Using a Risk Breakdown Structure in project management

Journal of Facilities Management - Tập 2 Số 1 - Trang 85-97 - 2003
DavidHillson1
1Director of Consultancy, Project Management Professional Solutions Limited, 7 Amersham Hill, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 6NS, UK; Tel: +44 (0)1494 479650; Fax: +44 (0)1494 479651; E‐mail: [email protected]

Tóm tắt

Risk identification often produces nothing more than a long list of risks, which can be hard to understand or manage. The list can be prioritised to determine which risks should be addressed first, but this does not provide any insight into the structure of risk on the project. Traditional qualitative assessment cannot indicate those areas of the project which require special attention, or expose recurring themes, concentrations of risk, or ‘hot‐spots’ of risk exposure. The best way to deal with a large amount of data is to structure the information to aid comprehension. For risk management, this can be achieved with a Risk Breakdown Structure )RBS) a hierarchical structuring of risks on the project. The RBS can assist in understanding the distribution of risk on a project or across a business, aiding effective risk management. Just as the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is an important tool for projects because it scopes and defines the work, so the RBS can be an invaluable aid in understanding risk. The WBS forms the basis for many aspects of the project management process; similarly, the RBS can be used to structure and guide the risk management process. This paper presents the concept of the RBS, and gives a number of examples drawn from different project types and industries. Although not necessarily based in FM, the concepts and experience can be applied to any project. The benefits of using the RBS are then outlined, including as an aid for risk identification or risk assessment, comparison of projects, providing a framework for cross‐project risk reporting, and structuring lessons to be learned for future projects. This paper shows how to use the RBS to gain these benefits.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Hillson D. A., June/July, 14

Simon P. W., 1997, Project Risk Analysis & Management (PRAM) Guide

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and Faculty & Institute of Actuaries., 1998, Risk Analysis & Management for Projects (RAMP)

2000, Project Management - Part 3: Guide to the Management of Businessrelated Project Risk

Project Management Institute, 2000, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK)

Office, 2002, Management of Risk - Guidance for Practitioners

Hillson D. A., 2003, Project Manager Today Magazine, 15, 23

10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00074-6

Project Management Institute, 2001, Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures

Carter B., 1994, Introducing RISKMAN

10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X

10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00047-2

Kwak Y. H., 2001, Proceedings of the 32nd Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium (PMI

Godfrey P., 1996, Control of Risk: A Guide to the Systematic Management of Risk from Construction

2002, Project Management - Part 1: Guide To Project Management

Hillson D. A., 2002, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (PMI

Hillson D. A., 2003, Project Magazine (Association for Project Management), 15, 12

Dorofee A. J., 1996, Continuous Risk Management Guidebook, 10.21236/ADA319533

10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00038-6

10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00070-8

10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00045-X

Hall D. C., 2002, Universal Risk Project - Final Report, available from the PMI Risk SIG website: www.risksig.com or www.techriskmgt.com/ home2link.html

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Facilities Management

Tập 2 Số 1

85-97

Thông tin tác giả