The Nature and Management of Risk in a Construction Company Sites
CHAPTER ONE
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The objective of the study is
- To find means of risk management that can be utilized by the network
- To make new suggestions on the use of these risk management methods.
- To find the means to manage those risks that are the most effectively managed with the co-operation of several project actors.
- To identify the risks that are caused by structuring the work in increasingly complex project networks. The purpose is to identify the risks in project networks
- To find existing methods for project risk management in construction project networks by interviewing central actors working on two different construction projects.
- To study and explain some risk management means in project networks by the network governance theory.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literature that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.
Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:
- Conceptual Framework
- Theoretical Framework
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Risk
Risk has been defined in a number of ways, which are almost never entirely true or false, but are useful tools for abstraction and creating common focal points (Rosa 1998 in Habegger, 2008). A dictionary definition considers that risk is ‘the chance of injury, damage or loss’ (Webster, 1983 in Habegger, 2008). Following that perspective risk would not be predestined, but subject to human agency (Habegger, 2008). Additionally we might distinguish between the meaning of the concept in technical and non-technical contexts. Therefore in technical contexts, the concept of ‘risk’ could have specific meanings which are widely used across disciplines, ranging from ‘the cause of, the probability of, or an unwanted event which may or may not occur’ to a decision that has been made under the condition of known probabilities. Risk is defined as the uncertainty associated with a future outcome or event (Banks, 2004). Further, risk is a concept that denotes a potential negative impact to an asset or some characteristic of value that may arise from some present process or future event (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982). Rosa (2003 in Habegger, 2008) added to this conception the element of uncertainty, by defining risk as a situation or an event where something of human value (including humans themselves) is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain. In the same manner, Terje and Ortwin (2009) consider that although there wouldn’t be an agreed general definition of risk in the literature, there might be some common characteristics that we can mention:
- Risk equals the expected loss (Willis, 2007)
- Risk equals the expected disutility (Campbell, 2005) 3. Risk is the probability of an adverse outcome (Graham and Weiner, 1995) 4. Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of adverse effects (Lowrance 1976).
- Risk is the fact that a decision is made under conditions of known probabilities (Knight, 1921).
- Risk is the combination of probability of an event and its consequences (ISO, 2002).
- Risk is defined as a set of scenarios, each of which has a probability and a consequence (Kaplan and Garrick 1981; Kaplan 1991)
CHAPTER THREE:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this chapter, we described the research procedure for this study. A research methodology is a research process adopted or employed to systematically and scientifically present the results of a study to the research audience viz. a vis, the study beneficiaries.
Research Design
Research designs are perceived to be an overall strategy adopted by the researcher whereby different components of the study are integrated in a logical manner to effectively address a research problem. In this study, the researcher employed the survey research design. This is due to the nature of the study whereby the opinion and views of people are sampled. According to Singleton & Straits, (2009), Survey research can use quantitative research strategies (e.g., using questionnaires with numerically rated items), qualitative research strategies (e.g., using open-ended questions), or both strategies (i.e., mixed methods). As it is often used to describe and explore human behaviour, surveys are therefore frequently used in social and psychological research.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the analysis of data derived through the questionnaire and key informant interview administered on the respondents in the study area. The analysis and interpretation were derived from the findings of the study. The data analysis depicts the simple frequency and percentage of the respondents as well as interpretation of the information gathered. A total of thirty-six (36) questionnaires were administered to respondents of which only thirty (30) were returned and validated. This was due to irregular, incomplete and inappropriate responses to some questionnaire. For this study a total of 30 was validated for the analysis.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
In this study, our focus was to examine the nature and management of risk in a construction company sites using Julius Berger as a case study. the study specifically was aimed at highlighting means of risk management that can be utilized by the network, make new suggestions on the use of these risk management methods, find the means to manage those risks that are the most effectively managed with the co-operation of several project actors, identify the risks that are caused by structuring the work in increasingly complex project networks. The purpose is to identify the risks in project networks, find existing methods for project risk management in construction project networks by interviewing central actors working on two different construction projects and study and explain some risk management means in project networks by the network governance theory. A total of 30 responses were validated from the enrolled participants where all respondent are drawn from management staff of Julius Berger.
CONCLUSION
Based on the finding of this study, the following conclusions were made:
- Project risk management is the process of identifying, analyzing and responding to any risk that arises over the life cycle of a project, the process that project managers use to manage potential risks that may affect a project in any way, the practice of identifying, evaluating, and preventing or mitigating risks to a project and a process focused on risk events being identified and managed proactively, helps you lower the chances of failure.
- Project network governance is steering and management strategies aimed at managing the complex problems in an interdependent setting with many different actors, interfirm coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social system, the governance of a network of networks and the network for the individual project.
- The project risks in networks is unexpected event that can affect your project, the potential of a project to fail, an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project objective and A risk register for each project to track the risks and issues identified
- Risks are managed in a project network is by avoiding, accepting , reducing and transferring
- Co-operative ways exist to manage risks through loss prevention, Treat the risk, Monitor and Report on the risk
RECOMMENDATION
That It is noticed that construction project risks are manageable. Therefore, contractors should consider the benefits of managing construction project risks so that they will be able to acknowledge the importance of managing the construction project risks. They should implement the strategies to manage risks as discussed in this study on the real projects.
REFERENCES
- Andersen TJ (2008). The Performance Relationship of Effective Risk Management: Exploring the Firm-Specific Investment Rationale. Long Range Planning, 41(2): 155-176.
- Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G. (2010). “The organizational dynamics of Enterprise Risk Management”. Accounting, Organizations and Science. Vol. 35, pp. 659-675.
- Arrow, Kenneth (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnssonis Saatio.
- Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of risk analysis: A knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. New York: Wiley.
- Aven T., (2007). “A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis and management covering both safety and security”. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Vol. 92, pp. 745–754.
- Babcock, G.C., (1972). “A note on justifying Beta as a measure of risk”. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 27, N°3, pp. 699-702. Bailes,
- Alyson J. K. (2007). “Introduction: A World of Risk”. SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Stockholm: SIPRI.
- Banse, G. and Bechmann, G., (1998). Interdisziplinäre Risikoforschung: Eine Bib-liographie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. M.A. Ritter. London: Sage
- Bernstein, Peter L. (1998). Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Binmore K (2009). Game Theory and the Social Contract. University College London
- Baldwin J, Li Z (2002). Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers. Res. Policy, (31): 1-18.
- Bhimani A (2009). Risk management, corporate governance and management accounting: Emerging interdependencies. Manage. Accounting Res., 20(1): 2-5.
- Boekestein B (2006). The relation between intellectual capital and intangible assets of pharmaceutical companies. J. Intellectual Capital, 7(2): 241-253.
