Ontology Driven Feedforward Risk Management

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 930)


Organizations are increasingly relying on projects to support their activities. With this increase, the management of these projects is becoming critical. New methods, tools and frameworks appear in order to improve the success rate of these projects. However, being complex endeavours, projects face numerous challenges that have to be addressed with proper risk management. Various risk management frameworks have been developed in order to support project managers in their task of identifying and controlling risk. Although these frameworks are effective in reducing the impact of risk, they are slow to implement. In order to more productively address these risks, we have developed an ontology to support feedforward risk management. This ontology can be implemented in project management software to provide project managers with a multi-level approach of the risks associated with their projects. The scope and breadth of the risks identified by the software will be closely related to the project data collected in the system, reducing the need for a lengthy setup. Moreover, using data collected by the project management software, the system will be able to proactively raise management awareness towards potential upcoming issues.


Risk management Ontology Feedforward OWL 



We are grateful to the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation which provided partial funding for this work (grant number 19311.1 PFES-ES).


  1. 1.
    Whitley, R.: Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme? Ind. Corp. Change 15(1), 77–99 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clancy, T.: The Standish Group CHAOS Report, Project Smart (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eveleens, J.L., Verhoef, C.: The rise and fall of the chaos report figures. IEEE Softw. 27(1), 30–36 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., Wortmann, H.: Does risk management contribute to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28(5), 493–503 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huchzermeier, A., Loch, C.H.: Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R…D. Manag. Sci. 47(1), 85–101 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raz, T., Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D.: Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. RD Manag. 32(2), 101–109 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Todorović, M.L., Petrović, D.Č., Mihić, M.M., Obradović, V.L., Bushuyev, S.D.: Project success analysis framework: a knowledge-based approach in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33(4), 772–783 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H.: Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19(2), 230–251 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hillson, D.: Using a risk breakdown structure in project management. J. Facil. Manag. 2(1), 85–97 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall, D.C., Hulett, D.T., Graves, R.: Universal Risk Project—Final report, PMI Risk SIG (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J.: Toward an assessment of software development risk. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 203–225 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bourdeau, S., Rivard, S., Barki, H.: Evaluation du risque en gestion de projets. CIRANO Sci. Ser. 47, 3–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the First International Conference (FOIS 1998), 6–8 June 1998, Trento, Italy, vol. 46. IOS Press (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fischetti, M.: Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. DIANE Publishing Company (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-Lopez, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering: With Examples from the Areas of Knowledge Management, Ecommerce and the Semantic Web. Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bedini, I., Nguyen, B.: Automatic ontology generation: state of the art. PRiSM Laboratory, Technical report, University of Versailles (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Asim, M.N., Wasim, M., Khan, M.U.G., Mahmood, W., Abbasi, H.M.: A survey of ontology learning techniques and applications. Database 2018(1), bay101 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Juristo, N.: METHONTOLOGY: from ontological art towards ontological engineering. In: Proceedings of the Ontological Engineering AAAI-97 Spring Symposium Series, Stanford University, EEUU (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11(2), 93–136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data Knowl. Eng. 46(1), 41–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: OWL. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 67–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermanson, D.R., Hermanson, H.M.: The internal control paradox: what every manager should know. Rev. Bus. 16(2), 4 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO), HEG ArcNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO), HEG FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations