IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6311-d567707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability of Business through Project Risk Identification with Use of Expert Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Buganova

    (Department of Crisis Management, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia)

  • Maria Luskova

    (Department of Technical Sciences and Informatics, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia)

  • Jozef Kubas

    (Department of Crisis Management, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia)

  • Michal Brutovsky

    (Department of Crisis Management, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia)

  • Jaroslav Slepecky

    (Department of Legal Sciences and Security Studies, The College of European and Regional Studies, 370 01 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Projects are a tool that enables enterprises to implement innovation and development activities and achieve the goals in the set time, costs and required quality but they also bring risks that need to be adequately identified, analyzed and assessed. Important tools that can be used in project management in the process of risk identification are expert estimates. However, little attention is paid to determining the accuracy of expert estimates. To verify the accuracy of expert estimates, an analysis of all completed projects for a certain period of enterprise that implemented them was performed. The purpose of the study was to determine the accuracy of expert estimates in the enterprise implementing projects. This was ascertained by analyzing all available completed projects and by Barnard’s test at the significance level of α = 0.05. The Phi coefficient of association was used to determine its extent. In the paper, we pointed out how inappropriate expert estimates affect the completion of the project within the specified period.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Buganova & Maria Luskova & Jozef Kubas & Michal Brutovsky & Jaroslav Slepecky, 2021. "Sustainability of Business through Project Risk Identification with Use of Expert Estimates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6311-:d:567707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6311/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6311/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alzbeta Kucharcikova & Martin Miciak & Eva Malichova & Maria Durisova & Emese Tokarcikova, 2019. "The Motivation of Students at Universities as a Prerequisite of the Education’s Sustainability within the Business Value Generation Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-25, October.
    2. John Quigley & Abigail Colson & Willy Aspinall & Roger M. Cooke, 2018. "Elicitation in the Classical Model," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Luis C. Dias & Alec Morton & John Quigley (ed.), Elicitation, chapter 0, pages 15-36, Springer.
    3. Nguyen, Phong Thanh & Phu Pham, Cuong & Thanh Phan, Phuong & Bich Vu, Ngoc & Tien Ha Duong, My & Le Hoang Thuy To Nguyen, Quyen, 2020. "Exploring Critical Risk Factors of Office Building Projects," MPRA Paper 109901, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Dec 2020.
    4. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Jesko Schulte & Carolina Villamil & Sophie I. Hallstedt, 2020. "Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Alfonso Carfora & Giuseppe Scandurra & Antonio Thomas, 2021. "Determinants of environmental innovations supporting small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2621-2636, July.
    7. Asadabadi, Mehdi Rajabi & Zwikael, Ofer, 2021. "Integrating risk into estimations of project activities' time and cost: A stratified approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 482-490.
    8. Thordur Vikingur Fridgeirsson & Helgi Thor Ingason & Haukur Ingi Jonasson & Bara Hlin Kristjansdottir, 2021. "The VUCAlity of Projects: A New Approach to Assess a Project Risk in a Complex World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Noha Mahmoud & Allan Leck Jensen & Cairistiona F. E. Topp & Claus Aage Grøn Sørensen & Michael Nørremark & Vera Eory & Nicholas J. Hutchings, 2021. "A Method to Quantify the Detailed Risk of Serious Injury in Agricultural Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, March.
    10. André Palma & Nathalie Picard & Laetitia Andrieu, 2012. "Risk in Transport Investments," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 187-204, June.
    11. Naomi C. Brownstein & Thomas A. Louis & Anthony O’Hagan & Jane Pendergast, 2019. "The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 56-68, March.
    12. Marco Nunes & António Abreu, 2020. "Managing Open Innovation Project Risks Based on a Social Network Analysis Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-31, April.
    13. Maria Polorecka & Jozef Kubas & Pavel Danihelka & Katarina Petrlova & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Katarina Buganova, 2021. "Use of Software on Modeling Hazardous Substance Release as a Support Tool for Crisis Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    15. Martin Folch-Calvo & Francisco Brocal-Fernández & Cristina González-Gaya & Miguel A. Sebastián, 2020. "Analysis and Characterization of Risk Methodologies Applied to Industrial Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-35, September.
    16. Evgeniy Lopatin, 2019. "Methodological Approaches to Research Resource Saving Industrial Enterprises," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(4), pages 181-187.
    17. Tetiana Zholonko & Olesia Grebinchuk & Maryna Bielikova & Yurii Kulynych & Olena Oviechkina, 2021. "Methodological Tools for Investment Risk Assessment for the Companies of Real Economy Sector," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-10, February.
    18. Abigail R Colson & Roger M Cooke, 2018. "Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    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. Schoch-Spana, Monica & Ravi, Sanjana J. & Martin, Elena K., 2022. "Modeling epidemic recovery: An expert elicitation on issues and approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    2. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    3. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    4. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2020. "Assessment of safety barrier performance in Natech scenarios," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Milford, James & Henrion, Max & Hunter, Chad & Newes, Emily & Hughes, Caroline & Baldwin, Samuel F., 2022. "Energy sector portfolio analysis with uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    6. Peter Harrison Howard & Derek Sylvan, 2020. "Wisdom of the experts: Using survey responses to address positive and normative uncertainties in climate-economic models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 213-232, September.
    7. Hathout, Michel & Vuillet, Marc & Carvajal, Claudio & Peyras, Laurent & Diab, Youssef, 2019. "Expert judgments calibration and combination for assessment of river levee failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 377-392.
    8. Wongnak, Phrutsamon & Bord, Séverine & Donnet, Sophie & Hoch, Thierry & Beugnet, Frederic & Chalvet-Monfray, Karine, 2022. "A hierarchical Bayesian approach for incorporating expert opinions into parametric survival models: A case study of female Ixodes ricinus ticks exposed to various temperature and relative humidity con," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 464(C).
    9. Carless, Travis S. & Redus, Kenneth & Dryden, Rachel, 2021. "Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief Networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Albara M. Mustafa & Abbas Barabadi & Tore Markeset & Masoud Naseri, 2021. "An overall performance index for wind farms: a case study in Norway Arctic region," 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. 12(5), pages 938-950, October.
    11. Cooke, Roger M. & Marti, Deniz & Mazzuchi, Thomas, 2021. "Expert forecasting with and without uncertainty quantification and weighting: What do the data say?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 378-387.
    12. Alessandro Margherita & Emanuele Banchi & Alfredo Biffi & Gianluca di Castri & Rocco Morelli, 2022. "Beyond Total Cost Management (TCM) to Systemic Value Management (SVM): Transformational Trends and a Research Manifesto for an Evolving Discipline," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Claire Copeland & Britta Turner & Gareth Powells & Kevin Wilson, 2022. "In Search of Complementarity: Insights from an Exercise in Quantifying Qualitative Energy Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Zdenka Gyurák Babeľová & Augustín Stareček & Kristína Koltnerová & Dagmar Cagáňová, 2020. "Perceived Organizational Performance in Recruiting and Retaining Employees with Respect to Different Generational Groups of Employees and Sustainable Human Resource Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Maria Polorecka & Jozef Kubas & Pavel Danihelka & Katarina Petrlova & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Katarina Buganova, 2021. "Use of Software on Modeling Hazardous Substance Release as a Support Tool for Crisis Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    17. Cristina Aibar-Guzmán & Francisco M. Somohano-Rodríguez, 2021. "Do Consumers Value Environmental Innovation in Product?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, March.
    18. David Watling & Giulio Cantarella, 2015. "Model Representation & Decision-Making in an Ever-Changing World: The Role of Stochastic Process Models of Transportation Systems," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 843-882, September.
    19. Irina Vinogradova-Zinkevič, 2021. "Application of Bayesian Approach to Reduce the Uncertainty in Expert Judgments by Using a Posteriori Mean Function," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.

    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:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6311-:d:567707. 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.