Managing project risk using combined analytic hierarchy process and risk map

The main purpose of the study is to develop an integrated framework for managing project risks by analyzing risk across project, work package and activity levels, and developing responses. Design/methodology/approach: The study first reviews the literature of various contemporary risk management frameworks in order to identify gaps in project risk management knowledge. Then it develops a conceptual risk management framework using combined analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and risk map for managing project risks. The proposed framework has then been applied to a 1500 km oil pipeline construction project in India in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. The concerned project stakeholders were involved through focus group discussions for applying the proposed risk management framework in the project under study. Findings: The combined AHP and risk map approach is very effective to manage project risks across project, work package and activity levels. The risk factors in project level are caused because of external forces such as business environment (e.g. customers, competitors, technological development, politics, socioeconomic environment). The risk factors in work package and activity levels are operational in nature and created due to internal causes such as lack of material and labor productivity, implementation issues, team ineffectiveness, etc. Practical implications: The suggested model can be applied to any complex project and helps manage risk throughout the project life cycle. Originality/value: Both business and operational risks constitute project risks. In one hand, the conventional project risk management frameworks emphasize on managing business risks and often ignore operational risks. On the other hand, the studies that deal with operational risk often do not link them with business risks. However, they need to be addressed in an integrated way as there are a few risks that affect only the specific level. Hence, this study bridges the gaps. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.