IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/otamic/v11y2019i1p1984-1991n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the performance of project risk management: a preliminary model

Author

Listed:
  • Serpell Alfredo Federico

    (Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile)

  • Ferrada Ximena

    (Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad del Desarrollo)

  • Rubio Larissa

    (Depto. Ingeniería y Gestión de la Construcción, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Abstract

The function of project risk management (PRM) is to understand the uncertainty that surrounds a project and to identify the potential threats than can affect it as well as to know how to handle these risks in an appropriate way. Then, the measurement of the performance of PRM becomes an important concern, an issue that has not yet been addressed in the research literature. It is necessary to know how successful the application of the PRM process is and how capable is the process within the organization. Regarding construction projects, it is essential to know whether the selected responses to mitigate or eliminate identified risks were suitable and well implemented after the execution of the project. This paper presents a critical analysis of the relevance of measuring the performance of PRM and the benefits of doing so. Additionally, it presents a preliminary and pioneering methodology to measure the performance of PRM through the evaluation of the adequacy of responses applied to mitigate risks as well as to evaluate the resulting impacts as indicators of the effectiveness of these actions at the end of the project. This knowledge will allow construction companies to incorporate good practices, generate lessons learned, and thereby to promote a continuous improvement of the whole PRM process.

Suggested Citation

  • Serpell Alfredo Federico & Ferrada Ximena & Rubio Larissa, 2019. "Measuring the performance of project risk management: a preliminary model," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 1984-1991, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:otamic:v:11:y:2019:i:1:p:1984-1991:n:10
    DOI: 10.2478/otmcj-2019-0005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2019-0005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/otmcj-2019-0005?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. Nerija Banaitiene & Audrius Banaitis, 2012. "Risk Management in Construction Projects," Chapters, in: Nerija Banaitiene (ed.), Risk Management - Current Issues and Challenges, IntechOpen.
    2. Richard M. Van Slyke, 1963. "Letter to the Editor---Monte Carlo Methods and the PERT Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 839-860, October.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    4. 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.
    5. D. G. Malcolm & J. H. Roseboom & C. E. Clark & W. Fazar, 1959. "Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 646-669, October.
    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. R A Bowman, 2007. "Efficient sensitivity analysis of PERT network performance measures to significant changes in activity time parameters," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(10), pages 1354-1360, October.
    2. Elise D. Miller-Hooks & Hani S. Mahmassani, 2000. "Least Expected Time Paths in Stochastic, Time-Varying Transportation Networks," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 198-215, May.
    3. Gianluca Pescaroli & David Alexander, 2018. "Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2245-2257, November.
    4. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    5. Hajdu M. & Isaac S., 2016. "Sixty years of project planning: history and future," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 1499-1510, December.
    6. Galina Shevchenko & Leonas Ustinovichius & Dariusz Walasek, 2019. "The Evaluation of the Contractor’s Risk in Implementing the Investment Projects in Construction by Using the Verbal Analysis Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Kim, Byung-Cheol, 2022. "Multi-factor dependence modelling with specified marginals and structured association in large-scale project risk assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 679-695.
    8. Obinna Collins Nnamani, 2018. "Application of Quantitative Risk Analysis in Property Development Projects in Nigeria: A Review," ERES eres2018_8, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    9. Creemers, Stefan, 2018. "Moments and distribution of the net present value of a serial project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(3), pages 835-848.
    10. Kamburowski, J., 1997. "New validations of PERT times," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 323-328, June.
    11. Xiong, Jian & Leus, Roel & Yang, Zhenyu & Abbass, Hussein A., 2016. "Evolutionary multi-objective resource allocation and scheduling in the Chinese navigation satellite system project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 662-675.
    12. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    13. Nima Zoraghi & Aria Shahsavar & Babak Abbasi & Vincent Peteghem, 2017. "Multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem with material ordering under bonus–penalty policies," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 25(1), pages 49-79, April.
    14. Pérez, José García & Martín, María del Mar López & García, Catalina García & Sánchez Granero, Miguel Ángel, 2016. "Project management under uncertainty beyond beta: The generalized bicubic distribution," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 67-76.
    15. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Majeed Abimbola & Faisal Khan, 2018. "Dynamic Blowout Risk Analysis Using Loss Functions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 255-271, February.
    17. Caputo, Antonio C. & Federici, Alessandro & Pelagagge, Pacifico M. & Salini, Paolo, 2023. "Offshore wind power system economic evaluation framework under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    18. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    20. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    21. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.

    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:11:y:2019:i:1:p:1984-1991:n:10. 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.