Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The effect of intervening conditions on the management of project risk

By Elmar Kutsch

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main findings of a successfully defended doctoral thesis that studied factors or interventions causing the discrepancy between how adequate project risks should be managed and how project risks are actually managed. Design/methodology/approach – The approach involved interviews and a survey using questionnaires gathered data from project managers about their experiences with project risk management during two phases of fieldwork. The first phase included in-depth interviews with information technology (IT) project managers in order to explore patterns involving risk mediators and their influence on project risk management. A web- based survey was used in the second phase for the purpose of testing these patterns on a wider range of project managers. Findings – Specific risk-related interventions strongly influence the effective use of project risk management: project managers tended to deny, avoid, ignore risks and to delay the management of risk. Risks were perceived as discomforting, not agreed upon. IT project managers were unaware of risks and considered them to be outside their scope of influence and preferred to let risks resolve themselves rather than proactively engaging with them. As a consequence, factors such as the lack of awareness of risks by IT project managers appeared to constrain the application of project risk management with the result that risk had an adverse influence on the outcome of IT projects. Practical implications – The underlying rational assumptions of project risk management and the usefulness of best practice project risk management standards as a whole need to be questioned because of the occurrence of interventions such as the lack of information. IT project managers should first prevent risk-related interventions from influencing the use of project risk management. However, if this is not possible, they should be prepared to adapt to risks influencing the project outcome. Originality/value – The paper contradicts the myth of a “self-evidently” correct project risk management approach. It defines interventions that constrain project manager’s ability to man

Topics: Project management, Risk management
Publisher: Emerald
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1108/17538370810906282
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/4295
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). An integrative contingency model of software project risk management”,
  2. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns”, doi
  3. (2007). Chaos (Application Project and Failure),
  4. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms”, doi
  5. (2001). Computer Services:
  6. (2001). Defining the domain of perceived environmental uncertainty: an exploratory study of senior marketing executives”, doi
  7. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organisational performance”, doi
  8. (1984). Flexibility and productivity in complex production processes”, doi
  9. (1993). Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk, doi
  10. (1989). Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: implications of matching managers to strategy”, doi
  11. (2005). Intervening conditions on the management of project risk: dealing with uncertainty in information technology projects”, doi
  12. Management of Risk:Guidance for Practitioners, The Stationary Office,
  13. (2001). Managing incomplete knowledge: why risk management is not sufficient”, doi
  14. (1996). On the concept of flexibility: a dual control perspective”,
  15. (1978). Planning for strategic flexibility”, doi
  16. (1997). Project risk analysis and management – PRAM the generic process”, doi
  17. (2004). Project troubleshooting: tiger teams for reactive risk management”, doi
  18. (2003). Project uncertainty management”,
  19. (1992). Public wisdom, expert fallibility: toward a contextual theory of risk”,
  20. (1999). The impact of environmental uncertainty perceptions, decision-maker characteristics and work environment characteristics and work environment characteristics on the usefulness of marketing information systems (MkIS): a conceptual framework”, doi
  21. (2006). The influence of intervening conditions on the over- and underestimation of risk”, paper presented at
  22. (1998). The role of risk perception for risk management”, doi
  23. (1995). Top management perception of strategic information processing in a turbulent environment”, doi
  24. (2004). Uncertainty, flexibility, and sustained competitive advantage”, doi
  25. (1990). Uncertainty:A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, doi
  26. (1999). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.