Case Study

Applying Risk Management Workshop for a Public

Construction Project: Case Study
Cheng Siew Goh 1; Hamzah Abdul-Rahman 2; and Zulkiflee Abdul Samad 3

Abstract: The selection of proper risk management tools and techniques is critical for better decision-making. Because very few studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

scrutinize the use of a workshop as a risk management approach, this paper aims to explore how a risk management workshop can be
effectively used in managing project risks, by studying a risk management workshop that was conducted in a public project. An in-depth
case study approach was adopted to identify the benefits and challenges of this method of risk management. The subsequent performance
of the public organization in managing risks was examined by evaluating its functional risk management implementation. In addition to
furthering an organization’s understanding of major project risks, a risk management workshop also provides opportunities for team building.
However, a breakdown in the risk communication that eventually resulted in a poor risk management implementation was uncovered in the
implementation of the project. Continued efforts to improve risk management implementation are needed to overcome the shortcomings
associated with the current practices. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000599. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Risk management; Project management; Case studies.
Author keywords: Risk management workshop; Risk identification; Risk analysis; Public project.

Introduction
Risks are unavoidable in the dynamic construction industry
(Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Tar and Carr 2001; Forbes et al.
2008). Construction risks need to be proactively managed if the
objectives and targets of a construction project are to be achieved.
Risk management (RM) has been accepted as an important ap-
proach to making better decisions (Han et al. 2008). RM can help
reduce the likelihood of potential threats and their possible effects,
and can also maximize the likelihood of opportunities [Project
Management Institute (PMI) 2004]. An effective risk management
application can turn downside risk to upside risk, thus enhancing
the performance of the project and the organization.
Several RM processes proposed by professional bodies and re-
searchers appear in the literature [Perry and Hayes 1985; Chapman
1997; Ward 1999; Tah and Carr 2001; Tummala and Mak 2001;
PMI 2004; Australian/New Zealand Standards (AS/NZS) 2004;
Taylor 2005; Han et al. 2007]. Due to the importance of RM, pro-
fessional bodies have introduced systems to overcome problems
in its implementation. For example, project risk analysis and
management (PRAM), promoted by the Association of Project
Management (APM), comprises nine steps: define, focus, iden-
tify, structure, ownership, estimate, evaluate, manage, and plan
(Chapman 1997). On the other hand, PMI (2004) introduced an
RM framework with five steps: risk planning, risk identification,
1 Selected RM tools and techniques must fit with allocated resour-
Graduate, Dept. of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment,
Univ. of Malaya, Malaysia (corresponding author). E-mail: gohkeanu@
yahoo.com
2
Professor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research & Innovation), Univ. of
Malaya, Malaysia.
3
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Built
Environment, Univ. of Malaya, Malaysia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 17, 2011; approved on
May 2, 2012; published online on May 4, 2012. Discussion period open
until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 139, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9364/2013/5-572-580/$25.00.
risk analysis, risk response, and risk monitoring and control. At
the same time, AS/NZS (2004) also presented an RM process that
includes establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluat-
ing, treating, monitoring, and communicating risks. Regardless
of the variations in specific RM processes, they generally always
include risk identification, risk analysis, and risk response. RM
should be applied at all stages in the life cycle of the project in
a systematic and comprehensive manner to realize its full benefit.
It is also important to properly select RM tools and techniques for a
successful risk management implementation.
Tools and Techniques used for RM
A wise use of proper tools and techniques can add value to the
performance of RM in delivering project objectives. A wide range
of tools and techniques is available for managing risk in the con-
struction and engineering industry. As shown in Table 1, many
studies have investigated the application of these tools and tech-
niques in the construction and engineering industry, including those
by Akintoye and MacLeod (1997), Ward (1999), Wood and Ellis
(2003), Lyons and Skitmore (2004), Simister (2007), Dikmen et al.
(2008), and Forbes et al. (2008). The most common tools and tech-
niques are checklists, brainstorming, probability impact matrices,
subjective judgement, decision tree analyses, sensitivity analyses,
and Monte Carlo simulations.
ces and must also be aligned to project objectives. One technique
may not always be appropriate for every situation (Lyons and
Skitmore 2004; Forbes et al. 2008), and one technique may not
be applicable for every phase of an RM process. Although many
tools and techniques are available, a review of the literature re-
vealed that only few tools and techniques are actually used in the
construction industry. Lyons and Skitmore (2004) found that the
most common risk identification techniques are brainstorming,
case-based approaches, and checklists. Subjective judgment, intu-
ition, and experience are often used in assessing and analyzing risk
(Akintoye and MacLeod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004).

572 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 Table 1. Summary of RM Tools and Techniques Discussed in Previous Studies in Literature
Perry and Akintoye and Raz and Tah and Tummala Wood and Lyon and Dikmen Forbes
Hayes MacLeod Ward Michael Carr et al. Ellis Skitmore et al. et al.
Techniques (1985) (1997) (1999) (2001) (2001) (2001) (2003) (2004) (2008) (2008)
Intuition/subjective judgement/ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
experience
Decision analysis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Monte Carlo simulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Risk premium ✓ ✓
Subjective probability analysis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Brainstorming ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Checklists ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Historical data use ✓ ✓
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Probability impact grids/matrix ✓ ✓ ✓

Sensitivity analysis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Workshop ✓
FMEA ✓ ✓
Hazard totem pole diagram ✓
Hierarchical risk breakdown ✓ ✓ ✓
structure
Use case diagram ✓ ✓
Risk register ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Case-based reasoning/approach ✓ ✓
Utility theory ✓ ✓

Gaps in the Application of RM Tools and
Techniques
Among numerous RM tools and techniques used in the current con-
struction industry, some of them are comparatively mature, such as
decision tree analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, sensitivity analysis,
program and evaluation reviews (PERTs) and failure mode
and effects analysis (FMEA). Nevertheless, these sophisticated
quantitative analyses such as Monte Carlo simulations and FMEA
often require a high certainty of data as a prerequisite for effective
applications (Zeng et al. 2007).
On the other hand, most RM approaches fail to adequately
address the needs of identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks
within a coherent framework. The sole use of checklists or brain-
storming fails to prioritize and assess risks by assessing parameters
of the likelihood and consequence of risks. The function of PERT is
also limited to time related risks because project activities and
events are always the only foci in its sequence network diagram.
Decision tree analysis falls short in taking the consequences of
risk occurrence into practice, whereas sensitivity analysis has flaws
in developing appropriate responses in addressing risks and deter-
mining the best party responsible for managing risks. In addition,
sensitivity analysis also has a limited extent in assessing the com-
bination effects of various risk variables and it provides no indica-
tion of the probability of risk occurrence (Perry and Hayes 1985).
As addressed by Tang et al. (2007), there is a need to system-
atically investigate the overall aspects of RM on the perspectives of
various project participants. However, only a few tools and tech-
niques allow project teams to incorporate the needs of proactive
communication in their practice, and a workshop is one of the in-
tegrated approaches that can provide a platform for various project
participants to have a joint RM practice.
By incorporating various tools such as brainstorming, checklist,
probability impact matrix, subjective judgement, and risk register
into the practice, an RM workshop provides a more comprehensive
and consistent RM approach, which simultaneously accounts for
risk planning, identification, analysis, and response. A comparison
with other current RM approaches in terms of their achievement is
shown in Table 2.
Nonetheless, only a few studies have investigated the use of a
workshop as a tool for managing risks. Wood and Ellis (2003) dis-
cussed the use of a workshop as an effective forum in the early
stages of RM. The workshop can serve as an opportunity for all
project team members to gather and discuss potential risk issues
in an intense and focused way. Bringing the team members together
in a single place creates a vigorous environment for brainstorming
about potential project risks. As noted by Simister (2007), the
workshop environment encourages lateral thinking and provides
an opportunity for team members to consider different viewpoints
that they might normally reject out of hand if they were working
alone.
Because very little research rigorously validates the perfor-
mance of workshops in improving RM practices, the objective
of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of the workshop as
a means of managing project risks by investigating the associated
strengths and weaknesses of workshops. This paper describes the
RM workshop used in a public project and presents the underlying
theory and practice of RM processes that were employed in the
context of the workshop.
Method
A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contempo-
rary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evi-
dent (Yin 1994). Thus, to explore the practice of RM in a public
construction project, an in-depth case study was employed. The
underlying principles of workshop execution are thoroughly exam-
ined through a triangulation of data sources to enhance the reliabil-
ity and validity of the study: (1) passive observation, (2) interviews,
and (3) a comprehensive review of the documents. According to
Yin (1994), relevant behaviors or environmental conditions are
available for observation, which served as another source of evi-
dence for the study. Being a passive observer is always the safest
way of maintaining marginality, because the researcher gathers
documents and observes actions without asking questions or doing
anything to cause disturbances in the situation (Potter 1996).

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 573

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 Workshop

Although the workshop in this study failed to achieve a satisfactory result in these aspects, it is believed that an improvement could be achieved if the workshop were conducted with proper risk planning, smooth
A follow-up interview session was conducted with selected

✓a

✓a
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
workshop participants to determine the effectiveness of the RM
workshop and to determine the status of RM implementation in
the project. The interview served to validate the results obtained
from observations made during the workshop and documentation
Sensitivity
analysis
review. Eleven interviewees were selected, all in management po-
✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
sitions and personally involved in the project. The core capabilities
of these interviewees include engineering design, architecture de-
sign, full consultancy quantity surveying, and building construc-
Historical

tion. The criteria used in the selection of interviewees were to

data use

secure a good mix of profiles to obtain rich and possibly conflicting

✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
views, and to avoid bias. All selected interviewees participated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the RM workshop organized for the project. The results are dis-
cussed and presented in the following sections.
Checklists
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
Project Description
A Malaysian public university construction project with a contract
Brainstorming

sum of RM$419.25 million (or equivalent to US$138 million) was

studied. The date of site possession was May 1, 2008, and the com-
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

pletion date of the project was estimated to be October 27, 2010.

The contract type was the design and build, or turnkey, contract
form. The project adopted direct negotiation as the tendering
procurement method. It is essential to examine the features and
probability
Subjective

structure of a public design and build project to have a better under-

analysis

standing of the policy development underpinning the execution of

✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
Table 2. Comparison of the Workshop with Other Currently Popular RM Approaches in Terms of their Achievements

an RM workshop. Public projects always refer to the project works

undertaken by governments for the public. A design and build
project often offers single point responsibilities to a consolidated
impact grids

entity, generally the contractors. However, the arrangement of a

Probability

public design and build project is slightly different from a private

✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

design and build project, because the government acts as the project
client. As a megaproject, two consultant teams were engaged with
each professional service in this project, including architect, quan-
tity surveyor, civil and structural engineer, and mechanical and
Monte Carlo
simulation

electrical engineer.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

The payment mechanism for the public design and build project
was different from the private project. Instead of the primary con-
tractor, the payment was issued directly by the government to the
supplier, subcontractors, and nominated subcontractors. Because
Decision
analysis

the government is the primary financier, it may sometimes exercise

✓
✓
✓
✓

influence on the implementation of the project.

Workshop Facilitator
FMEA

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

An interview was conducted with the experienced RM workshop

facilitator of the public sector organization to identify the develop-
risk communication, and continuous risk monitoring.

ment of an RM application in public projects. The interviewee has

Promoting communication between key participants

made significant contributions to the development of project RM

guidelines for the public sector organization. Currently, approxi-
mately 20 projects have conducted RM workshops in the effort
Examining the relationship between risks

to manage project risks. Normally, a two-day RM workshop is held

Simplicity and straightforward tool use

to brief the project stakeholders on the general RM process adopted

in the project. An isolated venue is always preferred for the organi-
Reaching consensus on decisions

zation of workshops, to gather all involved key players in one place

for discussion. Generally, the parties involved are public sector
organization personnel and specialists such as architects, engineers,
Including positive risks

quantity surveyors, project managers, and the primary contractor.

Risk Identification
Risk classification
Risk prioritization

An introduction on the RM process is given in the workshop in

Tools/Techniques

Risk monitoring

accordance with the Best Practice Project Management: Risk

Risk planning

Risk response
Risk analysis

Management Guide. The guideline used in the workshop is devel-

oped under the efforts of the appointed project management
consultant organization and an Australian professional consultancy
organization. The status of RM implementation in the project
a

574 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 mostly depends on the project manager, who acts as a project
coordinator among the project parties.
Conduct of Risk Management Workshop
The workshop was designed for the building package of the project.
It was a two-day workshop held in a hotel function room. The
project had reached the construction stage when data was collected.
The RM workshop gathered all key project personnel in a space for
discussions on risk related matters. There were 29 participants in
the workshop. The participants involved were generally the client,
end-user, consultants, and primary contractors. The participants
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
organization. It initiated the introduction of RM into the practice
of project. Currently in the construction industry, only selected
projects apply RM in their practices. The project was selected
for RM implementation owing to its megaproject characteristics
and the abundance of associated risks factors foreseen by the
project consultants. The flow of the RM workshop is shown
in Fig. 1.
Full attendance of participants occurred on the first day. The
workshop started with an opening ceremony. Subsequently, two
presentations were given introducing the concept of RM. The first
presentation, titled “An Overview of Risk Management,” ex-
plained the definition of risk, RM, differences between risk, issues

comprised 10 participants from the project team of the public sector
organization, seven participants from the design team of the public
sector organization, two client representatives, two end-user repre-
sentatives, three primary contractor representatives, one architect,
one civil and structural engineer, one quantity surveyor, and two
mechanical and electrical engineers. Seven facilitators and admin-
istrators were assigned to facilitate the workshop.
The cost of organization of the workshop was borne by The
Education and Higher Education Department of the public sector
and problems, risk tolerance, and general processes of RM. The
second presentation, titled “Organization Project Risk Manage-
ment Process,” described the guideline adopted in the organiza-
tion, the history of the organization’s guideline, and the tools and
techniques proposed in the guideline. The definition of risk used
in the workshop adopted the interpretation from AS/NZS, which
includes both opportunity and threat in the meaning of risk. Addi-
tionally, the workshop adopted the AS/NZS framework as its RM
structure.

PROCESSES TIMELINE
Day 1
Opening ceremony 8.30 am
½ hour
RM Introduction 9.00 am
¾ hour
Presentation on the adopted RM process & definition 9.45 am
¾ hour
10.30 am (Break)
½ hour
A brief on the latest project status 11.00 am
1 hour
Workshop group divisions according to project 12.00 pm
½ hour
12.30 pm (Lunch Break)
1½ hour
Risk identification 2.00 pm
2 hour
4.00 pm (Break)
½ hour
Presentation & discussion on the outputs of risk identification 4.30 pm
1 ½ hour
6.00 pm (Dinner Break)

Risk analysis I 2 ½ hour

8.30 pm
2 hour
10.30 pm
Day 2
Risk analysis II 8.30 am
2 hour
10.30 am (Break)
½ hour
Presentation & discussion on the risk analysis outputs I 11.00 am
1 ½ hour
12.30 pm (Lunch Break)
1 ½ hour
Presentation & discussion on the risk analysis outputs II 2.00 pm
1 ½ hour
3.30 pm (Break)
½ hour
Suggestions/ recommendations by RM facilitators 4.00 pm
1 ½ hour
5.30 pm

Fig. 1. Flow of the RM workshop

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 575

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 A presentation was given by the project manager to brief the
attendees on the status of the project. The project experienced a
delay when the workshop was executed. The project achieved
a progress of 15% compared to the planned progress, which was
16%. According to the project manager, several factors led to the
project delay, including a delay in signing the memorandum of
agreement between the primary contractor and the consultants, a
delay in preparing the shop drawing, a delay in piling work, a delay
in structure work, a lack of appropriate resources planning, and
others. In addition, several problems and issues were present, in-
cluding the termination of subcontractors’ works, a delay in con-
tract preparation, and a delay in finalizing the end user’s needs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The workshop participants were subsequently divided into three
groups to focus on different project phases. The arrangement of
group member included a representative from different interested
parties, such as primary contractor, consultant, design team, and
project team, to obtain different points of view from different stake-
holders’ perspectives. Nonetheless, some representatives were ex-
cluded due to the limited number of participants. There are
generally five phases in the life cycle of a project, which are plan-
ning, design, procurement, construction, and handing over. Each
group was assigned the task of identifying the potential risks of
the project and prioritizing them accordingly in one hour. The par-
ticipants were subsequently required to brainstorm and discuss
among the group members to establish a list of possible project
risks according to the assigned phases. Additionally, the partici-
pants were required to categorize and prioritize risks according
to their probability, impact, and risk rating.
The first group was assigned to identify risk in the planning and
design phases, whereas the second group were requested to identify
risks in the design and construction phases. Project risks in the con-
struction and handing over phases were identified by the third
group members. The second and third group performances were
highly motivated, because the participants within groups were ac-
tive and ready to share their knowledge and understanding of the
projects. The performance of first group was less satisfactory due to
the passive attitude of the participants. Moreover, the facilitator of
the first group was found to be less trained in RM knowledge than
other facilitators.
Nevertheless, the brainstorming session for risk identification
was extended by one more hour. Each group was required to
present the outputs of their brainstorming. The facilitator of the
workshop gave some valuable suggestions and comments for future
improvement in identifying project risks. For instance, the partic-
ipants failed to clearly identify the risk scope, providing a vague
statement rather than precise risk events. It was found that the
understanding of participants toward the project was increased
by identifying potential project risks. However, the participants
failed to consider both factors of probability and impact in rating
risk. The rating of rare risk with catastrophic impact as extreme risk
was considered an unwise decision, because both likelihood and
consequence should be taken into account when measuring the
magnitude of risk. Although the chance of opportunity was in-
cluded in the definition of risk, the participants still tended to view
risk from a negative perspective. The participants failed to catego-
rize the risks into the proper categories, because it was ambiguous
in its defining the boundary of different risk factors. Some partic-
ipants committed mistakes by rating risks according the general
trend of the current construction industry, instead of major project
risks. Afterward, the participants were required to analyze the
risk by using the designed risk analysis template. The risk analysis
technique used in the workshop tended to be qualitative, particu-
larly through the direct judgement of the participants. Three major
576 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580
aspects were examined in the risk analysis: risk sources, risk event,
and risk impact.
On the second day of the workshop, the attendance of workshop
was 94% (28 out of 29 participants). In the morning session, the
participants seemed less committed. The workshop began with the
continuation of the risk analysis and treatment session. After a
break session, the workshop facilitator advised participants from
each assigned group to correct the mistakes committed by the par-
ticipants. Some valuable comments were given on the existing risk
treatment plans and new risk treatment plans by the workshop
facilitator for better performance. Past and future actions on project
risks were examined for their viability and effectiveness. The work-
shop also stressed the relationship of risk factors with the treatment
plan to ensure the effectiveness of risk treatment in resolving
project risks. The parties responsible for managing risk were re-
viewed to ensure that the risks were handled by the appropriate
party.
A review of risk monitoring and control was introduced by the
workshop facilitator to update the output of the session of risk
analysis and treatment into risk register. The risk review meeting
was stressed to be organized on a regular basis to monitor the per-
formance of the proposed treatment plans for the identified risks.
The facilitator asserted that a final report should be produced at the
end of the project to record the success and failure of risk mitigation
measures and to serve as a lesson for similar future projects. The
results are subject to be refined when following RM steps.
Outputs of Risk Management Workshop
Risks for each phase of the life cycle of the project were identified
and analyzed. The output from the RM workshop was summarized
in risk analysis tables and a risk register, which documents risk de-
scription, risk factors, possible associated effects, parties who are
responsible for treating risks, and the deadline by which actions
must be taken.
A probability impact matrix was used to rank risks according to
their probability of occurrence and their resultant impacts. Specifi-
cally, five scales were used to rate the frequency of risk occurrence
(1 to 5) and risk impacts (I to V). The rating of extreme, high,
medium, and low was used to indicate different risk levels in risk
prioritization.
Major project risks were viewed differently by different parties,
because risk identification is always subjective. These varying
viewpoints often resulted in discrepancies in conclusions that could
be made regarding this issue. However, by examining the common-
alities between the interviewees’ answers, it was deduced that ma-
jor project risks generally include design risk, personnel risks
(including clients, consultants, contractors and laborers), time risks,
financial risks, and technical risks. Table 3 shows the identified
risks that were recorded in the project risk register.
Because workshop outputs such as risk register are produced on
an agreed-upon basis by project members, project members can
understand the basis underlying each decision that is made to ad-
dress certain risks. The goal is that RM will be incorporated into
daily business practices, thus becoming an integral component of
the decision-making process.
Discussions
The value of a single case study and its capacity in making gen-
eralizations have been discussed. However, Yin (2011) discussed
the generalizing of a case study by differentiating it into two: stat-
istical generalization and analytical generalization. Rather than
statistical generalization, a case study can demonstrate analytical
 Table 3. Major Risks Identified in the Project project parties are subjected to different levels of risk exposure, in
Risk factors a
Likelihood Impact b
Risk level c which their interests and the priorities of those risks vary accord-
ingly from one another. Project parties opt to stand their grounds in
Planning stage
managing risks. The notable disparities from various project parties
Frequent design changes 5 V Extreme
Discrepancy in design 4 IV Extreme
on major risks can often be found by using traditional risk identi-
Unclear roles and responsibilities of 4 IV Extreme fication techniques such as checklists and brainstorming. With the
project stakeholders use of a workshop, project risks are commonly evaluated based on
Inadequate soil investigation data 4 IV Extreme the joint efforts of various project participants instead of individual
Inaccessible supply of temporary 4 III High risk appetites. It provides a coherent framework for decision mak-
utilities to the construction site ing while incorporating the processes of risk planning, risk iden-
Design stage tification, risk analysis, and risk response. A consensus on project
Inadequate time allocated 4 IV Extreme risks and their allocations can usually be achieved. The outputs
Delay in material approval 4 IV Extreme
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from an RM workshop can also serve as lessons for similar projects

Human resources shortage in design 4 IV Extreme
in the future.
team
Procurement stage This field research could signal a step towards a systematic RM
Delay in appointing the erosion 4 IV Extreme application in the construction industry. The results could also add
control contractor value to construction performance, especially for Southeast Asian
Delay in appointing subcontractor 4 IV Extreme countries, by proving the feasibility of workshops in managing
Delay in issuing construction drawing 4 IV Extreme risks. It seems that limited research has explored and evaluated
Construction stage the implementation of RM in the Southeast Asian region. There-
Poor relationship between primary 4 IV Extreme fore, the identified major constructs of the workshop mechanism
contractor and consultants could impose significance and value to the development of system-
Poor coordination among the 4 IV Extreme
atic RM, particularly for the Southeast Asian construction industry.
consultants
Poor quality product 4 IV Extreme
In addition, the findings of this field study could also contribute
Delay in material approval 4 IV Extreme to bridging the gaps and inconsistencies found between existing
Delay in consultant inspection 4 IV Extreme theory and practical application of RM in construction. A clear
Discrepancy in applied and approved 4 IV Extreme direction can be mapped intellectually to place construction practi-
payment tioners within a stream of knowledge of effective RM. Given the
Shortage of construction labor and 4 IV Extreme benefits achieved, it is also believed that the application of work-
management staff shops can be extended to other management domains and fields.
Discrepancies in technical drawing 4 IV Extreme
Handing over stage
Late handing due to incomplete 4 IV Extreme Effectiveness of Risk Management Workshop
documents
Late handling due to the inspection of 4 IV Extreme The findings obtained from passive observation and interviews
numerous parties were used to examine the effectiveness of the RM workshop in
a managing project risks. In addition, the status of RM implementa-
Ranges of likelihood: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
b
Scales of severity: I, II, III, IV, and V.
tion and its performance were also determined through documen-
c
Risk levels: Low, medium, high, and extreme. tation reviews and feedback from interviews. The interviewees
assessed the value of the workshop by taking into the account
its potential usefulness in the project. The interviewees provided
generalization using the theoretical framework of a study to estab- explanations to support their views regarding the strengths and
lish a logic that might be applicable to other situations (Yin 2011). weaknesses of the workshop. All interviewees gave positive com-
A similar case study approach was adopted by Wyk et al. (2008) to ments about the organization of the RM workshop.
indicate the extent to which the practice and theory converge or The workshop was perceived as beneficial and useful because it
diverge. The presented workshop is used to test and validate the provided an opportunity for project team members to brainstorm
studies of Wood and Ellis (2003) and Simister (2007), who also potential project risks. The identified risks could be further dis-
discussed the performance of workshops in managing risk. The re- cussed and examined in successive meetings. In addition, the
sults support the argument of Simister (2007), who asserted that a RM workshop promoted an understanding of project risks, which
workshop promotes a better understanding on risk and encourages thereby improved knowledge and awareness. Unlike the meetings
lateral thinking among team members. Moreover, the findings dem- that are always organized for discussing problems that have arisen,
onstrate that the workshop is a team building event, which allows this workshop provided a chance for the project parties to be pre-
team members to reach a consensus on the decision, as described pared and alert about potential project risks. It is a step forward in
by Wood and Ellis (2003). optimizing positive risks and minimizing negative risks associated
According to the results obtained, an RM workshop is a power- with the project. Project team members were able to prepare for
ful and practical approach to providing practical information and potential risks before they materialized, and thus anticipate solu-
useful techniques to increase productivity in the workplace. During tions. Without the use of the workshop, the project team often
the workshop, project team members are able to focus on issues in adopted an ad hoc basis management policy, which tends to man-
an intense, purposeful, and focused way, which is especially helpful age the crises or problems after they happen. This contrasts the
for cases in which the project team is fragmented. In the workshop, decision making process with that of the principle of RM.
an energetic environment is created, which brings team members A workshop can improve overall RM performance with regard
together and allows them to brainstorm project risks in a focused to time, cost, and quality. It allows people to foresee project risks,
environment. and this knowledge allows participants to manage risks accord-
A better understanding of project risks can be promoted by ex- ingly. Furthermore, in the workshop, major risk factors are sys-
amining the different perspectives of each involved party. Different tematically analyzed in terms of their impacts and probability of

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 577

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 occurrence. It is essential to evaluate risks by taking into account
the combination of both aspects because the participants commonly
overlook the likelihood of occurrence in their consideration if tradi-
tional risk analysis techniques are used, such as direct judgement.
For example, participants generally rated a safety risk as an extreme
risk at their initial judgement because it always brings catastrophic
consequences to the project.
In the workshop, an RM guideline was established to steer
project members toward developing proper and formal risk man-
agement practices. An RM workshop also facilitates the practice
of good documentation, which provides a reference for future proj-
ects. Furthermore, it also trains stakeholders to think outside of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the workshop are essential to refresh their knowledge and to mon-
itor their progress in implementing ideas.
Limitations
Although the workshop is a powerful technique for identifying and
analyzing project risks, the organization of a workshop always con-
sumes time, money, resources, manpower, and efforts, because it
needs to be well-planned for participants to attain its full benefits.
However, some hidden concerns need to be highlighted so that the
workshop can be further improved in the future. The strengths and
weaknesses of the RM workshop are outlined in Figs. 2 and 3.

box and sharpens their analytical capabilities when seeking to iden-
tify project risks. Finally, it improves communication between
project team members and allows the contractor and consultant
to identify potential project shortcomings and drawbacks in the
early stages, so that they can be proactively managed. Certainly,
for the workshop to be successful, there must be a level of trust
among the project team members. This can be facilitated by regular
communication between one another and between team leaders and
lower-level workers.
However, it has been shown that the planning and brainstorming
that takes place in the workshop does not always translate into
action. This is unfortunate because project performance would im-
prove if RM was properly implemented. The success of a workshop
depends on the initiative of the project team members in fulfilling
their promises and responsibilities. Therefore, follow-up actions for
A lack of risk planning that identifies project objectives and
characteristics, available resources, stakeholders involved, and in-
terests was noted. In addition, a loss in communication was found
in the flow of project organization. For example, in one case, two
workshops were executed for the same project under different work
packages: infrastructure and building packages. The outputs and
inputs of each workshop package were not aligned with one an-
other. The workshop was organized to discuss the implementation
of RM in projects, however, the line of communication did not pass
down the chain to all project team members involved. Therefore,
the outcome and reports from the RM workshop did not get dis-
tributed to all participants. As a result, the full benefits of RM were
not achieved. This was further supported by responses given by
participants revealing that no obvious or significant differences
were found after RM implementation.

Strengths of the Workshop

• Increase understanding about project risks.
• Promote communication for project parties by providing interfaces between stakeholders.
• Build better relationships among project parties.
• Provide a chance for project team members to express their points of view on the risk-related
information.
• Share common knowledge and understanding about actual project risks, rather than perceived risks.
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities of each party in the project.
• Promote the concept and knowledge of risk management to stakeholders in a short and precise way.
• Raise awareness about risk management.
• Identify not only risk, but also risk factors and risk events (consequences that will bring about risks).
• Obtain the collective intelligence of project team members through the brainstorming.
• Achieve a consensus on major project risks.

Fig. 2. Strengths of the RM workshop

Weaknesses of the Workshop

• Prolonged periods in the risk analysis session tended to be less productive.
• The definitions of some terms, standards, and scopes of classification were not clarified.
• Risk definition mostly reflected negatively skewed perspectives.
• The execution of workshop lacked risk planning.
• The examination of the linkage or relationships between risks was neglected.
• The workshop consume a lot of time, money, resources, manpower, and efforts.

Fig. 3. Weaknesses of the RM workshop

578 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580

 As a result, it is crucial to enhance current risk communication
to improve the overall performance of project RM. A coordinator or
database can serve as the interface between project team members
to coordinate or streamline communications in the organization and
projects. The database should be made available to all concerned
parties to allow them to periodically update the progress of risk
management implementation. The development of a common lan-
guage in risk management (such as defining the scope of different
types of risk) is crucial to allow risk to be managed in a consistent
and standardized format. Therefore, project stakeholders will be
able to distinguish between actual risks and perceived risks. Suc-
cess in risk communication will guarantee the attainment of full
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
benefits of RM, which in turn will lead to effective and efficient
decision making.
Another concern is that the level of knowledge that participants
have of RM is still less than satisfactory. Although RM training
programs are provided, the exposure of participants toward the
RM practice remains low. The most well-characterized phase of
RM process is risk identification; and other phases of this process
are unfortunately lagging. However, it is relatively unproductive for
RM practitioners to simply identify risks without also discussing
appropriate risk analysis, treatment, and monitoring. The chances
of success are limited without a structured, systematic, and com-
prehensive RM system.
In short, all involved parties are required to give full commit-
ment for the successful implementation of an RM workshop. A lack
of risk monitoring and control after the workshop also seems to lead
to failure in achieving the predefined objectives. The follow-up
actions in treating risks should be reviewed on a timely basis by the
project/risk manager to keep the risk profile updated and to ensure
that participants play their parts accordingly. Poor coordination be-
tween project parties may also result in undesired action, or even no
action, to be appropriately taken. An open risk communication be-
tween project parties plays an extremely important role in pushing
the implementation of RM. Furthermore, participants need to equip
themselves with satisfactory RM knowledge to prevent the impo-
sition of any restriction in achieving the full benefits of an RM
workshop. Insufficient coverage due to a lack of knowledge could
result in poor decisions in the course of risk analysis and risk re-
sponse, which will jeopardize the capability and performance of the
RM workshop.
Conclusions
RM is an ongoing process that should continue throughout the
life cycle of a project. However, a lack of formality or systematic
RM within a structured framework is often an obstacle to its suc-
cessful implementation. The objective of this paper is to examine
the effectiveness of an RM workshop as a means of managing
risks. This paper also documented the process of an RM work-
shop used by a public organization and described the RM prin-
ciples employed in the workshop. Although the findings cannot
easily be generalized statistically, this case study provides rich
and valuable contextual evidence regarding the effectiveness of
an RM workshop in managing project risks by using analytical
generalization.
This research provides a sound basis for improving RM perfor-
mance by demonstrating the effectiveness and challenges of an RM
workshop. The case study illustrates the use of a workshop as an
integrated RM approach, which in practice includes brainstorming,
checklist, probability impact matrices, subjective judgement, and
risk register. The findings suggest that a workshop can be used
as an effective and promising means for managing project risk,
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 579
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580
particularly for risk identification and analysis. Apart from team
building events, it also provides a space for members to brainstorm
and discuss potential risks and to reach a consensus and common
understanding on project risks.
A workshop provides a descriptive account for project partici-
pants on the project risk portfolio, which other RM tools cannot
achieve. Conventional tools and techniques have limited capacity
and capability to allow an integration of the RM process in their
application. The introduction of a workshop allows participants
to have a clearer view on the defined scope, objectives, progress,
and intended actions in project RM. Based on the research findings,
a workshop raises awareness to workshop participants about the
importance of proper RM systems.
Nonetheless, no great credit or merit was found regarding the
resultant project performance after the workshop, owing to a lack
of risk communication in continuous application in the project. A
failure to communicate risk-related information to project stake-
holders in a timely fashion affects the attainment of the full benefits
of RM application. Risk communication is significant for stream-
lining and coordinating various phases of RM, because it is neces-
sary for project stakeholders to be aware that there is accountability
in the RM system. Improved communication about risk-related
information between project participants should be endorsed to en-
hance the performance of RM application. Although no significant
and positive difference was found in the overall performance of the
project, the conduct of the RM workshop is still meaningful in
steering project members toward a systematic RM application.
Finally, the output of the workshop can be used as a lesson about
improving RM implementation in the construction industry, espe-
cially for situations in which construction businesses do not have
the appropriate RM technology or experts.
Recommendation for Future Works
The use of an RM workshop can fill the gaps in the current appli-
cation of RM tools and techniques by incorporating the need for
proactive communication in practice. Key project parties are pro-
vided an interface to reach a consensus on decisions. Because only
few studies have investigated the performance of a workshop in
managing risks, this paper can advance the knowledge on the use
of a workshop in managing risks. Nonetheless, several limitations
found in the execution of this case study restricted the achievement
of a workshop in managing risks, particularly in the aspects of the
inclusion of positive risks, risk planning, risk monitoring and con-
trol, and risk communication.
Because they are not conclusive, the results of this research
should be treated as indicative. Although an immediate change can-
not be advocated, this paper could prompt more research into the
practical application of workshops that ultimately test and validate
the use of workshops in managing risks. After more workshops
have been conducted, an extensive and rigorous study can be con-
ducted to address their effectiveness by increasing the sample size
and using an appropriate scientific method. Future research should
overcome the identified limitations and could be significantly
directed at establishing the effectiveness of RM workshops. Once
the critical facets of the construct are captured, the industry would
benefit from further studies regarding the use of RM workshops to
discover the mechanisms for how improvements can be made from
an appropriate use of RM tools and techniques.
Publisher’s Note. This paper was posted ahead of print with an
incomplete author list. The complete author list appears in this
version of the paper.
 Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express the utmost gratitude to Institute of Re-
search Management and Monitoring, University of Malaya for the
financial support under project PS019-2009B and FP011-2007C.
The facilities provided by the Project and Facilities Management
Group, University of Malaya for the conduct of research are also
acknowledged. The authors also wish to express a great apprecia-
tion for the supports and feedbacks received from the relevant
public organisations in Malaysia during the conduct of this
study.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by American University Of Beirut on 01/26/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Akintoye, A. S., and Macleod, M. J. (1997). “Risk analysis and manage-
ment in construction.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 15(1), 31–38.
Australian/New Zealand Standards. (2004). Risk management, AS/NZS:
4360/2004, 3rd Ed., Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand,
Sydney and Wellington.
Chapman, C. (1997). “Project risk analysis and management—PRAM, the
generic process.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 15(5), 273–281.
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T., Anac, C., Tah, J. H. M., and Aouad, G. (2008).
“Learning from risks: A tool for post-project risk assessment.” Automat.
Const., 18(1), 42–50.
Forbes, D., Smith, S., and Horner, M. (2008). “Tools for selecting appro-
priate risk management techniques in the built environment.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 26(11), 1241–1250.
Han, S. H., Kim, D. Y., Kim, H., and Jang, W. S. (2008). “A web-based
integrated system for international project risk management.” Automat.
Constr., 17(3), 342–356.
Lyons, T., and Skitmore, M. (2004). “Project risk management in the
Queensland engineering construction industry: A survey.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 22(1), 51–61.
Perry, J. G., and Hayes, R. W. (1985). “Risk and its management in
construction project.” Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., 78(3), 499–521.
580 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2013, 139(5): 572-580
Potter, W. J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative
methods, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management
body of knowledge, 3rd Ed., Project Management, Inc., Newtown
Square, PA.
Raz, T., and Michael, E. (2001). “Use and benefits of tools for project risk
management.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 19(1), 9–17.
Simister, S. J. (2007). “Qualitative and quantitative risk management.” The
Wiley Guide to Project Control, P. W. G. Morris and J. K. Pinto, eds.,
Wiley, New York, 97–114.
Tah, J. H. M., and Carr, V. (2001). “Towards a framework for project risk
knowledge management in the construction supply chain.” Adv. Eng.
Softw., 32(10–11), 835–846.
Tang, W. Z., Qiang, M. S., Duffield, C. F., Young, D. M., and Lu, Y. M.
(2007). “Risk management in the Chinese construction industry.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 133(12), 944–956.
Taylor, H. (2005). “Congruence between risk management theory and
practice in Hong Kong vendor-driven IT projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage,
23(6), 437–444.
Tummala, V. M. R., and Mak, C. L. (2001). “A risk management model for
improving operation and maintenance activities in electricity transmis-
sion networks.” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 52(2), 125–134.
Ward, S. (1999). “Assessing and managing important risks.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 17(6), 331–376.
Wood, G. D., and Ellis, R. C. T. (2003). “Risk management practices of
leading UK cost consultants, Engineering.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Man-
age., 10(4), 254–262.
Wyk, R. V., Bowen, P., and Akintoye, A. (2008). “Project risk management
practice: The case of a South African utility company.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 26(2), 149–163.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods, 2nd Ed.,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research, 3rd Ed., Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zeng, J., An, M., and Smith, N. J. (2007). “Application of a fuzzy based
decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment.”
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 25(6), 589–600.