Edwards, P J and Bowen, P A (1998) Risk and risk management in construction: A review and future directions for research. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), pp. 339-349. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The literature on construction and project risk management published during the period from 1960 to 1997 is reviewed and analysed to identify trends and foci in research and practice. This analysis is used to identify gaps and inconsistencies in the knowledge and treatment of construction and project risk. The findings suggested that political, economic, financial and cultural categories of construction risk deserve greater research attention, as do those associated with quality assurance, and occupational health and safety. Temporal aspects of risk, and risk communication, are also important fields for investigation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement; communication; risk management; project management; soft systems |
| Index terms: | occupational health and safety, quality assurance, project management, investigation, risk management, project risk management |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, risk assessment, quality assurance, occupational health and safety management, project management theory and practice, financial risk |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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