IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i10p6872-6901d40884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematical Framework of Schedule Risk Management for Power Grid Engineering Projects’ Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • Rao Rao

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Box 80, North China Electric Power University, Hui Long Guan, Chang Ping District, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Xingping Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Box 80, North China Electric Power University, Hui Long Guan, Chang Ping District, Beijing 102206, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Zhiping Shi

    (Economic and Technology Research Institute of Northern Hebei Power Company, No. 188 North 4th Circle West Road, Feng Tai District, Beijing 100053, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Kaiyan Luo

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Box 80, North China Electric Power University, Hui Long Guan, Chang Ping District, Beijing 102206, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Zhongfu Tan

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Box 80, North China Electric Power University, Hui Long Guan, Chang Ping District, Beijing 102206, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yifan Feng

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Box 80, North China Electric Power University, Hui Long Guan, Chang Ping District, Beijing 102206, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Schedule risks are the main threat for high efficiency of schedule management in power grid engineering projects (PGEP). This paper aims to build a systematical framework for schedule risk management, which consists of three dimensions, including the personnel dimension, method dimension and time dimension, namely supervisory personnel, management methods and the construction process, respectively. Responsibilities of staff with varied functions are discussed in the supervisory personnel part, and six stages and their corresponding 40 key works are ensured as the time dimension. Risk identification, analysis, evaluation and prevention together formed the method dimension. Based on this framework, 222 schedule risks occur in the whole process of PGEPs are identified via questionnaires and expert interviews. Then, the relationship among each risk is figured out based on the Interpretative Structure Model (ISM) method and the impact of each risk is quantitatively assessed by establishing evaluation system. The actual practice of the proposed framework is verified through the analysis of the first stage of a PGEP. Finally, the results show that this framework of schedule risk management is meaningful for improving the efficiency of project management. It provides managers with a clearer procedure with which to conduct risk management, helps them to timely detect risks and prevent risks from occurring. It is also easy for managers to judge the influence level of each risk, so they can take actions based on the level of each risk’s severity. Overall, it is beneficial for power grid enterprises to achieve a sustainable management.

Suggested Citation

  • Rao Rao & Xingping Zhang & Zhiping Shi & Kaiyan Luo & Zhongfu Tan & Yifan Feng, 2014. "A Systematical Framework of Schedule Risk Management for Power Grid Engineering Projects’ Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-30, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:10:p:6872-6901:d:40884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/10/6872/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/10/6872/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. H. M. Tah & V. Carr, 2000. "A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy logic," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 491-500.
    2. Aven, T. & Vinnem, J.E. & Wiencke, H.S., 2007. "A decision framework for risk management, with application to the offshore oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 433-448.
    3. D F Cioffi & H Khamooshi, 2009. "A practical method of determining project risk contingency budgets," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(4), pages 565-571, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dongxiao Niu & Weibo Zhao & Si Li & Rongjun Chen, 2018. "Cost Forecasting of Substation Projects Based on Cuckoo Search Algorithm and Support Vector Machines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Yanbin Li & Feng Zhang & Yun Li & Bingkang Li & Zhen Li, 2019. "Evaluating the Power Grid Investment Behavior in China: From the Perspective of Government Supervision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Xilin Zhang & Yuejin Tan & Zhiwei Yang, 2018. "Rework Quantification and Influence of Rework on Duration and Cost of Equipment Development Task," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Cheng Xin & Kailin Ji & Hao Chang & Yang Li & Ya-Qiong Liu, 2022. "Price Co-Movement between Electrical Equipment and Metal Commodities—A Time-Frequency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Amy H. I. Lee & He-Yau Kang & You-Jyun Liou, 2017. "A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:thr:techub:1005:y:2020:i:1:p:185-216 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gholamreza Dehdasht & Rosli Mohamad Zin & M. Salim Ferwati & Mu’azu Mohammed Abdullahi & Ali Keyvanfar & Ronald McCaffer, 2017. "DEMATEL-ANP Risk Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Wajiha Ansari & Muhammad Asim & Salman Manzoor, 2020. "A systematic frame work of schedule risk management for power grid engineering projects,sustainable development," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 5(1), pages 185-216, March.
    4. Hani Alyami & Paul Tae-Woo Lee & Zaili Yang & Ramin Riahi & Stephen Bonsall & Jin Wang, 2014. "An advanced risk analysis approach for container port safety evaluation," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 634-650, December.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2008. "A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(6), pages 790-797.
    6. Patricia Romero-Lankao & Daniel M. Gnatz & Olga Wilhelmi & Mary Hayden, 2016. "Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Abraham Park & Chen Yu Chang, 2013. "Impacts of Construction Events on the Project Equity Value of the Channel Tunnel Project," ERES eres2013_97, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    8. Usama H. Issa & Ashraf Balabel & Mohammed Abdelhakeem & Medhat M. A. Osman, 2021. "Developing a Risk Model for Assessment and Control of the Spread of COVID-19," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Hardaker, J. Brian & Fleming, Euan M. & Lien, Gudbrand D., 2008. "Risk in Public Policy Making: A Neglected Issue in Australia," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 5997, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Sørskår, Leif Inge K. & Selvik, Jon T. & Abrahamsen, Eirik B., 2019. "On the use of the vision zero principle and the ALARP principle for production loss in the oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    11. Terje Aven, 2014. "The substitution principle in chemical regulation: a constructive critique, by Ragnar Löfstedt," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 569-571, May.
    12. Usama Issa & Ibrahim Sharaky & Mamdooh Alwetaishi & Ashraf Balabel & Amal Shamseldin & Ahmed Abdelhafiz & Mohammed Al-Surf & Mosleh Al-Harthi & Medhat M. A. Osman, 2021. "Developing and Applying a Model for Evaluating Risks Affecting Greening Existing Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Sabriye Topal & Emine Atasoylu, 2022. "A Fuzzy Risk Assessment Model for Small Scale Construction Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Cabrera Llanos, Agustín I. & Ortiz Arango, Francisco & Dávila Aragón, Griselda, 2022. "Caracterización de la productividad de una empresa mexicana desarrolladora de tecnología mediante control difuso [Characterization of the productivity of a Mexican technology development company th," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 34(1), pages 281-304, December.
    15. Fjæran Nygaard, L. & Aven, T., 2010. "On the link between risk perspectives and risk regulation—A comparison between two cases concerning base stations and wireless networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 689-697.
    16. Ning Wang & Cheng-shun Xu & Xiu-li Du & Ming-ju Zhang, 2018. "A risk assessment method of deep excavation based on Bayesian analysis and expert elicitation," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 9(2), pages 452-466, April.
    17. Aven, Terje & Castro, I.T., 2009. "A delay-time model with safety constraint," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 261-267.
    18. Yuan Yang, 2019. "Reforming Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation for Offshore Operations in China: Risk and Resilience Approaches?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    19. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2020. "On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    20. Hasan Mahmoud & Vian Ahmed & Salwa Beheiry, 2021. "Construction Cash Flow Risk Index," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, June.
    21. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Mohammad Ehsan Basiri & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2019. "An Evidential Model for Environmental Risk Assessment in Projects Using Dempster–Shafer Theory of Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:10:p:6872-6901:d:40884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.