ریسک های رایج یا تقویت شده در برنامه ها کدام است؟ مدارک و شواهد از طرح های های زیربنایی بخش دولتی انگلستان

The management of risk is critical in organisations that work in multi-project environments. Project risk management is relatively mature. However, the programme risk management body of knowledge is still evolving. This paper presents empirical evidence from the UK public sector highlighting the risks that are common to or amplified by working in programmes. In the main, these risks are associated with changes in government policy, diverse stakeholder aspirations and the challenges of multiple project procurement. These risks relate to the role of programme management in providing the link between individual projects and their strategic context.

It is a matter of definition that at a fundamental level, organisations exist for a purpose (Senge, 2006). In the public sector the purpose is generally concerned with the delivery of a service or with the delivery of a beneficial outcome in the public interest (Hill, 1991, Moore, 1997, Financial Times Ltd & University of Chicago. Graduate School of Business, 2000, Finlay, 2000, Joyce, 2000, Grundy and Brown, 2002 and Leigh, 2003). The decision to invest in capital infrastructure is therefore usually prompted by a need which is meant to enhance the achievement of this primary purpose (Dallas and Chartered Institute of Building, 2006). Flanagan and Norman (1993) assert that the benefits of risk management are especially evident in capital infrastructure projects because of their dynamic nature and the cost implications of construction related decisions. Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) explain that the need for formal procedures for risk management is amplified in mega infrastructure projects of high value. Whereas Miller et al. (2000) argue that the role of risk management is amplified as project ventures get more elaborate; which is often the case in infrastructure related projects. Thus, risk management should be an intrinsic part of capital infrastructure investment decisions. As a result of this realisation, risk management is mandatory for capital infrastructure schemes in the UK public sector (PAC, 2001 and Cabinet Office, 2002). However, in keeping with the developments in research, the emphasis has generally been on single projects. Risk management in multi-project environments is still an evolving area of research and industry practice (Maylor et al., 2006). This article focuses on programme risks and deals specifically with evidence from the UK public sector organisations. In the context of this article, risk is understood to be an event or condition that may occur, and whose occurrence, if it does take place, has a harmful or negative effect that can adversely affect the prospects of achieving a desired goal. Thus risk management relates to decisions about such potentially harmful or negative effects. This understanding is adopted with a keen awareness of the philosophical and pragmatic implications, and alternative definitions adopted by other authors. Risk management may generally be synthesised into four basic sub-processes: identification, analysis, response and monitoring. Maytorena et al. (2007) observes that the identification phase is critical since it has a big effect on the decisions that emanate from the risk management process. In a review article, Williams (1995) notes that little structured work has been done and published about typical risks, whereas Chapman (1998) points out that while risk identification has a significant impact on risk assessment and response, little empirical evidence exists on this phase. More recently Allan and Davis, 2006 and Aritua, 2010 have made the same point. Despite these observations, the bulk of risk management research is focused on the analysis and response phases; and yet it stands to reason that if risks are not identified they cannot be analysed and managed. Some researchers have undertaken studies of typical project risks in varying sectors and countries (such as Schmidt et al. (2001) on software project risks; De La Cruz et al. (2006) on construction project risks in Spain; Roumboutsos and Anagnostopoulos (2008) on PPPs in Greece; and Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004) in Thailand). These kinds of articles have proved to be a useful knowledge base to researchers and practitioners alike. However, such articles which provide empirical evidence of the inputs — as opposed to the outputs — of the risk management process are rare. Articles discussing typical risks which form the input to the risk management process are relatively few. Moreover, they are largely confined to single project environments. Most of the recent programme risk management research and best practice guidance have concentrated on how to use the outputs and some guidance exists on the process of risk assessment. In this regard therefore this paper constitutes an incremental but crucial step in building a body of knowledge which researchers and practitioners may tap into.

The programme risks revealed by the research reinforce the need to distinguish between projects and programmes as management functions in project environments. Furthermore, since the risks highlighted relate to issues which are to a large extent qualitative in nature, the approach to using them as inputs for risk assessment needs to be flexible and adaptable. The implication is that the skills needed to structure these risks in such a way that they inform the decision making process has to be different from those skills needed to deal with single project risks. McLucas (2003) has proposed that a systems approach whose aim is to understand relationships and to focus on areas of high leverage can result in decisions which emphasise the bigger picture. Aritua et al. (2009) propose that using principles based on complexity science allows programme managers to deal with risk cluster rather than on individual events. Whilst the standard methods of identification, usually used in combination, are well known and well used, there is still scope for research on how typical risks as highlighted in this article are related to emerging concepts such as uncertainty management in the broadest sense, complexity science and the complex systems approaches, and socio-technical risk management. Furthermore, since programme risks straddle the range between project specific and enterprise wide strategic issues, the relation between technical, cognitive and organisational sub-systems provides additional scope research. The findings in this paper provide a useful insight into actual risks from the perspective of individuals practicing in multi-project environments. Of course it may be argued that interviews from a broader spectrum would provide a more robust picture of programme risks across the UK public sector. The fact that only five major spending departments were considered is a shortcoming of the findings given that the UK public sector has many departments and agencies involved in programme management. Nevertheless, the case study departments considered represent over 80% of public sector capital expenditure and could therefore be considered to represent a significant sample (HM Treasury, 2007). The findings therefore contribute towards a clearer understanding of this budding area of research and industry practice. The limitations in this regard do not detract from the contribution but rather merely provide a platform for future research. This paper provides empirical evidence from the UK public sector about the sort of risks that are common to or amplified in programmes. The findings show that because of the important part played by the programme management function in linking individual projects to the overall organisational strategy, programme risks are mainly concerned with political issues, decisions about procurement routes and how to deal with the stakeholders. In sum, the results show that interviewees realised that dealing with programme risks presents challenges which require a different mindset from single project risks. This has implications for the skills set needed to concentrate on the significant areas and to take a holistic view of the project environment and its relation to the overall organisational context.