A Revised Interpretation Of Risk In Project Management Sebes

A Revised Interpretation of Risk in Project Management Sebestyén

Both project management and finance have their own advanced risk concept, but developing a correct and complete integration of them has not been resolved so far. The novelty of the paper is a general framework for risk management in which the goals of a project are approached by the interests of owners rather than by the regular object-oriented ways. The framework resolves the following contradictions. 1) The traditional risk management approach distributes the total risk of a project among risk classes; as a consequence, the fact that only a fraction of the project risks are assumed by the owners is ignored. 2) Traditional project risk management cannot deal with the phenomenon that higher risks are found in the risk categories during the later periods of a project. 3) The positive deviation from the project goals is not interpretable in the traditional approach. In the new framework risk analysis becomes a more effective tool for all the participants of a project.

Paper For Above instruction

Risk management in project management has historically focused on identifying, analyzing, and mitigating potential negative outcomes that can hinder project success. Traditionally, risk has been viewed primarily as the chance of adverse events negatively impacting project objectives such as scope, schedule, and budget. However, recent developments suggest that this conventional understanding is limited and that a more comprehensive, integrated approach that considers the interests and goals of all stakeholders, especially owners, is necessary for effective risk management.

The integration of financial and project risk concepts has long been a challenge due to their differing frameworks: project risks are often considered in terms of technical and operational uncertainties, while financial risks relate to market, credit, and investment considerations. The article "A Revised Interpretation of Risk in Project Management" by Sebestyén and Tóth (2014) proposes a novel framework that reconciles these perspectives by shifting focus from object-oriented risks to stakeholder interests and project goals, primarily driven by owner value rather than purely technical deliverables.

This new approach addresses several limitations of traditional risk management methodologies. First, standard methods tend to categorize risks based on their sources or types, such as technical, financial, or environmental. These classifications often ignore the fact that owners may be willing to accept certain risks if they align with their broader interests or offer potential upside, rather as in a risk-return tradeoff in finance. The framework proposed in the article emphasizes that risks should be assessed from the perspective of their impact on the owners' value, rather than just their probability or technical severity.

Second, conventional risk assessments often overlook the dynamic nature of project risks over time. As projects progress, certain risk categories tend to increase in magnitude, especially later in the process due to unforeseen complications or escalating external influences. For example, planning and design risks may be relatively manageable early in a project but can become critical during construction or operational phases. Traditional risk management struggles to adapt to this evolving risk landscape, whereas the revised framework incorporates a temporal dimension and considers how risks in different categories might interact and change over the project lifecycle.

Third, the standard approach mainly concentrates on avoiding or minimizing negative deviations from project plans. It pays less attention to positive deviations, which can represent opportunities for additional value creation or cost savings. The new framework recognizes that positive deviations from project goals, such as early completion or under budget, are equally important and should be interpreted as beneficial outcomes that stakeholders aim to maximize. By doing so, it aligns risk management with strategic value enhancement rather than simply risk mitigation.

The core of the proposed framework involves defining a "business idea" that encapsulates the essence of the project from the owner's perspective. This includes a set of value-driving parameters—variables that influence the project's financial position over time, such as investment costs, operational revenues, taxes, interest rates, and potential acts of God or unforeseen damages. The framework models cash flows as functions of these parameters, emphasizing that a project is ultimately a financial construct driven by owner interests. This paradigm shift allows risk assessment to focus on how uncertainties in these parameters influence owner value rather than merely technical deliverables.

Furthermore, the approach advocates for a comprehensive risk analysis methodology that informs contract design during the project’s conceptual phase. Participants can structure their agreements to favor risks that add value and avoid those that diminish it. This methodological shift from object-centered risk to stakeholder-centered risk analysis entails adopting multi-attribute decision-making tools that consider stakeholder interests, the probability and impact of uncertain events, and their interactions over time.

Operationalizations of these ideas include revising existing risk analysis techniques to account for the stakeholder viewpoint and integrating financial models with project risk assessments. Techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation, sensitivity analysis, and decision trees can be calibrated to reflect the risk preferences and value impacts specific to project owners. The framework also encourages the development of risk response strategies that are aligned with stakeholder goals, including risk transfer, sharing, and acceptance conditioned on the potential for positive outcomes or minimization of negative impacts.

In conclusion, the article advocates for a paradigm shift in project risk management—from a largely technical and object-oriented focus to a stakeholder-centered and value-driven approach. By redefining project risks in terms of their effects on owners' interests and incorporating dynamic, temporal, and positive outcomes into risk analysis, project managers can better identify, evaluate, and respond to risks. The proposed framework thus supports more strategic decision-making, enhances stakeholder cooperation, and ultimately fosters more successful project outcomes.

References

• Baloi, D., & Price, A. D. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction costs. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 231–237.
• Bevilacqua, M., Ciaramella, A., & Greco, S. (2009). Risk management in construction projects: The case of Italian public works. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 33–44.
• Chapman, C. (2001). The identification of risk issues and improvement of risk management: A case study of a major process plant project. International Journal of Project Management, 19(8), 457–464.
• Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T., & Han, S. M. (2008). Risk assessment and allocation in international construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 409–420.
• KarimiAzari, F., Nejadi, S., & Yadollah, M. (2011). Risk management in construction projects: A review of recent developments. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 4(4), 741–761.
• Klemetti, M. (2006). Risk management in construction projects. PhD dissertation, University of Oulu.
• National Instruments. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute.
• Rowe, A. (1977). Risk and the Management of Complex Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 1(4), 199–205.
• Shen, Q., Zhang, X., & Chan, A. P. (2001). Construction risk assessment and management (CRAM) model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(6), 468–477.
• Tumer, J. M. (2009). Risk Management in Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 585–589.