Forbes, D R; Smith, S D and Horner, R M W (2008) A comparison of techniques for identifying risks in sustainability assessment of housing. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
Identification is the first stage in the risk management cycle - risks must be identified before they can be assessed and controlled. The literature outlines a range of available techniques for this stage, of which 16 have been applied to construction management problems. This paper investigates the applicability of two of these techniques for identifying the risks in the sustainability assessment of housing. The risk breakdown structure (RBS) and a brainstorming approach were tested in a workshop comprising twelve construction professionals and academics. The RBS method produced 39 risks which were general in character, while the brainstorming process suggested 82 risks which were more specific in nature. However, brainstorming also identified a set of risks which could not be categorised by any of those in the risk breakdown structure. These included risks relating to personal belief and understanding, which suggests that the rigid nature of the RBS has the potential to limit creativity in identifying risks. Whilst this research found that both techniques were appropriate to different extents for identifying risks in sustainability assessment, it was shown that there are fundamental differences in the level of detail and boundaries. This, therefore, questions the applicability of both to the same problem, and demonstrates that care must be taken when selecting an appropriate risk management technique. Further the final set of risks produced from this research has shown the synergy of a hybrid approach.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | brainstorming; housing; risk breakdown structure; risk management; sustainability assessment |
| Index terms: | risk management, synergy, risk breakdown structure, workshop, creativity, housing, boundaries, level of detail, sustainability assessment, construction professional |
| Subjects: | financial risk, innovation and creative processes, technical documentation, partnership management, property law, sustainability assessment, construction type, risk assessment, professional development |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Cost Management, Design Practice, Risk Management, Information Management, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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