Page 140 - Global Project Management Handbook

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 6-9

TABLE 6.6 Summary of PT 181 Activities and Industry Input
∗
Activity Number of Participants
PT 181 meetings and deliberations 12
Globalization committee review and assessments 10
Structured interviews 22
Risk scoring workshops 38
CII Globalization committee emerging market forum 20
Consistency test—completed projects 12
Consistency—ongoing projects 28
Total 119
∗
Participation is only counted once as some contributed to more than one activity.

Using the IPRA risk register and a lessons-learned database system could allow
companies to shorten the learning curve for becoming successful on international pro-
jects. Use of these tools in association with proactive and repeated use of the IPRA
tool can improve the chances that organizations with little or no experience in a juris-
diction will be able to avoid or mitigate the risks. This research also illustrated that
there is no single “blueprint” for assessing the risks associated with international pro-
jects and that use of the IPRA tool must be tailored to adjust for country, user, and
business-sector concerns.
In addition to recognizing these limitations of the IPRA tool, the researchers
acknowledge the reduced scope that comes from their generalization of the sample
characteristics to a larger population. In this study, relatively small samples were used
for the both development of baseline relative impact values and the consistency test
investigation. Furthermore, because the sample project selection was based on organi-
zations volunteering projects and not on a random selection process, organizations
may have selected projects with a bias toward success, which may have influenced the
results.
As summarized in Table 6.6, the research team performed a variety of activities and
received input from 119 different industry experts from 52 different firms to develop and

test the IPRA tool. Although the consistency test used a relatively small nonrandom sam-
ple of 25 projects and is susceptible to bias, the collective results from it show that the
tool is a sound, comprehensive method to identify and assess the relative impact of the
majority of risk issues encountered on international capital facilities (CII, 2004).

APPLICATION AND USE OF THE IPRA TOOL

Because risks can arise throughout the project life cycle, effective risk management is an
iterative process and not limited to a one-time analysis. Given the evolving nature of risk,
the primary value of the tool is highest during the program decision and preproject planning
phases. To be most effective, we recommend that the IPRA tool should be deployed at three
points on the project timeline: (1) program decision, (2) validation of project feasibility, and
(3) decision to proceed with detailed engineering and construction. Further use of the tool
could occur during project execution and operations. In addition, the tool can be used as a
checklist at any time. Figure 6.1 illustrates where the tool is most applicable during the
project life cycle.