No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Project risk: Systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach
... The authors' detailed analyses of 10 major engineering projects clearly show that it is the interaction between different types of risk that can cause the most damage to a project (Williams et al, 1997; Eden et al, 2000; Eden et al, 2005). Indeed, simply categorizing the risks can be extremely unhelpful because the categories may be viewed as independent of each other. ...
... makes it easier to 'slice' the statements in various ways, view them with as much or little context as necessary, and carry out analysis of their properties. This is in contrast to one of the limiting factors of PRRs, which has been the difficulty of dealing with a larger degree of complexity and recognizing risks as a network (Williams et al, 1997). As a consequence of recognizing the need for a wider range of risk categories (and therefore events) to be included, along with explicit attention to their systemicity, the idea of developing a 'Risk Filter' was conceived and developed, to evaluate risks in projects, to 'filter' out those projects requiring further analysis, and to lay the foundation for that analysis. ...
... From this, it was possible to identify recurring risks that had had a huge disruptive influence on projects. Additionally, other techniques such as scenario exploration (Williams et al, 1997) were used to extrapolate a range of different possible and plausible consequences of risk events and also to determine whether or not risk events should be bundled (portfolios) together. ...
... The authors' detailed analyses of 10 major engineering projects clearly show that it is the interaction between different types of risk that can cause the most damage to a project (Williams et al, 1997; Eden et al, 2000; Eden et al, 2005). Indeed, simply categorizing the risks can be extremely unhelpful because the categories may be viewed as independent of each other. ...
... makes it easier to 'slice' the statements in various ways, view them with as much or little context as necessary, and carry out analysis of their properties. This is in contrast to one of the limiting factors of PRRs, which has been the difficulty of dealing with a larger degree of complexity and recognizing risks as a network (Williams et al, 1997). As a consequence of recognizing the need for a wider range of risk categories (and therefore events) to be included, along with explicit attention to their systemicity, the idea of developing a 'Risk Filter' was conceived and developed, to evaluate risks in projects, to 'filter' out those projects requiring further analysis, and to lay the foundation for that analysis. ...
... From this, it was possible to identify recurring risks that had had a huge disruptive influence on projects. Additionally, other techniques such as scenario exploration (Williams et al, 1997) were used to extrapolate a range of different possible and plausible consequences of risk events and also to determine whether or not risk events should be bundled (portfolios) together. ...
... However, this assumption does not work in practice with an increasing body of researchers arguing that risks have significant implications for one another rendering management more difficult (Williams, 2000). For example, Williams et al (1997) argue that 'the impacts that some risks have might compound the impact of others -so the effect of two risks might be more than the sum of the two individual effects thus reflecting systemicity ' (p.345). This view is clearly presented in work by Eden et al. (2005) who describe the non-linear growth as 'amoebic'. ...
... Once the rate of participants' contributions had significantly slowed down and it was perceived that they had exhausted their reservoir of risks, the process moved on to explore how the risks impacted one another. This part of the process facilitates consideration of the systemicity of the risks (Howick et al, 2006;Ackermann et al, 2007;Williams et al 1997) highlighting that risks do not occur in isolation from one another and reflecting the connective nature of the PMBOK definition. As already noted, it is often the interaction between different types of risk that can cause the most damage to a project Eden et al 2000;Williams et al 1995). ...
... This decision model formalism requires the holistic risks identified to be classed and defined as a decision, uncertainty or consequence variable from the perspective of SHEPD as the decision-maker. We are exploring how to translate the risk maps created by multiple-stakeholders into a formal decision model as well as extending our analysis to elicit subjective probability judgements (Bedford et al, 2006;Quigley et al, 2008;Williams et al, 1997) from key stakeholders to populate the decision model. Thus the workshops and workshop processes have provided a powerful starting point in terms of thinking about the risks of the project, and a good basis upon which to ensure that the changing nature of a wide range of risks are considered throughout the life of the project. ...
As evidenced through both a historical and contemporary number of reported over-runs, managing projects can be a risky business. Managers are faced with the need to effectively work with a multitude of parties and deal with a wealth of interlocking uncertainties. This paper describes a modelling process developed to assist managers facing such situations. The process helps managers to develop a comprehensive appreciation of risks and gain an understanding of the impact of the interactions between these risks through explicitly engaging a wide stakeholder base using a group support system and causal mapping process. Using a real case the paper describes the modelling process and outcomes along with its implications, before reflecting on the insights, limitations and future research.
... Those in the project management field have highlighted the importance of taking account of the ramifications through such a chain of risks, where a single risk can have a greater impact beyond the immediate impacts of a risk [2,7]. Notably disruption and delay in major projects are consequences of systemic risk [8]. ...
Systemic risks are embedded in the complex networks of an increasingly interconnected world. Achieving the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2015 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development require that risk mitigation involves not only experts but ‘power-brokers’ – those with the power to act. Impactful risk assessment and mitigation development requires high levels of ownership of the assessment and mitigation strategies, and so needs to be done fast and involve relatively small amounts of the power-brokers time. This requirement means that the analysis of the risk system will need to be transparent and relevant. We describe a method employing causal mapping with experts and power-brokers stakeholders. These stakeholders interactively undertake a qualitative systemic risk assessment and subsequently develop and agree strategies for risk mitigation explicitly considering (i) the direct purpose of mitigation (the other risks that are likely to be at least partly mitigated – the risks that are directly linked from the mitigated risk), and also (ii) the negative goals that will be mitigated.KeywordsSystemic riskRisk systemicityRisk interdependenciesCascading effectsRisk mitigationDisaster risk reduction strategiesSendai Framework
... Similarly, White (1995) examines the deficiencies of PRA methods with regards to systems thinking while Ackermann et al. (2014) and Ackermann, Eden, Williams, and Howick (2007) highlight the need for a holistic and systemic approach to risk analysis to account for "risk systemicity." It refers to the idea that "the effect of two risks might be more than the sum of the two individual effects" (Williams, Ackermann, Eden, & Howick, 1997). ...
In decision and risk analysis together with operational research methods, probabilistic modelling of uncertainties provides essential information for decision-makers. As uncertainties are typically not isolated and simplifying assumptions (such as independence) are often not justifiable, methods that model their dependence are being developed. A common challenge is that relevant historical data for specifying and quantifying a model are lacking. In this case, the dependence information should be elicited from experts. Guidance for eliciting dependence is sparse whereas particularly little research addresses the structuring of experts’ knowledge about dependence relationships prior to a quantitative elicitation. However, such preparation is crucial for developing confidence in the resulting judgements, mitigating biases and ensuring transparency, especially when assessing tail dependence. Therefore, we introduce a qualitative risk analysis method based on our definition of conditional scenarios that structures experts’ knowledge about (tail) dependence prior to its assessment. In an illustrative example, we show how to elicit conditional scenarios that support the assessment of a quantitative model for the complex risks of the UK higher education sector.
... The first area is pre-project risk analysis. Risk analysis traditionally looks at risks individually, but looking at the systemicity in risks has clear advantages [59]. Firstly, the use of cause mapping techniques by an experienced facilitator, aided by software tools, is a powerful means of drawing out knowledge of project risk from an individual manager (or group of managers), enhancing clarity of thought, allowing investigation of the interactions between risks, and enhancing creativity. ...
... The development of the RSQ tool draws on previous attempts in the literature to move away from thinking about risks as if they are independent from each other, which is encouraged, for example, when using risk registers (Chapman and Ward 1997;Hull 1990;Mace et al. 2015;Patterson and Neailey 2002). The shift of perspective is towards considering how risks and their consequences affect one another: the systemicity of risks (Ackermann et al. 2007(Ackermann et al. , 2014Williams et al. 1997). Thus, the RSQ supports cities in improving their resilience by learning to appreciate the interactions between risks that they face. ...
This paper reports on a project in which a group support system (GSS) equipped with a causal mapping facility was used to acquire knowledge from experts in seven European cities in order to understand the systemicity of risks which cities may face. The practical constraints demanded that participants’ experience and wisdom about the city risk environment was collected in a short period of time: three 1-day workshops. The acquisition of knowledge posed a number of important epistemological challenges which are explored in our discussion. The GSS was faced with the need to (1) facilitate sharing of knowledge with others, (2) manage the complexity of expert knowledge, (3) acknowledge the time demands on experts, (4) manage and merge multiple perspectives, and (5) acknowledge the subjectivity of knowledge in this domain. By discussing how the GSS process attended directly to these epistemological issues and to methodological considerations that linked to these issues, the paper contributes to a better understanding of the application of GSS for knowledge acquisition, particularly in comparison with other possible methods.
... Specifically, further theory and methodology development are needed to embrace the conceptualisation of model-driven GDS interventions as (play)(work) and to capture and analyse the richness of cognition-in-(social)-action through a more in-depth investigation of group decision support practices. The introduction of new concepts to the field of group decision and negotiation has the potential to enable novel and distinct ways of jointly thinking through complicated matters, as the example of the concept of systemicity illustrates (Ackermann et al. 2014;Williams et al. 2013). In this way, language is performative (Austin 1962;Searle 1969) and brings practices to life by establishing, maintaining and influencing relationships between people, objects and ideas in activity. ...
An integrative approach to theorising behavioural, affective and cognitive processes in model-driven group decision support (GDS) interventions is needed to gain insight into the (micro-)processes by which outcomes are accomplished. This paper proposes that the theoretical lens of situated affectivity, grounded in recent extensions of scaffolded mind models, is suitable to understand the performativity of affective micro-processes in model-driven GDS interventions. An illustrative vignette of a humorous micro-moment in a group decision workshop is presented to reveal the performativity of extended affective scaffolding processes for group decision development. The lens of situated affectivity constitutes a novel approach for the study of interventionist practice in the context of group decision making (and negotiation). An outlook with opportunities for future research is offered to facilitate an integrated approach to the study of cognitive–affective and behavioural micro-processes in model-driven GDS interventions.
... Recent research [14][15][16][17] indicates that it is the interaction and dynamics between different types of risk that can cause the most damage to, for example, a project or a city. Risk and stresses are likely to interact with one another and form a portfolio where the impact of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. ...
This paper presents the EU H2020 project Smart Mature Resilience, which takes advantage of the fact that many cities are committed to become increasingly resilient and have ongoing processes for urban resilience. Smart Mature Resilience develops resilience management guidelines based on a Resilience Maturity Model that engages a growing number of stakeholders and multi-level governance in order for cities to become vertebrae for society’s resilience backbone. In a dual approach, employing a systematic literature review of international resilience implementation approaches alongside group processes with experts, the Smart Mature Resilience project has developed a preliminary resilience maturity model consisting of five stages Starting, Moderate, Advanced, Robust and verTebrate (SMART) and a Systemic Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The SMART Resilience Maturity Model suggests two principal processes for the transition to resilience maturity: (1) A process of increasing engagement and collaboration with new stakeholder types, from local, to regional, to national to European in a growing resilience backbone, and (2) a process of quality improvement of policies for transitioning from a Safety-I to a Safety-II perspective (from risk assessment & mitigation to adaption to future surprises as conditions evolve).
KeywordsResilienceManagement guidelinesCritical infrastructuresNatural disastersSocial dynamicsMaturity modelRisk systemicity
... The first area is pre-project risk analysis. Risk analysis traditionally looks at risks individually, but looking at the systemicity in risks has clear advantages [59]. Firstly, the use of cause mapping techniques by an experienced facilitator, aided by software tools, is a powerful means of drawing out knowledge of project risk from an individual manager (or group of managers), enhancing clarity of thought, allowing investigation of the interactions between risks, and enhancing creativity. ...
... By shifting the focus from simply ranking variables and correlational analysis, researchers such as Williams et al. (1997), Love et al. (2002), Ogunlana et al. (2003), Howick (2005) and Boateng et al (2015), have demonstrated the complexities of project actuality, systemicity and performance. Specifically, Ackermann and Eden (2005) also studied the causal nature of delays and disruption on eight different projects with a total value in excess of $2 billion (none of the projects had a value less than $60 million). ...
Infrastructure cost overruns receive significant amount of attention in the academic literature as well as the popular press. The methodological weaknesses in the dominant approaches adopted to explain cost overrun causation on infrastructure projects are explored in this paper. A considerable amount of cost overrun research is superficial, replicative and thus stagnated the development of a robust theory to mitigate and contain the problem. Future research should move from single-cause identification and the traditional net-effect correlational analysis to a search for causal recipes through systems thinking and retrospective sensemaking to address the high-level interactions between multiple factors.
... The first area is pre-project risk analysis. Risk analysis traditionally looks at risks individually, but looking at the systemicity in risks has clear advantages [59]. Firstly, the use of cause mapping techniques by an experienced facilitator, aided by software tools, is a powerful means of drawing out knowledge of project risk from an individual manager (or group of managers), enhancing clarity of thought, allowing investigation of the interactions between risks, and enhancing creativity. ...
... In the instances referred to in this paper attention has been focussed on making sense in order to make a legal claim on the customer of major complex projects. Other work in the field of strategy making and strategic risk management has used similar approaches for managing the future Williams et al. 1997). In these circumstances Action Research is appropriate. ...
... In the instances referred to in this paper attention has been focussed on making sense in order to make a legal claim on the customer of major complex projects. Other work in the field of strategy making and strategic risk management has used similar approaches for managing the future Williams et al. 1997). In these circumstances Action Research is appropriate. ...
... For a recovery plan to be beneficial to an organization, it is necessary to understand the structure and the organization of both the business processes and the related IT units. Indeed, risk management research has shown that the interaction between different types of risks can amplify the damage to a business process and generate a crisis for the entire organization (Williams et al., 1997). Business disasters and crises are focusing events that trigger attention to a problem and its solution, and are generally accompanied by drawing negative attention to the firm and the underlying problem revealed by the event (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). ...
We present a multi-phased action research project conducted at the department of Information Management-Customer Support and Operations in a large multinational company. This department is in charge of IT service continuity and was asked to develop an IT response and recovery plan that had to be integrated within the organization's overall business continuity plan. The de-partment's key challenge was to develop a response plan which incorporates the perspectives of the business managers whose perception of the threats and associated risks differed significantly from that of the IT managers. To develop such a shared response plan, we used group support systems and cognitive mapping techniques to identify both stakeholder groups' perceptions of IT threats and risks. This allowed us to raise awareness in both groups for the other group's different perspectives. We aggregated the responses into a shared response and recovery plan, representing the views of both groups. Our research has made clear to the stakeholder groups involved the necessity of sharing information and developing awareness to formulate a shared disaster recovery plan for ensuring business continuity and recovery.
... For a recovery plan to be beneficial to an organization, it is necessary to understand the structure and the organization of both the business processes and the related IT units. Indeed, risk management research has shown that the interaction between different types of risks can amplify the damage to a business process and generate a crisis for the entire organization (Williams et al., 1997). Business disasters and crises are focusing events that trigger attention to a problem and its solution, and are generally accompanied by drawing negative attention to the firm and the underlying problem revealed by the event (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). ...
... Early applications included the representation of the thought processes behind foreign policy formation (Holsti 1976). Since then many applications have been in strategy studies (for example, Day et al 1987, Eden andSpender 1998, Kaplan andNorton 1996) and management science (for example, Williams et al 1997, Jenkins and Johnson 2001, Clarke and Mackaness 2001, Fuglseth and Grønhaug 2002. Although the collaborative construction of maps is not an essential part of the approach, group mapping is often adopted (Tegarden andSheetz 2003, Bryson et al 2004). ...
This paper examines the use of causal mapping as a means of modelling the way that activities may, or may not, contribute to the objectives of an organization. Among other benefits, it enables management information systems to be designed that allow a more accurate picture of the performance of an organisation to be drawn. Such maps have the advantage that they can be drawn collaboratively and thus assist in the building of organisational consensus.
... In the instances referred to in this paper attention has been focussed on making sense in order to make a legal claim on the customer of major complex projects. Other work in the field of strategy making and strategic risk management has used similar approaches for managing the future Williams et al. 1997). In these circumstances Action Research is appropriate. ...
This paper reflects upon the use of causal mapping supported by a Group Support System (GSS) in a particular legal setting. The mapping method and GSS tool was used for the forensic analysis of eight major engineering and construction projects where the contractor intended to claim significant compensation (typically in excess of $20m). Necessarily detailed records were kept of every aspect of the analyses and processes adopted. This paper is an examination and reflection upon analysis of these records, with particular attention to the process. The task of capturing the way in which participants (witnesses) in a project ‘make sense’ of a cost and time overrun is an important aspect of forensic analysis as they have an experience based perspective, that has often involved dealing with high levels of complexity as projects move from planned order through to what they describe as “absolute chaos”. In addition the requirement to account for, and be held responsible for, behaviors that that may in retrospect be seen as incompetent raises interesting issues in determining the validity of the data capture and analyses. Moreover, participants’ views regarding the complex causality of outcomes, reflected in the causal map, are tested through the use of a simulation model replicating the causal map. The implications of this approach as a research method for undertaking organizational research are thus considered by drawing upon experiences of using the approach to develop the case for litigation in several disruption and delay claims. In particular the paper addresses the issues related to defensiveness of participants, anonymity, accessing multiple perspectives in a group setting, organizational learning and the ‘changing of mind’ of participants, and developing an organizational memory.
... Proj Manag J 37(4): [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] ...
Glossary
Definition of the Subject
Introduction
Disruption and Delay
Analyzing D&D and Project Behavior
Cascade Model Building Process
Implications for Development
Future Directions
Bibliography
... This has been a growing area of interest amongst social scientists, related practitioners and consultants and is evident in the number of publications [16,???,18-21]. MOC methods have been applied in research in a project context by Eden et al. [11] to study disruption and delays in projects; Williams [22] proposes using causal mapping and system dynamics to model complex projects; Williams et al. [23] used causal mapping to explore risks in projects; and Maytorena et al. [24] employed causal mapping to explore the process of risk identification in projects, to name a few. ...
Projects are complex temporary entities that exist to achieve an objective for the owner/client/sponsor. Whilst there are many systems and techniques used to progress project management, less is known about the way that the management of a project is understood by those involved. This paper explores a range of methodological approaches, drawn from the area of managerial and organisational cognition (MOC), employed to understand more fully and rigorously the broader attributes of the Management of Projects (MoP) beyond the more execution orientated Project Management (PM). The dataset used are 11 construction projects within the United Kingdom with varying levels of complexity, size and scope. By deploying methodologies such as computer-aided content analysis and causal mapping, the layers of complexity were first separated and then distilled. We conclude by reflecting on the value in adopting primarily qualitative methodologies to multi-organisational, case-based research enquiries.
... Project Risk Registers (PRR) can be seen as a repository of a corpus of knowledge or organisational memories where experiences about risks and responses are continuously recorded. However, the PRR fails to capture the inter-relationships between risks and the systemic structure within the risks [14]. This makes it an inadequate tool for the capture and representation of risks, and the basis for analysis and decision-making. ...
The shortcomings of current project risk management processes, tools and techniques, are identified and the case for the application of knowledge management philosophies and techniques to project risk management is made. A common language for describing risks based on a hierarchical-risk breakdown structure has been developed and it provides the basis for developing a sharable knowledge-driven approach to risk management. This defines generic risk and remedial action descriptive terms, which can then be stored in catalogues. These have been implemented in a database management system to act as a knowledge repository. A prototype system being developed to support the risk management framework is briefly discussed.
... The map is represented by concepts (distinct phrases) and links between concepts, creating a network, which communicates the nature of a problem. Although cognitive mapping has been used in the area of risk management [45], [46], [47] and in other fields that involve risk [44], [48], [49], [50], [51] its application to the problem of how project managers specifically identify risks in projects combined with an active information search methodology is novel. ...
The management of risks in projects is a growing area of concern. Both the identification and analysis phases of the risk management process are considered the most important, for they can have a big effect on the precision of the risk assessment exercise. Currently, it is assumed that project managers rely largely on experience to identify project risks. These decisions, influenced by individual perception and attitudes, are made primarily under conditions of uncertainty. Understanding how individuals respond to uncertain situations, therefore, requires an understanding of how individuals intuitively assess the situation they perceive, before expressing a response. The Project Risk Identification (Pro-RIde) project interviewed 51 project managers using active information search (AIS) as a data collection method and cognitive mapping as a data-capturing tool. Our results suggest that the role of experience in the risk identification process is much less significant than it is commonly assumed to be. By contrast, information search style, level of education and risk management training do play a significant role in risk identification performance. These findings suggest the potential for a more thorough approach to risk identification
... Critical Path activity networks are sequential and so on; systemicity is neglected. For example, the Pathways chapters on scope management, time scheduling and particularly resource scheduling deal with a decomposed project with little recognition of systemicity, and even in discussing risk, Davey [86] discusses how to manage individual risks, but the systemic nature of risk-structures [87] is not covered. In terms of Thompson's classical analysis of organisational dependencies [88], the structures allow pooled or sequential dependencies; However, Thompson's third type, reciprocal dependencies (allowing feedback relationships) is what particular contributes to complexity (even more so Van de Ven and Ferry's [89] extension to a fourth type, iterative co-ordination). ...
There has been much prescriptive work in project management, exemplified in various "Bodies of Knowledge". However, experience shows some projects overspending considerably. Recently, systemic modeling research into the behavior of large projects explains project oversponds by "systemic" effects and the (sometimes counterintuitive) effect of management actions. However, while this work is becoming more widely known, embedding the lessons in project-management practice is not straightforward. The current prescriptive dominant discourse of project management contains implicit underlying assumptions with which the systemic modeling work clashes, indeed showing how conventional methods can exacerbate rather than alleviate project problems. Exploration of this modeling suggests that for projects that are complex, uncertain, and time-limited, conventional methods might be inappropriate, and aspects of newer methodologies in which the project "emerges" rather than being fully preplanned might be more appropriate. Some of the current literature on project-classification schemes also suggests similar parameters, without the rationale that the systemic modeling provides, thus providing useful backup to this analysis. The eventual aim of this line of work is to enable project managers to choose effective ways to manage projects based on understanding and model-based theory.
Agile teams must deal with many risks to their software project's resources and schedule. This challenge is exacerbated in large-scale agile development by the increasingly specialized team roles with inherently different explanations of the software project's risks. Against this backdrop, we report an action case study of how an agile team can understand and manage different explanations of their project risks. We used the causal mapping technique to understand how a team's six different roles explain their software project risks and assessed these maps' usefulness with the team. From this action case study, we present two findings. First, causal mapping is useful for revealing role-specific explanations of software project risks in agile teams. Second, agile teams can use role-specific causal maps to juxtapose their explanations of software project risks. We discuss how these findings imply a caveat for agile teams seeking to understand and manage team-generalized software project risks and ignoring idiosyncratic explanations of software project risks.
We set out in this study to examine the mechanisms (specific knowledge management practices) required to operationalize service innovation readiness within public sector service delivery. Data is obtained from 150 service delivery managers drawn from public sector service organizations within the emirate of Sharjah. Sampling is undertaking utilizing a 38 factor knowledge management-focused service innovation readiness questionnaire developed from the literature. Analysis of the data is via variable ranking and multidimensional scaling (MDS). The findings of the study suggest the existence of four knowledge management-based imperatives which are construed as managerial mechanisms for public sector service innovation readiness. These are (i) ‘Knowledge core competence’ (knowledge as a key strategic asset) (ii) ‘Organizational structure’ (internal patterns of organizational communication, authority and relationships) (iii) ‘Responsiveness to change’ (propensity to engage in both purposeful and timely behavioral change in response to modulating stimuli), and (iv) ‘Innovativeness’ (relative earliness in adopting innovation). The findings lead to a service innovation readiness typology which is oriented towards ensuring that public sector entities are able to effectively and efficiently deliver innovative services that meet both operational mandates and national visions of service expectations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has activated hundreds of interdependent long-lasting risks across all sectors of society. Zoonotic diseases are on the rise, fuelled by climatic change, by encroachment and destruction of habitats, and by unsustainable practices. Risk assessment and management must be greatly improved to prevent even worse consequences than COVID-19 if the next pandemic is caused by an agent with higher infectiousness and lethality. Insights from a project on systemic pandemic risk management reveal that the interdependency of risks creates cascading effects mediated by millions of vicious cycles which must be addressed to gain control over a pandemic. We propose a method for systemic, cross-sectoral risk assessment that detects the myriad of causal influences resulting from the risks, allowing to identify and mitigate the most potent risks, i.e., those participating in the highest numbers of vicious loops.
Risk analysis is important for complex projects; however, systemicity makes evaluating risk in real projects difficult. Looking at the causal structure of risks is a start, but causal chains need to include management actions, the motivations of project actors, and sociopolitical project complexities as well as intra-connectedness and feedback. Common practice based upon decomposition-type methods is often shown to point to the wrong risks. A complexity structure is used to identify systemicity and draws lessons about key risks. We describe how to analyze the systemic nature of risk and how the contractor and client can understand the ramifications of their actions.
Purpose
– Relocation of utilities is a major source of delay in Indian infrastructure projects. This delay is particularly critical in road and bridge construction projects. The purpose of this paper is to identify the various factors and also the interrelationships between the factors which influence the delays in the relocation of utilities.
Design/methodology/approach
– Case studies were conducted on 11 road and bridge projects in India with varying levels of complexity and size. Factors causing relocation delays were identified using computer aided qualitative analysis methodology. Cognitive mapping technique was used to map the interrelationships between the factors and to identify the critical delay factors.
Findings
– Factors affecting delays were identified across two groups, namely, technical and organizational factors. The study offers insights into the kinds of interactions of factors that can lead to delays in a project. The critical factors causing delays were identified as slow response from utility agencies, difficulty in identification of underground utilities, lack of information on underground utilities and conflict between agencies.
Research limitations/implications
– The limitations of the study are that the interview respondents are not evenly distributed among the type of organizations which may have induced some bias in responses. The impact of the utility relocation delays on the overall project delay has to be detailed further.
Practical implications
– The interrelationships between factors has the potential to help the officials of highway department, contractors, utility agencies and others understand how various interactions/linkages of factors contributes to delays in utility relocations. Recommendations are provided for the practical use and to reduce the impact of delays.
Originality/value
– Utility relocation has received very little attention in the extant literature and this paper seeks to contribute to knowledge in this area by identifying the linkages between factors and the critical factors of utility relocation delays in India.
This article aims to reconnect project risk management with its roots in psychology and economics and thereby generate a cognitive approach to project risk management. While there has been widespread application of the tools and techniques of project risk management, and good practice has been captured in a large number of different standards and texts, few signs of improvement are apparent in project performance. The article suggest that the inappropriate use of project risk management techniques may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution here, and that we need to rethink project risk management from first principles. Starting from a presumption that project risk management is the essence of project management more generally, the article offers a review of some of the key contributions from psychology and economics that have shaped our thinking before presenting a cognitive model of project risk managing.
With the introduction of intermittent renewable generation, distributed energy storage and demand side management, distribution network developments are becoming ever more complex. Northern Isles New Energy Solutions (NINES), led by the Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution (SSEPD) and supported by Ofgen, aims to incorporate all of these elements into a combined active network management (ANM) scheme. This paper describes a risk management framework that has been developed to assist the managers of the NINES project deal with the multi-faceted challenges presented by large and complex projects. The process combines two parallel but interwoven activities; the first engages a range of stakeholders, using a group decision support system in facilitate the surfacing of risks and their ramifications, in a causal risk mapping process, while the second engages with the SSEPD team to elicit expert judgement regarding specific uncertainties so as to understand the likelihood of particular risks occurring. This in turn allows the consequences of the risks to be evaluated quantitatively and the implications to be more fully assessed by the project management team through a decision tree (DT) approach. While developed here specifically for NINES, the framework has potential across a range of complex project management situations.
Past empirical studies on risk conceptions in general management of developed countries provide compelling evidence to the discrepancy between practitioners' perspectives on ‘risk’ and the principles of the normative decision theory on which risk analysis tools are based. This study provides a similar investigation for a specific context of project management within a developing country setting. It aims at identifying stakeholders' perspectives on project risks in Indonesia and comparing them against assumptions of rational, normative theories and past findings from general management in developed countries. Two separate cross-sectional surveys were carried out with respondents composed of project contractors (n = 96, response rate = 38.4%) and clients (n = 99, rate = 69.7%), respectively. Empirical results identify significant gaps of risk-related concepts between project stakeholders' perspectives and the rational assumptions of the normative decision theories. For instance, risk is widely viewed by practitioners from the negative domain while the rational theory would suggest a more neutral perspective of risk. The pattern of findings is similar to those from previous empirical studies of developed countries within a general management context.
Project Risk Registers have been used extensively for many years. However, they do not account for the interaction between risks, for example, the occurrence of one risk exacerbating other risks or portfolios of risks being more significant than the sum of the individual risks. This leads to the need to consider 'risk systemicity' as a part of risk analysis. This paper reports on a specific case for a large multinational project based organization, one that the authors had been involved with in the analysis of a number of projects that had massive cost overruns. Following these analyses the organization was persuaded of the importance of risk systemicity. The organization therefore engaged the authors to develop a 'Risk Filter'. This filter is a tool for identifying areas of risk exposure on future projects and creating a framework for their investigation. The 'Risk Filter' is now used on all projects ever since its introduction; by the end of May 2003 it had been used by nine divisions, on over 60 major projects, and completed by 450 respondents. It is also used at several stages during the life of a project to aid in the risk assessment and management of each project, and contributes to a project database.
Engineering project managers often face a challenge to allocate tight resources for managing interdependent risks. In this paper, a quantitative framework of analysis for supporting decision making in project risk response planning is developed and studied. The design structure matrix representation is used to capture risk interactions and build a risk propagation model for predicting the global mitigation effects of risk response actions. For exemplification, a genetic algorithm is used as a tool for choosing response actions and allocating budget reserves. An application to a real transportation construction project is also presented. Comparison with a sequential forward selection greedy algorithm shows the superiority of the genetic algorithm search for optimal solutions, and its flexibility for balancing mitigation effects and required budget.
Emergency situations occur unpredictably and cause individuals and organizations to shift their focus and attention immediately
to deal with the situation. When disasters become large scale, all the limitations resulting from a lack of integration and
collaboration among all the involved organizations begin to be exposed and further compound the negative consequences of the
event. Often in large-scale disasters the people who must work together have no history of doing so; they have not developed
a trust or understanding of one another’s abilities, and the totality of resources they each bring to bear have never before
been exercised. As a result, the challenges for individual or group decision support systems (DSS) in emergency situations
are diverse and immense. In this contribution, we present recent advances in this area and highlight important challenges
that remain.
Uncontrolled change can have an important effect on large design and development projects. Such effects are systemic and so are difficult to quantify. One particular source of change that can have a major effect is changes to safety regulations. The risk of such change needs to be recognised and quantified. This paper highlights this risk by describing two transport manufacturing projects that were evaluated post mortem as part of claims procedures. The types of effects caused are described, as are the issues involved in their quantification. Traditional tools were inadequate to quantify these effects. The use of System Dynamics is described to demonstrate the project dynamics, to model the inter-relationships between factors and to quantify their combined effect. This technique can be used for many areas of project modelling.
Emergency situations occur unpredictably and cause individuals and organizations to shift their focus and attention immediately to deal with the situation. When disasters become large scale, all the limitations resulting from a lack of integration and collaboration among all the involved organizations begin to be exposed and further compound the negative consequences of the event. Often in large-scale disasters the people who must work together have no history of doing so; they have not developed a trust or understanding of one another’s abilities, and the totality of resources they each bring to bear have never before been exercised. As a result, the challenges for individual or group decision support systems (DSS) in emergency situations are diverse and immense. In this contribution, we present recent advances in this area and highlight important challenges that remain.
The management of operational risks, i.e., risks of loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes, people and systems or from external events, is crucial for the stability of financial institutions. The international Basel II Capital Accord therefore has imposed a strict timing on the banks compliance with sound risk management practice. In this paper, we present results from a field study at a large bank on the use of Group Support Systems (GSS) as a novel approach for senior managers to identify operational risks in the banks Incident Management Process. Our research leads to two important findings. First, we find that the use of GSS enables unique risks to reach a short-list of crucial risks to be managed by the bank. Second, the use of GSS allows an isolated minority of senior managers to implicitly influence the decision of the group on the risk management decision process.
This paper uses experiences gained from working with both senior and middle managers in organisations to describe a number of ‘observations’ identified concerning the impact technology has upon groups using Groupware in a face to face environment. These observations along with two case studies describing different instances of dispersed group working (one focusing on electronic problem structuring, the other project management support) are then considered alongside the impact dispersed working has on facilitating groups using Groupware. Both the observations and the facilitation discussion focusing on providing facilitation to dispersed groups are aimed at providing researchers and users with insights into some of the potential difficulties experienced when implementing groupware systems.
This paper describes a study of a large design and manufacture engineering project, undertaken as part of a Delay and Disruption litigation. Design changes and delays in design approval would have caused delay to the project; in order to fulfil a tight time-constraint, management had to increase parallel development in the network logic, reducing delay but setting up feedback loops that markedly increased total project spend. Cognitive mapping was used to elicit the relationships, which suggested the use of System Dynamics to quantify the effects. Results are described that show the effect of levels of design changes and approval delays, and their compounding effect. The wider implications on modelling projects are also discussed.
A form of “drawing” helps build understanding and recall for relating ideas in texts.
Risk analysis is frequently carried out on projects in feasibility and project definition. However, in full development and initial production often the risk is not monitored and controlled, and many projects fail at this point. This paper describes some proposed methods making up an integrated risk management structure, based on project experience, particularly with the defence industry.
A forum on the total management of large-scale projects was organised within the Management & Design Division of the IEE,* with the objective of providing an interchange of ideas among engineers actively engaged in this field, at superior levels of responsibility. Part 1 of this record of the forum is a summary of the introductory address by Vice Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson, who traced the history of project management in the defence procurement sphere, leading to the recent trend towards placing management responsibility with a prime contractor in industry, taking as an example the Sting Ray torpedo project. The participants in the forum comprised some thirty invited members from the fields of industry, research and development, the public sector, and the armed services. They were invited to discuss a number of problem areas, and their views and experience have been collated and summarised in Part 2. This is intended to serve as a primer and checklist to assist those who are required to engage in such projects. It is proposed to initiate a further study of how project experience may be recorded, and to develop a recommended code of practice.
Risk analysis and management forms a vital part of the early stages of a project, and, in particular, the mandatory project-definition phase in defence projects. Recently, the centrality of the risk register in risk-management infra-structures was noted. The paper describes a complete, integrated risk-analysis and management scheme based around the register that assists in time, cost and technical analyses, helps in the devising of a risk-management plan, and prompts decisions on risk transfer.
This paper provides an introduction to contract proposal assessment risk analysis techniques used by the Accountancy Estimating and Pricing Service of the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive). The approach used, benefits of such techniques and the appropriateness of various tools are explained. Models discussed range from simple procedures to more complex Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The choice of risk assessment technique depends on the definition, scale and phase of the project. All techniques, however, require a systematic approach, so a generalized methodology for the risk analysis of cost, schedule and technical performance is proposed. Whilst risk analysis methods and models are valuable tools, the right answers still depend upon judgement and specialist expertise.
Learning from experience: a report on the arrangements for managing major projects in the Procurement Executive. Report to the Ministry of State for Defence Procurement
- G Jordan
- I Lee
- G Cawsey
Jordan, G., Lee, I. and Cawsey G. (1988) Learning from experience: a report on the arrangements for
managing major projects in the Procurement Executive. Report to the Ministry of State for Defence
Procurement. Ministry of Defence, London
Risk Management in MOD
- D E Humphries
Humphries, D.E. (1989) Risk Management in MOD, in Proceedings of a Conference of Project Risk
Analysis in the Aerospace Industry. 8th March 1989. Royal Aerospace, Society, London
Thinking in Organisations London
- C Eden
- D Sim
- S Jones
Eden, C., Sim, D. and Jones, S. (1979) Thinking in Organisations London: Macmillan
Invest in a firm foundation to manage risk throughout a project
- J Bartlett
- La Bouchardiere
Bartlett, J. and La Bouchardiere, D. (1994) Invest in a firm foundation to manage risk throughout a
project. Proceedings of the INTERNET 12th World Congress on Project Management, Oslo, June
1994, Vol. 2, pg 187-196.
Eds) (1992) Special issue: modelling for learning
- J D W Morecroft
- Sterman
Morecroft, J.D.W. and Sterman, J.D. (Eds) (1992) Special issue: modelling for learning. European
Journal of Operational Research Vol. 59, No. 1
Strategy development and implementation -the role of a Group Decision Support System
- C L Eden
- F R Ackermann
Eden, C.L. and Ackermann, F.R. (1992) Strategy development and implementation -the role of a
Group Decision Support System, in, R. Bostrom, R. Watson And S. Kinney (eds) Computer
Augmented Teamwork -A Guided Tour, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Quantifying judgemental uncertainty: methodology, experiences and insights Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Transactions in Systems
- M W Merkhover
Merkhover, M.W. (1987) Quantifying judgemental uncertainty: methodology, experiences and insights
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Transactions in Systems, Man and Cybernetics Vol. 17,
No. 5, pp. 741-752.
- T M Williams
Williams, T.M. (1993). Risk Management Infrastructures International Journal of Project
Management, Vol 11, pp. 5-10
The Journey of Strategic Change Sage
- C Eden
- F Ackermann
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998) The Journey of Strategic Change Sage, Chichester. (forthcoming)