Tan, Y; Smith, N J and Bower, D A (2003) Improving risk identification by utilizing hybrid intelligent reasoning. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Risk management is an important project management tool that is in order the understanding of the scope and potential problems related to projects to support decision making. Despite the wide variety of methods in existence, the application of risk management in practice is still limited. One reason relates to the level of accuracy and complexity of current analysis tools, accurate analysis relies upon the identification of realistic risk factors. Risk identification is about trying to forecast potential sources of risk that might impact on successful completion of a project. Risk identification is a key part of risk management and it identifies the potential sources of risk. Risk forecasting considers the probability and impact of these sources. Popular risk identification methods are mostly based on expert knowledge, so identification largely depends on the involvement and the sophistication of experts. Subjective judgement and intuition usually accompany the experts' opinion; this could be expressed as the impact of human behaviour. In order to reduce such subjectivity and enhance knowledge sharing, artificial intelligent techniques can be utilised. An intelligent system provides storage to accumulate retrievable knowledge and reasoning in an impartial way so that a common acceptable solution can be achieved. This paper introduces a hybrid approach to modelling risk identification in construction projects. Case-based reasoning and rule-based reasoning are two artificial intelligent paradigms that have already proved to be successful in managing knowledge. The integration of Case-based reasoning and Rule-based reasoning is particularly useful for project knowledge in relation to risk. Case-based reasoning matches the manner that humans solve problems by remembering past similar experience, which can provide compelling support for forecasting and then decision making. Rule-based reasoning provides suggestions on the basis of a situation detection mechanism that relies on structured prior knowledge when there are no matching cases in case base. A pilot study has shown that the approach is feasible and this will soon be fully tested using project data.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case-based reasoning; decision support; reasoning; risk identification; rule-based reasoning |
| Index terms: | risk management, intuition, project management, integration, risk identification, complexity, decision support, paradigm, case-based reasoning, risk factor, project data, project knowledge, modelling, subjectivity, accuracy, forecasting, human behaviour, knowledge sharing, construction project, decision-making, reasoning, intelligent system |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, automation and robotics, education and knowledge transfer, project management theory and practice, professional development, production management, organizational analysis, analytical methods, financial risk, cognitive psychology, prediction and forecasting, knowledge management, human factors and perception, risk assessment, data collection methods, environmental hazards, decision analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Information Management, Project Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management |
| 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