ArticlePDF Available



Abstract and Figures

Tech transfer is a common methodology for transferring new products or an existing commercial product to R&D or to another manufacturing site. Transferring product knowledge to the manufacturing floor is crucial and it is an ongoing approach in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. Without adopting this process, no company can manufacture its niche products, let alone market them. Technology transfer is a complicated, process because it is highly cross functional. Due to its cross functional dependence, these projects face numerous risks and failure. If anidea cannot be successfully brought out in the form of a product, there is no customer benefit, or satisfaction. Moreover, high emphasis is in sustaining manufacturing with highest quality each and every time. It is vital that tech transfer projects need to be executed flawlessly. To accomplish this goal, risk management is crucial and project team needs to use the risk management approach seamlessly.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
Samaraj S.Thiyagarajan, PMP
Biogenn Corporation, Austin, Tx, USA, 78749
Tech transfer is a common methodology for transferring new products or an existing
commercial product to R&D or to another manufacturing site. Transferring product knowledge to the
manufacturing floor is crucial and it is an ongoing approach in the pharmaceutical and biotech
industry. Without adopting this process, no company can manufacture its niche products, let alone
market them. Technology transfer is a complicated, process because it is highly cross functional. Due
to its cross functional dependence, these projects face numerous risks and failure. If anidea cannot be
successfully brought out in the form of a product, there is no customer benefit, or satisfaction.
Moreover, high emphasis is in sustaining manufacturing with highest quality each and every time. It
is vital that tech transfer projects need to be executed flawlessly. To accomplish this goal, risk
management is crucial and project team needs to use the risk management approach seamlessly.
Keywords: Risk Management, Tech Transfer, Pharmaceutical, Biotech, Risk Assessment,
Risk Mitigation.
Pharmaceutical companies increasingly adopting acquisitions and mergers is becoming a
trend. One of the main goals after merger is to leverage the synergies of both companies and to do
that tech transfer projects are crucial (Teller J et al. 2014). With regulatory agencies increasing their
vigil on tech transfers, planning and executing these projects become more interdependent on
effective risk management. In pharmaceutical and biotech product life cycle, the process of
transferring product and process is becoming increasingly complex and cumbersome. To make the
transfer more thoughtful and metrics oriented, FDA had added numerous guidance and regulations
through CFR and QSR. High importance is given to Process Validation (PV) and clear guidance
wasissued by FDA in January 2011. FDA focuses to ensure variability of process and parameters are
controlled and sufficient in the face of the rigors of a commercial production environment. Also, a
ISSN 0976-6502 (Print)
ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.2230 (Calculated by GISI)
© I A E M E
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
critical aspect to measure the successes of transfer projects is to verify parameters that are
established during development are holding as developed and confirmed parameters, even at the
scale up manufacturing.
For executing successful transfer of the product and process from one site to another site
requires an extensive and adequate risk management process. With squeezing margins and reduced
profits, it is imperative to execute and sustain transfers with pristine quality (Thamhain H. 2013). For
achieving the goal of successful transfers, pharma companies are increasingly adopting several
project management strategies. A core strategy that needs to be developed and executed efficiently is
risk management. A robustly developed product if not transferred with meticulous care will lead to
several production and regulatory issues along the life cycle of the products.
To understand the risks, it is critical to know how risks are categorized. Risks are categorized
as known risks and unknown risks (Samaraj S T. 2014). Known risks are the ones that can be
identified, analyzed and risk mitigation strategy can be established beforehand. The alternative to
this is the unknown risks, which may present itself at any point in the project. To handle this type of
risk, the transfer team needs to be prepared (Krane H P et al. 2012)
This article discusses about optimal risk management strategies for each phase of the tech
transfer project. In order to develop a successful strategy, potential risks need to be enumerated,
analyzed and registered by the project team (Kutsch E and Hall M. 2009). A comprehensive risk
management plan will be drafted. The team uses various risk management tools to identify, analyze,
and register the risks. Risk mitigation is brainstormed and executed. Each phase of the tech transfer
project has several potential risks. Successful identification of all potential risks is the first step in a
more complex endeavor.
For an organization to turn its mission into a meaningful purpose, the only vehicle exists is
“project”. Hence, project planning and initiation is the foremost pivotal task for an organization. In
particular, high risk projects like tech transfer in pharmaceutical industry need to be planned to
utmost usefulness without any room for error (Teller J. 2013). It is critical to understand the risks of
inadequate planning. Most management in pharma or biotech industry is mainly concerned about the
bottom line. It is common there is much oversight on what pharmaceutical products transfer project
entails. Many innovative products suffered in the upstream manufacturing after they were
transferred. One of the main reasons is the execution of the projects without complete planning and
understanding of the risks associated (Teller J. et al. 2014). A common risk, which lead to project
failure is; putting together a plan without understanding the sending and the receiving (pitching and
catching site) site’s culture, facility requirements, regulations, time constraints, budget and scope of
the project. These risks were not fully identified, or even if identified, they were not characterized
and assessed for its occurrence and its impact. To make a project successful, risks associated project
planning need to be clearly identified and addressed.
An important factor for any project, irrespective of industry, is the project schedule, without
which there is no metrics to measure. In tech transfer projects, a high level project schedule will be
developed initially with very little information about the scheduled activities. Risks of this approach
need to be captured or assessed during the planning stage (Kuchta D. 2014). A transfer project can be
as efficient as only when the project schedule developed with an understanding of known risks and
having a contingent plan based timeline for tackling the unknown risks. Once the project is initiated
and project team formed and the transfer activities are understood, the team develops detail task
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
based schedule. The detail work breakdown structure is compiled; the team then establishes a more
task level timeline. Few of issues and risk during this process includes the sponsors of the project are
totally unaware of the operating mechanisms in both sending and receiving sites. Failure of the team
to comprehensively understand the scope and the actual work required to execute the project on time.
Few failures based on the historical data includes: Failure in terms of not having a contingency plan
for mitigating any unforeseen issues (Yang Q Lu et al. 2014). Inadequate time scheduled for dealing
with regulatory, environmental, and other problems. Team’s unfamiliarity with the products and
process is a risk.Failure to have clear-cut milestones and gate reviews in the project schedule will
lead to project not following the track for completion (Khamooshi H and Golafshani H. 2014). A
common pitfall during the scheduling is to understand the market demand for the products that are in
the transfer pipeline, leaving the business with either short supply in the market. It is crucial for the
project team to understand risks of this nature and it will make the project team to navigate the
project more successfully.
There is no formal risk assessment for the team formation, but this as crucial as any other
factor to the success of the transfer project. Upper management’sfailure to take the cultural
difference between the sending and receiving sites in its perspective may result in numerous issues
after the products were transferred (Zhang J and Wei W X 2012).Risks of not having a complete
representation from impacted departments should be assessed. Some of the prevalent risk associated
with the transfer project team involves;failure of the team to understand the culture difference
between the sending and the receiving sites.Project manager not understanding the operational
differences between the two sites will be a risk.Lack of motivation and engagement could also be a
potential risk factor for successfully completing the project (Fernandes G and Ward S.2014). This
risk will rate high in risk analysis, because as there may be some potential for job loss in the sending
site. This will de-motivate the team members and prevent them from imparting their full knowledge
to the receiving site. Especially if the subject matter specialists arenot cooperating,the transfer
process may suffer significantly. Risk assessment and risk mitigation steps should be focused to
resolve this problem.
Pharmaceutical tech transfer projects cannot be executed with high success, unless a
complete gap assessment is performed (Pedram Alaedini et al. 2007). Gap assessment is to identify
the gaps between the sending sites and the receiving sitein the areas indicated in the figure 1.
Without knowing the existing difference for all the aspects shown in the figure 1, a transfer project
cannot be completed successfully. It is a potential form of risk assessment. Certain projects may not
have any form of gap assessment. These projects may have a hard time in keeping the project on
track as new challenges occur at every stage. In some instance, the project team realizes the
importance of understanding the gap,and will then initiate the process midpoint in the transfer
(Wiliam Schmidt and Ian Uydess. 2011). For any tech transfer projects, mainly transfer between
sites, this is a critical step in the project. Risks or weakness in this process needs to be identified. The
incomplete nature of the gap assessment process and how it could potentially impact the project and
process during and after the transfer is crucial for avoiding any unforeseen challenges.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
One of the foremost tasks in project planning and execution is to create a detailed process
map for all the parts that will be transferred. Process maps are an excellent source for identifying the
risks at each and every step of the process. Failure to develop a process map or a map that did not
capture all relevant and necessary steps in the process will create problems for the receiving team
(Bikash Chatterjee and Mark Mitchell. 2012). As high emphasis is given to LEAN manufacturing
and more and more pharmaceutical companies adopting that approach shed light on the importance
of “Value Stream Map’, whichin addition to the process map significantly reduces risks. A transfer
team should comprehend the risks of not utilizing both these vital tools for their benefit. Like any
other aspects in the transfer project, risks that were not identified, analyzed and mitigated will result
in considerable constraint for the success of the tech transfer. Value stream maps serve as a great
deal in identifying the non-value add activities, also, assess and minimize risks from eliminating
those non value add activities.
More importantly, and often overlooked aspect in the tech transfer project is the foot print of
the sending site and the comparative assessment of the receiving site. Often times, the management
when assessing the synergies, they form the opinion about the ease of adaptation or modification of
the footprint at the receiving site, but they fail to understand the extent to which the
receivingorganization can be flexible (Lam Wei Chak Joseph. 2007). Even if the receiving site can
be adapted to the requirements, a thorough assessment of financial requirements to eliminate any
risks should be properly budgeted in the project. Project teams should be able to identify and
mitigate these risks, failure to capture and act upon these risks will lead to project overrunning the
budgeted costs. Few critical risks identified from the past projects are:
Risks from facility floor plan not conducive for certain manufacturing process flow.
Risk from suboptimal environmental factors like temperature, humidity, airflow.
Risks due to potential natural uncertainties like tornado, snow, wild fire, floodingetc., which
may threaten the normal operations of the plant.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
Access and transport facilities to the plant.
Risks including available recycling and waste disposal facilities.
Risks involving facility sanitation and cleanliness, especially if the transferred product is
GMP manufacturable quality.
Product characterization is an important aspect of a transfer project, both from R&D and
from other commercial sites. If the product transferred lacks an adequate characterization, it assumes
significant risks in terms of product manufacturability, safety to users, and regulatory compliance
(Butler M S 2004). Few critical risks that project team needs to identify during the transfer activities
include, but not limited to are: risks due to inadequate product characterization with respect to
product requirements and Target product profile.The team need to be aware of the risk from
incomplete transfer of product stability studies and related data. In some instance, receiving site may
not perform an adequate product physical characterization, especially for API and filler
materials.Often times, characterization of molecular and particulate aspects of the products will not
be fully vetted in the receiving site;thesejeopardize the continuous manufacturing of the products
without any failure in in-house and in the field (Clarke, G S 1994).Raw materials availability and
characterizations of their impurities and their impact on the final performance of the products need to
be elucidated and both teams should understand the risks.Due to frequent mergers and transfers,
critical information like PRD, Trace matrix, voice of the customers could be lost or unavailable from
the database.
The core of the transfer is transferring the process efficiently so that any manufacturing unit
can adapt it. Due to the nature and significance of this step, the risks assessment becomes an inherent
and important process in this phase of tech transfer project (Riley C M and Rosanske T W.
1996).Critical risks that we normally assess include the following:
Risks of failure to develop a robust process in the first place.
Risks including process, not able to withstand the variance in the inputs.
Risks including the adapting of the process to achieve the specification required.
Failure due to developing a process that might be inundated with numerous non value add
The risksof having the flow of the process, not suitable for the receiving site layout.
Risks from the broken process with low capability index, resulting in producing more failed
Risks from fixing the process that results in utilizing resources more than planned.
Inadequate development of the master validation plan, resulting in failed validation.
Risks of not addressing the regulatory requirements in the validations.
Due to timeline constraints, performing a less number of process validations than the standard
three batch requirement.
Risks of validation providing ambiguous or unreliable data.
Risk resulting from inadequate cleaning validations.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
Transferring analytical method and quality control methods need to be given more attention.
Developing test methods are an important process during the product development. Not having a
suitable method will either result in accepting bad lots as good lot and shipping them to the customer,
or rejecting a good lot as bad. Both these events will affect the business. In the first instance, bad lot
mistakenly passed as good lot and released in the field will eventually fail at the customer’ s hand,
making the customer unhappy and creating product recall and regulatory warnings (Green J M.
1996). On the other hand, rejecting a good lot as a bad lot after an in house testing will result in a
business losing revenue, impacting the bottom line. It is utmost important to understand the risks
involved in analytical transfer. Critical risks include the following.
Risks resulting from a process not well characterized for the receiving site to incorporate into
their process flow.
Failure to identify bottleneck in the sampling and testing process like the methods past
performance, the familiarity of the receiving site with the testing process.
Risk of testing method developed may not efficiently discriminate between good and bad
products resulting in consumer risk, or business risk.
Risks associated with the variability of the assay.
Manufacturing, testing protocols, SOPs: For any successful tech transfer projects, it is crucial
to transfer the knowledge in pristine condition. It is also the common source of variation between the
sending and the receiving sites. Every organization will have different template and documents
style, and even different language. It makes transferring documents a more challenging process. In
addition to the different format and language, sites may have different document management
systems like SAP, E1, Agile, and many other. The project team needs to understand the risks for the
manufacturing. Risk analysis and mitigation need to be planned. There are also some other risks like
risks including instructions not explicitly stated for the operator to carry out without any room for
interpretations.Risks including calculation errors, resulting in potential formulation errors, which
could lead to potential recalls, if not captured in testing.
Equipment’s are a critical part of the transfer process. In depth IQOQ protocols need to be
developed. Risks are assessed; includinga greater risk is the instrument capability and variability.
Risks are assessed for the instrument gage and their precision to tolerance. Risks are understood by
running MSA on the instrument to understand the variability provided by the instrument to the total
process variability. Risks including cost of upgrading the instrument to meet the standards.
Major risks in any transfer projects that require regulatory approval is failing to provide data
and follow the guidelines required for FDA submission. Any risks in the above category may have a
cascading effect on the regulatory submissions and the sustainability of the transfer.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
As the risks are identified, the transfer team assesses them to understand their impact on the
success of the tech transfer and sustained manufacturing of the products. Several approaches have
been identified. The team can use both qualitative methods and quantitative methods. Qualitative risk
analysis: Team can use risk probability and impact assessment. Brain storming, Monte Carlo
analysis. Delphi techniques (PMBOK Guide. 2013). The team need to do a SWOT analysis. The
team can use Failure mode effect analysis. Risks can be ranked based on the severity and
Figure 2: FMEA Failure mode and effect analysis helps team to identify failure modes, severity for
the failure mode, effects of the failure and residual risk monitoring.
Evaluation Method
Figure 3: Impact analysis for each failure mode is assessed based on severity
The project team based on the risk analysis need to plan for risk responses and risk mitigation
strategies. Commonly adopted risk mitigation strategies are risk avoidance. If a certain risk ranks
high, team can make the decision to entirely avoid that particular task or strategy for avoiding the
risks in that approach. Alternatively a tech transfer team can either mitigate risks by identifying a
solution or identifying a root cause approach.
Figure 4: Levels of risk acceptability
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
Risk identification, analysis, and mitigation is an iterative process. Irrespective of project
types and industry, risk management is inherent to the success of the projects. Highly regulated
industry like pharmaceutical and biotech risk management guidance is formulated by the regulatory
agencies like FDA and other EU agencies. Risk management is more crucial for the tech transfer
projects to prevent any failure in the future at the manufacturing.
[1] Besner C. and Hobbs B. 2012. An empirical identification of project management toolsets
and a comparison among project types. Project Management Journal, 43 (5) 24-46.
[2] Bikash Chatterjee and Mark Mitchell. 2012 A Framework for Technology Transfer to Satisfy
the Requirements of the New Process Validation Guidance: Part 2.
[3] Butler M. S. 2004. The role of natural product chemistry in drug discovery. Journal of natural
products, 67(12), 2141-2153.
[4] Chuing Loo, Abdul-Rahman S H Wang C. 2013. Managing external risks for international
architectural, engineering, and construction (aec) firms operating in gulf cooperation council
(gcc) states. Project Management Journal, 44 (5) 70-88.
[5] Clarke G. S. 1994 The validation of analytical methods for drug substances and drug products
in UK pharmaceutical laboratories. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 12(5),
[6] De Bakker K, Boonstra, A and Wortmann H. 2011. Risk management affecting IS/IT project
success through communicative action. Project Management Journal, 42 (3) 75-90.
[7] Deng X, Pheng L S, and Zhao X. 2014. Project system vulnerability to political risks in
international construction projects: the case of Chinese contractors. Project Management
Journal, 45 (2) 20-33.
[8] Fernandes G, Ward S and Araj, M. 2014. Developing a framework for embedding useful
project management improvement initiatives in organizations. Project Management Journal,
45(4) 81-108.
[9] Khamooshi H and Golafshani H. 2014. EDM: Earned Duration Management, a new approach
to schedule performance management and measurement. International Journal of Project
Management, 32 (6) 1019-1041.
[10] Krane, H P Olsson, N O E and Rolstad ÑS A. 2012. How Project Manager Çôproject owner
interaction can work within and influence project risk management. Project Management
Journal, 43 (2) 54-67.
[11] Kuchta D. 2014. A new concept of project robust schedule. Use of buffers. Procedia
computer science 31, (0) 957.
[12] Kutsch E and Hall M. 2009. The rational choice of not applying project risk management in
information technology projects. Project Management Journal, 40 (3) 72-81.
[13] Lam W C J. 2007 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,925. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
[14] Loftus B T and Nash R A 1984. Pharmaceutical process validation.
[15] Morris P. 2013. Reconstructing project management reprised: A Knowledge Perspective.
Project Management Journal, 44 (5) 6-23.
[16] Pedram Alaedini, Ronald D. Snee and Brian, Hage W. 2007 Technology Transfer by Design
The next stage in operational advantage.
International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 5, Issue 8, August (2014), pp. 01-09 © IAEME
[17] Samaraj S. Thiyagarajan. 2014. A perspective of risk assessment for product developments in
biotechnology and pharmaceutical products. International journal of management
(IJM).volume: 5, issue: 7:44-50.
[18] Teller J. Kock A and Gem HG. 2014. Risk management in project portfolios is more than
managing project risks: a contingency perspective on risk management. Project management
journal, 45(4) 67-80.
[19] Teller, J. 2013. Portfolio risk management and its contribution to project portfolio success: an
investigation of organization, process, and culture. Project Management Journal, 44 (2) 36-51
[20] Thamhain H. 2013. Managing risks in complex projects. Project Management Journal, 44 (2)
[21] Van Leeuwen J. F et al. 2009 "Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical
validation." Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis 50.5 (2009): 1085-1087.
[22] Warren Adis Analysis of FDA’s Risk Assessment Methodology at Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Sites, Analysis of FDS’s Risk Assessment Methodology.
[23] Wiliam Schmidt and Ian Uydess. 2011 Keys to Executing a Successful Technology Transfer
By: Pharmaceutical Technology, Volume 35, pp. s42-s46.
[24] Yang Q Lu T YaoT& Zhang B 2014. The impact of uncertainty and ambiguity related to
iteration and overlapping on schedule of product development projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 32 (5) 827-837.
[25] Zhang H. 2011. Two schools of risk analysis: A review of past research on project risk.
Project Management Journal, 42 (4) 5-18.
[26] Zhang J. and Wei W X 2012. Managing political risks of Chinese contracted projects in
Libya. Project Management Journal, 43 (4) 42-51.
Full-text available
In times of globalisation and post-pandemic, it is the availability of advanced technologies , their effective use is a determining factor in economic growth. The process of transferring innovative technologies is associated with a significant level of risk, which negatively affects the economic, social and technical, and technological development of the economy of any country in the world. Thus, the study aims to develop an algorithm for managing key risks that arise in the exchange of technology in the scientific and educational environment in the context of the internationalisation of science. In turn, the risk analysis became the basis for developing proposals to eliminate probabilistic barriers, such as limited information, shortage of qualified personnel, low government activity, lack of business interest in high-cost and high-risk science-intensive projects, and the uncertainty of potential demand for new technology among consumers. The hypotheses proposed by the authors proved that educational collaborations, marketing intelligence, and the use of professional networking platforms are both sources of potential risks for technology transfer in scientific circles and the driver of its development. The theoretical and practical value of the research results is that they allow forming a theoretical and practical basis for the formation of the methodological paradigm of risk management of internationalisation of technology transfer, taking into account the peculiarities of the domestic economy and global challenges.
Full-text available
We propose a new concept of a robust project schedule. The concept is based on the application of time buffers, whose length is known only to the project manager or even only to higher level decision makers, but not to the activity executors, so that the student syndrome does not influence the project realization to a too high extent. The buffers are inserted after each project activity and after each project stage. The role of the buffers is to ensure that delays in the execution of individual activities and stages of single projects do not influence the execution of other projects in the same organization, thus the buffers support a smooth multi project management. The size of buffers should be a function of the features of individual project activities and project stages. This should be judged by experts. We assume that the experts express their opinion as to the satisfying limits of buffer sizes. On the other hand, as buffers prolong the scheduled project completion time, another expert group give the opinion as to the satisfying limits for the scheduled project completion. A model is formulated which determines a compromise schedule, which ensures a satisfying robustness of resource assignments to project activities and stages and at the same time a not too long project makespan. The expert opinions are modeled by means of fuzzy numbers.
Full-text available
This paper provides an insight on risk assessment, which is a component of risk management. Risk assessment is an essential process during the product developments phase of biotechnological and pharmaceutical products. Risk management is an iterative process. It starts from project scoping and completesupon projectfinish. Basically, risk are categorized as known risks and unknown risks. Risk assessment is the first stage of the risk management followed by risk evaluation, and developing a risk management strategy to monitor and mitigate risks. Ideally in any project scenario, risks will be high during the project initiation phase and reduce as project enters into later stages. This paper discusses the process of risk assessment for each phase of the developmental stage of new products. In summary, for successful execution of projects, product development needs adequate risk assessment strategy.
Full-text available
This paper describes the quantitative analysis phase of an exploratory study to identify useful project management improvement initiatives and factors contributing to their successful embedment in organizations. A preliminary framework, based on a literature review and a series of interviews with practitioners, was tested via a questionnaire, which elicited 793 responses from project management practitioners worldwide. The paper focuses on factor analyses of the questionnaire responses, addressing issues of construct validity and reliability. The resulting final framework highlights 15 key project management improvement initiatives and 26 embedding factors grouped by the factor analyses into three project management improvement initiative themes and six embedding themes.
Dealing effectively with risks in complex projects is difficult and requires management interventions that go beyond simple analytical approaches. This is one finding of a major field study into risk management practices and business processes of 35 major product developments in 17 high-technology companies. Almost one-half of the contingencies that occur are not being detected before they impact project performance. Yet, the risk-impact model presented in this article shows that risk does not affect all projects equally but depends on the effectiveness of collective managerial actions dealing with specific contingencies. The results of this study discuss why some organizations are more successful in detecting risks early in the project life cycle, and in decoupling risk factors from work processes before they impact project performance. The field data suggest that effective project risk management involves an intricately linked set of variables, related to work process, organizational environment, and people. Some of the best success scenarios point to the critical importance of recognizing and dealing with risks early in their development. This requires broad involvement and collaboration across all segments of the project team and its environment, and sophisticated methods for assessing feasibilities and usability early and frequently during the project life cycle. Specific managerial actions, organizational conditions, and work processes are suggested for fostering a project environment most conducive to effective cross-functional communication and collaboration among all stakeholders, a condition important to early risk detection and effective risk management in complex project situations.
Previous research has found supporting evidence of a positive relationship between project risk management and project success, but literature on how risk management is applied to and integrated with project portfolios has been scarce. Based on a literature review, a comprehensive conceptual model is developed, which highlights the three components of portfolio risk management: organization, process, and culture. This study investigates their linkage to portfolio success, mediated through risk management quality, and, therefore, provides principles for more effective portfolio risk management. The developed framework can be used for further empirical research on the influence of portfolio risk management and its success.
Project risk management aims at reducing the likelihood of project failure. To manage risk in project portfolios, research suggests adopting a perspective that is wider than the individual project risk. The results from a hierarchical multiple regression analysis on a sample of 177 project portfolios suggest that formal risk management at the project level and integration of risk information at the portfolio level are positively associated with overall project portfolio success. Simultaneous risk management at both levels increases this positive effect. Furthermore, risk management at the project level is more important for R&D-dominated project portfolios, whereas the integration of risk information is more important with high levels of turbulence and portfolio dynamics.
Inherent interest conflicts between a project management team and project owner are often neglected in project risk management. Risk management by the project management team basically focuses on project short‐term survival, or project success toward handover to the customer, while for the project owner, strategic success should be more important. To see how this takes place in and influences real projects, seven large projects were studied, and interaction in project risk management between the project owners and project management team was examined for each project. The study revealed that the main focus in the studied projects was on operational risks, even within the project owner's set of high‐priority risks.
International projects involve both uncertainties raised domestically and external risks in international transactions. Through a questionnaire survey and case studies among architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) firms operating in the Gulf, this study found 36.5% external risk factors that should be contemplated before the award of contracts and 53.9% afterward to ensure smooth running. An external risk breakdown structure (E‐RBS) and a framework for foreign AEC firms operating in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states were developed for users to identify and respond to external risks in a more systematic manner. International firms outside Malaysia are strongly advised to use the framework for risk forecasting and mitigation when operating in the Gulf.
This article presents the results of an empirical investigation of project management practice. Practice is investigated through the study of the extent of use of a large number of practices, tools, and techniques specific to project management. A sample of 2,339 practitioners participating in a large‐scale international survey is used for this article. The sample size and the diversity of contexts in which the respondents are working render the analysis feasible and the results reliable. The data is analyzed to identify patterns of practice. More specifically, using principal component analysis, the research identifies patterns that demonstrate that practitioners use project management tools and techniques in groups or “toolsets.” A brief attempt is made to compare results with A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (PMI, 2008) Knowledge Areas and Process Groups. The article also shows how practice varies with the management of different types of projects: engineering and construction; business and financial services; information technology (IT) and telecommunications; and software development projects. The identification of these variations has important consequences for practice and for the study of practice.