Extending the use of risk
analysis in project management
S C Ward and C B Chapman
The paper is concerned with the expansion of the role of
risk analyst in project management. A broad definition
of risk analysis is adopted that involves appropriate
identification, appreciation and management of project
risks. The possible roles for risk, analysis in project
management are examined. Initially, risk analysis can
assist in acceptlreject decisions and project design, and
subsequently in the development of risk-management
strategies, Where a project involves contracting parties,
risk analysis can help to determine the appropriate
allocation of project risks. Reasons why risk analysis
may not be as widely used as it should be are identified.
A critical d~cuss~on of these arguments highlights
additional aspects of the use of risk analysis in practice.
Keywords: risk analysis, methodolog~~, project manage-
ment
The development and execution of a project can be a
difficult and uncertain process. The difficulties and
uncertainties depend on the size, complexity, novelty
and technical sophistication of the project, and they are
often compounded by the presence of constraints on
time, resources and performance, and are frequently
exacerbated by the conflicting objectives of the parties
involved. The need for efficient and effective project
management in the face of these difficulties and
uncertainties has led to the development and successful
exploitation of a variety of management and
management-science techniques in project manage-
ment. Risk analysis involves a number of such
techniques, but, despite its obvious relevance and
considerable interest, it is not as widely exploited as it
might be. Even in typical applications involving large
engineering works, risk analysis could be used to
Department of Accounting and Management Science. University of
Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, UK
A shorter version of the paper was presented at the Internet
International Expert Seminar on the State of the Art in Project Risk
Management in Atlanta, USA, 12-13 October 1989
Vol 9 No 2 May 1991 0263-7863/91/02011747
advantage much more pervasively throughout the
duration of most projects. This paper identifies the
scope for using risk analysis in project management,
and raises a number of questions concerning its
effective use, as part of a quest for a set of approaches
to risk analysis that will achieve more widespread
adoption.
The body of this paper is in four parts. The first part
discusses basic roles for risk analysis given a
broad-based definition of risk analysis. The second part
considers the impact on the previous discussion of
multiparty project situations. The third part discusses a
number of reasons why risk analysis may not be as
widely used as it could be, despite its potential
contribution to project design and management.
BASIC ROLES FOR RISK ANALYSIS
The roles that risk analysis might be expected to take in
project management clearly depend on what one means
by the term ‘risk analysis’. A wide range of formal
approaches in a project-management context have
been developed.
Arguably, the simplest and the best known approach
is PERT (the Programme Evaluation and Review
Technique), developed in the late 1950s for the US
Navy’s Polaris Missile Project. The key features of this
approach are the definition of a probability distribution
for the duration of each activity defining a project, and
the combination of these distributions to define a
project duration-probability distribution, via a range of
possible procedures, Monte Carlo simulation being the
current favourite.
The most comprehensive approach that the authors
are aware of was developed in the late 1970s by the
second author for BP International, for North Sea
projects. It is known as SCERT (the Synergistic
Contingency Evaluation and Review Technique) , or
Probabilistic Project Planning (PPP) as BP
subsequently referred to it. The key features of this
approach are:
@ 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 117
 Relatively few activities are used to describe a
project, to allow more detailed assessment within
each activity (e.g. as few as 20 activities for a
billion-pounds sterling project); description of what
is involved in verbal or other appropriate terms is an
explicit part of the model.
All sources of risk associated with each activity are
identified and described.
All feasible responses for risk, preemptive and
reactive, are identified and described.
Secondary risk associated with responses is
identified, and appropriate responses considered as
appropriate.
Responses are structured, to distinguish those
applicable to a range of risks and those specific to
particular risks.
A diagram summarizing the risk-response structure
within each activity and interactivity links is
produced for review purposes.
Probabilities are estimated for risks, and conditional
probabilities for associated responses, only when it is
deemed useful, the analysis being explicitly
conditional on the nonoccurrence of other risks.
The emphasis of this approach is on comprehensive risk
identification, understanding and management. BP
have used PPP for more than 30 major projects
worldwide, but no one else has used the methodology
in its most comprehensive form to the authors’
knowledge.
Ranging between these extremes are a variety of
approaches that have been used successfully by the
authors and others2. For example, a series of studies for
Gulf Canada Resources Incorporated in the early 1980s
used a simplified version of the SCERT approach
involving explicit identification of about half a dozen of
the most important sources of risk, and a single
appropriate response.
Complementary to these approaches are a variety of
approaches that address somewhat different issues or
priorities. For example, Ashley’s3 use of influence
diagrams to identify risk structures was adopted by BP
to complement scnnr analysis4.
Several other writers have argued for risk-analysis
methodologies that are consistent with the SCERT
approach, although they may have wished to make
distinctions and argue for a different emphasi?‘.
The term risk analysis in the rest of this paper is
taken to mean a SCERT approach, appropriate
simplifications, or complementary approaches. In any
given situation, the exact choice of the most
appropriate approach must remain debatable, but the
underlying philosophy will remain consistent with the
issues addressed formally in a SCERT approach”.
Assuming this broad definition of risk analysis,
Figure 1 summarizes feasible roles of risk analysis in the
treatment of project risk.
Following an initial specification of the project, an
initial risk anaiysis is carried out. This should involve,
at an appropriate level of detail, the systematic
identification of sources of risk, the specification of the
uncertainty associated with each source of risk, the
assessment of appropriate responses, and the
assessment of the consequences for the cost, time and
quality aspects of project performance. As a result of
118
Development of project specification
and base [target) plan
i
t
Initial risk analysis:
as appropriate, identify alternative
technology choices, and project
strategies, sources of risk and
responses, associated consequences
and uncertainty, and then use
-
changes to the base plan and con-
tingency plans to reduce risk and
uncertainty, increase efficiency,
and check the risk/expected-cost
balance
I
I , / Abandon
Project assessment the
project
t c t
further risk analysis as appropriate
t
r I
Project completion
Figure 1. Basic roles for risk anaiysis
this analysis, the project may be rejected because it is
unacceptably risky. The emphasis in ‘initial risk
analysis’ is on an unbiassed accept/reject decision,
while the emphasis in ‘additional risk analysis’ is on
strategic and tactical decisions about managing risk
assuming that the project will proceed.
Assuming that the project is not rejected, further risk
analysis may lead to modifications to the project
specification and base (target) plan, and should lead to
contingency plans to manage project risks. The purpose
of this analysis is, in part, to reduce uncertainty.
However, equally important is the pursuit of increases
in efficiency. This involves identifying ways to reduce
expected cost for the same level of risk, or to improve
the risk/expected-cost balance. For example, is it worth
a slight increase in expected cost significantly to reduce
risk, or a slight decrease in expected cost for an
associated increase in risk? In this manner, risk analysis
can play a major role in shaping a project during the
design phase and in the planning of the execution.
Once the project is under way, project management
should involve ongoing attempts to control uncertainty
and limit undesirable effects of realized risks. For
example, procedures might be implemented to reduce
the risk of late arrival of required materials, and
minimize effects on project progress if delays in the
arrival of materials actually occur.
RISK ANALYSIS IN MULTIPARTY PROJECTS
The project-shaping role for risk analysis can be
particularly important in projects that involve more
than one organization or contracting party, as, for
example, in the case of most engineering and
construction projects. In such multiparty projects, risk
analysis may be performed by any party, each with
their own perspective of the project and its attendant
Project Management
risks. Moreover, multiparty projects can involve risk efficiency, and to check the risk/expected-cost
substantial additiona uncertainty associated with the ba1an~e, as in the context of Figure 1. However, it has
temporary organizational arrangements necessary and an additional possible role if the risk analysis allows
with problems in the principal-agent relationships project risk to be divided into four identifiable sets of
present. Two basic problems can occur in a sources of risk: one controllable to some extent by the
principal-agent relationship: the agency problem and owner, one controllable to ‘some extent by the
the risk-sharing problem *. The agency problem arises contractor, one controllable to some extent by both,
when the goals of the principal and the agent conflict, and one controllable by neither. In such circumstances,
and it is difficult or expensive for the principal to verify analysis reported elsewhere suggests that the retention
what the agent is actually doing. The risk-sharing by the owner of risk that is controllable by the owner
problem arises when the principal and the agent have may be in the owner’s interest, even if the contractor is
different attitudes to risk, leading them to prefer more willing to take risk than the owner; sharing other
different courses of action. Any such differences in risks may ‘also be in the owner’s interest’. More
willingness to accept risk should influence the form of generally, risk analysis can be used as a basis for the
contract between a project owner and contractor, and efficient allocation of risk without the constraints of a
the associated allocation of project risk between the simple fixed-price or cost-plus contract.
parties. Together, these factors necessitate another One problem is that, even with the help of advisers,
look at the role of risk analysis. the owner may not be in a position to assess many of the
Figure 2 summarizes three separate, and somewhat risks associated with the project. Such risks may be
different, possible locations for risk analysis within a better assessed by potential contractors. Unfortunate-
framework analogous to that of Figure 1, but extended ly, in current competitive-tendering practice, it is not
to recognize the different parties involved and the usually possible to tap this source in such a way as to
bidding process. materially influence the basic form of the contract. Yet
the form of the contract will motivate the contracting
Analysis by the project owner parties to address the management of risk to a greater
or lesser extent.
Risk analysis by the project owner should be A further difficulty here is that perceptions of risk
undertaken to reduce uncertainty and risk, to pursue are dependent on the assessment of subsequent
risk-avoidance and risk-reduction actions likely to be
taken by the contractor and other parties. Such actions
Development of project specification
depend in turn on the form of contract agreed and the
consequent motivations and behaviour of the contract
parties. Rational allocation of risk depends on the
+EzzEz&~,;E”don,
systematic evaluation of risks under different project
scenarios characterized by different contractual
arrangements. This is a potentially time-consuming and
1
I I 7
[project demanding exercise.
Development of tender documentation
Analysis by the bidding contractors
Development of project Contractors B, C, D etc.,
Risk analysis by each bidding contractor could be based
specification and base plan as for Contractor A on the project owner’s risk analysis if it were provided
by Contractor A in the tender documentation. The greater the detail
+ provided by the owner in relation to risks that are to
Risk analysis by Contractor A be borne in whole or in part by the contractor, the less
the contractor has to price for risk related to the
contractor’s uncertainty about what the project
involves.
Discussing construction projects, Barber” has
Contractor selection by owner
suggested that detailed itemization does not correspond
to the way in which construction contractors assess the
Development of project specification risks and costs involved in contract proposals. He
~~
argues that experienced contractors are able to
evaluate most project risks with a sufficient degree of
certainty using a broad approach, rather as insurers are
Risk analysis by the contractor
able to evaluate insurable risks. In the same way as
insurers, however, contractors cannot evaluate risk if
information is withheld or they are not given an
base plan and contingency plans opportunity to price it; nor can they break down the
risk into minute detail. Barber suggests that, if
contractors are expected to act as quasiinsurers,
perhaps contracts should be treated as being subject to
the doctrine of uberrima fides, at least as regards the
Figure 2. Possible locations for risk analysis in a supply of information~a. Although Barber was
ma~ti~arty project primarily concerned with construction projects and

Vol 9 No 2 May 1991 119

contractors, much of his argument appIies equaffy to
other types of projects.
A likely obstacle to the transfer of ~~~u~at~on from
project owner to potentiaf contractor is the owner%
perceived vulnerability to legal action in respect of
a;lleged errors or misrepresentations in information.
This may particularly hamper the transfer of stochastic
information, for example about ground conditions in a
construction project, However, it is not at all clear how
the veracity of stochastic information could be
challenged in the courts, and so this concern may be a
false one.
The role of the bidding contractors’ risk am&is at
this stage is quite different to that of the owner’s Each
~~~tr~etor wants a bid that gives an approp~ate
balance between the risk of not getting the contract and
the risk associated with profits and Iosses if the contract
is obtained.
Analysis by the adopted contractor
Risk analysis by the adopted contractor should be
undertaken to reduce uncertainty and risk associated
with the contractor’s profits, to pursue efficency, and
to check the risk/expected-profit balance. If the owner
has aheady undertaken such an analysis, and provided
it to al bidding ~ontra~tors~ the adopted contractor can
use it as a starting point. If the contractor has to start
from scratch, there are several drawbacks:
The scope for modifications to the project
specification and base plan will be less than would be
the case during an owner’s risk analysis. This implies
a less efficient project specification and base plan,
The level of detail adopted by the contractor will be
determined by the benefit to the cantractor of more
or less detail. Risks that involve costs that can be
recovered from the owner, and contingency plans
associated with the contractor’s possible bankrupt~y~
will not be relevant. This implies less efficient
project specification, base plans and contingency
plans.
may be that these two effects discourage contractors
from undertaking risk analysis in practice. They
certainly strengthen the case for an owner’s risk
analysis prior to the development of tender
documentation.
The previous discussion has suggested that risk ;inalysis
can make an important ~o~tr~b~tio~ to efficient and
effective project management. In practice, the extent
of any risk analysis should reflect the need for a
cost-effective approach - some projects wiII warrant
more analysis than others, However, given the flexibIe
definition of risk analysis adopted, it would seem
reasonable to expect some level of formal risk analysis
for any project involving significant uncertainty. All
too frequently this is not the case. Why? Is it simply a
lack of awareness of the roles for risk analysis discussed
above, or are there other reasons’?
Failure to use risk analysis can usually be attributed
to one or more of rhe following arguments:
120
La& of ~~~~~~~~~~The project owner may be
unf~ili~ with risk analysis and unaware of its
pot~~t~a~ ~un~bution.
Lack of expert&.~ The project owner may lack the
resources and expertise to carry out risk analysis.
Risk analysis is unnecessary: The project owner
considers that a formal detailed, quantitative
analysis of project risks is not needed because risks
are well understood or not large enough. A related
concern is to avoid ‘paralysis by analysis’.
Luck of time: The project owner may take the view
that there is not enough time to carry out risk
analysis within the specified project deadfines.
~~~ci~~~* or impo~~~~fe-to-qut~~~ FL&X Risk
analysis may seem to require risks to be ~u~t~~ed
that may be perceived as too difficult to quantify.
~j~~r~~ ofrisk analysis: The project owner may take
the view that the rest risks are those that are
unantici ated, and these wilf not be included in risk
analysis F:.
Risks will be borne by other pawties: The project
owner may take the view that risk,s do not need to be
evaluated because they will be borne by someone
else I
In the authors’ view, virtually all of these arguments
indicate a lack of understanding of the potential
~u~~b~tio~ of risk analysis to project m~agement_
However, while some reasons far not performing risk
analysis might amount to Iame excuses, there can be
good reasons for limiting the complexity of analysis if it
is carried out at all. For example, managers might wish
to limit the complexity or level of detail in risk analyses
for reasons of managerial mot.ivation, resource
constraints, avoidance of detailed planning, and the
need to persuade others about recommendations’2.
Additionally, it may be argued that project-
~a~~g~rn~nt practices to control uncertainty and risk
do not depend on previous detailed risk analysis and
risk planning. Indeed, control of ~~~e~~nty and
damage limitation are established aspects of the
coordination role of project rn~na~~rne~t~ even if no
formal risk analysis is undertaken. Recognition of this
has led to good project-management practices that
include generic strategies for minimizing risks and
reducing related uncertainty. To the extent that such
practices exist and are effective, detailed risk analysis
may not be cost-effective. By way of illustration, Figure
3 shows how a number of generic project-management
practices work together to minimize uncertainty about
cost, time and quality in construction projects. Any of
these strategies might be enhanced by risk analysis, but
this may only be cost-effective to the extent that
s~~ifi~all~f high tevels of risk are present, requiring
novel responses or special care in respect of usuaI
good-management practices.
The third point above, that risk analysisisunnecessary,
expresses an all-too-common perception of risk analysis
as an ‘all or nothing’ technique _ either a detailed,
quantitative analysis must be carried out, or none at all.
This is an unfortunate and mistaken view. There is a
need for cost-effective risk analysis, and a wide range of
approaches is available to allow a cost-effective choice
of approach.
The extent to which sources of uncertainty and
Project Management
 minimize Minimize
uncertainty uncertainty
about time about cost
l
I/---
Procurement
and management
skills
Figure 3. Pathways to minimizing project uncertainty in construction projects
contingency plans should be considered at a detailed
level will vary from project to project, as a function of
the size of the project, the importance of uncertainty,
and improvements in risk efficiency associated with
such planning’. For example, an oil major about to
release funds and contract for a major offshore
development may find it worth identifying some 30 or
40 sources of uncertainty for each of 50 activities
encompassing the whole project, and considering three
or four responses for each source of uncertainty, in a
highly structured, formal, probabilistic manner.
Alternatively, a shopping-development sponsor may
find it worthwhile to identify only half a dozen major
risks for a dozen key activities, and consider a single
response for each source of uncertainty in an informal
nonprobabilistic manner.
To some degree, the level of detail incorporated in
any risk analysis depends on the purpose of the
analysis. In the early stages of project design, the
emphasis may be on project evaluation in economic
terms, involving the aggregation of project risks to
determine the total impact on the project’. More
importantly for present purposes, risk analysis is
helpful in developing the project design and project
plans that serve to reduce uncertainty and avoid risks
altogether. This suggests more detailed analysis than
that required for earlier evaluation.
As indicated previously in Figure 1, risk analysis
should proceed alongside the development of the
Vol 9 No 2 May 1991
Minimize
uncertainty
about quality
Early involvement
of management
contractor
project specification in an iterative process. This
implies development of the risk analysis in a learning
mode, starting with an outline project specification and
associated risk analysis, and moving to more detailed
specification and risk analysis as considered
appropriate. Thus risk identification and analysis can
indicate a need for redesign, more detailed design,
further investigation of aspects of the project, or
different methods of proceeding. Even in the early
stages, incorporating detail may be advantageous. For
example, estimating a distribution for available laying
days in an offshore pipe-laying operation may be
difficult and involve unreliable guesswork, whereas
building up the distribution from underlying causal
factors may prove much more justifiable and reliable.
Including more detail in the analysis can also lead to a
greater understanding and appreciation of factors likely
to affect project performance, and can be more helpful
in the identification of suitable risk-avoiding and
uncertainty-reducing strategies*.
The fourth point above, that there is no time to carry
out risk analysis, is evidence of a failure to appreciate
these issues. Risk analysis should be an integral part of
the design stage of any project. Setting project
deadlines in the absence of any assessment of the risks
involved in that schedule makes no sense.
The fifth point above, that it is difficult or impossible
to quantify risks, has some credibility, especially if one
thinks of factors such as ground conditions, effects of
121
weather f delivery dates, quality variations in
construction projects7 or competitor reactions in a new
product-launch project, Such risks are indeed difficult
to quantify, but, to the extent that their impact on the
project may be significant, they need to be considered.
Limiting the extent of any risk analysis because there
is insufficient information reminds one of organizations
who perform little in the way of strategic planning
because the future is too uncertain. An obvious
response is that, where project risks are high, it may be
highly desirable to put resources into obtaining
information and developing appropriate information
systems, much as oil companies have done in the
context of onshore-drilling operations.
The problem is really one of making efforts to
identify explicitly all effects of each source of risk, and
to describe appropriate responses and secondary risks
where appropriate. While it is clearly useful, there is no
absolute necessity to uantify all risks. For example,
Chapman and Cooper 9’ describe an application of risk
analysis to the formulation of a bid for a turnkey
construction project. Representation scenarios were
used, but the likelihood of their occurrence was not
assessed in precise numerical form. The concern was
that of avoiding or neutralizing all significant sources of
risk via contractual arrangements, home gove~ment
guarantees, sub~ontra~ors and insurance companies.
Risk analysis took a verbal form in terms of structured
lists of risks and responses, with backup discussion and
documentation. Most managers with experience of risk
analysis would probably argue that any systematic
exercise to identify and rate risks, secondary risks and
likely responses is a valuable exercise in itself, whether
quantification is involved or not.
It is precisely this kind of exercise that should deal
with the sixth point above, that the real risks are those
that are unanticipated and are not therefore included in
any analysis - the wrong risks are anaiysed”.This is
clearly a possibility. However, the early stages of risk
analysis should be devoted to the generation of a
comprehensive list of project risks, including force
mujeure. A significant stage in any risk analysis is the
conscious decision about which risks to include in
further analysis, and which should be acknowledged
but should not influence subsequent planning.
Finally, the seventh point above, that risks will be
borne by other parties, and so there is no need for risk
analysis, is a real possibility when projects require the
employment of other parties, consultants and
contractors. Certainly, much of the current difficuity
with risk allocation and associated claims and
arbitration arises because of contractual parties’
preoccupation with transferring risk to other parties.
As long as one party believes that project risks can be
transferred or offloaded onto someone else, any
assessment of risks is likely to be half-hearted, and
inadequate attention may be given to risk-avoidance or
-reduction measures. For example, some project owners
prefer to refer to risks in a general way, or as obliquely
as possible, presumably in the hope of finding a
contractor who will not allow for them fully in his
price I4 . This situation tends to occur with a project
owner who insists on fixed-price contracts. As
discussed below, this form of contract may not be in the
owner’s best interests. Failure to recognize this follows
122
from a failure to appreciate the importance of
considering project risk in relation to the conniving
objectives of parties at an early stage.
For example, insistence on a simple fixed-price
contract with all risk borne by the contractor, and
acceptance of the lowest bid, brings its own risks. Even
with prior or postbidding screening out of any
contractors not deemed capable, reliable and sound,
the successful bidder will have to be that member of the
viable set of contractors who scores best overall in the
following categories:
most optimistic in relation to cost uncertainties: this
may reflect expertise, but it may reflect a willingness
to depart from implicit and explicit specification of
the project, or ignorance of what is required,
most optimistic in relation to claims for additional
revenue,
least concerned with considerations such as impact
on reputation or chance of bankruptcy,
least informed about the likely behaviour of other
contractors,
most desperate for work.
This suggests that selecting the lowest fixed-price bid is
an approach that should be used with care in a limited
set of circumstances. It is particularly risky if any of the
following apply:
* Uncertainty is important. It may not be clear to
potential contractors what is required, and what may
be required.
o Performance specifications are not comprehensive,
clear, and legally enforceable.
e The expertise, reputation and financial security of
the contractor are not beyond question.
The situation is summed up by Barnes’:
The problem is that when conditions of contract piacing large total
risk upon the contractor are used and the work is awarded by
competitive tender, the ~ontra~torwho accidentally or desperately
underestimated the risks is most likely to get the work. When the
risks materialise with full force he must then either struggle to
extract compensation from the client or suffer the loss. This
stimulates the growth of the claims problem.
The remedy seems to be to take factors other than lowest price
into account when appointing contractors. ‘In particular, a
reputation gained for finishing fast and on time without aggressive
pursuit of extra payment for the unexpected should be given very
great weight and should be seen to do so.
The alternative remedy suggested earlier, that of
carrying out an analysis of project risks prior to
contract formulation, to determine an appropriate
allocation of risks, and to provide all bidders with this
information, is unusual in current practice. However, it
would seem worthy of serious consideration.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has considered the various ways in which
risk analysis might usefully be employed in the design
and management of projects. The value of risk analysis
as a means for understanding and managing project risk
have been highlighted. An important focus has been
the management of project risks where projects involve
a number of parties, and agency and risk-sharing
problems can arise. The authors believe that there is
Project Management
considerable scope to make more use of risk analysis in
the design and management of projects. However,
substantial increases in the use of risk analysis may
require more detailed answers to the following
questions:
Why is risk analysis not used as extensively as it
might be?
How far is it possible to identify or characterize
situations where risk analysis is cost-effective?
What level of detail is appropriate for the analysis of
different risk situations?
What are the implications of risk analysis for the
design of organizations’ information systems?
How do conflicting interests affect risk analysis, and
what is the relationship between risk analysis and
alternative forms of contract?
is hoped that this paper will act as a stimulus to 10
further discussion and research on these issues.
REFERENCES
11
Chapman, C B ‘Large engineering project risk
analysis’ IEEE Trans. Eng. Munage. Vol EM-76 12
(1979), pp 78-86
Cooper, D F and Chapman, C B Risk Analysts for
Large Projects John Wiley (1987) 13
Ashley, D B ‘Risk distribution and influence
diagramming’ Proc. Construction Risk Identifica-
tion and Prevention Techniques Sem. Hamburg,
Germany (1982) 14
Chapman, C B, Phillips, E D, Cooper, D F and
Lightfoot, L ‘Selecting an approach to project time
Stephen Ward is a senior lecturer in
Business Economics and Academic
Deputy IXrector of the Manage-
ment School at the ~n~vers~t?~of
.~out~ta~npton. UK. Before joining
the University in I%%, he worked in
operational research with the
National Westminster Bank, UK.
and in merchandizing with Boots.
UK. His research interests include
project and contract risk manage-
ment, strategic-investment ap-
praisal and problem-solving
methodology. He recently com-
pleted a UK Science and Engineer-
ing Research Council research contract on the roles, risks and
res~~~~n~sibilitiesof management contractors in the construction
industry. He holds a BSc in Mathematics and Physics ~~ottingharn
lJniversit.v, UKj and an MSc in ~anugement Science ~~mperia~
Collqe. London ~in~versit~t,UK),
Vol 9 No 2 May 1991
and cost planning’ ht. J. Project Manage. Vo13 No
1 (1985)
5 Barnes, M ‘Effective project organisation’ Building
Tech. & Manage. (Dee 1984) pp 21-23
6 Perry, J G and Hayes, R W ‘Risk management for
project managers’ Building Tech. & Manage.
(Aug/Sep 1986) pp 8-11
7 Hertz, D B and Thomas, H Risk Analysis and its
Applications John Wiley (1983)
8 Eisenhardt, K M ‘Agency theory: an assessment
and review’ Acad. Manage. Rev. Vol 14 No 1
(1989) pp 57-74
9 Chapman, C B, Ward, S C and Curtis, B ‘Risk
theory for contracting’ in Uff, J and Capper, P
(Eds.) Construction Contract Policy: improved
Procedures and Practice Centre of Construction
Law and Management, King’s College, London,
UK (1989)
Barber, J N ‘Risks in the method of construction’ in
Uff, J and Capper, P (Eds.) Construction Contract
Policy: Improved Procedures and Practice Centre of
Construction Law and Management, King’s
College, London, UK (1989)
Hall, W K ‘Why risk analysis isn’t working’ Long
Range Plan. Vol 8 No 6 (1975) pp 25-29
Ward, S C ‘Arguments for constructively simple
models’ J. Operat. Rex Sot. Vol40 No 2 (1989) pp
141-153
Chapman, C B and Cooper, D F ‘Contract risk
analysis for a turnkey project bid: a case study’
Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance No 10 (1985)
pp 293-305
Abrahamson, M ‘Contractual risks in tunnelling:
how they should be shared’ Tunnels & Tunnelling
(Nov 1973) pp 587-598
Chris Chapman is Professor of
Managemeilt Science and Head of
the department of ‘4ccol~nting and
Management Science at the Univer-
sity of Southampton. For about IS
year.s his consulting and research
have centred on the management of
risk. Mast of his consulting has
been concerned with large energy
projects in the UK, and USA and
Canada, but other concerns have
included computer hardware and
software systems, financial asset
and commodity broking portfolio
management. He holds a BASc in
Industrial Engineering (Toronto),
an MSc in Operational Research
~Birming~lam) and a PhD in
Economics and Econometrics
~So~~thampton).
123