Forbes, D; Smith, S and Horner, M (2008) Tools for selecting appropriate risk management techniques in the built environment. Construction Management and Economics, 26(11), pp. 1241-1250. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The built environment is full of uncertainty which leads to risk. The literature shows that there is a wide range of techniques available to deal with risk; however numerous studies have shown that only a relatively small number are used in practice. One reason for this small number is a lack of knowledge of the circumstances in which they can be used. With the aim of overcoming this lack of knowledge two decision support tools are developed, which assist in selecting appropriate cases. The first tool is a two-dimensional matrix which provides a graphical output but has several limitations; the second is a case-based reasoning (CBR) model. These tools have been built from literature examples of the application of risk techniques. A framework has been developed to assess the examples. It uses a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technical, Legal and Environmental) analysis to assess the problem characteristics. The associated data used in the problem were defined as fuzzy, incomplete or random. The results of the CBR validation demonstrated a tool that predicts the correct technique in excess of 80% of cases, and allows the matrix to be revised and refined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case-based reasoning; decision support system; risk management; risk techniques |
| Index terms: | built environment, decision support, validation, case-based reasoning, risk management |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, cognitive psychology, professional development, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Risk Management, Urban Studies, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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