Ashton, P and Gidado, K (2002) The identification of uncertainty and risk associated with inadequate site investigation procedures relative to project complexity. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
This paper is part of a global research aimed at developing a system that could be used in practice to objectively measure the level of risk associated with an inadequate site investigation. The work described in this paper has developed a Project and Site Investigation Information Evaluation Program (PSIIEP), designed to evaluate and place an index of relative importance upon both project complexity and risk associated with inadequate site investigation information. Despite the wealth of knowledge available from leading 'expert' sources that provide guidelines for site investigation procedure, this research indicates that over 56% of construction contracts reported major difficulties when carrying out sub-structure works, solely as a result of inadequate site investigation (SI) information. This research has identified the factors that brought about discrepancies that led to project uncertainty and risk in SI survey data. The developed PSIIEP utilizes these findings to evaluate project and site data and deliver a concise appraisal of risk associated with uncertain site investigative information. The research has been based on data and information collected using 1,000 questionnaires sent to construction practitioners. The work used logic through a grounded theory methodology supported by 36 case studies from a selection of construction projects in the UK.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project complexity; risk management; site investigation procedure |
| Index terms: | methodology, program, site investigation, construction project, questionnaire, construction contract, risk management, appraisal, project complexity, relative importance, case study, project uncertainty, global research, grounded theory, survey, construction practitioner |
| Subjects: | contract type, data collection methods, risk assessment, geotechnical engineering, research methods, software systems, theoretical framing, factor and component analysis, professional development, project management theory and practice, production management, organizational theory |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here