Skip to main content
Log in

Project risk management processes: improving coordination using a clustering approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Projects are dealing with bigger stakes and facing an ever-growing complexity. In the first place, project risks have increased in number and criticality. Lists of identified project risks thus need to be broken down into more manageable clusters. Existing techniques for this are generally based on a well-known parameter such as the nature of the risk or its ownership. The limits of this approach are that project risk interactions are not properly considered. Project interdependent risks are thus often analysed and managed as if they were independent. The consequence is that there may be a lack of consideration of potential propagation through this risk network. A change may have dramatic consequences if the propagation chain is not clearly identified and/or not managed. Our objective in this paper is to propose a methodology for grouping risks so that the project risk interaction rate is maximal inside clusters and minimal outside. What we hope to achieve is a method that facilitates the coordination of complex projects which have many interrelated risks with many different risk owners. We contend that the capacity of risk owners to communicate and make coordinated decisions will be improved if they are grouped in such a way. This proposed reconfiguration of organisation is complementary to existing configurations. To do this, we first model project risk interactions through matrix representations. Then, the mathematical formulation of the problem is presented, and two heuristics are introduced. A case study in the civil engineering industry (a large infrastructure public–private partnership project) is presented, which enables us to propose global recommendations, conclusions and perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baccarini D (1996) The concept of project complexity—a review. Int J Project Manag 14(4):201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh D, Sreenivasan R (1999) Information analysis in a distributed dynamic group technology method. International J Product Econ 60–61:427–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouzaïene-Marle L (2005). AVISE, Anticipation du Vieillissement par Interrogation et Stimulation d’Experts. Laboratoire Genie Industriel, Ecole Centrale Paris, PhD

  • Chen S, Lin L (2003) Decomposition of interdependent task group for concurrent engineering. Comput Indus Eng 44(3):435–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson J, Simons C, Eckert C (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 126. doi:10.1115/1.1765117

  • Dong Y, Zhuang Y, Chen K, Tai X (2006) A hierarchical clustering algorithm based on fuzzy graph connectedness. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:1760–1774

    Google Scholar 

  • Durgaprasad J, Rao T (1997) Parameter interdependencies for development of KBS for risk analysis. J Comput Civil Eng 11(4):224–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earl C, Johnson J, Eckert CM (2001) Complexity in planning design processes. In: 13th International conference on engineering design. Glasgow, Scotland

  • Eckert C, Clarkson J, Zanker W (2004) Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res Eng Des 15:1–21. doi:10.1007/s00163-003-0031-7

  • Edmonds B (1999). Syntactic measures of complexity. Faculty of arts. Manchester, University of Manchester. PhD

  • Elhag TMS, Wang YM (2007) Risk assessment for bridge maintenance projects: neural networks versus regression techniques. J Comput Civil Eng 21:402–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger S, Salminen V (2001) Patterns of product development interactions. International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow, Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger S, Whitney DE, Smith R, Gebala D (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des (6):1–13

  • Freeman L (1977) Set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giffin M, De Weck O, Bounova G, Keller R, Eckert C, Clarkson J (2009) Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. J Mech Des 131. doi:10.1115/1.3149847 (081001-1)

  • Girvan M, Newman M (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Nat Acad Sci (PNAS) 99(12):7821–7826. doi:10.1073/pnas.122653799

  • Gusfield D (1997) Algorithms on strings, trees and sequences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Hartigan JA (1975) Clustering algorithms. Wiley, London

  • Hennig C, Hausdorf B (2006) A robust distance coefficient between distribution areas incorporating geographic distances. Syst Biol 55(1):170–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer KC, Mohammed S (2010) Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks using interpretative structural modeling. J Construct Eng Manag 136(2):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan R, Vempala S, Vetta A (2001) On clusterings: good, bad and spectral working paper

  • Karp RM (1976) Probabilistic analysis of partitioning algorithms for the travelling salesman problem in the plane. Math Oper Res 2(3):209–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S (2003) Graph theoretic sequence clustering algorithms and their applications to genome comparison. In: Wu CH, Wang P, Wang JTL (eds) Computational biology and genome informatics, vol 4. World Scientific, Singapore

  • Kloss-Grote B, Moss M (2008) How to measure the effectiveness of risk management in engineering design projects ? Presentation of RMPASS: a new method for assessing risk management performance and the impact of knowledge management–including a few results. Res Eng Design 19:71–100. doi:10.1007/s00163-008-0049-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakroum S, Devlaminck V, Terrier P, Biela-Enberg P, Postaire JG (2005) Clustering of the poincare vectors image processing, 2005. ICIP 2005. IEEE Int Conf 2:11–14

  • Laurikkala H, Puustinen E, Pajarre E, Tanskanen K (2001) Reducing complexity of modelling in large delivery projects. International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow, Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Moigne J (1990) La théorie du système général. Théorie de la modélisation, Presses Universitaires de France

    Google Scholar 

  • Lough K, Van Wie M, Stone R, Tumer I (2009) Promoting risk communication in early design through linguistics analyses. Res Eng Des 20:29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis PC (1936) On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc Nat Inst Sci India 2(1):49–55

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marle F (2002) Methods for helping decision-making in projects. PMI Europe Conference, Cannes, France, June 2002

  • Phelan S (1995). From chaos to complexity in strategic planning. In: 55th meeting of Academy of Management, Vancouver

  • PMI SC (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) (2008 ed). Newton Square, PA, USA (Project Management Institute)

  • Rodgers JL, Nicewander WA (1988) Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat 42:59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting. Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer SE (2007) Graph clustering. Comput Sci Rev I:27–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi J, Malik J (2000) Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(8):888–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1981) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Sosa M (2008) A structured approach to predicting and managing technical interactions in software development. Res Eng Des

  • Steward D (1981) The Design structure matrix: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 28(3):71–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh N (1999) A theory of complexity, periodicity and the design axioms. Res Eng Design 11:116–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal L, Marle F (2007) Modeling project complexity. International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal L, Marle F (2008) Understanding project complexity: implications on project management. Kyber Int J Syst Cybern Manag Sci

  • Vidal L, Marle F, Bocquet JC (2009) Interactions-based clustering to assist project risk management. International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’09, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin Y, Yasuda K (2006) Similarity coefficient methods applied to the cell formation problem: A taxonomy and review. Int J Product Econ 101:329–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zika-Viktorsson A, Ritzen S (2005) Project competence in product development. Res Eng Design 15:193–200. doi:10.1007/s00163-004-0051-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zotteri G, Kalchschmidt M, Caniato F (2005) The impact of aggregation level on forecasting performance. Int J Product Econ 93–94:479–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franck Marle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marle, F., Vidal, LA. Project risk management processes: improving coordination using a clustering approach. Res Eng Design 22, 189–206 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0106-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0106-9

Keywords

Navigation