Apostolopoulos, C (2015) Risk assessment for change management within project management: a hierarchical model process approach. PhD thesis, City, University of London, UK.
Abstract
The field of modern project management is not new, and what seems to have changed over the past decade is the evolution of techniques applying theory into practice. This had as a consequence for the need to standardise and structure different processes of project management, in a detailed, documented and formal manner. On the other hand, change management seen as an integrated process within project management is a rational process for exploring decision and behaviour alternatives in an attempt to realign the course of 'derailed' deliverables due to change and ensure project success. However, models contained in such frameworks often lack formal semantics and clarity; generally fail to address and assess organisational change management risk reasoning, in a rather detailed way as they do for the majority of the project management processes. Since, uncontrolled changes might have an effect on the projects' success, it is vital to assess the probability of materialisation (risk) of success before the decision is made and whether to proceed with the change or not. For example, if the change dramatically increases the risk of failure then it is logical to assume that avoiding that implementation is the right decision. Ideally, a change or consequence based upon a decision should have a low impact and a fairly high level of predictability. This research, takes the challenge to propose a novel modelling approach, which will contribute significantly to the missing formality of business models especially in the change risks assessment area. The introduction of Change Risk Assessment Model (CRAM) allows the identification and definition of speculative relationships, between change risks in the form of hierarchical risk tree analysis. Overall, the method is dynamic and flexible enough that can be tailored to various project requirements, taking into account significant environmental risk factors which influence project deliverables. Project success is a key objective for today's organisations; professionals can make use of a new methodology for risk assessment, compatible with project management frameworks which currently seems to be missing from literature. Project management methodologies are not a panacea against project failure; nevertheless, CRAM can be regarded as a comprehensive modelling approach which combines both quantitative and qualitative risk criteria analysis in decision making processes.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Halikias, G and Tsaramirsis, G |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change management; project success; failure; organisational change; reasoning; probability |
| Index terms: | project management, modelling, implementation, business model, risk assessment, project management process, decision-making process, project failure, semantics, project success, management risk, environmental risk, methodology, evolution, change management, organizational change, reasoning |
| Subjects: | business, decision analysis, project management theory and practice, management, analytical methods, environmental science, contractual arrangements, project completion, cognitive psychology, financial risk, research methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Project Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Organizational Design, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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