final report risk wanie -draft 3

7/25/2019 Final Report Risk Wanie -DRAFT 3

1/20

1.0 Introduction

Risk management (RM) is a concept which is used in all industries, from IT related

business, automobile or pharmaceutical industr, to the construction sector. !ach

industr has de"eloped their own RM standards, but the general ideas of the concept

usuall remain the same regardless of the sector. #ccording to the $ro%ect Management

Institute ($MI), pro%ect risk management is one of the nine most critical parts of pro%ect

commissioning. This indicates a strong relationship between managing risks and a

pro%ect success. &hile RM is described as the most difficult area within construction

management, its application is promoted in all pro%ects in order to a"oid negati"e

conse'uences.

ne concept which is widel used within the field of RM is called the risk management

plan, Risk management plan is a document that a pro%ect manager prepares to foresee

risks, estimate impacts, and define responses to issues. It also contains a risk

assessment matri where a risk is *an uncertain e"ent or condition that, if it occurs, has

a positi"e or negati"e effect on a pro%ect+s ob%ecti"es.

The construction industr operates in a "er uncertain en"ironment where conditionscan change due to the compleit of each pro%ect. The aim of each organiation is to be

successful and risk management can facilitate it. -owe"er it should be underlined that

risk management is not a tool which ensures success but rather a tool which helps to

increase the probabilit of achie"ing success. Risk management is therefore a proacti"e

rather than a reacti"e concept.

1


2/20

. $ro%ect Info

ur case stud is #/!- -ighwa $hase (#mpang/uala umpur !le"ated -ighwa

(#kleh) $hase !ast 2ound from 3lu /elang Interchange (/m 4.0).

#kleh $hase is an additional route connecting to the eisting deck (#/!- -ighwa)

that will in"ol"e the epansion of the eisting twolane dual carriagewa into a three

lane dual carriagewa from /M 5.4, $ersimpangan6alan6elatek until /M 4.0, 6alan3lu

/elang Interchange towards #mpang #rea b pro"iding a new threelane route along

the 1.5 km. &ith the a"ailabilit of this latest route, it epected to reduce up to 789 of

traffic problems during the peak hours. The threelane onewa route is wider and it can

contribute to a more comfortable dri"e and safer for motorists that heading towards

6alan3lu /elang, Middle Ring Road II (MRR) and #mpang.

Total pro%ect costs are RM :;,;:1,Turnpike =nerg =dn2hdLead Consultant >Ranhill ?onsulting =dn2hdRoad Safety Audit > !ndea"our ?onsult =dn2hdEnvironmental Manaement Plan > 6alinanTimur=dn2hdProram Manaement Solution >!nterprise 2usiness =olution(!2=) =dn2hd

Contractor > ?antile"er 2umi =dn2hd


3/20

#/!- $-#=! @ A!R# #B3T $#C IM#D!

7. #im and b%ecti"e.

The aim of this pro%ect is to e"aluate how risk management plan is used in the

#/!- construction pro%ect and how the practitioners are managing risks in

e"erda situations during the construction pro%ect. The theor of the risk

management process will be compared to the actual practice in order to

in"estigate similarities and differences. The main idea is to see if the #/!-

construction pro%ect is working with risk management as it is described in theliterature regarding the methods and techni'ues presented.

In order to achie"e the aim, the following ob%ecti"es will be fulfilled>

a) Identif risk and risk management percei"ed in a #/!- construction

pro%ectb) Identif risk management process used in practicec) $roposed risk management plan for the #/!- pro%ect

5. Research methodolog

7


4/20

The methodolog of this paper is listed as follows>

1. The research methodolog can be summaried in fiftnine (84) different risk

factors were categoried into nine (:) ma%or categories and "isualied b ranking

through the detailed literature re"iew 'uestionnaire distributed to eperts in the

construction of (#/!-) $hase $ro%ect. The 'uestionnaire was de"eloped to

assess the feedback on the relati"e importance of risk causes. Then, the

'uestionnaire was filled out b nine (:) highl eperienced construction

professionals including $ro%ect Managers, =ite Managers, #ssistant Managers,

$ro%ect !ngineers, Einance Managers, -=! fficer, =ite !ngineer, $ro%ect

!ngineer and =r. !c. $ro%ect Fe"elopment. The collected data were analed

through Risk Matri Method. The analsis included ranking the different causes

according to the relati"e importance indices. The analsis re"ealed the most

contributing factors and categories causing risks. ikelihood is deri"ed from

uncertaint of risk occurrence. The impact is the effect of the contingenc.

$otential e"ent of loss designating risk (R) is translated in mathematical terms as

a result of the product of the sie of the impact (I) and likelihood ($).

R G I $

Huestionnaires were de"eloped into three (7) ma%or section (# ,2 and ?). =ection

(#2)> #imed to obtain information about caused of risks in construction pro%ects,

it was asked to rate those initiall identified fift=i (84) factors according to their

impact (I) and likelihood ($). # sur"e was conducted through distributed

'uestionnaires in which respondents were asked to rank and score these factors

according to their eperience and position. =ection (?)> $ersonal information of

the respondent was collected (e.g., work eperience of construction pro%ects and

work position.The compan for in"ol"ed for this sur"eed b 'uestionnaires is

$RICT#= =FC 2-F . Totall fifteen (18) person approached for these

5


5/20

'uestionnaires and nine (:) out of fifteen responses were recei"ed with response

rate e'uals to 409.

#ssessment of feedback from 'uestionnaire sur"e was made. #nalsis was

carried out for nine (:) responses to identif ma%or risk contributing factors.#nalsis is discussed in details, on the basis of which recommendations to

construct pro%ects were made.

8. $ro%ect risk causes

There are fiftnine (84) factors and are categoried into nine(1)=hortage of e'uipment ) =hortage of material 7) ate

deli"eries of material 5) $oor 'ualit of workmanship 8) ower work 'ualit in

presence of time constrain 4) ack of site safet inspection and poor super"ision


6/20

site ("er far) 57) !n"ironmental factors (floods, earth'uakes, etc.) 55)

?ompliance with law and regulation 58) Inaccurate pro%ect program 54) $oor

communications between the home and field offices (contractor side) 5


7/20

The 'uestionnaire design took into consideration the ob%ecti"es of the stud with the

aim to answer the research aims. Dreat effort and brainstorming were done for

designing the 'uestionnaire. Meetings with groupKs members from the different

background and eperience were conducted to identif the right 'uestions re'uired

and to present them in a clear and an unambiguous format. =pecial care also was

done for phrasing the 'uestions that is easil understood b respondents.

4.?ontents of the 'uestionnaire

The 'uestionnaire was di"ided into three ma%or sections. The first section contains

the probabilit of the causes leading to risk and the respondent is asked to state the

probabilit of occurrence of these causes in his pro%ects on a scale with the ranting

L1 representing Inconcei"ableNOOKK Remote OO7KK ?oncei"ableN OO5KK possibleN and OO8KK

Most ikel.

The second section 'uestionnaire re'uired the respondent to rank these on a scale

with the rating of L1 representing CegligibleNOOKK Minor OO7KK =eriousN OO5KK EatalN and

OO8KK?atastrophic according to the degree of $robabilit risk in construction.

The third section addresses general information about the respondents such as (1)Bears of eperience and () $osition of the respondent.

The design of the 'uestionnaire was based on the fact that the had to be simple,

clear, and understandable for respondents, and at the same time, the should be

able to be interpreted well b us. The 'uestionnaire has a definite ad"antage of

re'uiring smaller time to be responded and is more accurate in the final outcome.

Eactors causing risk in construction pro%ects in #/!- were identified through the

literature based on pre"ious researches, %ournal together with input, re"ision b

groupKs members where a total of ninetnine (84) factors at nine (:) ma%or

categories were identified. The participants were re'uired to rate the factors in the

wa the affect risk in construction pro%ects using their own eperiences on

construction of highwa sites.


8/20

4.7Fata gathering

Huestionnaires were mailed to respondents ($ro%ect Managers, =ite Managers,

#ssistant Managers, $ro%ect !ngineers, Einance Managers, -=! fficer, =ite

!ngineer, $ro%ect !ngineer and =r. !c. $ro%ect Fe"elopment) completed forms

were re'uested to be mailed or faed back to us, and the response for this re'uest

was poor. #nother approach of collecting data was usedN in"ol"ed followup

telephone calls, most of data were collected b this method.

"er a period of 1 week later, we collected nine (:) responses from fifteen (18) total

forms from $RICT#= =FC 2-FN this means the rate of response was 409. The

details of respond from respondents with their classifications were mentioned in

Ta ble 1 for clarifications.

In both sur"es, the baseline characteristics of the respondents were relati"el

similar. f the : respondents in the sur"e, $ro%ect Managers,11.119, =ite

Managers 11.119, #ssistant Managers 11.119, $ro%ect !ngineers 11.119, Einance

Managers 11.119,, -=! fficer 11.119,=ite !ngineer 11.119, $ro%ect !ngineer

11.119 and =r. !c. $ro%ect Fe"elopment 11.119.

This research is based on a sur"e designed to gather all necessar information in

an effecti"e wa. The sur"e presents fift=i (84) factors generated on the basis of

;

!a"le #$ Profession of Respondent

C

$rofessional cadre of

respondents Co of respondents $ercentage, 9

1 $ro%ect Managers, 1 11.11

=ite Managers, 1 11.11

7 #ssistant Managers 1 11.11

5 $ro%ect !ngineers, 1 11.11

8 Einance Managers, 1 11.11

4 -=! fficer, 1 11.11

< =ite !ngineer, 1 11.11; $ro%ect !ngineer 1 11.11

: =r. !c. $ro%ect

Fe"elopment 1 11.11

Total : 100 9


9/20

related research works on risk factor in construction pro%ects. These factors were

classified into nine (:) ma%or categories based on pre"ious section and as ad"ised

b researcher> 1) ?onstruction Eactors ?ategor, ) egal Eactors ?ategor, 7)

$olitics and ?ontracts $ro"ision Eactors ?ategor, 5) Einance Eactors ?ategor, 8)

Fesign Eactors ?ategor, 4) Fesign Risk Eactors ?ategor OOgroup 1KK for respondentsK

eperience 1 till 8 earsN OOgroup KK for respondentsK eperience abo"e 4 till 10 earsN

and OOgroup 7KK for respondentsK eperience abo"e 11 till 8 ears and OOgroup 5KK for

respondentsK eperience abo"e 14 earsN Table depicts these groups.

In all sur"es, the ma%orit of the respondents ha"e 11 till 18 earsK eperience in

constructionJpro%ect management or working knowledge of constructionJpro%ect

management acti"ities. 2ased on work eperience and emploment position, it was

inferred that the respondents ha"e ade'uate knowledge of the acti"ities associated

with construction pro%ect risk. This makes them as reliable and credible sources of

information which is crucial to satisf the research goal. The procedure, findings, and

rele"ant discussion of the analses are detailed in the following section.

!a"le 2$ Cateori%ed factors that cause risk in construction projects&

?ategor item

Related factor

IF

Total number of

categor factors

?onstruction Eactors ?ategor 01> 0; 17

egal Eactors ?ategor 0:>17 0

$olitics and ?ontracts $ro"ision Eactors

?ategor 15> 18 04

Einance Eactors ?ategor 14> 1 0;

Fesign Eactors ?ategor > : 0

Fesign Risk Eactors ?ategor 70> 71 0

final report risk wanie -draft 3

Documents