Alsulaiman, Y; Bowles, G and Ogunlana, S (2014) Evaluating risk management in independent water and power plant projects in Saudi Arabia. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Worldwide countries are striving to meet demands for water and power, which have been estimated as likely to increase at a rate of 7 percent per annum over the coming decade. Water and power plant projects following the Independent Water and Power Plant (IWPP) approach have typically involved a plethora of risks, as they have been reliant on long-term arrangements to transfer project risks, traditionally borne by the government, to the private sector. Since about 75% of IWPP projects in Saudi Arabia (SA) have failed to meet specified objectives, effective risk management (RM) implementation is key to the success of any public and private project. Practitioners, who are key informants in this subject area, have related their experience about RM in IWPP projects in SA through semi-structured interviews, and analysed these through the grounded theory approach. This study gathers and collates data to present findings in a propositional diagram that is fully grounded, based on practitionersÕ experiences that extend to the ineffectiveness of implementing RM in water and power projects, specifically in IWPP projects in SA. Findings indicate that IWPP parties have implemented RM in an informal way. In addition, there is a general lack of RM knowledge in the SA water and power industry. The paper concludes with an emergent diagram illustrating major phenomena, categories, and subcategories affecting the implementation of RM in IWPP projects in SA.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | iwpp; risk; Saudi Arabia; water and power |
| Index terms: | interview, Saudi Arabia, power plant, private sector, grounded theory, practitioner, risk management, implementation |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, risk assessment, contractual arrangements, Geography, theoretical framing, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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