Posted at 10.08.2018
Risk management is vital when tendering for building agreements. Risk is defined by Atkinson (2001) as the "probability of an occurrence of the hazard and the magnitude of the results". Subsequently risk can be viewed as as the likelihood of an experience occurring and the resultant effect of that experience if it takes place.
As identified by RICS (2009) risk management is a means of processes where risks are identified, analysed and maintained. It really is a constant routine that starts at the pre-tender stage; this means that risk can cost into the bet and carries on after post agreement stage. During different phases of any project, new hazards will emerge throughout the contract. Identifying beforehand allows quicker mitigation; to reduce impact risk has on the project.
This research has reviewed the inaccuracy of pre-tender risk management by using both pre-tender and post deal risk registers. As well as risks there were opportunities and they were also accepted in the techniques of risk management.
This subject matter area was chosen to be researched after talk with line professionals and work colleagues, during my 2010 placement season with Sir Robert McAlpine (SRM). This subject was regarded as an ideal subject matter area for a study project because SRM were improving their risk management types of procedures.
Therefore the program of the study was to feedback findings, to further improve the Sensitive risk management process. The line manager offered me associated risk registers for just two different job types, and described how SRM evaluate risk in any way stages of a job. The emphasis being on highway construction, as these details was available from my position and SRM.
The subject matter of what things to research developed from consultations with fellow workers and the line administrator at SRM. The range manager was involved in risk management and was working to improve SRM's pre-tender risk process to make it replicate the post deal period. This therefore illustrated a requirement available and indeed development for research directly into this subject area. The primary reason for eventually electing the subject part of risk was the available gain access to of information provided by SRM and the connection with knowledgeable personnel in my own placement. This provided a better understanding of the processes presently used, which allowed me to get a greater understanding of the topic area. Also access was gained during location to potential data in the form of contract and tender risk registers from various Highway works undertaken by SRM.
The aim, objectives and hypothesis came into being from undertaking the literary research, it wasn't until that point that the info was collected, and a plan designed of how to use it. The research directed to understand the way the pre-tender risk process may be inaccurate. After that considering how maybe it's increased and whether it was possible to do so. Subsequently, recording any conclusions of pre-tender process to be able to build up and better it.
To see whether the post deal risk process identifies significant additional dangers that the pre-tender risk process failed to identify and thus regulate how inaccurate the pre-tender risk process is.
Identify processes currently used to manage dangers at post deal and pre sensitive stage in recognising and calculating risks.
Analyse whether the key additional post deal risks recognized were included at pre-tender level.
Compare SRM's risk management processes with other companies and analyse for the best solution.
If possible, note any producing conclusions and type results into the pre-tender risk process to produce a new accurate tender risk management.
The post agreement risk process in Highway structure successfully identifies additional risks and as a result pre-tender appraisal is inaccurate.
In order to comprehend the processes used to manage risk on the market a literary review was embarked on. This designed the research would gain an gratitude of how risk is identified by the industry, as prior to the my own experience had only result from SRM's perspective and the techniques they use. In order to gain real understanding also to funnel clearly on what my hypothesis mentioned, it was made a decision to split the literature review into two areas. One section, comprising of processes employed by industry, taken from a variety of books. The second section being that of SRM's highways process and accompanying documents. This makes it possible for an examination to be conducted between SRM and the other contractors, in order to gain an improved view of how Risk management at different periods of a agreement work in Highway works.
The 3 SRM assignments viewed were M1 J25-28, A19 update (both Highways Organization) and M74 Glasgow council, they were all Highway maintenance deals although they are different somewhat. A19 was Term Maintenance Contract (TMC) whereas M1 J25-28 and M74 update were (Apple pc) contracts.
When evaluating the A19 upgrade the agreement risk register was attained but the sensitive risk sign up for this contract was not. However the agreement risk register for this job was compared with a tender risk register from another agreement. Not ideal but the only solution at the time. The majority of the risks are normal and of all projects registers, so similar/related hazards were attracted from the sensitive register, and contained in the A19 contract risk register.
An analysis was done involving the deal risk costs, and tender risks. This is done by incorporating the maximum, least, probably costs and the possibilities from agreement and sensitive appraisals. A complete assessment for each risk happened via averaging the maximum, minimum & most likely costs then multiplied by possibility of risk incident. All dangers types were determined, in order to distinguish trends in hazards discovered at pre-tender level and bought at post-contract level or weren't bought at all.
The M74 contract risk register was distinctive to M1 J25-28 and A19 upgrade registers as it didn't contain costs. Every risk was divided by its possibility and impact, whether that was high, medium or low analysis. Developing a pre-tender risk sign up for this project, meant risks were harmonized with the agreement risks. Examining if each risk was protected was done by assigning costs and probabilities to every risk. To get the overall analysis, the possibility and cost were multiplied. These costs were then examined against the entire pre-tender costs, much like the A19 upgrade.
Interviews via telephone were conducted with a few companies to really see what operations are being used at post contract and pre-tender. Also to find out how precise these procedures are. Companies interviewed were:
The data and examination carried out imply there exists data to maintain in part the hypothesis. That is due to a big number of hazards being discovered in contract level which were not previously seen at pre-tender. Despite the fact that assessments for just about any one risk were quite inaccurate, the entire assessments for pre-tender and post-contract stage were close. Exhibiting that the pre-tender risk process is inaccurate and needed improving if assessments and risk management is to become more reliable.
Chapter by Section overview of survey:
1 - Launch - An opening on risk management with regards to the job and validates the foundation for choosing the subject area. It also states the goals, aims and hypothesis that your project is made upon, as well as outlining the work done and an overview of the Conclusions.
2 - Strategy - Explains the techniques used to research my hypothesis, from Literature review, approaches used data collection, research and interpretation of results. This represents the reasons for using the techniques chosen and any research boundaries/ limitations.
3 - Books Review - This section contains my understanding and background reading for the topic area. This is done by, learning the chance process found in management. Allowing a larger comprehension of risk in Highways work, and exactly how it's seen and used.
4 - Results and Evaluation - Confirms the results of the research, and the subsequent research for the SRM jobs and other contractor's interviews. It describes the diagnosis made concerning the pre-tender risk register and the post agreement risk registers. From this it then cross-examines the info so as to have the ability to test the hypothesis.
6 - Conclusions and Referrals - This analyses all the results in relation to the hypothesis and whether they support it or not. It details any limits that damaged the task, while also imparting proposals for both industry and any future dissertations.
The strategy was essential to the achievements of research and was dealt with care in order for the most likely research methods to be chosen (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The strategy outcome depended about them area, research aims and amount of literature review obtained. For data collection and research, the methods employed ought to be realising the seeks and objectives to be able to constantly test the hypothesis and validate the study.
The information that was obtainable and available played a huge role, as focus on the dissertation cannot be achieved if the info wasn't relevant. The information therefore can be determined by the hypothesis, as though the information is not on hand then one cant trial the hypothesis. Because of these factors, risk management was identified as an appropriate topic from the beginning, but it wasn't before research was began that determining the hypothesis was possible, yet having an impression of the goals and objectives that were to be completed. Through the off, the aim was to assess how precise pre-tender risk management was, even if doubtful of the data and information existing prior to consulting SRM team.
Ultimately this section highlights the research methods utilised in the research, and the close association that is made when doing so between the methods and Purpose, hypothesis and aims.
Employed to help focus the strategy in deciding on the best methods, also to clarify to the individual who reads the dissertation what specifically is being looked into. So this shall be done by recalling the Aim set out:
To see if the post deal risk process identifies key additional hazards that the pre-tender risk process failed to identify and therefore determine how inaccurate pre-tender risk process is.
In Data collection there are two key styles; quantitative and qualitative types of research. Quantitative being the assortment of data assessed with numbers and analysed with statistical studies to be able to to test the hypothesis (Creswell, 1994). While Qualitative research is quite different, it is a method that uses meanings, experience and explanations (Naoum, 2007). Quantitative research can be much easier to examine as it generates measurable/quantified final results that can create analytical arithmetical results. While, qualitative information from research has a tendency to be complicated as it often requires researcher input and manipulation to ensure it's appropriate for investigative methods (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The research methods rely upon the info obtainable and the purpose of the research. In undertaking good piece of research, it's generally required and necessary to use both quantitative and qualitative. A combo of methods was used, to permit the correct and more reliable conclusions; more is detailed further in this section.
A books review was carried out; to supply the core subject knowledge of risk management in engineering. The idea was to comprehend how risk is analysed in the development sector, and the techniques used in handling it. Next research was done to find how risk is monitored, by using books in form of catalogs and publications. Then see SRM's risk management process off their risk management documentation.
Dividing the books review in two parts intended that one of the goals could be satisfied by checking SRM's risk management methodology with other engineering companies.
Overall the literature review gave a larger knowledge of the chosen subject of risk, and illustrated the problems and successes in risk management. While also displaying the diverse and numerous ways in handling risk, and how the approach identified and preferred can depend on many factors such as task size, deal used and size of companies mixed up in managing of the task.
The list literature sources below were used in delivering the dissertation:
Textbooks -were very helpful in increasing the relevant understanding of risk management, and strategies used. Books were found by looking Loughborough University's collection database. Chapters needed or thought appropriate were studied, and likened against searches that had been made on the internet. A check system, which assessed the validity of both sources of information against each other. With much of the study it became visible that information in literature available weren't current especially in the more aged series of books. Not surprisingly it wasn't a predicament for Risk management as text messages of up to ten years old were and are significant and relevant now, with some techniques having advanced. The books allowed for great assessment for up to date home elevators the internet.
Journals - were again located on the Loughborough University collection database, which with the relevant buzz words located material useful. Finding journals demonstrated difficult compared to textbook numbers, yet the sources were helpful.
Internet - provided a program for research of books. Being easy to use and useful, collating information could be done at rate and with relative convenience. It allowed higher understanding of which kind of book would be needed from the collection. Information from the web was important but it experienced its limits and it was vital to know that it could be inaccurate and cause misguidance, research can be more guaranteed with text message and journals. This way of considering limitations in utilising the web was at heart when looking websites on risk in the building. Finding various helpful websites any information was compared other websites in order to increase stability, but most importantly against reserve and journals. As with all research appropriate sources of reliability were determined and used like the RICS website. Two editorials from RICS site provided constructive, and were found in the literature review. In finding literature the internet was most useful as much articles on websites highlighted publication of particular relevance and use.
SRM's Risk Management Types of procedures doc - SRM's risk management technique document was used as section two of the books review. Studying the report and important information was used in the books review, specifically, on the techniques utilized by SRM in risk management. An evaluation was made between SRM's strategies and with those found in the first 1 / 2 of the books review.
When actually collecting the data for the research the collection was again split into two parts. The initial data collection was from SRM jobs, other data collection was associated to other contractors. The objective was to compare the chance procedures, and make an effort at analysing that was the superior one. Another section shows how all the info collection was collected and prepared.
The data for SRM tasks was collected during a placement yr, when employed in the relevant packages and job roles. Ahead of any data collection, conversations with line managers and seniors occurred to be able to help formulate and aid the research as what would be needed in terms of data. At this stage no hypothesis have been decided, the idea was to assess the precision of pre-tender risk assessments. It was therefore advised that the applicable information in the form pre-tender and post contract risk registers could be provided. The deals that might be offered were the M1 J25-28 design, A19 update and M74 Glasgow job. Three similar Motorway/highway maintenance assignments that differ from one another contractually.
A19 upgrade is a TMC to keep up, operate a network of proper highways in the North East. M1 J25-28 and M74 are both MAC deals for similar maintenance one in the midlands and the latter in Glasgow. A19 update and M1 J25-28 are HA run, while M74 is good for the Glasgow city council. The HA run their contracts by splitting their contracts into 13 areas in the UK, and in these jobs situations offer for the expansion and maintenance of the highways within these portions.
The reason that A19 upgrade was a TMC but M1 J25-28 and M74 Macintosh contracts is previous to the Apple pc HA assignments were also run with the TMC deal, however now all is done under Macintosh personal computer style. The contracts run for 5 years with optional extensions. Different sections of maintenance start and end at different areas on the motorway involved on the 5 year cycle, and therefore when MAC agreements were first used, some parts weren't using them and using TMC etc. . .
A19 update was a TMC's completed in 2009 2009, whereas M1 J25-28 design was a mew Apple pc contracts just witnessing completion in overdue 2010. The difference in TMC's and MAC contracts is TMC's two individual companies, one as taking care of agent the other as main company. MAC deals are one company, who works as both the contractor and handling agent.
Using the three contracts as the foundation for the research the risk manager on the placement at SRM began by providing a tender risk register for the M1 J25-28 and A19 contract, projects he previously involvement on. Trying to find tender risk registers for M74 was difficult but couldn't find any. To be able to have a complete complete analysis, it was made the decision that for M74 to use another MAC agreement sensitive risk register. This is a similar as M74 except the location geographically. For sure this might create limits but it was decided, it could possible to use the risk register as SRM have a tendency to re-use the risk register from preceding bids for specific contracts. So similarities would be high which so long as it was observed in the dissertation as to its use and explanations why. Because of the generic character of the risks they were regarded suitable much like what SRM do in practice.
While on placement working on the M1 J25-28 agreement meant developing associates with people in the relevant field of risk management. Therefore asking for the use of the chance register on M1 job was easier than the other jobs. The A19 agreement risk register was also obtained contracts at the job so. Finally also getting the M74 contract risk register, because although never having done this agreement the line director on my placement gave contact details of relevant workers to enquire with and the registers were duly emailed.
Obtaining data via companies in the sector of road maintenance was a lot more difficult than from SRM options, as they were very defensive of information they offered out. All of the projects obtained so far from SRM agreements were Highways related, therefore the focus was on trying to collect data from Highway companies. By doing this it would enable a honest contrast between SRM and other companies. Processes to manage risk are anticipated to be similar affecting different construction jobs; the info was apt to be different.
The plan was to send questionnaires to the chosen companies, but after unsuccessful dividends it became evident that another route would be needed, so interviews via phone were deemed ideal. It looked like with written questionnaires, companies were more likely to dismiss them, whereas on the telephone they would react to the questions asked immediately, without real confusion of the particular question was requesting as myself in person could demonstrate.
The Highway companies contacted were:
A semi-structured set of questions was prepared in order to gain the information required but also allowed telephone participant to sophisticated and discuss the topic in an agreeable professional manner. Contractors in Highways works were contacted, the dissertation of Risk Management was described with the aims and goals that needed to be achieved and the next questions were asked:
Do you have a pre-tender risk management method?
How will you detect risks in the pre-tender phase?
How do you calculate risks to reach at a total risk pot?
Do you really embark on risk management post-contract period?
MAY I get yourself a pre-tender risk evaluation and post agreement risk evaluation for my research use (for the Highways job you are on)?
To each discussion it was discussed that my goal was; compare the potential risks types at tender stage with contract level as well as assessments made. The questions were supposed to identify the operations companies used in managing dangers. Overall the various companies were helpful in answering these questions. The Fifth and last question was done to get registers like this gained from SRM. It was the only real difficult part as many refused to hand registers over from live projects due to the sensitivity with their data and company regulations. However some registers were received but didn't really support the vital information required simply a formatted company risk register. Through the entire interviews, records were made on the first four questions and the results put into a table during the interview demonstrating the company and their reaction to each question. Thus, making evaluation easier when looking at the reactions later in the dissertation.
Prior to data analysis, the research experienced evaluated how SRM price dangers as a result of literature review and looking at the chance registers. It had been crucial to identify this before undertaking the data research as it set up what type of research would be carried out, and therefore in depth below.
Upon formulating the potential risks that have been discovered each risk will be categorised with lowest, maximum, most likely value and possibility. Done for all the risks, the info is placed into a piece of simulation software called @ RISK which does hundreds to thousands of simulations, and creates a graph with a bell-shaped curve.
The 75th percentile is put in the bid as the chance potential. SRM do this for all their projects. For this dissertation we were concerned in the potential risks were recognized and the average person costing of every risk as shown in paragraph above with min, maximum etc. The focal point being what was keyed in to @ RISK as opposed to what it produces.
For the Data examination the SRM deals have been split into their individual assignments and the Other Highway companies. The reason for splitting the SRM's assignments is usually that the analysis mixed in parts by way it had been collected as stated before (some with full risk registers some partly).
Analysis for M1 and M74 projects were virtually the same. The M1 deal and sensitive risk register could be compared with the deal and sensitive risk sign up for the M74 agreement, due to them both being Mac's.
To measure the accuracy of the chance assessments, comparable risks to the agreement register, were taken off the tender register, put from the matching risk in the agreement register. When you compare values in matching risks, it was essential to have a total cost for hazards in both the agreement and pre-tender register.
The best & most impartial way to get this done for the pre-tender risk register was to take the common from the maximum, minimum & most likely information and multiply the probability. The maximum, minimum and most likely values are the range of potential expenses that could be incurred by the risk, and any total cost was made a decision to be an average of these, as all projects had them. As its unidentified as to it's actually occurrence the common should be multiplied by the likelihood, which gives a complete potential cost to the risk.
While the agreement risk registers is highly recommended by intensity and likelihood by range of 1-5, and then an diagnosis of the risk is undertaken, figuring out the least, maximum and most likely values of each risk.
Mitigation actions are identified for every single risk, and then analysis is done again as before the mitigation. The M74 agreement risk register did not have minimum cost of the risks, so all risks were assumed to be zero. Without any minimum values any overall assessments of the risk wouldn't normally have been made. The explanation for not using the likely value instead was therefore the data would use a variety of values. It had been decided greater accuracy and reliability would be within setting the minimum as zero and range of values than the probably. By setting up all its hazards as zero means they are an unimportant minimum value or a risk/event it doesn't happen. The M1 deal register possessed all the required values so no intervention was needed.
Both deal risk registers failed to show any probability, just a likelihood level from 1-5. Therefore it was assumed, giving the scale a percentage as would normally be achieved:
1 - 10%
2 - 30%
3 - 50%
4 - 70%
5 - 90%
These percentages were used because they provided the right range, as risks with low likelihoods (1) are unlikely to occur but not impossible so 10% felt a reasonable ratio. Similarly 90% seemed a reasonable percentage for high likelihoods (5) because they are likely to happen however, not certain. The other values were then equally distributed between 10% and 90%. Having made these assumptions the overall assessment for contract risks was made in the same way as the tender risks, finding the average of the utmost, minimum and most likely and multiplying this by the likelihood. Where the same tender risk was identified as being suitable to more than one contract risk the overall assessment was divided by the amount of contract dangers it was suitable to. This is since when these principles were totalled there would be two times counting of these tender dangers if this is not done.
To show this information a table was made showing; a set of contract hazards, the corresponding sensitive risks, raw data inputted into the risk registers, and the entire assessments. Then i split the deal risks into one of the next categories:
Not recognized but covered (No cost).
Not identified and not protected - should be diagnosed.
Not recognized - cannot be identified.
Identified and protected.
Identified however, not covered.
Each risk was grouped by shade to convey which category from above it fell in.
2. 6. 2 A19 upgrade
The examination for the A19 agreement was began just as as had been done for the M1 J25-28 and M74 deals, going right through the agreement risk register and discovering any similar hazards from the tender risk register.
The assessments for the entire cost for the sensitive risks were manufactured in a similar way, by taking the average of the maximum, minimum & most likely beliefs and multiplying this by the likelihood. This was because the tender risk registers were in a similar format. However the differences came when the assessments of the entire cost for the agreement hazards were made. This is because for this project, the deal risk register evaluated the risks in different ways to the Area 6 and Area 13 contract risk registers. This difference was that there have been no costs in the A19 risk register.
Instead the risks identified at agreement stage were assessed in conditions of likelihood and effect on a range of high, medium and low. This designed that assessing the overall cost for the agreement dangers were harder because there was no costs given. Which means only way to evaluate the overall cost of the chance was to provide the risk a cost and a probability predicated on whether it was high, medium or low and then multiply these two statistics together. This means that deciding what costs and probabilities to assign to each degree of risk was important, as the overall assessment was based mostly upon these assumptions. In conditions of what costs to provide for each level of impact, the chance matrix that SRM use for prioritising risks was referred to. They evaluate the impact and probability of each risk by using a 1-5 scale and they give the variables for impact as being:
1 - under 1, 000
2 - 1, 000 - 10, 000
3 - 10, 000 - 100, 000
4 - 100, 000 - 1, 000, 000
5 - Over 1, 000, 000
As this was a 1-5 level and the potential risks and the agreement risks were only split into high medium and low, the numbers for 1 and 5 was as too extreme both ways. For low hazards I made a decision to take the high point of any risk impact of 2 (10, 000) and then for high dangers I took the low point of your risk impact of 4 (100, 000). For medium dangers I required the midpoint between both of these worth (55, 000). Using these statistics seemed reasonable founded upon this scale, as it created enough of a range without a too big range.
For the probabilities, the likelihood range they use was predicated on descriptions rather than probabilities. From knowledge in research the possibilities for low were established at 10%, medium dangers 50% and high risks 90%. These percentages were used because they provided the right range, as hazards with low likelihood's are improbable to occur however, not impossible, so 10% felt a reasonable percentage. Similarly 90% appeared a reasonable ratio for high dangers, because they are likely to appear but not certain. For medium hazards the midpoint between both of these percentages (50%) was used, because they're possible that occurs. The price was then multiplied by the probability to give a standard value for every single risk. Following this, the others of my evaluation was a similar as the M1 J25-28 and M74 contracts
This section so far details the way the risk registers were likened, which was the first rung on the ladder in terms of analysing the data, and these desks are contained in the appendices at the end of this dissertation.
However on there own, these tables did not give sufficient information to be able to test my hypothesis. First of all, to interrogate how exact the recognition of the potential risks was, the risks that were determined, and weren't identified rather than commercially protected, were filtered away, and lists were manufactured from these risks. As this was done, each risk was placed into a category to see if there were particular categories that are, and are not identified at tender stage. To analyse this, desks were designed for risks identified rather than identified, describing the types of risks, and the number of hazards in each category. From these desks, two pie graphs were attracted to show these details graphically.
To analyse the examination of the risks, a summary table was firstly drawn to show the number of contract risks in the next categories, and the total assessments associated with these dangers:
Not identified but protected (No cost).
Not identified and not covered - should be revealed.
Not recognized - cannot be identified.
Identified and protected.
Identified however, not covered.
However this summary table only required into account the risks in the sensitive risk register that harmonized with any of the contract dangers; it did not take into include any sensitive risks that had not been recognized in the deal risk register. Therefore the total sensitive risk assessment shape in this stand was limited to these risks, not all the risks which were identified at tender stage. It also didn't identify how many of the tender risks weren't contained in the agreement risk register. To beat this, an overall assessment was designed for the tender dangers that was not included in the contract risk register.
From this, another stand was created detailing the number of tender risks discovered at contract stage, and the number not revealed, with the tender and agreement assessments for every single category. Out of this an evaluation was made for the full total commercial assessments made at tender stage with those at contract stage. The precision of the sensitive assessments for the three agreements was also compared.
The next area of the analysis viewed the reliability of the sensitive assessment for individual risks. To get this done, the sensitive and deal assessments were extracted, for all the risks which were identified, and the differences worked out in a stand. From this the dissimilarities were placed into categories in an overview table, and a regularity histogram drawn to show these details.
The ways in which the other Highway companies identified assessed dangers at pre-tender level, were investigated. This was done by referring back to the table designed at the time of the interviews. Proceeding with popularity and classification methods, digging out the techniques used, what company used what method type. The same was done for the assessments of hazards, and so formed 2 pie graphs showing the recognition and assessment of the Highway contractors' risk management functions. It illustrates typically the most popular methods used by the Highway Companies' interviewed. These procedures were compared against the methods SRM use. Many of the companies did ignore the chance to give their risk registers to make use of for the dissertation, because of the sensitivity of their data and company policies. However some registers were received but didn't really support the important information required simply a formatted company risk. And yes it proven difficult to get both pre-tender and post agreement risk registers from any one company, instead acquiring one without having the other to compare against. Have to fill in contractors interviewed etc!!!!!
It was very helpful to check out the various forms of different registers that company's used, and the info put in them so that the risks could be been able properly. Nevertheless with out a full group of pre-tender and post agreement models of registers, any statistical evaluation of assessments made and dangers identified at the different stages was impossible. Screenshots were used of the Contactors risk registers showing the data gained and the restriction of them. Also following the cell phone interviews a assessment was manufactured from the methods used by the Highway contractors, against that of SRM. The accurateness of the Highway Companies assessments of risk could not be explored and would need to be taken with trust and a pinch of slat.
Many constraints have been within the research impacting both its dependability and validity. This would be expected in any research, as acknowledgement of the faults strengthens the ideas and circumstance submit. The portions below show the limitation found and show how they have affected the research and the project as a whole.
The goal and hypothesis were to see how inaccurate the pre-tender risk process is at identifying and assessing risks found within the post-contract level, compare the pre-tender with post agreement registers for the same structure.
So limitations happened quickly even in the beginning of data collection, as there was no risk register for A19 pre-tender. As the sensitive document had been misplaced/ lost another risk register from a similar project sensitive was used. This was done as a lot of the risks were similar within in the similar project, but written agreement specific risks imply that they aren't precisely the same.
It's important to note that when using assessments of parallel risk types, the potential risks are in reality different. Which means Total risk body used in the bid will be different as it depends on a great many other factors than the chance itself. Using a similar project type etc. was the only path to really deal with the shortfall in data needed, even if it can reduce reliability. It has occurred largely in the evaluation portion of the evaluation and quantifying the consistency would be another dissertation job alone.
The role of the chance register is to ensure that the structure team know dangers and opportunities that could help or hider a job, so that steps can be taken to reduce risks and increase opportunities. Dangers are constantly evaluated, so people know hazards that could cause problems to job and which could be beneficial. This allows key risks to take precedence and be mitigated if needed, overall keeping the right risk fresh. The process tends to be reassessed each month, when dangers are changed in conditions of seriousness and evaluated and re-measured, some removed scheduled to no risk, while others and added. Hazards are only removed or sealed when you can find little potential for future event.
This removal of risk has had a direct effect and limits research as when you compare the sensitive risk register with the agreement risk register, the comparability is not with risks found at sensitive level, but with risks that have occurred. The risks within the tender risk register are ones presumed by the bet team to likely occur in the job time span, and will have to be mitigated to be able to reduce them.
Not all the risks identified will happen, and therefore the deal risk register is not 100% accurate in conditions of the risks and the expense of them. This means the contrast made is not as accurate as being in a position to compare the tender risk registers with a list of risks that contain happened and been quantified. This is not possible, because risks are not quantified and noted when they may have occurred. Nonetheless it is still a good contrast to make because the risks identified, are the ones that are assessed to be relevant to the agreement by the task team, who are in a better position to effectively assess the risks than the bid team. It is because they are involved in your day to day jogging of the deal, and are interacting with today's and forseeable future, whereas the bid team and predicting much further in to the future.
Other Highway Contractors:
When collecting information from other Highway contractors, many refused to give risk registers due to sensitivity of the info and their company's insurance policies of offloading such data. As a result contractors any registers received where either non-specific risk registers, or live risk registers from jobs but with no values. It looked impossible to obtain both a pre-tender and post agreement risk register including all the costs. Meaning a genuine and complete evaluation could not be completed for highway companies. As I have performed for SRM they were content for his or her information to be used, as they may potentially use the dissertation to build up their management of risks and their techniques. The SRM registers were easy to obtain and probably became a limitation as it decreased the quantity of the research undertaken and consequently the validity.
The main limitations to analysing data, was in total calculations when you compare assessments at pre-tender with those at post contract phase. As the risks were assessed by max, min, probably costs and probabilities, assessing the overall assessments could have been hard, without one overall cost predicated on the information. The final computation that's used may produce inaccuracies as usually it would be tell you @ RISK. So misinterpretation of data can be possible.