Project management under uncertainty

Skitmore, Martin; Stradling, Stephen G.; Tuohy, Aidan

doi:10.1080/01446198900000015

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The production process is essentially small-batch and there is relatively little repetition, routine or mechanization (Ireland, 1985;Winch, 1989). In this sense, the construction industry is, essentially, a human one and the process of managing construction, highly vulnerable to human idiosyncrasies (Bennett and Fine, 1980;Morris and Hough, 1987;Skitmore et al, 1989). The organizations used to procure buildings are project-based and have been referred to as`temporary multiorganizations'.…”

Section: The Nature Of Construction Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nature of construction activity and the traditional procurement process create an uncertain and hostile environment for project managers. Indeed, Crichton's (1966:57) early report concluded that`nothing contributes more to the industry's inefficiencies than uncertainty' and Skitmore et al (1989), Dallavalle (1991), Diekmann and Al-Tabtabai (1992) and Flanagan and Norman (1993) concur that an inability to cope with uncertainty lies at the heart of many of the construction industry's problems.…”

Section: Uncertainty In Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reactive Crisis Management in Constructive Projects — Patterns of Communication and Behaviour

Loosemore

Hughes

1998

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns of communication and behaviour emerge within a construction project in response to a construction crisis. This paper investigates, within a grounded theory framework, the nature of these patterns, the sociological and psychological forces which shape them and their relationship with crisis management efficiency. A grounded theory is presented in four parts. The first part conceives a construction crisis as a period of social instability, arising from conflicting interest groups, seeking to exercise power in the pursuit of social structures which suit their political and economic interests. The second part sees a construction crisis as a desensitizing phenomenon which results in a period of behavioural instability and conflict which is self-perpetuating. The third part cites social structure as an important influence upon construction crisis management efficiency, in determining the efficiency of information flow, and the level of uncertainty between those affected. The fourth part points to the in-built defence mechanisms which construction crises have and to three managerial ironies which make construction crisis management difficult.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Construction Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncertainty In Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactive Crisis Management in Constructive Projects — Patterns of Communication and Behaviour

Loosemore

Hughes

1998

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a long-standing inability within the construction industry to deal with the uncertainty which significantly contributes to its inefficiency (Crichton 1966;Skitmore et al 1989;Flanagan & Norman 1993). While improvements in proactive managerial capabilities would be ideal, a crisis-free environment is unlikely to be achieved and the need for reactive capabilities cannot be ignored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency systems in construction contracts

Loosemore

Hughes²

1998

Eng, Const and Arch Man

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Busby's (1996) work investigated biases in the aerospace sector in risk assessment, but was limited to a qualitative assessment of the processes and strategies that were followed by project managers and resource estimators. However, decision making in the aerospace sector shares at least three of the factors discussed in Skitmore et al (1989)-uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Large projects such as new aerospace system developments often cost upwards of hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars.…”

Section: Cognitive Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Risk Identification: Practitioner Checklist for the Aerospace Sector

Emmons¹,

Mazzuchi²,

Sarkani³

et al. 2018

Defense ARJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research contributes an operational checklist for mitigating cognitive biases in the aerospace sector risk management process. The Risk Identification and Evaluation Bias Reduction Checklist includes steps forgrounding the risk identification and evaluation activities in past project experiences through historical data, and emphasizes the importance of incorporating multiple methods and perspectives to guard against optimism and a singular project instantiation-focused view. The authors developed a survey to elicit subject matter expert judgment on the value of the checklist to support its use in government and industry as a risk management tool. The survey also provided insights on bias mitigation strategies and lessons learned. This checklist addresses the deficiency in the literature in providing operational steps for the practitioner to recognize and implement strategies for bias reduction in risk management in the aerospace sector. //doi.org/10.22594/dau.16-770.25 This article and its accompanying research contribute an operational Risk Identification and Evaluation Bias Reduction Checklist for cognitive bias mitigation in risk management for the aerospace sector. The checklist described herein offers a practical and implementable project management framework to help reduce biases in the aerospace sector and redress the cognitive limitations in the risk identification and analysis process. Detailed discussion focuses on the development of strategies targeted at reducing four cognitive biases and their influence on the risk identification process, and to the development and validation of the practitioner checklist. DOI: https: Background and LiteratureThe authors' research began with a review of the literature, which covered the areas of risk management, cognitive biases, and bias enabling conditions. The biases of optimism, planning fallacy, anchoring, and ambiguity effect were deemed particularly influential to the risk identification and evaluation processes. The authors reviewed and synthesized the bias mitigation literature and developed the initial bias reduction checklist. After the development of the initial checklist, they designed and administered the survey to seek feedback and validation of the checklist as a risk management tool. A Likert-scale instrument was used for the survey, which is an appropriate instrument for measuring attitudes and beliefs. The answers to the open-ended questions of the survey provided insights, lessons learned, as well as other measures that are used by practitioners to reduce biases. The survey design, data collection, and analysis followed the academic literature guidelines for garnering attitudes and feedback on the effectiveness of the checklist as a risk management tool.Nonetheless, the authors recognize that like any of the measurement methods in the science disciplines, the social or attitude survey method is not error-free (Fowler, 2013). The authors incorporated the feedback from both the Likert survey and the open-ended questions into the final checklis...

show abstract

Project management under uncertainty

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Reactive Crisis Management in Constructive Projects — Patterns of Communication and Behaviour

Reactive Crisis Management in Constructive Projects — Patterns of Communication and Behaviour

Emergency systems in construction contracts

Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Risk Identification: Practitioner Checklist for the Aerospace Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About