short term scientific mission in zagreb, · pdf fileshort term scientific mission in zagreb,...

MEGAPROJECT COST Action – STSM End-of-Mission Report

Rafaela Alfalla-Luque and Marisa Pedro

1 February 2015 - University of Zagreb, Croatia

Short Term Scientific Mission in Zagreb, Croatia End-of-Mission Report

This Short Term Scientific Mission (STSM) was conducted in Zagreb at the University of Zagreb, Croatia, from 1st of February to 08th of February 2015

Hosts:

Dr. Ivana Burcar Dunović Assistant Professor of Construction Management and Economics University of Zagreb - Faculty of Civil Engineering Fra Andrije Kacića Miosića 26 - 10000 Zagreb (Croatia)

STSM Holders:

Dr. Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, Associate Professor, University of Seville, Seville, Spain Marisa Pedro, PhD. Student, Technical University of Lisbon (IST), Lisbon, Portugal

Qualitative and Quantitative Case Studies Analysis in Megaproject Risk Management

1 Introduction

This STSM aims a research on project management risk. It aims to finalize the work carried out by the RFE (Risk at the Front End) Working Group discussed in the last meeting in Kassel, Germany. It is also an objective to analyse the data gathered in the questionnaire proposed by the Working Group, which is for diverse case studies and completed by diverse members of the Working Group.

Therefore, this STSM aims to understand within the case studies analysed, what the common experience is of risk in megaprojects. The tasks scheduled and conducted during the STSM aims to analyze how the risk has been managed in different megaproject case studies and develop some theoretical framework. In order to achieve this, the megaproject case studies developed by the WG members were translated into a template in order to compare and analyze from a qualitative and a quantitative perspectives.

In general, the major tasks were to:

• Translate the megaproject case studies into a template (excel file). • Develop a qualitative and a quantitative analysis. • Identify similarities and differences • Detect emerging research topics




In order to achieve the stated goals, the following timeline and schedule of activities were adopted:

Monday 2nd • Discussion about the activities, schedule and timeline definition for following days. • Reading and critical analysis of the case studies gathered by the WG members.

Tuesday 3rd • Analysis of the data gathered in the questionnaire proposed by the WG members: quantitative analysis.

Wednesday 4th • Analysis of the data gathered in the questionnaire proposed by the WG members: qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Thursday 5th • Analysis of the data gathered in the questionnaire proposed by the WG members:

qualitative and quantitative analysis. • Case-analysis report writing

Friday 6th • Case-analysis report writing • Working group meeting attendance

Saturday 7th • Working group meeting attendance • Case-analysis report writing

2 Methodology

The WG have developed a questionnaire about risk management in megaprojects in the previous meetings. This survey has been filling by megaproject risk managers. The case studies analysed are the following:

Megaproject 1. Offshore Platform EPCI in the Mediterranean Sea Megaproject 2. Sava Zagreb, The River, Croatia Megaproject 3. Danube Bridge 2 –Combined rail/road bridge between Bulgaria and Romania at

Vidin-Calafat Megaproject 4. FERTAGUS Train Concession – Railway Axis North/South Lisbon, Portugal Megaproject 5. Industrial Zones, Bulgaria Megaproject 6. Higway A1, Croatia

The main characteristics of the case studies analysed are the following:

Megaproject Type (1st level)

Type (2nd level)

Phase

Project 1 Utility Infrastructure Oil and Gas On-going (Operation)

Project 2 Transport and Utility Infrastructure

Waterway, Water Management and Energy

On-going (Front-end)

Project 3 Transport Infrastructure Road and Rail On-going

(Operation)

Project 4 Transport Infrastructure Rail On-going

(Operation)

Project 5 Cross-Sectorial Commercial and Industrial Zones

On-going (Design, Construction, Operation)

Project 6 Transport Infrastructure Road On-going

(Operation)

The surveys data have been translated into a template in Excel in order to develop a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The Excel file has been prepared to include more new cases and automatically update the tables and figures.




3 Quantitative Analysis

Firstly, the case studies were translated into a template. Megaproject quantitative template consists of an Excel spreadsheet with data about megaproject cases. A total of 35 questions (149 items) have been codified and analyzed (see Annex I). Each case contains information about respondent data, project data and risk management.

3.1 Respondent Data In this section, it is possible to collect information related to the respondents: gender, how many years of experience they have in project management, how many megaprojects they have already participated, if they have any education/qualifications in Risk Management and so on and so forth.

The results are the following.

There is an unbalance in the managers’ gender: more male managers than female managers. They have a high experience in project management (66% have 10 years or more) but not many in megaproject management (67% have been involved in only 1 or 2 megaprojects). Most of those project managers have no specialization / education / qualification in risk management. However, usually they are Project Managers or Project Coordinators / Directors.

3.2 Project Data In this section, it is possible to collect information related to the megaproject: the type of megaproject, its situation (if it is on-going in front-end, design, construction or operation), the source of financing, which type of technology is used, and so on and so forth.


83%

17% Gender

Male Female

33%

67%

Year of experience in project management

5-10 More than 15

17%

0% 0%

50%

0% 0%

33%

International Certificate in

RM

MSc in RM PhD in RM RM was part of project

management education

Specialized RM course

Other None

Education/qualifications in risk management




There are a variety of megaprojects types but the 50% of the megaprojects are large-size transport infrastructure projects (road and railway). Most of the case studies analysed have both public and private sources of financing. Additionally, there are a high variety of types of contracting.

All the technology situations are presenting (stabile known / proven technology; known technology / new application; new technology / limited application; innovative / unproven technology) but the 67% of the cases present “Known technology / New application”.

All of the cases are on-going megaprojects and 5 over 6 cases are in the operation phase. Additionally, all case studies analysed have formal project reviews/audits at stage gates, usually with both internal and external reviewers. Only a 60% have risk management subject of formal reviews/audits and 50% have risks themselves subject of formal reviews/audits.

3.3 Risk Management In this section, it is possible to collect information related to risk management: the level of risk maturity model, which is the major source of uncertainty in megaproject front-end, which methodologies / tools and techniques are used for risk management, how risk management has been documented and so on and so forth.


50% 17% 17% 17%

Transport Utility

Cross Sectorial Mix

Project Type

17%

Oil and Gas Waterway, Water

Road Rail

Both Road and Rail Commercial and

Project Type (2nd level)

33% 0%

67%

Only Public Only Private Both

Source of financing 17%

17% 66%

The on-going projects are in this situation

Front-end Design, Construction and Operation Operation

33% 67%

17% 17%

Stabile, known, proven technology

Known technology, new application

New technology, limited application

Innovative, unproven technology

Technology used




Average

Context of the organisation / activity 2.40 Involve all major stakeholders 2.80 Clear objectives 2.20 Policies, processes, strategies and plans 2.00 Risk management reports 1.80 Roles and responsibilities 1.80 Central risk function 2.00 Early warning indicators (EWIs) 1.50 Review the effectiveness of processes 1.60 Barriers to implementation 2.60 Risk culture 1.20 Strategies for improving risk management 1.40

The major source of uncertainty in front-end of your megaproject

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Average

Variability associated with estimates 3.17

Uncertainty about the basis of estimates 2.99

Uncertainty about design and logistics 2.83

Uncertainty about objectives and priorities 2.00

Uncertainty about fundamental relationships between project parties 3.39

Average 3.14 3.05 2.45 2.82 2.86 3.62

Average

Variability associated with estimates 3.17 Lack of clear specification what is required 1.83 Novelty or lack of experience of this particular activity (project) 3.17 Complexity in terms of number of influencing factors and interdependencies 4.20 Limited analysis of the processes involved in the activity (project) 3.17 Possible occurrence of particular events and conditions that might affect the activity (project) 3.50 Uncertainty about the basis of estimates 2.99 Who produced estimates 2.67 What form they are in 2.33 Why, how and when they are produced 2.67 What resources and experience are based on 3.60 How they take into account “known unknowns”, “unknown unknowns”, “bias” 3.67 Uncertainty about design and logistics 2.83 Uncertainty about project deliverable 2.17 Uncertainty about process of delivery 3.50 Uncertainty about objectives and priorities 2.00 Uncertainty about objectives 1.33 Uncertainty about priority of objectives 1.83 Trade-offs/compromises 2.83




Uncertainty about fundamental relationships between project parties 3.39 Specification of responsibilities 3.67 Perceptions of roles and responsibilities 3.67 Communication across interfaces 3.40 Capability of the parties 3.17 Formal contractual conditions and their effects 3.17 Informal understanding on top of, or instead of, formal contracts 3.17 Mechanisms for coordination and control 3.50 Legend: 5 - Major; 1 - minor

The level of maturity is medium/low in the megaprojects analysed. The sector could have some influence in the level of risk maturity; we have realised that the transport megaprojects have lower level of risk maturity. At the end, the factors with higher level of maturity are:

• Context of the organisation / activity (mean 2.80) • Involve all major stakeholders (mean 2.60) • Barriers to implementation (mean 2.40)

The main sources of uncertainty in front-end are the uncertainty about fundamental relationships between project parties (mean 3.39), followed by the variability associated with estimates (mean 3.17). The less one is the uncertainty about objectives and priorities (mean 2.0). When we analysed each factor, the major source of uncertainty comes from “Complexity in terms of number of influencing factors and interdependencies” (4.20), followed by “How they take into account “known unknowns”, “unknown unknowns”, “bias”, “Specification of responsibilities” and “Perceptions of roles and responsibilities” (all with 3.67).

How was risk management documented? Frequency (No.)

Frequency (%)

Documentation reported and updated through whole lifecycle 2 33%

Limited documentation 3 50% No documentation 1 17%

17%

83%

The use of standard / methodology for RM

Yes

NO

17%

33% 50%

Tools and techniques used in RM

Use of state-of-the-art techniques Through qualitative analysis with some quantification Basic qualitative analysis




The majority of the projects don’t use standard/methodology for risk management (83%). There is also a variety of the risk focus of risk management attention. Plus, a 50% of the cases analysed use only basic qualitative analysis to managed risk management.

There wasn’t formal process in place to identify risk owners and to empower them for effective risk treatment (83%). Also, half of the megaprojects have limited documentation on risk management process (50%).

The financial risk assessment is presented in megaproject feasibility studies in all the answers (4 cases). A 67% used a mix of methodologies; sensitivity analysis (75%) and scenario analysis (50%) are the most used. Three cases analysed present socio-economic assessment in their feasibility study. All used sensitivity analysis as methodology; 2 also used scenario analysis as a methodology.

At the end, usually, project managers are involved in risk management process. In fewer case studies analysed, contractors, consultants and owner are also involved in risk management processes.

The data for risk assessment was gathered basically through the past experience and check list. The megaprojects analysed have also a high heterogeneity of the formal project documents.

Formal project documents group Frequency (No. of cases) Frequency (%) Initial planning documents 1 17% General risk management 1 17% Status / Monitoring and technical 2 33% Financial 3 50% Audits 2 33% Quality 2 33% Others 1 17%

67%

0%

Yes NO

Financial risk assessment is present in feasibility study

60% 40%

Yes NO

Socio-economic risk assessment is present in feasibility study




4 Qualitative Analysis

This section aims to present a qualitative analysis of megaprojects case studies. Some questions in the survey (14, 15, 16, 29, 30 and 35) need to be analysed in a qualitative perspective, taking into account others variables of the megaproject case.

This qualitative analysis was time consuming, much more than planned. Due to time limits of this STSM (one work week) and the required work it was not possible to pass through of all these qualitative analysis issues and develop a good thinking. However, it is a further objective doing an in-depth analysis about these qualitative issues, after this STSM.

The analysis of the question 14 will generate a list of success criteria. We will obtain a list of constraints (question 15) and critical factors (question 16), and their impact on success criteria.

Figure 1 explains the framework of the analysis. Basic components by which the risk mechanism is presented are the event/risk, source, driver, consequence, and impact. Each of these components has some characteristics by which it is described. Therefore, the risk is fully described through components and their characteristics.

Figure 1. Risk components and characteristics

Source: Burcar Dunović et al. (2013).

The event/risk is the main part of the model. It represents an uncertain occurrence, action or event the occurrence of which causes a consequence.

The source of risk is defined as a condition of area of human activity or a natural or other phenomenon, from which the risk is generated, or from which the possibility that the risk might occur is generated. It exists either in the project or outside of the project, and does not have a variable characteristic. Its important characteristic is the owner i.e. the participant because of which a source has come to exist.

The consequence is the condition, occurrence or event that has occurred precisely because of the occurrence of an event/risk, and which affects the success of the project, i.e. the project objectives,




through the risk impact. Significant characteristics of the impact are the nature, size and place that define in which way the risk will impact the project and its objectives, i.e. to what extent and on what part of the project, WBS or activity.

The next component is the driver that can be either an event, occurrence or a change of condition, which leads to activation of the risk mechanism, i.e. which initiates transformation of risk into actual event. Through its actual occurrence, the risk stops being a risk and becomes actual event or problem to be dealt with. The risk can be described as a mechanism in a latent state that needs driver to be activated.

In addition to the source, the driver and the consequence must also have the owner i.e. the stakeholder to which the two events or occurrences are related. The time and probability of occurrence are the characteristics that are most often related to risk in general, but are related in this model to the event, which is regarded as the central component of risk. Both components could also be related to the occurrence of the driver being an event that activates the risk mechanism, while the time of occurrence could also be related to the consequence. Nevertheless, these three components occur in relatively short time intervals, and their order of precedence is known (driver-event-consequence), and so the model does not need to be burdened by the definition of time for all three components.

5 Conclusions

Finally, the main aim of the mission was fulfilled. The case studies were compared and analysed.

It could be interesting to take into account that there are some variables that can affect the risk management process (control variables):

• Sector (cross-sectorial, transport, utility,…) • Source of financing (public, private, both…) • Type of contracting (DBB, DB,…) • Technology • Situation of the megaproject (Front-end, design, construction, operation)

Due to the importance of the subject MEGAPROJECTS and to help in understanding of risk management, further research should be carried out. Namely:

• Collecting more case studies in order to develop analysis taking into account the control variables.

• An in-deeps analysis regarding to megaproject qualitative data. • An article will be proposed to publish in an international journal.

5.1 Limitations Several difficulties were experienced during the STSM process, namely:

• Time consuming to prepare and codify the template. A template was created in a excel spreadsheet and the answers have been codified taking into account the possible use of SPSS to analyse the relationships.

• The open questions have a lower level of answers. • Qualitative answers were difficult to compare and get feasible results.




• On the last STSM day, we had access to two more case studies, so it was not possible to include those cases into this report. But in future developments these cases will be included and analysed together.

Acknowledgments:

The STSM holders express their gratitude to Professor Burcar Dunović and the University of Zagreb, as well as to the Action Cost TU1003 (Megaproject) for their support.

References

Burcar Dunović, I., M. Radujković, M. Vukomanović (2013). Risk register development and implementation for construction projects. Građevinar, 65(1): 23-35

Annexes:

Annex I: Qualitative Analysis Template

Section Question number Question Codification of answers

Res

pond

ent D

ata

1 Gender 1. Male; 2. Female

2 Age 1. Under 30; 2. 30-39; 3. 40-49; 4. 50-59; 5. 60 and above

3 Year of experience in project management

1. 1-5; 2. 5-10; 3. 10-15; 4. 15-20; 5. More than 20

4 Education/qualifications in risk management

1. Certificate in Risk management – International Certificate in Risk Management from The IRM, London 2. MSc in Risk management 3. PhD in Risk management 4. Risk management was part of Project management education 5. Specialized Risk management course 6. Other 7. None

5 Number of Megaprojects that is involved 1. 1-2; 2. 3-5; 3. 6-8; 4. 9-10; 5. More than 10 6 The role in megaprojects delivery

Proj

ect D

ata 8

Project Type 1. Transport Infrastructure; 2. Utility Infrastructure; 3. Cross Sectorial; 4. Mix

Project Type (2nd level) Oil and gas 1. Yes; 2. NO Waterway, Water management, Energy 1. Yes; 2. NO Road 1. Yes; 2. NO Rail 1. Yes; 2. NO Both Road and Rail 1. Yes; 2. NO Commercial and Industrial Zones 1. Yes; 2. NO

9 Source of financing (1st level) 1. Only Public; 2. Only Private; 3. Both

9 Source of financing (2nd level) 1. Government budget (%) 2. Regional budget (%) 3. City budget (%)





4. Development or investment bank (%) 5. EU funds (%) 6. Private investment (%) 7. Public-private partnership (%) 8. Other (%)

10

Type of contracting 1. Design-Bid-Build 1. Yes; 2. NO 2. Design-Build 1. Yes; 2. NO 3. Design- Build-Operate 1. Yes; 2. NO 4. EPC/Turn Key 1. Yes; 2. NO 5. Reimbursable based on progress – Red FIDIC Book works contracts 1. Yes; 2. NO 6. Joint Venture (specify type of relationship on other) 1. Yes; 2. NO

7. Other 1. Yes; 2. NO

11

Technology 1. Stabile, known, proven technology 1. Yes; 2. NO 2. Known technology, new application 1. Yes; 2. NO 3. New technology, limited application 1. Yes; 2. NO 4. Innovative, unproven technology 1. Yes; 2. NO

12 Situation of Megaproject 1. On-going 2. Temporary suspended

13

For on-going project, the project are in this situation Front-end 1. Yes; 2. NO Design 1. Yes; 2. NO Construction 1. Yes; 2. NO Design, Construction and Operation 1. Yes; 2. NO Operation 1. Yes; 2. NO

17 formal project reviews/audits at stage gates 1. Yes; 2. NO

18 If yes, were they done by 1. Internal reviewers 2. External reviewers 3. Both

19 Was RM subject of formal reviews/audits 1. Yes; 2. NO

20 Were risks themselves subject of formal reviews/audits? 1. Yes; 2. NO

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

21

Level of MoR risk maturity model

Context of the organisation / activity 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Involve all major stakeholders 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Clear objectives 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Policies, processes, strategies and plans 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Risk management reports 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Roles and responsibilities 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5.





Level 5 (Optimising)

Central risk function 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Early warning indicators (EWIs) 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Review the effectiveness of processes 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Barriers to implementation 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Risk culture 1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

Strategies for improving risk management

1. Level 1 (Initial); 2. Level 2 (Repeatable); 3. Level 3 (Defined); 4. Level 4 (Managed); 5. Level 5 (Optimising)

22 The use of standard/methodology for RM 1. Yes; 2. NO 22 Name of the standard/methodology

23

What was the focus of risk management attention

1. Uncertainty management 1. Yes; 2. NO 2. Opportunity and risk management 1. Yes; 2. NO 3. Risk management 1. Yes; 2. NO 4. Other 1. Yes; 2. NO

24

Level of risk management integration in project management processes

1. Fully integrated - Risk management processes were used to support project management decisions through entire project

1. Yes; 2. NO

2. Risk management was used only for strategic decision-making 1. Yes; 2. NO

3. Risk management was used only in critical points in project lifecycle 1. Yes; 2. NO

4. Risk management was used only during critical phase of the project 1. Yes; 2. NO

5. Risk analysis were done when it was externally requested 1. Yes; 2. NO

25 Tools and techniques used in RM

1. Use of state-of-the-art techniques 2. Quantitative analysis 3. Quantification documented and collected 4. Through qualitative analysis with some quantification 5. Basic qualitative analysis 6. Other

26 Parties involved and allocation of responsibilities in the RM

1. Risk management facilitated and involving stakeholders beyond the core project team 2. Risk management facilitated throughout the core project team 3. Specific functions with limited roles 4. Scattered, ad hoc and left to individuals 5. Other

27 Was there formal process in place to identify risk owners and to empower them for effective risk treatment?

1. Yes; 2. NO; 3. Other





28 How was risk management documented?

1. Documentation reported and updated through whole lifecycle 2. Analysis documented and reported 3. Limited documentation 4. No documentation 5. Other

30

Rate what was the major source of uncertainty in front-end of your megaproject Variability associated with estimates 1. Lack of clear specification what is required 5 - Major; 1 - minor

2. Novelty or lack of experience of this particular activity (project) 5 - Major; 1 - minor

3. Complexity in terms of number of influencing factors and interdependencies 5 - Major; 1 - minor

4. Limited analysis of the processes involved in the activity (project) 5 - Major; 1 - minor

5. Possible occurrence of particular events and consitions that might affect the activity (project)

5 - Major; 1 - minor

Uncertainty about the basis of estimates 6. Who produced estimates 5 - Major; 1 - minor 7. What form they are in 5 - Major; 1 - minor 8. Why, how and when they are produced 5 - Major; 1 - minor

9. What resources and experience are based on

5 - Major; 1 - minor

10. How they take into account “known unknowns”, “unknown unknowns”, “bias” 5 - Major; 1 - minor

Uncertainty about design and logistics 11. Uncertainty about project deliverable 5 - Major; 1 - minor

12. Uncertainty about process of delivery 5 - Major; 1 - minor

Uncertainty about objectives and priorities

13. Uncertainty about objectives 5 - Major; 1 - minor 14. Uncertainty about priority of objectives 5 - Major; 1 - minor

15. Trade-offs/compromises 5 - Major; 1 - minor Uncertainty about fundamental relationships between project parties 16. Specification of responsibilities 5 - Major; 1 - minor 17. Perceptions of roles and responsibilities 5 - Major; 1 - minor

18. Communication across interfaces 5 - Major; 1 - minor 19. Capability of the parties 5 - Major; 1 - minor 20. Formal contractual conditions and their effects 5 - Major; 1 - minor

21. Informal understanding on top of, or instead of, formal contracts 5 - Major; 1 - minor

22. Mechanisms for coordination and control 5 - Major; 1 - minor

31a Financial risk assessment is present in feasibility study 1. Yes; 2. NO

If yes, which considerations 1. Financing structure; 2. Discount rate; 3.





Both

If yes, which methodology 1. Sensitivity Analysis; 2. Scenario Analysis; 3. Multi-criteria Analysis; 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis; 5. Mix

1. Sensitivity Analysis; 1. Yes; 2. NO 2. Scenario Analysis; 1. Yes; 2. NO 3. Multi-criteria Analysis 1. Yes; 2. NO 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 1. Yes; 2. NO

5. Mix

If yes, which indicators 1. FNPV; 2. FRR; 3. Both If yes, do you validate data? 1. Yes; 2. NO

31b

Socio-economic risk assessment is present in feasibility study 1. Yes; 2. NO

If yes, which considerations 1. Social dicount rate; 2. Feed-in tariffs; 3. Subsidies; 4. Monetization of environmental effects

If yes, which methodology 1. Sensitivity Analysis; 2. Scenario Analysis; 3. Multi-criteria Analysis; 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis

1. Sensitivity Analysis; 1. Yes; 2. NO 2. Scenario Analysis; 1. Yes; 2. NO 3. Multi-criteria Analysis 1. Yes; 2. NO 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 1. Yes; 2. NO 5. Mix

If yes, which indicators 1. ENPV; 2. ERR; 3. Both If yes, do you validate data? 1. Yes; 2. NO

32

Other risk assessment is present in feasibility study

If yes, which considerations 1. Legal/Regulatory; 2. Market; 3. Political; 4. Technical; 5. Social; 6. Procurement/Contract; 7. All of them

If yes, which methodology 1. Sensitivity Analysis; 2. Scenario Analysis; 3. Multi-criteria Analysis; 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 5. Mix

If yes, which indicators If yes, do you validate data? 1. Yes; 2. NO

33

Who was involved in risk assessment process?

Project manager 1. Yes; 2. NO Project team members 1. Yes; 2. NO Consultants 1. Yes; 2. NO Owner 1. Yes; 2. NO Risk management specialist (internal) 1. Yes; 2. NO Risk management specialist (external) 1. Yes; 2. NO Possible contractors 1. Yes; 2. NO Legal/regulatory stakeholders 1. Yes; 2. NO Politicians 1. Yes; 2. NO Other (e.g. Commercial/Proposal Team) 1. Yes; 2. NO

34

How data for risk assessment process were gathered? Historical data 1. Yes; 2. NO Check list 1. Yes; 2. NO Survey 1. Yes; 2. NO Interviews with stakeholders 1. Yes; 2. NO Past experience 1. Yes; 2. NO Brainstorming 1. Yes; 2. NO





Workshops 1. Yes; 2. NO Other 1. Yes; 2. NO

short term scientific mission in zagreb, · pdf fileshort term scientific mission in zagreb,...

Documents