Jounal of Engineering and Technology Management 68 (2028) 101770 ‘Contents Hist available at ScienceDirect _ Journal of Engineering and Technology Management Raa ELSEVIER jautnal homepage: wwleevier.comlocatljengtecran fe The missing link between project and product risk management: From the review to the call to action Jelena Petronijevic®”, Alain Etienne", Samuel Bassetto”, Ali Siadat" ht Matai of Tetley, Unter de Loan URC, MESAM Ue P7070 Me, France > CMAR A, Peace Mora 2500 Chemin de Plea, Merl (ube) ST 1, Cana Kowerte Comprehensive process / projec and product risk management i ot easy wo achleve due othe Design oe suitable for one ofthe two areas. This review inveigtes risk management tendencies in engi Rise mange ‘eeving terature. I distnguishes the notion of sk regarding the subjec involved; emphasizes the rik adeots based on the observed problem shows he scent gap in the sense of ness td lob guidlines nd provides direction for fture development in hese area. The review Bs anced withthe cl oration inching discussion an axes of development. 1. Intraduetion Can a project succeed even if the final product fils, and vice versa? Despite the fact that risk management isa well-established process, there have been examples of projects in recent history that were either teribly mismanaged or unsuecessul: 1. Inthe Takata airbag problem (Tabuch., 2016), the fallure has been visible nthe final product but the underlying risks shouldn't be limited co technical parameters. Tobe precise, “defective manufacturing practices, an unstable chemiesl, manipulated test data and ‘awed quality control processes are among the problems that plague Takata, according to Unree investigations into the Japanese sirbag maker that is facing mounting recalls of ts produets’ (What Caused Takata's Airbag Problems?., 2016). While one ean say that the unstable chemical, being the only one related tothe product, is the one responsible for the fallure ofthe airbag, the problem is much deeper. The root cause risk inludes aso the project risks represented in the manufacturing practices and quality control processes. In other words, the fallure ofthe product may be the result ofthe underlying project risk as wel. And even if we just focus ‘on the unstable chemical as the root cause product risk, we see thatthe consequences go higher tothe product development project ‘or even worse, it has been the case with Takats, tothe already launched product. Product risk doesn’t stay on the product level bot spans aver tothe project. 2. Similarly, in the case of Airbus A380 (Clark, 2006), poor communication and management issues between the different de- partments involved in the project, lead co misinterpretation of erucal information and the fallure ofthe product. In this case, although the failure of the product is experienced, the root cause is the project relate risk, Siiilanly, in his sk database (PERIL. database), Kenck (2008) lists on of the scope risks as: “The deliverable filed the final te, * Corresponding autor Fal adres oon peionove sare, Petoneic Received 8 November 2019; Received in revised form 17 July 2028; Accepted 19 July 2023. Availabe oaline 1s August 2023 (9923-4748/2 2023 Elsevier BV. Al ight reserved,4 Bevo eta Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 requiring rework to fix it and additional test cycle" Here, product risk clearly influences the development project. Kendrick’s other risk: “Third-party deliverables were of poor quality and required major rework” shows the opposite corelation. The unreliable sup- plier, who represents the projet risk, hasan influence onthe failure ofthe product due tothe quality ofthe delivered components rence its sen that the technical failure ofthe certain produc function can have a serious impact on the development project and its cost and time delay. Aso, projeet risk may lead tothe fallure ofthe product due to the bad choices of technology, incomplete analysis, dad test, ete. The risk network of causes and effects spans across the product and the project. In other words, project rsks influence the final procuct and vice versa. As seen from the previous examples, observing separately project from the product can have numerous negative consequences, ‘One of the goals of Industry 4.0 includes product and process interaction (Ozteme! and Cursev, 2018). In fields such as ‘manufacturing, novel concepts proclaim the integration of product functions, technological resources, and business and marketing sirategies (8eousseau and Fidler, 2011), Henee, proper risk management should not be limited tothe certain events closely related to one axis, but be broad enough to cover technical, programmatic and business events as it can be found in the US Department of Defense documents (OiTice othe Deputy Assistant Seeretary of Defense for Systems Fngineering, 2017).Cansequently, the complexity of risk management problems les in triplet between risk management itself, the product, and the project. Since there is no single standardized approach that covers all thre aspects, i is obvious that applied approaches make tradeofts within the triplet. though ‘recommendations for risk management conduction are well developed and present ina form of standards (loemational Organization for Standardization, 2009) and guides (Project Management Insist, 2019), the approach which the company wil fllow depends on the personal preference, Division on project (process) and product risks i often present in risk management (Cooper, 2003), Ror that ‘reason, the aim ofthis study has been to investigate the comprehensiveness of risk management approaches in engineering “The goal of the study ienot to conduct the exhaustive analysis ofthe applied approaches but to represent tendencies and orientation towards risk in engineering. The research questions are How does the engnzering community manage risk? How are the product and its underlying projector process taken into account in risk ‘management?To represent the comiprehensiveness presented as the interconnection between the project an produc, the accent has ‘been given to the risk management in design. The keyword “design” has been chosen to cover both product ycle (operational product risk management) and project phase (project risk management) The “design” has beea observed together withthe term “risk”. The study has been conducted asa systematic literature review. The articles have been identified systematically after which they have been ‘alegorized based on their content into the groups of interest, After the review, the directions forthe comprehensive risk management teenies J Tepening Probab? ‘Unerainy | arpening: Probab eat Prem |G “ane ot i oI merewe |G) aceatormity Fig 1. lsetion of rk’ elements,4. Peso eo Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 approach have been provided in the form of a call for action. Consequently, this study contributes to the existing literature in the following manner: 1. Te distinguishes the notion of risk indifferent engineering domains 2 Ic stresses the compromises made in the choice of risk management solutions considering the observed problem: 4, It emphasizes the research gap by comparing the guidlines withthe current research in risk management in engineering 4. Ie provides directions for the development of integrated product-project risk management. ‘The paper is structured in the following manner. Ater the introduction, the following sections further elaborate different risk management aspects considering risk definitions (Section 2, relationship between risk and project management (Section 3), and design and risk (Section 4) Section 2 focuses on the notion of isk and presents the aim regarding rsk definition and associated terms. Section © addresses relationships and potential problems between risk and project management. In Section 5, systematie literature review and its result ae presented In Seton 6 discussion on the conducted analysis has been provided. Sect 7 calls or action by siving possible directions for the development of comprehensive risk management solution. Lastly, Une conclusion has been. given, 2. Risk definition and associated terms This ection aims at identifying the main focus ofthe risk management approach based on the definition of sk thats used, Riskisa term used by both seientiss from different fields of research and laymen in everyday life. Consequently, it can be assumed that de to its wide presence, the taxonomy will be well defined and cles. But, the practice shows differently. Just quick sereening of Oxford (ish, ed 2) Cambridge (Rish" nb) and Merriam-Webster (Ask, .d,e) dictionaries shows a definition of “risk” ina diferent ‘manner. "A situation favolving exposure to danger” emphasizes the exposure to certain events that provoke the danger. “The possi- bility of something bad happening” and “posiblty of fss or injury” emiphasize the probabilistic nature of risk. In these definitions, 3 ‘main elements of risk can be observed: stakes, events and possibilities. Apart from thls, the two more elements can be emphasized ~ source and perception. Also, instead of using just events, risk can be observed through scenarios, their litelinoad and consequence (arson and Kusiak, 199), In risk terminology, (Ren, 1998) defines risk based on its source and pecception using the mythological ‘lations: Damoces’ sword (artificial risk souree), Athena's scale (confined to monetary gains and losses), Pandora's box (delayed effects), and Hercules’ image (personal control over degree of risk). Moving toa technical domain, 150 31000 (lntexnationsl Orso zation for Standardization, 2009) defines risk as the effect of uncertainties on objectives. Her ‘emphasized as a “deviation from the expected - postive and/or negative” "ig I shows the connections between the identified elements the effect isa new element and itis 8) fect represents the impact on objectives and its perceived and represented by its perception (Pig. 1: Aa) ) The uncertainty has the same role as a possibilty and presents the “deficiency of information related to, understanding or knowledge of an event, ts consequence, of likelihood", 1S0 31000. Consequently, uncertainty describes the knowledge related to the event or effet, (ig. 1: ALD). ©) The root of the event les in the source (Pig. 1: -e), In he example, the new technology, can potentially cause problems that can put project (cost and time) and produet requirements) atstake. “The two main observations can be made based on the definition of risk, Firstly, the term risk in its basic definition is closely connected to hazard due tothe terms “danger”, “oss, “injury” and “something bad”. This identification is presen in a great number of safery-oriented resources and asa consequence, dealing with risks can mean a strict focus on hazards. While the mentioned can be ‘explained by the fact thatthe ancient societies have been faced with hazards asthe Will of God, not risks (Vasari, 2015) one must be aware that “hazard is circumstance, but risk arise in situations of decision-making”. Als, the iSO definition of risk isnot limited to hhazards In that sens, inthis study, the distinction has been made between the risk observed as hazards and the broader perspective of tsk, Secondly, decision making literature makes a clear distinction between the risk, whose outcomes occurring with known proba bility, and uncertainty, which emphasizes that the outcomes are either unknowa or the probabilities can't be assigned (Ihuunnissen, 2003), On the ather hand in management literature, those two terms can be seen together. lrowning (1998) defines risk through a ‘consequence of uncertainties. Performance, schedule, development cost, technology, market and business risks are presented as a ‘result of thelr underlying uncertaintes. In engineering, on the other hand, apart [rom systems engineering there Is no equalization between the risk and uncertainties ané different fields have their own defiaition of uncertainty (Thunnissen, 2003). Also, in the en gineering literature, it has been observed thatthe term risk is grouped also with reliability and robustness (Van Poss, 2013). ‘Consequently, inthis study, two cases have been defined: risk used solely and isk used with at least one ofthe previously defined terms (oncertainy, probability, robustness and reliability). The two categories (Safety and non-safety, and risk and uncertainty / probability / robustness / reliability) are used in the com ducted literature review presented in Section 5.4. Peso eo Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 43, Project management and risk management This section aims at underling certaia terminological differences between literature resources when comes to rsk management. A project can be defined asa temporary organization to which resources are assigned to da work to deliver beneficial change (Turn, 20018), Turner defines six project functions that are to be managed: scope, organization, quality, cost time, and risk that spreads through the previous five. The same author states that rsk management includes focus on risk management, risk identification, risk assessment (quelitaivel), risk prioritization, risk analysis (quantitatively), risk reduction and risk control (Furner, 2008). Project Management insite (2018) defines risk management through the planning or risk management, identification of risks, qualitative ‘isk analysis, quantitative risk analysis, planning or risk responses and control of risks. This leads tothe conclusion that even two different literature sources on the sime subject (projet risk management) differently define the main steps, ISO 31000 defines main stepsas communication and consultation, the establishment of the context, risk assessment, risk reatment and monitoring and review. Here, risk asressment includes identification, analysis and evaluation While certain steps ean be easily mapped to one another (coatext establishment to risk focus, and risk reduction to rsk treatment), this cannot be said forall steps. Risk assessment from ISO standard includes identification, analysis and evaluation, while Turner's one includes limited qualitative assessment. Further, the analysis in 80 standards covers both qualitative and quantiacive approaches, 50 the problem is evident. Similar ean be questioned forthe risk management processes based on Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBON). In another 150 standard, 180 15288 (IS0/C., 2008), the step that includes identification, estimation and evaluation of isk holds the name “analysis. These all create ambiguity inthe literature since different approaches are sometimes not related to the adequate step regarding the rsk management standard (ISO 31000). The literature study inthis article maps different approaches to the risk management phases specified in ISO 31000. 4, The design role from the perspective of product, project management and risk management ‘The importance of ‘design’ in terms of projects, products, and risk management is emphasized in Section 4 “The PMBOK Guide (Projet Managemen institute, 2015) eleary states tha all the processes including risk management are created solely fom the project perspective. The projet management and its corresponding risk management are performed with the proper {information from the produet/system perspective but without the focus oni. On the other hand, rsk management, in general, s not oriented towards project or product only. It needs to cover both perspectives. From the project perspective, product development or design can be described asthe series of activities working together to deliver ‘the ‘recipe for producing the product (S:owning ot al, 2002). Seeing it rom the perspective ofthe product/system, the significance of the design can be summarized through the fact that the 75% of the overall cost of the product is already committed at the end of conceptual design (Ullman, 2010). In terms of risk management, duc toa lack of information, conceptual design stage risks are the highest and reduce in preliminary and detail design (3:owning eal, 2002). Consequently, the design takes into account different activities of the produet development project, significantly influences the final product and has the biggest risk management potential Seen from the perspectives of product and project, design is represented asa stage. Design community, on the other hand, tends to deseribe desig a5 a process. I can be sad thatthe design process can be driven in theee different ways -by the produet (eg. Ge, 2990), organization (eg. 'ahl and Betz, 1984) or designer activity (eg. Krause, 2007). It ean be noticed thatthe similarities exist ‘between the dtferent perspectives of design and the risk management perspective. Product-driven design approaches can correspond to those risk management approaches addressing the product (eg. product PMEA), Organization design approaches are focusing onthe ‘organizational aspect of design and its stages, the same way the project management describes risks. Lastly, the ativity-driven design offersa general perspective and focuses on actions that need tobe performed without a product or organization choice. The same could be the case with general risk management. In conclusion, the design has been included in the presented study due to several main reasons: «Ie presents th crucial engineering process which affects both the product and the project. + Ie isan interface between the product and the project perspective, + Design literature can be used to provide the product-project perspective of rsk management. '. Study on risk management in engineering literature and the corresponding results ‘The literature review presented in ths section has a goal :o underline tendencies in risk management solutions in engineering domain. The scope ofthe research includes all engineering branches and different notions of design - design as process and stage in project / development process. The study excludes the supply chain design since it ean be considered as supporting process to eng neering and consequenty its vast resources usually form an independent area of research ‘The research includes 4 scientific databases -Seience Direct, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online and Wiley Online Library. The {focus has been given to articles writen in English, Wherever it was possible, the Fler for engineering has been activated end, incase ‘thatthe search engine doesn't suppar this possibilty, analysis has been done to exclude articles out of the engineering scope. The search has been conducted based on the title. The selection criteria included two keywords: design and risk. The time frame has been limited to the period between 1998 and 2018, All the articles from the 4 scientific databases that fulfill the previously mentioned criteria were included in the study (Stage 1). The inten ofthe study isnot to be exhaustive, but co provide insight into the research directions of the engineering community based on a sample4 Peroni eo Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 ‘A total of 20 articles were identified and analyzed. The articles are stored inthe Zotero group and can be accessed via link: htps:// ‘wor zotero.or8/groups/2233109/iskdesigntendenciesinengineeringliterature. The analysis has been performed in two stages: «+ Stage 1 - classification and correlation analysis performed on all the articles: aims to track usage and maturity of the developed solutions, risk terminology and management phase, as wel as publishing trend and productive engineering areas when comes to this subject, + Seage 2 - analysis of general risk management solutions, The goal is to analyze the identified solutions considering their decision: ‘making potential considering product and/or process orientation, included processes and stakeholders, causality, and interaction Stage 1 The frst stage provides a general illustration in the engineering area towards risk and design. The data from the articles have been collected and categorized in a spreadsheet. Relevant categories are given in Table . Fisly, te year of publishing has been ‘racked. Problems described in the articles have been categorized by the area to which they belong. This category has not been predefined atthe beginning of article identification phase but it has been generated based on the Identified articles. Usage of the solution has been limited 1 optimization, decision making, solving of particular problem, study, and risk tool design. Optimization approaches don’t allow intervention of the decision maker. Decision making approaches and solving of particuler problem support {decision maker. Approaches that are focusing onthe modelling of particular problem ean be used fo decision-making, but are limited fn the particular ease. Decision-making solutions, even performed in a certain area can be used broadly. Studies provide insight into risk management in certain areas. Articles focused on risk tool design discuss already known risk approaches. The maturity of the solutions is represented as study, framework, methodology, and tol, Using the mentioned, the time until the potential automation can ‘he estimated. In Sesion 2, the goal ofthe study regarding the notion of risk has been elaborated and consequently, two risk categories have been implemented in the analysis - joint risk terminology and orientation to safety, If with the term risk other terms lke un. certainty, probability, robustness, and reliability have been used, "joint risk terminology” has been set to "yes" and vice versa. Ina similar wey, if there isa clear focus on the safety, “orientation to safety” has been set to "yes". Asexplsined in Section 3, addressed risk ‘management phases based on the ISO 31000 have been tracked. Apart from the phases available in the standard, two additional values hhave been added: “al” and “none”. In this way, articles addressing al rsk phases have been marked as well as those not focusing on any particular risk phase “The fist stage of the analysis had a goal to answer the following questions: ‘#1 Is engineering community interested in risk? #2 1s there a development of genera solutions? '#3 What isthe definition of risk in engineering domain? ##4 How do risk management solutions aid engineering? 1#5 How mature are the developed risk management solutions? “#6 Which risk management step receives the greatest attention? #7 How ate the different risk categories related? “The first six questions can be answered directly ‘rom the previously described spreadsheet. To determine correlation and answer ‘the last question, the Multiple Correspondence Analysis algorithm has been applieé to the collected data 11 Is engineering community interested in risk? Tes well known that risk management is an important subject in any area. Risk has been observed in many studies and it can be (ustakenly) assumed that it bas been exploited to its limit. In order to clear this doubt the publishing trend has been sudieg, as represented in Fig. 2. Increased interest inthe joint approach towards risk and design is visible. In 2011, there were more published articles on this subject than any other year before tht, The peak has been reached in 2014 with 26 article, nut the promising trend ‘rom 2017 with 21 articles shows continuous work on this subject. This implies the growing need for risk solutions from the perspective of design #2 Is there a development of general solutions? ‘The second question deals with the need for general approaches for risk management in engincering. This question is interesting ‘Table1 Identified categories tele values used inthe study. Thalible 1998-3018 Manaactrng, eal Rava, Optniaton, Sal ve ve communion vale War, Const, Arspace, Decca ramewcth No Ne context Design imgenera Rsk Miiog, taking Mecbodlos, Nesteston,4. Peso eo Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 ation ig. 2. Trend of publestion, due to the fact that a great number of approaches is already standardized, As can be seen in Fg. 3, the authors are sill developing ‘general risk management salutions for engineering problems related to design. The biggest numberof identified articles has dealt with the general solutions that in certain cases have Deen applied tothe case from the particular area, Sine general solutions are numerous, it ean be argued that standardized approaches don't fully cover the needs of engineering, To address those needs, authors proposed different solutions, some of which represent new concepts while others integrate the standardized approaches, The detailed analysis of the general approaches i shown in Stage 2 ofthe literature review and itis presented later on in this section “#3 What isthe definition of risk in engineering domain? To answer the third question, the definition of rsk hasbeen studied. As stated in Section 2 the focus of the analysis has been given to the ewo notions of risk: 1. The risk in tems of safety of non-safety and 2. Risk joined with the other terms of interest (reliability, robustness, probability, uncertainty). In thisstudy, to distinguish safety from non-safety approaches risk source, event and effect has been tracked. Itmay be claimed that ‘the engineering community is equally focused on safety and non-safety approaches because there are 10] identified non-safety and 119 safety publications. This implies that although the ISO 31000 observes risk more globally, engineering community is equally focused ‘on hazards, On one hand, this snot a surprise ince hazard can have a catastrophic consequence on humans involved, Consequently, it ‘needs tobe investigated with great attention. On the other hand, safety and non-safety rato is equal in almost all observed categories ‘except in the case of solving of particular problem wheze 50 articles ace safety oriented compared to the 25 non-safely orlented. The particular example of the safety article inthis eategory includes the introduction of the probability of seismic activity inthe structural problem in the construction. Other problem includes design ofthe Fire scenarios inthe floor design I is evident that these problems ‘require detailed modelling to address observed safety problem and can't be described with the standard rsk management practices. Consequently, this implies thar there is a need to connect safety and non-safery problems in the joint approach. However, itis ‘Questionable whether certain approaches focused on problem-solving belong to risk management. Since ther focus ison modeling, this may imply their orientation towards design by taking into account certain risks, The articles from this group belong tothe risk: ‘hased design and not necessarily to risk management. Regarding the second area of interest, 60 out of 220 artices clearly relate the notion of risk with at least one ofthe following terms: probability, uncertainty, reliability, robustness, Tis can lead a the conclusion that roughly 1/3 of the literature can potentially have a Areas of proposed solutions Fig. 3. Aceas of solutions proposed In the erature4 Bevo eta Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 lifferent notion of risk compared to the standardized risk management one. Consequently, it means the dissipation of literature and plies the necessity for a clear definition of rsk in engineering. This is espectaly true when bearing in mind thatthe mentioned terms have the overlapping between their definitions In other words, risk changes its “shape” from definition to definition. The risk pre- sented as an occurrence ofthe event multiplied by its impact iscliferen from the uncertainty or probability only. Having in mind that {his joint terminology of risk s almost equally present in diferent usage categories (is, , the need for clear definition of isk and ies ‘management methods is eracal. “#4 How do risk management solutions aid engineering? Risk management solutions can support engineering in a different manner. Inthe study, this support has been tracked using the “usage” category as defined in Table 1. Only one-quarter ofthe identified articles are developed to support decision making for risk ‘management, Fig. 5. Although 15% of solutions are made for optimization, in those articles the influence of decision maker is negligible. Similarly, 34% of articles solve a particular problem. For these approaches, as stated previously, application in risk ‘management is questionable. A great numberof studies has also been identified (20%) which support engineering practice but don't provide any solution. Based on all these observations, it may be implied that the engineering literature should be enziched with the articles belonging tothe group of decision making since only those support risk management in is trie meaning. +#5 How mature are the developed risk management solutions? ‘The maturity of developed solutions in identified articles is presented in Pig. 6 Since the tol canbe considered as the most mature support in engineering, the number of identified solutions in this form shove a good potential for application. The presence of 'methodologies is also promising since it can be considered asthe precedence of the tool solution. As noticed earlier, studies are also identified and conducted to support risk management in engineering ad although don't provide exact solutions tothe problem, they ‘represent a valuable source of information. On the other hand, it must be taken into account that a great number af developed tools can be influenced by the optimization and particular problem approaches. This will be analyzed in more detail inthe question 7. At this time, it canbe said thatthe tools developed for particular problem solving are more focused on design and modelling ofthe problem and noton risk management. Aso, optimization is mainly present in the form of tools and although itcan be used for evaluation of risk, its usage is limited tothe particular case. “#6 Which risk management step receives the greatest attention? Every identified solution has been associated with a certain phase of risk management, fg. 7, Since assessment phase consist of several steps, ifmore than one step has been identified in the atl, the whole process has been marked. The same isthe case for “All category. AS can be seen from F's. 7, a great number of article belongs tothe “None” category. This sa consequence ofthe previously ‘mentioned number of particular problem solutions, Since these solutions are focusing on the particular design and jus tying to {implement certain risks in the final solution they can't be mapped tothe particular risk phase. Also, 15% ofall solutions are designed for evaluation whieh can be related to the number of optimization approaches. Hence, more than one half of the developed solutions hhas no or limited use tothe rsk management and the decision maker. Apart from this, 25% of solutions ae intended for assessment, ‘hich isnot surprising given that ll the necessary information about risk is identified, analyzed, and evaluated at this tage #7 Mow are the diferent risk categories related? Inorder to determine the correlation between the different categories ofthis analysis, the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) has been performed. The details and usage ofthe MCA can be found in (Aba anc Valentin, 2007) and thet literature sources. Cor. responding abbreviations used inthe analysis are given in Table 2. This table is based on the eategories previously defined in Table Only one difference has been made. In order to decrease the complexity of data, the artcies have been divided on general and non-generl. Finally, in order to represent the category and is coreesponding value, the two abbreviations need tobe Joined, In that sense, if the urage ofthe solution isan optimization, the value inthe corresponding MCA will be U-O. The same approach has been performed on all the categories and their values. The results of the MCA are presented in Fig. 8. MCA result analysis is based on the proximity of displayed categories. Fin observation (wo points appear close, this shows the ‘connection between the so topic. As can be seen from Fis. 8, only a limited amount of information can be represented in one graph — 37.4% atits best This isnot surprising due tothe complexity of the data involved. The axes F1 and F2 divide the ares into different Joint terminology presence [BDecson making [Solving ofpuriculae problem BSudy 20% wT design Fig. 4. Presence ofthe jin terminology by hele usage4 Bevo eta Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 Usage of solutions ‘aDecision making 2504 20% nopsimization Solving of particule problem {Tool design We Fig. 5. Usage of risk management solucions as a engineering suppor. Maturity of solutions oo Framework Methodology study Tool ig. 6. Maturity ofthe developed solusons. Risk management phases Communication Bidet DE vatation Teatement DiAsssesmen oan None Fig. 7. Presence of risk phases in the developed solutions. categories Vertically, optimization, problem-solving and decision making are represented with methodological approaches, tools and Jrameworks which are all grouped around non-general safety problems with joint terminology. Hence, i ean be said that this axis divides practical problems with adequate solutions from those articles which are oriented towards a description of problems. In that sense, atiles that provide solutions to the problem are mainly safety oriented and non- general. Studies and tool development mainly provide general suggestions. This is evident due to the fact that for example tool development articles are mainly solving problem focused on parceular risk approach like the proper design of matrices. Horizontal axis divide general, non-sfety problems with de- cision making and tool design and their consequent solutions inform of methodology and tool from those less general In other words, ‘general problems are divided from the non-general. This shows that the general problems are mainly non-safety, they con't include4: Peroni eo Jere! of gern and Techy Manage 69 (2023) 101770 ‘Table Abbreviations used for Muliple Correspondence Analysis © Gpimmsen SCS Yow Ye YY Gn Gammon Joint terminology with other similar risk terms, include decision making and tool evelopment problems that are mainly solved in the orm of methodology and tool The other axes show a certain number of non-general problems that are treated through frameworks and studies. It has tobe taken into account that this can explain just the general overview of the problems and their approaches. The ocus on the distance between the different variables ean explain in more detail which problems are treated in which manner. The following can be observed: + Decision-making problems are usually solved in the form of methodology. This is explained withthe proximity of U-D and M-M ‘variables on all the graphs, Most commonly tools are developed to solve particular problems. This is obvious on all graphs where Fis present. General approaches are non-safety always Safety approaches are noa-generl eneral, non-sfety problems without the joint notion of risk oppose those which are non- general, safety oriented with Joint notion, “Joint terminology is always close to optimization problems The triangle between the U-O, TLY and Ml is also noticeable. This explains that tools are mostly developed for optimization problems. ‘Tool development problems are not solved often and they are more general than non-general Studies are most commonly performed ina particular area Several conclusions ean be made based on previous observations: “Tools are mainly developed forthe risk problems of optimization and particular problems, Decision support is mainly given through methodologies. The need for the development of software solution is evident for risk decision making approaches General approaches mainly don't include joint terminology. This is explained with the fact that these approaches rely om expert ‘opinions so the underlying probabilities are in most cases represented through scales and matrices. Also, those approsches are ‘mainly methodologies and for the joint terminology, the tools are usually necessary. Consequently, probabilistic or similar ap- proaches are not particularly common. This justifies the need to develop statistical and data approaches to address risk manage ment in gener Since the studies presented in the Iterature are mostly focusing on particular risk in a certain scientific area, more studies ike this ‘one are needed to provide an overview of the general risk management in engineering. If risk phases are observed in relations with certain variables, conclusions are the following General approaches are mainly made for analysis and monitoring “Approaches that are hard to connect to certain risk phase are common due to their distance from the centre Similar can be concluded about the Assessment ane All approaches ‘Risk evaluation is performed in the form of optimization and usually includes jo smainology. Stage 2. inthe second stage of this study, analysis has been conducted on general decision-making approaches, the focus has been given to this particular group due to two reasons. Firstly decision making approaches suppor risk management but don’t remove the decision maker from the proces. Since risk can never be entitely removed, the decision maker shouldn’tbe neglected, Decision makers ‘often need to trade certain outcomes fr another and that proces is influenced by numerous factors and it can't be fully automated at ‘this point, Risk management solutions in that sense should provide adequate support for decision making. Secondly, general ap- proaches are of special interest since they don’t include ates-specific modelling into the solution. Theoretically, they can be applied in any engincering area. Hence, the articles from the Stage 1 study that wer classified a "gencral" and decision-making” were chosen for the Stage 2 study. Only 19 articles out of 220 have been identified to belong to this category. They can be seen in Table 3 “The articles have been analyzed from the following perspectives:Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 reana0% Fi n29%) Cages —+— Sapp atin rasa740%) Categories (aes FH and ¥3: 4.00 %) aan bekete mian29%9) a Categories anes F3 and F2: 30.81%) mas, —Cuegories = — Supp categories ~Categonee = Sopp estepories’ » 2 Categories (ues FL and Fa: 31.40 %) (Categories anes F4 and F2: 2822 %) 2 wi an29%) Feast) (Cuegviss_ —+— Supp. caspaics Categories —*— Supp categories a e ig. 8. MCA results: 2) Axes F1E2 - 5748 of informacion; b) Axes F1F3 34M of lformation;e) Axes F3F2 ~ 30.81% of lformation; d) Axes FIFA 31.4% of information e) Ates FAF2 - 28.22% of information: ‘+ Whether they are product/system or project-oriented and if they are referencing project mar agement perspective ‘Whether they take into account any other process apart from the risk management process ‘Whether the calculated risk has more than one perspective (e.g. safety, cost, ime, quality.)Jol of Egan and Tcl Managemen 69 (2025) 101770 4 eh kw sonore ee eh Sh kk eat on om Ok topper ok on exe x x topper 4 = a eC x ou % (eave sn ox ex dona, x oppo Sk pews ox NRX ox x ok oor 1) ioe wx ow s on eh mw x x pos ox sone sm a eo Sk 6 ox a x ea Sk ciara one a on s on Nk oN ox x pos ox w9e0 oN) x ox 8 = rs x Xone x eo San) oy on ‘ oN BLP k x x X__ Slope BK G0 BPO Srey open ose ‘Dostoy spo asst pepe pace pau a lansGag suaaonnioy ——opold vopeioey —aeoia_Aesoe Hm mond Safad pold ay oat J Pevoere wo ope Bupeuraoyaap aauaH wo mS eae4. Peso eo Jere! of gern and Tcl Manage 69 (2023) 101770 ‘+ Whether causal relationships between the different risk sources, events or effects have been taken into account ‘Whether diferent stakeholders and ther interaction is taken into account ‘© Which product aspect is taken into account i the rsk management (S~ Structural, B - Behavioral, P~ Functional, mentioned) endif the interaction between subsystem of the product is observed + Whether requirements are explicitly addressed As can he seen from Table 3, 4 groupe of articles can be identified. First one, addressing hoth project and the product, second ‘addressing only product, the third project only and the fourth one not addressing nor product nor project. The last group of articles is focusing on business results and risks but without directly taking into account product or projec. Eerlier inthe article, the need for comprehensive risk management has been emphasized. Based on the article identified in this study, itcar be said thatthe join project and product view or risk management is missing, Only one article relates risk management to project and then product through 4 different phases (Gide! ca, 2005). On the other hand, just one product-rlated article refers to project management (Amine e al, 2017), while others are strictly focused on the product. Similar ean be seen with the projectoriented articles. Those focusing on the project don’t take into account any ofthe product aspects. Consequently, the clear gap ‘between the project and che produet risk management approaches exists even in general decision making, Focusing on the included processes, tis evident tha ony a limited number of papers observes risk management in correlation with ‘other procestes. In order to provide general guidance for different scenarios, the risk management standard focuses solely on its own process, Consequenty, underlying processes are mainly represented in form of risk lists. In certain cases, this is sufficient but it shouldn't be neglected that those underlying processes can represent the source of risk having a broader influence than the one presented in thelist Also, certain process can connec different stakeholders and provoke rsk networking. In shart, risk management should be awate of the underlying processes sine without them there would be no need for risk management “The representation of risk management results is crucial for decision making. In 7 out of 19 cases, results are presented in more than ‘one dimension. This number is not exceptional bu it can imply the need to have different perspectives of the same underying risks. ‘Although in certain cases, like those having a potentially catastrophic effect, only one ans of csk will be enough for the decison, in others it is necessary to make trade-ofls. Having risk management result in multiple axes enables this action. In this study, the category of causality represents any cause reltionshlp between risk sources, events or effects, This can be a ‘lationship between results stakeholders or subsystems, but its not limite to those. A promising numberof articles is addressing this problem. This can directly imply thatthe representation of risk in form of list is not sufficient and tht in order to perform a proper risk ‘management networking needs tobe included, [is interesting to notice that 2 ofthese articles are taking into account stakeholders and product subsystems. This number is small but ean represent the need to connect product and project indirectly. Lastly, dealing with the product aspects in more detail, it can be observed that no article is covering all the aspects of one product (Gunction, behaviour and structure) The inclusion ofall the aspects may enable the ow of risk. Also, an extremely limited number of articles dicectly takes into account product requirements, Focusing just on the product perspective, ican be sid that this limitation can over. or under- estimate the product and lead co inadequate risk management, On the other hand, in the broader sense, re ‘quirements can also represent the link between the product and the project perspective. Consequently, their importance is even bigger. 6. Call for action - discussion Having analyzed the result from the two stages separately, the short discussion wi be presented in this section. Apart fom general ‘observations, this discussion is formed around the main areas of interests which are atthe same time the introductory sections ofthis paper project and product risk management. Generally speaking, although risk management standards exist, the engineering community sil has the need to develop solutions ‘that would be broad enough to cover various needs inthis ied. On the other hand, a great number of these solutions have been developed to adres risks bt not necessarily to offer # management perspective, Lack of management perspective can mean thatthe link between the risk andthe different services ina company affected by rsk (quality, finance, marketing etc) is not present. Hence, ‘the observations on risk are not comprehensive and can lead to inadequate management deeisions. ‘Also, the study has shown that risk is presented in the form of probability or uncertainty of certain events that drives design in a specific field. While the results ofthese approaches are undoubtedly important for engineers, their contribution is bounded to one particular stakeholder and their problem. In ther words, the solutions solve the particular design problem and nothing else, One-third ofthe identified sources can't be used to advance management in engineering. A total of 49% is reached if optimization approaches are ‘included, On one hand, this means that half ofthe effort is going towards narrow problems whose solutions will be use just for that particular area. And on the othe, this implies that global solutions are not covering the needs of engineering, Risk management in ‘enginecring is obviously both management and design. Hence, both components need to be addressed in order to have & compre: Inensive solution ané while this is not reached, the discrepancy will continue to exists (On top of previously mentioned, general decision-making solutionsare often developed in the form of methodologies. Optimization and approaches for particular problems are mainly developed inthe form of tool. Ths may imply that risk management approaches should be developed as tools to reply to the needs in engineering. ‘Further, in the case of particular problems, the notion of risk is closer tothe term safety and it is usually implemented with un ‘certainty and probability. The last observation is nota surprise when bearing in mind discussion from the previous paragraph. On the ‘other hand, ths directly implies the necessity o ring uncertainty and probability inthe general solutions so they ean be more suitable from the engineering perspective.4: Bevo eo Jere! of gern and Techy Manage 69 (2023) 101770 General decision-making approaches for risk management can clearly be grouped in either projector product solutions. Without ‘the connection between the projet and the product, na solution will be complete since one ofthe projet or the produ risks will be ‘missing, which will cause a hidden risk to spread [tthe very end o this discussion, it also necessary to emphasize the main limitation. The study represents the attempt to describe and summarize the state of the research in the multiisciplinary area. Due tothe great number and the vast variety of literature re sources, trade-offs had been made, The analysis has been pesformed on a limited numberof papers. On the other hand, it aimed to be ‘objective and to include relevant scientific research engines. To resect this limit, we tried to provide an additional Miterature analysis. The study focused on the articles published between 1998 and 2018, Consequently, the question about the recent trends arises. To addres tie limitation, we provide an additional literature ‘analysis. An aaitional sean ofthe literature was performed on Scopks using the same keywords of design’ and risk’ forthe articles in ‘engineering domain published between 2019 and 2023. Te goal ofthis search was o see ifthe focus remains on specific solutions and 1 investigate further the tends in the articles that are having a more global view on risk in design. The search results identified 594 articles. As the case was inthe initial study, dhe vast majority of articles develop solutions for specific isk problems and they consider isk but nos necessarily risk management. Its important to underline that some software solutions (simulation models, networked solution) correspone co the proposed techniques that can be applied forthe global/comprehensive view on the risk (See Section 7). However, this comprehensive view on risk is not present in the problem-specific articles. Thus, the research gap identified earlier is also found in this additional study. In total, only 21 (Somehow) general articles were identified which can be divided into several groups: risk in general, identification of risk factors (in construction domain), design / process risks, product risk, as wel as risk related to design iteration and design ‘change. The fist group of articles discusses the notions of risks in general (fr example the notion of minimization when it comes to ‘outcomes and the notion of taking risks when it comes to process). The articles in this group do not systematically discuss isk ‘management, however, inthis group, there is one article that directly considers risk management approaches. Sbaigat eta. (2019) propose a new risk management epproach for product design and development processes that is based on “monitor and adapt” with predict and plan” due to the rapidly developing technologies, shifting market demands and their changes causing inereased un. certainties. This article is interesting since it shows that the discussion about management perspective is still needed. Several studies inthe Kdentifieation of risk factors (construction domain) coup are trying to Identy risk factors (Lie: al, 20235 Malykha and Pavlov, 2022; Marinho and Couto, 2023; Nguyen et al, 2022; Talamo et al, 2019; Wuni eta, 2023) They show the need forthe comprehensive view on risk since the identified factors belong to technical and non-technical/organizational/process domains. When it comes to design/process risks and product risks groups, in most of the cases, the focus remains within the pro cessor product area. However, cl etl. (2028) and Fnyoghasi and Badurdcen (2022) inelude process / design aspeets inthe product view. These works are promising, however, the question ofthe global rsk management equally adapted for both project / proces and product aspects sill remains. Finally, iis interesting to discuss the articles in the group that treat design change and iteration. The ‘change and iteration ae importan for project and product point of view since they impact duration and cost of the proect, but also the ‘quality of the product Consequently, they unite two aspects discussed in this study. An interesting research on change risk propagation considers product layer and organization layer while the mitigation is based on redundant resources, inter-partner coordination, and project learning efficiency (1 ctl. 2020), This article represents both organizational and produc layer inthe form of a network. The Interaction between the two view is important and its adaptation for the need of rsk management should be discussed further. To conclude, while the overall trends remain similar, several promising works have been identified in the second sean of the literature. Purther work is still needed forthe comprehensive risk management approach. Finally, we would lke to underline that the overall results of the study shouldn't be perceived as hard evidence but rather im plications about the tends of risk management in engineering. This sep may be small but necessary for the scientific community ‘because the lack of general studies inthis areais evident and confirmed through the study results, Future work should broaden the study to inchude a detailed analysis of the bigger literature sample. The proposed development directions for comprehensive risk management are presented in the following section. 7. Call for action - development directions for comprehensive risk management Risk management issues ask for the tremendous solving effort due tothe growing complexity of the product/system, distributed actors, and mace demanding development process. The amount of information in each ofthese fields may explain the focus on the specific risk problems. While the models for those problems are getting more accurate, the systemic rsk is sill left untreated. As a consequence, certain risks are left unconsidered. In product éevelopment, answering even simple questions may be dificult or even Impossible. Ifthe failure of the product component happens in a certain development phase, how the risk is propagating into the development cycle? How the risk associated with the stakeholder influence the quality of the product? Although being part of the same development cycle, product and project issues ate traditionally observed separately. Consequently, as our study confirms, the systemic prodict-project risk is left uncovered. More globally this can mean tha “extreme events can bea result ofthe inherent system dynamics rather than of unexpected external events" (Helbing, 2013). The question that arses is: How to addres the risk o provide comprehensive project product view? Te would be false to say that various authors don’t advocate forthe comprehensiveness. Cooe> (200%) eas for utilization of ‘knowledge management systems fo connect “thought worlds’. Concurrent engineering approaches aim to connect design with other unetional areas (eg lio an Ahn, 2010). Complex system solutions are focusing on projet-prodict variation and interdependencies (eg. Oyama etal, 2015; Chaudhuri and Boer, 2016). But, hw all ofthese can go together? As Hclbing (2013) states in his article on4: Bevo eo Jere! of gern and Techy Manage 69 (2023) 101770 slobally networked risks, the global systems science may provide paradigm shift and required knowledge. In addition to the ‘mentioned, Helbing states thatthe progress is necessary in computational social science, calculation of networked risks, a collection of ‘big data integration, and interdependencies in order to support global systems seience, In a similar manner but for the compre hensive product-project risk management problem, we advocate towards system engineering and Model-Based System Engineering. NCOSR. (2022) defines system engineering as “a tansdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful realization, use, and retirement of engineered systems, using systems principles and concepts, and scientific technological, and management methods.” Among others, systems engineering focuses on outcomes by considering overall behavior and performance based on parts f the system, their relationships and enabling services, Asis name states, Model-Based System Engineering uses formalized models for achieving the goals of Systems Engineering. MIL-STD-882 isa standard closely related to Systems Engineering processes that focuses on safety in design. In this standard, ‘dentiieation of rsks is based on detailed and systematic analysis of hardware, sofware, environment and application. The standard doesnt clesrly ask to consider the underlying design proces. Tis focus on the system can be explained through the standards safety ‘orientation, The identification sage doesn’t explicitly eal for the interaction between risks. leas be sai that the interaction should be included due to orientation of MIL-STD-882 towards System Engineering. However, the study shows that we are not sufficiently considering the (product project / process) interactions. With the growing number of technological solutions and theie underlying, processes in Industry 40 (5.0), now would be a good time to directly, inthe appropriate standards, provide guidance forthe man agement of connected risks. This guidance should cover all the phases of risk management. Initially developed forthe technical systems, capabilities of Model-Based System Engineering go beyond these systems and can be used to deseribe socio-technical problems such as development process and project management. To support thsidea one can ind that in INCOSE Model-Based System Engineering initiative, the system developing process is represented using a system engineering approach (Estefan, 2008), Als, the works that are using activity modes to represeet project and produet risk can be found in the literature. The work of Walins et al. 2025) sone of them. In support ofthe mentioned idea, even the global frameworks lke those that ‘an be found in NASA and US Department of Defense support the usage of system approach. Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (Office of the Deputy Assistant Seeretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, 2017) lists systems engineering activities that ean be classified as product and project related. Similariy, NASA Risk ‘Management Handbook is based around the “system engineering engine that is used to drive the development ofthe system and associated work product to satisfy stakeholder expectations in all mission execution domains including safety, technical, cost and schedule." (Dezfl etal, 2011), ‘The system engineering enables identification and interaction modelling of different system's parameters into the whole. The isk identification and analysis processes, on the other hand, may vary and be accommodated based on the system parameter that is influencing. n other words, if adequate data mining method or Bayesian model exists it can be joined to the systems model to either identify or calculate the value ofthe important parameter ofthe system. On the other han, if this isnot available, methods like Failure ‘Mode and Effect Analysis can be used to predict probabilities of events using expert opinions. In both cases, the results are to be Implemented in the system engineering model to obtain the systerae view and propagation of the risk though the system network, To conclude, system engineering provides a good technical base for both product andthe project problems, on which various standard risk management approaches ean be added. This makes ft a good candidate for comprehensive and system proéuct project risk management. In other words, by putting Systems Engineering in the heat of risk management, the focus would be on what we knovr (system Dehavios) and not on what we don't know (individual risk events) Systems Engineering is representing one's knowledge of the ‘observed systems. It describes system behavior and considers interactions, Knowing the functioning of the system implies thatthe ‘malfunctioning and their risks can be represented to the certain level. Individual risk events are uncertain and partially unknown, When there i.n0 systemic view, the main focus of risk management is to thoroughly asess potential scenarios from individual evens However, the individual rsk events don't provide context ofthe problem. The System Engineering view can provide the context and risk events should be connected to this system representation to “Tee” its risk behavior. In red in Fig 9, Ube interaction between the system science approaches and rsk management approaches in shown. As it can be noticed, the systems science enables the creation of product and project models. In the models, the behavior i influenced by the parameters ofthe model, The risk management approaches are to be used to identify the effect of underlying esks or network of risks fn the projector product parameters. Te risk management approaches to be used may vary based on the avaiable information or any ‘other influential factor, Also, for different parameters different approaches may be used, On the other hand and apart from the technical suppor forthe integration, the question that remains open is how to address and join the project and the product aspecs. One possible manner is to follow the same logic as performed in the execstion of this review ‘organize the modelling around the common process/stage of project and product. In other words, organize the model around design, ‘This idea is inspired by design chain management whose main goal is to address isues that extend from collaborative design towards ‘management (Chi etal, 20°). ‘Asseen in Section 4, design theory ean be simply divided into three categories: product, organization and designer oriented While product orientation can represent the product aspect of risk, organizational one can offer the project view. And since both of those Views are “stati” and observed as gates or stages in risk management, the designer view caa offer a sense of actions. Actions connect the aspects of the product because Uarough them designer defines the product. On the other hand, every projec stage has numerous ‘actions that need tobe performed inorder to finish the needed work, Consequently, the action-oriented design may represent the key element forthe product-poject integration due to the two following reasoas. Fiesty, the actlon model aligns well with the system ‘engineering activity model. It enables the mapping of all the action elements, The input/output connections can be easily defined,4. Peso eo Jere! of gern and Tcl Manage 69 (2023) 101770 1 Fi Hi id deimtwettrie | ef, (Network of Risks mee Fig. 9. A suggestion for comprchensve projet proc risk management solston ‘Stakeholders, equipment used, actors, methods and controls can be hounded to every action based on activity models, Secondly, the ‘output of every action can be defined as either projector product variable, This variable is then used to model the change inthe system "Now, it ean be said thar a possible manner to enable product-project isk management isto base the model on action-driven design and ‘to map the output of every action in product and project submodels. This idea is schematically represented in Fi. 9. Here, project and produet models through thelr deliverables represent the input in the projet-product connection model (in grey in Fig. 9). The product project connection mode! is action-driven design mode! as explained earlier in the text. The output of the connection model propagates back co the project and produet models through the influence on projeet of product parameters. To propagate the information within the model, the value-based methods may be used due to thei applicability to product and project aspects (Bosch-Mauichand eta, 2012; Camarinha-Matos and Macedo, 2010; Shah et al, 2016). Consequently, the systemic view ofthe development process withthe project and the product aspects can be made, Through this nctwork ofthe project ~ produ risks, more comprchensive risk management may be achieved. Also organization of risk management around design theory can benef fom the development in the design community. The example ean be similarity solutions (like the one ff Pham ea, 2006) that can aso be used for better grouping of risks and extending information from previous experiences. Adi tionally, the design-inspired solution can be useful for industrial practice since diferent departments can tailor thir risk effects ‘racking based on the proect-product risk management network. ‘At this point, the question that might arse is what approaches can be used to represent and assess risks based on the previously presented ideas, elbing (2015) ists agent-based models, networks, system dynamic and, datamining as some possible solutions to {eal with risk interactions. These solutions have been used in product and process / projet context. Consequently, they representa good candidate for the tool development. Incase of multi-agent model, eaeh element of product and the process could be modeled as agent. The connections between agents and the behavior of individual agents could be defined based on known product and process funetioning. Risk events can then influence individval agent behavior, that would as a consequence have its impact on the rest ofthe product and process through relationships. Similarly, in case of network-based solutions, nodes could represent parameters of produc-project system, Again, the known behavior could be used to establish the links between the nodes ofthe network. ‘While we can envision the models bared on the Systems Engineering and risk interaction solution, this systemic approach opens several questions, How to systematically collect data needed for risk models? Ifthe risk management isto turn towards interactions and systemic views, guidance is needed in risk interaction identification. Atthe beginning, experts’ knowledge can be used to build therisk ‘management models. However, this modeling opens the question of biases. I datamining approaches are to be used, the data need to be collected. The paradigm shift is needed, but one needs to be avvare that it brings the chain of changes. ‘As conclusion, it can be stated that we support aumerous authors inthe necessity for inclusion of system science in various en sincering areas, aswell asin risk management. The systems scence joined with standard risk management approaches, can provide the necessary dynamie and propagation that is missing. Oa the other hand, the manner in which the product and project aspects are to be ‘covered is more flexible and open. As one ofthe possible directions, we suggest usage of design theory but there are more possiblities ‘out there. For that reason, ths section should be considered asa eal for action and should motivate authors to work on more systemic approaches for rsk management in product development. 8 Conclusion In this paper, study about the risk management tendencies in engineering has been presented. White the main conclusions and the potential axis of fture research have been emphasized in the results and as ell for action, here the general eonelusionis made Itcan ‘be sai that risk management is an essential process in many areas but since its goal is to support the main activities it doesn’t exist, Independently. The conducted study has shown on one hand tendeacles to perform risk management almost separately from the ‘engineering processes and on another to represent risk management throug isk only and to embed it in the engineering. The first case4 Peroni eta Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 leads to the lack of engineering view and the second one lacks management. While both undoubtedly have their usage itis evident that stops are needed to cover the problems that are in the micéle ofthese two extremes. Heving.in mind that the two mentioned usually lead to the different definition and representation of risk, the discrepancy becomes even bigger. Also, i has been observed that en sgincering needs risk management tools. However, rk management decision-making is matured tothe level of methodologies in most ‘of the cases. Hence, more differences are rising. Finally, with the limitation of the study, It canbe implied tha the future sottions in the risk management and engineering area should be oriented towards tool development with the global notion of risk represented ‘through probability or uncertainty that would address product and project aspects. References ‘nia, ME, Pry N, Paths, J, 2017. Arlsedaptoach to ve concept! Jeg ain into scanty rout Ie. ltr. Des. Mana. (Ube 11), 677-56 oe Jory i000 = 3008.018036% ‘Ante MK, Mis 2, amber, SA. 2001 Slaton and design of cartier rlocon seme: Proce Saf. og. 20 (2), 197-208, p/n ‘ose MaucntdM Snat A, Pty, Beotrd, A, 2012. VCS: val hin snus tool for ate ass of anuctsing energie proce (a alte "sd eae sip fot) tl” Mara 239), 1509-402. ‘owning, 1998, Modeling and oaaing Gat, Sebel, abd Performance n Complex ys Podut Development. Masacosets nse of Technolog, ‘Depart of Atospace ager eon. Ta, Dei, Epler SD, Wiley LE, 2002 Adding vate ln prodetdevelopent by reigns ad eter IEE Tes. Eg Manag. 4 462458 pet gio 200280710 ‘Gaderer, A, Teer, 2014, Staying risk governance using a esign perspective, Saf. Sl. 68, 8-88, bso org/70.1016/) ss 201408 006, {Ghar A, Sou 2016 The putt pau pecs compat) aad be pect devdopat or lance roduc devopnetpdamence te (Go iL Ab 12010 Rana moder and iat Segre detains one produc developmen see yng. Toca. Mana. 27 (12), 110-124, {Gay Cat Ts, Whit, 1, 202 Design cin management brag he grp Detwerneieig snd management Mant 24 (3) alos ‘lc, 2006, The nib so: Chesed wits and» multilayer dela Ruste Iteration! Head Tae. Revere fom "em stn ‘cvper, LP, 2003 Aras peda te edu Fak a ew product development trough Knowledge managements patone penpectve Ja. Teal anap29 1-2) 17-140 (1), 23-46 bips/7o.ory/19. 108009544428 2016 1258458, eat Henan, A, vere, C, Maggio, , Stamatis, , Guar, S, Rede, Shree, Sith, C, Willan, Redey, 2011. NASA Risk Manage ‘nyophas C adurden, F202, Festung Peformance of Product Derg: isk Were for Don ad inc Asis In IE Anal Conferenes, THocedings pm 1 ise of ns nd Stems Engines CSE. ‘cefan, 2008 Say of odessa systems eagle ethoolges. cena Counc oo Systems Bxgoerng he Mods-esed Syms aginecing er, 1980. Design Priya A Rawal Representation Sc for Den (idl, Games, Duchamp, f, 200. Decoy aking fer metodo niga apron to project isk mnageent in ew product desig. ng. Bex 1 (0, Sep tor ub OSsuses oT 2s ‘un, 2008.82 managing fe sn rqurenents, deg nd development wing langnge INCOSE in. Symp. 18 (1), 12541265 s/o 500m 2394-3897 900 002700. hme. AX 204A i kin a fr el po ene i ew i enone O25 eting by 201 Goby networed sat hwo espn Nate 497 (447), INCOSE, 2072 Sytem Engloering Deion. pwn ncn r/aont ender em ans fstan/syemongosetiagitn. lean nin oan, 207, Rk mer ~ cn ples 0, ays, By Ara ou, M, Se 5, Hoe, Riper, A, 2006 Risk quan er new pad dn and develope concen engaerng rove CRP han (1, eFaI9D. ips seuang io totais yobs onsen T2008 tcnving and Manan set ie eal ok fr Pale png, Yor Prot Amacom ‘oso, Mos MLA, 2008. Howto mesure be eleven of isk tana tengleeing design prec? Presentation of RMPASS: ew etd for “seing rk maragemen prac ad he ipa of knowledge management evs sg, De 192) 7110, ss on) amu, Witenes Fon fr redetenwisking (e).,207. Te fate f pod development pocatng of he 17 CAP Dein Confrence ei New Yr Senge re, Gra Ky ery, 2012, 83.2 generate i even effect newualaaton: delving and esatg risk maton seeding conceptual “dig, INCOSE In. Symp 22,0), 1134-114, ige//elny/10 1002 ase aaty2013shol se lan, Ns Kiss Ay 1996, aging dei proce: ik aessnen approach, IEE Tans. yet, Mn, Cyber, Past Syst Hum. 26 (6, 748.258, org. is7i4en ea Yn Zhang, Wel 2, QZ, 2028 Expl he rg ks aon operon pero of een comme Dad Chis J. Pld Ee, 4 1.9, Yang hang, tH, 2020 Risk propagton and migton of desi chage fr complex produc evelopment (PD) poets ted on myer ‘ough, Ki Sony Toner 1, 200, The ak neal sgn method, ag. Bes 20 186-17, og/ 10,04 ooGeasanONeNA Matin, Ry Sten Tube, A, Waterss, 203. 9M acy mol fer psig 50 14871 meal vce nk and suey manage aes ese ery NOOSE i yap. 25 (1), 489-507. plo 10 19/2886 988720180007 5 Mote 2007-754 eneling poet sk by desig. (NCOSE ot Symp. 17 (1, 2158-1167, Mido 1010027 25043687. 2007:8020404 Bevo eta Jere! of gern and Tce Manage 69 (2023) 101770 Meio, A Cot, 3. 2021. Consrcton rsh mangement in Potat—Ientfcation of he olechngues and specif sks nthe design an constrcton ‘Sub, 16hneraiona robbie Wokshp: PW 2020. Sprger nrraenal Paling, Chap. 257-251 (i) Mari, lige Dena, Gore 92014 Sate decision-making 4 NPD projet accoring tor apliation oats ei projec. Compu Id 65 (a) OPIN pe /ohorg 0 Tolono 20140600 gon, rh, Enea, VI, Do, 8, Dao, Pham TA, 2022 Reming he ft of sgn ks onthe prfmance of esigp-bul rjc in Vira, TCScEA 302 Proceedings ofthe Second ineroona Coference on Ssanale Cv Ergoering an Arhitecve Sige Nate Singapore, Sagspee, pp. 207-218 separ tse ofthe Deputy Aint Secearya ene or Stns ageing, 2017. Depart of Dla ik Sue, a ppt manage ude fo Deen Selon prog: Wangs, DC Coston, oer, WL, 207. Apivng ik axtcemontaproch fr cost ane and deconomakngscte a fora ase design egg profs J: hs In ng. 40 (5, 3799010 1080/0259 2017 1580620 ‘vena Font Chan 07 Aphis naw pre depen: grain, tnd pti. Coney Gar 8 018 Lemar rvew of indy 0 ad rated soi J ne. Mana 16 Pan, Ret, i988 npnerng dag. The Design Cane, onde ‘aR Granta, , tee D, 2012 isbn ay design a ses ik seen approach Eng, Mang. 24 0), 35-4, bps /019/10.10807 Pham, DT, Wa. A Din, 5 2006 Anovel mated of mera the sea eine, Proceedings of Second Vitel Inertial Caneence cnet Prtacton Machines and Seams, PAOMSO (375-80) Pree Mangere: nee (23) 20184 pet te pjes management by of knowing PMAOX pid), Hh of, Project Management at, a, New Square, Posy ana ‘enn 0, 1986 Tres decodes of sk escareh:exomplshmet ni ew cae. J isk Res. 1 (1), 4-7 /20.1080/5859879857752, He ada nine Aine om s/s cae Una ea [Ret (nds In nfrdltnaiescom Rete fom "ips! uosconanes com sno ‘Stage A Wel, T Ocne, Wilms, PWM, 2019. Rellenc Ih podhtJesgh snd Gernpment process «Tsk management vewpolt. Procell ‘Sta LA, Beane, Ay Sida, A, Vera 2016 Deco king inthe manuicisingeovicnmet ings alga Jel. Mapu. 272, 617-500, Tepe etn 1007 s1oetSas cio ‘abu, H, 2016 Ar Tala Cont Soa in Ag Recall Show Evy Wore op nani Toll Reve fom psn cony016/04/14/ asies/stakc osu snaps Alesshoweary-womieor-toaea Mm) ‘aun, C,Pgain GA, Roa 2015. penne, sk munggenet abd leat: the le of the dete desig THANE. Teel. rei ‘outa, 200, Uncerain. Cami Dex. Det. Complex St 16 Tomer, ty ilk Hangbonk of reece Management. Grav London: New York Ulloa, DG, 2010. The Meshal! Design Process, Furth ee. Meal ghee Poveton, Bost, ‘Unger, Bppiage 5, 201. Inprovng pods develope proces Jeg «melo fot anggng infration Bow, sad tras. J ap, De. 222), "69-498 tp ator’ 10 1060/0958 2010 saan, ert, Di, Tamer LY, Wl, SD, 2013. A cae tring kn compa conepaldsin rade then Na. ng. Det. 24 (3), 258-275, s/s? Toou7oieaatz 01a. ‘ase 2013 Rsk, ise pvepion risk management 2 evlew of eer, Puna. 1 (29) ‘ling JX, vn Henge, W, Houben, 1998 Acces arabs for dag, Reb. 5) Su 89 (2), 141-180 hys/lokow/20 1015800518520 Groorssx et 08 md rcv ain cp ein A At 9), A i/o ‘What Cae Faas Alig Prolene? 2016. Relea om hr//kowsge what pon oar ahar-nacfetaa-ag) ‘Wanye Shen, 0, Astle, CE, 2025 api he ei ok lcs for oat neat constarton projec Cast apo. 29 (1, 21-228,