مدیریت ریسک پروژه در صنعت ساخت و ساز مهندسی کوئینزلند : یک مطالعه اجمالی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|693||2004||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 4920 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 51–61
This paper provides the results of a survey of senior management involved in the Queensland engineering construction industry, concerning the usage of risk management techniques. These are described in comparison with four earlier surveys conducted around the world and indicate that: the use of risk management is moderate to high, with very little differences between the types, sizes and risk tolerance of the organisations, and experience and risk tolerance of the individual respondents; risk management usage in the execution and planning stages of the project life cycle is higher than in the conceptual or termination phases; risk identification and risk assessment are the most often used risk management elements ahead of risk response and risk documentation; brainstorming is the most common risk identification technique used; qualitative methods of risk assessment are used most frequently; risk reduction is the most frequently used risk response method, with the use of contingencies and contractual transfer preferred over insurance; and project teams are the most frequent group used for risk analysis, ahead of in-house specialists and consultants.
Risk management is a critical part of project management as ‘unmanaged or unmitigated risks are one of the primary causes of project failure’ . While numerous papers have been written on the subject of risk management, little current information exists on the actual use of risk management in practice . Surveys have been conducted between 1987 and 1997 in several countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and Israel , , , , , , , ,  and . Of these, Uher and Toakley 1996 survey  is the latest Australian work. In addition to the problems associated with the different times and locations of these surveys, each have sought different types of information—making comparisons between them all, and identification of trends, difficult, if not impossible. In view of this, together with the 6-years lapse in time since the Uher and Toakley study, a survey was undertaken in Queensland aimed at incorporating many of the features of the previous work. To do this, four of the previous studies were selected to provide a basis, comprising: • Akintoye and MacLeod's 1994 UK survey entitled ‘Risk analysis and management in construction’; • Uher and Toakley's 1996 Australian survey entitled ‘Risk management in the conceptual phase of a project’; • Baker et al.'s 1995 UK survey entitled ‘Risk response techniques employed currently for major projects’ and • Raz and Michael's Israel 2001 survey entitled ‘Use and benefits of tools for project risk management’. Analysis of these four previous studies provided the main aims and objectives of the research, which was to obtain feedback from practitioners on the following aspects of risk management: • Perceived risk tolerance of individuals and companies • Frequency of use of risk management • Factors limiting the implementation of risk management • Risk management techniques used • Risk management usage in each of the project life cycle phases • The recording and use of historical risk data By examining the commonality between the four surveys and considering the objectives and findings, a draft questionnaire was developed using a multiple-choice format. Additional questions on the degree of training respondents had had and the benefits obtained were included with the aim of identifying effective risk management training methods. Answers were solicited on a 5-point bipolar Likert scale. Following a small piloting study, the final version of the questionnaire was developed and which comprises four sections. In the first section, background information, such as business category, annual turnover, years of experience, and respondent's risk tolerance was sought. The second section investigates the risk management training respondents have had and the benefits obtained. The third section sought the frequency of use of risk management techniques and factors limiting the implementation of risk management. The final section focused on organisational experience with the application of risk management. Factors investigated include risk management methods and techniques, usage of computers, project life cycle phase impact and the use of historical risk data. The survey questionnaire was administered by mail in March 2002 to a random sample of 200 organisations involved in the Queensland engineering construction industry. The survey sample comprised owners, property developers, consultants (project managers, quantity surveyors and engineers) and contractors.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper described a survey of the perceived risk tolerance of a sample of individuals and their companies in the Queensland engineering construction industry. The results are that: • The use of risk management is moderate to high, with very little differences between the types, sizes and risk tolerance of the organisations, and experience and risk tolerance of the individual respondents. • Risk management usage in the execution and planning stages of the project life cycle is higher than in the conceptual or termination phases. This contrasts with the view that risk management application in the conceptual phase is the most important. • Risk identification and risk assessment are the most often used risk management elements ahead of risk response and risk documentation. • Brainstorming is the most common risk identification technique used. Consistent with previous survey findings, intuition/judgement/experience are the most frequently used risk assessment techniques. That no single risk assessment technique is best for all cases may in part be the reason why the respondents have opted for the simplest approach. • Qualitative methods of risk assessment are used most frequently, ahead of quantitative and semi-qualitative methods. • Risk reduction is the most frequently used risk response method followed by risk transfer; risk elimination and risk retention—with the use of contingencies and contractual transfer preferred over insurance. • Project teams are the most frequent group to be used for risk analysis, ahead of in-house specialists and consultants. The level of training in risk management techniques is low to moderate. • The use of computers is consistently lower for risk management than for cost accounting, databases or scheduling. The recording and use of historical risk data is also low to moderate, along with the usage of such risk data on other projects. Given the general philosophy for risk documentation and the use of risk management in the early stages of project development, the industry has an opportunity to make better use of risk management in these areas. No dominant factor was identified that limits the implementation of risk management. All the factors nominated in the survey: cost effectiveness; difficulty in seeing the benefits; human/organisational resistance; lack of accepted industry model for risk analysis; lack of dedicated resources; lack of expertise in the techniques; lack of familiarity with the techniques; lack of information; and lack of time were low to moderately relevant.