23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering

UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Risk management, applying Montecarlo simulation and Hazid and

Hazop methodologies

Juan Ignacio Martínez1; Miguel Comino López2

1
Universidad Católica de Murcia (UCAM, Murcia, España), Universidad de Buenos
Aires (UBA, Cap. Fed., Argentina), Universidad Nacional de Luján (UNLu, Luján,
Bs. As., Argentina), Universidad Nacional de Rosario (UNR, Rosario, Santa Fe,
Argentina), Dumrauf & Asociados (San Isidro, Bs. As., Argentina); 2Universidad
Católica de Murcia (UCAM, Murcia, España), Universidad de León (UNILEÓN,
León, España), Universidad de Oviedo (UNIOVI, Oviedo, España), Acciona S.A.
Inc. (Alcobendas, Madrid, España); Miembro de la Junta de Gobierno del Colegio
Oficial de Graduados de Ingenieros del Principado de Asturias, COITIPA.

ABSTRACT

The present investigation will study the process of risk management, applying
methods that are usually used in other disciplines such as finance and engineering.

In professional practice, the Project Manager, teams, contractors, and other

stakeholders of a business are faced with possible events to become risks. When
this happens, they impact on the project, its resources, times to completely stop a
phase, deliverable or activity with its economic impact.

The Hazid and Hazop methods are used to identify risks, followed by qualitative and
quantitative analysis, complemented by exhaustive monitoring of the variables
exposed to risk, which are determining factors in project management (ICL, 1963;
Sutton, 2015).

By correctly applying Montecarlo simulation on the schedule, the risk of the activities
is obtained with its consequent impact on time and costs. The baseline of the project
contains probable and possible results (Trumper, 2017; PMI, PMBOK, 2018).

The professional analysis of establishing the possible events of risks and the
impacts in the schedule in combination with other methods, improves the decision
making and the management of the projects in conditions of uncertainty.

Keywords: impact; uncertainty; montecarlo; probability; risk; simulation

JEL Classification: C1; C10; C15; C67; C150; C460; C490; C630; G32

Correspondence: jim_finanzas@yahoo.com.ar; Miguel.cominolopez@gmail.com

1
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

1. INTRODUCTION
Methodologies, standards, and good practices applied by professionals in the project
management discipline consider risk management throughout the different stages of the life
cycle of a project, being a variable that covers all organizations in a transversal way. (PMI,
1969; Prince, 1975; Cooper 1988).

In the case of agile methods, it does not make explicit a risk plan. According to the Scrum
guide, "it employs small increases in work to mitigate risks." The PMI, in addressing agility,
states that: “By building a small increase and then testing and reviewing it, the team can
explore uncertainty at low cost in a short time, reduce risk and maximize business value
delivery” (PMI, 2017, p. 13; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013, p. 4).

The agile practical guide created by Agile Alliance in collaboration with the Project
Management Institute describes that: “High uncertainty projects exhibit high rates of change,
complexity and risk. Instead, using adaptive methodologies, an iterative and incremental
approach is used to optimize predictability and risk control” (PMI, 2017, p. 7-11, section 2.4,
agility).

When applying the Stage-Gate methodology, the project evolves and advances throughout
stages. At the end of each one, it is decided whether to continue to the next instance or not;
otherwise, the phase is rejected. Door “I” refers to the evaluation of the idea. The “II” consists
of an investigation that culminates with a business plan. In number “III”, the marketing
planning is developed that ends with a prototype. In the “IV” market tests, products and
customers are carried out until validation. Finally, in “V” corresponds to the production and
launch of the product (Cooper, 1988).

Risk events begin by being identified at the idea stage, using the Hazid approach (systemic
review by activity and/or project), subsequently passed to Hazop (systemic review of the
operational risk). Thus, it leads to the assessment of the probable and possible events, the
construction of contingency plans and the probability and impact matrix.

The Project Management Institute within risk management, developed the planning,
identification and analysis quali-quantitatively processes, passing through the response to
monitoring and control. In its latest update, the control to monitor action was modified.
Likewise, it added the process of "implementing responses" to ensure that the actions to be
applied in the event of risky events are executed as planned (PMI, 2018, pp. 447-452).

Among the response strategies, the one of “escalate” is incorporated, related to the
opportunities and threats. According to the PMI, the escalation is appropriate when the
director or sponsor, considers that the alternatives analysed are out of reach or exceed the
tasks of the Project Manager.

In Prince, the risks are identified in the start-up process (prepare the management strategy),
then in the phase control the events are recorded and examined plus the relative exceptions.
Among the actions to be applied the methodology establishes: a) identify the risk; b) evaluate
its probability and impact; c) design an appropriate response; d) respond proactively and
reactively.

2
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

In the 70s, the first norms and standards on risk management begin. ISO 31000: 2009 is
created for organizations, applicable to any kind of company, beyond its nature, activity,
commercial scenario or product (International Organization for Standardization, 2018).

According to this norm, risk is defined as “the uncertainty that arises during the achievement
of an objective. These are essentially circumstances, events or adverse events that prevent the
normal development of the activities of a company and that in general have economic
repercussions for its managers and projects” (International Organization for Standardization,
2018, p. 4).

The events that are identified in the different stages are quali-quantitatively analyzed until
reaching the scope of the project, so we will have a Free Cash Flow and a calendar of activities
with high certainty in its construction, based on all the studies carried out in a gradual form.

Concluded this phase, the Montecarlo simulation uses the economic and cost baselines, to
then measure the quantitative risk of a project; starting with the economic and financial flow
considering the investment and the operating period, the result is the impact on the indicators
NPV (net present value), IRR (internal rate of return), and timing of the schedule (execution
time).

Subsequent overcoming the economic viability stage, the tasks of the schedule are identified,
whether critical or slack. Next, a probability distribution (entry to the model) is assigned, being
the outputs or impacts (costs, times, etc.). Finally, the values that can be taken by a set of
variables are determined randomly, obtaining a global idea of the probabilistic behaviour of
calendar-dependent activities.

In short, the process of identifying risk events began by applying the Hazid and Hazop
techniques, conducting studies until it achieved the information base by which to build the
scope. Here the flow of funds was designed and structured, calculating the profitability of the
business, of the shareholder, to then establish the sensitivity (tornado graph) and detect the
critical variables, thereby calculating the quantitative probability of occurrence. This same
sequence was applied to the work schedule, obtaining an impact matrix of costs and time of
the activities individually and the entire project. So, the investor considers the values resulting
from the Montecarlo simulation to make a decision.

2. OBJECTIVE
Establish the sequence of steps that a project evaluator must perform, through the application
of a series of techniques to identify and quantify quali-quantitatively the risk events.

3. METHODOLOGY
Use a model case of funds flow, to apply the Montecarlo simulation, and glimpse the impacts
on the NPV (net present value) and IRR (internal rate of return) indicators obtaining the risk
probability curves with their corresponding analysis for decision-making.

4. RISK IDENTIFICATION I - HAZID TECHNIQUE

Correct identification of the risks begins in the early stages of the project, documented in the
traceability matrix similar to that used in the requirements, therefore, it is an activity that is
carried out through different stages from: a) idea (beginning of studies); b) feasibility (evaluate

3
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

options); c) definition (scope); d) execution (occurrence of risk events); culminating with the
final deliverable and the lessons learned.

Thus, the objective must focus on monitoring of probable and possible events and their
evolution over time. The factual record establishes whether the risk comes from the WBS,
activity of a deliverable or if it is internal or external to the organization, or other sources. The
categorization or risk status can be: active, passive, low-tracking, archiving, etc., and
determines if the event is critical with its probability associated with an impact, these being
the basis for building contingency reserves.

Every entrepreneurship is constructive, industrial, services, depends on Project Management

and its team for proper business management. It begins by studying similar projects
documentation, conducting interviews with stakeholders and executors of tasks. All this
information allows building a registry with its causes and effects, which sets the impacts and
consequences of the potential and probable events recorded and yet to be recorded. Then,
they will be evaluated and documented until the closing phase (Mulcahy´s, 2018, p. 417).

This record allows some events to pass to a qualitative analysis instance of probability and
impact measured in nominal values (scale), others will go directly to the quantitative study
applying Monte Carlo simulation.

Qualitative analysis characteristics:

Probability: Impact:
- 1 Rarely. - 1 Insignificant.
- 2 Unlikely. - 2 Tolerable.
- 3 Possible. - 3 Moderate.
- 4 Probable. - 4 Significant.
- 5 Almost sure. - 5 Severe.
The result is a risk map, where the probability and the event are weighted, and then establish
the number of events that fall into the risk category: a) critical; b) high; c) means; d) low.

The Hazid methodology is a collective term to encompass the identification of hazards, it is not
a method, it is a technique that identifies dangerous risks in industrial processes and orders
them according to their priority. The study is located in the feasibility phase, where
information about the project design, flowcharts, etc. is available. At this stage, the conceptual
engineering studies and the technical feasibility of the equipment began.

When the risk is found at an early stage in the design of the facilities, it allows recording the
events and then submitting them to the quantitative weighting, avoiding constructive delays
that may affect the budget made up of works and their corresponding activities (Díaz Pérez,
Fernández Zamora , Ramos Rodríguez, Reyes Delgado, & Santos Remesal, 2017).

Throughout the business management process, it is vital to achieve integrity in:

- Design: apply tools to minimize risk as low as possible.

- Operation: implement safety systems in all plant processes.

- Assets: adopt maintenance and optimization strategies.

4
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

There is a varied range of studies: a) SIL index assignment; b) requirements; c) Hazid; d) Hazop;
(Díaz Pérez et al., 2017, p. 56, Mapfre Foundation, table 1, engineering phases).

- Identify situations of external and internal hazards.

- Measure the impact impacts (cause and effect).

- Calculate the probability of occurrence.

Table 1: Risk Studies by Phases

Engineering Project
Analyses Method Expected Results
Phase
Conceptual Hazid – What If Early location of risks
Basic Hazid, Hazop, Checklist Risk identification in detail in processes
EERA, FHA, QRA, Establish dangerous situations with risk
Detailed
RAMS, SVA assessment
Source: MAPFRE S. A.

5. RISK IDENTIFICATION II – HAZOP TECHNIC

At different stages of the projects, several companies and organizations identified Hazid and
Hazop techniques to identify risks.

The guide "Guidelines for Hazards" does not mention the Hazid technique but does refer to
Hazop as "a method based on a well-structured and experienced team for the identification of
risky events not foreseen in the process design or in its subsequent modifications" (Center for
Chemical Process Safety, 2008; Sutton, 2015).

The author Freddman (2003) explains that the HAZOP technique is: "Identify the risks in the
facilities and evaluate the operability problems". In addition, it expresses that PHA (Process
Risk Analysis) methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative risks can be identified as a
reference in the world.

That is, without a thorough risk identification, qualitative analysis cannot be performed, and
then a quantitative study can be carried out in its Montecarlo variant.

For this reason, HAZOP studies the safety, the environment, the maintenance of the processes
and their base is to analyse the operations, the location of the equipment, the personal factor
and all internal and external risks that produce risks (Freddman, 2003).

It requires identifying four points:

- Establishment of the causes of risk.

- Determine the economic impact.

- Mitigate the consequences by applying contingency plans.

- Recommend applying other actions in case controls fail.

The technique must correctly define the problem, analyse processes, functional diagrams, and
equipment and plant information, among others.

5
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

The risks are the process variables and are produced when the values deviate from the normal
operating parameters (Schulberg, 2010, pp. 173-177).

In order to implement HAZOP, it is necessary for the Project Manager and the risk team to
perform a series of steps in a systemic way:

- Collect data.

- Determine the technical conditions of the processes.

- Identify residual hazards and risks.

- Evaluate the expected consequences and frequencies.

- Establishment of risk (probability and impact matrix).

- Propose risk reduction measures.

In the execution phase, the installation of machines, the implementation of processes, etc. are
monitored and controlled. When measuring deviations, the origin, causes and effects of the
events occurred are determined.

To the event transformed into risk, the mitigation action from a contingency plan is applied
(Freddman, 2003, pp. 61-64; Schulberg, 2010, p. 173).

As described above, it is correlated in the OHS 18001: 1999 standard on occupational risk, and
its predecessors ISO 14001: 1996 and UNE 81900: 1996 (AENOR, 2019; García Ruiz, 2001;
Normalization, 2019; Romero, 2001). In the recent ISO 45001: 2018 the concept of risks and
opportunities is presented, not only in labour environments and their workers, now extended
to the milieu, financial, atmospherel aspects, etc. (Cienfuegos & Contreras, 2019; IRAM, 2019)

It also establishes a series of steps and / or sequences to evaluate risky events:

- Identify the company.

- Analyse risks in the jobs.

- Value risk: frequency by impact = risk.

The recommended and proposed methods are HAZOP and fault trees, without ruling out other
requirements.

The ISO 31000: 2018 standard has a process management applied approach to risks. It
provides a series of principles for coordinating and aligning good practices by complementing
other international standards (Bajo Albarracín, 2019; González, 2019).

The application of the HAZOP technique allows:

- Establish deviations from the design of the processes.

- Build a probability and impact matrix of risk events.

The professionals in project management, to manage the risks that can be correctly identified
by applying good practices, professional and technical standards in the organization. The
fundamental aspect is to build the matrix of probable events, categorize the facts and monitor
the state. Finally, quantitatively weigh the probability-impact using Monte Carlo simulation or
other analysis tools.

6
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

When the time and cost figures of the baseline of the cash flow or of the project schedule are
correctly estimated when applying the Montecarlo simulation for quantification, the risk is
obtained as a result in a Gauss bell with the probability profile being the output variable. In
general, it is the completion time of the work, failing this, the net present value of the
economic operations, with their minimum, maximum and standard deviation values.

6. MONTECARLO SIMULATION – RISK QUANTIFICATION

The methodology goes back to physics when John Von Neumann and Stanislaw Marcin Ulam
worked on the Manhattan project (Metropolis & Ulam, 1949). They performed the
calculations, solving the differential equations of neutron diffusion.

In 1948, at the University of Pennsylvania facilities, the first experiment of simulating complex
variables was performed, using the ENIAC computer through a non-deterministic or statistical
system.

Throughout the years the applications were diverse until implementation began in the
evaluation of investment projects and then migrated to Project Management, using similar
analysis methodology.

To build a Free Cash Flow, finances require: a) investment: work schedule designed, valued
and estimated by the project management discipline; b) Operational flow: consisting of
income, costs, taxes, market value, and the cut-off rate (opportunity cost) represented by the
WACC used for the discount of the business flow and the shareholder's Ke rate (equity cash
flow) .

The projection period is estimated by the evaluator based on assumptions and restrictions,
knowing that in practice it has a horizon of ten years (Dumrauf, 2013, pp. 628-637, chapter 20).

The risk, in the flow of funds, is found in the input variables that build the project: a)
investment; b) income; c) costs; d) taxes, e) Ke or WACC rate (cost of capital), as appropriate to
the flow under analysis. These affect and disturb the NPV indicator (measured in the currency
of the Country) and the IRR (profitability expressed in %), considering the values of exits or
impact, which influence business decision-making.

The author Guillermo L. Dumrauf (2013), states that: “The beta coefficient is used in the CAPM
formula (capital asset pricing model) to conform the reference rate of the project, allowing to
measure the risk from the point of view of the investor considering a well-diversified portfolio
financed with own contributions ”.

It also calculates the expected returns of the company and the effects on profit. The Free Cash
Flow (FCF) is discounted at the WACC (weighted average cost of capital) rate when you use
equity and third-party debt. In the case of being full equity or equity, the Ke rate applies to the
flow called Equity Cash Flow (ECF) which, compared to the Free Cash Flow (FCF), measures the
leverage or leverage effect. In the case that the IRR of the flow (ECF)> IRR (FCF) the effect is
considered positive leverage, otherwise negative. In the first case, the project may be financed
with a mix of equity and debt, in the second only with capital, the rate being WACC = Ke
(Dumrauf, 2013, p. 360, chapter 11).

7
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

To incorporate the risks in the flow of funds, scenarios are designed that provide: a) inflation;
b) fiscal deficit; c) GDP evolution; d) exchange rate; e) interest rate.

                                                          CAPM = Rf + B (Rm-Rf) (1)

Rf: risk-free rate,

B: beta coefficient,
Rm: historical market profitability,
Rf: profitability of the asset (risk-free).

Figure 1: Tornado Graph – Impact in NPV

Variación del VAN

-0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16

-3,5% Gastos Totales

1

-4,0% Costos de Ventas

2
Cuentas del Proyecto

Inflación 14,0%
3

Nof 0,5%
4

Precio de Venta 14,0%

5

Demanda 10,0%
6

Source: Own-making case.

The traditional (statistic) approach to the treatment of uncertainty and risk in the
evaluation of projects is sensitization, carried out in two different ways:
1. Adjust the rate: in the Free Cash Flow (FCF) of the base case, as the risk increases,
greater profitability will be required of the project, this implies an increase in Ke,
which in turn will increase the WACC (see equation 1).
2. Modify values of the independent variables of the project: the levels of sales and
expenses are estimated, like other accounts that make up the flow of funds without
changing the discount rate, otherwise, the influence of risk would be doubling. The
analyst performs a deterministic variation.
Performing the economic analysis of an investment project or a schedule of activities, is
based on premises and/or assumptions that provide a correct result, if and only if, all the
values of the variables introduced in the model are known with certainty, it is that is, they
lack uncertainty (see figure 1).
The analysis environment is defined as the set of factors that cannot be controlled by the
decision maker operating on the model. Until now, the construction of the Cash Flow of the
project or the schedule has been prepared based on premises valued as true. This
procedure does not consider all possible states of nature, that is, the multiplicity of values
that each of the variables can adopt at a certain point in the future. For this reason, here it
is necessary to apply the Monte Carlo technique (Trumper & Virine, 2017, chapter 5).

8
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Montecarlo's analysis is a non-deterministic technique, based on the use of random

numbers for sampling distributions of occurrence probabilities assigned to uncertain
variables, for the resolution of problems through repetitive simulation, both in finance,
physics, mathematics, etc.
The events to be analysed analytically can be:
1. Repeatable: it is possible to retest under the same environmental conditions.
Example: throw a coin, calculate the kinematic speed of a mobile, and so on.
2. Non-repeatable: the event cannot be replicated in the same initial conditions,
either because it is materially impossible (variation of the states of nature) or
because of its high cost.
The Montecarlo analysis randomly determines the values that a set of input variables can
take based on the probability distributions assigned to each of them, obtaining as a result a
global idea of the probabilistic behaviour in the variable (s) exit / s or dependent / s during
the test (Machain, 2011, p. 192; Villanueva, 2015, chapter 4-5).
A variable is continuous if it can adopt infinite values for a given interval. On the contrary, it
is discrete, if the amount of possible values between the fixed points constitutes a finite set
or integers (Wayne L. Winston, 2000).
The input variables of the model in a project can be dependent and independent and the
result continuous or discrete (see table 2-5).
Sales income: the amount that enters the project for this concept, depends on the units
demanded, the sale price and the inflation of the period.

Table 2: Dependent Variable (Sales Revenue)

Concept Sale Price (1+Inflation) x Demand
Sales revenue
x
Distribution Log normal Log normal Normal Continue
Source: own-making case
Demand: the market analysis studied, estimates that it is likely to sell in each of the periods
the exposed units (projected estimated values).

Table 3: Independent Variable (Demand- Continuous distribution)

Demand Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Minimum 120 120 115 110 100
Maximu 210 230 230
157 210
m
Source: own-making case
Inflation: of the analysis of the economic cycle, no sharp variations are expected, estimating
sustained GDP growth at around 3% per year.

Table 4: Independent Variable (Inflation- Normal distribution)

Deman Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Year 1 Year 2
d
μ 4% 3% 2% 2% 2%
σ 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7%
Source: own-making case
Sale price: the price has variations due to inflation. Caution should be exercised not to use a
normal distribution but a normal log.

9
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Table 5: Independent Variable (Sale price- Normal-Log distribution)

Deman Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Year 1 Year 2
d
μ 10.4 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.4
σ 9.98 10.18 10.38 10.59 10.80
Source: own-making case
The baseline scenario of the project are the premises of the flow of funds to calculate the NPV
with a Ke 18% rate, accumulated inflation of 13.7%, Sale Price $ 10, Variable Cost $ 3, Expenses
$ 450, Funds (NOF) 3% of Production (see table 6).

Table 6: Flow of Funds Base – NPV calculation

Concept Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Demand 150 200 200 200 200
Sales 1.560 2.142 2.185 2.452 2.501
VC -468 -643 -656 -736 -750
NOF -14 -5 0 -2 0
Expenses -468 -482 -492 -502 -512
Investment -3.200
Residual value 6881
FNF-NVP
-3.200 610 1.012 1.038 1.212 8.120
$2.850
Source: own-making case – expressed in thousands and nominal currency (Argentinian Peso)

Table 7: Flow of Funds Simulation – NPV simulation I

Concept Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Demand 143 180 166 207 146
Sales 1.421 2.300 2.536 3.613 2.171
VC -488 -559 -663 -764 -613
NOF -22 1 7 -12 8
Expenses -477 -528 -597 -677 -798
Investment -3.200
Residual value 2.949
FNF-NVP
-3.200 435 1.215 1.282 2.159 3.717
$2.850
Source: own-making case – expressed in thousands and nominal currency (Argentinian Peso)

In the case of repeating the simulation, for example, 100 times, the result of the distribution of
the value of the NPV with a certainty of 95% is between - $ 1,808 and $ 2,296 (see table 7).

10
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Figure 2: Theorical & Real Curve – NPV Distribution, x100 Simulation.

Source: own-making case – software Palisade @ Risk 7.5

The simulation results impact the NPV. From 10,000 iterations onwards, the expected average
value of the NPV converges, remaining constant as well as the magnitude of the standard
deviation. The extreme values do not remain invariant, as is logical to a greater number of
more complete simulations is the state of nature. The tails of the normal distribution are
enlarged incorporating facts of very low probability.

Table 8: Variable of NPV Output

Concept - Interactions 100 q1 1.000 q1 10.000 q1 100.000 q1 1.000.000 q1
Minimum Value -1.973 -2.058 -2.398 -2.583 -2.574
Mean 18 38 39 39 39
Maximum Value 2.470 3.148 3.496 3.680 3.935
Standard Deviation 1.026 971 970 970 970
Confidence Interval 95%
Minimum -1.808 -1.544 -1.567 -1.583 -1.571
Maximum 2.296 2.085 2.101 2.112 2.121
NPV Provability < 0 55,0 % 55,3 % 52,8 % 52,7 % 52,7 %
Source: own-making case – (q)1 number of simulations.

Figure 3: Probable NVP Values – 95% of Confidence.

11
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Source: own-making case – software Palisade @ Risk 7.5

It is possible to affirm that, with 95% certainty, the value of the expected NPV of the project
will be between - $ 1,549 and $ 2,180 (see figure 2-3, table 8).

7. CONCLUSIONS
The identification of risks using the Hazid and Hazop technique begins in the early stages of
entrepreneurship, an issue that allows the different phases of a project to be traversed
gradually until it reaches definition and execution. The facts have to be recorded in a matrix, to
then be analyzed quali-quantitatively, passing through the sensitivity analysis in the case of the
evaluation of projects or the detection of events with risks in the activities in the Project
Management.

In the first discipline, the impact on the NPV (net present value) is analyzed, and in the second
one, the costs or term of completion of the schedule, being considered output variables.
Previously, the probability distribution had been applied to the project accounts or tasks (input
factors).

The Montecarlo simulation uses the @Risk or RiskyProject software where it performs an
iteration of n times in the project's input accounts to obtain the probability of occurrence or
impact interval, and thus achieve parameters such as maximum, minimum and deviation
values standard of the output variables, and other statistical indicators that quantify the risk.

In short, the simulation of the accounts or tasks of a project is vital in decision-making because
it analyzes all the states of nature, moving from a deterministic result (Sensitivity) to a
probabilistic one (Montecarlo), with the investor being the one ultimately decides the
implementation of an enterprise.

8. References
AENOR. (16 de 5 de 2019). Asociaciòn Española de Normalización y Certificación.
Recuperado el 16 de 05 de 2019, de https://www.aenor.com/normas-y-
libros/buscador-de-normas/UNE?c=N0007236
Bajo Albarracín, J. C. (2019). Guía para la gestión de riesgos empresariales: ISO
31000 (1ra. ed.). Madrid. Recuperado el 16 de 05 de 2019, de
https://www.bubok.es/libros/242213/Guia-para-la-gestion-de-riesgos-
empresariales-ISO-31000
Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2008). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation
Procedures (Tercera ed.). (A. I. Engineers, Trad.) Wiley.
doi:10.1002/9780470924891
Cienfuegos, S., & Contreras, S. (2019). Guía para la aplicación de ISO 45001:2018
(1ra. ed.). Madrid, España: AENOR. Recuperado el 16 de 05 de 2019, de
https://www.aenor.com/normas-y-libros/buscar-libros/detalle?c=12648
Cooper, Robert G. (1988). The new product process: A decision guide for
management (Vol. 3:3). Journal of Marketing Management.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1988.9964044
Díaz Pérez, A., Fernàndez Zamora, P., Ramos Rodrìguez, A., Reyes Delgado, G., &
Santos Remesal, J. (2017). Herramientas avanzadas para el diseño, operación
y gestión segura de instalaciones. Gerencia de Riesgos y Seguros(126), 12.

12
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

Recuperado el 16 de 05 de 2019, de
https://www.fundacionmapfre.org/documentacion/publico/i18n/catalogo_imagen
es/imagen_id.cmd?idImagen=1108427
Dumrauf, G. L. (2013). Finanzas Corporativas Un enfoque latinoamericano (Tercera
ed., Vol. I). Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Alfaomega S.A. Obtenido
de https//www.dumrauf.com.ar/
Freddman, P. (2003). HAZOP como metodología de análisis de riesgos. Petrotecnia,
4. Obtenido de http://biblioteca.iapg.org.ar/ArchivosAdjuntos/Petrotecnia/2003-
2/Hazop.pdf
Garcìa Ruiz, A. (2001). OHSAS 18001:1999 Sistemas de Gestiòn de Salud y
Seguridad Laboral. Gestiòn Práctica de Riesgos Laborables, 31. Recuperado el
16 de 05 de 2019, de http://pdfs.wke.es/8/1/9/5/pd0000018195.pdf
Gonzalez, H. (16 de 5 de 2019). ISO 31000:2018-Directrices para gestiòn de
riesgos . Obtenido de https://calidadgestion.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/iso-
31000-2018-directrices-para-gestion-de-riesgos/
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Risk Management ISO 31000.
Vernier, Geneva: ISO.ORG.
IRAM. (16 de 5 de 2019). Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certificación .
Obtenido de http://www.iram.org.ar/index.php?
IDM=44&IDN=679&mpal=no&alias=
Machain , L. (2011). Simulación de Modelos Financieros. San Lorenzo, Rosario,
Buenos Aires: Machain. Obtenido de http://www.simularsoft.com.ar/
Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The Monte Carlo Method - Journal of the American
Statistical. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 44(247), 335-341.
Obtenido de https://www.jstor.org/stable/2280232
Mulcahy´s, R. (2010). Preparación para el examen PMP. EE. UU.: RMC Publications
Inc.
Normalizaciòn, O. I. (16 de 5 de 2019). ISO. Obtenido de ISO:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14001:ed-1:v1:es:sec:A
PMI. (2018). Guía de los fundamentos para la dirección de proyectos (VI ed., Vol. I).
(PMI, Ed.) Pennsylvania, EE.UU: PMI. Obtenido de http://www.pmi.org
Prince2. (17 de 05 de 2019). Prince2. Obtenido de
https://www.bestpracticebookstore.com/usa/products/prince2-books/managing-
successful-projects-with-prince2r-2017
Project Management Institute. (2017). Guìa Pràctica de Àgil (1ra. ed.). Filadelfia,
Pennsylvania, EE.UU.: PMI. Obtenido de https://www.pmi.org
Romero, J. R. (2001). La Norma OHS 18001 de Gestión de la Seguridad y Salud
Laborables. Asociación para la Prevención de Accidentes APA, 17.
Recuperado el Abril de 2019
Schulberg, F. (2010). Marco Flexible para la Prevención y Preparación en Caso de
Accidentes con Productos Químicos. Programa de las Naciones Unidades para

13
 23th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
UMA, Málaga, Spain – Engineering College – 10th, 11th y 12th of July of 2019.

el Medio Ambiente(ISBN: 978-92-807-3094-4), 257. Obtenido de

http://www.capp.eecentre.org/Upload/images/pub_FF_Guidance_Spanish.pdf
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2013). La guìa de Scrum. EE.UU: scrumguides.
Sutton, I. (2015). Process Risk and Reliability Management. Elsevier Inc.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-01362-7
Trumper, M., & Virine, L. (2017). Project Risk Analysis Made Ridiculously Simple.
world Scientific. Obtenido de
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9963
Villanueva, J. R. (2015). Programaciòn de Proyectos con Incertidumbres (1ra. ed.).
Miraflores, Lima, Perù: Macro S.A.
Wayne L. Winston , L. W. (2000). Simulation Modeling Using @risk (2da. ed.).
Cengage Learning.

14