Information

Proceedigs Control
of Problems in Manufacturing
Proceedigs
May of the 15th
15th IFAC
theOttawa,
11-13, 2015. IFAC Symposium
Symposium on
Canada on
Proceedigs
Information of the 15th IFAC Symposium
Information Control Problems in
Control Problems on
in Manufacturing
Available
Manufacturingonline at www.sciencedirect.com
Information
May 11-13, Control
2015. Problems
Ottawa, in
Canada
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada Manufacturing
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine
An integrated management 48-3 (2015) 535–540
approach of the project and project risks
An
An integrated management approach of the project and project risks
An integrated
integrated management
management approach
approach of of the
the project
project and
and project
project risks
risks
E. Rodney*, Y. Ducq**, D. Breysse*, Y. Ledoux*
E.
E. Rodney*,
Rodney*, Y.
Y. Ducq**,
Ducq**, D.
D. Breysse*,
Breysse*, Y.
Y. Ledoux*
Ledoux*
E. Rodney*, Y. Ducq**, D. Breysse*, Y. Ledoux*
*Univ. Bordeaux, I2M, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France
(Tel:
*Univ.
*Univ.+33 540 007 158;
Bordeaux,
Bordeaux, I2M,e-mail:
I2M, UMR elodie.rodney@u-bordeaux.fr).
UMR 5218,
5218, F-33400 Talence,
F-33400 Talence, France
France
*Univ.
**Univ.
(Tel: +33Bordeaux,
Bordeaux,
540 007 I2M, UMR
UMR5218,
IMS,e-mail:
007 158;
158; e-mail: 5218, F-33400
F-33400Talence,
Talence,France
elodie.rodney@u-bordeaux.fr).France
(Tel: +33 540 elodie.rodney@u-bordeaux.fr).
(Tel: +33Bordeaux,
**Univ. 540 007 158;IMS, e-mail:
UMR elodie.rodney@u-bordeaux.fr).
5218, F-33400 Talence, France
**Univ. Bordeaux, IMS, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France
**Univ. Bordeaux, IMS, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France
Abstract: Risk is an inherent property of every project. In many cases, project management and risk
management
Abstract:
Abstract: Risk
Riskareis
isapplied
an quite independently.
an inherent
inherent property of
property Theproject.
of every
every traditional
project. In tools
In manyofcases,
many project
cases, management
project
project do notand
management
management include
and risk
risk
Abstract:
the notion
management Risk
of areisapplied
risk an inherent
and the tools
quite property
of risk of every
management
independently. The project.
focus In the
on
traditional many cases, project
representation
tools of project of management
risks
management without
do and risk
explicitly
not include
management are applied quite independently. The traditional tools of project management do not include
management
representing
the notion of are
the
risk applied
project,
and thequite
which
tools independently.
ofleads
risk to The traditional
implement
management the
focus risk
on tools
the of projectprocess
management
representationmanagement
of do not
independently
risks without include
of the
explicitly
the notion of risk and the tools of risk management focus on the representation of risks without explicitly
the notion
project
representing of the
riskproject,
management and process.
the which
tools This
ofleads
risk management
paper
to focus
demonstrates
implement the on the
the
risk need representation
to develop
management of integrated
an
processrisks without explicitly
approach
independently of to
the
representing the project, which leads to implement the risk management process independently of the
representing
project risk the project,
management
management which
and
process. leads
presents
This toour
paper implement
approach
demonstratesthe risk need
which
the management
is able
to to process
represent
develop an independently
the risks,
integrated but of the
also
approach to
project management process. This paper demonstrates the need to develop an integrated approach to
project
project management
project, risk
its components
risk management process.its This
andand
and paper
environment.
presents ourdemonstrates
approach whichthe need
which to to
is able
able develop an integrated
represent the risks, approach
risks, but
but to
also the
the
project management presents our approach is to represent the also
project
project, risk management
its components
components and
and its presents
its environment.
environment.our approach which is able to represent the risks, but also the
© 2015, its
Keywords:
project,
project, IFAC
its (International
Risk,
components
and Federation
Project management,
and its of Automatic
Model,
environment.
InnovationControl) Hosting
and System by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
concepts.
Keywords:
Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System concepts.
Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System concepts.
Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System concepts.
1. INTRODUCTION cause as well as its consequence, and specially its interaction
1. INTRODUCTION
1. of
INTRODUCTION with other
cause as
as well risks
as in consequence,
as its the project. These and observations
and specially its motivate
its interaction
In the current context market globalization, and in order to cause
1. INTRODUCTION cause
well
as well as
its
its
consequence,
consequence,
specially
and specially its
interaction
interaction
the
with research
other on
risks inmethods
the of
project. modelling
These
with other risks in the project. These observations motivate risk
observations project (Zur
motivate
increase
In
In the theircontext
the current
current competitiveness,
context of
of market companies have
market globalization,
globalization, and
and inin to offer
order
order to with
to the otherand risks inmethods
the project. These observations motivate
Muehlen
research Rosemann,
on 2005).
of modelling risk project (Zur
In the current
innovativetheir
increase
increase
context
products.
their
of market
In this context,
competitiveness,
competitiveness,
globalization,
a particular
companies
companies
and
have in order
haveattention
to
to offer
offeris the research on methods of modelling risk project (Zur
to the research on methods of modelling risk project
(Zur
increase their competitiveness, companies have to offer Muehlen
Muehlen and Rosemann,
andpresents
Rosemann, 2005).
2005).
paid to project
innovative
innovative management
products.
products. In
In this tools and
this context,
context, methods. attention
aa particular
particular Moreover,
attention is This
is Muehlen paperand Rosemann, an integrated
2005). management approach of
innovative
more products. In this use context, a particular attention is This
paid
paid totoand more
project
project companies
management
management those
tools
tools andtools
and methods.
methods.and methods
Moreover,
Moreover, to the
Thisproject
paper and project
paper presents
presents an risks. Such
an integrated
integrated an approach
management
management aims of
approach
approach at
of
paid
manage
more to project
andtheir
more management
innovations
companies and tools
use so to
those and
ensure methods.
tools a better
and Moreover,
product
methods to This
the paper presents
anticipating
project potential
and an
project integrated
events and
risks. at
Such management
measuring
an approach approach
their possible
aims of
at
more and more companies use those tools and methods to the project and project risks. Such an approach aims at
more
quality, andbetter
moredeadlines
companies useso those tools(Marmier
aaand methods to anticipating
the project and on project risks.
lifeSuch an theapproach aims of at
manage
manage their innovations and
their innovations and so lower
to cost
to ensure
ensure better et al.,
better product
product consequences
anticipating potential
potentialthe project
events
events andand andmeasuring
at
at on
measuring achievement
their
their possible
possible
manage
2013).
quality, their
Every
better innovations
project,
deadlines and so
innovative
and lowerto ensure
orcost not, a better
is
(Marmier product
subjectet to
al., anticipating
the project
consequences potential
objectives.
on the events and
project life at
and measuring
on the their possible
achievement of
quality, better deadlines and lower cost (Marmier et al., consequences on the project life and on the achievement of
quality,
numerous better
risks. deadlines
Being able and lower orcost
to control (Marmier etissue
al., consequences on the project life and on the achievement of
2013).
2013). Every
Every project,
project, innovative
innovative orthem not,is ais
not, iscrucial
subject
subject to
to the
the project
project objectives.
objectives.
2013).
in Every
project
numerous project,
management.
risks. Being ableinnovative
Companies
to control orthem not,
willis isneed
a subject
crucial project
issueto The following
the project section introduces the risk management and
objectives.
numerous risks. Being able to control them is a crucial issue The the project management, exploresthe
numerous
management
in project risks. Being able
tools, especially to control them
if they develop is a crucial issue
innovative The following section introduces
following section introduces thetheriskexisting
risk management
management tools andand
in project management.
management. Companies
Companies will
will need need project
project the The following
methods,
project section introduces
andmanagement,
presents theexplores
need to thetheriskexisting
management
establish a method
tools and
of
in project
products.
management Thus,management.
many
tools, tools
especially Companies
and methods
if they will
of risk
develop need project
management
innovative the project management, explores the existing tools andand
management tools, especially if they develop innovative methods, the projectand
integrated management,
management
presents of
the explores
risk project.
need to the existing
Section
establish 3a tools and
presents
method our
of
management
have beenThus,
products. tools,
developed
many especially
(Taillandier if et they develop
al., of 2011). Ainnovative
recurring methods, and presents the need to establish a method of
products. Thus, many tools
tools and
and methods
methods of risk
risk management
management methods,
model of and
project presents the need
risk management, to establish 33apresents
method of
products.
weakness Thus, many tools and methods of risk management integrated management
the integrated management
integrated of
of risk project.then
risk project. section
Section
Section 4 showsour
presents oura
have
have beenofdeveloped
been these methods
developed is that et
(Taillandier
(Taillandier they
et al.,do2011).
al., not represent
2011). A
A recurring
recurring project
model of management
case study in of risk academic
which project.thenSection 3 presents
researchers and our
an
have
projectbeenandofdeveloped (Taillandier et al., 2011). Atherecurring in model of project risk management, then section 4 shows aa
project risk management, section 4 shows
weakness
weakness of its
these
theseenvironment,
methods
methods is is and
that therefore
that they
they do do not treatrepresent
not representriskthe
the model
industrialof project risk workmanagement, thenresearchers
section of 4 ashows a
weakness
isolation, of its
these methodsofisand that they do not represent the project case
project casecompany
study
study in which with
in which academic
academic the aim
researchers better
and
and an
an
project
project andandindependently
its environment,
environment, and other processes
therefore
therefore treat of
treat the project
the risk
risk in in industrial
project casecompany
management study
of risks ininwork
which
project. academic
with the researchers
aim of a and an
better
project
management and its environment,
(Neiger et al.,of and
2006). therefore
However, treat
thereofthe project
risk in industrial company work with the aim of a better
isolation,
isolation, independently
independently of other
other processes
processes ofis no risk-
project industrial company
management of work with the aim of a better
isolation,
free project.
management independently
In the
(Neiger context
et al., of
of aother
2006).project, processes
However, and ofis no
especially
there project
in an
risk- management
2. DEALING of risks
risks
WITH
in project.
in PROJECT
project.
management (Neiger et al., 2006). However, there is no risk- management of risks in project. RISK MANAGEMENT
management
innovative (Neiger et al., market,
2006). However, there is no risk-
free project.and
free project. In competitive
In the
the context
context of of aa project,project
project, andmanagers
and especially
especially have
in
in an to
an 2.
2. DEALING
DEALING WITH WITH PROJECT PROJECT RISK RISK MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
free project.
evaluate
innovative In
different
and the context
developments
competitive of a
market,project,
(scenarios)
project and especially
of
managers the in
project,
have an
to 2.12. Risk
DEALING
management WITHand PROJECT
Project RISK MANAGEMENT
management
innovative and competitive market, project managers have to
innovative
paying
evaluate and competitive
attention
different to the set
developments market,
of projectrisks.
potential
(scenarios) managers
of Risks
the have
being
project, to 2.1 Risk management and Project management
2.1
evaluate different developments (scenarios) of the project, 2.1 Risk management and Project management Risk management and Project management
evaluate
generated
paying different
by the to
paying attention
attention to
developments
project
the
the set andof
set
(scenarios)
ofaffecting
potentialit,risks.
potential it is
risks.
of necessary
the project,
Risks
Risks being
being to A project is “a unique process, which consists of a set of
paying
take attention
into
generated account to the
the set of potential
interaction risks.
between Risks
the being
project coordinated
A project
project is isand
“a controlled
“a unique
unique process, activities
which withconsists
start dates of aaand
of setend
set of
generated by by thethe project
project and and affecting
affecting it, it, it
it isis necessary
necessary to to AA project
dates, isand
undertaken“a controlled
unique
to
process,
process,
achieve an
which
which
consists
consists
objective of aand
conforming
of
setend
of
to
generated
management
take into byaccount
the project
and the risks.
the and affectingare
Projects
interaction it, facing
betweenit is necessary
a
the growing
project to coordinated activities with start dates
take into account the interaction between the project coordinated coordinated
and controlled activities with start dates and end
and controlled activities with start dates and end
take into account
complexity.
management Indeed,
and the
project
the risks.interaction
managers
Projects between
have
are to
facing the
consider
a project
many
growing specific
dates, requirements
undertaken to such
achieve asan time, cost
objective and
conformingresources to
management and the risks. Projects are facing a growing dates, dates,
undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to
undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to
management
and variousIndeed,and theproject
parameters, risks.managers
Projects are facing a growing constraints.”
specific (ISO 10006,
requirements 2003).
such as
as time,
time, costcost andand resources
complexity.
complexity. Indeed, projectwhich managers are havestrongly
have to interrelated,
to consider
consider many
many specific
specific
requirements
requirements
such
such as time, cost and
resources
resources
complexity.
inside Indeed,
and outside project
the project.managers have to consider many constraints.” (ISO 10006, 2003).
and
and various
various parameters,
parameters, which This
which are complexity
are strongly
strongly leads to constraints.”
interrelated,
interrelated, If the project(ISO
constraints.” is a 10006,
(ISO unique2003).
10006, process, the views on the project
2003).
and
insidevarious
complex and risk parameters,
interactions
outside the which
and
project. soaretostrongly
This a decrease
complexity interrelated,
in
leads the
to
inside and outside the project. This complexity leads to If maythe be multiple.
project is aThe
uniqueultimate goalthe
process, is to control
views on
on thethe project
inside and outside
performance the project. This complexity toolsleads to If the project is a unique process, the views project
complex
complex risk riskof interactions
conventional
interactions risk so
and
and management
so to
to aa decrease
decrease (Marle,
in
in the If thebeproject
complexity
the may
may be and
multiple.
multiple.
is toaThe
unique
anticipate
The
process,
ultimate
ultimate thegoal
goal
the
behaviour
is
is
views
to
to to
control
control
on the
adopt
the
the
project
and the
project
project
complex
2014).
performance risk of interactions
conventional and
risk so to
management a decrease
tools in
(Marle,the may be multiple. The ultimate goal is to control the project
performance of conventional risk management tools (Marle, complexity actions to perform
and to (Marle,
anticipate 2002).
the This
behaviourpoint tois addressed
adopt and by
the
performance of conventional risk management tools (Marle, complexity
2014). complexity
and to anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the
and to anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the
2014).
An the systemic
actions to vision
perform
improvement track is the simultaneous representation in a actions to perform (Marle, 2002). This point is addressed by of the
(Marle, project.
2002). The
This project
point isis then viewed
addressed by
2014). actions
common framework ofis as
the set to
asystemicof perform
interacting
vision
vision of
(Marle,
of elements.
the 2002).
the project.
This
It The
should point isisaddressed
be addressed
project is then by by
then viewed an
An improvement
An improvement track
track isthe
theproject
the in its environment
simultaneous
simultaneous representation
representation andininofaa the
the
systemic
systemic vision of the
project.
project.
The
The
project
project is then
viewed
viewed
An improvement
risks, ableframework track
to translateof is the simultaneous representation in a external
as a set view
of which
interacting describes
elements. the
It environment
should be with
addressed which
by it
an
common
common framework ofthe therichness
the project and
project in itsthe
in its complexity and
environment
environment of the
and of
of asas
a set of interacting elements. It should be addressed by an
a set of interacting elements. It should be addressed by an
common
interactions
risks, framework betweenof the project
processes.in its environment
Moreover, of and of interacts,
external and
view an
whichinternal view
describes that
the can
to external view which describes the environment with which it show
environment the components
with which it
risks, able
able toto translate
translate the
the richness
richness and
and the the complexity
complexity of the
the external view which describes the environment withthewhich it
risks, able to translate
comprehensively
interactions the richness
understand
between risk, and
aprocesses.it is the complexity
helpful of the
to identify
Moreover, its
to of the system
interacts, and
and an (Sperandio,
internal
internal view 2005).that The
that can analysis
can show
show the theofcomponents notion
interactions between processes. Moreover, to interacts,
interacts, and
an
an internal
view
view that can show the
components
components
interactions
comprehensively between processes. Moreover, to of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion
comprehensively understandunderstand aa risk, risk, itit is
is helpful
helpful to to identify
identify its its of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion
comprehensively
Copyright © 2015 IFAC understand a risk, it is helpful to identify its 567 of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion
2405-8963 © 2015, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©
Copyright 2015
©under IFAC
2015 responsibility
IFAC 567
567Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2015 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.136 567
INCOM 2015
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
536 E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
of project has led us to retain a set of eight concepts to
describe it. Indeed, a project responds to the objectives by the
realization of deliverables and achieving results. These
results are obtained by performing activities supported by
resources. It needs to make decisions in an uncertain and
changing environment. Projects are becoming increasingly
multi-company and multi-site, thus requiring an exchange of
information between many actors with different interests.
Project management has many tools and methods to guide
management toward achieving project objectives. Generally,
these tools are based on a chronological and hierarchical
description. However these methods of description neglect
project complexity. Indeed, the problem is to highlight
certain components of the project, making visible information
that are not formalized on conventional tools (information
relates to the component, as well as the interactions it has
with others). The only interactions considered are
hierarchical membership and sequential order, while other
links (as for instance those between stakeholders and
resources) are not formalized (Marle, 2002). Furthermore, the
current project management tools insist on the description
and optimization of a project situation fully known and
controlled, ignoring the notion of uncertainty and therefore
risk.
The concept of risk is highly polysemous and supports a large
number of definitions (Breysse, 2009). In agreement with
ISO / FDIS 31000 which is the reference for risk
management, we define it as being the “effect of uncertainty
on objectives” (ISO 31000, 2009). In the context of project
management, project risk is related to the occurrence of
events, from internal or external origin, which may affect the
achievement of the initial target. Referring to ISO 31000
standard, risk qualifies the effect of these events on the
achievement of project objectives. The anticipation of these
events via the identification of internal or external factors
which are the basic cause of risk, the evaluation of their
impact on the project progress and the proposal of
appropriate treatment actions are the purpose of risk
management, whose different steps are described by the ISO
31000 standard. The deployment of this risk management
process requires the handling of various tools available in the
literature. After analysis of relevant literature and common
practice, it is possible to consider that:
(1) The majority of tools used in the context of risk
management is not applicable to the whole process of risk
management (Breysse, 2013).
(2) The relevant methods for the identification, analysis,
evaluation and treatment of risks, such as brainstorming, are
unstructured, only handle qualitative information and are
limited by users’ experience (Grimaldi et al., 2012).
(3) Risk is usually addressed independently of the project and
its environment.
2.2 Integrated management of project risk
568
According to the previous section, it is possible to highlight
the shortcomings of the methods of project management on
the one hand and of the methods of risk management on the
other. The most important pitfall is the fact that risk
management and project management are carried out
independently, thus preventing the integrated management of
risk project.
Some tools for integrated management of project risk have
been developed. They are typically based on a temporal
representation of the project (PERT, Gantt) and therefore of
risks. The project, limited in time, is broken down into
activities associated with risks. These risks result in terms of
additional lead time and cost overruns. These tools also make
it possible to increase the resources allocated to an activity
and by the way, to reduce its duration. We can mention in
particular CVEP procedure established by WSDOT (Parker
and Reily, 2009). The major drawback of this temporal
representation is that the risks are related to activities and
resources, while practice shows that risks are related to all
components of the project (Rodney et al, 2014). Thus, these
tools do not allow to integrate all aspects of risk and even less
all project components. Our proposal is to develop a method
of risk project management which must be applicable to the
entire process of risk management, with a multi-view
representation in order to consider all aspects of the project,
with dynamic aspects to include the evolution of the project
which is by no means frozen in time and finally multi-scale,
to allow to adapt the level of detail desired.
3. PROPOSAL OF AN INTEGRATED METHOD OF
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
The model is based on the following main hypotheses: (1) the
risk integration to the project management takes into account
the deadlines, the quality and the cost criteria and (2) the
project implementation depends on the user requirements and
objectives. At any time, the objectives of the model
implementation are to analyse the possible scenarios (must
cover all considered risk factors and risk events in a given
project), to evaluate the global risk level and to select the best
treatment strategies.
The method involves the following phases:
(1) Definition of user requirements objectives.
(2) Modelling of the project.
(3) Identification of all risk factors and risk events. This
identification is based on the literature and on the analysis of
the project model.
(4) Generation of different possible scenarios of the project.
(5) Simulation of these scenarios considering potential risks.
(6) Estimation of the project cost, duration, quality and risk
level.
3.1Model description: the modelling framework
A modelling framework describes the relative positioning in
the model, and the dynamics of transition along three
INCOM 2015
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540 537
dimensions: the views, the instantiation and the life cycle
(Fathallah, 2011). This framework inspired by the GERAM
framework (IFAC–IFIP Task Force, 1999) is presented in
Figure 1.
Fig. 1. The modelling framework
(1) The generation axis defines the modelling views
(function, organization, resources, information and risk).
These different views allow to have access to the model by
focusing on some aspects. A modelling view point is a
specific perception which underlines some aspects and makes
the others transparent. It is thus a particular prospect to
represent, then to observe a same project with the help of the
model.
(2) The derivation axis identifies the stage of the project life
cycle.
(3) The genericity axis permits to distinguish the range of
applicability. It is made up of three levels: the generic level
applicable to all types of projects, the partial level applicable
to a particular field (typically construction projects), and
finally the specific level corresponding to specialized model
devoted to a particular project (the project case study
presented below).
3.2Model description: the modelling views of the project
The stake is double: (1) to propose compatible different
views of the project, (2) to add a risk view compatible with
each of the above views. These views describe the concepts
(entities) used, their properties and connections (Fathallah,
2011). They has to allow the description of the interactions
among the components of the project, as well as the
interactions between the latter and the risk in terms of causes
and consequences. We have made the choice of using
standards ISO 31000 (2009) and ISO 19440 (2004). In fact
the latter defines a set of concepts allowing the process
modelling. Added to this point, four different project views
are considered, each of them taking into account different
aspects of the project. The function view describes the
processes and their structure. It represents a set of processes
broken down into activities, and undertaken to get a result
569
aiming at a desired objective. The execution responsibility of
all or part of the activities by an actor corresponds to an
operational role. The development of the process is backed
up by a set of resources and conditioned by the occurrence of
triggering events, of internal or external origin. The resources
view (cf. Figure 2) represents the human and technical
resources used throughout the different project activities. It
concerns the set of necessary means to carry out the
transformation of raw materials and components into finished
products.
Fig. 2. The resources view
The organization view represents the different actors, as well
as their responsibilities and individual or collective abilities.
The different organizational units are made up of some
profiles, each of them having an organizational role
expressing their responsibilities and their authority, and an
operational role corresponding to their experience as well as
their abilities. It is noted that the view organization highlights
the concept of decision, by an organizational role, with a set
of information, selection criteria and a decision given power.
Finally, the information view represents all the necessary data
and information to complete a given activity.
3.3Model description: the entities of the project
The model is composed of sixteen entities: Process, Event
(process), Event (Activity), Activity (execution), Activity
(decision), Result (process), Result (activity), Objective
(process), Objective (activity), Performance (process),
Performance (activity), Operational role, organizational role,
Profile, Organizational unit and Resources. These entities
were selected for their ability to take into account all the
aspects of project and to allow a simulation of the project in a
realistic way. In each view (Function, Organization,
Information and Resources), only some entities are visible.
All links between entities are visible in at least one view. All
the entities are characterized by a set of attributes taking
different values at time of the project. For example, the entity
Resources is considered among others in the information and
the resources view. The difference is that a resource
belonging to the resource view is just a reusable resource,
namely human resource or production equipment, or
consumable resource as raw material. However, in the
information view, a resource is immaterial. Another major
difference is that the resources view is relative to execution
activities contrary to the information view that considers
both, the decisions and execution activities.
INCOM 2015
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
538 E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
3.4Model description: the risk view
Risk is directly related to links between entities.
All attributes of an entity (entity known as source) as “risk
factors” which may, in some conditions (change of value),
induce “risk events”. These risk events will result in
change(s) of one or several values of some attributes of
impacted entities (entity known as target) (cf. Figure 3).
Fig. 3. Description of the links between the risk view and the
modelling view of the project
The same rule applies to relationships between system
entities and entities of the environment, each of them being
possible as source or a target entity.
“Risk interaction” is not explicit in the model but is a direct
result of these dependencies once time steps are considered
since any change of value of any entity may create different
risk factors at next time steps.
According to the general definition of the risk, the considered
effects can be either positive (opportunities), or negative.
The dynamic nature of those project risks is due to the fact
that some risks disappear (not achieving the hazard), and
other lead to an undesired event during the project life
(Mehdizadeh et al., 2012) (Hamzaoui et al., 2014).
4. A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CASE STUDY
We will present an illustration based on a real project, taking
place in the framework of the thesis. Results will be
presented by resource view. It should be noted that although
the formalism is set, the model is still in development.
4.1 CSP project presentation
Our application project is a real Concentrated Solar Power
(CSP) project led by a French industrialist that we will not
name for confidentiality reasons. For the same reason, some
details will be intentionally omitted, such as the type of CSP
technology and the localization. The CSP market interest is
due to a combination of rising fossil fuel costs, firm
570
renewable targets and substantial governmental subsidies.
These factors have helped CSP technology to become
commercially attractive, resulting in increased investment in
CSP innovation projects. The management of the
construction of a CSP plant has to be in accordance with the
best practice of general construction project management.
Therefore the aim is to construct the project to the required
level of quality, and within the time and cost limits. During
construction, issues like environmental impact or for example
health and safety of the workforce must be carefully
managed. The construction performance of a CSP plant
depends on many factors, hence the interest to apply our
method to this case. The use of such developed tool is a
useful tool to assist the engineers to consider on the same
time the project management, the associated risk and their
evolutions.
From an organizational point of view, the project contract
and the interfaces (depending on the contracting structure)
management are of central importance. Indeed, to name only
the civil works, the different stakeholders (Organizational
units), internal or external to the project involved are among
others civil contractor, Mounting or tracking system supplier,
Central inverter supplier, Electrical contractor, Grid
connection contractor and Security. In the function view, the
project programme has different levels of detail and outlines
the timescale of each activity, the ordering of the activities
and the interdependencies between activities. The overall
sequence of activities is: site access, site clearing, making site
secure, foundation construction, substation construction,
mounting frame construction, electrical site works and then
testing and commissioning. Each of these works is broken
down into a series of activities.
4.2 Implementation and simulation: example of an activity of
the construction process from the resource view
We are considering here an activity of the construction
process of the CSP plant. This activity consists in the onsite
mounting of the assembly plant of some components (the
reflectors) forming the solar field of the CSP plant. This
activity takes place in parallel with the realization of civil
works, and can be divided into the following two activities:
mounting the structure and assembling the different processes
inside the structure.
As we explained previously, the resource view represents all
necessary means to carry out an execution activity. A profile
(actor) is, in this view, characterized by an operational role
which represents his abilities in terms of learning
(knowledge, training), of know-how (experience / practice)
and of life-skills (attitude / personal qualities). This
operational role takes charge of an execution activity ending
in a result aiming at an objective (in terms of cost, delay and
quality) and reaching some performance (equally in terms of
cost, delay and quality). This execution activity requires a
number of consumable resources, human resources (differ
from the profile by the fact that they have no power of
decision) and production facilities.
INCOM 2015
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540 539

It has been selected a particular activity with a budget of We also considered the number of operators mobilized per
61,600.00€ and the total allowed time of 14 working days. day (RF3) (quality is not considered in this example).
Two profiles are considered and twenty operators (human
The risk data have initially been characterized by experts
resources). The progress of the activity depends on different
referring to their experience. The different numerical data
parameters: the amount of mobilized resources (human
were slightly modified accordingly without any impact on the
resources, production facilities and consumable resources)
scientific logic of our approach.
per time step (here by day), the efficiency and the
qualification level of human resources, the Overall
Equipment Effectiveness and the skills level of the
operational role. Thus, according to the values of these Table 2. Activity performance
attributes, the effective duration of the activity will be Activity performance Duration Cost
different from the initial duration (with optimal values of No risk 14 days 61,600.00€
different attributes). Furthermore, the cost of the activity is
directly related to its duration, but also to its location, to the RF1 18 days 74,550.00€
use and the consumption of resources and finally to the
mobilization of an operational role which provides oversight RF2 16 days 70,400.00€
or realization. Regarding resources, consumables are RF3 17 days 74,800.00€
characterized by the purchase cost, the transportation cost and
the storage cost; production facilities by the purchase cost, RF1, RF2, RF3 21 days 85,500.00€
the operation cost, the maintenance cost and the storage cost;
and finally human resources through a salary. As for the Figures 4 represents the activity duration and the cumulated
quality of the activity, it depends on the resources (origin, cost without risks (green dots) and with risks (RF1, RF2 and
storage area ...), on its location and on the skills and loading RF3) (red crosses). It should be noted that these results were
rate of the operational role. The activity quality evolves with obtained after a simulation.
the activity progress.
Once the project modeled, it is possible to identify various
risk factors induced by the attributes of entities. Then
identification of risky events from these factors is performed.
Attributes values can be modified during the activity progress
due to risk factors and risk events.
The table 1 presents some risk factors likely to be induced by
the entities of the resource view.
Table 1. Risk associated with the project - Partial list of
risk factors
Source entity Risk factors
Consumable resources Purchase cost per unit
Consumable resources Transportation cost per unit Fig. 4. Cost and duration of the activity.
Consumable resources Storage cost per unit
The most damaging case overlooked the delay and the cost of
Consumable resources Amount stored the project is the combination of the three risk factors. Taken
Consumable resources Quality of the storage area individually, the risk factor number 3 (number of operators
Consumable resources Quality of the supplier mobilized per day) is responsible for the worst effects. What
Number of operators mobilized per is important to note is that although the interactions between
Human resources
day risks are not explicitly described, these appear in the results
Human resources Level of qualification anyway. This is due to the structure of the model. The various
Human resources Efficiency deviations we observe between the costs and time limits
A risk event would be that the activity cannot take place on a referred and those finally obtained in the different scenarios
given day due to a lower number of operators than the of implementation of the activity show the interest this
required minimum. method. In addition, the results are presented here according
to the view resource, but take into account all aspects of the
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION project, defined in the other modeling views. The observed
difference is due to the change in values of some attributes of
Table 2 presents the results obtained with this approach.
the entities used for modeling of both execution activities.
Those results have been obtained by considering three risks
Two points can be discussed on this approach. To ensure the
factors related to the level of qualification (RF1) and the
robustness of our approach, we have to test it with several
efficiency of the local manpower (RF2) (human resources).
real projects achieved. Indeed, this model required a lot of
parameters defined by the users. This parameters are difficult

571
INCOM 2015
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
540 E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
to assess. The implementation of this approach could also
allow us to know the influence of all this parameters on the
results. More detailed results will be presented at the
conference.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we discuss the need for an integrated
management of risk project. Indeed, there are tools for
managing risks, but they do not represent the project or its
environment, and thus address independently the risks. On
the other hand, conventional project management tools do not
incorporate the concept of risk. Some tools for integrated
management of risk project have been developed. However,
they do not allow to integrate all aspects of risk and even less
all project components.
Choose the best strategy in a project is often tricky, even
more when the project should deliver a result presenting
technology novelty (Marmier et al., 2013). Moreover,
projects are in essence complex and the complexity is a major
source of risk. As a consequence, the complexity of projects
leads to the higher complexity of risks in projects which are
interrelated with all components of the projects and of the
projects environment. Each possible scenario of the project
could have different planning but also different risks. To
estimate the risk for each project scenario, we propose an
approach to model, to simulate and to evaluate project risks
in term of cost, delay and quality.
The main contribution of these approach is the nature of the
model used. As part of a project, the complex nature of the
risks is due to the fact that they affect several interrelated
objectives, they are perceived differently by different actors
who have divergent interests, they are interacting with
various components of project as well as other risks and they
manifest themselves differently depending on the level of
abstraction of the project. The risk view allow the
representation of its internal structure in terms of cause and
consequence, and its relations with other project components.
The implementation of the proposed method aims to
reproduce the behaviour of the project, evaluate its
performance and anticipate its possible drifts while respecting
the following specifications: be applicable to the entire
process of risk management, be dynamic (taking into account
the evolution of the project) be multi-views (consider all
aspects of the project) and multi-scales (present different
levels of detail). For this, this method uses an iterative
process composed of several successive steps. The starting
point is the modelling of a project at a t time with a set of
views and entities (from the ISO 31000 and ISO 19440
standards) and an architectural framework (GERAM). The
example presented here shows that our approach is well-
suited to take into account the complexity of interactions
among the risks and the project. Furthermore, such an
approach allows us to estimate the project cost, duration,
quality and risk level. The actual model is a prototype which
is being improves by its implementation on different projects.
572
REFERENCES
Breysse, D., Tepeli, E., Khartabil, F., Taillandier, F., Medhizadeh,
R., Morand, D. (2013). Project risk management in
construction projects: Developing modelling tools to favor a
multidisciplinary approach. Safety, Reliability, Risk and
Life-Cycle Performance of structures and Infrastructures,
Deodatis, Ellingwood and Frangopol.
Fathallah, A. (2011). Modélisation d’entreprise : Proposition d’une
démarche de construction et de validation de modèles
réalisant la cohérence des systèmes de l’entreprise, Ecole
Centrale Paris, Thèse de doctorat.
Grimaldi, S., Rafele, C., Cagliano, A.C. (2012). A framework to
select techniques supporting project risk management,
licensee inTech, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50991.
Hamzaoui, F., Taillandier, F., Mehdizadeh, R., Breysse, D., Allal,
A. (2014). Evolutive Risk Breakdown Structure for
managing construction project risks : application to a
railway project in Algeria. European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, volume 19:2, pp.
238-262.
IFAC–IFIP Task Force. (1999). GERAM, Version 1.6.3, IFAC–IFIP
Task Force on Architecture for Enterprise Integration.
ISO/DIS 10006. (2003). Systèmes de management de la qualité –
Lignes directrices pour le management de la qualité dans les
projets, ISO.
ISO/DIS 19440. (2004). Enterprise integration — Constructs for
enterprise modelling, ISO.
ISO/DIS 31000 (2009). Risk management - Principles and
guidelines on implementation, ISO.
Marle, F. (2002). Modèles d’informations et méthodes pour aider à
la prise de decision en management de projet, Ecole
Centrale Paris, Thèse de Doctorat.
Marle, F. (2014). A structured process to managing complex
interactions between project risks. International Journal
Project Organisation and Management, volume 6, Nos. ½,
pp.4-32.
Marmier, F., Gourc, D., Laarz, F. (2013). A risk oriented model to
assess decisions in new product development projects.
Decision Support Systems, volume 56, pp. 74-82.
Mehdizadeh, R., Taillandier, F., Breysse, D., Niandou, H. (2012)
Methodology and tools for risk evaluation in construction
projects using Risk Breakdown Structure. European Journal
of Environmental an Civil Engineering, volume 16:1, s78-
s98.
Neiger, D., Churilov, L., Zur Muehlen, M., Roseman, M. (2006).
Integrating risks in business process models with value
focused process engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th
European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1606-
1615, Sweden.
Parker, H.W., Reilly, J. (2009). Life cycle cost considerations using
risk management techniques, World tunneling conference,
Budapest.
Rodney, E., Ledoux, Y., Ducq. Y., Breysse, D. (2014). Integrating
risks in project management, Dependency and structure
modelling conference, Paris.
Sperandio, S. (2005). Usage de la modélisation multi-vue
d’entreprise pour la conduite des systems de production,
Université Bordeaux 1, Thèse de Doctorat.
Taillandier, F., Mehdizadeh, R., Breysse, D. (2011). Evaluation et
aggregation des risques pour les projets de construction par
le recours aux Risk Breakdown Structures.
Zur Muehlen, M., Rosemann, M. (2005). Integrating risks in
business process models. Proceedings of the 2005 Australian
Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005). Manly,
Sydney, Australia.