The development of a project and site investigation risk evaluation model

Ashton, P and Gidado, K (2003) The development of a project and site investigation risk evaluation model. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a model that could be used in practice to improve Site Investigation (SI) procedures and reduce risk associated with uncertain site conditions. The developed model Project and Site Investigation Risk Evaluation Model (PSIREM) ultimately provides a reliable means of presenting both the SI data and the complexity of the project relative to SI information, thereby providing the opportunity to assess the risk associated with a specific project and the inadequacy of available SI information. Despite the wealth of knowledge and information available, the UK construction industry seems to be failing in the use of these existing models and systems to improve decision making for site investigation work. A questionnaire survey of over 1,000 construction practitioners revealed that less than 1% used any form of risk assessment method specific to site and ground conditions. Whilst 23% admitted that their only attempt to carry out any kind of risk assessment was to satisfy the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 1994).The work described in this paper is based upon data and information collected from a literature search, questionnaire survey, and semi/structured interviews. This research has been used to develop a model (PSIREM) for the appraisal of risk associated with site investigation. Case studies of 36 selected construction projects within the UK have been carried out. The developed PSIREM has been used, together with the findings of the case studies, to objectively measure the level of risk and to develop a mapping risk index associated with an inadequate site investigation. This provides a concise appraisal of risk associated with uncertain site investigation information, which clients/practitioners can map against to establish a prediction of the risk they are exposed to for any given project.

Item Type: Conference Paper (Paper)
Uncontrolled Keywords: project complexity; risk management; site investigation procedures
Index terms: interview, case study, survey, construction practitioner, mapping, decision-making, ground condition, risk assessment, construction project, site investigation, practitioner, regulation, risk management, questionnaire, construction industry, appraisal, complexity, project complexity
Subjects: practitioner, risk assessment, data collection methods, financial risk, professional development, organizational theory, production management, spatial and geospatial analysis, factor and component analysis, systems engineering, political science, industry analysis, geotechnical engineering, decision analysis
Topics: Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Governance, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice
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