Riskidentificationtechniques Tharanga B00361537

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/342159877
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RISK IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES
Research · May 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18209.22886
CITATIONS READS
9 8,324
1 author:
Dhanusha Tharanga
University of the West of Scotland
1 PUBLICATION 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Dhanusha Tharanga on 14 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF RISK
IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES
BY DHANUSHA THARANGA (B00361537)
May 2020
University of the West of Scotland

M.Sc. Project Management
Abstract
Purpose of this research is to explore the risk identification techniques which are used in
construction industries in different countries all over the world. The determination of most
widely used techniques, evaluate their effectiveness and suggest recommendations for their
improvements are the main objectives of the research.
The extensive literature review was the methodology for secondary data collection required
for the research. Even though there are several risk identification techniques can be identified
in the construction industry, this research has limited to fifteen risk identification techniques
which are found throughout the literature review. Further studies on several case studies of
risk identifications carried out in several countries such as United Kingdom, Poland, Ghana,
South Africa and Brazil have raised up many useful information about their usability and their
effectiveness on achieving objectives. The weighted factor analysis is the main methodology
used for data analysis. At the end of the study, research results conclude most widely used
risk identification techniques and their effectiveness in term of time, cost, quality and other
factors such as easy to understand, set-up and practice. Further, the possible improvements
are suggested at the end of conclusion to improve the techniques.
This research was conducted in the year of 2020 under the guidance of University of the West
of Scotland, United Kingdom.
Acknowledgement
First, I would like to thank all my family members for giving me a peaceful time for me to focus
thoroughly on my research. Their encouragement and lovely blessing gave me strength to
achieve this challenging work. Secondly, I want to give my special thanks to Mr. Andrew Rae
for guiding me as a supervisor by giving his maximum support at every step on the research
and guiding me to the right direction. Finally, I would like to extend my heartiest gratitude to
the University of the West of Scotland for giving me opportunity to carry out my research on
important field of study of risk management.
Author’s Declaration
I hereby declare that this research paper is original and it’s my own work. All other information
referred from other’s findings were sufficiently referenced.
Critical review of risk identification techniques
Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3
1.1. Objectives ..............................................................................................................................3
1.2. Research questions ...............................................................................................................3
1.3. Report outline ........................................................................................................................4
2. Literature review on risk identification techniques .........................................................................5
2.1. Documentation review ...........................................................................................................5
2.2. Business impact analysis .......................................................................................................5
2.3. Assumptions analysis ............................................................................................................7
2.4. Brainstorming ........................................................................................................................8
2.5. Delphi Technique ...................................................................................................................9
2.6. Checklist analysis ................................................................................................................10
2.7. Root cause analysis .............................................................................................................11
2.8. Electronic brainstorming ......................................................................................................12
2.9. Nominal group technique .....................................................................................................13
2.10. SWOT analysis ................................................................................................................13
2.11. Flowchart analysis ............................................................................................................15
2.12. Cause and effects analysis...............................................................................................16
2.13. Affinity diagram analysis ...................................................................................................17
2.14. Expert judgment ...............................................................................................................18
2.15. Risk breakdown structure .................................................................................................19
3. Exploration of case studies on risk identification techniques .......................................................20
3.1. Case study – 1: Risk identification techniques (UK construction industry) ............................20
3.2. Case study – 2: Risk identification techniques (South African construction industry)............21
3.3. Case study – 3: Risk identification techniques (Polish MSMES companies) ........................23
3.4. Case study – 4: Risk identification techniques (Brazilian construction industry) ...................23
3.5. Case study – 5: Risk identification techniques (Ghanaian construction industry) .................24
3.6. Case study – 6: Risk identification techniques (Investment projects in Poland) ....................24
4. Methodology ...............................................................................................................................27
4.1. Methodology for data collection ...........................................................................................27
4.2. Methodology for data analysis .............................................................................................27
5. Findings / data analysis ..............................................................................................................31
6. Conclusion & recommendations..................................................................................................43
7. References .................................................................................................................................45
1|Page
List of Tables
Table 1: Main categories of risk identification techniques ...................................................................31
Table 2: Summary of findings from case study – 1 .............................................................................31
Table 7: Summary of the popularity (with the weighted factors applied) .............................................34
Table 8: Summary of findings – (Document review) ...........................................................................35
Table 9: Summary of findings – (Expert judgment).............................................................................36
Table 10: Summary of findings – (Checklist analysis) ........................................................................37
Table 11: Summary of findings – (Brainstorming)...............................................................................38
Table 12: Summary of findings – (Diagram analysis) .........................................................................39
Table 13: Point allocation summary for each risk identification technique ..........................................40
Table 14: Equally distributed point distribution table. ..........................................................................40
Table 15: Final point distribution table. ...............................................................................................41
Table 16: Final point distribution table in the form of fractions. ...........................................................41
Table 17: Effectiveness in term of percentages (without weighted factor) ..........................................41
Table 18: Effectiveness in term of percentages (with weightage factor) .............................................42
List of Figures
Figure 1: Key steps in business impact analysis. .................................................................................6
Figure 2: Assumption analysis. ............................................................................................................8
Figure 3: Associated techniques of root cause analysis. ....................................................................12
Figure 4: Visual representation of SWOT analysis. ............................................................................14
Figure 5: Visual representation of fishbone diagram. .........................................................................16
Figure 6: Example for affinity diagram. ...............................................................................................18
Figure 7: Visual representation of Risk Breakdown Structure. ............................................................19
Figure 8: Methodical process for data analysis – (Most widely used techniques) ...............................28
Figure 9: Methodical process for data analysis – (Effectiveness of techniques) .................................29
Figure 10: Graphical representation of popularity of risk identification techniques. .............................34
Figure 11: Graphical representation of effectiveness of risk identification techniques ........................42
2|Page
1. Introduction
What is risk? Risk is “An uncertain event or condition, that if it occurs, has a positive or negative
effect on a project's objective” (PMI, 2013). If there is no risk involved, any planned activity can be
delivered on time, within the budget and within the accepted quality. As described above, risk can
change project objectives. Risks are always hidden, and nobody knows what time it will come to the
action if there is not enough concern on that. If it is possible to identify those risk at the earlier stage,
they can be registered and evaluated how dangerous they are, and some control actions can be
implemented to prevent them or mitigate them. In the field of project management, this process is
called risk management.
Risk management is a five steps process as described in “APM Body of Knowledge 6th edition”
(APM, 2012). Initiate, identify, access, plan responses and implement responses are the five steps.
The second step is the risk identification. Risk identification is an important phase of risk
management process. If all the risks are identified at early stage (risk identification phase), it will be
remarkably helped to control the projects and achieve the project objectives. The quality and the
accuracy of the results of risk identification techniques may depend on the several factors such as
the type of technique used to identify risks, the practitioner who carry out the risk identification so
on. It is described in “Given the number and complexity of the tools specified for this function, the
practitioner can encounter considerable difficulty in deciding which tool to use, why and how, at
various points in the process” (Piney, 2003).
Main aim of this documentation is to discuss thoroughly about risk identification technique types
which are used in construction industry, how widely they are used, how effectively they are used
and the suggestions for risk identification techniques.
1.1. Objectives
Risk identification is the second stage of the risk management process. There are various types
of risk identification techniques which are used in different industries in different levels. Those
identification techniques may vary from project to project base on its size or its nature or type
of industry such as construction, healthcare, agriculture, social even management and so on.
It is important to make an exploration about types of risk identification techniques, how widely
and how effectively they are used in different types of projects in different countries, what are
the positive and negative aspects of those techniques and what improvements can be done to
enhance the productivity of those techniques. In particularly this research is concerned, the
main objectives are determination of most widely used and transferrable risk identification
techniques used in construction industry, evaluation of their effectiveness and finally suggest
possible improvements for risk identification techniques.
1.2. Research questions
Exploration of risk identification techniques and its behaviours are the main topics covered
under the research questions. What are the risk identification techniques used in construction
industry in different countries? what are the techniques which are most widely used? Which
techniques are the most cost efficient? Which techniques are the most quality effective? Which
3|Page
techniques are the most time efficient? Those are the matters which were questioned
throughout this research paper. Literature review provides an extensive support in order to get
answers for those questions by focusing on different aspects such as cost, quality, time,
flexibility, easy understanding, easy set-up and practice.
1.3. Report outline
This report structure consists of seven sections which are introduction, literature review on risk
identification techniques, exploration of case studies on risk identification techniques,
methodology, findings and data analysis, conclusion & recommendation and finally references.
Under the introduction section, report describes about main objectives of the research,
research questions and the report outline. The secondary data which is required to analyse is
collected under the sections of literature review and case studies exploration of risk
identification techniques. In these sections, research paper focuses on two different aspects.
General reviews of risk identification techniques from websites, books and journals are
considered under the section of literature review on risk identification techniques. Exploration
of case studies and researcher’s perspectives about said techniques are explored under the
section of exploration of case studies. Research methodology used for research is described
in detail under the methodology section. The data extracted from the literature review is
analysed under the findings / data analysis section. The research findings are concluded in the
conclusion section. Further the possible improvements are suggested under this section.
Finally, all other’s work which have been referred throughout the research have been
sufficiently listed out under the reference section.
4|Page
2. Literature review on risk identification techniques
“The study of risk management began after World War II” (Dionne, 2013). At the very beginning,
the risk management study involved in the insurance industry to protect the companies and
individuals from different type of losses happened due to accidents, hazards. During the 1950,
different alternatives, other form of risk management methods were evolved in the insurance
industry as it was perceived as incomplete and very costly as protection measure against pure risk.
During 1970s, use of derivatives came into the risk management study as a risk management
instruments and it was rapidly expanded during 1980s as organization intensified their financial risk
management. International risk regulation started during this period. Financial companies
developed risk management models, calculation formulas in the risk management study during this
period. When it comes to the present age, risk management study has come to the remarkable
position. In the study of risk identification techniques, it is really important to explore their general
literatures written on books, journals, websites and other available general documents. Even though
there are many different risk identification techniques are available in the literatures, only fifteen risk
identification techniques were selected based on their usability specially on construction industries.
2.1. Documentation review
Documentation review is one of the risk identification technique which helps for getting an idea
about the risks that are currently existing in the projects (Arumugam, 2012). Project
documentation includes planning documentations, assumptions, cost calculations,
implementation schedules. By reviewing those documents again, it helps to identify the areas
where project team has low attention and the places where the calculations done
inappropriately. Those identified points are the sources which create risks. “Every project plan
and list of project assumptions will contain risks. Documentation reviews identify the inherent
risks in the project plan and assumptions” (Setiawan, 2008). According to the Setiawan, there
are three steps which required to address to perform effective documentation review. First step
is to identify required project documentations. Second step is to choose how to make review
structures. Last step is to identify right reviewers for each part of the review.
2.2. Business impact analysis
As described by Margaret Rouse in her article “business impact analysis (BIA)” (Rouse, 2019),
business impact analysis is a methodical mechanism to measure and evaluate the potential
effect which organization faces due to sudden termination or closure of the business due to a
disaster, accident or an emergency. Business impact analysis is necessary component of
company’s business continuation plan. This tool includes both exploratory package and the
planning package. The exploratory component explores the risks, hazards which would be
arose in the future business plan and planning package will help to develop the strategies to
minimize the risk found in exploratory package. The result of the business impact analysis is
going to be the business impact analysis report which includes risks specific to the organization
and the control measures.
5|Page
When it come to the practice, there is a basic assumption that each department’s continuation
is entirely depending on other department’s continuation. But some of the departments are
more crucial than other departments and it requires higher attention on those crucial
departments than others in the wake of disaster. For an example, the organization can still
operate with the closure of cafeteria. But if information system fails, the organization must be
halt fully.
For the business impact analysis, there is no formal standards exists. The methodology can be
varied from organization to organization. But generally, it involves basic main steps which are
collecting information, evaluating information, producing the report for documentation purpose
and the presentation to the management. The team for the business impact analysis can be
consists of combination of internal staff and external members or it can be completely allocated
to skilled third-party organization to conduct.
Figure 1: Key steps in business impact analysis.
The information gathering technique could be the form of detailed questionnaire or survey
focused on most essential business process, resources, relationships and other information
and it is very important to analyse the impact of disruptive event. Further, in-personal interviews,
automated surveys, follow up interviews may useful for gathering of information.
In the information analysis phase, the main objectives are to determine most important
business functions & systems, minimum requirement of human resources and technological
resources to operate the organization in minimal condition, the time frame required to get the
6|Page
affected business operation back to normal condition. Analysis can be done manually or with
the help of computer assisted program.
Challenges in the business impact analysis includes evaluation of revenue impact of the
business, figure out the long-term impact on loss of market share, image of the business and
the customer base of the company. Impacts to be considered in business impact analysis are
loss of sales, manpower expenses, fines by regulatory, delay penalties arose from the contracts
and customer complains.
In the final business impact analysis report, it basically includes executive summary,
methodology of collection of information and analysis of information, detail information of
different departments and its core operations, figure illustrations to show the predicted potential
loss, strategies for recovery and recommendations for improvements. Business impact analysis
report always prioritize the analysis of most important business operations, impact on their
interruption, listed out important legal requirements, tolerable level for closure durations and its
lost, recovery point objectives and recovery time objectives. Further it lists out what are the
actions to be taken to bring the operation back to normal. The management reviews the report
and cross check with their business continuity plan and recovery strategies by keeping higher
attention on maximum allowable down time of important operations of the business, tolerable
losses such as information systems, reputation and finances. Senior managers to review
business impact analysis periodically and required to update it when the organization change
the business operations.
Business impact analysis plays a very important role in disaster recovery plan of the
organization. Business impact analysis provides all the required information required in disaster
recovery plan such as losses in cash flow, equipment repair cost, additional labour cost required
to catch up the back logs of work, catch up the lost profit, in lost information. It clearly figures
out the value of importance of different departments and quantify the funds which required to
allocate for control measure to protect them.
Business impact analysis and the risk assessment play major role in the business continuity
plan. Business impact analysis always takes place prior to the risk assessment. Business
impact analysis always focus on the major impact of the interruption on critical business function
and workout to quantify financial loss as well as non-financial loss associated with the disaster.
But the risk assessment explores on potential risks such as supply chain failure, cyber-attack
on information system, environmental risks such as earthquake, flood, fire and evaluate the
source where those hazards originate from. During the risk assessment phase, the findings
obtained from the business impact analysis are examined thoroughly in different scenarios and
it creates more opportunity for risk assessors to find out more risk and dangers involved.
2.3. Assumptions analysis
Assumptions analysis is very effective tool in the risk identification process in risk management
study. “It Involves Documenting The Assumptions made during project planning and then
determining the risks that may be caused due to inaccuracy instability, or incompleteness of
7|Page
the project assumptions” (Salau, 2019). Assumption analysis with the use of these factors
enhances project team’s sharpness to judge the validity of the assumptions. The application of
assumptions analysis helps to minimize needless work within the planning group which has
constructive time and cost impact on next stages.
Basically, assumptions can be captured from the project initiation document. Progressive
tracking of assumptions is mainly identified in the plan risk response phase. Here, there are
new sets of information are exposed through risk response process which could direct to make
changes in known and verified assumptions as well as to creates new assumptions and both
must be documented in assumption log.
It is compulsory for the project team members to identify and document all the assumptions
which were made during the project planning process. Then on one by one basis, analyse the
assumptions and predict the possible risk which could be occurred due to the assumption.
During this process, it can be verified that the assumptions made are valid or worth enough or
it may be determined that assumptions had no validity. In that case, the alternative action must
be recommended immediately. The assumption analysis process must be carried throughout
the project life cycle.
Figure 2: Assumption analysis.
2.4. Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a powerful tool for finding opportunities as well as risk identification. “The
brainstorming process, borrowed from business management and not specifically created for
risk management, involves redefining the problem, generating ideas, finding possible solutions,
8|Page
developing selected feasible solutions and conducting evaluation” (Chapman, 1998). Project
managers should focus on risks and opportunities as early as possible in the project because
rectification cost or mitigation cost to be spent for an issue will be increased exponentially with
time. Therefore, project managers should find all potential risks and opportunities as early as
possible in the project and should be ready with risk mitigation process in the same time.
The main idea of the brainstorming in the risk identification is to produce a comprehensive list
of risk. In order to achieve comprehensive list of risk, it is very important to get involved with
the right stakeholders for the practice. Mostly this will be the key people of the project team
itself such as project manager, construction manager, safety manager with the help of external
expert who is having good knowledge and good observation about the risk. The facilitator is the
key role of the brainstorming session and facilitator should make sure that the brainstorming
session is conducting right way and all the participants are actively engaged with the session
and need to lead the session. The conductor would probably be select different brainstorming
techniques depending on the number of people gathered and the time availability. At the end
of the session, there should be a board collection of unorganized ideas. The collection of
unorganized ideas must be sorted, categorized and organized in order to make them useful for
further analysis. Organizing information would be done as a part of the brainstorming session
or as a separate task by facilitator.
Basically, there are 3 types of brainstorming. In structured, unstructured and silence

brainstorming. Request and ideas from each participant in a sequence is a in structured
brainstorming. Participants who doesn’t have an ideas can simply turn over the turn by saying
“pass”. Once the complete round is done, brainstorm session is over. The most highlighted
advantage of this method is every person gets and equal opportunity to express their ides
regardless of their ranking or positions. The negative face of this type is lack of volunteer ideas
and would be somewhat rigid. Participants simply express their independent ideas as they
come into their mind is unstructured brainstorming. This is sometimes called as free-form
brainstorming. The advantage of this free-form brainstorming is participants can support and
add some improvement to other’s ideas. Further the environment is very free and relaxed to
express their ideas. But it can be observed that there is a low contribution from the less
assertive and low-ranking participants’ idea. The next type is the silence brainstorming. Here
what participants do is write down their own individual ideas on piece of paper and hand them
over to the facilitator. Then, the facilitator will post all the notes in the manner that everyone
can see all ideas together. Then the collected ideas are arranged in order to make a final list of
risk. The advantage of the silence brainstorming is it prevents participants getting into the
arguments and disruptive analysis during the session. The disadvantage is that the team lose
the synergy compared with the open session.
2.5. Delphi Technique
This is a one of the information gathering technique used in risk identification. “We also
presented the high level of suitability of the Delphi technique in large-scale and complex
construction projects” (Kiral, et al., 2014). The main expectation of this practice is to come to
common conclusion by the expert on subject matter. “In short, findings suggest that the use of
9|Page
Delphi method could increase the efficiency of risk identification stage” (Kiral, et al., 2014). The
main behaviour of this practice is to keep all the participants anonyms so that it may create the
grounds for participants to support or correct other’s ideas. Facilitator uses pre prepared list of
questionnaires which were prepared by considering main concerns of the topic to solicit the
ideas from the participants. Responses are collected by the facilitator and do summarize them
and send them back to the participants by giving them an opportunity for their further comments.
Again, group members review the report and return improved, updated report to the facilitator.
The facilitator collects all the reports from participants and arrange the information and make
the second report. The second report is again issued to participants for their second review and
improvement. This process continues until the participants reach the consensus.
Delphi technique is an iterative process. The idea is to get wide range of ideas as much as
possible from the group of experts. By using the ideas obtained from the first round, the second-
round questions are prepared by aiming to get more clearer ideas further of first round’s
information. To carry out the process as mentioned above, it is very important to select capable
facilitator to conduct the session and facilitator should be neutral person who is having proper
idea about research and information collection. Delphi technique depends on group of experts.
It could be the members of your project team, or member within your organization or member
of your industry. An expert is a person who is having required knowledge and experience about
the related subject. It is very important to define very clearly what is the problem which
participants are going to discuss about.
2.6. Checklist analysis
Checklist is one of the risk identification technique among the many tools and technique
available in the risk identification process. “Checklist Analysis can provide ideas for risks on a
current project” (Arumugam, 2012). It is a technique which is used to review different processes
systematically using a pre prepared list to visualise the accuracy and the completeness.
Analysing the checklist will provide an opportunity to find out the risks in project management
plan. Archived data and the knowledge gained from previous projects usually helps to develop
the checklists.
Check list analysis is one of the fastest and basic (simple) ways to identify risk management
process. One of the remarkable advantages of the checklist is its easiness and even for the
low experience team members can understand the practice very easily. Even though it is
simple, the making of exhaustive checklist is still going to be a big challenge as any organization
still can have their own kind of risks which are unique to them. It is also a real challenging issue
for team members to review and snip off items when they are no longer appropriate for the
check list.
There are three major types of check lists which could be able to use in the risk assessment.
They are internal checklists, external checklists and customized checklists. When the internal
checklists are considered, there are many formal and informal checklists can be seen with in
any organization. Design checklists, fabrication checklists, installation checklists are some for
them for the examples. It is required to update these checklists regularly in order to help to build
10 | P a g e
up organizational knowledge and to prevent repetitive problems. Checklists are normally built
up and maintained by team of experts and this is usually done for broadly applied checklists.
This expert team has been continuing the improvements of the checklist since many years and
this team mainly try to conclude on important issues as a team rather than rely on individual’s
idea about what is the best or compulsory. When the internal checklists are not sufficient to
deal with potential issues, external checklists have to be used. External checklists are coming
from different sources such as standards, codes, regulations. The main issue with the external
checklists is its applicability on your specific situation as they are produced by considering
global requirements. If required, it is necessary to overlook the checklists in order to prevent
unnecessary implementations. The customised checklists will be used in the situation where
existing checklists are not matched with the new situation or there are no previously developed
checklists available. Items for the customized checklists can be obtained from the suitable
existing checklist as suitably. The situation where anything doesn’t work, the experts must get
into the situation prepare the questions for the checklists to structure the risk assessment. The
questions then should be arranged according to the subject area and incorporate with the
checklists already exists.
2.7. Root cause analysis
The root cause analysis is methodical process to identify root cause of the problem or incident
and approach for implement solutions for them. “Obviously, a root-cause analysis is performed
after an incident occurs, so to that extent it is reactive action rather than a proactive one” (Fox,
2018). The idea behind the root cause analysis in risk identification study is efficient managers
need more than merely “putting out fires” for the problems that develop but looking for way to
prevent them. The strength of the root cause analysis is its behaviour of diving into the real
cause and expose it into the management so that it helps management to treat for the real root
causes rather than treating for the symptoms.
The primary objectives of the root cause analysis are to find out what was happened? How it
was happened? Why it was happened and last one is to plan the action to be taken to prevent
it happen repetitively. Root cause analysis is not a tool which would match for all
methodologies. It accomplishes with various tools, methodologies, philosophies to analyse
varies enterprises activities such as effective business process, quality control, engineering and
maintenance failures as well as varies system-based process such as risk management.
The basic methodology of the root cause analysis is to define the problem, collect all information
and evidence which are assumed to be related to said problem, identify the all activities and
events which contributed to the problem, determine real root causes, identify best possible
control actions to prevent, mitigate them happening repetitively and finally implement the
control measures.
In the root cause analysis, there are several associated techniques to identify the root causes.
5 why analysis, barrier analysis, change analysis, casual factor tree analysis, failure mode and
effect analysis, fishbone (Ishikawa diagram) and fault tree analysis are some techniques among
them.
11 | P a g e
Figure 3: Associated techniques of root cause analysis.
2.8. Electronic brainstorming
Electronic brainstorming is an enhanced technological mode of conventional brainstorming and

participants have their anonymity guaranteed. “Our experience with electronic brainstorming in
several settings has shown it to be useful for large and small groups, for a variety of topics, for
groups that meet face to face and for those that are dispersed, whether throughout a building
or around the world” (Brent & William, 1993). The generating ideas are done over the web via
network computers in such a way that participants can access generated ideas in a fraction of
seconds and participants can give their feedback or their individuals new ideas on that.
The traditional brainstorming has been practiced over several decades. Regardless it is formal
or informal, the process is still the same. In the traditional brainstorming, there are two problems
can be identified clearly. They are production blocking and the evaluation apprehension.
Production blocking occurs in the situation that when there is an idea in the brainstorming
session, there is no opportunity to express it as it is not our turn. But when it comes to our turn,
the idea is not further interested and if there are more higher-ranking people or more talkative
people are in the brainstorming session, it normally keeps silence without expressing the idea
came into the mind. So due to this reason, the good ideas which are supposed to come into
the picture are abandoned. The next problem is evaluation apprehension. Evaluation
apprehension means the anxiety about what people think about what we tell. Sometimes there
is an anxiety to express ideas because it might get us labelled as odd. This fact is particularly
quite strong inhabitation when the ideas may be considered as critical of current practice.
12 | P a g e
But with the concept of electronic brainstorming, it gets an opportunity to mitigate above
problems as use of networked computers provide a platform to group produce, disseminate,
evaluate the ideas. Electronic brainstorming is a simple mechanism. Individually people will
bring the ideas at will. It is no matter the group is face to face or they are scattered around the
world, the participants get an opportunity to interact with the topic simultaneously.
2.9. Nominal group technique
Nominal group technique is a structured approach for group brainstorming that encourage all
group members to contribute their ideas and allocated opportunity for them to vote for their
rankings according to the relative importance of the problems and the solutions. “It works
particularly well in "stranger groups," in which it is important to neutralize differences in status
and verbal dominance among group members” (Poling, 2009.). As the starting process, team
members start to write down their ideas on the piece of paper and then it is to be selected which
one’s idea is the best. Once all the team members are ready, everyone gets an opportunity to
express their ideas on listed out ideas and can allocated points on the ideas as they think as
most important. Finally, the all points obtained from the participants combine and put into final
weighted priorities of the group.
This method is very useful in the occasions where some group members in the group are
talkative than others, groups with some group members have better capability to think in
silence, with the people who do not create an ideas easily, usually when the most of the group
members are new to the group or if there is heated conflict or controversial issue.
There is a methodical order for nominal group technique. The first step is to state the problem,
question very clearly which the group is going to talk and ensure that the everyone in the group
understood the problem. Next step is individuals to thing about the problem thoroughly and
write down all the ideas, solution came into their mind on the paper. Each member should
express their idea and facilitator records them on the flipchart. Now the discussions are not
allowed even for clarification. Any member can pass his turn and may express their ideas in
subsequent turn. Continue the practice until all members expressed their ides. Once all ideas
are recorded, even the word can’t be changed without consent of originator and repetitive ideas
can be taken off from the list. In the discussion stage, it is possible to do clarification, analysis,
raise questions and answers, agree or disagree and finally the ideas are grouped in to the
categorise. The final stage is to prioritize the ideas by using the voting system.
The main considerations of the nominal group technique are as follows. Main idea behind the
discussions is only for clarification the questions or answers. Not to get resolved differences of
ideas. Discussions should be kept in balance to treat all ideas equally. It is very important to
keep all listed ideas in visible location to everyone.
2.10. SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis is a diagram analysis technic and it is a very good tool used in risk identification
technique. In order to get effective results, it requires top people in the organization to be
involved. “For a SWOT analysis to be effective, company founders and leaders need to be
13 | P a g e
deeply involved. This isn’t a task that can be delegated to others” (Parsons, 2018). SWOT
stands for Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. “SWOT is a well-established
research tool, widely used in strategic planning and refers to Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats” (Shang & Pheng, 2014). So, by doing SWOT analysis, it will be
able to assess those four aspects in the organization. Strengthens and the weaknesses are
internal aspects of the organizations and opportunity and the threats are external aspects.
Figure 4: Visual representation of SWOT analysis.
The things any organization doing particularly well are the strengths of that organization. This
makes list about the advantages particularly this organization has compared with other
organizations. This could be either the motivation and moral of the employee, having
permission to access certain materials or strong skill of manufacturing process. The strengths
are an inhouse facilitators of the organizations. Strengths helps make it better than anyone
else. Strengths are the values which drive the organization’s business. This could be the
resources which can operate with low cost which others can’t.
The negative factors which are detracted from your strengths are the weaknesses. Those are
the matters which any organization needs to improve on to become competitive within the
organization. The things are there that your business should have to become more competitive.
It is important to identify which business process are required to be improved. What are the
areas where organization needs to improve in communication and coordination? Is there any
issue with the business location which might have an effect to the business?
The external factors in the business environment which are likely to contribute to the success
of the organization is considered as opportunities. The trends in the market which encourages
people to get more what the organization sell are the opportunities. Opportunity could be an
14 | P a g e
upcoming event, the regulation change which would help organization to take advantage of
growing business.
The external factors which organization has no control over them are considered as threats. It
could be the potential competitor who is willing to enter to the market, it could be the possibility
of purchasing row materials for fixed price over period.
2.11. Flowchart analysis
Flow chart analysis is one of the diagramming techniques found in the risk identification
technique. “A flow chart will look at an organisation differently from an organisation chart”
(Searle, 2017). Flowchart is the visual presentation of sequences of steps and decision is
required to step into the next stage. Every step is represented as diagram shape and all the
steps are connected via lines or directional arrows. This representation helps anyone to
understand flowchart and the steps of the process from beginning to end. Flowchart is very
powerful diagramming technique. With the better design and construction of flow chart, it
coordinates every step of the process very efficiently and effectively. Flow charts are also
known as Process Flow Diagrams. “This will help ensure that nothing crucial to the process is
left out. In truth, everyone involved in the process should, ideally, be involved in the
diagramming” (Patel, 2017).
In the presentation of diagrams, there are lots of different types of shapes can be identified. But
basically, there are two main shapes. The shapes which are having rounded ends represents
the start or end of the process. The rectangular shapes represent the steps in between start
and end. There are few types of flowcharts in the practice. Data flow charts, workflow diagrams,
yes / no flow charts, decision flow charts, process flow diagrams, influence diagrams, Swimland
flowcharts are some of them.
When it comes to the history of flow charts, they were originally used by the industrial engineers
to arrange the work process such as manufacturing assembly lines. But today, the flowcharts
are used in many different industries such as documenting workflow, computer algorithms,
auditing processes in inefficiencies and malfunctions, process documentations, program or
system designing works and finally project planning and the risk management process.
The role of flowcharts in the risk identification is better comprehension of the risks and their
interrelation. With the help of developing hypothetical scenarios, it is possible to represent the
process logically with the help of logical construction of events and its impacts to the results
with different levels of inputs, different combination of risk factors. While analysing the project
whole process with the help of flowcharts, it is necessary to identify all the risk at every step
and its magnitude of the impact with the variation of condition of the risk sources. Further
analysis can be done with the combination of different combination of risk sources and its
impact to figure out most critical risk.
15 | P a g e
2.12. Cause and effects analysis
Cause and effects analyse is also known as a fishbone diagram analysis, Ishikawa diagrams,
Herringbone diagrams and Fishikawa diagrams. When there is a serious issue, it is very
important to investigate all the causes which have contributed to the problem before getting
into the process where finding answers to the problem. If there are enough information about
the causes to the problem, it would be possible to go the complete answer which will solve the
problem completely. The cause and effects diagrams help to find all those information as well
as to find out the solutions for them in better way. Biggest advantage of this technique is
providing clear visual presentation of risk which is described as “Rather than displaying a risk
register of table with “a thousand” words of text, an Ishikawa RBS can highlight the essential
risk areas in seconds via graphics” (Rubin, 2010).
The cause and effect diagram analyse is invented by prof. Kaoru Ishikawa (Ishikawa, 1989).
Cause and effects diagram normally looks like the skeleton of the fish. Therefore, it is called
fishbone diagrams. Even though the technique was originally developed as a tool for quality
control management, it is still possible to use this as a tool to determine the root cause of the
problems, hidden bottlenecks in the processes and the recognize places where the system is
not working properly.
Figure 5: Visual representation of fishbone diagram.
In the cause and effects analysis, there are few steps to follow. First, it is better idea to write
down exact problem very clearly which is required to solve. Then it is required to clarify what is
the problem, who has involved to create this problem, when it was happened and where it was
happened. Then draw a box inside of the paper and then draw a line starting from the box
across the paper. Next, determine the factors which you would assume as reason to the
problem. This could be equipment, materials, people who involved to create this problem. Now
mention all those factors by drawing line off the “spine” of the diagram and label those branches.
Next step is to take each branch in to the consideration one by one and do root cause analysis
to find possible causes which are related to the selected branch. There are other techniques
like “five why” also can be used in this stage. Once this stage is completed, it should be able to
see all the possible causes of the issue in the fishbone diagram by making a possible way to
16 | P a g e
think about the problem thoroughly. According to the difficulty and importance of the problem,
most likely further causes can be investigated.
2.13. Affinity diagram analysis
Affinity diagram analysis is also a risk identification technique fallen under diagramming
technique. It is a graphical tool developed to arrange unstructured, unorganized ideas produced
in brainstorming, or arrange large amount of gathered information into groups as per natural
relationship. “An Affinity Diagram is a graphic tool designed to help organize loose, unstructured
ideas generated in brainstorming or problem solving meetings and gathers large amounts of
language data (ideas, opinions, issues) and organizes them into groupings based on their
natural relationships” (NHS, 2011). In this technique, the unorganized, distracted ideas are
arranged into meaningful groups which are called affinity sets. Those categorized groups link
different ideas with different concepts under one theme and make a structure for proper search
to find more solutions and the information structure is called affinity charts.
The reason why groups use affinity technique to find the solution is it makes creative level for
participants to think and address the complicated issues. It might be the situation where that is
unexplored and unknown or in the circumstance where participants are with different levels of
experience or different level of knowledge about the problem and as a result, it is unable to
come to the consensus straightaway as a team.
The affinity process is very useful when there is large amount of unsorted date, when it required
new way of thinking, when it is challenged with many facts in apparent chaos, when the issue
is too large or too complex and when the consensus is compulsory. For an example, this
requires in arranging information after the brainstorming exercise, arranging information after
survey. This analysis is not practical normally for the situation where items are less than 15
numbers as a thumb rule.
When it comes to the implementation of affinity diagrams, it is always implemented by team or

group. The main purpose is to blend opinions, perspectives, and insight of a group of people
who are having required knowledge about the problem. As a general practice, it gives its best
results when the group has roughly five to six people maximum. “The process of developing an
Affinity Diagram seems to work best when there are no more than five or six participants” (NHS,
2011). It is important to discuss few features which are unique to affinity process which are
closely related to its success. The first important feature is that participants should express their
ides at will without talking for being highlighted. It reflects two positive outcomes. It promotes
unconventional thinking which can be considered as good point while it demotes semantic
battles. Further it helps to prevent being biased the session by the higher voice. The second
feature is participants should always go for their gut reactions. It is very important for
participants to talk on what they see rather than talking which are listed in the mind with prior
preparation. Quick reaction rather than deliberation is always promoted to keep the session
moving. This environment should be free and relaxing and if there is a disagreement, process
provides solution to sort it out as quickly as possible in simple way. If someone disagree with
other team members’ choice, this process allows it to happen. If the team members cannot
17 | P a g e
come to the consensus, make a copy of same idea and placed in both groups so that the idea
is belonging to both groups.
Figure 6: Example for affinity diagram.
2.14. Expert judgment
Experts are always considered as assets in any kind of organization and experts provides their
crucial inputs for project planning, estimation, risk identifications which are very crucial stages
of the project life cycle. “Experts are treated as assets in any organization and provide inputs
to planning and estimating any activity as their opinions are considered to be crucial” (Satish,
2015). Expert judgment is also one of the best tools find in the risk identification techniques “It
is quite often recommended as one among the best tools and techniques in the project
management processes” (Satish, 2015). The experts can be found from the pool of
stakeholders. Planning phase is the most important period which seek for expert’s opinion.
Expert judgment is time effective approach and it highlights the risk which could be arose within
the project lifecycle. It helps to enhance the quality of the estimates and gives accurate
forecasts.
The experts play very important role in the risk identification process. Risk identification is very
crucial, and it gives direct impact to the project success. The project managers who are
handling particularly big and complex project usually seek expert’s unbiased advice specially
in risk assessment phase as experts provides reliable information with the help of their expert
knowledge and the experience.
18 | P a g e
2.15. Risk breakdown structure
“The most obvious demonstration of the value of structuring within project management is the
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which is recognized as a major tool for the project manager
because it provides a means to structure the work to be done to accomplish project objectives”
(Hillson, 2002). Even though there are many risk identification techniques used in construction
industry, they tend to produce unstructured list of risks and it is questionable fact that how
satisfactory they help to project manager to make risk management plan. “A better solution to
the structuring problem for risk management would be to adopt the full hierarchical approach
used in the WBS, with as many levels as are required to provide the necessary understanding
of risk exposure to allow effective management. Such a hierarchical structure of risk sources
should be known as a Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS)” (Hillson, 2002). The project
management institute defines risk breakdown structures as “A deliverable-oriented grouping of
project elements that organizes and defines the total work scope of the project. Each
descending level represents an increasingly detailed definition of the project work” (PMI, 2000).
The main idea behind the Work Breakdown Structures is to present project activities in
hierarchical way in order to provide clear base for project planning, communication, reporting
& accountability. In same way, the idea behind the Risk breakdown Structures is to provide
clear presentation of risk data to the risk management process in order to provide better
understanding, communication and management.
Figure 7: Visual representation of Risk Breakdown Structure.
19 | P a g e
3. Exploration of case studies on risk identification techniques
3.1. Case study – 1: Risk identification techniques (UK construction industry)
Ali Rostami from faculty of Science and Engineering, university from Wolverhampton, United
Kingdom has carried out the research to find out tools and techniques used in risk identification
process in small, medium enterprises in construction industry in the United Kingdom (Rostami,
2016). Companies were selected for survey based on their capacity of employees. The
companies who are having employees up to 250, but not less than 10 were considered. The
research was carried out by comprehensive literature review and the questionnaires survey.
Questionnaires survey includes 42 nos of tools and techniques found from the UK construction
industry and participants were asked to rate the most practised techniques from the given list
based on their experience with the 1 to 5 rating scale. 453 participants (small & medium
enterprises) have participated for this research.
From the results of research, it was found that 441 organizations out of 453 has familiarised
with the documentation review method and 75% of them which is 331 organizations marked
the documentation review as their first preferred tool and it is 73% from the whole participants.
Author describes that this technique helps to collect background information and then it will
open the paths to new business probabilities (positive) and the uncertainties (positive). Since
this technique requires existing documentation in the organization, it requires no extra cost
(positive). Further, it explores internal risks (positive) of the organizations. With the
consideration of research’s above point of view, the documentation reviewing is quality effective
tool. But author states that document reviewing is a multi-steps process and it must be
overlooked most of the documents in the first round to select important facts which are required
for further reviewing and investigations. He further declares that accuracy of the summarized
information should be again reviewed by the management. So, as described by author, this
process requires considerable amount of time (negative).
Author identified expert judgment as his second most popular technique among the
construction companies in the United Kingdom. As per the research findings, 397 companies
marked it as aware and 71% of them confirmed their usage. As a figure, it is 282 companies
use expert judgement out of 453 companies and as a percentage, it is 62%. Author declares it
positive points as it covers both internal and external risks and the output of the analysis is
accurate as costly tools. Therefore, generally researcher find this technique as a quality
effective tool (positive). According to the research, some enterprises get use of expert
judgement because of its affordability of resources in term of time and budget. Further he found
that 87 companies use their internal experts along with their experience instead of using costly
external experts. But some organizations argue that it is required to use external expert in order
to get more success and low risky operation even though external experts are costly. Further if
they use internal experts for their expert judgments, but still they need to review those decisions
by external experts to get best possible outcome. As per the research findings, the author’s
perspective is expert judgement is a time effective tool (positive). But, in order to get effective
result, it requires external experts’ involvement. Therefore, in order to declare it as quality
effective tool, it is mandatory to label it is not cost-effective tool (negative). Author finds this
20 | P a g e
practice as uncomplicated process (positive) to set up and quickly produce the results as well
as there is no high risk as it covers both internal and external risks.
The research found the checklist as its third risk identification technique. 385 organizations out
of 453 are familiar with the checklist as risk identification technique and 68% of them which is
262 organizations confirmed that they are using the checklist as their risk identification
technique. As a percentage, it is 58%. The research literature proposes that checklist helps to
speedup entire process and finds it as time effective techniques (positive). Further several
medium size organizations suggested checklist as source of risk breakdown structure which
gives better understanding of involved risks (positive). The remarkable advantage of the
checklist is it helps enterprises to avoid forgetting important steps by confirming it as a highly
effective practice in term of quality (positive).
Research paper propose its next risk identification technique as information gathering such as
brainstorming, Delphi technique, root cause analysis. The research finds that 372 enterprises
out of 453 are familiar with the information gathering technique as a risk identification technique
and 61% of whole participants which is 276 organizations get use of this technique. The author
suggested that some techniques such as interviewing, brainstorming as resource-intensive
technique as its high demands on organizational resources and time. Further it states that
techniques such as pondering which are based on the individual assessment are more
beneficial than costly interviews. Therefore, there is enough evidence to say that brainstorming,
interviews involved high cost and it cannot be considered as cost-effective tool (negative). But
author suggests that this technique will produce a considerable range of important information
(positive) in less time (positive). Further, the research findings say that medium size enterprises
are more likely to use this technique as it is more familiarity (positive).
The author finds the diagramming technique as costly tool. He describes it in his review under
the expert judgment by saying “outcomes of this technique could be as accurate as other costly
tools and techniques like the diagramming techniques” (Rostami, 2016). Therefore, as per the
research paper, the diagramming technique was declared as expensive tool in risk identification
(negative).
3.2. Case study – 2: Risk identification techniques (South African construction industry)
Renault, Agumba and Ansary are from department of construction management and quantity
surveying from the university of Johannesburg have conducted the research to investigate the
use of risk identification techniques used in construction industry in South Africa (Renault, et
al., 2016). Research methodology was comprehensive literature review and questionnaire
survey. 12 risk identification techniques were found form the secondary data review and the
questionnaire with those 12 techniques were distributed among the participants to collect
primary data. The participants can rate the risk identification techniques from 1 to 5 scale as
they find them as useful and the responses are evaluated by Mean Item Score tool (average
ratings are calculated, and maximum can reach is 5). Participants are selected from the
construction industry who are considered as large building contractors. Participants should
have valid registration with the construction industry development board (CIDB) and should
21 | P a g e
hold three highest gradings (7 to 9) which are the factors to be considered as large contractor.
50 participants were participated for this research and 44 participants were responded with the
response rate of 88%.
The results of the research show that past-experience reference and the documentation review
got mean item scores 1.68 and 1.25 respectively. In other words, the past-experience reference
techniques represent 34% popularity and the documentation review technique represents 25%
popularity.
The techniques such as interviews / experts’ judgments, expert systems show quite high
popularity compared to documentation review. As figures, the interviews / expert’s judgment
represents mean item score as a 2.85 out of 5 and the expert system declares its popularity as
a 1.95 out of 5. As a percentage, they are 57% and 39% respectively. Research suggests that
it tends to expose only risks which are within the expert’s knowledge area and findings of risks
are completely depending on expert’s knowledge as a disadvantage of this technique
(negative).
As declared in the results of the research, check list is the most widely used technique and it
has reached 4.55 ratings out of 5 reporting highest as a survey result. As a percentage, it is
91% popularity. Research says that checklist analysis is quick and straight forward process
(positive). So as a matter of effectiveness, it can be considered as time effective tool and easy
handling tool. At the same time, there is a possibility to miss the risk activities which are not
listed in the check lists is major disadvantage of this technique (negative).
As per the survey results, mean item score of the brainstorming is 3.91. As a percentage, it is
78%. Further, the mean item score of the Delphi technique and the questionnaire are 2.52 and
the 2.48 respectively. As a percentage, they are 50% and 50%. Research suggests that
brainstorming is a well organize risk identification technique by declaring it as easy tool
(positive). But if the session is not carefully monitored, it will be influenced by more strong
parties (negative). As far as questionnaires are concerned, it allows for consistency and short
response period as a procedure. Therefore, the entire process is quick and time effective
practice (positive). But its results are directly based on individuals’ ideas (negative).
As per the result of the research, it is surprised that diagramming technique such as flow chart
demonstrates high mean item score which is 4.52 out of 5 (90%) while other diagramming
techniques such as influence diagrams, SWOT analysis, cause and effects diagrams
demonstrate quite low mean item score values which are 2.02 (40%), 1.22 (24%) and 1.19
(24%) respectively. The SWOT analysis covers internal weaknesses and external threat of the
organization. So, it covers basically all internal and external risks. Since it covers both internal
and external risks, it can be considered as quality effective tool (positive). Since the flow chart
is a form of graphical representation, it gives easy understanding and better comprehension of
the risk (positive).
22 | P a g e
3.3. Case study – 3: Risk identification techniques (Polish MSMES companies)
Iwona Gorzeń-Mitka from Czestochowa University of Technology, Poland has conducted the
research to explore risk identification techniques presently used in micro, small and medium
size enterprises operating in the sub-Silesian region of Czestochowa in Poland (Gorzeń-Mitka,
2013). The research methodology includes 2 phases. Reviewing of statistical materials
collected from the small, medium enterprises to find the risk identification technique was the
first phase and the second phase was a survey carried out with the questionnaires with 30 close
ended questions. Even though the 483 entities were selected for the survey, the low response
rate were observed which is 54 participants in the 2010 survey (Survey I), 47 participants in
2011 survey (Survey II) and the 106 participants in the 2012 survey (Survey III). From the
survey results only 49 from the survey I, 40 from the survey II and the 103 from the survey III
were selected for the data analysis.
As per the research results, previous experience review demonstrated 76% popularity and the
documentation review demonstrated 48% popularity which are coming under documentation
review. According to the research results, expert’s interview, expert’s judgments has quite low
popularity and as a figure, it was recorded as 23%. Checklist analysis such as process analysis
demonstrated 23% popularity. Information gathering techniques such as brainstorming, Delphi
technique, survey / polls, focus group have represented their popularity as 39%, 28%, 13% and
14% respectively. Further the diagramming techniques such as SWOT analysis and sample
modelling have 21% and 4% popularity respectively.
3.4. Case study – 4: Risk identification techniques (Brazilian construction industry)
Martins Claudia Garrido from civil engineering school of Federal Fluminence university, Ferreira
Miguel Luiz Ribeiro from department of mechanical engineering of Federal Fluminence
university and the Haddad Assed Naked from department of civil engineering of University of
Federal do Rio de Janeiro has conducted the research on knowledge and application of risk
identification techniques in the construction industry in Brazil (Garrido, et al., 2011). Research
methodology was questionnaire survey which included 18 risk identification techniques and
participants were asked to rate the techniques according to their perspective about the
techniques. The ratings can be given from 1 to 5 according to their frequency of use. For an
example, if the technique is highly used, it can be rated as 5 and if the technique is rarely used,
the allocated rating will be 1 or give no rating. The participants were professionals in the
construction industry in Brazil. Questionnaires have been distributed to 709 participants. But
the responses were received only from 46 participants. Analysing factor was average frequency
of use.
According to the survey results, the risk identification techniques which were considered under
category of documentation review such as case-based approach and the business impact
analysis has received their frequency of use as 2.15 out of 5 and 2.76 out of 5 respectively. As
a percentage, their usages were 43% and the 55%. The techniques such as expert’s interviews,
pondering which were considered under category of expert judgments demonstrated their
average frequency of uses as 2.98 out of 5 and 1.96 out of 5 and as a percentage, they were
23 | P a g e
60% and 39%. The research results showed that average frequency of use of the checklist
analysis as 3.7 out of 5 which was as a percentage 74%. According to the survey results
findings, average frequency of use of brainstorming, Delphi technique, nominal group
technique, questionnaire, synectics, electronic brainstorming is 3.02, 1.87, 2.37, 2.78, 1.85,
1.67 out of 5. As a percentage values, they are 60%, 37%, 47%, 56%, 37% & 33%. Generally,
all those techniques are considered under information gathering techniques. Further, risk
identification techniques such as influence diagram, flow charts, scenario buildings, cause and
effect diagrams, root cause identification, SWOT analysis, SWIFT structure analysis received
their average frequency of use as 2.26, 3.13, 3.07, 2.91, 3.22, 2.17, 1.87 out of 5 respectively.
As a percentage value, they are 45%, 63%, 61%, 58%, 64%, 43% and 37%.
3.5. Case study – 5: Risk identification techniques (Ghanaian construction industry)
Frank Hayford and Sarfraz Ahmed from Sweden have conducted the research to identify tools
and techniques used in construction industry for managing projects by small to medium scale
enterprises in Ghana (Hayford & Ahmed, 2013). The research methodology was
comprehensive literature review, questionnaire survey and interviews of identified personals.
22 risk identification techniques were listed in the questionnaires and respondents to select the
techniques as they have used for their projects. 53 completed responses were received from
38 organizations as a response to the survey.
As per the survey results, the techniques such as benchmarking, cost benefit analysis,
customer satisfaction records demonstrated their frequency of use as 45 out of 53, 22 out of
53, 31 out of 53 which were coming under documentation review category. As a percentage
value, they were 85%, 42% and 58%. The training programs which were considered under
expert judgment demonstrated its usage as 17 out of 53 and as a percentage, it is 32%.
Checklist analysis was the most used technique and all respondents have confirmed that they
have used checklist as risk identification technique. As a percentage, it is 100%. Brainstorming
was used by 39 respondents by recording 74% popularity. As a diagramming technique, cause
and effect analysis was marked by 16 respondents by representing 30% popularity percentage.
3.6. Case study – 6: Risk identification techniques (Investment projects in Poland)
Piotr Tworek from The University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance and Insurance,
Department of Investments and Real-Estate, Katowice, Poland has conducted the research on
risk identification methods on investment projects in companies in Poland and published the
paper in International Conference Risk Management and Modelling in the year 2010 (Tworek,
2010). The aim of the research was to explore the methodical aspects of the risk identification
technique in the investment projects. Research methodology was basic questionnaires and
personal interviews. Result of the research was empirical illustrations on 25 leading
construction and assembly companies in Poland. The research paper mainly describes
theoretical deliberations. Within the research paper, author describes strengths & weaknesses
of 20 risk identification techniques.
24 | P a g e
The author’s perspective about the documentation review techniques was it doesn’t require any
special tools and therefore he found it as cost effective tool (positive). If someone requires
project specific risks, documentation review was better way to find related risks (positive). But
on the other hand, documentation review only deals only with the risks contained in the project
documentations (negative). As per the author’s explanation, assumption analysis was also
effective tool to generate project specific risk (positive). At the same time, research finds this
technique as simple structured approach (positive).
Expert judgments such as interviews addresses risks in detail. Further it will create an
opportunity to join stakeholders, it will create set of risks which cover all areas. Therefore, it
was quality effective tool (positive). Expert’s interviews require considerable amount of time so
that it was not a time effective tool (negative). At the same time, this technique generates many
unnecessary information and therefore it requires proper filtering process. Therefore, this was
quite complicated and declared as difficult tool (negative).
As far as checklist analysis was concerned, it covered all previously identified risks and can be
identified as quality effective tool (positive). At the same time, it will miss the items which were
not in the list (negative).
Brainstorming was a practice which requires attendance of key stake holders and therefore,
this practice it expensive and not cost effective (negative). But this technique allows participants
to speak their minds and make a creative list of risk register. Therefore, it was quality effective
technique (positive). At the same time, this practice was quite difficult to perform as it required
to arrange key stake holders into the workshop, and it will create many unnecessary information
as well. Therefore, it required proper filtering and author finds it as difficult tool (negative). The
risk involved with this technique was it makes biased result if dominated by strong person
(negative).
Since the participants are anonyms in the Delphi technique, it helps source of bias (positive).
But research suggested that this process takes longer time than others as it requires iteration
of expert inputs (negative) as well as those identified risks were limited to the technical risks
(negative).
Nominal group technique allows and encourage all participants to contribute and make different
level of competence one platform to contribute (positive). Further at the end of the session, the
entire process was already documented therefore no extra time was required for documentation
(positive). Further this provides ideal base for other risk identification techniques such as affinity
diagram (positive).
Questioners encourage broad thinking to identify risks (positive). But the disadvantage was risk
identified were limited to the topics covered by the questionnaires (negative).
Cause and effects diagram provide better visual presentation about the projects and provide
environment for structured thinking (positive). But this can be easily over-complexed (negative).
25 | P a g e
Forcefield analysis provides deep understanding about the factors which affect project
objectives. So, by understanding those factors thoroughly, the actual risks can be found
associated with those factors (positive). But forcefield analysis was considered as time
consuming technique (negative) and complex technique (negative). This technique was
normally applied on one objective. Therefore, it does not provide whole picture of the project
(negative).
Influence diagrams helps to expose key risk drivers in the project and generates counterintuitive
insights which are usually not available with other techniques (positive).
Risk breakdown structures offers ideal base for other risk identification technique such as
brainstorming (positive). This technique covers all type of risk (positive) and it will check for
blind spots or omissions within its procedure (positive) and it ensures to cover all types of risk
(positive) and it tests for blind spots or omissions (positive).
Root cause analysis provides identification of additional dependent risks (positive). Its primary
objective was to find the real root cause, it serves to simplify apparent complexity (positive).
SWOT analysis exposes internal weaknesses as well as external threats. So, it covers all the
risks in every corner (positive). Further SWOT analysis has a structured approach to identify
the risks (positive).
26 | P a g e
4. Methodology
4.1. Methodology for data collection
This research is carried out completely with the help of secondary data extracted from the
extensive literature review on research papers, case studies, project reports, journals, web sites
and so on. Therefore, the literature review is the main methodology of collecting secondary
data.
Within the literatures, study has selected six research papers as case studies which have been
conducted in five countries in construction industry. Those research papers which are selected
as case studies are conducted based on primary data collected through surveys and
questionnaires. Therefore, the information used for the research is having closer relationship
with original data. Further data was collected from five different countries covering European,
African and South American continent. Therefore, the collected data can be considered as
sufficiently scattered all around the world in order to make reasonable and standard conclusion
about the risk identification techniques generally used in construction industry.
4.2. Methodology for data analysis
In the study of risk identification techniques, there are many techniques can be found. Most of
them are quite similar to each other, but with slight differences in their performance in term of
time, cost, quality and other factors such as easy understanding, set-up and practice. In this
research, the first action was taken to categorize those different types techniques into different
groups which are having similar behaviours. Then the study is conducted for those identified
groups of techniques rather than taking each and every technique into the consideration.
Data analysis methodology for determination of most widely used techniques
As described in the introduction, the first objective is to determine most widely used risk
identification techniques in the construction industry. In order to find most widely used
identification techniques, it is required to focus extensively on literatures on research papers
which are having reasonable findings about their popularity of different risk identifications
techniques.
The main methodology of this section is comparison of techniques each other with the help of
weighted factor analysis. In order to find most popular technique and least popular technique,
their popularities should be compared on equal platforms. Therefore, it requires to convert
every research finding into similar format in order to compare them in single platform.
In this research, the collected data about the popularities are converted into the form of
percentages so that it creates a clear comparable idea in the sense of their popularity in equal
form. As far as the case studies selected for this research are concerned, they have used
several different methodologies for information gathering and analyzation. For an example,
some research papers have used questionnaires survey as a methodology for collecting data.
The questionnaires include list of risk identification techniques and participants can rate their
27 | P a g e
favour on five-point Likert scale. The Mean-item Score method is the methodology used for
data analysis. The mean-item Score means average numbers of points of which risk
identification technique received out of 5. The same meaning can be represented in the form
of percentages as well. (For ex: if mean-item score is 3 out of 5, the related percentage value
is 60%). This data conversion process takes place for all the research findings extracted from
research papers. In addition to that, there were other situations were existed such a way that
the different techniques presented different popularities values which are in same group. For
an example, in the case study – 2, brainstorming represented 78% popularity while Delphi
technique was representing 50% popularity. But both techniques are under information
gathering technique. In this situation, the highest value was selected as popularity for the group
as all those techniques represent same group as a one team.
The next step was to represent all processed information into single comparison table in order
to represent all information comparably prior to apply weighted factor analysis. The weighted
factors were decided based on proportional value of population participated for researches.
Figure 8: Methodical process for data analysis – (Most widely used techniques)
Data analysis methodology for determination of effectiveness of techniques.
The second objective of the research is to determine effectiveness of risk identification

techniques. In order to measure the effectiveness, the measuring factors must be decided. In
this study, the time, cost, quality were the main factors for measuring effectiveness. In addition
to the main factors, the other features such as easy understanding, set-up and practice was
selected as forth factor which is named as “Other” factor.
Then all the positive and negative facts which are described in the literature review are identified
in term of time, cost and quality based on its effect on the effectiveness. If the fact is contributing
to improve the effectiveness, then it is considered as “Positive” fact and if the fact contributes
to decrease the effectiveness, it is considered as “negative” fact. In the same way, all the facts
identified from each individual technique within the group are considered and listed into one
table. If the same idea is repeatedly existing in two different techniques, but within the same
group, one idea is neglected as repeated.
28 | P a g e
Once all the facts are listed out, the points allocation step takes place. In this process, one
positive point is allocated to each individual positive fact and minus point is allocated to each
negative fact. No points are allocated for repetitive facts. So, at the end of the practice, it would
be able to determine how many positive points and negative points were earned by each group
of technique. Further, the points can be calculated according to the measuring factors such as
time. Cost, quality and other separately. Then finally all the points which are allocated to each
group of techniques are summarized into one table. In this representation, it is quite difficult to
interpret its meaning in term of how good or how bad they are. Therefore, the requirement is
aroused to find suitable way to interpret that information in better representation. It is always
better idea to represent anyone’s performance in percentages. Therefore, those points are
represented in the form of fractions in the first step and then it will be easy to demonstrate them
in percentages in the next step. In order to make the points into fractions, the first action should
be taken to bring them into positive integer region. Then, the suitable dividing factor must be
determined to divide them. So, in this practice, the symmetrical span between highest score to
the lowest score was selected. For an example, if the highest positive score is +3 and lowest
score is -2, the span between +3 to -3 is selected as dividing factor which is 6. Then all the
points are lifted up by adding 3 points (half of dividing factor) to all values to bring them into
positive region and then represent them in the form of fraction by dividing values by dividing
factor. For an example, if the value is -2, it will become +1 when 3 points are added. Then it will
become 1/6 when it is divided by dividing factor which is 6. The percentage 16.66% is also
another interpretation of fraction 1/6.
Figure 9: Methodical process for data analysis – (Effectiveness of techniques)
29 | P a g e
The final stage is applying of weighted factors for those values which are converted into form
of percentages. Since time, cost and quality are the most important factors for any project, 30%
similar weights were allocated for each factors and balance 10% weight was allocated to
“Other” factors. Then, the final performances of effectiveness are calculated with the effects of
weighted factors.
30 | P a g e
5. Findings / data analysis
Categorization of risk identification techniques
As described in the methodology, fifteen numbers of risk identification techniques were observed in
the literature review and those techniques have been categorized into main groups as below.
Index Main categories Risk identification Techniques
1 Documentation review Review project documentation, Business Impact Analysis,

Assumption analysis.
Brainstorming Brainstorming, Delphi technique, Electronic Brainstorming, Nominal
2
(Information gathering) group technique,
SWOT Analysis, Flow charts analysis, Cause-and-Effect Diagrams,

3 Diagram analysis Affinity Diagram, Root Cause Identification, Risk breakdown
structure
4 Checklist analysis Checklists analysis
5 Expert judgment Interview expert judgment,
Table 1: Main categories of risk identification techniques
Findings from the analysis of most widely used risk identification techniques.
In order to evaluate the most widely used techniques in the construction industry, the data extracted
from the case studies have been summarized as shown in below (from Table 2 to Table 6).
Case study – 1
Methodology: Questionnaire with 42 tools and techniques. Identify and rate
the most practiced tools and techniques on five-point scale and reason behind
Terminology for the ratings given.
Participants: 453 small and medium-sized enterprises.
Risk Identification Findings Allocation

Technique
Documentation review Total – 453, Responded – 441, Users – 331 73%
Expert judgment Total – 453, Responded – 397, Users – 282 62%
Checklist analysis Total – 453, Responded – 385, Users – 262 58%
Brainstorming
Total – 453, Responded – 372, Users – 227 50%
(Information gathering)
Derived 38%
Diagram analysis
Table 2: Summary of findings from case study – 1
31 | P a g e
Case study – 2
Methodology: Questionnaire with 12 risk identification techniques sent for
selected top-ranking contractors for primary data. Literature search for
Terminology secondary data.
Participants: 50 large building contractors.

Technique
Past Experience - 1.68 out of 5 – (34%)
34%
Documentation review Document Review - 1.25 out of 5 – (25%).
Interviews/Expert Opinion - 2.86 out of 5 – (57%)
57%
Expert judgment Expert systems - 1.95 out of 5 – (39%)
Checklist - 4.55 out of 5 – (91%) 91%
Checklist analysis
Brainstorming - 3.91 out of 5 – (78%)
Brainstorming Delphi Technique - 2.52 out of 5 – (50%) 78%
(Information gathering) Questionnaire - 2.48 out of 5 – (50%)
Flow Charts - 4.52 out of 5 – (90%)
Influence Diagram - 2.02 out of 5 – (40%)
90%
Diagram analysis SWOT Analysis - 1.22 out of 5 – (24%)
Cause-and-effect diagrams - 1.19 out of 5 – (24%)
Case study – 3
Methodology: Questionnaires with 30 questions.

Participants: 103 micro, small and medium enterprises Czestochowa in
Terminology
Poland.

Technique
Previous experience - 76%
76%
Documentation review Documents review - 48%
Interview / Discussion - 11% 11%
Expert judgment
Process analysis - 23% 23%
Checklist analysis
Brainstorming - 39%
Opinions of experts (Delphi Technique) - 28%
Brainstorming 39%
Surveys / Polls - 13%
Focus groups - 14%
SWOT analysis - 21%
21%
Diagram analysis Simple modelling - 4%
32 | P a g e
Case study – 4
Methodology: Survey by questionnaires with 18 risk identification
techniques with rating from 1 to 5.
Terminology
Participants: 43 construction companies in Rio de Janeiro State.

Technique
Case Based Approach - 2.15 Out of 5 – 43%
55%
Documentation review Business Impact Analysis - 2.76 Out of 5 – 55%
Interview/ Expert Judgment - 2.98 Out of 5 – 60%
60%
Expert judgment Pondering - 1.96 Out of 5 – 39%
Checklist - 3.7 Out of 5 – 74% 74%
Checklist analysis
Brainstorming - 3.02 Out of 5 – 60%
Delphi Technique - 1.87 Out of 5 – 37%
Nominal Group Technique - 2.37 Out of 5 – 47%
Brainstorming 60%
Questionnaire - 2.78 Out of 5 – 56%
Synectics - 1.85 Out of 5 – 37%
Electronic Brainstorming - 1.67 Out of 5 – 33%
Influence Diagram - 2.26 Out of 5 – 45%
Flow charts - 3.13 Out of 5 – 63%
Scenario Building - 3.07 Out of 5 – 61%
Cause-and-Effect Diagrams - 2.91 Out of 5 – 58% 64%
Diagram analysis
Root Cause Identification - 3.22 Out of 5 – 64%
SWOT Analysis - 2.17 Out of 5 – 43%
What if? SWIFT structure - 1.87 Out of 5 – 37%
Case study – 5
Methodology: Literature review and survey with questionnaire.
Participants: 53 participants from 38 SMEs operating in the construction
Terminology
sector within the greater Accra region, Ghana.

Technique
Benchmarking – 45/53 – 85%
Cost‐Benefit Analysis – 22/53 – 42% 85%
Documentation review
Customer Satisfaction – 31/53 – 58%
Training Programmes – 17/53 – 32% 32%
Expert judgment
Checklist – 53/53 – 100% 100%
Checklist analysis
Brainstorming Brainstorming – 39/53 – 74% 74%

Cause and Effect Analysis – 16/53 – 30% 30%
Diagram analysis
33 | P a g e
Above extracted data is finally tabulated into below comparison table as shown in Table 7. As
explained in the research methodology, weighted factors are allocated proportion to the number of
participants participated in the researches.
Risk Identification Case study Case study Case study Case study Case study
Technique –1 –2 –3 –4 –5
Participants
453 50 103 43 53 Popularity
(Total – 702)
Weightage factor
allocation (64%) (7%) (15%) (6%) (8%)
(Total – 100%)
Documentation
73% 34% 76% 55% 85% 70%
review
Expert judgment 62% 57% 11% 60% 32% 52%
Checklist analysis 58% 91% 23% 74% 100% 59%

Brainstorming
(Information 61% 78% 39% 60% 74% 60%
gathering)
Diagram analysis 38% 90% 21% 64% 30% 40%
Table 7: Summary of the popularity (with the weighted factors applied)
Popularity of Risk Identification Techniques

100%
90%
90%
80%
70% 64%
60%
Popularity
50%
38%
40%
30%
30%
21%
20%
10%
0%
Documentation Expert judgment Checklist analysis Brainstorming Diagram analysis
review (Information
gathering)
Technique
Figure 10: Graphical representation of popularity of risk identification techniques.
34 | P a g e
Findings from the analysis of effectiveness of risk identification techniques.
As described in the methodology, all the secondary data found from every case study have been
tabulated as shown in below tables (from Table 8 to Table 12). All the identified facts have been
labelled according to its positivity or negativity, according to the score and according to category of
facts (cost, quality, time or other).
Document review
Positive/
Index Facts Points Factor Technique Source
Negative
Documentation Case study
1 Requires no specialist tools Positive 1 Cost Review -6
Use existing documents – No Documentation Case study

2 Positive 1 Cost Review -1
extra cost
Identify new business Documentation Case study

3 Positive 1 Cost Review -1
probabilities
4 Identify uncertainties Positive 1 Quality Review -1

5 Identify internal risk Positive 1 Quality Review -1

6 Projects specific risks in details Positive 1 Quality Review -6
Assumption Case study

7 Generates project specific risks Positive 1 Quality Analysis -6

8 Need more time Negative -1 Time Review -1
Limited to risks in project Documentation Case study

9 Negative -1 Other Review -6
documentation
Assumption Case study
10 Simple structured approach Positive 1 Other Analysis -6
Summary Cost Quality Time Other
Positive 3 4 0 1
Negative 0 0 -1 -1
Table 8: Summary of findings – (Document review)
35 | P a g e
Expert judgment
Positive /
Negative
Qualified experts are Expert Case study
1 Negative -1 Cost Judgment -1
expensive
Expert Case study
2 Covers internal risks Positive 1 Quality Judgment -1
Expert Case study

3 Covers external risks Positive 1 Quality Judgment -1
Generates risks in detail Case study

4 with the engagement of Positive 1 Quality Interview
-6
stakeholders
Expert Case study
5 Need less time Positive 1 Time Judgment -1
Case study
6 Time consuming Negative -1 Time Interview
-6
Uncomplicated process to Expert Case study

7 Positive 1 Other Judgment -1
set-up
Tend to ignore outright Expert Case study

8 Negative -1 Other Judgment -2
previously omitted risk
Many information requires Case study

9 Negative -1 Other Interview
filtering -6
Positive 0 3 1 1
Negative -1 0 -1 -2
Table 9: Summary of findings – (Expert judgment)
36 | P a g e
Checklist analysis
Positive /
Negative
Prevent forgetting critical Checklist Case study
1 Positive 1 Quality Analysis -1
steps
Detailed list of risks Checklist Case study
2 including previous Positive 1 Quality Analysis -6
experience
Checklist Case study
3 Speed up whole process Positive 1 Time Analysis -1

4 Quick technique Positive 1 Time Analysis -2
Information source for Risk Checklist Case study

5 Positive 1 Cost Analysis -1
Breakdown Structure (RBS)
6 Straightforward Positive 1 Other Analysis -2
Items not in the list are Checklist Case study

7 Negative -1 Other Analysis -2
missed
Risks not on the list will be Checklist Case study

8 Negative Other Analysis -6
missed (Repeating)
Positive 1 2 2 1
Negative 0 0 0 -1
Table 10: Summary of findings – (Checklist analysis)
37 | P a g e
Brainstorming (Information gathering)

Positive/
Negative
Brainstorming Case
1 Resource intensive technique Negative -1 Cost
study - 1
Expensive task to arrange Brainstorming Case
2 Negative -1 Cost
stakeholders study - 6
Information source for Affinity Nominal Case
3 Positive 1 Cost
diagrams Group study - 6
Technique
Brainstorming Case
4 Create considerable range of ideas Positive 1 Quality
study - 1
Speak their minds and generates Case
5 Positive 1 Quality Brainstorming
creative ideas study - 6
Encourage different level of Nominal Case
6 Positive 1 Quality
competence to contribute equally Group study - 6
Encourage board thinking to identify Technique
Questionnaire Case
risks study - 6
Limited to the topics covered by the Questionnaire Case
8 Negative -1 Quality
questions study - 6
Brainstorming Case
9 More ideas in less time Positive 1 Time
study - 1
Consistency & short response period Questionnaire Case
10 Positive Time
(Repeat) study - 2
Take longer time due to iteration Delphi Case
11 Negative -1 Time
process Technique study - 6
Auto documenting to reasonable Nominal Case
12 Positive 1 Time
extent Group study - 6
Technique
Brainstorming Case
13 High familiarity Positive 1 Other
study - 1
Brainstorming Case
14 Well organized technique Positive 1 Other
study - 2
Influenced by strong parties if not Brainstorming Case
15 Negative -1 Other
monitored study - 2
Questionnaire Case
16 Results depend on individuals Negative -1 Other
study - 2
Generates non-risks and duplicates. Case
17 Negative -1 Other Brainstorming
Requires filtering study - 6
May produce biased results if Brainstorming Case

18 Negative Other
dominated by a strong person study - 6
(Repeat) Delphi Case
19 Removes sources of bias Positive 1 Other
Technique study - 6
Delphi Case
20 Limited to technical risks Negative -1 Other
Technique study - 6
Positive 1 4 2 3
Negative -2 -1 -1 -4
Table 11: Summary of findings – (Brainstorming)
38 | P a g e
Diagram analysis
Positive/
Negative
Diagramming Case study
1 Expensive tools & techniques Negative -1 Cost
-1
Offers a framework for other risk Risk Case study
2 identification techniques such as Positive 1 Cost breakdown -6
brainstorming Structure
SWOT Case study
3 Identify internal risks Positive 1 Quality
-2
SWOT Case study
4 Identify external risks Positive 1 Quality
-2
Influence Case study
5 Expose key risk drivers Positive 1 Quality
Diagram -6
Creates deep understanding of Force Field Case study
factors that affect project Analysis -6
objectives (Repeat)of all types of
Ensures coverage Risk Case study
7 Positive Quality
risk (Repeat) breakdown -6
Allows identification of additional, Root Cause
Structure Case study
dependent risks Analysis -6
SWOT Case study
9 Focus on internal risks (Repeat) Positive Quality
-6
SWOT Case study
10 Focus on external risks (Repeat) Positive Quality
-6
Force Field Case study
11 Time-consuming Negative -1 Time
Analysis -6
As graphical tool, gain better Flow Chart Case study
12 Positive 1 Other
comprehension -2
Visual presentation promotes Cause & Case study
13 Positive 1 Other
structured thinking Effect -6
Cause
Diagrams& Case study
14 Can easily become overcomplex Negative -1 Other
Effect -6
Force Field
Diagrams Case study
15 Complex technique Negative -1 Other
Analysis -6
Applied on single objective. No Force Field Case study
16 Negative -1 Other
whole project view Analysis -6
Risk Case study
17 Test for blind spots or omissions Positive 1 Other
breakdown -6
Can serve to reduce apparent Root Cause
Structure Case study
18 Positive 1 Other
complexity Analysis -6
Structured approach to identify SWOT Case study
19 Positive Other
threats and opportunities (Repeat) -6
Positive 1 5 0 4
Negative -1 0 -1 -3
Table 12: Summary of findings – (Diagram analysis)
39 | P a g e
Once all the facts, findings are tabulated as above, the final summary of the points of each table
are tabulated into one comparison table as shown below Table 13.
Positive /
Index Technique Cost Quality Time Other
Negative
Positive 3 4 0 1
1 Documentation review
Negative 0 0 -1 -1
Positive 0 3 1 1
2 Expert judgment
Negative -1 0 -1 -2
Positive 1 2 2 1
3 Checklist analysis
Negative 0 0 0 -1
Brainstorming Positive 1 4 2 3
4
(Information gathering) Negative -2 -1 -1 -4
Positive 1 5 0 4
5 Diagram analysis
Negative -1 0 -1 -3
Table 13: Point allocation summary for each risk identification technique
As per the above table, it is observed that the points vary from +4 to -3 between its maximum and
minimum. In order to interpret these values in better understanding way, it was planned to represent
them in the form of percentages of performance. Therefore, as a first action, all those points must
be shift into the positive integer region without doing harm to the meaning of the findings. Therefore,
as described in methodology, it is required to determine dividing factor. According to the behaviour
of above tabulated values, they vary from 5 (maximum) to -4 (minimum) and therefore the dividing
factor was considered as 10 (symmetrical span of the points distribution between its maximum and
minimum). In order to bring all those values into the positive value region, 5 points (half of the
dividing factor) are added to all tabulated values as shown in below Table 14. Then, as a result,
those values were shifted into positive region as shown in Table 15. Finally, all the values were
represented as a fraction of dividing factor as shown in below Table 16.
Technique Cost Quality Time Other

Index
1 Document review 5 5 5 5
2 Expert judgment 5 5 5 5
3 Checklist analysis 5 5 5 5
4 Brainstorming (Information gathering) 5 5 5 5
5 Diagram analysis 5 5 5 5
Table 14: Equally distributed point distribution table.
40 | P a g e
1 Document review 8 9 4 5
2 Expert judgment 4 8 5 4
3 Checklist analysis 6 7 7 5
4 Brainstorming (Information gathering) 4 8 6 4
5 Diagram analysis 5 10 4 6
Table 15: Final point distribution table.
1 Document review 8/10 9/10 4/10 5/10
2 Expert judgment 4/10 8/10 5/10 4/10
3 Checklist analysis 6/10 7/10 7/10 5/10
4 Brainstorming (Information gathering) 4/10 8/10 6/10 4/10
5 Diagram analysis 5/10 10/10 4/10 6/10
Table 16: Final point distribution table in the form of fractions.
Once those values are converted into the form of fractions, they still represent the similar meaning
of original values comparatively. Then those fractions are converted into percentages. Once these
calculations are done, the popularities of each techniques are visible as shown in below Table 17.
1 Document review 80% 90% 40% 50%
2 Expert judgment 40% 80% 50% 40%
3 Checklist analysis 60% 70% 70% 50%
4 Brainstorming (Information gathering) 40% 80% 60% 40%
5 Diagram analysis 50% 100% 40% 60%
Table 17: Effectiveness in term of percentages (without weighted factor)
41 | P a g e
As explained in the research methodology, each factor must be accessed separately based on its
importance to the final objectives. As far as construction projects are concerned, cost, quality and
the time are the most important factors and they have equal importance. So, it is worth enough to
allocate 30% weights for each factors and balance 10% to “Other” as shown in below Table 18. The
final popularities can be found in the last column with the effects of allocated weighted factors.
Overall
Technique Cost Quality Time Other
Effectiveness
Index
Weightage Allocation (30%) (30%) (30%) (10%) (100%)
1 Document review 80% 90% 40% 50% 68%
2 Expert judgment 40% 80% 50% 40% 55%
3 Checklist analysis 60% 70% 70% 50% 65%
Brainstorming (Information
4 40% 80% 60% 40% 58%
gathering)
5 Diagram analysis 50% 100% 40% 60% 63%
Table 18: Effectiveness in term of percentages (with weightage factor)
Overall Effectiveness of Risk Identification Techniques

80%
68%
70% 65%
63%
58%
60% 55%
50%
Effectiveness
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Document review Expert judgment Checklist analysis Brainstorming Diagram analysis
(Information
gathering)
Technique
Figure 11: Graphical representation of effectiveness of risk identification techniques
42 | P a g e
6. Conclusion & recommendations
After conducting extensive literature review and analysis of data with different methodologies, the
five major categories of risk identification techniques were identified. Five categories include
documentation review, information gathering (brainstorming), diagram analysis, checklist analysis
and finally expert’s judgments. Fifteen risk identification techniques were initially selected for the
study within the construction industry used in different countries. Implementation mechanism was
the main factor considered in the process of risk identification techniques categorization into main
groups.
The first objective of this research was to determine most widely used risk identification techniques
used in construction industry. For this study, the findings from five case studies were analysed which
were conducted in five different countries. As per the results of the analysis as shown in the Table
7, the documentation review was identified as the most widely used risk identification technique
used in construction industry with the achievement of 70% popularity. The least used risk
identification technique was diagram analysis which represented 40% popularity. The second
highest ranking was information gathering technique. According to the research results, information
gathering had 60% performance in term of popularity. Third and fourth rankings are checklist
analysis and expert judgment with the achievement of 59% and 52% popularities. The overall
findings can be summarized as below.
1st highest popular - (70%) Documentation review.

2nd highest popular - (60%) Information gathering (brainstorming).
3rd highest popular - (59%) Checklist analysis.
4th highest popular - (52%) Expert’s judgments.
5th highest popular - (40%) Diagram analysis.
The second objective of the research was to evaluate their effectiveness. In this approach,
effectiveness was measured in term of cost, quality, time and other factors such as easy
understand, set-up and practice. According to the research results shown in the Table 18, the
document review is the most effective risk identification technique by achieving 68% overall
performance. Expert’s judgment is the least effective technique with 55% overall performance. The
second highest effective risk identification technique was checklist analysis with the achievement of
65% effectiveness. Third and fourth highest effective risk identification techniques are diagram
analysis and the information gathering (brainstorming) techniques respectively with the record of
63% and 58% performances. The overall performances in term of effectiveness are summarized as
below.
1st highest effective - (68%) Documentation review.

2nd highest effective - (65%) Checklist analysis.
3rd highest effective - (63%) Diagram analysis.
4th highest effective - (58%) Information gathering (brainstorming).
5th highest effective - (55%) Expert’s judgments.
In addition to above analysis, all the parameters related to the time, cost, quality and other can be
identified separately within the study. As far as the behaviour of risk identification techniques in term
43 | P a g e
of cost, quality and time are concerned, they have different behaviours to each other. When it comes
to the cost effectiveness, the most cost-effective risk identification technique was documentation
review (80%). At the same time, the least cost-effective techniques are expert’s judgment (40%)
and the information gathering (40%). The diagram analysis technique is the most quality effective
technique and its effectiveness was marked as 100%. Check list analysis the least effective in term
of quality with the 70% of effectiveness. As demonstrated in the research results, most time effective
risk identification technique is checklist analysis. Further the document review (40%) and the
diagram analysis (40%) represented the lowest in term of time effectiveness. The other factors used
to measure effectiveness are easy understanding, set-up and practice. The diagram analysis (60%)
is the most effective in term of easy understanding, set-up and practice. Expert judgment (40%) and
the information gathering (40%) were the most difficult techniques to understand, set-up and
practice. With the above analysis, below findings can be summarised.
Most cost-effective technique - Document review.

Most quality-effective technique - Diagram analysis.
Most time-effective technique - Checklist analysis.
Most other-effective technique - Diagram analysis.
Least cost-effective techniques - Expert’s judgment, Information gathering (brainstorming).
Least quality-effective technique - Checklist analysis.
Least time-effective techniques - Document review, Diagram analysis.
Least other-effective techniques - Expert judgment, Information gathering (brainstorming).
As set out in the objectives of the report, suggestions for possible improvements for the risk
identification techniques was the last objective. A per the research findings, the consideration was
given about the combine technique in order to improve their effectiveness. As observed in the
research findings, documentation review is the most cost-effective risk identification technique. But
in term of quality-effectiveness, it is in the second place where diagram analysis demonstrates much
better-quality performance than documentation review. The improved version of technique can be
proposed by combining both techniques together so that it can achieve both performances. For an
example, all the major topics which are required to review under the documentation review can be
analyse by using root cause analysis so that all predictable risks will be further exposed with
compared to the practice of documentation review alone.
44 | P a g e
7. References
APM, 2012. APM body of knowledge. 6th ed. England: Princes Risborough : Association for Project
Management.
APM, 2019. APM body of knowledge. 7th ed. Buckinhamshire: Association for Project Management.
Arumugam, M., 2012. Just Get PMP. [Online]

Available at: https://www.justgetpmp.com/2012/02/documentation-reviews-to-identify.html
[Accessed 21 February 2012].
Brent, G. & William, C., 1993. MIT Sloan Management Review. [Online]
Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/brainstorming-electronically/
[Accessed 15 October 1993].
Chapman, R. J., 1998. The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques.
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16(No. 6), pp. 333-343.
Dionne, G., 2013. RISK MANAGEMENT: HISTORY, DEFINITION, AND CRITIQUE. Risk Management and
Insurance Review, Vol. 16(No. 2), pp. 147-166.
Fox, T., 2018. NAVEX GLOBAL. [Online]

Available at: https://www.navexglobal.com/blog/article/differentiating-root-cause-analysis-risk-
assessment-internal-investigation/
[Accessed 28 June 2018].
Garrido, M. C., Ruotolo, M. C. A., Ribeiro, F. M. L. & Naked, H. A., 2011. Risk identification techniques
knowledge and application in the Brazilian construction, Brazil: Journal of Civil Engineering and
Construction Technology.
Gorzeń-Mitka, I., 2013. RISK IDENTIFICATION TOOLS – POLISH MSMES COMPANIES PRACTICES, Poland:
PROBLEMS OF MANAGEMENT IN THE 21st CENTURY.
Hayford, F. & Ahmed, S., 2013. Tools and Techniques for Project Risk Management: Perspective of Micro to
Small Scale Construction Firms in Ghana, Stockholm, Sweden: KTH campus Telge´.
Hillson, D., 2002. Use a risk breakdown structure (RBS) to understand your risks. San Antonio, TX. Newtown
Square, PA, Project Management Institute.
Hillson, D., 2014. How risky is your project — And what are you doing about it?. Phoenix,, Project
Management Institute Global Congress 2014.
Ishikawa, K., 1989. Introduction to Quality Control. 3rd Edition ed. Japan: JUSE Press Ltd.
Kiral, A., Kural, Z. & Comu, S., 2014. Risk Identification in Construction Projects: Using the Delphi Method,
Istanbul, Turkey: 11th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering.
NHS, 2011. Guidance - How to create an Affinity Diagram, Leicester: NHS.
Parsons, N., 2018. What Is a SWOT Analysis, and How to Do It Right (With Examples). [Online]
Available at: https://www.liveplan.com/blog/what-is-a-swot-analysis-and-how-to-do-it-right-with-
examples/
[Accessed 5 April 2018].
45 | P a g e
Patel, A., 2017. project-management.com. [Online]

Available at: https://project-management.com/diagramming-techniques-to-identify-risks/
[Accessed 10 February 2017].
Piney, C., 2003. Risk identification: combining the tools to deliver the goods. The Hague, South Holland, The
Netherlands. Newtown Square, Project Management Institute Global Congress 2003—EMEA.
PMI, 2000. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 2000 ed. Newtown Square, Pa: PMI.
PMI, 2013. A guide to the project management body of knowledge: (PMBOK guide) / Project Management
Institute. 5th ed. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Poling, R., 2009.. THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE, Arkansas: University of Arkansas, United States
Department of Agriculture and County Governments Cooperating.
Renault, B. . Y., Agumba, J. N. & Ansary, N., 2016. Evaluating the use of risk-identification techniques in the
South African construction industry, Port Elizabeth: 9th Annual Quantity Surveying Conference.
Rostami, A., 2016. Tools and Techniques in Risk Identification: A Research within SMEs in the UK
Construction Industry, United Kingdom: Universal Journal of Management.
Rouse, M., 2019. SearchStorage. [Online]

Available at: https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/business-impact-analysis
[Accessed May 2019].
Rubin, J., 2010. Visualizing risk management--a new approach. North America, Washington, DC. Newtown
Square, PA, Project Management Institute Global Congress 2010.
Salau, A., 2019. CRMNIGERIA. [Online]

Available at: https://crmnigeria.com/how-to-perform-assumption-analysis-for-projects/#.XrG7uZ5KiUl
Satish, 2015. APNA Course. [Online]

Available at: https://www.apnacourse.com/blogs/expert-judgement-project-tool/
Searle, I., 2017. Charterd Insurance Institute. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cii.co.uk/learning-index/articles/risk-identification/16989
Setiawan, I. B., 2008. IT Project Management. [Online]

Available at: https://itpmpro.blogspot.com/2008/11/identifying-risks-by-reviewing.html
[Accessed 17 November 2008].
Shang, G. & Pheng, L. S., 2014. The Last Planner System in China's construction industry — A SWOT
analysis on implementation. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 32, pp. 1260 - 1272.
Tworek, P., 2010. Methods of risk identification in companies’ investment projects, Katowice, Poland:
International Conference Risk Management and Modelling.
46 | P a g e
View publication stats

Riskidentificationtechniques Tharanga B00361537

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

Riskidentificationtechniques Tharanga B00361537

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF RISK IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

Research · May 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

University of the West of Scotland

1.2. Research questions

1.3. Report outline

2. Literature review on risk identification techniques

2.1. Documentation review

2.2. Business impact analysis

Figure 1: Key steps in business impact analysis.

2.3. Assumptions analysis

Figure 2: Assumption analysis.

Basically, there are 3 types of brainstorming. In structured, unstructured and silence

2.5. Delphi Technique

2.6. Checklist analysis

2.7. Root cause analysis

Figure 3: Associated techniques of root cause analysis.

2.8. Electronic brainstorming

Electronic brainstorming is an enhanced technological mode of conventional brainstorming and

2.9. Nominal group technique

2.10. SWOT analysis

Figure 4: Visual representation of SWOT analysis.

2.11. Flowchart analysis

2.12. Cause and effects analysis

Figure 5: Visual representation of fishbone diagram.

2.13. Affinity diagram analysis

When it comes to the implementation of affinity diagrams, it is always implemented by team or

Figure 6: Example for affinity diagram.

2.14. Expert judgment

2.15. Risk breakdown structure

Figure 7: Visual representation of Risk Breakdown Structure.

3. Exploration of case studies on risk identification techniques

3.1. Case study – 1: Risk identification techniques (UK construction industry)

3.3. Case study – 3: Risk identification techniques (Polish MSMES companies)

3.4. Case study – 4: Risk identification techniques (Brazilian construction industry)

3.5. Case study – 5: Risk identification techniques (Ghanaian construction industry)

3.6. Case study – 6: Risk identification techniques (Investment projects in Poland)

4.1. Methodology for data collection

4.2. Methodology for data analysis

Data analysis methodology for determination of most widely used techniques

Data analysis methodology for determination of effectiveness of techniques.

The second objective of the research is to determine effectiveness of risk identification

Figure 9: Methodical process for data analysis – (Effectiveness of techniques)

5. Findings / data analysis

Categorization of risk identification techniques

Index Main categories Risk identification Techniques

1 Documentation review Review project documentation, Business Impact Analysis,

SWOT Analysis, Flow charts analysis, Cause-and-Effect Diagrams,

5 Expert judgment Interview expert judgment,

Table 1: Main categories of risk identification techniques

Risk Identification Findings Allocation

Documentation review Total – 453, Responded – 441, Users – 331 73%

Expert judgment Total – 453, Responded – 397, Users – 282 62%

Checklist analysis Total – 453, Responded – 385, Users – 262 58%

Table 2: Summary of findings from case study – 1

Risk Identification Findings Allocation

Table 3: Summary of findings from case study – 2

Methodology: Questionnaires with 30 questions.

Risk Identification Findings Allocation

Table 4: Summary of findings from case study – 3

Risk Identification Findings Allocation

Table 5: Summary of findings from case study – 4