A Systematical Framework of Schedule Risk Management for Power Grid Engineering Projects’ Sustainable Development

Abstract

Schedule risks are the main threat for high efficiency of schedule management in power grid engineering projects (PGEP). This paper aims to build a systematical framework for schedule risk management, which consists of three dimensions, including the personnel dimension, method dimension and time dimension, namely supervisory personnel, management methods and the construction process, respectively. Responsibilities of staff with varied functions are discussed in the supervisory personnel part, and six stages and their corresponding 40 key works are ensured as the time dimension. Risk identification, analysis, evaluation and prevention together formed the method dimension. Based on this framework, 222 schedule risks occur in the whole process of PGEPs are identified via questionnaires and expert interviews. Then, the relationship among each risk is figured out based on the Interpretative Structure Model (ISM) method and the impact of each risk is quantitatively assessed by establishing evaluation system. The actual practice of the proposed framework is verified through the analysis of the first stage of a PGEP. Finally, the results show that this framework of schedule risk management is meaningful for improving the efficiency of project management. It provides managers with a clearer OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2014, 6 6873 procedure with which to conduct risk management, helps them to timely detect risks and prevent risks from occurring. It is also easy for managers to judge the influence level of each risk, so they can take actions based on the level of each risk's severity. Overall, it is beneficial for power grid enterprises to achieve a sustainable management.

Risk Level Evaluation on Construction Project Lifecycle Using Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation and TOPSIS

“…Then based on this questionnaire data were collected. A22 Poor site performance and management [15,33] A23 Ineffective scheduling and planning [4,19,30,32] A24 Improper construction methods [19,22,33] A25 Poor coordination and communication with other [4,30,31] A26 Inadequate experience of the contractor [19,22,25] A27 Rework for unsatisfactory work [17,19,22] A3 Consultant A31 Inadequate consultant experience [15,19] A32 Late in receiving and approving of work [4,19,22,30] A33 Late in performing inspection and testing and poor supervision [34] A34 Poor coordination and communication with other [19] B42 Low efficiency and productivity of equipment [34] B42 Lack of spare parts and failures of equipment [4,17,30,31] B43 Problem of mobilization and allocation [16] B45 Equipment outdated [16,34] (C) Contrac condition C1 Absence of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) [4,30,33] C2 Discrepancies and mistakes in contract [33] C3 Unrealistic cost and duration contract [4,17,30] C4 Poor incentives and inadequate penalties in contract …”

A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection

“…Some recent works are as follows. Rao et al [16] constructed a schedule risk management framework for power grid engineering projects. The relationships among risks were determined by the ISM method first, and then a three-tier evaluation system was developed by the AHP.…”

Evaluating the Power Grid Investment Behavior in China: From the Perspective of Government Supervision

“…The above researches lay a good methodological foundation for the study of this paper. However, most of the researches on power grid project evaluation were based on serving enterprise decision-making, and chose a certain angle, such as risk [17][18][19], technology [20][21][22], and economy [23][24][25], to carry out. There is still a lack of relevant research from the perspective of government supervision to assess whether the power grid investment projects are reasonable and whether the cost is compliant, i.e., compliance with PGIB.…”