Introduction
“Project Management: the art of directing and coordinating human and material resources throughout the life of a project by using modern management techniques to achieve predetermined objectives of scope, cost, time, quality and participant satisfaction,” (Wideman, 2010). For efficiently managing a project, a methodical comprehension and absolute information on the concept of the project lifecycle is a necessary quality to be developed by the project manager. Construction projects differ from other projects in that they are subjected to different types of challenges and issues in achieving the project goals in a timely manner. Project organizations in general do not remain static but undergo changes as the project passes through the lifecycle. Almost all the projects go through similar series of lifecycle stages. The lifecycle stages begin with the initial concept and end with the commissioning of the project. Project management literature has identified the following stages that are involved in the project lifecycle. They are: (i) conception, (ii) design, (iii) planning, (iv) allocation, (v) execution, (vi) delivery, (vii) review and (vi) support. These lifecycle stages are not always separate but usually overlap each other to a considerable extent.
The concept of ‘Project Risk management has been a subject matter of increasing attention in the literature in recent years. It is true that all projects face some risk or other during their lifecycle phases. Managing risk, in general, has two major objectives. The first is to avoid exposure to downside risks affecting the project performance and the second is to exploit all available opportunities to result in positive project performance. Comprehensive project risk management does not represent an extension of the concept of project management. It should cover risk management as it relates to the entire project management process. If one needs to appreciate the potential scope of risk management fully, it is necessary that the structure of the project lifecycle be examined in detail. The concept of project lifecycle has enabled the division of a project into several discreet phases and each of the phases has a predetermined purpose. The project lifecycle, therefore, provides an identifiable scope of work for the different phases. With this project structure, it has now become possible to generate information during each phase, which becomes an assessment of the project risks. Risk assessment at each stage of the project has, therefore, become a key feature in deciding on proceeding to the next phase of the project. In this context, this paper examines the concept of risk management as it applies to different phases of the project lifecycle.
Definition of Risk Management
Risk management has always been one of the most critical practices of project management, which forms the base for the successful completion of a project (Turner, 1999; Chapman, C., 1997). Royer (2000) outlines the importance of risk management by stating that risks that are unmanaged or unmitigated have been the primary cause for the failure of many projects. Since risks and opportunities are often linked with each other, risks are capable of rising the value of the projects and it is but usual that the higher the risks the more are opportunities (Miller & Lessard, 2001).
Flanagan & Normann (1993) define risk management as a discipline structured to live with the possibility of future events causing an adverse impact on the progress of any project. Other definitions describe risk management as the process leading the management to arrive at decisions to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the possible occurrences of risks (Broome, 2002; Bunni, 2003; Treceno et al., 2003). Risk management has to be carried as a continuous process during which the sources of uncertainties are identified in a systematic way and the impact of such uncertainties are assessed and qualified. It also involves the assessment of the impact of the uncertainties and management of the likelihood of such uncertainties to arrive at an acceptable balance of the risks and opportunities (Dawson, 1997; Williams et al., 1998). Smith, (1999) defines risk management as the process of understanding a project and arriving at a better decision to manage the project in the future.
Although different definitions have attributed different connotations to the term ‘risk management’ Dawson (1997) has summarized the essential similarities among the definitions and has listed the common characteristics of risk management as identified by these definitions. Risk management has a formal process and it employs systematic and scientific methods to assess and manage risks. The objective of risk management is to identify the risks in any business including a construction project and to evaluate the impact of the risks on the conduct of the business or completion of the project.
Since opportunities and threats are often closely associated, it is possible to deal with them at the same time as a combined element (Chapman &Ward, 2002). Risk is often referred to as ‘uncertainty’ as any risk has both positive and negative aspects. The purpose of the risk management process in a wider sense, therefore, is not just to aim at the successful completion of the project but also to increase the organizational objectives as a whole (Mills, 2001). Thus, project risk management also takes the form of project uncertainty management (Ward and Chapman, 2003).
Risk management also provides mechanisms for monitoring and controlling individual risks to reach an acceptable level of overall exposure. Risk management is a continuous process and cannot be considered a one-off event.
A number of uncertain factors pose challenges to the different parties involved in a construction project. All these factors are categorized as risks. Arriving at decisions based on assumptions, expectations, estimates, and forecasts of the likely future events gives rise to risks associated with any construction project. In risk and uncertain situations, the actual outcomes for a particular event would deviate from the anticipated outcomes causing disturbances to the progress of the event (Raftery, 1994, p 9). The nature of activities involved, processes, and external environment relating to the construction industry makes it a more dynamic, risky, and challenging venture. However, the construction industry possesses poor risk management skills leading to delay in completion and cost escalation in various construction projects. This in the past has resulted in significant losses to clients, contractors, and the public (Edwards, 1995). Construction risks are events that have a profound effect on the cost, time of completion, and quality of construction. While it is possible to predict and easily identify some of the risks associated with the construction processes, there are other risks, which are totally unforeseen and unpredictable (Ahmed & Azhar, 2004). The level and scope of the risks associated with the construction industry vary with the size and nature of different projects. Generally, these risks relate to the context of the contract implying the environment in which the construction project is executed, such as the geographical location and regulations governing the construction. They are also dependent on the scope of physical elements of the project such as scope, budget, and materials representing the content of the project (Davis & Prichard, 2000).
It is usual that with the construction project becoming more technical and complex, that there would be an increase in the risks associated with the contracts. This ultimately leads to the increase of negative impacts on the execution of the project itself. Therefore, for managing risk efficiently there is the need to identify the risk in time and analyze them for mitigating them. In the present day’s complex business environment, it has become important that the risk at each project lifecycle stage be assessed to ensure the successful completion of the project.
Gray and Lars observe risk management as a proactive approach undertaken to control the level of risk and to offset the impact of such risks. Risk management enables the project manager to face the risks with the possible advantage of time, cost, and technical issues connected with the project. Efficient risk management assists the project manager to have better control over the future events and in achieving the project objectives of meeting the time and the expected standards of technical and functional performance (Gray & Larson, 2008, p 4).
Risk Management as a Dynamic and Continuous Process
Effective risk management requires the successful implementation of the risk management procedures identified in the process of risk management. The implementation of risk management requires a structure capable of reviewing and providing feedback on the effectiveness of the risk management procedures to ensure that all the risks are recognized efficiently. Successful risk management implementation ensures that appropriate controls and responses are in place. The process requires regular audits of policy and standards of compliance. The systems, procedures, and performance targets need to be evaluated periodically to recognize potential areas and chances for progress. It is important to recognize the fact that projects themselves, especially large civil engineering projects are dynamic and that they always function in vibrant circumstances necessitating constant evaluation of the risk management procedures during their lifecycle. Therefore, changes in the organizations as well as in the environments in which organizations operate need to be identified in order to bring inappropriate changes to the systems and procedures. The implementation of risk management will not be complete with only proper reporting on the likely risks and their consequences on which the management can take decisions. It extends to the institutions of policies, procedures, systems, and controls to ensure that the decisions taken by the management in the area of risk management are carried out effectively to ensure the avoidance of risks or to reduce the impact of such risks. Posting of the feedbacks on the risk management procedures adopted is also included in the scope of the implementation of risk management. The top management should get proper feedback on the decisions they have taken to protect the organizations from the impact of risks, so that they will be able to make suitable amends, in case some of the decisions do not serve the required purpose.
Since all the projects are susceptible to some kind of risks, it is necessary to evolve a “project risk management plan”. The purpose of this planning is to define and document those procedures that will be used throughout the project lifecycle. In the planning stage, the procedures to manage the risks are documented and they are later executed through the life of the project. Risk management planning is the core task in the whole risk management process, as risk management is after all thinking about all potential undesirable outcomes before they take place and determining the procedures to avoid the incidence of such risks with the intent to minimize their impact or to cope with such impact. The process of risk management comprises several activities including identification, quantification, and providing responses to different risks and it covers monitoring and controlling risks.
It is ideal to have risk management as its own process in the whole project management ambit but at the same time. It is important to risk management is made closely tied to all processes and phases of the project (Chapman, 1997).
All theoretical models base the risk management processes more or less in the same steps, with a variation only in the degree of the description of the processes. It is important that all the steps be to be maintained as iterative processes where the risk management phases remain ongoing during the entire life cycle of the project. This is evident from the study conducted by Floricel and Miller (2001), where they have identified some unexpected incidents occurring in every project they studied despite the fact that there existed a detailed, thorough, and careful identification process in each of the projects.
It is critical that the risk management process is implemented in the early stages of the project, as there would be ample time left for still making any changes, which are fundamental in nature. A careful analysis of the project needs to be undertaken to identify the suitability of methods to be used in the different project phases and it is also necessary that a customized risk management process according to all the project characteristics is evolved. After all the underlying objective of adopting a risk management process is to ensure that the decision-making is facilitated to be exercised without any bias at all stages of the project (Artto et al., 2007).
There are many sources in a project environment, from which risks and uncertainties may stem. In addition, with the progress of the project over time, there are likely to be changed in the mix and intensity of risks. Such changes in the mix and intensity signified the dynamic environment within which the projects are progressing. It is not necessary that all such changes must be negative. There are good chances that some of such changes pose opportunities for the projects.
The lifecycle model of project management offers a systematic and formal approach for managing the risks and uncertainties affecting project performance. The lifecycle project management works on the assumption that with the availability of correct and timely information and with some means of evaluating the plausible future outcomes, the organization must be able to avoid losses. Similarly, by using correct and timely information at each stage of the project lifecycle, the organization may be able to capitalize on opportunities, which go to strengthen the base value of the project.
The utility and value of breaking the project lifecycle into different phases, stages, and steps can be countered with the following arguments – (i) in practice it may not be really possible to distinguish the stages and steps clearly; (ii) there may not be any real utility for some of the steps in practice; and (iii) this level of detailing may make the project management more complex, instead of making it simpler.
However, it can be argued that such distinction of stages and steps beforehand is important from their significant potential in facilitating effective risk management in the context of any large and complex project. “Many of the really serious risks projects are late realizations of unmanaged risks from earlier project stages,” (Chapman and Ward, 2003 p 27). In many of the projects, there is a lack in the systems and procedures to offer definite go/no-go/maybe decisions, which acts to the detriment to the success of the projects. Making these decisions involve a careful evaluation of the risks involved in all the stages and steps. Such evaluation helps the project management to appreciate the risks inherent in its decision to go ahead with the project and it helps to recognize the benefits that would be foregone if a no-go decision were taken. Many projects seem to have only a choice between a go and no-go decision to be reached at the end of the conception stage. However, analysis of the large number of projects, which suffered from major issues of cost escalation, time overruns, and poor quality suggests that major disasters would have been avoided with the presence of chances for a go/no-go/maybe decisions at later stages of the projects. Another argument in favor of breaking down the project lifecycle into different stages and steps is that such an exercise highlights the formation of project objectives and underlines the importance of such classification from the purview of project risk management. While applying the concept of the project lifecycle, even though the project objectives and performance criteria it is important to progressively clarify and refine them during the four different phases of the lifecycle. From the perspective of risk management in the context of projects, it is imperative that changes in project goals and performance criteria at the different stages of the project lifecycle need to be evaluated for assessing the implications of the risks on the project.
Another advantage with the project lifecycle concept is that it facilitates the application of risk management principles to one or more stages of the project lifecycle independent of the implications on earlier or subsequent stages.
Risk Management over the Project Lifecycle
Project lifecycle is an expedient way to conceptualize the common nature of the projects over their lives. Adams and Barndt (1988) have identified four different phases of conceptualization, planning, execution, and termination in a project lifecycle. There are different terms used by practitioners and theorists to describe these phases in the project lifecycle. Despite the different names used, the underlying phases identified are essentially identical. The project lifecycle can be illustrated based on the extent to which each phase in the lifecycle utilizes the resources employed in the project. The description of the project lifecycle can also be based on the extent of definition, degree of conflict or the amount of expenditure involved, and several other factors.
This approach of dividing the project lifecycle into different phases enables the management to decide on the level of attention that it has to attach to each phase, as it may vary over different phases. The objective of describing the project lifecycle phases is to ensure that risk assessment is made in respect of the lifecycle phases before major resource commitments are made in respect of each phase. “However a deeper appreciation of the scope for risk management of PLC processes requires consideration of the individual phases and the processes within each phase” (Ward & Chapman, 1995 p 147). The breakdown of the project lifecycle, into phases and stages helps in identifying the sources of process risk. There can be a further detailed description of these stages into different steps, which will enable management to underline the sources of risk in the project lifecycle. It also informs the management as to the areas where risk management might be most effective. The following table shows the phases of the project lifecycle and each phase is divided further into stages.
Source: Turner (2007) P 428
Conceptualization Phase
The first phase in the project lifecycle is the “conceptualization phase” which involves the stage of “definition, initiate or conceive.” Establishing the need for the project output is the starting point of this phase. This phase involves the identification of a deliverable to result from the execution of the project and the benefits that could be expected from the deliverable. Assignment of a project manager and other core team members, and defining the project scope takes place in this phase. Estimation on completion period and resources required for completing the project are made to assess whether the project is financially viable and whether the project can produce the expected deliverable. Exploration of different strategies and alternative approaches to achieve the project goals is undertaken and the best among them is selected for adoption. Approval to proceed to the next phase marks the completion of the conceive phase. “Other individuals, organizations, or potential stakeholders may become involved. Support at this stage may be passive, merely allowing conceptualization to proceed rather than an expression of positive approval of the project,” (Ward & Chapman, 1995, p 147).
Effective risk management at the early stage of a project lifecycle can be more useful. “There is scope for much more fundamental improvements in the project plans, perhaps including a risk driven initial design or redesign of the product of the project,” (Turner, 2007, p 447). The opportunity elements available in a comprehensive risk management plan can be of significance in the implementation of the risk management plan at the conceive stage of the project lifecycle. It is also imperative that clarity about the project objectives is achieved, as pre-emptive responses to risk based on clearly identified objectives facilitate lateral thinking, which paves the ways for achieving the objectives using new ideas. Thus risk management at the conceive stage helps find new ways of achieving project objectives. Capturing new opportunities becomes a reality with effective risk management at the conceive stage, as the risk management at this stage possesses characteristics of being amenable to all changes required to be made to make the project a success.
However, it may be difficult to implement a risk management plan in the early stage of a project lifecycle. This is because, in this stage, the project is more fluid and less well-defined. “A more fluid project means more degrees of freedom, more alternatives to consider, including alternatives which may be eliminated as the project matures for reasons unrelated to the risk management plan,” (Turner, 2007, p 447). In a less well-defined plan, it would be difficult to expect appropriate documentation. Usually, it may not be possible to resolve all the issues, and at an early stage in a project lifecycle, attempting full-scale risk management would be difficult and risky.
Planning Phase
The second phase in the project lifecycle is the planning phase, which involves stages of design, planning, and allocation. “Sometimes this stage is broken into two or more stages such as preliminary planning and detailed planning” (Kloppenborg, 2010). The design stage gives a definitive form to the deliverable expected from the project. This stage involves a considerable increase in effort and resources. In this phase, further project team members may be inducted. For a number of projects, the design stage may lead to refining the project goals; but it may involve the identification of additional goals. At this stage, a decision of “no-go” will terminate the process. A “maybe” evaluation is likely to lead to iteration through further steps. However, if there are fundamental challenges, which were not anticipated in the conceptualization phase are faced, the loop may be turned back to the first phase of conceptualization again. A “Go” decision at this stage takes the project to the planning stage. The basic process risk involved at the design stage is to undertake the project planning without effective evaluation of the project design.
In the plan stage, a base plan outlining the ways in which the design can be executed, the resources required, and the estimated time needed for completing the project are evolved. This stage involves the development of targets and milestones involving the determination of specific targets defining project deliverables. The targets are established in the form of estimated cost and time. Targets may also represent limits on the usage of resources or any other feasible considerations. While a “no-go” decision ends the project, a “maybe” decision leads to the development of further targets and milestones within the planning stage itself. If there are new fundamental challenges faced at this stage, the process turns back to the development of a new design or even to the first phase of conceptualization. The basic risk involved in this stage is to move on to the allocated stage before undertaking an effective evaluation of the project program.
In the “allocate” stage, there is a comprehensive allocation of internal resources, which are meant to facilitate achieving the project goals. “The Allocate stage is a significant task involving decisions about project organization, identification of appropriate participants and allocation of tasks between them,” (Chapman & Ward, 2003, p 21). Under the allocation stage, there is an allocation of execution risks between the project members and other stakeholders. The allocate stage is a major source of process risk. This is because the allocation of execution risks can influence the project participants’ behaviors significantly and therefore, the project performance. The extent and manner in which the risks at this stage are managed depend largely on the allocation of execution and termination phase risks. Once the allocation is completed, the process moves on to allocation evaluation. A “no-go” decision will be a serious disaster in the case of many projects.
Thus in the planning stage “Scope, quality standards, risks, interim deliverables, work activities, a schedule, resource needs, and responsibilities are defined or further refined. Once this planning is complete, approval to proceed to the next stage is obtained” (Kloppenborg, 2010).
The recommended initiation point for the implementation of risk management programs in a project lifecycle is the planning stage, where it is possible to avoid all common problems experienced in the conceive stage. Because of the difficulties involved in the implementation of risk management in the conceptualization stage, the planning stage seems to be the correct initiation point. The introduction of the concept of risk management at this stage will highlight the missing insights, which the project members should have acquired earlier. The risk management process introduced at this stage may act to review the risk assessment process in place at an earlier stage. For the success of the project, there is the need to review the strategic issues thoroughly at the planning stage through a risk assessment process.
Implementing risk management plans at the planning phase of the project gives rise to different types of problems, without resulting in any benefits to the progress of the project. Especially at the allocate stage, contracts are in place and equipment might have been purchased. There would have been commitments made to different stakeholders and the reputation of the organization is one major issue that needs consideration when the project faces major risk at this stage. Managing change becomes comparatively difficult and the changes would not lead to rewards in favor of the project. Some of the practitioners argue that it is better to introduce risk management even at this stage, as they are of the opinion that early warnings can help the organization than late recognition of the fact that targets are incompatible or unattainable. More specifically, when a risk management program is introduced for the first time in the allocate stage the common practice is to make a tactical level analysis, as there would have been no strategic consideration of uncertainty at any of the prior stages. This is viewed as very counterproductive.
Execution Phase
A “go” decision at the end of the allocate stage leads to the core activity of the project, the Execute stage. The start of the execution phase signifies a considerable increase in the utilization of resources and consequent escalation of project expenditure, as the products and services required for the completion of the project are procured. This stage witnesses the implementation of “project organization, procedures, and reporting mechanisms” (Kloppenborg, 2010). There is directing, monitoring, and redirecting of the project-related activities, all aimed at achieving the project goals established earlier. The major process risk during the execution phase is the inadequacy of coordination and control procedures.
“A common perceived source of risk in the Execute stage is the introduction of design changes, but these may be earlier risks coming home to roost. Consequent adjustments to production plans, costs, and payments to affected contractors ought to be based on an assessment of how project risks are affected by the changes and the extent to which revised risk management plans are needed,” (Ward & Chapman, 1995, p 146).
In the case of many of the projects, there might be the need for repeated iteration of the earlier steps leading to the execute stage. Under exceptional circumstances, the process may have to go back to earlier stages. If there are unexpected challenges, some of the aspects of the project may have to be reverted to the concept stage. Such instances may also lead to a “no-go” decision, leaving a chance of the abortion of the project. Such nasty surprises are the result of the risks from earlier stages, which were left unidentified indicative of the failure of the risk management process in the previous stages of the project lifecycle.
If a risk management plan is introduced at the execution stage, it may not give an effective strategic view of the risk involved in the project. “It might be argued that event risk focus is the best that can be done at this stage and a single pass process using post evaluation phase ‘response planning’ and ‘response management’ phases is essential,” (Turner, 2007, p 448). When this line of thinking is considered the logical conclusion is that risk management plans involving risk response planning and risk response management have been developed only with a view to introducing risk management as late as at the execute stage. It is also argued that the risk management plans with these components may not be effective at the early stages, where the risks could not be identified with precision and the expected mitigation strategies.
Termination Phase
The termination phase of a project involves three distinct stages of delivery, review, and support, with each of the three stages involving different risk management challenges. It is necessary to consider the three stages separately because of the nature of the stages.
In the delivery stage, the project is commissioned and handed over and the issues faced by the project in this stage are different from those faced at previous stages. The stage involves verifying the actual performance of the project against the designed performance. One of the most important risks at this stage is the potential failure of the deliverables to meet the expected performance criteria. The project management may decide to modify the product performance criteria or to influence stakeholder expectations, in which case there would be an enormous adverse impact on the project’s reputation and on meeting the performance targets apart from resulting financial losses.
“The review stage involves documentation of the process to learn a lesson from previous experience” (Risk Management Basics, 2006). At this stage, it is necessary to provide for sufficient resources to take advantage of the positive outcomes and to take care of the negative effects. The major objective of this stage is to identify the negatives, since failure to identify the negatives, the project will be infused with the potential of the negatives being repeated in the future. “In terms of the performance criteria and other key areas of the project e.g. objectives we should examine more closely how these changed during the project” (Risk Management Basics, 2006). The review should cover more particularly, the ways in which these occurrences were managed. It is probable that there may evolve a pattern in managing the changes, which may be of help in the future management of other projects. A review of the risk management process and its performance in this stage would reveal the areas of weaknesses and the ways to improve them. There may be some risks, which have been identified earlier, which did not occur and similarly, there may be some associated responses in respect of risks, which have occurred newly. The review will reveal whether the risk management process was adequate to protect the project from exposing itself to different risks. “As in previous stages, it is important to discuss the method of the review process itself and to evaluate the review process in terms of the relevance of the issues and data raised for the benefit of other projects” (Risk Management Basics, 2006). It must be remembered that at this stage there is no chance for taking a go/no-go/maybe decision.
The support stage comes into being when there is the need to hold the deliverable in a working condition after it has been put into use, even though the project may have been already completed. The handing over of the project may be an affair either internal or external to the project organization. The agreements entered into earlier with the project sponsors or stakeholders will determine the extent and duration of the support. The relative merits and demerits of these contracts and their impact on the project performance are matters for consideration at the planning phase when the contracts were being discussed. This phase takes into consideration the likelihood for potential risk management liabilities later. The legal advisors would have identified any eventual risk management liabilities at the earlier design phase. “Depending upon the outcome of the field trials in the ‘deliver’ stage, the ‘support’ could either be withdrawn or the product itself could be withdrawn as an extreme case” (Risk Management Basics, 2006).
The extension of the risk management process to the termination stage of the project lifecycle will yield significant advantages to project management. In the delivery stage, the risks in effecting delivery to the stakeholders can be identified easily and avoided. Analysis of the deliveries affected will provide complete information on the feasibility of the delivery schedule and on the ability of the project organization in meeting the performance criteria covering the deliveries. If there is any need to modify the project deliverables based on the assessment of the delver stage performance, the risk management program must be able to help the project management in arriving at the requirements of resources required for modifying the performance criteria. Risk management is especially is highly useful in the support area to identify the likely future liabilities.
On the fillip side, any major failure on project performance is most likely to hit the project organization financially heavily. Absence of proper risk management process at the previous stages or failure of the process to identify major faults in systems or in any other performance, areas alone would be responsible for such a disastrous situation in the lifecycle of the project. This reiterates the need for evolving proper risk management process to be applied during the entire lifecycle of the project and not just on some selected phases or steps. Since large construction projects have to perform under dynamic conditions, risk management as applied to project lifecycle has become vital.
Conclusion
The paper observed that a project could be divided into a number of separate phases based on the project lifecycle. Efficient risk management involves an appraisal of each phase to assess the risk involved in proceeding with the next phase. The management of risk, therefore, is to be regarded as a continuous process and must span over the different phases of the project. It is to be remembered that project risks are dynamic. Since the risks change along with changes in market conditions and other external and internal circumstances, it becomes essential that the organization conducts a risk assessment at the end of each phase, before a decision to proceed to the next phase is taken. It is important for the successful completion of the project, that active management of risk be continued through the review points until the project is completed. Risks may also change their scope and extent during a particular phase in the project lifecycle. If such change is significant, there will be the need to perform a complete reappraisal. Especially in the case of large construction projects, where the individual phases may themselves would extend to several months or years, regular risk assessments and updates have been prescribed for achieving the project goals. Thus, risk management through different phases of project lifecycle is one of the essential prerequisites for efficient project management.
It can reasonably be concluded that in order to be fully effective, risk management has to be extended to cover the entire project lifecycle, instead of addressing the selected stages. Assuming that the risk management undertakes a complete project approach, one can expect the risk analysis to guide the handling of every stage of the project lifecycle to avoid the potential risks and ensure successful completion of the project in time and with the expected quality standards. There would be an increase in the scope and depth of risk analysis as the project approaches the execute stage. A preliminary risk analysis undertaken before each stage could guide the progress through that stage. However, with the increase in details and options occurring in subsequent steps, there is the need for further risk analysis with enlarged details and precision for continuous guidance throughout the project management process. This calls for making risk management an integral part of each stage of the project lifecycle and to this extent risk management becomes a dynamic and continuous process in the context of project management.
References
Adams, J. R and Brandt, S.E., 1988.Behaviroal Implcations of the Project Lifecycle, chapter 10 in Cleland, D. I and King, W. R. (Eds) Project Management Handbook Second Edition, New York: Von Nostrand Reinold
Ahmed, S.M. & Azhar, S., 2004. Risk Management in the Florida Construction Industry. Reserach Report. Miami Florida: Proceedings of the 2nd Latin America and Carribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology.
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P. and Martinsuo, M. 2007. What is project strategy?, Paper presented at the 7th European Academy of Management (EURAM) 2007 Conference, Paris, France.
Broome, J., 2002. Procurement Routes for Partenring: A Practical Guide. London: Thomas Telford.
Bunni, N.G., 2003. Risk and Insurance in Construction. London: Spon.
Chapman, C., 1997.Project risk analysis and management- PRAM the generic process, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 273-281
Chapman, C., Ward, S., 2002, Managing Project Risk and Uncertainty, John Wiley & Sons, ltd., Chichester, 498 p
Chapman, C.B., Ward, Stephen, 2003. Project Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights, London: John Wiley and Sons
Dawson, P.J., 1997. A Hierarchical Approach to the Management of Construction Project Risk. Nottingham: Nottingham University.
Davis, S.D. & Prichard, R., 2000. Risk Management, Insurance and Bonding for the Construction Industry. Research Report. Alexandria Virginia: Assoicated General Contractors for Amerca.
Edwards, L., 1995. Practical Risk Management in the Construction Industry. London: Telford Thomas.
Flangan, R. & Norman, G., 1993. Risk Management and Construction. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Floricel, S., Miller, R., 2001.Strategizing for anticipated risks and turbulence in large-scale engineering projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.19, pp. 445-455
Gray, C.F. & Larson, E.W., 2005. Project Management: The Project Management Process. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kloppenborg, J Timithy, 2010. Project Management. Web.
Mills, A., (2001). A systematic approach to risk management for construction, Structural Survey, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 245-252
Miller, R., Lessard, D., 2001. Understanding and managing risks in large engineering projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, pp. 437-443
Raftery, J., 1994. Risk Analysis in Project Management. London: E&F N Spon.
Risk Management Basics, 2006. Risk Management – Project Life Cycle – Termination. Web.
Royer, P.S., 2000. Risk Management: The Undiscovered Dimension of Project Management, Project Management Journal, Vol.31, No.1, pp. 6-13
Smith, N.J., 1999. Managing Risks in Construction Projects. Oxford: Blackwell Scince.
Treceno, O. et al., 2003. IMIA Conference. Stockholm.
Turner, J.R., 1999, The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, London, 529p
Turner, Rodney, 2007. Gower Handbook of Project Management, London: Gower Publishing Ltd
Ward, S., Chapman,C., 1995 Risk-Management Perspective on the Project Lifecycle, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 Issue 3 pp 145-149
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2003. Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.21, pp. 97-105
Wideman, 2010. Appedix C – Glossary of Project Management Terms. Web.
Williams, C.A., Smith, M.L. & Peter, C.Y., 1998. Risk Management and Insurance. Boston MA: Irwin/Mc Graw Hill.