Allport, R J and Anderson, R J (2011) Managing strategic risk: the worldwide experience of metros. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 164(4), pp. 173-180. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the management of many of the world's largest metros (mass transit railways). It describes how co-operation between operators has over 16 years led to continuous improvements in metro performance. In recent years, however, it has become clear that the complexities of metro systems are not always understood by stakeholders, and an increasingly uncertain future poses major challenges for proactive metro management. Research has concluded that the implementation of strategic risk management holds promise for future improvement, where risk is defined to include both downside impacts and opportunities. A risk guide has been developed to assist operators to implement effective practices. This paper is written to share these experiences in this sector, in the expectation that there may be lessons of wider interest.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | management; railway systems; risk & probability |
| Index terms: | risk management, continuous improvement, implementation, railway system, complexity |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, risk assessment, contractual arrangements, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Procurement, Quality Management, Risk Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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