IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/otamic/v14y2022i1p2666-2674n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A construction–specific extension to a standard project risk management process

Author

Listed:
  • Alfreahat Dina

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar tudósok krt. 2. Q. bld. B307, 1117, Budapest, Hungary)

  • Sebestyén Zoltán

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar tudósok krt. 2. Q. bld. B307, 1117, Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Project processes are affected by risks in many ways, and this is particularly true in today's highly competitive world. Construction projects usually take much longer than typical projects in other sectors. In this sector, it is important to follow some kind of standardised risk management process. There is much literature on different approaches to project risk management, and this paper reviews the most prominent sources that suggest procedures that are widely used in practice. Nevertheless, standard risk management still faces some shortcomings, and professionals call for a more sophisticated solution. This research aims to expand the general risk management process based on the frameworks of the prestigious stand-ardisation institutions and associations (mainly on Project Management Institute's (PMI's) risk management standard considering the approaches of Institute of Risk Management (IRM), National Forum for Risk Management in the Public Sector (ALARM), Association of Insurance and Risk Managers (AIRMIC) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as well as Association for Project Management (APM)). The suggested two new processes are justified by in-depth interviews conducted with interviewees working on large and complex construction projects, and are supported by a thorough literature review. The novelty of the research is that these two processes added to the standard processes, namely, risk analysis verification and validation and risk plan experimentation. The research expectedly improves the risk management process in the construction sector and emphasises the need to clearly articulate and communicate the organisation's risk appetite and the necessity for risk management training to employees. Therefore, the research reconfirms the concept of project risk management by the standards, and justifies the proposed new phases.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfreahat Dina & Sebestyén Zoltán, 2022. "A construction–specific extension to a standard project risk management process," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 2666-2674, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:otamic:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:2666-2674:n:3
    DOI: 10.2478/otmcj-2022-0011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0011
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rosqvist, Tony, 2010. "On the validation of risk analysis—A commentary," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1261-1265.
    2. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    3. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    4. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    5. Wang, Tai-Ran & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Identification of protective actions to reduce the vulnerability of safety-critical systems to malevolent acts: A sensitivity-based decision-making approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 9-18.
    6. Jon T Selvik & Eirik B Abrahamsen, 2017. "On the meaning of accuracy and precision in a risk analysis context," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(2), pages 91-100, April.
    7. Krzysztof Wróbel & Mateusz Gil & Przemysław Krata & Karol Olszewski & Jakub Montewka, 2023. "On the use of leading safety indicators in maritime and their feasibility for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(2), pages 314-331, April.
    8. Rae, Andrew & Alexander, Rob & McDermid, John, 2014. "Fixing the cracks in the crystal ball: A maturity model for quantitative risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-81.
    9. Montewka, Jakub & Ehlers, Sören & Goerlandt, Floris & Hinz, Tomasz & Tabri, Kristjan & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems—A case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 142-157.
    10. Yu, Qing & Liu, Kezhong & Chang, Chia-Hsun & Yang, Zaili, 2020. "Realising advanced risk assessment of vessel traffic flows near offshore wind farms," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Hietikko, Marita & Malm, Timo & Alanen, Jarmo, 2011. "Risk estimation studies in the context of a machine control function," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 767-774.
    12. Henrik Hassel, 2012. "Risk and vulnerability analysis in practice: evaluation of analyses conducted in Swedish municipalities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 63(2), pages 605-628, September.
    13. Skogdalen, Jon Espen & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2011. "Quantitative risk analysis offshore—Human and organizational factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 468-479.
    14. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    15. Skogdalen, Jon Espen & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2012. "Quantitative risk analysis of oil and gas drilling, using Deepwater Horizon as case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 58-66.
    16. Terje Aven, 2010. "Reply to Discussants on “The Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 381-384, March.
    17. Terje Aven & Azadeh Seif, 2022. "On the foundation and use of the de minimis principle in a risk analysis context," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(1), pages 90-97, February.
    18. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    19. Tai–ran Wang & Vincent Mousseau & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2015. "Assessing the Performance of a Classification‐Based Vulnerability Analysis Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1674-1689, September.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2021. "The reliability science: Its foundation and link to risk science and other sciences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).

    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:vrs:otamic:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:2666-2674:n:3. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.