Wood, G D and Ellis, R C T (2003) Risk management practices of leading UK cost consultants. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(4), pp. 254-262. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Risk management (RM) is now widely accepted as an important tool in the management of projects. Through a series of semi-structured interviews with RM facilitators, current practice is explored. The findings provide a number of soft benchmarks. Interest in RM comes largely from educated clients and is regularly adopted as an integrated front-end service. Ongoing RM studies throughout the project life cycle are limited largely to the public sector and utilities. The use of RM workshops and the production of risk registers are commonplace. The use of Monte Carlo simulation through specialist software is widespread as a means of obtaining a greater degree of confidence in project budgets. There is scepticism regarding the usefulness of complex risk analysis techniques and a predisposition to rely on judgement based on experience. The use of historical data is limited. Evaluation of the service is informal and there is a relative lack of training and skills development underpinning RM provision.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; estimation; Monte Carlo simulation; probability calculations; project management; risk management |
| Index terms: | risk register, risk analysis, facilitator, Monte Carlo simulation, public sector, life cycle, risk management, cost consultant, utilities, interview, workshop, skills development, project management, estimation |
| Subjects: | profession, value management, risk assessment, personnel development, construction type, financial risk, environmental hazards, project management theory and practice, financial and cost management, data collection methods, practitioner, administrative law, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Project Management, Cost Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Construction Technology |
| 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