Author(s)

V. Leopoulos, K. Kirytopoulos & C. Malandrakis

Abstract

Although many years have passed since Project Risk Management was regarded as a secondary arrow in the best-in-class consulting firms’ \“tools-quiver”, it has not yet earned the attention that it deserves, at least in the Greek Construction Industry. Thus, Project Managers avoid spending valuable resources in order to perform an extended Risk Management Process. The problem raised by this fact is that the typical Risk Management Cycle (Identification, Analysis, Mitigation and Follow Up) is not thoroughly executed. After examining several projects undertaken by one of the big five Greek construction companies, the authors of this paper have come to the conclusion that in the name of completion the \“so called” risk team divides the available resources (time, budget) more or less equally between the four phases of the cycle. The aim of this paper is to challenge the soundness of such an approach that may lead to ambiguous results and impoverish the effort that Risk Managers put into persuading Projects Stakeholders about the benefits that Risk Management may bear. Instead of equally distributing the available resources, this paper suggests that the risk team should focus on specific phases such as Identification and Mitigation. The concept is also supported by the outcome of several projects, where the risk team followed the aforementioned proposition, one of which will be illustrated in the full paper. Key words: Risk Management, Risk Identification, Risk Mitigation.

Keywords

Risk Management, Risk Identification, Risk Mitigation.