Stakeholders' attitudes to systematic risk management in infrastructure projects: A comparative study of projects in Iran and Sweden

This research aims at understanding Iranian stakeholdersâ (i. e. the client, the consultant and the main contractor) attitudes to systematic risk management by comparing it with their Swedish counterparts.   It aims at exploring the barriers to the implementation of a systematic risk management process in infrastructure projects in Iran.   The research focuses on the stakeholdersâ attitudes to systematic risk management from the feasibility study stage through to production in tunnelling (infrastructure) projects. Stakeholders on the selected tunnelling projects perceive and identify different risks in their projects.   However, the Iranian client does not perceive any importance in managing risk systematically and in a structured way.   The Iranian consultant perceives the importance of systematic risk management but is not paid by the client to carry out risk management.   The contractor has no experience in managing the risk associated with tunnelling and relies on the foreign consultant to propose solutions on how to deal with certain risks. In Sweden, there is an agreement between the client and the contractor on the importance of systematic risk management and there are attempts to improve it.   The client perceives systematic risk management as a tool to help them and to help the contractor to minimise risks and to ensure the project proceeds smoothly.   The contractor perceives systematic risk management as a tool for organisational survival and project success.   They both perceive systematic risk management as a tool for better communication across the organisation and between the stakeholders. Literature reviews resulted in identifying the influencing factors on the implementation of a systematic risk management process in the construction industry, e. g. lack of awareness about the benefits of risk management, a risk adverse culture, the blame culture, speed of construction, etc. Some of the most common risk management models are reviewed, their advantages and disadvantages identified, and a more user-friendly, easy to understand risk management model proposed.   The proposed model is utilised as a facilitator to explore the practitionersâ perceptions and attitudes to systematic risk management in tunnelling projects by looking at social and cultural contexts in which risk is addressed and risk management is perceived.   Data collected from interviews are analysed, coded and similar themes are found and grouped which resulted in identifying five main factors along with twenty five sub-factors that shape risk management contexts and influence the implementation of systematic risk management in infrastructure projects in Iran. The main five factors are culture, management, rules and regulations, risk and decision making process and people.   Some of the sub-factors are time perception (Culture), frequent change of management (Management), compliance: respecting rules and regulations (Rules and regulations), the importance of planning (Risk and decision making process), respect for people (People).