Ebook Decision Making in Risk Management Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in Projects Manufacturing and Production Engineering 1St Edition Cox Christopher O Online PDF All Chapter

Decision Making in Risk Management
Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in

Projects Manufacturing and Production
Engineering 1st Edition Cox
Christopher O
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/decision-making-in-risk-management-quantifying-inta
ngible-risk-factors-in-projects-manufacturing-and-production-engineering-1st-edition-c
ox-christopher-o/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment

Identifying Social Risk Factors 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/accounting-for-social-risk-factors-
in-medicare-payment-identifying-social-risk-factors-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
Construction Risk Management Decision Making

Understanding Current Practices 1st Edition Alex C.
Arthur
https://ebookmeta.com/product/construction-risk-management-
decision-making-understanding-current-practices-1st-edition-alex-
c-arthur/
Endometrial Cancer Risk Factors Management and

Prognosis 1st Edition Ph.D. Ferrero
https://ebookmeta.com/product/endometrial-cancer-risk-factors-
management-and-prognosis-1st-edition-ph-d-ferrero/
Value Incommensurability Ethics Risk and Decision

Making 1st Edition Henrik Andersson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/value-incommensurability-ethics-
risk-and-decision-making-1st-edition-henrik-andersson/
AI ML for Decision and Risk Analysis Challenges and
Opportunities for Normative Decision Theory
International Series in Operations Research Management
Science 345 Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ai-ml-for-decision-and-risk-
analysis-challenges-and-opportunities-for-normative-decision-
theory-international-series-in-operations-research-management-
science-345-louis-anthony-cox-jr/
Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment

Data 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/accounting-for-social-risk-factors-
in-medicare-payment-data-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/
Making Risk Management Work Engaging People to

Identify, Own and Manage Risk, 2nd edition Ruth Murray-
Webster & Penny Pullan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/making-risk-management-work-
engaging-people-to-identify-own-and-manage-risk-2nd-edition-ruth-
murray-webster-penny-pullan/
A Risky Business An Actuary s Guide to Quantifying and

Managing Risk in Society 1st Edition Catrin Townsend
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-risky-business-an-actuary-s-
guide-to-quantifying-and-managing-risk-in-society-1st-edition-
catrin-townsend/
Understanding Risk Management and Hedging in Oil

Trading: A Practitioner's Guide to Managing Risk 1st
Edition Chris Heilpern
https://ebookmeta.com/product/understanding-risk-management-and-
hedging-in-oil-trading-a-practitioners-guide-to-managing-
risk-1st-edition-chris-heilpern/
Decision Making in
Risk Management
Manufacturing and Production Engineering Series
Series Editors: Hamid R. Parsaei, Texas A&M University at Qatar, &
Waldemar Karwowski, University of Central Florida
This series will provide an outlet for the state-of-the-art topics in manufacturing and
production engineering disciplines. This new series will also provide a scientific and
practical basis for researchers, practitioners, and students involved in areas within
manufacturing and production engineering. Issues envisioned to be addressed in this
new series would include, but not limited to, the following: Additive Manufacturing,
3D Visualization, Mass Customization, Material Processes, Cybersecurity, Data
Science, Automation and Robotics, Underwater Autonomous Vehicles, Unmanned
Autonomous Vehicles, Robotics and Automation, Six Sigma and Total Quality
Management, Manufacturing Cost Estimation and Cost Management, Industrial
Safety, Programmable Logic Controllers, to name just a few.
Decision Making in Risk Management

Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in Projects
Christopher Cox
For more information on this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/

Manufacturing-and-Production-Engineering/book-series/CRCMNPRDENG
Decision Making in
Risk Management
Quantifying Intangible Risk

Factors in Projects
Christopher O. Cox
First edition published 2022
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
and by CRC Press

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
© 2022 Christopher O. Cox
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and pub-
lisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use.
The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in
this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been
obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or here-
after invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyright.com
or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-
750-8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact mpkbookspermissions@tandf.co.uk
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data
Names: Cox, Christopher O., author.

Title: Decision making in risk management : quantifying intangible risk factors in
projects / Christopher O. Cox.
Description: First edition. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021004878 (print) | LCCN 2021004879 (ebook) | ISBN
9780367767471 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367767457 (paperback) | ISBN
9781003168409 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Project management. | Risk management. | Decision making.
Classification: LCC HD69.P75 C687 2021 (print) | LCC HD69.P75 (ebook) |
DDC 658.4/03–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021004878
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021004879
ISBN: 978-0-367-76747-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-76745-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-16840-9 (ebk)
DOI: 10.1201/9781003168409
Typeset in Times
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Dedication
To my wife Rhonda, my rock,

and our children Chad,
Kristen, Anna, and Sarah.
Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................xi
Acknowledgments................................................................................................... xiii
Author....................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Risk and Performance....................................................1
1.3 Intangible Risk Factors............................................................... 3
1.4 Goal and Objectives for Book....................................................4
1.5 Outline of Book..........................................................................5
Chapter 2 Setting the Context................................................................................ 7

2.1 Introduction................................................................................ 7
2.2 Projects and Project Portfolios................................................... 7
2.3 Project Management Frameworks..............................................9
2.4 Risk Identification and Assessment.......................................... 10
2.5 Intangible Risk......................................................................... 12
2.5.1 Behavior-Centric Intangible Risk................................ 13
2.6 Summary.................................................................................. 15
Chapter 3 Systems, Networks, and Metanetwork Analysis................................. 17

3.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 17
3.2 Systems Theory........................................................................ 17
3.2.1 System-of-Systems Engineering................................. 18
3.3 Network Science.......................................................................20
3.3.1 Sociotechnical Networks............................................. 21
3.3.2 Metanetwork Analysis................................................. 21
3.4 Summary.................................................................................. 22
Chapter 4 Intangible Risk Assessment Methodology for Projects...................... 23

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 23
4.2 Conceptual Framework............................................................24
4.3 Frameworks and the Intangible Risk Breakdown Structure......... 27
4.4 Behavior-Centric Intangible Risk Assessment in Projects
and Portfolios............................................................................ 29
4.4.1 Intangible Risk Breakdown Structure......................... 29
4.4.2 Causal Factors............................................................. 30
4.4.3 Risk Inducement Matrix............................................. 32
vii
viii Contents
4.5 Process For Implementation..................................................... 33

4.5.1 Step 1: Initial Information Gathering.......................... 33
4.5.2 Step 2: Subject-Matter Expert Workshop....................34
4.5.3 Step 3: Information Verification..................................34
4.5.4 Step 4: Survey Analysis and Validation......................34
4.5.5 Step 5: Project Team Workshops and Data
Consolidation..............................................................34
4.5.6 Step 6: Initial Assessment and Recommendations.....34
4.5.7 Step 7: Decision Support Analysis.............................. 35
4.6 Summary.................................................................................. 35
Chapter 5 Metanetwork Analysis and Measures................................................. 37

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 37
5.2 Conceptual Framework............................................................ 37
5.2.1 Sociotechnical System of Systems.............................. 37
5.2.2 Metanetwork................................................................ 41
5.3 Metanetwork and Network Analysis Measures........................ 42
5.3.1 Subnetwork Construct................................................. 43
5.3.2 Subnetwork Population................................................ 43
5.3.3 Metanetwork Simulation.............................................46
5.3.4 Network Analysis Measures........................................46
5.4 Summary.................................................................................. 47
Chapter 6 Putting It All Together........................................................................ 49

6.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 49
6.2 OilCo Project Delivery Performance....................................... 49
6.3 Interviews and Surveys to Validate the Issues......................... 50
6.4 Project Workshops to Identify Risk and Factor Prevalence..... 53
6.5 Assessment of Project Portfolio Stages.................................... 58
6.6 Metanetwork Development....................................................... 63
6.7 Metanetwork Analysis..............................................................66
6.7.1 Validation.................................................................... 70
6.7.2 Identification................................................................ 72
6.7.2.1 Clarify Roles, Responsibilities, and
Authorities................................................... 72
6.7.2.2 Increase Communication Effectiveness
and Decision-Making.................................. 73
6.7.2.3 Align Priorities and Objectives................... 74
6.7.2.4 Impact Teamwork........................................ 75
6.7.2.5 Challenge the Culture.................................. 76
6.7.3 Evaluation.................................................................... 78
6.7.4 Recommendation......................................................... 83
Contents ix
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Looking Forward..................................................... 85

7.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 85
7.2 Objective 1................................................................................ 85
7.3 Objective 2................................................................................ 86
7.4 Objective 3................................................................................ 86
7.5 Looking Forward...................................................................... 87
References................................................................................................................89
Index.........................................................................................................................97
Preface
According to the 2018 Project Management Institute’s pulse survey across industries,
“9.9% of every dollar is wasted due to poor project performance.” In aviation and
processing-plant accident investigation, human actions are considered the highest
contributor to failure because of the complex interaction of people and technology.
In the oil and gas industry, it has become all too common for projects not to meet
their original objectives. In spite of the availability of sophisticated tools and special-
ized training, between 50 and 75% of projects exceed their budget and delivery date,
leading to adverse impacts on corporate value and sometimes individual careers.
The Oil and Gas Authority of the United Kingdom has attributed this phenomenon
to events that are nontechnical in nature, or intangible factors. Risks can be both tan-
gible (e.g., design error) and intangible (e.g., behavior), with the emergent intangible
dimension creating project complexity.
This book introduces a framework to identify emergent behavior-centric intan-
gible risks and the conditions that initiate them. The proposed framework, intangible
risk assessment methodology for projects, utilizes a behavior-centric risk breakdown
structure, risk causal factors, and a risk inducement matrix linking risks to the causal
factors that precipitate them for each stage of the project development cycle. A meta-
network (i.e., a network of networks) consisting of the interactions among intangible
risks, causal factors, human agents, and project tasks was modeled by the commer-
cially available ORA-PRO software to generate network analysis measures. These
quantitative measures identify relationships within the metanetwork and their poten-
tial implications on project effectiveness. The ability to make the subjective more
objective enhances the overall effectiveness of the risk management process. This
book seeks to bridge the current gap in the literature by providing an empirically
tested framework for project stakeholders to address the “sticky” issue of behaviors
and their implications on project delivery. While this book primarily focuses on proj-
ect delivery, the framework proposed can be applied to processing-plant operations,
manufacturing, and organizational effectiveness programs.
As automation and artificial intelligence become more prevalent, social, emo-
tional, and higher cognitive skills will increase in importance. Consequently, the
ability to proactively identify and manage risks associated with these softer areas
can become a source of competitive advantage. The proposed framework is intended
to assist engineers and managers in effectively addressing the behavior-centric intan-
gible risks arising in their organizations.
xi
Acknowledgments
I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Hamid Parsaei for his con-
tinuous support. His wisdom and perspective were invaluable in helping me frame
this book.
xiii
Author
Christopher O. Cox, Ph.D., P.E., is a member of the Kimmel School of Construction
Management faculty at Western Carolina University. Prior to teaching he spent
38 years in the oil and gas industry where he held roles in engineering design, cor-
porate planning and strategy, production operations, and project management. While
having worked on projects in multiple countries he has lived in the Middle East,
North Africa, Australia, and the United States. He is a licensed professional engineer
and is a member of ASCE and ASEE. Mr. Cox received his Ph.D. from Texas A&M
University in College Station, Texas.
xv
1 Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Risk is a ubiquitous presence in all facets of human endeavor from investing in the
stock market to choosing a profession to the weather when planning an outdoor
event or vacation. Simply put, risk is the uncertainty surrounding any activity that
can affect its outcome in either a positive or negative way. In Greek mythology, the
beginning of the universe is said to have resulted from a game of chance played by
the brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades regarding dominion. Who would rule the
heavens, the seas, and the underworld (Bernstein 1998) denotes the tangible outcome
of the event. However, the implications of behaviors, such as Poseidon’s jealousy and
plotting against the rule of Zeus, are not easily quantified. In a more mortal dimen-
sion, human agents within businesses make investment decisions under uncertainty
on a regular basis as they select specific projects to comprise a portfolio that will
enable the firm to meet its strategic goals. The business environment in which these
organizations operate and execute projects is complex (Elonen and Artto 2003) and
turbulent (William and Rūta 2017); adding to this complexity are human behav-
iors and mental frameworks that are dynamic nonlinear systems (Afraimovich et al.
2011). Therefore, the more effective an organization is at identifying and holistically
addressing uncertainty, the more likely it is to achieve its objectives (Hillson 2014).
1.2 PROJECT RISK AND PERFORMANCE

Project risk management has been an area of academic interest since the end of
World War II and is a recognized methodology that enhances the probability of a
successful project outcome. Current project risk assessment methods are oriented
toward systems that are linear and vary from basic qualitative assessment to complex
statistical analysis primarily focused on tangible project factors (e.g., cost, schedule,
scope, quality, etc.). Risk profiles can vary as a project moves through the devel-
opment cycle. However, projects are developed and executed by diverse groups of
individuals with varying perspectives, beliefs, and desires. Inherent in this diversity
are the implications of emergent human behavior on project objectives due to their
high variability and nonlinearity creating “blind spots” for individuals and teams.
When it comes to investment, the energy sector is the most capital intensive and
one of the most complex industries in the world (Davis 2020; Schroeder and Jackson
2007)—with an expenditure of $714 billion in 2017 (Varro 2018). The environ-
ment in which this investment takes place is one where stability and certainty are
rare while intricacy and ambiguity dominate the landscape (Kraaijenbrink 2019).
Projects can take many years to move from conceptual planning to initial opera-
tion, subjecting them to a myriad of risks. The Project Management Institute (PMI)
DOI: 10.1201/9781003168409-1 1
2 Decision Making in Risk Management
has utilized the term “progressive elaboration” to describe the increasing level of
detail required as a project progresses through its development stages (PMI 2017);
changes in the internal and/or external project environment during this evolution can
create unforeseen circumstances that can impact project objectives. According to
industry surveys done by management consulting firms Deloitte (Deloitte Center for
Energy Solutions 2015) and Ernst & Young (EY 2014), fewer than half of projects
in the energy sector meet their objectives, and more than two-thirds of executives
are not confident that their organizations are experiencing optimal financial returns.
An effective risk management system identifies and addresses uncertainties with the
potential to impact project objectives (Hillson et al. 2006). This mediocre level of
project performance in the energy sector creates the impetus for further investigation
into current risk management methodology.
Project performance is measured in terms of meeting objectives and is influenced
by both hard (i.e., tangible) and soft (i.e., intangible) factors. Rolstadås et al. proposed
a five-aspect qualitative framework for assessing project performance that highlights
the importance of risk management using both hard (structure and technology) and
soft (culture, interactions, social relations, and networks) aspects (Rolstadås et al.
2014). PMI has defined risk as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a
positive or negative effect on a project’s objectives” (PMI 2017). Although risk can be
either a threat or an opportunity, it generally carries a negative connotation (Chapman
and Ward 2003). Current project risk measures tend to focus on the tangible factors
that have a direct impact on project success in terms of cost, schedule, scope, and
quality (PMI 2017). However, organizations and their project teams can also face
challenges from other sources, such as stakeholder politics, misalignment of organi-
zational cultures, and conflicting human behavioral responses (Rasmussen 1997) cre-
ating resistance to initiatives that threaten vested interests or accepted norms (Ancona
et al. 1999). The ability to assign a risk exposure from intergroup politics, cultural
differences, or the interpersonal conflicts stemming from them is much more difficult
to quantify and “require[s] a greater degree of subjectivity and intuition” (Basu 2017).
Projects by their nature are dynamic, complex, sociotechnical systems (i.e., inter-
actions between humans and technology) consisting of many highly interconnected
components (Baccarini 1996; Carley et al. 2007). A complex system is defined by
the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) as: “A system is complex if it is not possible to
establish an accurate prediction model of the system based on knowing the specific
functions and states of its individual components” (Aven et al. 2018). Project com-
plexity increases significantly as the number of elements, interactions, and interde-
pendencies expands (Elonen and Artto 2003). Accurately addressing issues that arise
can be arduous because of the cause and its resulting effect not occurring in time and
space proximity (Repenning and Sterman 2001). Compounding this are the nonlin-
earities inherent in human behavior, where a wrong attribution of cause can give rise
to what can be described as “wicked messes” (Roth and Senge 1996). These “wicked
messes” arise from human judgment being subject to systematic errors, where the
need to carefully analyze information is traded against the pressure to make a timely
decision (Skitmore et al. 1989). Flyvbjerg et al. found that many project failures are
caused in part by human behavior (Flyvbjerg et al. 2009). Behaviors are difficult to
measure, creating problems for project teams and other stakeholders (Dargin 2013).
Introduction 3
1.3 INTANGIBLE RISK FACTORS

The United Kingdom (UK) Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) issued a report in March of
2017 entitled “Lessons Learned from UKCS Oil and Gas Projects 2011-2016.” OGA
found that “since 2011 fewer than 25% of oil and gas projects have delivered on time,
with projects averaging 10 months delay and coming in 35% over budget.” The UKCS
(operations in the North Sea) is one of the most mature offshore oil and gas regions
in the world; ca. 100 fields have been developed, beginning with the West Sole field
starting production in 1967. The report went on to say that “it was concluded that it is
not necessarily ‘what’ was being built that greatly influenced the cost and schedule
outcome of a project, but more ‘how’ the project was executed. Many of the reasons
for deviation are non-technical in nature” (OGA 2017). These nontechnical issues will
be referred to in this book as “behavior-centric intangible risks.”
The Cambridge English Dictionary has defined intangible as “influencing [one]
but not able to be seen or physically felt” (Cambridge Dictionary Online). In the
literature, the topic of intangibles has predominately focused on intellectual capi-
tal (O’Donnell et al. 2003), intangible asset valuation (Nichita 2019; Saunders and
Brynjolfsson 2016), and emergent technology or regulation (Foxon et al. 2005).
Demmel and Askin proposed the identification and inclusion of value-adding intan-
gibles (e.g., increased flexibility, reduced lead times, etc.) when making investment
in technology for manufacturing processes (Demmel and Askin 1992). In his book
Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting, Baruch Lev defined intan-
gible assets as “non-physical sources of value (claims to future benefits) generated
by innovation (discovery), unique to organizational designs or human resource prac-
tices” (Lev 2001). However, literature regarding intangible risks in projects is scant,
and what exists tends to focus on discrete topics. Hofman et al. defined intangible
risk as “emerging or negative phenomena,” which includes issues such as interper-
sonal conflict and lack of appropriate resources (Hofman et al. 2017). Others have
highlighted the quality of management (Jonas et al. 2013), unclear roles and respon-
sibilities (Sanchez et al. 2009), preoccupation with personal interests (Beringer et al.
2013), unclear or conflicting priorities (Blichfeldt and Eskerod 2008), lack of end-
user involvement, and unclear objectives (Morris 2008). Thamhaim and Wilemon
addressed conflict caused by interpretation of procedures on the basis of cost and/or
schedule estimates (Thamhaim and Wilemon 1975). This list of intangible factors
can be divided into two interrelated groups, behavior-centric factors (interpersonal
conflict) and causal factors (unclear or conflicting priorities); however, the literature
lacks a clear distinction between the two.
In aviation accident investigation and processing-plant operational safety (e.g.,
chemical, refining, etc.), human actions are considered the highest contributor to
failure because of the complex interaction of humans and technology. Because of
this inherent complexity, these sociotechnical interactions are viewed as nonlinear
systems or “causal webs” (O’Hare 2000; Rasmussen 1997). Rasmussen recognized
the intangible implications of behavior in the context of safety risk in processing-
plant environments. His conceptual framework—the dynamic model of safety and
system performance—is a ternary model of constraints (economic, workload, and
performance), with behavioral reactions within these boundaries exhibiting random
responses or “Brownian movements.” These movements are the result of interactions

among management’s expectations of efficiency, the implications on agent workload,
and agent response to this potential increase in effort. Rasmussen referred to these
interactions as “gradients.” However, he recognized, “the problem is that all work
situations leave many degrees of freedom to the actors for choice of means and time
for action even when the objectives of work are fulfilled and a task instruction or stan-
dard operating procedure in terms of a sequence of acts cannot be used as a reference
of judging behavior.” Rasmussen went on to say that “we need a framework for iden-
tification of the objectives, value structures, and subjective preferences governing the
behavior within the degrees of freedom faced by the individual decision maker and
actor” (Rasmussen 1997). These interactions or gradients can be conceptualized as a
network of interacting networks, a metanetwork, within an organization.
Currently, there is no any quantitative framework available to identify and analyze
intangible factors or “subjective preferences governing behaviors” in projects. To address
this gap, metanetwork analysis (MNA) is proposed. MNA is an extension of traditional
social network analysis (SNA). SNA has been applied to construction projects to identify
opportunities to enhance project effectiveness within the broader organizational context
by enhancing knowledge transfer and collaboration in project teams (Chinowsky et al.
2008). However, SNA is limited to the assessment of network interactions among indi-
viduals (agents) or social groups. MNA removes this constraint and extends the analyti-
cal capability to multiple networks, providing a means for a comprehensive assessment
of project network elements and interactions (Carley 2002). The metanetwork technique
provides the framework to address the analytical gap in Rasmussen’s conceptual model
by leveraging mathematically robust social network measures.
1.4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR BOOK

Although focused on project delivery, the goal of this book is to provide technical
practitioners (engineering, project management, operations, etc.) and managers with
a rigorous and user-friendly framework to identify behavior-centric intangible risks
and the conditions that initiate them throughout the business cycle. The objectives of
this book are as follows:
1. Provide an analytical framework that can be used in project risk workshops

to effectively identify and assess behavior-centric intangible risks in proj-
ects. This framework can be integrated into existing risk management pro-
cesses for each stage in the project development cycle.
2. Identify appropriate analytical tools and network measures of centrality
(e.g., betweenness, cognitive demand, etc.) to quantify behavior-centric
intangible risks. These measures can be used to provide insights regard-
ing potential organizational or procedural modifications for performance
enhancement.
3. Provide an illustrative case study where the proposed framework is used to
address project performance gaps in a hypothetical company, OilCo. Base
the case study on actual data from projects where the framework was uti-
lized and the resultant recommendations were successfully implemented.
Introduction 5
The proposed framework—intangible risk assessment methodology for projects

(IRAMP)—includes a behavior-oriented intangible risk breakdown structure (IRBS),
a checklist of potential risk causal factors, and a novel risk inducement matrix (RIM)
to link risks to the causal factors that precipitate them. The metanetwork was devel-
oped using existing project documents (organization charts, responsibility matrices,
etc.) and information from project workshops (RIM, etc.). ORA-PRO, a commer-
cially available MNA software package, was used to generate network analysis mea-
sures to assess potential organizational enhancements to address behavior-centric
risk factors and their causal factors.
In 1995, during a review of project performance, Martin Cobb, an employee of the
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, asked a question that has become known as
Cobb’s paradox: “We know why projects fail; we know how to prevent their failure –
so why do they still fail?” (Carl and Freeman 2010). Albert Einstein is credited with
the proverbial statement, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we
used when we created them” (Connolly and Rianoshek 2002). Perhaps the first step
to addressing Cobb’s paradox and Einstein’s proverb is to explore the assertion that
“the intangible is gaining ascendancy over the tangible” (O’Donnell et al. 2003).
Identifying and quantifying the intangible and tangible network elements and their
interdependencies can enhance project outcomes.
1.5 OUTLINE OF BOOK

This book is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and
highlights the objectives of the book. In Chapter 2, the working definitions for the
underlying processes are given, as is an overview of the current methodological
approach. Chapter 3 presents the beginnings of systems theory, moves through
system-of-systems engineering and SNA, and concludes with MNA in sociotechnical
systems. In this chapter, the foundational models developed by previous researchers
(DeLaurentis 2005; Maier 1998; Rasmussen 1997) are extended to projects. The
IRAMP framework for behavior-centric intangible risk assessment is detailed in
Chapter 4. The chapter highlights the IRBS, the causal factor checklist, and the
RIM. Chapter 5 discusses MNA, the system model, and network analysis measures.
Chapter 6 presents an illustrative case study of a project portfolio to illustrate the
methodology developed for this book. The case study identifies the intangible
risks and potential causal factors, develops the IRBS based on actual projects at
various stages of development, and validates the results with working teams and
senior management. Chapter 7 summarizes the major findings of this book, the
contributions to industry, the limitations of the book, and areas for future study of
intangible risks.
2 Setting the Context
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is intended to create a bridge from the current view of project risk
focused on the tangible aspects of risk to the less tangible behavioral dimension
of project risk and uncertainty. The first section provides a common perspective
and definitions for projects and project portfolios. The second section identifies the
common project management frameworks and why the one used in this book was
selected. The third section discusses current risk practice evolution and applications.
The final section discusses intangible risks and their behavioral dimension.
2.2 PROJECTS AND PROJECT PORTFOLIOS

Governments and private-sector companies are faced with the need to deliver an
increasing number of projects, either individually or as a multiproject portfolio, to
accomplish their strategic objectives. Because of this, project and portfolio manage-
ment has become a core competency in many organizations and has been utilized in
several areas beyond the development and delivery of capital projects. Project man-
agement principles are being employed in tasks such as new-product development,
reengineering of internal business processes (Olsson 2008; Pellegrinelli 1997), and
corporate office relocation. This has led to the emergence of the term “projectifica-
tion” (Aubry and Lenfle 2012; National Book Council 2003; Sanchez et al. 2009;
William and Rūta 2017).
It can be said that projects, like the people who work on them, come in many
different shapes and sizes. Projects can be straightforward, consisting of a limited
number of mostly independent tasks that can be accomplished by a small team, or
extremely complicated, consisting of thousands of interdependent tasks requiring
thousands of people in multiple locations. While these attributes provide insight into
the scope and complications of a project, they do not provide a sufficient work-
ing definition. Two of the most well-known professional organizations that provide
training, guidelines, standards, and certification for project and portfolio manage-
ment are the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the United States (US) and the
Association for Project Management (APM) in the UK. Although their definitions
for projects and project management differ slightly, there are essential similarities:
• “A project is a unique, transient endeavour, undertaken to achieve planned

objectives, which could be defined in terms of outputs, outcomes, or ben-
efits. A project is usually deemed to be a success if it achieves the objec-
tives according to their acceptance criteria, within an agreed timescale and
budget” (APM 2012).
DOI: 10.1201/9781003168409-2 7
• “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,

service, or result. The temporary nature of projects indicates that a project
has a definite beginning and end” (PMI 2017).
• “Project management is the application of processes, methods, skills,
knowledge, and experience to achieve specific project objectives according
to the project acceptance criteria within agreed parameters. Project man-
agement has final deliverables that are constrained to a finite timescale and
budget” (APM 2012).
• “Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and tech-
niques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (PMI 2017).
Often, companies manage multiple projects of various sizes and complexities at one
time. Synergistic benefits can exist if they are combined and managed as a portfolio
(Jonas 2010), and the expected value to the firm can be maximized while maintain-
ing an appropriate level of risk (Markowitz 1959). Other benefits of portfolio man-
agement are as follows (Teller and Kock 2013; William and Rūta 2017):
• Aligns the project portfolio with the strategic goals and objectives of the
firm
• Forms a basis for holistic decision-making regarding trade-offs
• Effectively identifies, assesses, and mitigates risk
• Monitors and reports progress in terms of goals and objectives
• Realizes the business objectives
Again, the APM and PMI definitions for portfolio and portfolio management differ
but highlight the important aspects of using this approach:
• “A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes used to structure

and manage investments at an organisational or functional level to opti-
mise strategic benefits or operational efficiency. They can be managed at
an organisational or functional level” (APM 2012).
• “A portfolio is a component collection of programs, projects, or operations
managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives. The portfolio compo-
nents may not necessarily be interdependent or have related objectives.
The portfolio components are quantifiable, that is, they can be measured,
ranked, and prioritized.” (PMI 2013).
• “Portfolio management is the selection, prioritisation and control of an
organisation’s programmes and projects, in line with its strategic objectives
and capacity to deliver” (APM 2012).
• “Portfolio management is the centralized management of one or more port-
folios that enable executive management to meet organizational goals and
objectives through efficient decision making on portfolios, projects, pro-
grams and operations” (PMI 2013).
In summary, the essence of projects, portfolios, and their management is their

uniqueness, their temporary nature, and, in the case of portfolios, their strategic
Setting the Context 9
dimension. Those who work on projects or portfolios of projects must be capable of

planning, coordinating, communicating, and meeting the goals and objectives set
at the time of investment approval. Because projects by their nature evolve from an
initial concept to a finished product, a framework is necessary to ensure consistency
and continuity of all necessary activities.
2.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS

The goal of project management is to deliver a result that meets an agreed schedule,
budget, and level of quality. There are many methodologies or frameworks proposed
to underpin project performance, such as the following well-known frameworks:
• Critical chain project management (CCPM)

• Extreme project management (XPM)/megaproject
• Lean project management
• Projects in controlled environments (PRINCE2)
• Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)
• Scrum
• Waterfall or stage gate
In the US energy sector, many firms utilize the stage-gate process as their project
management framework. The stage-gate process is a decision-driven methodology
for managing a project throughout its life cycle. Each stage represents a series of
activities to increase the level project definition, ending with a gate where the work
completed during the stage is reviewed against predetermined criteria. The gates
are formal decision points to allow management to review the project and decide if
it should proceed to the next development phase, re-cycle the work, or be cancelled.
There is no set rule as to the number of stages; however, a standard process usually
has no more than six (Kerzner 2009). The steps for a typical four-stage process are
as follows:
1. Feasibility study to first assess a project’s economic, operational, and tech-

nical feasibility, then to evaluate as a wide number of realistic concept
options as possible, and then to select the best concept
2. Concept selection (pre-front-end engineering design [pre-FEED]) to fur-
ther develop the selected concept and make it ready to start engineering
definition
3. Engineering definition (front-end engineering design [FEED]) to fully
define the selected concept so that it is absolutely clear what the project is
and how it will be executed, as well as the detailed cost and schedule
4. Execution or implementation, handover, and completion (IHC) to execute
the project as defined, with tight project controls in order to achieve the
final investment decision commitments made in Stage 3
Each project stage requires the completion of various deliverables that collectively
reflect project maturity from initiation to completion. One of these deliverables is
the project risk register, which is expected to identify the risks that were mitigated
during the current stage, as well as those that will be carried into the next stage.
At each gate, the relevant authority decides if the project has completed all of the
deliverables required to proceed to the next stage, if the project is still aligned with
business objectives, and if risks to delivery are being properly managed. If so, then
approval to proceed to the next phase if given; if not, the project is either re-cycled
for further definition or terminated.
However, many times in the early phases of project development, critical issues
are not properly addressed, such as clarity regarding roles and responsibilities, align-
ment of goals and objectives, and clearly defined requirements. Addressing these
issues can create conflict, so they are ignored to avoid any interference with meeting
gate approval timing, with the assumption that gaps will be addressed in the next
stage. Unfortunately, “kicking the can down the road” tends to make things worse as
the project proceeds through the development process.
2.4 RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Projects and portfolios of projects can be at varying stages of development and can
take place in various locations, political settings, and market conditions. Risk identi-
fication and assessment is a methodology to describe the nature, likelihood, and mag-
nitude of impact of a risk associated with an event, action, or set of circumstances.
Risk assessment can be quantitative (e.g., statistical analysis), qualitative (e.g., expert
opinion), or a combination of the two. Risks are normally identified using a work-
shop format with all stakeholders, in which the group is asked to provide input on
questions like these:
• What are the opportunities or threats to project delivery?

• What are the causal factors?
• What are the impacts?
• What is the probability of occurrence (high, medium, low)?
In most instances, the focus of risk management is on the physical nature of the
project and on the traditional quantitative “lagging” indicators associated with the
“iron triangle” (cost, schedule, and scope). PMI has identified the components of risk
in terms of value, funding, market, data accuracy, time, cost, and scope (PMI 2017).
However, Clark-Ginsburg et al. asserted that the current linear approach to quantify
the value implication of a risk (impact × probability) does not adequately consider
the nonlinear risk attributes of the overall system (Clark-Ginsberg et al. 2018).
Risk has been a research topic since the end of World War II, with the first
academic books published in the 1960s (Dionne 2013). In response to the need
for ensuring that projects met their schedule requirements, two methods emerged
somewhat simultaneously in the late 1950s: program evaluation and review tech-
nique (PERT) and critical path method (CPM). PERT and CPM have similar for-
mats: PERT charts were created for the US Navy Polaris missile, while the CPM
was developed by DuPont to analyze the implications of trading cost for accelerat-
ing a schedule (Archibald 2017; Engwall 2012). Both are based on decomposition
of the project into activities and utilize a linear flow-and-sequence format. PERT
and CPM provide a basis for identifying the activities vital to meeting objectives,
providing a basis for identification and management of risk.
Risk, in general terms, can be viewed as the implications of an activity, along with
its associated uncertainties on an outcome. PMI has defined risk as “an uncertain
event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project’s
objectives” (PMI 2017). PMI has separated project risk into two categories: indi-
vidual project risk and overall project risk. Individual risks tend to be those managed
on a day-to-day basis and may not have a direct impact on the project cost, schedule,
scope, and/or quality. Some examples of individual risks would be a delay in mate-
rial arrival to a job site, weld rejection rate, productivity of labor, etc. Overall project
risk is the aggregate effect of uncertainty on the project as a whole and deals with the
broader project environment, such as labor action, social unrest, commodity price
fluctuation, etc. (PMI 2017). Consequently, risk should be regarded as a persistent
presence for the duration of any activity. The SRA has defined risk management as
“activities to handle risk such as prevention, mitigation, adaptation or sharing” that
“often [include] trade-offs between costs and benefits of risk reduction and choice of
a level of tolerable risk” (Aven et al. 2018). To accomplish this, a cyclic process with
the following steps is used:
1. Identify risks
2. Assess and prioritize risks
3. Group risks by risk breakdown structure (RBS) category
4. Identify leading and lagging indicators and risk responses
5. Monitor, close out, and adjust as required
Project risk has been studied through many lenses, such as Bayesian methods (Govan
2014), systems dynamics (Rodrigues 2001), neural networks (Skorupka 2004), fuzzy
logic, and the analytical hierarchy process (Zhang and Zou 2007). However, these
approaches have assumptions that are limiting. For instance, the analytical hierar-
chy process assumes that the risks act in isolation, and Bayesian methods do not
consider closed-loop systems (Wang et al. 2018). Although project risk management
has been recognized as an integral part of project management for decades and has
experienced many analytical advances, many projects still do not meet their objec-
tives. This performance gap has been attributed to an overemphasis on techniques
rather than effective identification and assessment of risks (Chapman 2001), as well
as utilizing approaches that are steeped in linear sequential thinking (Schroeder and
Jackson 2007).
The objective of managing projects as a portfolio is to maximize the expected
value to the firm while maintaining an appropriate level of risk (Markowitz 1959)
and achievement of the organization’s strategic goals (Sanchez et al. 2009). Although
the literature regarding financial portfolio risk is extensive, research in the context
of project portfolio risk is limited (Teller et al. 2014). While the basic definition of
risk is the same for projects and portfolios, the overall portfolio risk exposure is
greater than the sum of the affiliated projects’ risks (i.e., component risks). These
additional sources of risk come from the mix of projects comprising the portfolio
and the potential interactions among them (i.e., structural risks), as well as the emer-
gence of one or more overarching risks precipitated by the interaction among the
component risks (i.e., overall risks). Consequently, the approach to risk management
in a portfolio requires a broader systemic approach to risk identification, assessment,
and management when compared to individual project requirements (Olsson 2008;
Teller and Kock 2013).
Projects are developed and delivered by people, and it is fair to say that
people are significant contributors of complexity. We depend on the individual to
consistently and continually communicate effectively, cooperate, work altruistically,
etc. Scott Adams, the creator of the cartoon Dilbert, once said, “Nothing defines
humans better than their willingness to do irrational things” (BrainyQuote n.d.).
Consequently, intangible factors by their nature influence projects in ways that are
difficult to quantify.
2.5 INTANGIBLE RISK

In this book, project intangible risk is defined as a nonphysical event or condition
precipitated by antecedent conditions that are unique to the firm’s administrative
and organizational constructs, stakeholder composition, or culture and that can have
a positive or negative effect on project objectives should it occur. Projects are devel-
oped and delivered in the context of company culture by teams of stakeholders where
barriers, biases, and internal controls can adversely impact trust; if this occurs, then
it is possible for dysfunctional behaviors to arise (Atkinson et al. 2006; Lencioni
2007). Portfolio risk management has a distributed dimension, creating multiple
interfaces that change as the various projects move along the development time-
line (Levin and Wyzalek 2015). However, existing risk identification and assessment
techniques primarily focus on tangible processes, tasks, and tools, while the qualita-
tive behavioral implications tend to be generalized (e.g., conflict) if discussed at all.
Unlike their tangible counterparts, the less tangible areas, such as cooperation and
dealing with interpersonal tensions, tend not to have response plans to address them
(Beringer et al. 2013; Jonas et al. 2013). Teller and Kock asserted the need for for-
malization (standard approaches for tools, policies, procedures, processes, etc.) as a
means to enhance quality (e.g., avoidance of conflict by efficient resource allocation)
and cooperation. They went on to mention the potential implications of bureaucracy,
but did not expand on what these might entail or impact (Teller and Kock 2013).
This underscores the need for project and project portfolio risk management to adopt
a broader perspective and a more holistic approach that goes beyond the manage-
ment of tangible project risks (Hofman et al. 2017; Olsson 2008; Pellegrinelli 1997).
While project and project portfolio risk identification, assessment, and management
are considered important dimensions of the management process (De Reyck et al.
2005; Teller and Kock 2013; William and Rūta 2017), they do not directly address
the intangible risks associated with stakeholder behaviors, motivations, and culture.
The empirical evidence for intangible risks in general is sparse, and what exists
tends to be conceptual, with minimal focus on behaviors and the causal factors that
influence them. Even when behavior-centric intangible risk (e.g., conflict) is pre-
sented, frameworks to systematically identify and provide a level of measure are not
attendant. The actions of project teams blocking each other and displaying oppor-
tunistic behavior with regard to resources is mentioned, but empirical evidence is
lacking (Jonas et al. 2013). Others have identified the clarity of roles, stakeholder
misalignment, coordination between projects, conflicting project objectives, lack of
cross-functional teamwork, and interpersonal conflicts as having effects at the port-
folio level (Beringer et al. 2013; De Reyck et al. 2005; Hofman et al. 2017). Although
behavioral conditions have been identified generally (interpersonal conflict) and
causal events specifically (conflicting project objectives), there is no information
regarding how they might emerge and interact, how to proactively address, or how
to analyze them.
2.5.1 Behavior-Centric Intangible Risk

The ability to classify and quantify uncertainty is an important dimension of risk
assessment. Unlike the valuing of intangible assets such as intellectual capital
(O’Donnell et al. 2003), behavior-centric intangible risks by their nature cannot
be easily quantified and require a departure from the existing assessment meth-
ods (Barber 2005). In their paper “A Multiple-Objective Decision Model for the
Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing System Technologies,” Johann Demmel
and Ronald Askin asserted that the traditional approach to investment decision-
making using quantitative financial metrics is an “oversimplification.” They went on
to propose a multiobjective decision model that factors intangible benefits into the
decision-making process. This approach allowed them to account for manufacturing
intangibles such as “greater flexibility, shorter lead time, and increased knowledge in
the use of new technologies” (Demmel and Askin 1992). The inclusion of intangibles
in the decision-making process can be extended to intangible risk factors in projects
and portfolios. However, methods for assessing the implications of issues like out-
sourcing on project stakeholder performance or the future impacts of misaligned pri-
orities are exiguous in the current literature (Nogeste and Walker 2005). Therefore,
an opportunity exists to extend the RBS to the behavior-centric intangible factors
that impact stakeholder performance throughout the project life cycle.
Behavior-centric intangible factors are a surreptitious weakness for people and
teams. Anthropological and sociological studies have shown that social networks
impact the attitudes of individuals, as well as the way they perceive the rules of
acceptable interaction (Bienenstock et al. 1990). Because of this, the ways that
people interpret and respond to situations are highly personal and deeply rooted in
strong emotions, past experiences, and personal values. This complexity increases
as individuals are assembled in teams, with each individual interpreting interactions
with others differently (Dargin 2013). Agent-based modeling is an emerging area
of study for addressing cognitive patterns; however, Macal and North highlighted
the limitations of agent-based modeling. They pointed out that “the fundamental
assumption … that people and their social interactions can be credibly modeled at
some reasonable level of abstraction for at least specific and well-defined purposes,
if not in general” (Macal and North 2010), is tenuous at best. Professional sports are
an area where intangibles are widely discussed. It is possible for coaches and staff to
judge a player by the numbers; however, the ability to measure attributes like passion,
heart, personality, team chemistry, etc. remains elusive. Aaron Shatz, founder of
Football Outsiders, summed this up quite well: “The intangibles are important, and
we just don’t have numbers for that” (Sauser 2009). Consequently, there is no gener-
alized formula or spreadsheet to quantify the implication of how individuals within
teams react to change, their ability to effectively adapt their behaviors or actions, or
how under- or overconfident they are (Dargin 2013).
The importance of teamwork can be seen across society, from athletics to aca-
demics to government to business. There is a seemingly endless supply of literature
regarding teamwork; the PMI library alone has more than 1,000 publications on the
topic. While the requirements and definitions regarding teamwork differ, there is
agreement that teamwork is the ultimate source of competitive advantage (Lencioni
2007; Salas et al. 2015). While a detailed assessment of teamwork is outside the scope
of this book, a general review of the literature is presented. In this context, teamwork
is defined as “a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically,
interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mis-
sion” (Salas et al. 2015). In their review of the literature, Rousseau et al. identified
29 different frameworks identifying the dimensions of team behaviors (Rousseau et
al. 2006). Salas et al. proposed a framework composed of “core processes (composi-
tion, culture, and context) and emergent states (cooperation, conflict, coordination,
communication, coaching, and cognition).” They provided definitions and expected
results from the existence of these processes and states, but provided no means to
objectively determine their presence in a team (Salas et al. 2015). Lencioni explored
the effectiveness of teams from the perspective of the presence or absence of dys-
functional behavior in the following five dimensions: “trust, conflict, commitment,
accountability, and results” (Lencioni 2007). Unlike other frameworks, Lencioni’s
work provided a rubric to assess team behaviors.
Human emotions and cognition are themselves dynamic nonlinear systems
(Afraimovich et al. 2011). Because projects are developed and delivered by teams
of people, it stands to reason that risks have emotional and cognitive dimensions.
This accentuates the importance of understanding behavior-centric intangible fac-
tors, which by their nature influence the work environment in ways that are diffi-
cult to quantify. Behavior-centric intangible risks can manifest themselves in human
interactions and can impact an individual’s ability to adapt, utilize experience, com-
municate, cooperate, adapt to culture, work effectively as a team, and engage in inter-
personal relationships, leadership, innovation, and conflict resolution (Bankolli and
Jain 2014; Nogeste and Derek 2008; Thamhaim and Wilemon 1975). However, many
important project causal factors can be associated with internal procedures (Barber
2005) and the project management process itself (Ward and Chapman 1995). These
nonlinear manifestations can cause fundamental changes in the network dynamics,
such as spreading or cascading of a particular risk or risks, leading to unexpected
outcomes (Yuan et al. 2018). These manifestations are likely to increase as auto-
mation and artificial intelligence make social, emotional, and cognitive skills more
important. Therefore, behavior-centric intangible risks should be viewed as an open-
system phenomenon (Clark-Ginsberg et al. 2018).
Current methods for the identification and prioritization of risks are linear in
nature and cannot accommodate the dynamic aspects of human behavior and their
causal factors (Clark-Ginsberg et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018). Risk classification is
process-focused (Tah and Carr 2001), and the categorization of behavior-centric
intangible risks, if addressed at all, is done at a high level. Empirical studies (pri-
marily interview or survey) have focused on a specific behavior-centric intangible
risk factor such as the issues arising from resource allocation (Sanchez et al. 2009),
management interaction (Beringer et al. 2013), and managing conflict (Brockman
2014; Gardiner and Simmons 1992; Thamhaim and Wilemon 1975). Thamhaim
and Wilemon found that behavior-centric intangible risks can vary throughout the
project cycle. During the initial stages where project requirements are being devel-
oped, input from key stakeholders is crucial; during the execution stage, appropriate
resource assignment is critical for project success (Thamhaim and Wilemon 1975;
Ward and Chapman 1995). However, there is no integrated approach for the develop-
ment, classification, categorization, and prioritization of intangible risks in projects
or project portfolios.
The existing literature regarding behavior-centric intangible risk in projects is
sparse and almost nonexistent when looking at project portfolios. What does exist
in the current literature tends to focus on the implications of individual behavior-
centric intangible risk factors, many times characterized generally as conflict or
interpersonal behavior, on project and portfolio performance (Hofman et al. 2017;
Olsson 2008; Sanchez et al. 2009; Teller et al. 2014). There are many stakeholder
perceptions and responses having differing relationships with each other that can
lead to the occurrence of intangible risk (Yuan et al. 2018). Effective identification
and management of these potential intangible risks require the ability to identify
their multifaceted interaction.
2.6 SUMMARY
Project management is an enabler for the delivery of strategy in multiple sectors of
society. Working definitions for projects, portfolios of projects, and their management
have been presented by different groups and researchers. Various project manage-
ment frameworks exist in the literature and in business environments, such as the
use of the structured stage-gate assurance system. The management of risk is foun-
dational to delivering agreed project objectives and requires a much more holistic
approach in the case of portfolios of projects. However, current risk management
practices tend to focus on the tangible risks associated with cost, schedule, scope,
and quality. Projects are developed and delivered in the context of company culture
by teams of stakeholders where barriers, biases, and internal controls can adversely
impact trust; if this occurs, then it is possible for dysfunctional behaviors to arise.
The ability to identify, quantify, and manage these less tangible factors is highly
important to project success, but is absent in the current frameworks. The concept
of behavior-centric intangible risk is of particular importance. This work seeks to
provide project professionals and company management with a holistic approach to
assessing intangible risks, as well as a user-friendly and comprehensive framework
to specifically address the evolution of intangible risks throughout the project
development process.
3 Systems, Networks, and
Metanetwork Analysis
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Leonardo Di Vinci said that we must “realize that everything connects to everything
else.” (Quotefancy n.d.). This statement provides an underpinning philosophy for
systems theory and network analysis; a holistic perspective is needed. This chapter
is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the development of general
systems theory (GST), system-of-systems engineering, and Social Network Analysis
(SNA), concluding with an introduction to Meta-network Analysis (MNA). The
MNA framework for the assessment of behavior-centric intangible risks is presented
in subsequent chapters. The terms “system of systems” and “network of networks”
will be used interchangeably throughout the text.
3.2 SYSTEMS THEORY

The scientific study of systems has its origin in the quest to discover the laws of bio-
logical phenomena. In the late 1920s, Ludwig von Bertalanffy recognized the need for
holistic assessment and wrote, “Since the fundamental character of the living thing is
its organization, the customary investigation of the single parts and processes cannot
provide a complete explanation of the vital phenomena. This investigation gives us no
information about the coordination of parts and processes.” This led to the systems
theory of the organism and became the basis for what is now referred to as GST (Klir
1972). GST provides a framework to understand the nature of systems based on the
premise that the interaction of independent elements leads to increasing interdepen-
dence and a reduction of each element’s autonomy.
Modern systems theory, or systems science, manifests itself in many subfields of
study; however, in general, it provides an interdisciplinary framework to investigate
the attributes of complex environmental, social, and technical systems that collectively
interact to produce a result (Skyttner 2006). The IEEE Standard Glossary of Software
Engineering Terminology has defined a system as “a collection of components orga-
nized to accomplish a specific function or set of functions” (Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers [IEEE] 1990). Systems can be described as simple, com-
plicated, or complex. Simple systems are those with a singular solution achieved by a
single path. Outcomes are predictable, and the relationship between cause and effect
is known. Complicated systems are those where there can be multiple paths to a single
solution, but cause and effect are separated by time and space. Complex systems have
multiple paths and solutions, along with emergent properties (Schloss 2014), which are
byproducts of the interactions and interdependencies of system elements and are both
DOI: 10.1201/9781003168409-3 17
unforeseeable and unattributable (Zhu and Mostafavi 2017). In this complex environ-
ment, traditional planning and assessment tools are not effective (Schloss 2014). To
illustrate this, a small ecosystem can be compared to what the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) has described as the most complicated machine
ever built—the space shuttle—which “has more than 2.5 million parts, including
almost 370 kilometers (230 miles) of wire, more than 1,060 plumbing valves and con-
nections, over 1,440 circuit breakers, and more than 27,000 insulating tiles and ther-
mal blankets” (NASA 2010). While the space shuttle is truly an engineering marvel,
the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, the whole is static, and its outputs are highly
predictable. However, the ecosystem of a small pond exhibits a completely different
dynamic. A change in the food chain, the climate, or human intrusion can have adap-
tive and emergent effects that cannot be predicted, making the resulting whole can be
greater than the sum of its parts (e.g., emergence of new species). While both of these
examples are a collection of components that accomplish a particular function, the
space shuttle is considered a complicated system, while the small pond is a complex
system given its propensity for adaptation and emergent behavior.
3.2.1 System-of-Systems Engineering
The term system of systems is used in industries ranging from healthcare to aero-
space; however, a proper demarcation between a conventional monolithic system
(e.g., space shuttle) and a system of systems (e.g., a pond) is elusive (DeLaurentis
2005; Maier 1998). Monolithic systems are based on the reductionist view given
the following assumptions: (a) independent components that cannot operate on their
own, (b) no distortion in the results due to analyzing each component separately, (c)
component performance individually or collectively being the same, (d) no nonlinear
interactions or feedback loops, and behaviors being treated as distinct events over
time (Leveson 2017). A simple example of a monolithic system is a traditional watch.
A system of systems, on the other hand, is a collection of interacting systems that
can perform an independent stand-alone function, as well as interact with the others
as a single entity. In light of this, Maier proposed five characteristics to differentiate
a system of systems from a monolithic system: operational independence, manage-
rial independence, emergent behaviors, evolutionary development, and geographic
distribution (Maier 1998). Maier’s definition of these terms are shown below.
• Operational independence of the components is defined as the component

systems being able to operate independently (Maier 1998). In the context of
project risk management, these components can be defined as stakeholder
groups that must operate independently of each other (e.g., engineering, opera-
tions, etc.) and policies and procedures that are a stand-alone ubiquitous pres-
ence. Various stakeholders working together within the boundaries of policies
and procedures enhances the probability that a project will meet its objectives.
• Managerial independence of the components indicates that the component
systems operate independently regardless of being integrated in the system of
systems (Maier 1998). In the project context, this can be seen in a distributed
management structure. Project managers or portfolio managers must rely on
Systems, Networks, and Metanetwork Analysis 19
the managers of support groups to make decisions within their disciplines (Ford
and Randolph 1992; Rousseau et al. 2006). All of these components are man-
aged independently, but must deliver in concert to achieve project objectives.
• Emergent behaviors are defined as events that cannot be predicted from
existing knowledge of the system’s subsystems (DeLaurentis 2005).
Emergence is the phenomenon that makes a system of systems greater than
the sum of its constituent parts (Sage and Cuppan 2001). In projects, behav-
iors emerge because of intangible factors including culture of the organiza-
tion, beliefs of the human agents, interactions among them, and the firm’s
political landscape (Ancona et al. 1999; Rousseau et al. 2006). These causal
factors cause human agents to adapt to changes in the environment and
can precipitate behavioral responses (Cook and Rasmussen 2005). The
behavior-centric responses can impact the project outcomes.
• Evolutionary development has been defined by DeLaurentis and
Ayyalasomayajula as the “system of systems [being] never completely,
finally formed; it constantly changes and has a ‘porous’ problem boundary”
(DeLaurentis and Ayyalasomayajula 2009). Sage and Cuppan pointed
out that the “development of these systems is evolutionary over time
and with structure, function and purpose added, removed, and modified
as experience with the system grows and evolves over time” (Sage and
Cuppan 2001). PMI has described the evolution of a project as progres-
sive elaboration, which involves continuously improving and detailing a
plan as more specific information and accurate estimates become available.
Progressive elaboration allows a project management team to define work
and manage it to a greater level of detail as the project evolves (PMI 2017).
The project stage gate process detailed earlier is a visual representation of
this evolution.
• Geographic distribution has been defined by DeLaurentis and
Ayyalasomayajula as “constituent systems [that] are not physically co-
located, but [that] can communicate” (DeLaurentis and Ayyalasomayajula
2009). In large energy projects, it is not uncommon for the engineering to
take place in one location, the fabrication of the facilities to be in at least
one other location, and the installation in another. While communication
efficiency can vary, there are a number of technologies available for project
teams and contractors to effectively interact.
In addition to its characteristics, each system of systems can be considered unique

(DeLaurentis 2005) with regard to the way it is managed. Maier presented three
approaches to managing a system of systems, directed, collaborative, and virtual:
• “Directed systems-of-systems are those in which the integrated system-of-

systems is built and managed to fulfill specific purposes. It is centrally man-
aged during long-term operation to continue to fulfill those purposes and
any new ones the system owners may wish to address. The component sys-
tems maintain an ability to operate independently, but their normal opera-
tional mode is subordinated to the central managed purpose” (Maier 1998).
• “Collaborative systems-of-systems are distinct from directed systems in

that the central management organization does not have coercive power to
run the system. The component systems must, more or less, voluntarily col-
laborate to fulfill the agreed upon central purposes” (Maier 1998).
• “Virtual systems-of-systems lack both a central management authority and
centrally agreed upon purposes. Large-scale behavior emerges, and may be
desirable, but the supersystem must rely upon relatively invisible mechanisms
to maintain it. A virtual system may be deliberate or accidental” (Maier 1998).
A system of systems will exhibit all of the aforementioned characteristics and levels
of management control to some extent. Based on previous work (Maier 1998; Schloss
2014), a project can be classified as a complex system of systems. However, projects
have a social network dimension in that they are defined, developed, and delivered
by a potentially diverse group of human agents. The focus of systems science is on
the technical dimension of projects, but the interaction of human agents must be
accounted for; this is the focus of network science.
3.3 NETWORK SCIENCE

Systems involving human agents can be expressed as social networks. Network
theory provides insight into social interactions such as the communication of infor-
mation or knowledge and the implications of social groups on individual behavior.
Network science is one of the few fields that is able to trace its genesis to a specific
historical event. Graph theory, the mathematical foundation of network science, was
introduced by Leonard Euler in 1736 as a means to address a contemporary math-
ematical enigma: was it possible to walk across the seven bridges of the city of
Konigsberg, Prussia without crossing any bridge more than once? Using a graph
composed of edges (links) and vertices (nodes), Euler proved it impossible. His nega-
tive solution was published in a document entitled “Seven Bridges of Konigsberg.”
However, while his objective was to address the puzzle, his work accentuated the
principle that networks have predisposed properties inherent in their structures that
affect their behaviors (Barabási 2016). The use of graph techniques provides a basis
for the visualization and statistical assessment of networks (Merrill et al. 2007).
Modern network analysis emerged as a field of academic inquiry in the 1970s.
The initial focus was to understand the inherent complexities of social networks
(personal and professional) to assess how information is transmitted. This was
accomplished by representing the system elements (people and whom they interact
with) as nodes (people) and edges (lines showing the connections). The discipline
further expanded into areas such as cascading failures in power grids, biological
and ecological systems, and trade networks (Barabási 2016). Construction projects
in the oil and gas sector can be viewed as complex networks with many interconnec-
tions and interactions among people, resources, and activities (Zhu and Mostafavi
2017). A portfolio containing many projects in multiple locations at various stages
of development with multiple heterogeneous stakeholders and interaction among the
individual projects creates another level of complexity beyond the capability of tra-
ditional network analysis techniques (Carley et al. 2007). Carley pointed out that
Systems, Networks, and Metanetwork Analysis 21
combining the social network and project management perspectives is necessary

to analytically assess the dynamic complexity resulting from the interactions of a
heterogeneous network of networks (Carley 2002).
3.3.1 Sociotechnical Networks
Major accident assessment is another area of study in which the complexity of socio-
technical systems exists. O’Hare proposed the “wheel of misfortune” to concep-
tualize the interactions among aircraft technology, human agents, tasks, policies,
local actions, procedures, and philosophies specific to aviation accident investiga-
tion (O’Hare 2000). In the arena of industrial-plant operational safety, Rasmussen
conceptualized the interaction between human agents and plant technology as a
dynamic model of safety and system performance. His framework (discussed in fur-
ther detail in Chapter 4) presents three constraints (economic, workload, and per-
formance), with operating points being influenced by the subjective preferences of
the human agents. Rasmussen referred to human actions as exhibiting Brownian
movements within a space of possibilities. As human agents make choices given the
influence of the aforementioned constraints, it is possible to become complacent with
regard to safety factor margins, eventually breeching the boundary of safe opera-
tions (Rasmussen referred to this as the boundary of functionally acceptable perfor-
mance) and causing a major accident to occur (Rasmussen 1997).
Both Rasmussen and O’Hare believed that existing tools used for risk assessment
and accident investigation are not sufficient for use in sociotechnical systems given their
complex nonlinear (or causal web) nature. While neither of their conceptual models
directly addresses human behavior, they recognized it as being “idiosyncratic and unpre-
dictable,” where a seemingly innocuous decision to deviate from a standard activity can
lead to a catastrophic event (O’Hare 2000; Rasmussen 1997). Projects face a dynamic
similar to Rasmussen’s safety and systems model, where multiple influences (sched-
ule constraints, workloads, and cost control) exist within the overall delivery network.
O’Hare’s and Rasmussen’s models of complex dynamic networks are conceptual and
do not provide a means to quantify the forces working within the boundary constraints.
Carley, on the other hand, proposed an analytic approach to assessing multiple interact-
ing networks using the metanetwork construct and network simulation (Carley 2002).
3.3.2 Metanetwork Analysis
The metanetwork (i.e., a network of networks) is a framework that is useful in repre-
senting the interactions among various entities. The fundamental building blocks of
networks are nodes that can represent tasks, agents, information, resources, etc. in
organizations, and their interactions are referred to as links. Carley proposed a gen-
eral model consisting of ten interlinked networks to assess how changes in one net-
work impact the others in the metanetwork (Carley 2002). Once these networks are
combined, the inherent metanetwork complexity can be quantitatively assessed in
terms of the individual elements and their interactions. Taking this approach makes
available a number of existing SNA measures that are widely accepted and have
been quantitatively validated. The metamatrix construct put forth by Carley et al.
TABLE 3.1
Generic Metamatrix (National Book Council 2003)
Agents Knowledge Tasks Organizations
Agents Social network Knowledge network Attendance network Membership network
Knowledge Information network Needs network Organizational capability
Tasks Temporal ordering Institutional support/attack
Organizations Interorganizational network
is shown in Table 3.1 and is composed of ten individual subnetworks (Carley et al.
2007). For example, the social network identifies who works with whom, while the
attendance network identifies who works on what tasks, and the temporal ordering
network identifies which tasks are interdependent. The metamatrix can be extended
to analyze multiple sociotechnical networks and assess topics such the adequacy
of resources for employees to perform their work or to identify problems with how
information flows within an organization (Carley et al. 2007).
Li et al. recognized the implications of the project delivery environment and
the complexity of human interactions to not be adequately addressed in traditional
approaches to the allocation of tasks in projects. They extended the metanetwork to
construction projects using a six-network construct of agents, knowledge, and tasks
(Li et al. 2015). Wang et al. highlighted the role of tangible risk factors (e.g., con-
struction quality, not following procedures, etc.) in industrialized building construc-
tion projects (Wang et al. 2018). Others have utilized a ten-network metanetwork
(agent, information, resource, task) to assess construction project performance under
uncertainty (Zhu and Mostafavi 2017). In this book, the metanetwork construct is
extended to include behavior-centric intangible risks, their potential causal factors,
and a method to analyze and provide measures to make the intangible tangible.
3.4 SUMMARY
Rasmussen’s dynamic model of safety and system performance is a functional abstrac-
tion of commercial plant operations activities being bounded by economic, workload,
and performance requirements that influence the behavior (i.e., causal factors) of the
people within the system. Projects and portfolios have similar boundary conditions and
behavioral responses. Consequently, plant operations safety and project execution can
be conceptualized as a number of interacting systems with a human behavior dimen-
sion. MNA can be used to model either of these as a system of networks composed
of multiple nodes and links. The nodes can be people (i.e., agents); knowledge, equip-
ment, objectives, or actions (i.e., behaviors); tasks or events (i.e., risk factors); or organi-
zations. MNA provides a means to express complex relationships and has been utilized
for project management in the areas of resilience (Zhu and Mostafavi 2017), tangible
risk factors (e.g., construction quality, not following procedures, etc.) in industrialized
building construction projects (Wang et al. 2018), and task assignment (Li et al. 2015).
Therefore, the use of MNA creates the opportunity to utilize existing SNA measures to
objectively assess causal factors and their behavior-centric responses.
4 Intangible Risk
Assessment
Methodology for Projects
4.1 INTRODUCTION
There is an African proverb that says the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a
time. This concept of decomposition can be traced back to the earliest of the reduc-
tionist philosophers, Thales of Miletus (ca. 600 BC). His underlying hypothesis of
water being the fundamental substance from which everything else is composed
laid the foundation for looking at the world from an atomistic perspective. In sci-
ence and engineering, this approach is referred to as analytic reductionism and has
been the conventional approach to address complex systems. This process simply
decomposes the system into physical, functional, and behavioral components, ana-
lyzes each individually, and then recombines them to get an overall result; said
another way, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. While the role of behavior is
recognized, it is treated as distinct events occurring over time and not as a continu-
ous flow of influence. This approach rests on the assumption of independence of
subelements. There is no distortion in the results because of analyzing each com-
ponent separately; the components’ performance is the same whether operating
individually or as part of the system, and there are no nonlinear interactions or
feedback loops (Leveson 2017). The use of decomposition to address complexity
has become somewhat of a dogma in project assessment; however, in light of the
current state of project performance, a more integrative or gestalt-like approach
must be considered.
Currently, decomposition of a project into its subsystems (work breakdown
structure [WBS]) or risks (RBS) to a detailed level is common practice. These
approaches are extremely useful but tend to be highly prescriptive and mecha-
nistic, with disproportionate emphasis placed on the techniques of the process
(Chapman 2001). A project by its nature is a complex sociotechnical system of sys-
tems, where feedback loops, adaptive behaviors, and emergent properties make the
whole greater than the sum of its constituent parts. This stands somewhat in oppo-
sition to the current approaches that are both linear and decomposition-focused,
which must be supplemented if they are to be useful. Consequently, risk processes
and tools must address complexity to effectively identify and assess the project
risk landscape. Examining projects as systems of systems is foundational to the
development of tools and techniques to assess performance in complex projects
(Zhu and Mostafavi 2014). The proposed intangible risk assessment methodology
DOI: 10.1201/9781003168409-4 23
for projects ( IRAMP) framework begins with the common practice of decomposi-
tion and extends it to the emergent and nonlinear dimension of behavior-centric
intangible risks.
The RBS is a source-oriented grouping of risks that organizes and defines the
total risk exposure of the project or business. Each descending level represents an
increasingly detailed definition of the sources of risk (Hillson 2003), providing the
project team with the ability to develop a detailed response plan to proactively man-
aged potential threats. The RBS is considered an extension of systems theory in
that it provides a forum for multiple disciplines (e.g., engineering, procurement,
safety, etc.) to identify the implications of events from various perspectives. This
approach, if all stakeholders are effectively engaged, can be highly effective in the
identification of project or portfolio risks (Chapman 2001). The RBS is a hierarchical
tree structure similar in format and utility to the WBS. The WBS has the ability to
significantly influence the project management process by decomposing all project
work packages into manageable levels of detail. Like the WBS, the RBS provides a
structure on which the entire risk management process can be developed. In addition
to providing structure, the RBS framework can enhance communication and trans-
parency by organizing risk information in a standard format for oversight, reporting,
and collecting lessons learned (Hillson 2003).
Project success is defined in terms of cost, schedule, and quality (termed the
“iron triangle”), along with compliance with policies, procedures, and regulations.
However, defining project success in terms of intangible factors is much more dif-
ficult. Consequently, the measurements for success and assurance are inclined to
focus on the tangible aspects of the project (Atkinson et al. 2006; Teller et al. 2014),
which can be seen in the tangible risk orientation of current practices and publica-
tions. Effective risk identification and assessment is considered a strategic enabler to
manage the discrete risks, as well as the interactions/interdependencies of multiple
risk factors. As projects move through the development cycle, the risk profiles at each
of the stages can change, and these changes can have emergent effects at the proj-
ect or portfolio level. In addition to the complexity and turbulence of the business
environment, sociotechnical systems face internal uncertainties that are both quan-
titative (e.g., resource allocation, financial resources, structure) and qualitative (e.g.,
behavior, effectiveness of communication and information). The RBS, while useful,
utilizes a decomposition approach, and risks are independent of the risk factors and
remain that way throughout time (Chapman 2001). Therefore, existing risk manage-
ment methods like the RBS are appropriate for simple or complicated systems, but
must be supplemented to address complexity (Schloss 2014).
4.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

DeLaurentis proposed a taxonomy for a system of systems as “connectivity, het-
erogeneity, and autonomy of the component system.” Visually, he presented this
system of systems in a three-dimensional (3D) vector space with connectivity
(y-axis) ranging from “fully independent to fully interdependent,” heterogeneity
(z-axis) extending from “fully technological to fully human-based,” and auton-
omy (x-axis) moving from “fully centralized to fully autonomous” (DeLaurentis
Intangible Risk Assessment Methodology 25
2008). This taxonomy can be applied to sociotechnical systems like projects or

plant operations where human agent activities follow similar patterns of inde-
pendence to interdependence. The interface with technology can be fully auto-
mated or fully manual, and various activities or operational states can range the
spectrum of centralized to completely autonomous. Rasmussen’s dynamic model
of safety and system performance is a similar bounded system where the man-
agement’s drive for cost efficiency and the worker’s response to additional work
requirements interact and move worker response toward a technical limit of
safe operation. It is within this vector space where the nonlinear implications of
human behavior emerge.
Rasmussen was interested in the question, “Do we actually have adequate mod-
els of accident causation in the present dynamic society?” His methods to assess
safety were based on structural decomposition rather than functional abstraction. His
approach conceptualizes the interaction between human and machine as a dynamic
model of safety and system performance. His framework (Figure 4.1) is a ternary
of constraints (economic, workload, and performance), with operating points being
influenced by management pressure for efficiency and human agent response to work-
load implications. However, human agents respond to efficiency pressure by “subjec-
tive preferences,” creating emerging Brownian movements within a space of possible
responses. As human agent actions move the operating point closer to the error mar-
gin (e.g., too many activities assigned to a human agent leading to delaying a critical
activity such as maintenance), the activities associated with the safety culture act
as a countervailing force (e.g., concerns of machinery operating outside the normal
limits). Human agents can become comfortable with each step toward the bound-
ary of acceptable performance if no adverse effects are noticed. However, should the
operating point breach the boundary of functionally acceptable performance, a major
accident occurs (Rasmussen 1997). Rasmussen’s conceptual model is consistent
with Maier’s abstraction of management control. Maier’s management dimensions
FIGURE 4.1 Dynamic model of safety and system performance (Rasmussen [1997]).
of directed, collaborative, and virtual governance are mirrored by Rasmussen’s con-

ceptualization of safety performance as economic- and workload-induced Brownian
movements. However, Rasmussen’s concern regarding the adequacy of a model for
causation remains.
Like plant operations, projects face financial, workload, and performance
boundaries and must manage the risks that impact them. Rasmussen’s model
can be extended to projects where the boundaries are commercial performance
in terms of cost, schedule, and scope; human performance in terms of workload,
adequate competent resources, workflow, and procedure; and acceptable proj-
ect performance—if the boundary is violated, then the project objectives are
adversely impacted. Application of Rasmussen’s dynamic model of safety and
system performance to project performance is shown in Figure 4.2. Movement
in the space between the boundaries is driven by the adaptation of the human
agents to project success factor requirements. Rasmussen pointed out that “idio-
syncratic and unpredictable” behaviors can lead to a seemingly innocuous deci-
sion to deviate from a standard activity, which can lead to a catastrophic event
(Rasmussen 1997).
Rasmussen’s conceptualization recognized the need to integrate systems the-
ory with a cognitive framework. Extending Rasmussen’s model to projects, inte-
grating behavior-centric intangible team factors with systems theory and MNA,
and utilizing existing SNA measures open a new vista on project and portfo-
lio risk management. The dynamic model of project behavior-centric intangible
risks is a network of networks, where the interactions of commercial influence
and performance culture on human performance with the resulting emerging
responses are themselves interrelated networks. The MNA is the foundation of
FIGURE 4.2 Extension of dynamic model of safety and system performance to project perfor-
mance (adapted from Rasmussen [1997]).
Intangible Risk Assessment Methodology 27
the IRAMP framework that provides integration of the current systems theory-
based approaches with human cognition.
4.3 FRAMEWORKS AND THE INTANGIBLE

RISK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
Projects and portfolios of projects are conceptualized as complex sociotechnical sys-
tems where adaptive human behaviors emerge in response to the dynamic nature of
the project environment. This emergence and adaptability transcend existing risk
techniques that are based on the assumption that cause and effect are known ex-ante.
Kyriakidis et al. explored the possibility of a generic framework for understanding
the implications of human work performance in cross-functional sociotechnical envi-
ronments. Their research of performance-shaping factors (PSFs) in operational safety
found that a “prerequisite for learning from such taxonomies is to construct them in
ways that capture the generic aspects of man-machine interaction along with the char-
acteristics of the specific technological domains” (Kyriakidis et al. 2018). Behaviors
shaping performance in projects and project portfolios have both a generic dimen-
sion and specific dimension. Trust among stakeholders is a generic requirement for a
project to be successful (Atkinson et al. 2006); how trust is established or breached is
specific to the particular project environment. IRAMP provides a process to proac-
tively identify factors that lead to behavior-centric intangible risks emerging in specific
project contexts.
Frameworks are used as a structured approach for identifying and grouping indi-
vidual project risks and the interdependent risks between projects in the context of
portfolios. They can be used as checklists in project risk workshops or individual
interviews, as well as providing a common platform for organizations to capture les-
sons learned and risk reporting. The general frameworks shown in Table 4.1 can be
used in workshops as checklists for the identification of risks specific to the projects
being discussed (Hillson 2014).
Within the RBS framework, risks are decomposed to levels of increasing spec-
ificity, allowing for the development of detailed risk responses. Table 4.2 is an
example of a generic RBS based on the TECOP framework showing three levels
of decomposition.
TABLE 4.1
General Project Risk Frameworks
Acronym Definition
PESTLE Political, economic, social, technological, legal, environmental
STEEPLE Social, technology, environmental, economic, political, legal, ethics
InSPECT Innovation, social, political, economic, communications, technology
SPECTRUM Sociocultural, political, economic, competitive, technology, regulatory/legal,
uncertainty/risk, market
TECOP Technical, economic, commercial, operational, political
VUCA Volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity
TABLE 4.2
Generic Example of RBS
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2

Technical Scope definition
Requirements definition
Technology
Reliability
Economic Exchange rate
Commodity price
Market demand
Commercial Contractual terms and conditions (T&Cs)
Financing
Payment terms
Operational Operating efficiency
Plant availability
Operating costs
Project risk
Political Regulation change

Elections
Special interest demands
Level 0 simply identifies the overall content of the tree structure; in this instance,
it is project risk. Level 1 is the overall project risk framework, which is usually
determined by company procedure or using one of the aforementioned frameworks
(Table 4.1) that fits the project context. Level 2 identifies the next level of detail
(and so on) until the specific risks are defined to the level required for preparing
an effective response plan. While this framework is useful, there is an underly-
ing assumption that risks are independent of the risk factors and remain that way
throughout time (Chapman 2001). Once the RBS is completed to the appropriate
level of decomposition where cause and effect can be articulated, then risk state-
ments can be developed using the generic structure: “Because of <one or more
causes>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <one or more effects>” (Hillson
2006). However, there is not a conspicuous category for behavior-centric intangible
risks in any of these frameworks.
In the existing frameworks, there are several social or sociocultural categories, but
none provides a mnemonic for identifying behavior-centric intangible factors (e.g.,
implications of outsourcing on team motivation) as a potential risk to meeting objec-
tives. This is a gap—the ability to proactively address intangible factors like respect,
trust, and openness in a systematic way early in the project cycle is necessary for robust
risk management (Uher and Toakley 1999). Therefore, a risk framework that specifically
highlights these characteristics has the potential to enhance a project’s ability to meet
its objectives.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
»... Dann muß ich ja gehen ... Aber ich werde diese Nacht daheim
für Sie beten.«
»Tun Sie, was Sie nicht lassen können. Was Sie in Ihrem Hause
machen, geht mich nichts an.«
»Gott ... befohlen,« sagte der Schuster bewegt und streckte Peter
die Hand hin. Dieser zögerte erst, dann berührte er sie flüchtig mit
seiner Linken.
Der Mann sah ihm in die irren, glühenden Augen und bat sanft:
»Lieber Herr Lehrer, bitte, gehen Sie gleich ins Bett. Nicht wahr, das
versprechen Sie mir?«
»Wenn Sie nur erst hinaus sind!« sagte Peter, erregt mit dem
Fuße aufstampfend.
Da ging der Mann. Draußen hallten seine Schritte, und der Hund
schlug an. Dann verhallten die Schritte und der Hund kroch wieder in
seine Hütte, die hohl schnurrende Kette nachschleifend.
Nun atmete Peter auf und ließ sich schwer auf seinen Stuhl fallen.
Da horchte er auf. Was war das wieder für ein Geräusch? ... Jetzt
war's still. Plötzlich fiel ihm ein, das ganze Dorf ringsum steckte voll
von Menschen, Menschen. Hinweg! Da draußen, in der Heide, da
sind keine Menschen. Er nahm hastig Mütze und Stock und taumelte
hinaus.
Aah, wie das wohltut, so ein kühler Nachtwind, nach der dumpfen
Stubenluft ... Wenn mir nur keiner begegnet. Ach nein, die schlafen
alle. Die Art hat es gut. Des Tags über arbeiten sie sich müde, und
des Abends kriechen sie in ihre Butzen, zu zweien oder zu
mehreren. Jeder hat welche, die zu ihm gehören. Und das ganze
Dorf gehört zusammen. Da versteht einer den anderen, und jeder
findet am anderen Rückhalt. »Wi sünd alltohopen gode Lüe,« sagt
Clas Mattens. Ha! ... Da brennt ein Licht! ... Ach ja, da wohnt der
Schuster. Der gute Narr ... er will diese Nacht für mich beten. Wie
damals: Herr, bringe auch unseren lieben Schulmeister aus der
Finsternis zum Licht, ha! ... Wie das gleich anstrengt, wenn der Weg
ein wenig bergan steigt. Das Herz rast, wohl hundertzwanzig
Schläge in der Minute ... Ach, der schreckliche Husten ... So, nun
geht es wieder ... Hier hören die Äcker auf, die Heide fängt an. Wie
das duftet ... Ach ja, es ist August, die Heide blüht ... Und da oben
glühen die Sterne ... Mutter, was waren das für glückliche Zeiten, als
du da oben noch an den goldenen Himmelsfenstern saßest! Mutter,
wo bist du? Kannst du deinem verlorenen Kinde nicht nahe sein in
diesen schrecklichen Stunden? Hier geht es, in dunkler Nacht, durch
die öde Heide, den Tod in der Brust, von den Menschen gehaßt, und
muß sich selbst verachten. Und du hast so kalte, tote Augen ... Zum
goldenen Tore? ... Ha! ... Einst leuchtete es vor uns, und das Herz
war all seines Suchens und Sehnens so froh, nun ist's verschlungen
in Nacht und Grauen ... Das war alles, alles Lüge ... Das Grab ist tief
und stille, und schauerlich sein Rand, es deckt mit dunkler Hülle ein
unbekanntes Land ... Vielleicht auch einen Ort der Qual, voll Heulen
und Zähneklappen ...? Ach einen Ort mit mehr Qual als diese
»schöne Erde« kann's ja gar nicht geben. Hier stoßen sie einen mit
Füßen, werfen einen mit Steinen ... machen fromme Redensarten,
und es steckt nichts dahinter ... Aber nein, mach' dir selbst nichts
vor! Du selbst bist Störer deiner Ruh, du zogst dir selbst dein Leiden
zu ... Ja, so ist's ... Und das ist das Schlimmste ... Das
Allerschlimmste ... Das bringt einen so herunter ... Das jagt einen in
die Nacht hinaus ...
So weit schon? Da ist ja die Mergelgrube ... Wie die Füße schwer
sind ... ein wenig liegen und ruhen. Ah, wie das wohltut ... Da unten,
zwischen den hohen, steilen Wänden, blinkt das tiefe Wasser ... War
es nicht hier? ... Ja, hier haben sie vor Jahren ein armes
Menschenkind herausgezogen, dem des Lebens Bürde zu schwer
geworden ... hinterm Zaun liegt's begraben in Brundorf ... Wenn sie
morgen wieder einen herausziehen ... niemand würde eine Träne
weinen ... niemand ... »Der elende Selbstmörder« würden sie sagen
und ein Grab hinterm Zaun graben, wo der Weg drüber hingeht ...
Aber was schadet das ... es sind ja Menschen ... wen sie im Leben
von sich gestoßen haben, der braucht ja auch nicht im Tode bei
ihnen zu liegen. Warum langsam und qualvoll hinsiechen ... wem
geschieht damit ein Gefallen ... Vier Schritte weiter gekrochen, ein
Sturz, ein kurzer Kampf, und alles ist vorbei ............. Ja es ist das
Beste ... »Ich eile von der schönen Erde hinab in dieses dunkle
Haus.« Noch einen Blick zurück ... Was ist das für ein heller Stern
dort über der Höhe? Ach so, es ist das Licht im Hause des Frommen
... »Ich werde diese Nacht für Sie beten ...« Da unten ist Ruhe ... So,
jetzt nur noch ein wenig Übergewicht und ... Was hat der Mann für
einen anderen zu beten ... Zu wem betet er denn? ... Gott! ... bist
du? So gib mir Antwort! ... Der Nachtvogel schreit — denn er ist. Das
Gras säuselt — denn es ist, Aber du? — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Wie kommt es denn aber,
daß, solange Menschen atmen, Menschen an ihn glauben? Wie
kommt es, daß der da auf dem Berge an ihn glaubt? ... Er sagt,
Jesus Christus ist der Weg zu Gott. Aber da sind wir gleich wieder
mitten in der Ungewißheit. Die einen sagen, der ist ein irrender,
schwacher Mensch gewesen und am Kreuze an seinem Gott
verzweifelt. Und die anderen sagen, er ist der Sohn Gottes, lebet
und regieret in Ewigkeit ... Ja, als wir in den Büchern deiner Jünger
von dir lasen, da hob deine Gestalt sich groß und herrlich vor uns.
Da wurde uns, als könntest du uns das wahre Leben schenken,
wonach wir uns sehnten, und uns helfen, die Welt zu überwinden,
mit ihrer Lust und ihrem Leid ... Und Karfreitags haben wir unter
deinem Kreuze gestanden ... und haben gesungen: All Sünd hast du
getragen, sonst müßten wir verzagen, erbarm dich unser, o Jesu. Ja,
das war einmal — — — — Das war einmal — — — — — — — — —
Oder? — — — — — Oder? — — — — — — — —
Es wurde ihm, als ob die tiefsten Tiefen seines Wesens,

Seelentiefen, die er bis auf diese Stunde in sich nicht einmal geahnt
hatte, wunderbar durchwärmt würden. Und diese Wärme entband
Kräfte, ungekannte, ungeahnte Seelenkräfte des Lebens ... eines
Lebens, das fühlte er bei seinen ersten heimlichen Regungen, nach
dem er sich lange gesehnt hatte.
Er sprang plötzlich auf seine Füße. Nein, nein, nein, nein! Da
unten in dem dunklen Wasser war sein Ziel nicht. Er mußte weiter
wandern. Dem goldenen Tore zu ... Durch die grauenvolle Nacht fing
es nun wieder an vor seiner Seele zu schimmern.
Und die schon am Ziel waren, seine Toten, die ihm Wegweiser
und Wandergenossen geworden, jetzt sahen sie ihn wieder mit
lebenden, liebenden Augen an. Es war, als hätten auch sie aus einer
geheimnisvollen Quelle des Lebens und der Liebe Leben und Liebe
getrunken ...
Und die Menschen ... Er konnte jetzt nicht an die denken, die ihm
Böses getan auf seinem Wege. Er mußte derer gedenken, die ihm
Liebe erwiesen, und fand ihrer eine ganze Reihe, mehr als er früher
je gedacht hätte, von seinen Kindestagen an bis auf die letzten
Stunden ... Er war am Hause des Schusters angelangt, in dem das
Licht jetzt auch gelöscht war. Da blieb er einen Augenblick
nachdenklich stehen, und als er seinen Weg fortsetzte, nickte er still
vor sich hin.
Er ging jetzt die Dorfstraße entlang und dachte an die
Schwierigkeiten und Wirrnisse, in die er hineingeraten war. Wo
waren sie geblieben? Was war einfacher, als morgen in dieses und
in jenes Haus zu gehen und zu sagen, daß das Geschehene ihm
herzlich leid täte? Und was das andere betraf? Was war leichter, als
dem Superintendenten kurz und klar hinzuschreiben, für die
Behandlung seiner Schülerin in Sachen des Katechismus nehme er,
der Lehrer, die volle Verantwortung auf sich, und er halte es für eine
Ungerechtigkeit, jene für etwas büßen zu lassen, was er selbst
gefehlt habe, wenn es eine Verfehlung sei.
Zu Hause angekommen, zündete er ein Licht an. In der
schwachen Helligkeit, die dieses um sich verbreitete, sah er die
Bilder des Harfenspielers und Mignons. Da nahm er das Licht und
hielt es nahe heran und las die Verse und nickte dazu, langsam und
nachdenklich und froh. Wie einer, der über einem Rätsel, das ihn
nicht losließ, lange gesonnen hat und nun sich endlich auf dem
Wege sieht, es zu lösen ...
Dann ging er zu Bett. Was er in den letzten Stunden Schreckliches
erlebt hatte, lag wie ein halbvergessener grausiger Traum hinter ihm.
Und vor ihm leuchtete, lockender und heller und näher denn je: das
goldene Tor ...
Von einem Geräusch an der Haustür erwachte er. Einige Kinder

standen vor der Schule und begehrten Einlaß. Mit Schrecken sah
Peter, daß es gleich sieben Uhr war, und kleidete sich eiligst an.
Als er vor die Tür trat, sah er, daß kaum die Hälfte der Schulkinder
versammelt war. Da sagte er ihnen, sie möchten vorläufig nach
Hause gehen, um neun Uhr wiederkommen und die noch fehlenden
Kinder auch mitbringen. Als die Schulkinder sich zerstreut hatten,
ging Peter ins Dorf und geradeswegs nach Westermanns Hofe. Er
traf den Bauern auf der Diele vor den Kühen. Dieser starrte ihn
verwundert an. Aber Peter ging schnell auf ihn zu und sagte, es täte
ihm aufrichtig leid, daß er sich so vergessen hätte, und er bäte ihn
um Verzeihung.
Wenn ein Bauersmann etwas Unangenehmes auf dem Herzen
hat, was herunter soll, macht er meist erst viele allgemeine
Redensarten und kommt dann ganz zuletzt und wie beiläufig mit der
Hauptsache heraus. Ähnliches mochte Westermann auch vom
Schulmeister erwartet haben, und inzwischen hätte er sich wohl eine
Antwort überlegt, die dem Groll, den er gegen den Schulmeister
hegte, entsprochen hätte. Aber diese Art Peters, so mit der Tür ins
Haus zu fallen, verwirrte ihn und er brachte stockend etwas heraus
wie: Das wäre schon gut, und er selbst hätte mit dem großen Jungen
ja auch oft seine Not, und Prügel müßten sein; nur zuschanden dürfe
man so'n Kind doch nicht schlagen. Na, der Schulmeister wäre noch
jung und hitzig, und hätte nun ja wohl eingesehen, wie weit er gehen
dürfe, und mit den Jahren kühlte das Blut sich auch mehr ab, und
der Mensch würde besinnlicher. Zuletzt fragte er Peter, ob er mit ihm
frühstücken wollte. Der nahm das Anerbieten an, und die beiden
setzten sich zusammen in die Dönze und aßen Brot und Sülze und
tranken einen kleinen Köm dazu. »Dat wi nu jümmer gode Lüe
bliewt,« sagte der Bauer, indem sie anstießen.
Auch bei Swiebertsbauer ging's Peter ganz gut. »Ick heww't ja
glieks seggt,« meinte dieser trocken, »he schöll Barken nehmen und
kene Eken. Eken sünd för so wat nich wussen.«
Peter ging auch zu seinem alten Freunde Mattens und erzählte
ihm mit Freuden, nun wäre alles wieder gut. »Würklich?« fragte
dieser und kratzte sich im Nacken, »Scholmester, Scholmester, wat
heww ick van sin'twegen för Nackensläg krägen düsse Dag'! Oh, wo
mi dat freut! Kumm rin, darup möt wi'n lütten Köm nehmen.«
Peter dankte. Er hätte schon bei Westermann einen getrunken.
»Bi Westermann?« fragte Mattens erstaunt. »Deuker ja, wenn d e
Mann enen utgiwwt, denn is't würklich alles wedder god.
Scholmester, ick freu mi nu doch wedder, dat ick em in de Iserbahn
ankaschiert heww.«
Um neun Uhr hatte Peter seine Schule vollzählig beisammen. Die
Kinder hatten die Einladung bestellt, er selbst hatte unterwegs
eingeladen, was er getroffen hatte, und wie ein Lauffeuer war die
Kunde durchs Dorf gesprungen, der Schulmeister wäre wieder
vernünftig geworden und hätte mit seinem ergrimmtesten Feinde
gefrühstückt.
Als Peter in die Schulstube trat und alle Blicke halb neugierig, halb
ängstlich auf sich gerichtet sah, war es ihm nicht möglich, den
Unterricht in der üblichen Weise zu beginnen und zu tun, als ob
nichts geschehen wäre.
»Meine lieben Kinder,« begann er bewegt.
Die Kinder machten verwunderte Gesichter. Diese Anrede war
ihnen fremd, und noch mehr ihr Ton.
»Ihr seid mir vorgestern alle davongelaufen. Aber ich mache euch
keinen Vorwurf daraus. Es war meine Schuld ... Des Menschen Zorn
tut nicht, was vor Gott recht ist. Aber ihr werdet mich, will's Gott, nie
wieder so sehen, wie ihr mich gesehen habt ... Wie sagt doch Gott
zu dem Brudermörder Kain? ›Die Sünde ruhet vor der Tür. Aber laß
du ihr nicht ihren Willen, sondern herrsche über sie.‹ So ist's bei mir,
und bei euch, bei uns allen. Gott helfe uns, daß wir über sie
herrschen können. Und wenn sie uns einmal überrumpelt, daß wir
wieder aufstehen. Und nun laßt uns unseren Morgengesang singen:
Aus meines Herzens Grunde, die ersten beiden Verse.«
Die Kinder setzten voll und kräftig ein, und Peter sang das Lied mit
einem freudig bewegten Herzen, wie in seinem ganzen Leben nicht.
Nur bei den ersten Strophen des zweiten Verses mußte er vor
innerer Bewegung schweigen: »Daß du mich hast aus Gnaden in
der vergang'nen Nacht vor Gefahr und allem Schaden behütet und
bewacht.«
Und dann fing er an, zu unterrichten. Er hatte eigentlich gefürchtet,
er würde nach solcher Nacht dafür zu müde sein. Jetzt wunderte er
sich, wie ihm die Gedanken zu und die Worte von den Lippen
strömten. So hatte er in seinem ganzen Leben noch nicht
unterrichtet, so hatten die Kinder noch nie an seinem Munde
gehangen. Was er ihnen heute gab, das stand nicht in den Büchern,
die er vor der Schule zur Vorbereitung schnell eingesehen hatte, das
nahm er aus seinem Eigensten und Tiefsten. Zwar störten ihn einige
Hustenanfälle. Aber wenn er sie überwunden hatte, war er gleich
wieder voll Freudigkeit und Kraft, fortzufahren.
Als es Mittag war, entließ er die Kinder. Wie er den sich zur Tür
Hinausdrängenden nachsah, fiel ihm plötzlich der Vers von Mignons
Bilde ein: »So laßt mich scheinen, bis ich werde.«
Da jauchzte sein Inneres auf. Was er so lange geschienen, das
war er heute geworden: ein Schulmeister, ein wirklicher Meister der
Schule. All seine bisherige Schulmeisterei erschien ihm plötzlich als
Scheinkram, Wortgeplärr, Karrendienst. In diesen drei Stunden erst
war er der Herrlichkeit seines Berufes ganz inne geworden. Er hatte
nicht nur kleine Finger gesehen, die Buchstaben schreiben lernen
wollten, blaue Äuglein, die sie wiederzuerkennen sich mühten. Er,
der Gewordene, hatte die Nähe junger Seelen gefühlt, die wachsen
und werden wollten ...
Als er vom Mittagessen aus dem Dorf zurückkam, setzte er sich
sofort hin, um dem Superintendenten zu schreiben. Er zeigte ihm an,
daß er mit den betreffenden Hausvätern Rücksprache genommen
habe und die Sache erledigt sei. Was die die Tochter des Schusters
betreffende Forderung seines Vorgesetzten anbeträfe, schrieb er
diesem ehrerbietig und bestimmt in dem Sinne, wie er sich schon in
der Nacht darüber klar geworden war, daß er ihr nicht
nachgekommen sei und nicht nachkommen werde. Den Brief
schickte er gleich durch einen Jungen an seine Adresse.
Der Superintendent machte beim Lesen dieses Briefes seines
jüngsten Schulmeisters verwunderte Augen. Aber seinem
Lebensgrundsatz, sich vor aufwallenden, heftigen
Gemütsbewegungen aus Pflichtgefühl gegen sich selbst zu hüten,
blieb er auch in dieser Sache treu. Er verfolgte sie auch nicht weiter.
Beim hohen Konsistorium war für den alten Landeskatechismus
nicht mehr viel zu machen. Da hatte der Wind sich in den letzten
Jahren auch gedreht. Außerdem verriet ihm der Ton des Briefes, daß
er hier nicht einen servilen Kriecher und Jajabruder vor sich hatte,
sondern einen aufrechten Menschen, einen, der über Nacht etwas
wie ein Charakter geworden war. Dieses war sein erster Eindruck
beim Lesen des Briefes. Bald ging ihm freilich ein besseres Licht auf.
Der junge, ungefestigte Schulmeister war natürlich auch ein Opfer
der Verführungskünste des pietistischen Schusters geworden.
Am Abend dieses Tages, um die Stunde, da gestern der Schuster
bei ihm gewesen war, kam Peter auf den Gedanken, den Mann,
gegen den er jetzt eine tiefe Dankbarkeit empfand, zu besuchen.
Aber als er länger darüber nachdachte, unterließ er es doch. Was
sollte er ihm sagen? Ihm saß das Herz nicht so auf der Zunge wie
jenem. Er konnte über das, was er in tiefster Seele erlebte, nicht zu
anderen Menschen sprechen.
In der nächsten Zeit fühlte Peter, wie seine Kräfte allmählich

nachließen. Aber der befreite, von einer neuen Kraft getragene
Geist, belebt durch die neugewonnene Freude am Beruf, hielt den
hinsiechenden Leib noch längere Zeit aufrecht und gewann ihm,
nach Zeiten allzu großer Schwäche, noch manche Stunde freudigen
und kraftvollen Wirkens ab. Ein Wort Jesu wurde ihm in dieser Zeit
vor anderen lieb und wertvoll: Ich muß wirken, solange es Tag ist. Es
kommt die Nacht, da niemand wirken kann. Peter war froh und
dankbar für jeden Tag seines dem Ende zueilenden Lebens, den er
durch Willenskraft noch für den so spät in seiner Herrlichkeit
erkannten Beruf gewinnen konnte.
Bis Mitte November gab er den Unterricht noch einigermaßen
vollständig, wenn er auch häufig gezwungen war, die Stunden
umzulegen und die Kinder verhältnismäßig viel mit Schreiben und
Rechnen zu beschäftigen. Von da an mußte er die Kinder nach
zweistündigem Unterricht, den er zuletzt nur noch sitzend erteilte,
heimschicken. Seine Kraft war dann völlig erschöpft, und er brachte
die übrigen Stunden des Tages, meist fiebernd, im Bett zu.
Die Dorfleute taten, was sie konnten. Jetzt, nachdem sie ihren
Schulmeister erzogen und zur Vernunft gebracht hatten, mochten sie
ihn recht gern. Da er nicht mehr zu den Mahlzeiten in die Häuser
gehen konnte, schickten die Bauernfrauen ihm das Essen ins Haus,
und die guten legten nach dem Schlachtfest eine frische Wurst bei,
oder schlugen trotz der Eierknappheit ihm eins extra in die Suppe,
um ihren guten Schulmeister, wenn's möglich wäre, recht bald
wieder auf die Beine zu bringen, oder ihm doch eine Freude zu
machen. Die Kinder der Häuslingsfrau, die bei Peter aufwartete,
lebten in diesen Wochen herrlich und in Freuden.
Peter hoffte noch immer, bis Weihnachten den zweistündigen
Unterricht aushalten zu können. Aber am Montag der
Weihnachtswoche mußte er liegenbleiben und den Kindern zurufen,
daß sie nach Hause gingen. Er hörte, wie sie sich langsam und still
entfernten, wie die Schritte der letzten Nachzügler auf dem Hofe
verhallten. Sein Tagewerk war getan.
Der Kranke, der von der Häuslingsfrau nur mangelhaft verpflegt
und bedient wurde, hatte auf seinem einsamen Krankenlager
manche schwere und trübe Stunde durchzumachen.
Hin und wieder kam einer von den Dorfleuten zu Besuch. Claus
Mattens stellte sich gleich am ersten Tage ein. Er erzählte dies und
das, aber Peter merkte bald, daß der Mann etwas Besonderes auf
seinem Herzen hatte. Das kam denn zuletzt auch herunter. Peter
könnte, so meinte der Bauer, ja nicht selbst hingehen und sein
fälliges Gehalt holen. Ob er ihm den Weg abnehmen sollte? Und ob
er nicht von dem Gelde so viel behalten könnte, daß Peters Sachen,
bis auf den Tisch etwa, bezahlt wären? Peter gab seine
Zustimmung. Da war der Freund sichtlich erleichtert, machte noch
einige nette Scherze und wünschte beim Weggehen gute
Besserung.
So kam der Tag vor dem Fest heran. Es war dicke Schneeluft, und
der Kranke hatte viel unter Atemnot zu leiden, bis nach Mittag die
Luft klarer wurde.
Gegen Abend kam der Schuster. Er entschuldigte sich, daß er
nicht schon eher einmal vorgesprochen hätte. Aber zu Weihnachten
wollte alle Welt in neuen Stiefeln gehen, und grad' eben hätte er das
letzte Paar abgeliefert.
Der Besucher blickte in den Ofen, und fand das Feuer erloschen.
Er sah sich im Zimmer um. Es war seit mehreren Tagen nicht
gekehrt. »Herr Lehrer,« sagte er, »es wäre besser, wenn Sie nach
Hause reisten. Hier kriegen Sie ihr Recht nicht.«
»Nach Hause?« fragte Peter schmerzlich. »Ich kann nicht nach
Hause. Meine Mutter ist tot, und die enge Kate ist voll kleiner Kinder.
In all der Unruhe halte ich's nicht aus.«
»Aber Sie können hier doch nicht allein liegenbleiben.«
»Ach, es wird wohl nicht lange mehr dauern.«
»Das steht in Gottes Hand ... Herr Lehrer, darf ich mir eine Bitte
erlauben?«
»Und?«
»Kommen Sie zu uns!«
»Zu Ihnen?« fragte Peter verwundert.
»Ja, sehen Sie, wir haben selbst viel Schweres durchgemacht und
verstehen uns wohl ein wenig auf das Krankenpflegen. Und es ist
auch besser für Sie. Da kommen manchmal Stunden, wo einer sich
nach dem Wort und Gesicht eines anderen Menschen sehnt. Unser
Heiland ist in Gethsemane auch immer wieder aufgestanden und zu
seinen Jüngern gegangen.«
Peter sah den Mann einen Augenblick an. Dann streckte er die
weiße, abgezehrte Hand aus und ergriff die harte, braune Pechhand
des Schusters, die er stumm mit warmem Druck festhielt.
»Dürfen wir Sie holen?« fragte der andere wieder.
Peter nickte. »Gott vergelt's Ihnen, was Sie an mir tun, und ...
schon getan haben ...«
Der Mann sah dem Kranken ein paar Sekunden tief in die Augen,
als ob er in seiner Seele lesen wollte. Dann ging er.
Nach einer guten Stunde kam er zurück, begleitet von ein paar
Männern, in denen Peter Häuslinge des Dorfes erkannte. An der Art,
wie der Schuster mit ihnen verkehrte, merkte er, daß sie zu denen
gehörten, die jener »Brüder« zu nennen pflegte. Das wunderte
Peter; denn sie waren von ganz anderer Art als der Schuster und
lebten still für sich hin, ohne irgendwie hervorzutreten.
Die Männer legten ihn mit dem Bett auf eine mitgebrachte
Tragbahre, verhüllten ihn sorgfältig gegen die Winterkälte und trugen
ihn sorgsam durch das Dorf.
Als endlich die Bahre hingestellt und von den Decken befreit
wurde, riß Peter die Augen weit auf. Vor ihm stand ein Christbaum,
im Schmuck seiner brennenden Lichter. Und um ihn her standen
Lina und der kleine Paul, und noch ein kleines Mädchen, und ein
Jüngstes hockte auf dem Arm der Mutter, und die Kinder sahen bald
in den hellen Lichterbaum, und bald auf den kranken Gast. »Singt
mal, Kinder,« sagte der Vater, und Lina schlug den Arm um
Paulbruder, und sie sangen zusammen zweistimmig das
Weihnachtslied, das Peter in den letzten Wochen sie gelehrt: »Stille
Nacht, heilige Nacht.« Dann setzte der Schuster sich die dicke
Hornbrille auf und las das Evangelium von der Geburt des Heilands,
und die Kinder, in deren dunklen Augen die Lichter des
Tannenbaumes glänzten, hörten andächtig zu, und die Männer
standen mit den Mützen in den Händen und schauten ernst und still
drein.
Als der Hausvater das Buch geschlossen hatte, sagte er: »So,
Kinder, nun drückt die Lichter vorsichtig aus und geht in die andere
Stube, daß der Herr Lehrer Ruhe hat. Und du, Mutter, sorgst wohl,
daß er noch etwas Warmes zu essen kriegt. Und ji beiden gaht noch
mal in dat Scholhus und bringt den Scholmeister sin Kram her, dat wi
em dat recht gemütlich maken könnt.«
»Ok de beiden Biller an de Wand,« sagte Peter leise, »und min
Vigelin'. Dat dor man nix an passiert!«
»Herr Lehrer, Sie können sich auf meine Freunde verlassen,«
beruhigte der Schuster den Kranken.
Als Peter ein wenig genossen hatte, kamen die Männer schon
zurück. Der Schuster mußte die Bilder über seinem Bett befestigen,
Mignon links, den Harfenspieler rechts. Dazwischen fand die Geige
ihren Platz, so, daß der Kranke sie ohne große Anstrengung
erreichen konnte. Dies waren ihm die liebsten Besitztümer. Die
Anordnung des übrigen überließ er den anderen.
Bald hatten sie ihn verlassen, und im Hause wurde es still. Aber
Peter konnte noch lange nicht einschlafen.
Es war ja der erste Weihnachtsabend, den er im Leben gefeiert; in
der Stube war noch der Harzduft des ersten Christbaums, in dessen
Lichterglanz er geschaut hatte. Wie schade, daß das alles so schnell
vorübergegangen war, fast ehe er sich recht hatte besinnen können!
Nein, noch nicht einschlafen, noch eine Weile liegen und sich still
weiter freuen ...
Bald holte er sich die Genossin seiner Leiden und Freuden heran,
seine Geige. Stillfroh spielte er mit den Fingern auf dem einsamen,
dunklen Krankenlager die lieben, alten Weihnachtsweisen, die um
dieselbe Stunde wohl durch Hunderttausende froher, heller
Christenhäuser schallten. So schlummerte er zuletzt ein, die treue
Freundin im Arm und stille Weihnachtsfreude im Herzen.
Es folgten schwere Tage und Wochen für den Kranken. Manche
Stunde blieb ihm nichts als stillhalten und leiden. Aber im tiefsten
Grunde blieb er immer froh und dankbar. Denn er konnte leiden
unter treuer Liebe Hut und Pflege.
Was hatte der arme Junge in einem kurzen Leben von Liebe
erfahren! Eine dunkle Erinnerung aus den ersten Lebensjahren
sagte ihm, daß er einmal warm in Mutterarmen geruht hatte. Dann
der kurze Maimond seines Lebens, da sein ganzes Wesen in Liebe
aufgeblüht war. Dann noch die Freundlichkeit des Musiklehrers auf
dem Seminar. Sonst war er ohne Liebe und einsam seine Straße
gezogen. Nun hatte der dunkle, stürmische Tag doch noch seinen
stillen, lichten Abend. Über den letzten Wochen seines zur Neige
gehenden Lebens lag der warme Glanz treusorgender Liebe.
Wie gut sie alle im Hause sich auf die Behandlung des Kranken
verstanden! Wenn es dem Leidenden lästig wurde, Menschen um
sich zu haben, brauchte er es gar nicht zu sagen. An irgendwelchen
Anzeichen merkten sie das und verließen leise das Zimmer. Und
wenn er sich nach Gesellschaft sehnte, so dauerte es auch meist
nicht lange, bis jemand kam.
Der Schuster sprach am liebsten über geistliche Dinge, und seine
Gesellschaft konnte dem Kranken am ehesten drückend werden. Es
blieb eben zwischen den beiden der Gegensatz zwischen
rheinischer und niedersächsischer Art. Bei dem lebhaften
Rheinländer ging es ganz nach dem Wort: Wes das Herz voll ist, des
geht der Mund über. Der schwerfällige Niedersachse dagegen
mußte sein Bestes und Tiefstes keusch im Busen verschließen. Er
mochte und konnte nicht darüber reden. Diese Schweigsamkeit und
das Fehlen eines Echos machte den Schuster manchmal
bedenklich, ob es mit dem Seelenheil seines Pfleglings schon recht
bestellt sei, und er sprach immer wieder über alles, was ihm dazu
nötig schien. Peter lag dann meist mit geschlossenen Augen und
nickte von Zeit zu Zeit, wenn ein Gedanke darunter war, den er als
Baustein seines inneren Werdens, das in diesen Leidenszeiten nicht
ruhte, gebrauchen konnte, oder ein Wort, das ihm für die dunklen
Nachtstunden Trost versprach. Der gute Schuster brachte aber auch
manches zutage, was Peter höchst wunderlich vorkam, ja was ihn
wohl geradezu abstieß. Denn ganz konnte der Schriftgelehrte hinter
der Schusterkugel die Finger von dem heiklen Gebiet der
Theologasterei nicht lassen.
Am liebsten war ihm Linas Gesellschaft. Wenn das Mädchen an
seinem Bett saß, das feine Gesichtchen über die Handarbeit
gebeugt, wenn sie ihn fragend anblickte, ob er einen Wunsch hätte,
wenn sie seinen fiebernden Lippen zu trinken reichte, dann konnte
er sein Leiden fast vergessen. Hatte sie ihn so eine Zeitlang durch
ihre stille Gegenwart erfreut, fühlte er meistens den Wunsch, ihre
liebe Stimme zu hören. Dann bat er sie, ihm etwas vorzulesen, bald
ein Stück aus der Heiligen Schrift, bald ein Gedicht, das ihm lieb
geworden war, oder wonach er sonst gerade Verlangen trug. Dann
lag er meist mit geschlossenen Augen; und wenn er auch oft zu
schwach war, um den Inhalt des Gelesenen in sich aufzunehmen, so
tat ihm doch der Klang ihrer Stimme schon wohl. Am Abend seines
kurzen Tagewerks war es ihm eine stille Freude, daß er fast zwei
Jahre an dieser lieblichen Menschenknospe Gärtnerdienste hatte tun
dürfen.
Eines Nachmittags in der Dämmerung, als sie an seinem Bett saß
und ihm lange vorgelesen hatte, ergriff er ihre Hand und hielt sie
lange fest. »Die dritte,« kam es zuletzt leise über seine Lippen.
»Wie, Herr Lehrer?« fragte das Kind.
»Ach, Lina, ich dachte an etwas. Habe ich etwas gesagt?«
»Ja, Sie sagten: Die Dritte.«
»Ach so, ja; ja, ich dachte an etwas ...«
Er hatte daran gedacht, daß das Kind, dessen Hand er in der
seinen fühlte, die dritte gewesen war in der Reihe der
Frauengestalten, die ihm den Weg gezeigt hatten. Das letzte und,
wie er empfand, tiefste und innerste Werden, das er erlebt hatte,
konnte er sich ohne die Arbeit und Vertiefung, wozu ihn dieses
Kindes Wesen gezwungen, gar nicht denken.
Die Frau des Schusters hielt es nicht, wie ihr Mann, mit vielen
Worten. Dafür aber war sie die verständnis- und liebevollste
Pflegerin. Wenn sie ihm das Bett machte, wenn sie ihm das Essen
brachte und dem Appetitlosen freundlich zusprach, oder wenn sie
ihn bei zu großer Schwachheit fütterte wie ein kleines Kind, immer
hatte der Kranke das Gefühl, von Mutterhänden gepflegt zu sein.
Ganz so, dachte er, würde seine eigene Mutter es auch machen,
wenn sie noch lebte.
Peter sann in einsamen Stunden viel über sein Leben nach. Und
da fiel es ihm auf das Gewissen, daß er einst mit einem so
pietätlosen Wort von seinem Vater gegangen war. Er bat den
Schuster, diesem von seiner Krankheit zu schreiben und ihn zu
bitten, daß er seinen kranken Sohn einmal besuchte. Nach drei
Tagen kam Harm Eggers an. Peter hatte sich vorgenommen, wegen
jener häßlichen Abschiedsszene ihn um Verzeihung zu bitten. Aber
er kam nicht dazu. Denn kaum hatte der Vater das abgezehrte
Gesicht des Sohnes gesehen, so brach er in wildes, krampfartiges
Schluchzen aus. Peter war tief ergriffen, daß dem Vater sein Leiden
so zu Herzen ging, und fühlte auch, daß die kindliche Liebe trotz
allem in seinem Herzen noch nicht erstorben war. Als aber der Vater
sich gar nicht fassen konnte, sah er ihm scharf in die Augen und
merkte, daß der Alkohol an diesem Gefühlsausbruch nicht
unschuldig war. »Vader!« sagte er tieftraurig. Da fing dieser an, ihm
zu versichern, daß er an seiner Krankheit keine Schuld habe. Die
hätte er ganz allein von seiner Mutter geerbt. Aber er würde wohl
bald wieder besser werden, denn er, der Vater, wäre so gesund, und
die ganze Familie, und Trina, und die Geschwister wären alle so
gesund, und Peters Urgroßvater wäre beinahe neunzig Jahre alt
geworden und hätte alle Zähne mit in den Sarg gekriegt. Peter hatte
sich gequält zur Wand umgedreht, und als der Vater im Weggehen
ihn einlud, die Osterferien zu Hause zu verleben, antwortete er nicht.
Die nächsten Stunden waren sehr schwer für den Kranken. Er
mußte noch einmal seine verlorene, elende Jugendzeit in der
Erinnerung durchleben und konnte den ganzen Tag keine Menschen
um sich haben. Und auch in den nächsten Tagen kam immer wieder
ein bitteres Gefühl über ihn, daß er so von dem Menschen, der ihm
das Leben gegeben, hatte Abschied nehmen müssen.
Und dann, Anfang März, kam der Tag der letzten Kämpfe.
Als der Schuster an diesem Morgen an sein Bett trat, sagte der
Kranke, matt zu Mignons Bilde deutend:
»Ich eile von der schönen Erde hinab in jenes feste Haus.«
»Herr Lehrer, diese Erde schön?« fragte der andere erschreckt.
»Ein rechtes Jammertal ist sie.«
»Ja ... ja ... ein Jammertal ... und doch wunderschön ...«
Über die bleichen Zügen ging wie ein stilles Leuchten die
Erinnerung glücklicher Tage.
»Und doch ... schön,« sagte er noch einmal.
»Herr Lehrer,« sagte der Schuster dringlich und voll Angst, »Sie
stehen vor den Toren der Ewigkeit. Ich bitte Sie um Ihrer Seelen
Seligkeit willen, denken Sie an das eine, was not tut, denken Sie an
Gott und unsern Heiland!«
»Ich danke ihm ... daß die Erde ... so schön war ...«
»Nein, nein, nicht rückwärts schauen, sondern vorwärts. ... Der
Apostel Paulus schreibt ...«
Der Kranke schüttelte abwehrend den Kopf und sagte leise: »Ich
weiß, an wen ich glaube ...«
Da ließ der Mann von ihm ab und beschränkte sich darauf, für
seine Seele still zu beten.
Als die Sonne untergehen wollte, warf sie einen letzten Schein auf
die Fenster der stillen Krankenstube, daß sie tief goldig erglänzten.
Da öffnete der Sterbende, der schon lange bewußtlos gelegen
hatte, die Augen und flüsterte leise: »Marie!«
Der Schuster erschrak und wandte sich zu seiner Frau: »Immer
noch diese weltlichen Gedanken! Daß so ein junges Blut gar nicht
von der Welt loskommen kann ... Herr, zeige ihm dein Heil!«
Wieder machte der Sterbende langsam und weit die Augen auf
und wandte sie dem Lichte zu. Sie schienen in unendliche Fernen zu
schauen. Und diese blassen Lippen öffneten sich und hauchten:
»Das ... goldene ... Tor ...«
»Er ist doch auf dem rechten Wege,« flüsterte der Schuster, und
über sein Gesicht ging eine stille Freude, »... er sieht schon die Tore
Jerusalems, der hochgebauten Stadt, von ferne leuchten ...«
»Und nun ist er angekommen,« sagte er nach einer Weile.
Zu der Beerdigung kamen der Vater, die Stiefmutter und die
ältesten Geschwister auf einem geliehenen Wagen angefahren. Aus
Solten sandte jedes Haus zwei zum Trauergefolge. Auch die ganze
Schuljugend folgte; jedes Kind trug einen Tannenkranz.
Der alte Superintendent hatte seit Weihnachten einen Adjunkten
und war froh, diesem das Begräbnis übertragen zu können. Als die
Gemeinde vom Grabe sich in die Kirche begeben hatte, verlas der
junge Pastor nach der Sitte zunächst den von einem Lehrer der
Nachbarschaft verfaßten Lebenslauf, der die äußeren Lebensdaten
des Verstorbenen in stereotyper Form aufzählte. Dann legte er das
Blatt zur Seite und fuhr fort: »Was wir eben gehört haben,
andächtige Trauerversammlung, ist von dem Leben unseres
Entschlafenen das, was vor aller Augen liegt. Sein wirkliches Leben,
das Leben, das sich in dem Tiefsten und Eigensten abspielt, das
kennt wohl kein Mensch, die nächsten Angehörigen nicht
ausgenommen. Ich habe den Entschlafenen auf seinem letzten
Lager einige Male besucht und hätte gern einen Blick in sein inneres
Leben, seine Entwicklung, sein Werden und Wachsen getan. Aber er
hat mir diesen Blick nicht verstattet. Er durfte es wohl nicht, weil die
Zartheit und Keuschheit seiner Seele es ihm verbot. Ich habe aber
den Eindruck gewonnen, daß er in der Stille viel Leid erfahren und
schwere Kämpfe hat durchmachen müssen, und daß er gesiegt hat
in der Kraft dessen, durch den wir Christen die Welt überwinden
wollen. In dem Lebensalter, in dem er von uns gegangen ist, sind die
meisten von uns noch gar nichts. Aber ich glaube, er ist
hingegangen nicht als ein Unreifer, sondern als ein Reifer, der ganz
in der Stille durch beides, Liebes und Leides, was der Lenker seines
Lebens ihm geschickt, etwas geworden ist zu seines Gottes Ehre.
Vielleicht sind solche Menschen, die nichts aus sich machen,
unerkannt und manchmal auch wohl verkannt ihren Weg gehen, still
suchen und sich sehnen, still lieben und leiden, still glauben und
hoffen, wachsen und werden, kämpfen und siegen, gerade die
besten unseres Geschlechts und Gottes liebste Kinder ...«
Nach Beendigung der Feier kehrten die Verwandten in das
Sterbehaus zurück. Sie wollten der Einfachheit halber Peters
Hinterlassenschaft gleich auf dem Wagen mitnehmen. Als sie diese
zusammensuchten, verteilte die Stiefmutter gleich die einzelnen
Kleidungs- und Wäschestücke an ihre anwesenden größeren Kinder.
»Düsse Mütz,« sagte sie, »kannst du man updrägen, Vader.« Und
Harm Eggers paßte sie gehorsam auf. Die Schulbücher sollten die
Jüngsten in der Schule verreißen; wo man mit den gelehrteren
bleiben wollte, mußte sich später finden. »Wat fangt wi mit de
Vigelin' an?« fragte Trina. Der Schuster bat, sie zum Andenken an
den Toten behalten zu dürfen. »Wat will he utgewen?« Zwanzig
Silbergroschen bot der Mann. »Nee, ünner'n Daler geiht dat Ding
nich weg,« erklärte Trina bestimmt. Der Schuster legte schweigend
den Taler auf den Tisch. Die Bilder an der Wand blieben ihm ohne
Entgelt, da sie nicht als zur Erbmasse gehörig erkannt wurden.
Reich mit Beute beladen fuhr die trauernde Familie davon. Trina
berechnete gerade den Gesamtwert des Erbes, da hielt der Wagen
an. Clas Mattens war ihm mit seinem Schein in den Weg getreten
und erhob Anspruch auf den Tisch. Es gab eine häßliche Szene,
aber der Schein und des Bauern Hartnäckigkeit behielten den Sieg.
Mit geschmälertem Erbe zog die Familie trauernd weiter.
Die Schustersleute ließen die Zimmerwand, an der Peter seinen
letzten Kampf gekämpft, wie sie war. In der Mitte hing seine treue,
nun auch verstummte Geige. Links schaute Mignon sehnsuchtsvoll
träumerisch in die Ferne:
So laßt mich scheinen,
bis ich werde,
Zieht mir das weiße Kleid
nicht aus!
Ich eile von der schönen
Erde
Hinab in jenes feste
Haus.
Rechts saß der Alte über der Harfe gebückt und raunte zu ihren
müden Klängen:
Wer nie sein Brot mit
Tränen aß,
Wer nie die
kummervollen Nächte
Auf seinem Bette
weinend saß,
Der kennt euch nicht, ihr
himmlischen Mächte!
Über den dreien aber hing ein Stück gelblichen, starken Papiers,
das mit schlichten schwarzen Buchstaben bedruckt war. Diese
schlichten schwarzen Buchstaben waren der Jubelruf und
Triumphgesang eines Mannes, der auch ein Lebensbezwinger und
Weltüberwinder war:
Gott sei Dank, der uns den Sieg gegeben hat durch unseren Herrn
Jesum Christum!
Fußnoten:
[1] Warte nur.
[2] Erde.
[3] Husten.
[4] Brust.
[5] Qualen.
[6] leer.
[7] gieße.
[8] gekostet.
[9] Art.
[10] ziehen
[11] in Ordnung
[12] kocht
[13] Aufwartung
[14] vermieten
[15] unterkriechen
[16] Brüder und Schwestern
[17] damit ist sie sehr zufrieden
[18] getroffen.
[19] schlägt.
[20] sofort.
[21] sonst.
[22] leihen
[23] betrunken
[24] schwermütig
[25] Worte
[26] Wurst
[27] warte nur
[28] verdrossen
[29] durchgehauen
[30] draußen
[31] rate
[32] gilt
[33] oberste
[34] Häuslinge
[35] gebräuchlich
[36] Himmel
[37] hoffen
[38] dazu lernen
[39] Entzweischlagen
[40] Rücken

Ebook Decision Making in Risk Management Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in Projects Manufacturing and Production Engineering 1St Edition Cox Christopher O Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Decision Making in Risk Management Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in Projects Manufacturing and Production Engineering 1St Edition Cox Christopher O Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Making in Risk Management

Quantifying Intangible Risk Factors in

Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment

Construction Risk Management Decision Making

Endometrial Cancer Risk Factors Management and

Value Incommensurability Ethics Risk and Decision

Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment

Making Risk Management Work Engaging People to

A Risky Business An Actuary s Guide to Quantifying and

Understanding Risk Management and Hedging in Oil

Decision Making in Risk Management

For more information on this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/

Quantifying Intangible Risk

and by CRC Press

© 2022 Christopher O. Cox

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data

Names: Cox, Christopher O., author.

ISBN: 978-0-367-76747-1 (hbk)

To my wife Rhonda, my rock,

Chapter 2 Setting the Context................................................................................ 7

Chapter 3 Systems, Networks, and Metanetwork Analysis................................. 17

Chapter 4 Intangible Risk Assessment Methodology for Projects...................... 23

4.5 Process For Implementation..................................................... 33

Chapter 5 Metanetwork Analysis and Measures................................................. 37

Chapter 6 Putting It All Together........................................................................ 49

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Looking Forward..................................................... 85

1.2 PROJECT RISK AND PERFORMANCE

1.3 INTANGIBLE RISK FACTORS

responses or “Brownian movements.” These movements are the result of interactions

1.4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR BOOK

1. Provide an analytical framework that can be used in project risk workshops

The proposed framework—intangible risk assessment methodology for projects

1.5 OUTLINE OF BOOK

2.2 PROJECTS AND PROJECT PORTFOLIOS

• “A project is a unique, transient endeavour, undertaken to achieve planned

• “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,

• “A portfolio is a collection of projects and/or programmes used to structure

In summary, the essence of projects, portfolios, and their management is their

dimension. Those who work on projects or portfolios of projects must be capable of

2.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS

• Critical chain project management (CCPM)

1. Feasibility study to first assess a project’s economic, operational, and tech-

2.4 RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

• What are the opportunities or threats to project delivery?

2.5 INTANGIBLE RISK

2.5.1 Behavior-Centric Intangible Risk

3.2 SYSTEMS THEORY

• Operational independence of the components is defined as the component

In addition to its characteristics, each system of systems can be considered unique

• “Directed systems-of-systems are those in which the integrated system-of-

• “Collaborative systems-of-systems are distinct from directed systems in

3.3 NETWORK SCIENCE

combining the social network and project management perspectives is necessary

4.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2008). This taxonomy can be applied to sociotechnical systems like projects or

of directed, collaborative, and virtual governance are mirrored by Rasmussen’s con-

4.3 FRAMEWORKS AND THE INTANGIBLE

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2

Political Regulation change

Es wurde ihm, als ob die tiefsten Tiefen seines Wesens,

Von einem Geräusch an der Haustür erwachte er. Einige Kinder

In der nächsten Zeit fühlte Peter, wie seine Kräfte allmählich

4.3 FRAMEWORKS AND THE INTANGIBLE