Developing a Risk Management Matrix for Effective Project Planning—An Empirical Study

Datta, Sumit; Mukherjee, Sumanta

doi:10.1177/875697280103200206

Cited by 51 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another feature of the economic infrastructure projects is that they tend to have poor performance (Datta & Mukherjee, 2001;Chan & Chan, 2004;Shen et al, 2006;Flyvbjerg, 2007Flyvbjerg, , 2008Eriksson & Westerberg, 2011). In the study conducted by Flyvbjerg et al (2002) when examining transport projects found that 90% had the cost overruns.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk assessment process is one of the most applied by managers (Lyons & Skitmore, 2004), but the lack of ability for the execution of this task limits their efficiency (Globerson & Zwikael, 2002;Raz et al, 2002). Thus, it should be noted that the performance impact of the projects varies with the level of presence of risk factors (Datta & Mukherjee, 2001;Ng & Loosemore, 2007) and with the risk factor type involved in the project (Ghosh & Jintanapakanont, 2004;Thamhain, 2013).…”

Section: /43mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Caracterização da gestão de fatores de risco em projetos de infraestrutura

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ISSN 0104-530X (Print) ISSN 1806-9649 (Online) Resumo: Este estudo tem por objetivo compreender como se caracteriza a gestão dos fatores de risco no desempenho de projetos de infraestrutura. Para tal, utilizou-se o referencial teórico associado tanto à literatura voltada para o gerenciamento de riscos quanto sobre complexidade e desempenho de projetos. A estratégia de pesquisa utilizada baseou-se no método de estudo de casos múltiplos, compreendendo a análise de cinco empreendimentos em dois segmentos econômicos distintos. As evidências empíricas sugerem que o impacto dos fatores de risco no desempenho dos projetos depende da intensidade da gestão dos riscos e das habilidades dos gerentes de risco, mas não varia com a complexidade dos projetos. O estudo também indica que a intensidade do desempenho nas dimensões analisadas varia de acordo com a influência dos fatores considerados. Palavras-chave: Projeto de infraestrutura; Desempenho; Gerenciamento de risco; Fator de risco; Complexidade.Abstract: This study aims to understand how risk factor management is characterized in the performance of infrastructure projects. The multiple-case study methodology was used, including the analysis of five projects in two different economic sectors. Empirical evidence suggests that the impact of risk factors in the performance of projects depends on risk management intensity and on the skills of risk managers, but it does not vary with project complexity. Furthermore, the intensity of the analyzed performance dimensions may vary according to the influence of the factors considered.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: /43mentioning

confidence: 99%

Caracterização da gestão de fatores de risco em projetos de infraestrutura

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous authors (Datta and Mukherjee, 2001;Ward, 1999) stress the importance of understanding the project environment to initiate any assessment of risk. In NEPA processes, that environment is influenced by multiple factors, some of which are determined at the outset of the process as the project is initially defined.…”

Section: Risk Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relationship risk includes risk that can emerge from both internal and external relationships (Datta and Mukherjee, 2001;Hillson, 2003;Tesch et al, 2007). External relationships have been well-studied in natural resource management, with multiple studies focusing on public involvement, conflict, collaboration, and their outcomes (Innes and Booher, 2004;Leach, 2006;Lewicki et al, 2002;McCool and Guthrie, 2001;Predmore et al, 2011a;Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000).…”

Section: Risk Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Stern

Predmore

Morse

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires U.S. Forest Service planning processes to be conducted by interdisciplinary teams of resource specialists to analyze and disclose the likely environmental impacts of proposed natural resource management actions on Forest Service lands. Multiple challenges associated with these processes have been a source of frustration for the agency. One of these challenges involves administrative appeals through which public entities can challenge a Forest Service decision following a NEPA process. These appeals instigate an internal review process and can result in an affirmation of the Forest Service decision, a reversal of that decision, or additional work that re-initiates all or part of the NEPA process. We examine the best predictors of appeals and their outcomes on a representative sample of 489 Forest Service NEPA processes that were decided between 2007 and 2009. While certain factors associated with pre-existing social contexts (such as a history of controversy) or pre-determined elements of a proposed action (such as the extraction of forest products) predispose certain processes to a higher risk of appeals, other practices and process-related strategies within the control of the agency also appear to bear meaningful influence on the occurrence of appeals and their outcomes. Appeals and their outcomes were most strongly related to programmatic, structural (turnover of personnel in particular), and relationship risks (both internal and external) within the processes, suggesting the need for greater focus within the agency on cultivating positive internal and external relationships to manage the risk of appeals.

show abstract

“…Price (1998) defi nes risk as the probability times multiple consequences using a probabilistic fault tree approach. Datta and Mukerjee (2001) developed a nine-segment matrix for immediate project risk analysis based on weighted probability. Pyra and Trask (2002) describe a quantitative priority ranking based on a table of probability and impact.…”

Section: Risk Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%