made available in

time….” and “Unforeseen ground condition …”. These two risks have plagued the

brownfield construction projects on many occasions in recent times. Apart from the

individual effect of these critical risks, Fuzzy synthetic Analysis was carried out to

204
identify the critical risk groups (CRG) and finally the overall risk potential of the

brownfield construction projects in steel plants. The critical risk groups identified

in this study are:

• Construction Agency and Process Group


• Construction Site Condition & Logistics Group
• Construction ResourcesGroup
• Construction Planning Group
• Construction Supply Group

The overall risk potential was calculated for the brownfield construction projects

on the basis of Probability of Occurrence and Severity of Impact and was found to

be in between medium to high level risk.

iii) Relationship of Project Complexity and Criticality of Risk

Overall complexity of each project/ package was calculated and the correlation

between project complexity and individual risks is found to be positive. The highest

correlation was exhibited by

“Inadequate Safety provisions….” With a correlation coefficient of 0.413 and p-

value of 0.000. This is followed by “Delay in arranging construction equipment…”

with a correlation coefficient of 0.402 and p-value of 0.000. The lowest correlation

coefficient is found in “Inexperienced Contractor causing …..” with coefficient of

0.209 and p-value of 0.007. All other risks had a correlation in between this range.

Correlation was also found out between project complexity and the overall risk

potential for each project and it was found to be 0.434 with a p-value of 0.000. The

experts were of the opinion that the increase in complexity affects the visibility of

the project particularly for long term projects thus increasing its risk potential. This

205
finding enables us to conclude that there is a significant correlation that exists

between complexity of projects and the risk potential score which basically indicates

the criticality of risk.

iv) Influence of Risk Response Factors on Risk Response Options

On the basis of the responses on Risk Response Factors – Human as well as

Systemic, it was found that the response factors have statistically same level of

influence. Apart from the risks R12 (Inexperienced Contractor), R3 (Contractor

having inadequate workmen), R11 (Inadequate Project Planning), R21 (Increase in

Scope), R7 (Unrealistic time estimate), R1 (Delay in supply of eqpt. Parts), R5

(Delay in Approval of drgs& docs.), R2 (Inadequate Safety provision), R8 (Poor

Subcontractor), R17 (Not adequate skilled manpower) and R33 (Inadequate

Checking of interface) all other risks have shown that there is statistically no

difference between the two response factors on the risk response option. Even for

these risks only in case of some of the response options there were statistical

differences. For the two risks more prevalent in the brownfield projects i.e “Work

Fronts/ shutdown not being made available in time….” and “Unforeseen ground

condition …” it was found that for both the risk there is no statistical difference

between human response factor and systemic response factors for all the response

options. As far as the experts opinion is concerned the Risk Response Factors were

complementary to each other and their measure depended on the type of risk to be

responded. One of the experts was of the opinion that for critical risks both the

response factors were interdependent and hence have same level of influence. This

206
enabled the author to conclude that both the response factors were important when

one made his/her choice of a risk response option.

In addition to exploring the influence of these risk response factors on the risk

response individually, the influence of these risk response factors as a whole on each

of the response option was also studied. The results show that in overall basis the

human response factors are more influential than the systemic response factors in

case of three response option out of the five.

The two project cases also suggest that the response factors -both human and

systemic have influence but human response factors have more influence in

selecting the response option for manageing risk in a project.

v) Relationship of Risk Response Factors and Criticality of Risks

Generally the risk response factors have shown a high level of correlation with the

criticality of risks. However, in case of risks like “Unforeseen ground condition …”

and “Delayed Supply of equipment …” have shown very insignificant correlation in

case of systemic response factors. This may be due to the perception that systemic

factors have a very limited influence with respect to these risks. It has also been

observed that at an overall level the response factors have high correlation overall

project risk (Avg. Systemic Factors it is 0.435 with p-value 0.000 and for Avg.

Human Factors it is 0.499 with p-value 0.000). The interesting finding that comes

out is that the correlation of Human Response Factors is more than Systemic

Response Factors both at individual and overall level.

207
vi) Relationship of Risk Response Factors and Project Complexity

While studying the correlation between risk response factors and the complexity of

project it has been found that there is very insignificant correlation both in case of

Systemic and Human Response Factors. At an overall level Average Systemic

Response Factors and Average Human Response Factors had low level of

correlation with Project Complexity. The correlation coefficient for Average

Systemic Response factors is 0.197 with a p-value of 0.011 and for Average Human

Factors is 0.183 with a p-value of 0.018. This finding suggests that there is a very

insignificant level of correlation. This has also been supported by the experts one of

whom observed that complexity arises out of various factors which are independent

or have very limited dependence on risk response factors. Thus the correlation

between these response factors and complexity remained low.

5.3 Conclusions and Discussion

The conclusion of the present study is based upon the information obtained from the

literature and analysis of data collected in course of this research and finally supported

by the opinion of experts. The study was carried out with the objective of developing

some understanding about brownfield construction projects in steel plants in the

following areas so that one can manage the steel plant construction projects better.The

conclusion in each of these areas are given below:

208
• Risks in Brownfield Construction Projects in Steel plants

The analysis finally identified 16 critical risks in the brownfield construction

projects in steel plants. This included two risks which are mainly associated

with brownfield projects. The overall risk potential of the brownfield

construction project is found to be more than medium in the risk scale.

• Project Complexity and Risk Criticality

Project Complexity has a significant correlation with individual critical risks as

well as overall risk of a project. Thus for more complex project possibility

exists that the criticality of the same risk will be more.

• Risk Response Factors and Risk Response Options

There is statistically no difference in the relative influence of Risk Response

Factors on Risk Response Options for some of the risks i.e irrespective of the

chosen option the influence remains statistically same. However, for some risks

there are differences in the influence of the two risk response factors for some

of the risk response options but not in all the five options. Thus both the

response factors are important for the selection of a choice and action under the

choice of risk response action.

• Risk Response Factors and Risk Criticality

Risk Response Factors have exhibited a high level of correlation with Risk

Criticality which is determined by Risk Potential Score. Thus both Human

209
Response Factors and Systemic Response Factors influence goes up with the

increase in Risk Criticality. Further the higher level of correlation between

Human response Factors and Risk Criticality suggest that the respondents felt

that the Human Response Factors are more influential than Systemic Response

Factors.

• Risk Response Factors and Project Complexity

With respect to Project Complexity, the low correlation suggests that Response

Factors are more independent of the Project Complexity. Extending the idea , it

can be further concluded that the response factors are more sensitive to the

criticality of risks in a project than the complexity of the project itself.

5.4 Limitations of the Study

The present study has been carried out to provide some understanding about the risk

scenario of the construction projects in steel plants in India. As with any other research,

the study too had its own limitations which needs to be outlined here for the benefit of

the academicians and practitioners for posterity.

First limitation that was experienced was the general reluctance of executives of private

sector projects in responding to the questionnaire survey. Had the responses been more

from the private sector it could possibly have contributed more positively towards the

research findings. Even multiple methods of data collection could not garner much

response.

210
The study has also restricted itself to the brownfield construction projects in steel plants

and accordingly the responses were taken both in pilot survey and main survey from

the steel plant executives where brownfield construction projects have taken place.

This has limited the scope and greenfield projects which are also coming up remained

outside the periphery of this study.

The scope of the present study was limited to project owners of steel plants that consists

of project and plant executives who are associated with projects and executives of

consultant. The perspective of other stakeholders, like contractors, suppliers and others

could have added further dimensions to risk management in brown-field steel plant

construction projects .

5.5 Contribution of this research

This research study has endeavoured to make some significant contribution in the area

of construction project risk management related to steel plants. The research was

carried out with the objective of finding out and addressing the perceived gap in the

area of construction project risk management and to a limited extent on the practices

followed for risk management. The contributions are as detailed below:

A. Theoritical Contribution

The concept of project risk - its identification and assessment has been done according

to the available theories and literature. The critical risks identified and assessed in the

main survey includes risk which were also identified in the other studies conducted

earlier. However, the study also identified some risks which are typical of brownfield

211
project setting. The table 5.3 below shows the critical risks identified in the present

study and their mention in other studies.

Table 5.3: Critical risks identified in the present study and their mention in other
studies
Sl. Risks SPSS Risks identified in literatures
No. Risk
Id.
No.
1 Delayed Supply of R1 Chan & Kumarswamy, (1997), Zou, Zhang &
equipment/equipment parts Wang, (2006, 2007)
causing delay
2 Unrealistic time estimates of R7 Chan & Kumarswamy, 1997, Zou, Zhang &
activities and duration of the Wang, (2006), (2007), Banaitiene & Banaitis,
project causing time overrun (2012), Jayasudha&Vidivelli, 2016, Xiong
et. al (2017) and Chan et. al (2011)
3 Delay in approval of design and R5 Zou, Zhang & Wang, (2006), 2007, Xu et al,
drawings causing delay in (2010), Banaitiene&Banaitis, (2012),
project Jayasudha&Vidivelli, (2016), Xiong et. al
(2017) and Chan et. al (2011),
4 Contractor having inadequate R3 Zou, Zhang & Wang, 2006, 2007,
workmen to carry out work Doraiswamy et al, (2015) &Sambasivam&
resulting in delay. Soon (2007), Jayasudha&Vidivelli, 2016,
Xiong et. al (2017) and Chan et. al (2011),
Datta & Mukherjee, 2001
5 Poor Subcontractor performance R8 Zou, Zhang & Wang, (2006), 2007, Xu et al,
leading to time and cost overrun. (2010), Doraiswamy et al, 2015
&Sambasivam& Soon (2007)
6 Work Fronts/ shutdown not R16 Considered in discussion with experts
being made available in time
creating delay in the start of
activity, finally resulting in time
overrun.
7 Inadequate checking and R33 Suggested by respondents of pilot survey
interfacing among different
packages leading to rework and
time overrun
8 Contractor developed financial R6 Zou, Zhang & Wang, (2006), Banaitiene &
problems during the project Banaitis, (2012), Jayasudha&Vidivelli,
causing delay. (2016), Datta & Mukherjee, (2001)
9 Inadequate Safety provisions R2 Wang et al.2004, Zou, Zhang & Wang,
leading to accidents and (2006), Jayasudha &Vidivelli, (2016)
resulting in delay
10 Improper cost estimates (due to R4 Wang et al.(2004), Zou, Zhang & Wang,
lack of knowledge/ information (2006, 2007), Xu et al, (2010), Banaitiene &
gap) , resulting in cost overrun Banaitis, (2012), Xiong et. al (2017) and
Chan et. al (2011)
11 Inadequate Project Planning R11 Chan &K’swamy, (1997), Wang et al.(2004),
with poorly/ inadequately Zou, Zhang & Wang, (2006, 2007),
defined tasks and their Doraiswamy et al, (2015) &Sambasivam&
Soon (2007), Jayasudha&Vidivelli, (2016)

Contd.
212
requirement affecting the
project.

12 Increase in scope due to addl. R21 Chan &K’swamy, (1997), Zou, Zhang &
requirement causing cost and Wang, (2006, 2007), Doraiswamy et al,
time overrun (2015) &Sambasivam & Soon (2007)
Chan &K’swamy,
13 Unforeseen ground condition R20
Contd.(1997),
leading to delay in project Jayasudha&Vidivelli, 2016, Considered in
schedule. discussion with experts
14 Delay in arranging for necessary R27 Doraiswamy et al, 2015 &Sambasivam&
construction equipment/ cranes Soon (2007), Considered in discussion with
by the contractor. experts.
15 Inexperienced Contractor R12 Chan &K’swamy, (1997),
causing delay Banaitiene&Banaitis, (2012), Doraiswamy et
al, (2015) &Sambasivam & Soon (2007)
16 Not adequate skilled manpower R17 Chan &K’swamy, (1997), Zou, Zhang &
available for the project manager Wang, (2006, 2007), Doraiswamy et al,
in the project leading to (2015) &Sambasivam & Soon (2007)
inadequate supervision resulting
in lack of quality
(Compiled by Author)

Most of the critical risks identified in this study have also found mention in other

studies as is evident from the above table. However, risks like “Workfronts/ Shutdown

not being made available in time…” and “Unforeseen ground condition …” are typical

in a brownfield scenario which may not be encountered in greenfield projects. Large

construction projects in steel plants are usually divided into a number of small

projects/packages which are very much interlinked and in brownfield case such

interlinking on many occasions are with the existing facilities. This interfacing or lack

of it often generates risk. While identifying and assessing risks, the respondents felt

that the risk of “Inadequate checking of interface….”is equally applicable and relevant

to the brownfield projects in steel plants. Thus the study tried to address some of the

characteristic risks of brownfield construction projects over and above the other

common risks in construction projects.

The literatures in the area of construction project risks and project complexity have

progressed well over the years. However, their respective progress have taken paths

213
which are largely independent. Though some of the complexity attributes/ indicators

have found their place in the consideration of risks but as concepts their linkages have

not been observed in the available literature. Thus this study has made an effort to link

these two theoretical concepts. The positive correlation suggests that projects with

higher complexity will have their risks magnified .

The concept of risk response through the response strategies of Avoid, Transfer,

Mitigate and Accept (both active and passive) is available in almost all the literatures

relating to project risk management. In fact some of the literatures have even

highlighted some actions covering the above mentioned strategies. The previous

literatures on project risk management particularly in the area of construction projects

have not dealt with the factors responsible for the choice of and action under a specific

risk response. In categorizing the factors responsible for selection of a specific response

strategy and working under that strategy into two broad areas of Human and Systemic,

this study has made an attempt to visualize the relative importance of these factors in

influencing these risk response strategies.

B. Practical Contribution

The present study has important contribution through its findings for the construction

projects industry in general and brownfield construction projects in particular.

The findings of project risk management framework in organization has adequately

highlighted the absence of structured project risk management framework in most of

the organisations. The responses also highlighted the lack of documentation with

respect to the response plan. It has also been observed from the responses that the

periodicity of review of response plan has large variance- starting from no review to
214
half yearly review clearly indicating non-uniform level of risk management. Only one

organization out of the 8 organisations from where respondents are taken, have

structured process of risk management. This highlights the need for proper risk

management framework in organization for managing projects.

The fact that the results have shown similar importance for both systemic response

factors and human response factors in responding to risk leads to put thrust in two major

areas:

a) Skill Development

b) System Development

a) Skill development

The human factors in this study relates to three areas

i) Technical skill of the project manager and his project team – part of it is the

domain knowledge in the specific technical area in which project is coming

up. This may be possible either with the background of the project manager

or his team member in same technological area or it can be developed

through attending specific training programmes or through e-learning.

ii) Managerial skill of the project manager – this may be developed through

structured project management training programmes. Mentoring by seniors

may also be a helpful tool in this area of development.

iii) Leadership skill of the project manager – this may be developed through

structured leadership training programme or through mentoring by a leader.

215
b) System development

This area is quite an overlooked area where in most of the organization either

they lack a system or lack in proper implementation of the system. The present

study has considered three areas under systemic factors which requires system

development.

i) Proper Systems for monitoring, vendor selection, Changes, Approvals,

Payments – systems need to be developed for monitoring of project in

general and project risks in particular. Changes and Change Orders are

frequent incidence in large scale brownfield projects for various reasons.

Proper system for change and change order generation can help avoid or

reduce major risks of delay. In similar way systems for timebound approval

and payments upon completion can help in avoidance or reduction of several

risks.

ii) Provisions in contract / specifications/ terms and conditions – proper

provisions in contract or in terms and conditions can help in avoiding /

reducing many of the risks .In case of “Unforeseen ground condition…”

proper provisions in contract or a separate contract for ascertaining the

existing ground condition and presence of any underground facility will help

in reducing the probability and severity of impact of this risk substantially.

Provsion of fines in respect of Safety Violation in the Contract / terms and

Conditions will help in Avoiding / Mitgating the risk of Safety at Project

Sites.

216
iii) Availability of proper information system – Developing a proper project

information system and documentation can help in avoiding or successfully

transferring or even reducing the risk. Most of the time it is the lack of

documentation that leads to risk event taking place in projects. For the

typical brownfield project risks like “Unforeseen ground condition….” ,

“Workfront/ shutdown not being made available…” as well as for

“Inadequate Checking of interface…” development of proper information

system can go a long way in reducing their risk potential.

Documentation containing linkages among different pacakges as well as

existing facilities (in the form of Linkage Diagram) will help in managing

the risk of “Inadequate Checking of interface…..”.

Documentation in the form of “Risk Register” identifying and updating risks

in a project serves as a major tool for risk management. The presence of risk

register also requires its continuous review and updating.

Proper documentation of the “Lessons learned” in executing a project with

all risks encountered and actions taken to respond to the risks with the

resources deployed need to be carried out for all the projects. These Lessons

learned document provides a good support in identifying risks for similar

types of projects in future.

217
C. Social Contribution

Though to a very limited extent but the findings of the study has got some

implication at a larger social level. In the National Steel Policy, 2017 it has been

envisaged that India has to achieve a production level of 300 Million tonnes by

2030-31. In order to achieve this the organisations will need to augment their

existing production capacities, which can be made possible through brownfield

projects. This is due to the fact that getting land for greenfield projects will

gradually become impossible. Even the projects will be more complex in future

involving more sophisticated technology with more agencies coming in.

Therefore it will require more competent project managers and engineers and

more robust system to handle risks in such projects. The findings of the

influence of both human and systemic response factors on the choice of

response is a significant indicator of the human and systemic development in

the project management discipline to address this issue at a larger social or

national level.

5.6 Recommendation for further research

The research study has tried to capture some aspects project risks in brownfield

construction projects in steel plants but could not capture all the aspects of this type of

construction projects due to lack of time and due to limited scope. The areas where this

research can further span are given below:

218
i) The consideration of this research is based on brownfield construction

project in steel plants which has made the study limited to one area of

construction project. However, the validity of the findings can be extended

by carrying out similar research in other construction projects. This may

also help in finding out any possible variations in the results and the reasons

thereof.

ii) This study has established a positive correlation between project complexity

and criticality of risk. Further study can be conducted to analyse the causal

factor behind this relationship.

iii) This study has made a comprehensive analysis based on the Human

Response Factors and Systemic Response Factors at macro level. It will be

interesting to carry out a similar study considering the component of these

factors individually and finding out the influence of each of these

components on risk response. This will help the organization to specifically

address the relevant components effectively.

iv) The study has adopted project complexity as a lens through which it has

studied the risk criticality and level of risk response factor influence for

brownfield projects in steel plants. However, it is felt that more attributes

or indicators relevant to other construction projects may be identified to

have a better effectiveness of the same study in other construction projects.

The academic endeavor which began with the objective of identifying and managing

risks in brownfield construction projects in steel plants is a long and arduous one. The

present thesis is a miniscule attempt in contributing to the vast ocean of knowledge.

219
Yet the research has brought forth interesting findings that can contribute positively to

both the industry and academia at large. The thesis has tried to sustain the scope of

study in the realm of steel industry.

220

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy