An experimental approach to project risk identification and prioritization

One of the aims of a broad ethnographic study into how the apportionment of risk influences pricing levels of contactors was to ascertain the significant risks affecting contractors in Ghana, and their impact on prices. To do this, in the context of contractors, the difference between expected and realized return on a project is the key dependent variable examined using documentary analyses and semi-structured interviews. Most work in this has focused on identifying and prioritising risks using relative importance indices generated from the analysis of questionnaire survey responses. However, this approach may be argued to constitute perceptions rather than direct measures of the project risk. Here, instead, project risk is investigated by examining two measures of the same quantity; one ‘before’ and one ‘after’ construction of a project has taken place. Risks events are identified by ascertaining the independent variables causing deviations between expected and actual rates of return. Risk impact is then measured by ascertaining additions or reductions to expected costs due to the occurrence of risk events. So far, data from eight substantially complete building projects indicates that consultants’ inefficiency, payment delays, subcontractor-related problems and changes in macroeconomic factors are significant risks affecting contractors in Ghana.

The loss of Normandy and the invention of Terre Normannorum, 1204

The conquest of Normandy by Philip Augustus of France effectively ended the ‘Anglo-Norman’ realm created in 1066, forcing cross-Channel landholders to choose between their English and their Norman estates. The best source for the resulting tenurial upheaval in England is the Rotulus de valore terrarum Normannorum, a list of seized properties and their former holders, and this article seeks to expand our understanding of the impact of the loss of Normandy through a detailed analysis of this document. First, it demonstrates that the compilation of the roll can be divided into two distinct stages, the first containing valuations taken before royal justices in June 1204 and enrolled before the end of July, and the second consisting of returns to orders for the valuation of particular properties issued during the summer and autumn, as part of the process by which these estates were committed to new holders. Second, study of the roll and other documentary sources permits a better understanding of the order for the seizure of the lands of those who had remained in Normandy, the text of which does not survive. This establishes that this royal order was issued in late May 1204 and, further, that it enjoined the temporary seizure rather than the permanent confiscation of these lands. Moreover, the seizure was not retrospective and covers a specific window of time in 1204. On the one hand, this means that the roll is far from a comprehensive record of terre Normannorum. On the other hand, it is possible to correlate the identities of those Anglo-Norman landholders whose English estates were seized with the military progress of the French king through the duchy in May and June and thus shed new light on the campaign of 1204. Third, the article considers the initial management of the seized estates and highlights the fact that, when making arrangements for the these lands, John was primarily concerned to maintain his freedom of manoeuvre, since he was not prepared to accept that Normandy had been lost for good.