Ranking Indices for Mitigating Project Risks

  • Stefan CreemersEmail author
  • Stijn Van de Vonder
  • Erik Demeulemeester
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


The goal of project risk management is to mitigate the impact of risks on project objectives such as budget and time. A popular approach to determine where to focus mitigation efforts, is the use of so-called “ranking indices”. Ranking indices produce a ranking of activities (or even better, risks) based on their impact on project objectives. In turn, this ranking can be used to determine the risks that are to be mitigated. Different ranking indices, however, produce different rankings. Therefore, one might wonder which ranking index is best? In this chapter, we provide an answer to this question.


Project risk Ranking indices Risk analysis Risk management Risk mitigation 


  1. Cho JG, Yum BJ (1997) An uncertainty importance measure of activities in PERT networks. Int J Prod Res 35(10):2737–2758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Creemers S, Van de Vonder S, Demeulemeester E (2014) A new approach for quantitative risk analysis. Ann Oper Res 213(1):27–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cui W, Jiajun Q, Chaoyuan Y (2006) Criticality measurement in PERT networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, Taipei, pp 703–706Google Scholar
  4. Demeulemeester E, Herroelen, W (2002) Project scheduling: a research handbook. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Elmaghraby S (2000) On criticality and sensitivity in activity networks. Eur J Oper Res 127(2):220–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldratt EM (1997) Critical chain. The North River Press Publishing, Great BarringtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagstrom JN (1988) Computational complexity of PERT problems. Networks 18(2):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hubbard DW (2008) The failure of risk management: why it’s broken and how to fix it. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulett DT (2009) Practical schedule risk analysis. Gower Publishing, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolisch R, Sprecher A (1996) PSPLIB - A project scheduling problem library. Eur J Oper Res 96(1):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schatteman D, Herroelen W, Boone B, Van de Vonder S (2008) A methodology for integrated risk management and proactive scheduling of construction projects. J Constr Eng M Asce 134(11):885–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. The Project Management Institute (2008) Guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). The Project Management Institute, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  13. The Standish Group (2009) Chaos report. The Standish Group, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Van de Vonder S (2006) Proactive-reactive procedures for robust project scheduling. Ph.D. disseration. KU Leuven, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  15. Vanhoucke M (2010) Using activity sensitivity and network topology information to monitor project time performance. Omega 38(5):359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Slyke RM (1963) Monte Carlo methods and the PERT problem. Oper Res 11(5):839–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams TM (1992) Criticality in stochastic networks. J Oper Res Soc 43(4):353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Creemers
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Stijn Van de Vonder
    • 2
  • Erik Demeulemeester
    • 2
  1. 1.IESEG School of ManagementLilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Decision Sciences and Information ManagementKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations