Risk Management Case Study 10

The success and failure of project mostly depends on the perceptions of its stakeholders (Bourne and Walker 2008). Project manager needs to manage both the expectations and perceptions of its stakeholders within the capacities and capabilities. Success in project is an ambiguous, inclusive and multidimensional concept and its performance is measured to a specific context (Ika et al. 2010). Due to globalized project environment, there are increasing concerns to managing associated risks in order to fulfill project objectives (Artto et al. 2008). There still lacks addressing of risks arising from organizations involved in project networks (Chapman and Ward 2002, 2003; Ward and Chapman 2003).

In project management context, risk is organized at the highest level of management, with a global vision (Suslick and Schiozer 2004; Aven and Vinnem 2005). It is often scaled as positive (business opportunities) or negative (operational hazards or threats) and can be external risks (customers’ demands, market competition, suppliers, government actions, environmental protections, etc.) and internal risks (products, resources, processes, new technology, etc.). Different approaches are often considered by the manufacturers to mitigate probable risk such as identification, scaling, ranking and prioritization. These mitigation plans are stored in the knowledge base that is made available for future use (Miller and Waller 2003).

With respect to project-based risk management perspective, it is important to quantifying associated risks in terms of their detrimental effects on projects performances. This quantification allows defining the possibility of deviation in the results from the expected goals. It also helps managers to estimate quantitatively the potential risk level of a project before necessary resources are allocated. In order to quantify the risk, it is necessary to collect assessment information to build a risk estimation model for project-based business. The manager has to make significant effort to align risk with the organizational strategic decision in order to steer the project. At the same time, risks that are confronted during the course of the project can be managed most expeditiously with clear top management commitment. In order to have successful risk management effort in projects, upper management must communicate to the affected project units, motivate movement and step in to resolve differences that caused risks.

It is critical to manage the multifaceted risks in any kinds of projects in order not only to be secured but also to make profit. Several risk management frameworks in projects are available. Miller (1992) presented a framework for categorizing the uncertainties as are faced by the companies and highlights risk management responses from both financial and strategic point of views. Zhang et al. (2010) proposed an information risk management framework for better understanding within the business domain of cloud computing. This framework supports identifying a threat in cloud computing environment and to identifying vulnerability. Wang et al. (2010) proposed a new risk management framework that aligns project risk management with respect to research and development and performance measurement perspectives. A balanced scorecard method is used to identify the risks and performance measures within R&D based organizations. Various risk management frameworks and their outcomes can be summarized as in Table 1 below.
Table 1

Various risk management frameworks with their contributions

From the literature review, it is noticed that extensive works have been done to managing risk in project business; however, little researches are done on quantifying risks associated in managing projects. From this literature review, it is also revealed that quantification of risk factors is not widely used due to lack of knowledge and requirement of extensive effort. This research gap is explored within the scope of this research, wherein identification, analysis, quantification and management of identified risks in oil and gas industry project are highlighted through Monte Carlo simulation and RiskyProject Professional™ software.

Many construction projects fail to meet deadlines or they exceed the assumed budget. This scenario is particularly common in the case of innovative projects, in which too late identification of a high risk of delays and exceeding the assumed costs makes a potentially profitable project untenable. A high risk level, far exceeding the level of risk in standard non-innovative projects, is a characteristic feature of the realization phase of innovative projects. This is associated not only with greater complexity of the design and construction phases, but also with the problems with application of new technologies and prototype solutions, lack of qualified personnel with suitable expertise in specialized areas, and with the ability to properly identify the gaps between available and required knowledge and skills. This paper discusses the process of effective risk management in innovative projects on the example of the realization phase of an innovative, energy-efficient and sustainable building of the Laboratory of Intelligent Building in Cracow - DLJM Lab, from the point of view of DORBUD S.A., its general contractor. In this paper, a new approach to risk management process for innovative construction projects is proposed. Risk management process was divided into five stages: gathering information, identification of the important unwanted events, first risk assessment, development and choice of risk reaction strategies, assessment of the residual risk after introducing risk reactions. 18 unwanted events in an innovative construction project were identified. The first risk assessment was carried out using two-parametric risk matrix, in which the probability of unwanted event occurrence and its consequences were analysed. Three levels of risks were defined: tolerable, controlled and uncontrolled. Risk reactions to each defined unwanted event were developed. The following risk reaction types were considered: risk retention, risk reduction, risk transfer and risk elimination. Three-parametric risk matrix was developed to make it possible to assess risk after implementing risk reactions. The possibility of implementing risk management was inversely proportional to the probability of unwanted event occurrence and its contribution to the project outcome. Introducing this risk management strategy allowed to significantly reduce the risk of the innovative construction project. It proved to be an effective tool to reduce risk to an acceptable level. It had a significant contribution to carrying out the project within the assumed time, budget and quality standards.

Export citation and abstractBibTeXRIS


  • [1]

    Drzazga M. 2016 BIM – zapis informacji o przedsięwzięciu budowlanym (projektowanie 5 D) Przegląd budowlany9 33-37

  • [2]


  • [3]
    Dziadosz A. and Rejment M. 2015 Risk analysis in construction process - chosen methods Procedia Engineering122 258-265 Operational Research in Sustainable Development and Civil Engineering meeting of EURO working group and 15th German-Lithuanian-Polish colloquium (ORSDCE 2015)


  • [4]

    PN-IEC 60300-3-9 1999 Risk analysis in technical systems

  • [5]

    Rak J., Tchórzewska and Cieślak B. 2006 Five-parametric matrix to estimate the risk connected with water supply system operation Environment Protection Engineering32 38-46

  • [6]

    Rak J. and Tchórzewska-Cieślak B. 2005 (Rzeszów: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej) Metody analizy i oceny ryzyka w systemie zaopatrzenia w wodę 178

  • [7]

    Rak J. 2013 (Rzeszów: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej) Ryzyko w eksploatacji systemów zbiorowego zaopatrzenia w wodę 164

  • [8]

    Rak J. 2006 Przegląd metod oceny ryzyka związanego z funkcjonowaniem systemów komunalnych Instal. Teoria i praktyka w instalacjach6 54-56

  • [9]
    Gierczak M. 2014 The quantitative risk assessment of MINI, MIDI and MAXI Horizontal Directional Drilling Projects applying Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology43 67-77


  • [10]
    Gierczak M. 2014 The qualitative risk assessment of MINI, MIDI and MAXI horizontal directional drilling projects Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology44 148-156 September 2014


  • [11]

    Skorupka D. 2005 (Kielce: Wydawnictwo Akademii Świętokrzyskiej) Zarządzanie ryzykiem projektu w inwestycjach budowlanych 107

  • [12]

    Banaitiene N. and Banaitis A. 2012 Business, Management and Economics (INTECH) Risk Management in Construction Projects 429-448 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51460, September 12, 2012

  • [13]

    Durmus-Pedini A. and Ashuri B. 2010 An overview of the benefits and risk factors of going green in existing buildings International Journal of Facility Management1 1-15

  • [14]
    Halman J.I.M. and Keizer J.A. 1994 Diagnosing risks in product-innovation projects International Journal of Project Management12 75-80


  • [15]

    Pritchard C. 2002 (Warszawa: WIG-PRESS) Zarządzanie ryzykiem w projektach. Teoria i praktyka 346

  • [16]

    Smith N. J., Merna T. and Jobling P. 2006 (Blackwell Publishing) Managing risk in construction projects 244

  • [17]

    Van Staveren M. A risk management approach (Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann) Uncertainty and ground conditions 321-2007

  • [18]

    Dorbud S.A., Gallery of photos.

  • [19]

    YAWAL S.A., Gallery of photos.

Export references: BibTeXRIS

0 thoughts on “Risk Management Case Study 10”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *