Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Risk Identification in Megaprojects

    Uploaded by

    yazard
    16 views28 pages
    DD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    DD

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views28 pages

    Risk Identification in Megaprojects

    Uploaded by

    yazard
    DD

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 28
    sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts (outptwww pring) Leaning (httpslwww.pmicrglearring) » Library (tepulwarwpmirgfearing/brary) Risk Identification in Megaprojects as a Crucial Phase of Risk Management A Literature Review asic (er om {Stpvrew oghcranetsyropcets Project Management Journal By Sancher-Carota, Alvaro | Alalla Luque, Rafeel | KimiaDieguer, Analsabel Alvaro Sanchez-Cazorla, University of Seville, Spain Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, University of Seville, Spain Ana Isabel trimia-Dieguer, University of Seville, Spain “The purpose ofthis tudyis to perform a lterature review of isk management in megaprojects and sytematize the rss studied in the trate. A systematic seach ofthe rain databases hasbeen performed, The contributions include; (Ia biblometric analysis of aticles (2) the systematization and ‘dascation nt nine categories ofthe rks found in content analysis ofthe articles; and (3) the denication of passbe areas of interes for research and practice. Risks are comprehensivaly categorize to assist practitioners curing the identification phase, while potential areas fo futureliesof research ae presented for academics KEYWORDS: megoproject; complex project rsk management; isk identification INTRODUCTION ‘Amegaproect isa large-scale project characterized by complex, uncertainty, ambiguity, dynamic ntrces,sgnfiant politcal or external influences, and time periods extending to zen years longer (Forel & Miller, 2001). Mepaprojecs are considered tobe the most complex fall he various types of projects since their veal behaviors fut to understand predic, and keep under contol. even when reasonably complete information about the megaproject system has been provided (Vd, Mare, & Bocque, 2077) ‘The characteristics of megapojects make them an interesting research topic, because acorcing to Esty (2004), they provide 2 decision-making environment In certain areas of project management that cannot be fund in any other type of project. The dferences between megaproject management and project ‘management include (Zhi, Xin, & Cheng, 2003}-() higher volume of investment, which means mare sponsors and/or shareholders, which n turn ‘ontibutes toward the complesty of the project; (2) greater community involvement, due to the high impact that these projects usualy have on the ‘environment where they ae implemented (although the impact fers depending onthe type of constuction, whieh may result in public sector participation; (3) amare complex decision-making process, duet the se of te budge and amount of resources invlve, since each decison made ina megaprojetcan drastically change ts rection and (4) higher umber of takenoldersiwolvee, meaning that thee i also larger numberof interests and expectations that have tobe flied, thereby increasing the complet of the project, n adi, Fybjerg, Bruzsius, and Rothengater (2003) state ‘that the principal lifference is that when megaprojcts fal they can cause the collapse ofthe agents that have been funded and sometimes even the governments that are behind her, thus excalating the risk factor, Risk management s currently considere tobe a mandatory part of project management in general (including megaprojets), and als an integral part of successful project management (Buca, Radyo, & Vukomanove, 2013) Risk management canbe efined asthe systematic process of identifying, analyzing. and responding to sks (ey, 2010) includes manimiing the lhelincod and outcomes of positive events and minimizing the liktnod and ‘outcomes of events that are detrimental othe project's objectives (Pojecs Management Institute, 2013a, 2013). Thebes projects eisplay an ability > ‘manage risks mor effectively, whichn turn contributes toward postive outcomes an results in safer projects, ower costs, and projects being completed on time (Greiman, 2013). ‘Tha sk management of smal: and medium-scale projects has been the subject of reearch on numerous acasions (eg, Marceine-Sédabe, Pérez Echeverria Lacano, & Vilanveva, 2074), However, the numberof articles on this subject falls considerably when ony stuces on magapojects are considered, since, a ths artile demonstrates, thi continues tobe an area of research that stil developing and expanding Furthermore, rks ae more ‘complex and have a greater impact on megaprojects, which makes risk management even mere important, Be that asi ay, there is no evidence thatthe literature has aeressd sk management a megaproects, specially, or dfferenty than rk management in smal- and medium-scale projects, cud, hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 128 sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts ‘Studying sk management ia megaproject is jusifed bythe growing intrest being shown in megaprojects as research aes due to ther unique characteristics (Esty 2004; Flor & Kovaka, 2005); the important role that risk management plays n the management of megaprojects (Dimitriou, Ward, & ‘right, 2013, Greiman, 2013; Lehtranta, 2014); the need to addres all types of sks 50 a5 to take a more holistic view (Lehtranta, 2014), the increasing growth in number and value of megaprjects(Flvbjerg 2074); and the great heterogeneity detected in recent studies on megaprojets, which do nt seem toadopta framework tht i anylifferent fom smaller-scale projects. As the ste and complet of projec increase, however, the associates rs ‘management effort increases exponential (Kwak, 2003), Risk management is consicredto bea major succes factor or all types of projects and an attractive research and development topic (ehtranta, 2014), spell with respect to megaprojects because it can belp project managers anticipate ary delays that might lead to projects nt being delivered on tm (Grant, Cashman, & Christensen, 2006). The success ofa megaproject is considered to depend onthe proper management of sks, uncertainties, and the complet of the decision-making process (Oimitriou ea, 2013), among othe factors. sk management is an expanding ld, wich the literature has shown can be ured not ony to contol aginst lose, but also a away to achieve greater rewards (Day, 2072). tis ls sigican as, armang other things, analyzing and astessng potential isk inthe early stages ofa megaprojec help to determine whether the megaproject shoul be executed at all. The ‘dentifation phase is considered to be the most important stage of rik management, because once a ik hs ben identified it canbe managed (Chapman ‘4 Ward, 2003; Cooper & Chapman, 1987; Courtat, 200 Halfang, Shia, & Danfeng, 2010; ery & Hayes, 1986, Wideman, 1992). Futhermere, the sooner risks are identified, the more the cost and efor of mitigating them can be reduced (Fukayama,Femandes,& Ebecen, 2008). ‘This fundamental ole of risk managementin megapojet leads us to establish the fllowing objectives) a systematic erature review of risk management in megaprojects and (2) the syteratization of theriks studied in the iteratur, since risk denifcatin is crucial phase of the risk ‘management proces. To achieve these goals, a systematic Uterature review of majr databace (WoR, Scopus, and ABV/Inform) was conducted between the years 2000 and 2013, nclucing quantitative and qualtative analyses ofthe selected articles using ATLAS. software anda checks. ‘These objectives contribute to the previous iterature by providing (1a biliometric analysis of arcs focusing on risk management in mego-projects (2) the sytematzation and clasifation into ne categories of the rks found in a content analy ofthe articles wth detailed description of each isk and (3) the icentication of possible ares of interest fo rik management earch and practice in mega-poject (cura weaknesses and future opportunities). Moreover, articles of his nature help prospective researchers situate and contexualze their contribution to the fd of study about which the ates are writen The remainder ofthis atc is rganized as fellows. The second section analyzes prior lterature on this tpi. The third section describes the methodology employed; the fourth section sets ou the analysis and discutsion ofthe results and finaly, conclusions, further raearch, andthe implications ofthis tucy for practtioners and academics ae presented Prior Studies Megaprojects and Risk Management ‘The term megaproject was coined in the 1870s to characterize the ize and cost of Large-scale energy development projets beng undestaken around the ‘wot (Altshuler & Leva, 2008) and used to describe very lage capital projets costing milians of US dllar (Oimitow eta, 2013), No single definition as to what constitutes a megaprject can be found inthe literature According to van Marrwik eta, 2008), a mepaprojec is mega infrastructure projec that csts many blions of dallas (Fivbjeg et al, 2003; Kopperian, 2005; Turner, 1999: is wvaly delivered by private enterprises on behalf ofa government; ands a venture involving uncertainty, complexity, anda wide ange of partners that ihighly sensitive in politcal terms (lege, Pits, Rura-Poley, & Maroszehy, 2002), The charac ists that may classify a project as a megaprojet include: an investment over USS illo, high uncertainty, possible intangible benefits, and attractive long-term outcomes (Ewee, Tuner, & Miller, 2012; Miler & Lessard, 2000) The effects of a megaprjec are considerable and can have highly ‘sible postive or negative impact. Along withthe uncertainty inherent in megaprojects, these elect generat 9 wide range of rks that need tobe taken Into account over the ie cycle of megaproject. Research tudes (Cooper, Edget, & Kleinschmidt, 2001; Torok, Noréman,& Ln, 2011) have sugested that much f the root cause of projec-elate risk of largely complex projets canbe traced to the organizational dynamics and multiiscplinary nature of ‘0day's business envionment, especial inthe cave of technology-based development (Taran, 2014). The involvement of processes, technologies and torent stakeholders compounds the level of uncertainty and distributes risk over a wide area ofthe enterprise and its partners (Thamhain & Wier, 1999; Tharain, 2006, 2073). To manage mega-pojects, itis therefore necessary to go beyond a simple analysis ofthe cost and dates and try to understand ‘the true cause of any uncertainty (Thambain, 2013}. Riskcanbe defined as any uncertain event that might fal to serve the interests of stakeholders as stated nthe project design (Young, 2010). nother words, risks “an uncertain event of condition that, if accu, asa postive or negative effect on project's objectives Project Management Institute, 2008). Every rk awayshasa cause and a potential postive o negative consequence isk san essential actor that must be taken nto account, Because it can affect both the cost-benefit analysis throughout an entire project, and the demand, production costs, execution time, and rancia variables (de Palma, Picard, & Andreu, 2012) Eventhough every projec requires sucha study tobe cried out, they are especialy relevant in magaprojets duet their much greater comply, Theiterature review performed by Harvett (2073) indicates that mary projects are sl fang that project complexity grows overtime; and that there are concerns as to whether established industry risk management standards are effective n managing uncertainty and risk especially in complex project environments (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006; Zhang, 207), Imation risk management is ot carried outin the same way foal projects, a5 risks donot impactl projects to the same extent (Thamain, 2013). Risk impact depends not ony on thers event, ut aso1on te way that management deals with Use event and its ining, This, n turn, has bearing on the Importance ofthe problems caused by the event and the knock-on effect in the project organization. [Amegaproectenals many Fk factors that can cause delays o allure during the projec ie cel, which means that, in order to reduce the likeihood of ‘thes rs factors causing the megaprojectto fal specific managersent actions have tobe taken that involve the implementation of models or mitigation ‘measures (yvbjerg ea, 2003), Whatever the ie ofthe projec, the risk management process seeks to dently and assess rks so that they canbe hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 28 sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts understood cealy and managed effectively (Mejtahed, Mouse & Aminian, 2008), This involves identifying strategies to reduce risk, including the ways in ‘which they ate shared among the partis involved and te isk that should be transferred (Fyvbjerg et al, 2003), [Although risk management i sometimes descibed asa thre-phase proces (sk dentition, risk analy’, and risk response) (Buchan, 1994; Haifang et 20T0), recent research (Dey 2012; Project Management Insitute, 20733) break sk management down into six steps planing, risk entiation, ‘ualitative risk analysis, quantitative sk analysis rik response planning, a rik monitoring and conto (Figure). Etfetve ist management raison rss being identified, particularly a the frontend, before the project concep has ben fralied. Nevertheless, it must bbe emphasized that risks ae present ina megaproject from the outst, even nthe very early planning stage. Inthe following stages, these sks are asexred and decisions are made s to what ations ate needed for ther potential impact tobe eliminated or mitted The erature has shown that majr ris in complex projets include (1) political sk that results in uncertain financing and a significant declineinpotetiaL, revenues; 2) potential for catastrophic les (3) complex engineerin and design risk anc (4 substantial unknowns that have an impact on budgets and schedules (Greiman, 2073). OF elas nd increased costs, becouse they imply lower performance of the megaproject Altshuler & Luberff 2003; Fyuberg eta, 2003), Indeed tine, cost, and scope acording to speciation, constute a traditional performance measurement called triple contain’ or the icon triangle’ in poject ‘management (Toor & Oguriang, 2010) This lower performance canbe explained by a numberof factors that often occur in mepaprjecs their complet, 7 isk, hose most frequenty analyzed in the iteratur on megaprojects are those that havea consequence on time ‘the ack of ealsm nthe estimates, resource scarcity, inefiient managerant, and, simply public stakeholder resistance ue to cultural or pola interest (ysbjerg et al, 2003; Ha eta, 2008; Nelson, 2007; von Morrewik et al, 2008). On the other hand, tials important to nte that there ae cesta rks that are often found in megaprojecs and to which the iteature has not devoted special attention. Some common sks that contbute to higher costs in mageprojects are inked to competitive bids, with unrealitc ang undevaluad bde made in an attempt tobe more competitive, which subsequently leads to the risk of renegotiation ‘Communicate and Consut t I t I I Pranning Risk Qualitative and Risk response comet Identification quantitative risk analysis planning cojecties apren? staahcitrs [>] omemt — F->] Risk Risk cise ane analysis —® evaluation Devaop tok semen Imglement t I t I J Monitoring and Gantrol Figure Risk management process (Source: Based on Cooper, Grey, Raymond, & Wale, 2004). [Although there large amount of Iteratureon risk management in projets (Marcelino-Sidaba etal, 2014), there fs much es with respect to meg projects, The literature has demonstrated the need to study large-scale project (Esty 2004) because they provide a clear setting in which to analye how ‘manages make important structuring and firancing decisions to respond to capital maret imperfections. Furthermore, there appears tobe ongoing academic and politcal interest in megaprojects, particularly those invelving both public an private agencies. Several models and methods of public private partnerships in megaprojects have been developed inthe cure financial criss due to both budgetary constraint on the pubic sector an the need Yo ‘optimize final resources (himia Dieguex& Olver-Alforso, 202) The failure ofthese projects ishighly vb duc to theese and scope, thus there both the need for, and interestin, projects being managed and delivered effectively (Fon & Kovak, 2005). The importance of rik management in megaprojets is based on te high impact and high unceraicy involved, both of which make rk management akey factor in mogaproject succes. research Nevertheless, he difiity tat studying megaprojects presents mean that theresa lack of academic research in he area. This ited amount has been attrbuted to factors suchas the need to collec lrge volume af information and theeifites that pate agents encounter in accessing that Information (Esty, 2004), This lack of stuces marks ou fst objective to conduct systematic erature reviw of rik managementin magaprojet in response to calls from a numberof authors (Botetzgias,Maleios, Klokotroni, & Moysads 2013; Creey,Skitmore, & Worg, 2010; Lehtranta, 201). Previous Literature Reviews of Risk Management in Megaprojects ‘Studies on risk maragement in mega-pojets are scarce. Oy fou literature reviews have been found that canto any degre contextualize the: research int sk management in megaprojects (Letiranta, 2014; Rezakan, 2012; Taroun, 2014 Zhang, 2011}; however, the objectives ofthese reviews ier rom those of this arte, tion of “Zhang (201) analyze the articles thatncude the wordrik'n thet, abstract, and/or keywords published inthe Intemational journal of Project Management and in the Project Management urna? between 1999 and 2009, This seach therefore facuses on projets in general (not on megaprojects). For each ofthe 17 selected references, the ator examines the ways in hich risk i considered and famesaticiesin one of two schools ska an objective fact and ik a8 subjective construction. A content analysis ofthe articles determines the basi concepts of rik adopted by each ofthese and their basicassumption, viewpoints, and tendencies aswel asthe methods of analysis and the management polis that are consistent with these conceptions oft. This author conludes that, n general risks perceived from an objective pint of view (over 90% ofthe ates) therefore, Zhang's study nether performs bblometie nays nor daw specie conclusions on megaprojects hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 38 sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts fezakhan (2012) conducts an extensive erature survey of risk modeling and analysis methods, with particular attention to fury sk assessment in constuction projects. He concludes that it ea common recommendation in the Lterature to consder‘the imprecision, vagueness, and fuzziness ofthe risk factors ina construction project to appropriately deal witha contractors project isk by using Fury Set Theory (FST Unforturately, here is no specication as to the methodology, database or journals analyzed, Leticonta (2014) studies risk perception and risk management approaches in temporary multi-organiatons (TMs) toentify any gaps that need tobe ‘ddessd in future esearch, she analyze 105 articles published inthe Intemational urna of Project Management, the Project Management jouma®, the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, nd EEE Transactions on Software Engineering forte prod between 2000 and 2012. He study of ‘the body ofknowedge of isk perception and risk management approaches in temporary multi-orgaizatios identifies four main differences compared with previous studies ines management Fst, th author discovered thatthe iterate considers the teat of the rik but rot the opportunity that can also be Implied. Second, previous research focused on anticipated risks ence, iis suggested that future research should better address the ul scale of rk types and analyze thei ature an¢ relative balance or signfcance indifferent project types. Third, Lehtiranta concluded that temporary mutt-orgaizaons can be helpful for eolaboratve risk management by involving the participant organization inte sk management process. Finally the shared approaches to projec sks tha are common to several participants ae advisable in termpoary multi-organization projects, cater than the isk beng assigned to a single participant. This biblometri study s largely a reduction ta temporal evolution ofthe aticies and risks ae rouped according to their ature (antcpatedspecifi, unanticpatec or unreal). Therefore, thre ia minor overlap with this artic, since Latirant (20'4) focuses on temporary mul ‘orgpizations and only four journal, whereas our atl considers megaprojcts, a greater number of journals, and a mere in-depth bibliometric analysis, Finally, Taroun (2014 eviews theiterature on rik models an risk assessment in construction projects articles published in academic journals on the constuction inst, project management, sk analysis, and management science, and peforms searches, with no time estrctions ns databases (ScienceDirect, Web of Science, ABH-nfor (roques) Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Emerald, and Sage Management & Organization Stic) and in ‘GoogleScholar. The keyword used are ‘project rsk construction isk sk analysis risk assessment isk modeling and sk management: For the total of 400 references resting from the search, 68 meet the objectives ofthe atl, ths inludng references from te 1960, which enable the concept cfr to be studied from tis perspective. The study provides a detaled analyse of the definitions and elements that underlie the concepts of rik models and ick asessment in construction projects. The author alsa determines the main tots and theris that support the two concepts. One ofthe main conclusions ofthe study is that there isa lack ofa general framework for assessing the risk presented by the various types of impact that construction rik can have on many project objectives “The four antl analyzed (Zhang, 2011 Rezathan, 2012 Lehtianta, 2014; Troun, 2014 slighty verap with our research. One major dference is that our article focuses on megaprojects, whereas the aforementioned atcies focus on projects in general or on particular typeof project. Furthermore, the present article provides a more detailed bibliometric analysis, since we study a wider range of variables (se the tir section).In ation, the current research has 2 diferent scope, since there ae no its othe typeof rk, the typeof projec, the sector analysed, and takes all he main databases inte account. Finally, the research objectives ae ferent in each study Previous Classifications of Risks in Megaprojects Ris casiestons key prof the rik detfeaton hase ania frat se inthe subsequent steps Neverthe herein consneson k Categrzatoninmegapjcsinthe tate Sev casiication based on he rane ofvarabes can be cbere. ras Ferg, and Rothenatr (002) propos» casaton that soo geara forte entfaton hase beause they simpy Gtnguish betwee (0 otk ‘elation paral ub vestment andpreingin adjacent parts the network Lite (201) develops 2 wider clasfcation and considers thatthe risks that shouldbe taken nto account in megoprjects ae: Political sks, such san unanticipated change in government, cancellation ofa concession, unanticipated tox ise, xbitrary tol fe imposition oF Increases and new and unilateral regulatory polices. Consretion rss, such as ncorect or inappropriate design, delays in land acqusiton or escalation of land costs, project delays, unanticipated sit ‘conditions, and poor contractor performance. ‘Operation and maintenance risks, uch the physical contion ofa concession fact, operator incompetence, and poor construction quality Legal and contractual risks, suchas the concession waranty and incomplete or nadequate contracts Income ik, sch inaccurate extimatesof trafic volume or revenue, the construction ofa competing felity that woul educe the evel of use and forecast proftabilty. Financial risks, such as infation, lca currency devaluation and fit for conversion to hard curency, Interest rte fluctuations changes in monetary policies, ana highly leveraged positions. Force majeure, such 5 wars, natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, an terorsm, froma diferent perspective, Bing, Akntoye, Edwards, and Hardcastle (2005) propose a cstintion between macro, meso, and miro levels of sk The macro level of risk comprises exogenous sks, whereas the meso level of riskincludes endogenous rks and las, the ico level epresent the rks found the stakeholder elationshipsfrmed during the pocarement process due tothe inherent ferences detween the public and private sectors in contact ‘management. The elowing speci factors canbe found teach level Macro-tevel ss (1 pltical and government policy, 2} macroeconomic (3) legal (4 soca and (5) natura. Meso-evl risk: (1) projec selection, (2) sources of nancing (3) residual value (4) sign, (5) constrcton, and (6) operation. Mier-Level iss: (} lateral and (2) ctd-party relationships, folstadis and Johansen (2008) and Westney and Dodson (2006) propose alternative rk groups. These authors istnguish between strategic rik (prospective impact on earrings or cpital rom adverse business decison, improper implementation of decisions or ack of responsiveness t industry changes) and contextual isk (connected with circumstances external t the project, whieh may influence the scope ofthe work and the performance of the cexgaization) hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 48 sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts Xrane, Olsson, and Rolstadts (2072) and Keane, Rlstais, and Olsson (2010) classify the risks according tothe projec’ objectives: operational rks related tothe project's operational objectives, restricted tothe dtect results ofthe project, short-term strategic iss, and long-term strate risks. Fall, Tuner (2005 cistinguishes berween business risk (related tothe unceraicy of estimates) and insurable risks (due to the occurence of an unplanned event). ‘This wie ange of classifications means that no standard clasifcation is applied Furthermore, after studying these classifications, we found that no broad and homogeneous classification exits. The need for anew classification of ists arises for two reasons Fst, exitng asiications remain insufficient to ‘dental types of sts found in ou bibliometric analysis; and secon, the classification shouldbe a source-vieted grouping of potential risks that ‘orgenizes and defines the total risk exposure ofthe megaproject(Mojaned, Mousavi & Ainian, 2008). n consequence, our second objective isto systematie and casi the potential sks tobe managed in amegaproject Methodology {systematic teratre review of sk management in megaprojcts has been performed to achieve the objectives. Inthe iteratur we find two types of Uiterature reviews: the traditional or narative evew and the systematic Lterature review (Cronin, yen & Coughlan, 2008). As Hemingway and Brereton (2000) explain, systematic literature review difers in that there ia peer-review and the ndings canbe replicated. A systematic review can be defined asa process of synthesizing research na systematic transparent, and reproducible manner with the twin ams of erancing the knowiedge base and infring polcymatng ad practice’ (Tranfel, Denys, & Smart, 2003) Ove to its structured approach, the systematic review hasbeen widely accepted ina variety ‘of scientific fields, such asthe sci sciences (Trai ta, 2003), education (Oakley, 2003), nd supply chain management (Afala-Laque, Medin-Lopes, bey, 2013; Fabbe-Coses, je, & Roussat, 2009). ‘Our review fliows atric proces that can be cvged into five step (Afalls-Luque, Meina-Lope,& Oey, 2013; Mdina-Loper, Marin-Garci & Ala Luque, 2010}: () identification ofthe fel of study and the period tobe analyzed 2) selection of information sources; (3) search; (8 management and debugging of search results; and (5) analysis ofthe rests Inthe current research, the eld of stay irik management in mega-projects and the period analyzed covers articles published between 2000 and 2013, since modern sk wanagerent has evolved substantally over the last decade (Fukayamaet al, 2008). This change in risk management has been caused by a ‘ity of factors, such as the shift rom dangerous physical work toward knowiedge-intensve work the growing importance of projects, such asthe ‘ramewotk for planing and execting work n organizations; the centrale of echnology and its inherent uncertainty ever-increasing competitive pressures, ad the increasing regulation with which businesses must comply (Fulayama et al, 2008)-The evolution over the last decades linked toa Substantial increae inthe numberof megaprojecs undertaken (Kardes,Orturk, Cavs, & Cavusl 2013), and an increasing number of megaprojcts have appeared since 2000 (Ja, Yang, Wang, Hoog, & You, 201) The information sources selected are tive relevant academic databases Wok, Scopus, and ABI Inform. A wide-ranging search Limited to Scientific journals and proceedings was carried out examining the abstract, ite, nd keywords fr the keyword skin combination with mepapoject'or'mega projec’ ‘big projec’ or ‘complex projet or‘arge project. ‘The search ylelded 365 articles (Wok: 65; Scopus: 114; ABE: 182), The references were then stored in RefWorks with 30 duplicate references. The emining £35 ates were assessed for tel suitability for our research objectives. Following the same process appli by ather literature eviews Fshamvmar, Xurtki, Abrahamsson, & Lichenthaer, 2012; Mok, Shen & Yang, 2078), a strc selection of references elowee. Inthe ist phase, some articles were sercened out after reviewing ther titles and abstracts nthe second phase, some references were excluded after a review ofthe article's text. After his two [se proces, 83 articles were eventually selected because ther principal focus was sk management in mega-projects. The low proportion of articles ‘elected i justified bythe keywords used covering a wide range of concepts and the search beng performed ony ofthe abstract, ile, and Keywords bibliometric analysis was conducted ofthe 83 references, Each article was tabulate using ATLAS data analysis oftware. Open codes wee assigned to ‘denty rss, defnitons, and other aspects ofthe tteratre. A checklist was alto created in Excel and reviewed by several experts, This tool was sed to clas the articles according to several variables, Each article was checked by two ofthe studs authors. When there was any doubt, there was discussion bout the article ta determine the corrct category n the checklstto which should be asgned. The analyzed variable can be grouped a folows: Bsc information abou the article joura, year of publication, number of authors, and numberof author institutions. “ype of research: esearch methocology, ype of analysis, longtudna or cross-sectional study, data analysis methods, and information sources. Characteristics of the megaprojct project analysis, geographical area, sector, and projec lifecycle phase, “Types of isk identifi inthe atc Methodology employed 0 deal with isk, ‘Once this ist stage ofthe analysis had been completed, a content analysis of the sslectd articles was performed to systematize isk, Content analysis method that can be used with qualitative or quantitative data, both inductively and deductvey (lo & Kyngas, 2007). Tis methodology selects, ters and sumevaries large volumes of data, hus factating data analysis (Cao, 1996). Ast isa systematic technique, it can be replicated by other researchers (Weber, 190), Sytematization was cared out because our analyse found no agreed-on is of ist inthe literature. The resus ofthe analysis are ‘explained inthe following section, Analysis and Discussion of Findings Bibliometric Analysis total of 83 reference were yz of these, 79.52% (66) were journal articles and the remaining 205896 (17), conference papers. The eferences were grouped in 47 journals and'17 conference proceedings, with a ow concentration in speccjumal; we found only seven journals with two or more articles {Table 1). The Intemational journal of Project Managementhad the highst ruber of artcles (10), followed by the Project Management Journ (four artes Journal Tite [Number of Aricles _Percantage of the 83 References hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 528 ‘uase017 Risk derticaton in Mogaprojocts Intemational ural of Project Management 10 re0s% Project Management Journa® 4 492% American Assocation of Cost Engineers Intemational Transactions 3 361% Public Works Management & Poy 3 361% Journal of Cit Engineering and Management 2 241% Joumalof the Operational Research Society 2 24% Teansport Policy 2 2a1% ‘othe jurals with single reference 7 oa.a7% Table Journals wth multiple published aries Forthe most part, the numberof authors pr article was one (33,73) o thre (33.73%), with two authors in 2.69% of the articles Regarding the authors! Insitutions—55.42% ofthe references (46) had authors rm single inst tution 27.71% (2) fom two institutions 15.66% (1) fram tee institutions: and singe reference (120%) frm four Therefore, approximately 45% of the references wee jst articles affliated with various institutions. Figure 2 shows the evolution of publications per year rom alongitudnal perspective, n general terms, the production rat of articles inthis eld has Increased over recent years. Almost half ofthe exiting articles were published between January 2009 and December 2013. nterstn this topic as clearly continued tors in recent years the yers 2010 and 2013 especial stood out ast the Level of research caved aut, which was not duet the publiation of any special iesues devoted tothe top ps 18.87% 16] DFowsonttree phases 18] Focuson nwo phases |@ Focus on one phase 13.25% Not specie 1.29% 7.20% 4.02% 4.02% 4.00% Number of rferences ‘000 "2001 "2002" 2003 " 2004” 2008 "2006 " 2007 "2008 "2009" 2010" 2011 "2012" 2013 Year Figure 2: Number of references analyzed per year and lifecycle phase ‘Wie also analyzed the phases of the megaprojects upon which the tudes focus sts widely known, the ife cycle phases ofa projector megaproject can be summarized asthe planning! development phase, the constuction execution phase, andthe operational phase. Only 34 articles speci the phase ‘snalyzed, whereas most of the references fal 0 specify the phase (49 references). Almost 30% ofthe 83 references focus onthe planning/ development phase, 16.87% onthe construton/execution/celivery phase, and 1410% onthe operational pha, Figure 2 shows the articles per year that focus on one (27717) to (8.43%), and thre (4.82%) phases, respectively. There no noticeable trend during the period regarding this issue Type Number of References Percentage ase study 3 40.96% Single case 3 zn ulcase " 13.25% Theoreticaeonceptual (T/C) 30 361496 Models nd simulations (M/S) a 209% Survey analysis 7 8.3% Fieleresearchfelé experiments 3 361% Tabla 2 Reseach methodology. hips ww pi orglearringlitraryisk-identfiestion-megaprojects-10350 svase017 Risk derticaton in Mogaprojocts Table 2 shows the research methodology employed. must be taken nto account that an atc canbe eategoried in mare than one research methodology. Fr example, thre are some articles classified ae models and simulations and als as cate studies, because they use or propose amodel and develop a case stud to test said model. The most commonly employed research methodology observed isthe case study. Case studies represent 40.96% of ‘the artces, of which 675% area single case study. Theoreticalconceptual articles make up 3614% of the total and 28 92% include a model or simlation. No literature reviews were fund ‘An analyse ofthe temporal evolution ofthe methodology igue 3) reveals tht cate studies have increased and madele and simulations have decreased in recent years, However, theoetica/conceptual studies have been developed throughout the wale period, which refects the need fr theory in thi il. This need is common feature in areas of research that are sil in their early stages of development. Survey analysis has seldom been used, despite being the third most employed research methodoiogy in 2013. ‘2000 "2001" 2002 "2003" 2008” 2006 "2006" 2007 "2008" 2009 "2010 2011 "2012" 2013 case study == Thooreticalconcoptual (TIC) ——Medels and simulations M/S) ——-Survey analysis —Field researched exzermenis Figure 3: Temporal evolution of research methosologies. Database 447%) Observation 6 (7.23%) Expert group 7 (6.49%) survey 12(14.46%) Interview 21 (25.30%) Document analysis 129 (34.94%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of references Figure 4 formation sources ‘The articles prima developed cross-sectional or transversal studies (82.7%) rater than Longitudinal studies (723%). With respect tothe qualitative and quantitative focus of he articles, 54 references employed a qualitative focus and 17 aquanttatve analysis; however, 12 references applied both types of analysis. The temporal evolution of qualitative and quantitative analyses shows ro noticeable trend. Information collection methods ar also considered (Figure 4), A mere 43 references (51 8%) indcatehow the information i obtained although tis possible that any of the articles could have used a variety of sources. The most commonly used information sources are dacuments (34.94%), interviews (25 30%), and survey (14-45%) Sesion groups are also usedin certain studies, especially those with expert risk ientfiation and assessment. ‘The temporal evolution ofthe iformation sources use (Figure 5) demonstrates that document analysis was the predominant source upto 2008; however, Interviews have become the most used infecmatin source since 2009, Ths coincdes with the increase in case sti (se Figue 3), in which interviews are ‘commonly used tcl, hitps:wwra pmi orglerringlitraryfisk-identestion-megaprojets-10850 78 suese017 Risk derticaton in Mogaprojocts 8 10 ‘2000 "2001 2002 "2003" 2008” 2008" 2006" 2007 "2008" 2009" 2010” 20112012" 2013 Document analysis. — Interview Survey —+Expert group Observation ---- Database Figure Temporal evolution of methods of information sourcing Inferential Approach SEM Models (3.85%) 1(385%) LTE pescripive Statistics Log Most “4(15.29%) 217.89%) Pearson's R SNe) Rogrossion| 5 (19.23%) ANOVAMANOVA, 2 (789%) Means Testing Corelation 2 (7.69%) 6 (23.08%) Figure 6: Data analysis methods. Inreation tothe data analysis method nly 15 articles (18%) developed a statistical analysis although more than one methodology may have been used in ‘the same article The percentage of use ofeach methodology is shawn in Figure 6. The most commonly employed data analysis method was correlation and regression ests With respect tothe sector of the megaprojcts, a total of 49 articles (59%) focused on a spect sector (Table 3). The most researched sectors were rit (underground, high-speed ail, tell ads anc so forth) and oad (avenue, tunnels, ad so forth] with nine efeences each, followed by thre sectors large builings (constuction in general), energy (ouclear plants electrical plants, hydropower, and so forth), and refinery (ol and gas) each with si reerences. shoul be borne in mind that here were some mult-cate studies with articles focusing on more than one sector, sector Number of References Percentage ofthe 83 al ° 15.25% fos 9 1525% Buldngs 6 017% Energy 6 017% fetnery 6 017% Aiport 4 678% Aeronautical 2 339% Space exploration 2 339% other 6 5.40% Table 3: Number of references per sector. ‘The geographical aeas ofthe mega-proect were also analyzed (Table 4). Only 31 references (373%) indicated the geographical area ofthe megaprojects o- ‘the geographical area of the study in elation to megapeoects, uch as when a survey was employed. One article might have analyzed moce than one mageprojetn more than ane country; ea result, partial totals may ifr fom the overall total. The megaprojcts mast commonly studied wee executed in Europe (16 atte), followee by North Ameria (9 atles) No study located in fia was foun. In erms of county, the majority ofthe studies focused ‘onthe Unites Kingdom (5 articles) and the Unites States (5 artils), followed by Australia and the Netherlands (ates each) and Canada (3 atic). hips ww pi orglearringlitraryisk-identfiestion-megaprojects-10350 sia52017 Rsk Idoriiation in Mogaprejcts Atotal of 68 different cases were identified, although 30 of these cases were ina single article (imitriu eta, 2013) The majority ofthe cases appeared conly once, and only two a the cases were the subjects of study tvee times: Envion Mega-Projec (Cideon's gang) and London Heathrow’ Terminal. Finally, we looked forthe approaches employed by the decision makers to del with risk, identifying those apolid in each article. Currently, there isa wide range of tools and techniques for managing risk in construction projects (Goh, Abdu-Rahman & Abdul Saad, 2073). Inthe sare way, here iso single successful approach to risk management, as Brady and Davies (2014) conclude regarding their case-study comparison of two succesful projects. Our literature review confi this and highlights the lack of singlet of rk management models in mepaprojects inten, there ea range of proposals supporte by different tools or variables A total of 27 reference (32 5X) met the objectives of thie section ‘Table 5 summarizes the 27 references identified and sorts them accoring othe phase ofthe sk management process to which they eer (ee Figure 1). Al the references propose their own model or took for handling rik. They usualy focus on ane phase, although nine references propose models to handle risk ‘throughout the entire rick management process, Geographical Area Numberof Countries References trope 6 Denmark 2), Finland (1), France (2, Germany (2), Grece (1), Netherland (4), Norway (1), Sweden (2), Turkey (), United Kingdom (6) Northamerice 9 Canada (3), United States (6) Asia 7 China 2), Hong Kang 1), nc 2), Thala (0), Trkey (1) Australasia 4 -ustralo (4) Ccenvaland South 1 ras (1) America Table A Number of references per geographical area Proposal of Risk Categorization ‘As previously outlined, sk categorization isa hey step in thersk management proces. Nevertheless, there no evidence of consensus on risk classiicationin te literature due tothe complex nature of sk The study of ensting lasscatons inte iteratre see previous section on Clasifctions ‘of Rsk in Megaprojects) highlighted this ack of sytematzation. Consequently, tthe outset of he bibliometric analysis ofthe 8 references, twas noticed that there was no classification that included the broad variety of risks detected. As explained atthe end ofthe second section, therefore, we

    You might also like