IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/yqhjx.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Project Risk Management Incorporating Knight, Ellsberg & Kahneman

Author

Listed:
  • Prpić, John

Abstract

This work investigates the Practice Standard for Project Risk Management (PSPRM) in light of the fundamental organizational risk research. As a result of this investigation, the work finds that the PSPRM is lacking some key concepts from the extant organizational risk literature and that other fundamental risk concepts are not applied in a manner consistent with the literature. Building on these findings, the work illustrates how project risk management and project risk research might be effected by these deficiencies and recommends some simple measures that could be implemented to usefully augment the PSPRM and project risk research. Prpić, J., (2016). Project Risk Management Incorporating Knight, Ellsberg & Kahneman. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences #49. January 2016, Kauai, Hawaii, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press

Suggested Citation

  • Prpić, John, 2017. "Project Risk Management Incorporating Knight, Ellsberg & Kahneman," SocArXiv yqhjx, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:yqhjx
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/yqhjx
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/589d4eac9ad5a101fccb69ba/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/yqhjx?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. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    2. Michael T. Pich & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1008-1023, August.
    3. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. M Vanhoucke & E Demeulemeester & W Herroelen, 2002. "Discrete time/cost trade-offs in project scheduling with time-switch constraints," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(7), pages 741-751, July.
    6. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    7. Langlois, Richard N & Cosgel, Metin M, 1993. "Frank Knight on Risk, Uncertainty, and the Firm: A New Interpretation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 456-465, July.
    8. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    9. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel, 2002. "Maps of Bounded Rationality," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2002-4, Nobel Prize Committee.
    11. William Fellner, 1961. "Distortion of Subjective Probabilities as a Reaction to Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 670-689.
    12. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    13. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    14. Mats Alvesson, 1993. "Organizations As Rhetoric: Knowledge‐Intensive Firms And The Struggle With Ambiguity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 997-1015, November.
    15. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    2. Mr. S. Nuri Erbas, 2002. "Primeron Reforms in a Second-Best Ambiguous Environment: A Case for Gradualism," IMF Working Papers 2002/050, International Monetary Fund.
    3. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    5. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    6. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    8. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    9. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    11. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    12. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    13. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    14. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Valentina BOSETTI & Ning LIU, 2022. "Three layers of uncertainty," Working Papers 2022-iRisk-01, IESEG School of Management.
    15. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2022. "A lot of ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    17. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    18. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    19. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:yqhjx. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.