Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 39–51 | Cite as

Systemic risk assessment: a case study

Case-Oriented Paper


Project Risk Registers have been used extensively for many years. However, they do not account for the interaction between risks, for example, the occurrence of one risk exacerbating other risks or portfolios of risks being more significant than the sum of the individual risks. This leads to the need to consider ‘risk systemicity’ as a part of risk analysis. This paper reports on a specific case for a large multinational project based organization, one that the authors had been involved with in the analysis of a number of projects that had massive cost overruns. Following these analyses the organization was persuaded of the importance of risk systemicity. The organization therefore engaged the authors to develop a ‘Risk Filter’. This filter is a tool for identifying areas of risk exposure on future projects and creating a framework for their investigation. The ‘Risk Filter’ is now used on all projects ever since its introduction; by the end of May 2003 it had been used by nine divisions, on over 60 major projects, and completed by 450 respondents. It is also used at several stages during the life of a project to aid in the risk assessment and management of each project, and contributes to a project database.


causal mapping project risk registers risk filter risk systemicity 


  1. Ackermann F and Eden C (2004). Using Causal mapping: Individual and group; traditional and new. In: Pidd M (ed). Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 127–145.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann F and Eden C (2001). Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams T (1997). Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2): 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. APM Publishing Ltd (2004). Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide. APM Publishing Ltd: High Wycombe.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson J, Ackermann F, Eden C and Finn C (2004). Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman C and Ward S (1997). Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  7. Choo CW (1998). The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper KG (1997). System dynamics methods in complex project management. In: Williams TM (eds). Managing and Modelling Complex Projects, NATO ASI Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 89–104.Google Scholar
  9. Dalkey N and Helmer O (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Mngt Sci 9: 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eden C (2001). Coping with strategic risk. In: Crainer S and Dearlove D (eds). Financial Times Management Handbook. Financial Times, London, pp 286–291.Google Scholar
  11. Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Analysing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition. Sage, London, pp 192–209.Google Scholar
  12. Eden C, Williams TM, Ackermann F and Howick S (2000). The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. J Oper Res Soc 51: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden C, Ackermann F and Williams T (2005). The amoebic growth of project costs. Project Mngt J 36: 15–27.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser BG (1992). The Basics of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Hillson D (2004). Effective Opportunity Management for Projects: Exploiting Positive Risk. Marcel Dekker, Inc: New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hull JK (1990). Application of risk analysis techniques in proposal assessment. Int J Project Mngt 8: 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kharbanda OP and Pinto JK (1996). What Made Gertie Gallop: Learning from Project Failure. Chapman and Hall: London.Google Scholar
  18. Oakes M (1986). Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Office of Government Commerce (2002). Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners. HMSO: Norwich.Google Scholar
  20. Pinto JK (1997). Understanding project risk: lessons from past failures. In: Kahkonen K and Artto KA (eds). Managing Risks in Projects. E&FN Spon, London, pp 41–48.Google Scholar
  21. Project Management Institute (1996, 2000, 2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Project Management Institute: Newton Square, PA, US, 1st, 2 and 3 edn.Google Scholar
  22. Simon P, Hillson D and Newland K (1997). PRAM: Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide. APM Group Ltd: Norwich.Google Scholar
  23. Stake R (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  24. Sterman JD (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Mngt Sci 35: 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson PA and Perry JG (1986). Risk Management in Engineering Construction. Thomas Telford Services Ltd: London.Google Scholar
  26. van der Heijden K (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley, Chichester, p 1.Google Scholar
  27. Walsh JP (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Sci 6: 280–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams TM (1993). Risk management infrastructures. Int J Project Mngt 11: 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams TM, Ackermann F and Eden C (1997). Project risk: systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach. In: Kahkonen K and Artto KA (eds). Managing Risks in Projects. E&FN Spon, London, pp 343–352.Google Scholar
  30. Williams TM, Ackermann F, Eden C and Howick S (2005). Learning from project failure. In: Love P, Irani Z and Fong P (eds). Knowledge Management in Project Environments. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp 219–238.Google Scholar
  31. Yin R (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage: London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  2. 2.University of Southampton, SouthamptonEnglandUK

Personalised recommendations