Hierarchical Structuring of PPP Risks Using Interpretative Structural Modeling

被引:183
作者
Iyer, K. C. [1 ]
Sagheer, Mohammed [1 ]
机构
[1] Indian Inst Technol, Dept Civil Engn, New Delhi 110016, India
关键词
Build/operate/transfer; Infrastructure; Risk management; Risk; Toll roads;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000127
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Project risk management emphasizes the need to rank and prioritize risks in a project to focus the risk management efforts. This risk prioritization is of special significance in public-private partnership (PPP) projects, since project success depends upon the efficient allocation of risks to the party who can best manage it. Previous studies on risk identification and assessment of PPP project risks have only produced an unstructured list of such risks and prioritizing them on the basis of probability and impact. This paper suggests the use of interpretative structural modeling (ISM) to prepare a hierarchical structure as well as the interrelationships of these risks that would enable decision makers to take appropriate steps. MICMAC (matrice d'impacts croises-multiplication appliqueacute a un classemen) analysis is also done to determine the dependency and driving power of the risks. ISM, along with MICMAC analysis, provides a useful hierarchy of risks whose individual relationships are unambiguous but whose group relationships are too complex to organize intuitively and can help practitioners better understand risk dependencies and prioritize risk-mitigation efforts. This study identified 17 risks encountered during the development phase of PPP projects in Indian road sector and found that fourteen risks were weak drivers and weak dependents. Delay in financial closure, cost overrun risk, and time overrun risk have been found to have the highest dependence on other risks. The analysis can be extended by practitioners for risk analysis in other infrastructures such as railways, seaports, airports etc.
引用
收藏
页码:151 / 159
页数:9
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2007, PERSPECTIVE: Context, History, and Planning Heritage, P1
[2]  
Bolanos R., 2005, MANAGE DECIS, V43, P877, DOI DOI 10.1108/00251740510603619
[3]  
CHAPMAN R.J., 2001, INT J PROJ MANAG, V19, P147
[4]   MEASUREMENT OF WORK PROGRESS - QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUE [J].
ELDIN, NN .
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT-ASCE, 1989, 115 (03) :462-474
[5]   Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers [J].
Faisal, Mohd Nishat ;
Banwet, D. K. ;
Shankar, Ravi .
BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2006, 12 (04) :535-552
[6]  
Flood R., 1989, Systems Practice, V2, p, P75, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01061618
[7]   APPLICATIONS OF INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELING TO HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM PLANNING [J].
HAWTHORNE, RW ;
SAGE, AP .
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING SCIENCES, 1975, 9 (01) :31-43
[8]  
Hillson D., 2002, P PROJ MAN I ANN SEM
[9]  
Hsiao SW, 2005, COMPUT IND, V56, P13, DOI [10.1016/j.compined.2004.10.002, 10.1016/j.compind.2004.10.002]
[10]  
Janes F. R., 1988, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, V10, P145, DOI 10.1177/014233128801000306