Risk And Project Management - Literature review Example

?Review of Academic Literature Risk management and project management in the events industry Risk is an element that is present in all human endeavour. “Risk, which is uncertainty that has been defined, is a simple concept, a way of thinking through and planning a program or project” (Barkley, 2004, p. 1). All activities contain an element of uncertainty, particularly projects which are time limited and undertaken to arrive at a single goal. Because of the high level of uncertainty, there is also perceived a high level of risk. There is therefore the imperative to try to understand and control this risk, through risk management techniques. Risk management is “the process of identifying, analyzing, and responding to business and project risk in order to minimize the consequences of adverse risk-based events” (Barkley, 2004, p. 3). According to Silvers (2010), the management of events is complex and replete with responsibilities. The process of preparing plans and executing them requires the participation of a good number of personnel, equipment and expertise, all of which must be gathered at one location in order to accomplish the set of activities that would complete the planned project. Events may be small in scale and limited in their complexity; others would be substantially more challenging, taking a much longer time to complete, and requiring the collaboration of many other talents working in conjunction with each other, the setting (location, time, weather, etc.) and against the constraints of a budget. Because of the multitude of unknown factors, risks abound in the execution of a project, from the planning phase until the last clean-up operation. There are financial risks that pertain to the business side, implying the possibility that the expected returns may not be realized. There are also the real risks of physical injury due to fortuitous events that, despite all precautions, occur unexpectedly. The job of events management is to assess and take cognizance of all these risks, so as to allocate for the possibility that they may happen and to allow the project team to address them. The importance of this topic is attested to by a substantial number of articles and researches that have been undertaken on the topic of project. This chapter shall review the available literature on the subject. Below are two diagrams depicting the risk management process, sequentially and then functionally. Project definition and project life cycle The risks attendant to events management are of the same nature of risks to which all projects are subjected to. A project is “an activity that has a beginning and an end which is carried out to achieve a particular purpose to a set quality within given time constraints and cost limits” (Chartered Management Institute). Essentially, events are projects with a tangible beginning and end and dedicated to attain one result, and therefore follow the project life cycle development. The project life cycle is a representation of “the linear progression of a project, from defining the project through making a plan, executing the work, and losing out the project” (Verzuh, 2008, p. 23). There are numerous ways of depicting the life cycle of a project, one of which is presented in the following diagram. http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/century21/figure3.gif The risks of doing business There are many types of projects that have different objectives; whether they are philanthropic or for profit, there is certainly a cost factor involved that places a constraint on the manner the business is run. At best, the project should earn a decent return for the organizers where the aim is fund raising or the furtherance of a business. At the least, the costs incurred must be within the limits set by the sponsors. In any case, uncertainties in the events surrounding the project’s execution may impact in the form of higher than expected costs or lower than expected revenues. According to Ibrahim (2010), it is possible to introduce some diversification in order for events management to be less reliant and vulnerable on a single market. One particular market segment that has proven the downfall of events organizers is the public sector, because of its susceptibility to the economic excursions that yield cost-cutting policies and government budgetary limitations. While a firm may find public sector projects profitable at certain times, it would do well to accept private sector projects promoting, say, several goods and services combined in one marketing event, such as trade exhibits. In this way, companies marketing their products and services would share in the cost, the risk exposure of the events planner is diminished, and a higher turnout may be expected despite a few cancellations. An example of this shift is the move of some events organizers away from incentive travel (which proved viable prior to the spate of terrorist activities and negative travel advisories), and the option to prefer product launches and industrial conferences that may have a lower profile but that provide higher yields. With higher yield projects, the events management firm would be able to earn more in less time than it would engaging in higher profile but higher cost projects (Ibrahim, 2010). The recent economic downturn has dried up several formerly lucrative sources of projects and traditionally large clientele have ceased to become viable. However, there are many more alternatives that, because of the recession, have become strong contenders in a market that seeks low cost, high utility products and services. Event organizers would also do well to seek international engagements which could take advantage of new markets in emerging economies (Ibrahim, 2010). Identifying, analysing, assessing and rating risks There are projects that inherently involve greater risk; where projects are of the same nature, however, risk increases due to the presence of several factors. Time to completion, for instance, tends to increase risk the longer it takes for a project to be accomplished. This is because uncertainties exist in the future, and the farther into the future the project extends, the higher the chances unforeseen events and delays may take place. Thus, even in apparently the simplest projects, some measure of risk management must be provided by the effective event manager. Firstly, the different risks that may be encountered should be forecasted. The sources of untoward events and possible delays must be identified and described. An understanding of these possibilities allows the project manager to thereafter categorize them them according to their chances of occurrence, and the impact of their possible effects on the successful outcome of the project. This activity is called risk analysis, where more information is sourced and evaluated in greater detail as to their relative importance to the project. Oftentimes, in scenario building previous case studies on the same situation or project type are made use of to construct projections for the project currently being undertaken. Also included are expert opinions, institutional studies, and consultations with authorities or policy-makers. Post-analysis activities will require an assessment where the identified and analysed risks are prioritized and ranked, according to their possibility of happening and the likely damage they would wreak upon the project outcome. This is important because the resources that may be devoted to contingency plans would necessarily be limited, and more resources may be devoted to those risks posing the greater danger. At this point, a rating system, best devised by the event management firm or pursuant to industry standard, would provide a great help to what is innately a subjective activity. It would lend a greater objectivity, and even ensure that the important considerations are not forgotten, in the ranking process (Grant, Cashman & Christensen, 2006). Grant, et al. (2006, pp. 54-57) identified some frequent causes of delay. This list has been adapted here as follows: 1. Insufficient resources The principal challenge in any planning activity is the accuracy of forecasting the necessary materials, personnel, permits and licenses, and hardware and software, and arriving at a reasonable estimate of the funding needed to acquire these resources. The aim is to secure sufficient financing in order to acquire the right quality and quantity of resources that would ensure the successful outcome of the project, at the desired standard of quality or better. There is a tendency to either go over or under in the estimation; estimating more than is necessary may be costly in terms of the cost of borrowed money, but at least the project would have been provided for and the outcome would have been successful. Underestimation, however, would be problematic because it could compromise the completion of the project. There are techniques that may be adopted to reduce the risk of underprovision. For instance, if the event manager, instead of bidding out projects to the lowest priced provider, were to establish relations with suppliers that would extend into the long term, then there would be a greater leeway that would allow for greater leniency in the payment terms, and would make possible credit terms and conditions for a firm running short to be able to secure the needed provisions on time and allowing for delayed payment within a longer period of time. Longer term relations would likewise increase reliability and quality in the delivery of the needed supplies or services, because there would be a greater understanding of the firm’s needs and expectations. While such strong partnerships are desirable between suppliers and the firm, it must be remembered, however, that the firm should likewise have its options open to seek new suppliers when the need for such becomes apparent. 2. Insufficient information All decision making relies on the available information at the hands of the manager. Studies have shown that incomplete, inaccurate, or late arrival of critical information often spells the unsatisfactory conduct of an events project, resulting in the disappointing customer experience or poor turnout, negative feedback, and worse, lost clientele. What is difficult in this case is that most managers are arriving at the best possible decisions without being aware that their information is inadequate. The events management firm must therefore explore investing in the latest information services, acquiring the necessary electronic devices and IT systems, and strengthening its internal and external information networks to always keep abreast of developments (Grant, et al. 2006, p. 55). The costs pertaining to the more advanced communication systems have happily come down as newer technological developments are achieved; therefore, to support management decision-making and just to keep at par with the competition, investment in information technology is a crucial consideration for events management firms. 3. Revisions and alterations by the client after commencement While it is highly undesirable, it often cannot be helped that the project client or proponent suddenly approaches the project manager with desired changes as the project already goes underway. The effect of such could impact on the outcome in different ways. There are revisions which do not entail material changes in the resources needed and which are communicated early enough that a slight change in the project plans would not create any significant distortions in the execution or outcome. If this were the case, then the project manager would gain some favourable plus points with the client if the requested revisions are accommodated. On the other hand, there are requests for changes made by the client which would substantially add to the costs, greatly alter well laid-out plans, or require much rework because it had been introduced too late in the project’s life. Accommodating such requests would entail losses, distortions, and poor quality outcomes. From the outset, therefore, limitations for clients’ options should be made clear in the contract prior to the project’s acceptance, such that damages incurred as a result of significant deviations from the approved plans would be incurred at the client’s expense. It is also important that the contract should contain all the necessary specifications, so that the material details are properly covered and the firm is sufficiently protected against additional losses due to customers’ belated changes. It is also important that the project management team should closely coordinate with the client’s representatives or the client himself, so that desired changes should be introduced as early as possible and with little distortion in the outcome, allowing the manager to effectively “reduce the complexity of the customer interface” (Grant, et al., 2006, p. 56). 4. Problems in project commencement Studies that have undertaken to interview project managers have determined a little-apparent problem in project execution – that is, the difficulty in getting either the entire project itself, or one of its major stages, started. Sources of this problem have to do with the preliminary activities, such as delays by suppliers in submitting quoted prices, difficulty in obtaining government approval or the requisite licenses and permits due to bureaucratic red tape, and the negotiation and drawing of contracts. Again, much as the first entry made above, the process of getting the preliminary work done and the project started promptly may be addressed by establishing long-term relationships that streamline the procedure and speed up coordination. Communication and understanding can greatly enhance the dispatch with which delays in starting may be eliminated. 5. Unsatisfactory performance and scheduling by subcontractors Oftentimes, the project team itself is efficient and well-coordinated; the problem of delays and substandard delivery, however, would be attributed to the firm’s subcontractors and partners. The project manager has little control over the performance of its subcontractors, but while this is so, it is little consolation that the subcontractors’ outputs are relied upon by the event manager, and often compromises the resultant output by the project team that has worked so hard to maintain overall performance. What is worse, the poor quality output could influence the client’s decision for future projects that may as a consequence be farmed out to other events management firms. This is another problem that may be addressed in the same way as the fourth item above, by establishing long-term working relationships with trusted subcontractors whose track record for quality and timely performance has been established over time. By establishing closer, longer, and more favourable relationships with other service providers on which it relies, the firm could better protect its interests. Enhancing contractual terms to enable the events manager, to as far an extent as possible, to influence the performance of the subcontractor on his particular contract, will provide additional protection against this risk. 6. Unsatisfactory performance by the project team itself It is oftentimes easy to blame a supplier or subcontractor for one’s own shortcomings; therefore it is usually difficult for the project management team to own its errors and face its mistakes. A top fault of project teams is poor schedule performance due to technical failures, unanticipated adverse weather conditions, and last-minute suspensions or cancellations by crucial talents or performers around whom the project may have been conceived and designed. Some managers attribute such occurrences to “acts of God,” implying the impossibility of their elimination. Still, some protection may be sought to minimize their ill effects. For instance, penalties may be built into contracts to discourage last minute cancellations and avoid the utter failure of the project. Up to date maintenance of technical equipment and provisions for back up units where possible would also constitute preparation against technical difficulties. Finally, the team and the project manager should work in close coordination with each other so that a developing, potentially problematic situation could be properly provided for as it materializes. 7. Poor planning All plans are essentially educated guesses. This does not detract from the fact that properly intensive research must precede the project planning process and allow for the greatest chances that the plan should come out as reliably and accurately as possible. More often than not, the activity where planning fails has to do with scheduling as the team either overestimate or underestimate their capability of getting stages of work done within an allocated period of time. At times, misspecifications or poor communication would create delays in what would have otherwise been sufficiently time-allocated activities, leading to further confusion (Grant, et al., 2006, pl. 57). To minimize this risk, the events or project manager has no recourse but to assume direct and complete responsibility for project and event scheduling; and even in those instances when a specialized team member or members undertake this task, it is incumbent upon the project manager to closely oversee and evaluate in detail the proposed schedule. Resort to computer aided software, allocating for margins and buffers, and resorting to frequent and detailed consultations with the team as well as outside authorities, would all be beneficial to the scheduling effort and the overall final plan. 8. Problems in quality assurance The last category of risks has to do with the failure to meet the requisite level of quality that is demanded by the client and specified in the contract. Such poor quality performance sometimes is attributed to equipment malfunction to perform as expected, or the failure to anticipate the failure of key aspects of the project that creates a strong negative impact on its outcome. At times, the mere exercise of due diligence in conducting an equipment check or running through the different elements that comprise the project would be sufficient to assure a higher level of quality. Back-up equipment and contingency plans in the event of failure should likewise be provided for; for instance, an event may need a standby generator in case power failure is a likelihood. The judicious investment in technology and maintenance systems would enhance the prospects of successful risk management as it tends to improve processes, increase savings and minimize costs (Radojevic, 2008). Event tourism and its attendant risks Travel is by its nature more risk prone than activities that are located in a single place. Event tourism that requires travel of groups of people is particularly exposed to more risk hazards, given that logistics and safety allocations for a good number of people tend to be more difficult to predict and control than for a single person. Besides, the transience of location and duration also means that factors more difficult to foresee introduce a greater uncertainty in the event. Additionally, tourists tend to be less cautious and more adventurous, engendered by the excitement of the new location, that otherwise regular precautionary measures are sometimes forgotten. Topmost risks to which tourists are prone include personal injury due to accidents such as automobile or airplane crashes, and the danger of personal injury due to criminal activities, particularly in certain countries. Of major concern also are illnesses in the course of exposure to the elements or to contaminants in the place. Increasingly, however, personal danger or injury due to terrorist activities (kidnap for ransom, bombings and armed encounters) and other man-made atrocities is also becoming a major risk concern in event tourism. Tourists have also expressed concern about the performance quality of the travel service provider in the form of the quality and comfort of food, lodging and other accommodations. Finally, there are the lesser and more routine concerns involving lost luggage, delayed flights or trips, lack of mobile phone service, the activities planned, and the chance for the event tourist to get to see other local sites, try the local restaurants and do some shopping. Other risks may be less real and more psychological, such as the fear of running out of money, of getting lost and being left behind, and the fear of transgressing the local culture (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008; Kemp 2009). On the other hand, event tourism creates hazards on the environment for the localities visited. Studies have shown that the proliferation of event tourism is partially responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions even in relatively pristine localities that have no factories or industrial sites. The frequency of transportation by bus or similar land vehicles that run on fossil fuels, or even air transport for that matter, release carbon monoxide and GHGs, exposing the local residents to the ecological degradation of their residential environment. One option is for the event planner to schedule fewer stops and longer stays, allowing for less frequent travel while affording the tourists a more leisurely pace to enjoy the destination site. Longer stays may likewise mean higher revenues for businesses in the area, particularly that of board and lodging (Robbins, Dickinson & Calver, 2007). Allocating for risk insurance in special events Special risks attend certain particular events that are not usually expected in the usual events. By “special events” is meant those activities devoted to a singular and particular objective, such as those that are dedicated to advance a particular advocacy. These include events to raise awareness or funds for research into aids, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and so forth (Kochaniec, 2000). Others which may be classified as special events are concerts, tournament sponsorships, specific sports events such as the PGA Masters or the World Cup, and so forth (Ceniceros, 2001). High profile events are particularly risky because of the high profile persons who have a material participation in the event and are determinative of its success. Fund raising events, for instance, involve the appearance of popular persons and celebrities who will be contributing their efforts without pecuniary compensation. Firstly, because the individual will be performing for free, he or she may well cancel his or her appearance at the last minute due to other matters where he may be financially committed. Risk managers should likewise assess the risks posed by great numbers of people in the case of personal injuries due to stampedes during instances of panic, the need for orderly and peaceful evacuation in times of imminent risk, bug bites, slips and falls, and heat exhaustion, as well as a host of other similar possible occurrences (Kochaniec, 2000). It is worthwhile to know at this point that risk management allows for the event participants to avail of a variety of risk exposures attendant to different risk options. This refers to the capacities that pertain to promoters, sponsors, and presenters. The promoter is the most active, being intimately involved in the planning and preparation of the event, including the signing of contracts and the hiring and firing of project workers, and thus assumes the highest degree of liability should the attendant risk materialize. Sponsors are less active / more passive than promoters, and their participation involves the affixing of the firm logo on the event banner or posted at a conspicuous place. Other than this, the sponsor does not assume greater responsibility nor greater liability in the implementation of the even project. The sponsor thus has the least to do with the actual running of the event, and thus the least liability. Somewhere in the midst of promoters and sponsors are the presenters, who are liable only to the level of their exposure in the event project. This depth of involvement may be determined by the terms of the contract struck between the event organizers and the participants (Kochaniec, 2000). There are certain insurance contracts and clauses that may prove useful in special events. For instance, employees who will be required to travel for the event would have to be covered by additional insurance for risks not covered by their regular insurance plan. Special contract clauses may likewise be incorporated into contracts for critical celebrities’ appearance, in order to ensure that their appearance may be assured (Ceniceros, 2001). Risk sharing in events risk management As earlier mentioned, events risk management favours other, more recent, forms of collaboration, by which several firms may jointly share risks by combining their activities. This allows client firms to share the costs with other participants, thereby increasing the possibility of higher profit margins for the event manager as well as client firms. Because of the coordination and collaboration of several entities, it is important prior to the event and even the contract signing that the relative liabilities to which parties are exposed should be ironed out. For example, sports events are prone to violence and untoward incidents caused by the audience themselves. It becomes important, therefore, for the contracting parties to determine which party is responsible in case of personal injury during a regular fall or slip, and personal injury incurred due to poor crowd control and violent actions by spectators (Ceniceros, 2001). The configurations need not be rigid. Risk of liability may be shouldered by one party during regular mishaps, and by another party when large scale unruly behaviour causes injury, or liability may be shared according to different proportions, and so forth. Because of such early settlement of liability, in the case of such eventuality, the parties need no longer resort to costly legal procedures and payment of lawyers’ fees. Furthermore, a chain of responsibility is established by the prior liability agreement, allowing for a better management of risk as well as procedures in the event project implementation. This is a proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to project risk management, because it allows for the anticipation of clients’ needs and problems, that transcends the mere anticipation of their occurrence and goes further to their prevention and avoidance (Patino, 2008). The Event Management Body of Knowledge (EMBOK) model Conceived by William O’Toole in 1999 the EMBOK was based on methodologies devised for project management and adapting them to event management. Julia Silvers later on refined the original theory, through the inclusion of core competencies for event management (CTHRC, 2007, p. 1). The elements of the international EMBOK model is depicted in the table in Appendix A herein. What this study is concerned about is the risk domain in the table, which “deals with protective obligations, opportunities and legalities” (CTHRC, 2007, p. 1). Seven classes are included in this domain which are described as the following, adopted from the CTHRC: 1. Compliance management involves assuring that the project complies with all mandatory legal requisites, including securing the necessary entitlements to property rights, use of regulated facilities, and access to public communication and transportation systems. 2. Decision management necessitates identifying the decision-making authority and setting up the appropriate decision-making networks and support systems to ensure the best possible project administration. 3. Emergency management would require coordination with the public authorities to address emergencies that would pertain to the occurrence of natural disasters and other situations that may develop during the assembly or event. 4. Health and safety management addresses fire and life safety, assurance of the event participants’ health and medical needs, crowd control, occupational safety, and any developments that threaten the peace and order of the event project. 5. Insurance management seeks to provide for any exposures to potential liabilities by the event managers and organizers, in so far as tort and contractual requirements are concerned, to avert incurring any serious loss due to unintentional but culpable oversight related to the event project. 6. Legal management includes the negotiation and formulation of contracts and other documents to secure the legal rights of the project management, or to ensure their compliance with contractual commitments and stipulations. 7. Security management would include personnel and equipment that would be needed to provide protective services during the event and imposing command and control over the event project. Risk management model in the construction industry Risk is a fundamental consideration in the construction industry because change is inherent in construction work. Because construction projects usually take a long period of time and are thus prone to so many changes before the project is completed, there is a substantial degree of uncertainty at the beginning of the project’s life. Since costs and pricing are determined at this point, there is a need to try to keep risks under control, or if this is not possible, to at least understand and recognize the nature of these risks in order to mitigate their effects and adjust forecasts in anticipation of their occurrence. In the past, the construction industry has had a lacklustre record for coping with the disadvantageous effects of change, causing many of the projects to fail to meet budgets, deadlines, and quality targets (Smith, Merna & Jobling, 2006). In an effort to minimize adverse consequences of uncertainties and produce results reasonably within acceptable bounds, there have been several models for risk management that have been conceptualized with the intention of effectively applying them in managing construction projects. A generalized risk management model for the construction industry is shown in Appendix B of this study. Most other models would be comparable to this model by Merna and Lamb (2004). There are four parts to this model, namely risk identification, risk analysis, risk response and risk review. The central and principal aim of these four parts combined in the control of risk during the pendency of the project. As discussed earlier in this chapter, risk identification involves the recognition of possible risks that the project may be expected to encounter. Risks may be identified through historic data on similar projects, statistical and empirical studies, database systems and risk registers or documents (a risk register contains spreadsheets and information on defined events, and assigns a value to these events depending on the probability of occurrence (Smith, Merna & Jobling, 2006, p. 44). Risk analysis is the step after risk identification. This step can make use of several alternative and combined methods and techniques. The objective of risk analysis is to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the probability an event will occur if a particular action is selected. This step provides an awareness and understanding of a particular event in the project. Sensitivity analysis may also be conducted to test if the chances a risk materializes is correlated to the happening of a particular event or the change in a particular variable. Following an effective risk analysis, the risk response is the systematic plan of action that is to but into effect in the event an identified and analyzed risk materializes. The risk response ensures that the needed logistics, action plans, and trained personnel are available to provide swift answer to mitigate a developing adverse event. Finally, risk review is the assessment of the response that had been provided. Its intention is to improve the entire risk management process and thereby enhance risk control. The following tables list some of the risk factors present in the construction industry. The tables show the results of studies that were incorporated in articles from academic journals. WORDCOUNT = 5,023 Key risk factors for residential construction projects (Bentley, et al., 2006) Risks on project level, construction project (Skorupka, 2009) Impacts of risk factors in construction projects (Chan, et al., 2010) o Risk Register (Yu, et al., 2008) Bibliography Ashforth, B.E.; Kreiner, G.E.& Fugate, M. 2000 “All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions,” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 472-491 Barkley, B T 2004 Project Risk Management, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, NY Baydoun, M 2010 “Risk management of large-scale development projects in developing countries: Cases from MDI's projects.” International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, Vol. 9 Issue 3, p237-249; DOI: 10.1386/tmsd.9.3.237_1 Bentley, T A; Hide, S; Tappin, D; Moore, D; Legg, S; Ashby, L & Parker, R 2006 “Investigating risk factors for slips, trips and falls in New Zealand residential construction using incident-centred and incident-independent methods.” Ergonomics. Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 62-77 Blake, M A 2003 “Safety: It’s No Accident” Rural Telecommunications, May/Jun2003, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p52 Ceniceros, R 2001 “Special events require special risk management.” Business Insurance, 05/14/2001, Vol. 35 Issue 20, p32 Chan, D W M; Chan,A P C; Lam, P T I; Yeung, J F Y; Chan, J H L “Risk ranking and analysis in target cost contracts: Empirical evidence from the construction industry.” International Journal of Project Management. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.003 Cooper, N 2006 “How risk assessment could save you a day in court.” Event, Jul/Aug 2006, p8 CTHRC (Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council) 2007 Comparative Analysis: The EMBOK Model Framework and the CTHRC Event Coordinator/Event Manager Occupational Standards. Accessed 6 May 2011 from http://cthrc.ca/en/research_publications/credential_recognition/~/media/Files/CTHRC/Home/research_publications/credential_recognition/program_comparison_articulation_reciprocity/FCR-EMBOK-comparison-en.ashx Eccles, R 2010 “The Risk Adviser.” Association Meetings, Oct 2010, Vol. 22 Issue 5, p5-6 Failla, J 2008 “Managing Risk in a New Event Launch.” Min's B2B, 5/5/2008, Vol. 11 Issue 17, p13 Gagro, D 2010 “Parade Risks Require Pre-Planning.” National Underwriter / Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Management, 3/15/2010, Vol. 114 Issue 9, p29 Global Sourcing. “Don’t Miss the Trade Show Boat.” Circuits Assembly, Sept. 2006 Grant, K P; Cashman, W M; & Christensen, D S 2006 “Delivering Projects on Time.” Research Technology Management, Nov/Dec 2006, Vol. 49 Issue 6, p52-58 Ibrahim, M 2010 “Adapt for growth.” Conference & Incentive Travel, Oct 2010, p21 Kemp, C 2009 “Event tourism: A strategic methodology for emergency management.” Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, May 2009, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p227-240 Kochaniec, J W 2000 “Special events mean special risks to consider.” Business Insurance, 00076864, 05/15/2000, Vol. 34, Issue 20 Lim, C C & Patterson, I 2008 “Sport Tourism on the Islands: The Impact of an International Mega Golf Event.” Journal of Sport & Tourism, May 2008, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p115-133; DOI: 10.1080/14775080802170346 Ohtaka, H & Fukazawa, Y. 2010 “Managing risk symptom: A method to identify major risks of serious problem projects in SI environment using cyclic causal model.” Project Management Journal, Mar 2010, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p51-60; DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20144 Patino, J 2008 “Resolving the Risk Management Problem.” Successful Meetings, May 2008, Vol. 57 Issue 6, p33-34 Pavlak, A 2004 “Project Troubleshooting: Tiger Teams for Reactive Risk Management.” Project Management Journal, Dec 2004, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p5-14 Radojevic, S 2008 “Technology Track” Canadian Business, 00083100, 4/28/2008, Vol. 81, Issue 7 Robbins, D; Dickinson, J; & Calver, S 2007 “Planning transport for special events: a conceptual framework and future agenda for research.” International Journal of Tourism Research, Sep/Oct 2007, Vol. 9 Issue 5, p303-314 “Sheffield Branch goes tripping - 70s style ….” Credit Management, Nov 2005, p56-56 Simpson, P M & Siguaw, J A 2008 “Perceived travel risks: the traveller perspective and manageability.” International Journal of Tourism Research, Jul/Aug 2008, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p315-327 Skorupka, D 2009 “Method of Planning Construction Projects, Taking Into Account Risk Factors.” Bandania Operacyjne I Decyzje. No. 3, pp. 119-128 Smith, N J; Merna, T; & Jobling, P 2006 Managing Risk in Construction Projects, Second edition. Blackwell Science, Ltd., Oxford. Smith, Preston G & Merritt, Guy M. 2002 ”Risk Management Process”. Proactive Risk Management, Proactivity Press Sommer, S C & Loch, Christoph H 2009 “Incentive Contracts in Projects with Unforeseeable Uncertainty.” Production & Operations Management, Mar/Apr 2009, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p185-196; DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2009.01015.x Taylor, T & Toohey, K 2007 “Perceptions of Terrorism Threats at the 2004 Olympic Games: Implications for Sport Events.” Journal of Sport & Tourism, May 2007, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p99-114; DOI: 10.1080/14775080701654754 Verzuh, E 2008 The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Wright, R K 2007 “Planning for the great unknown: the challenge of promoting spectator-driven sports event tourism.” International Journal of Tourism Research, Sep/Oct2007, Vol. 9 Issue 5, p345-359 Yu Sun; Fang, Dongping; Wang, S; Dai, M; & Lv, X 2008 “Safety Risk Identification and Assessment for Beijing Olympic Venues Construction.” Journal of Management in Engineering. January 2008, pp. 40-47 Appendix A Scope of the International EMBOK Model (Source: CTHRC 2007, accessed 6 May 2011 from http://cthrc.ca/en/research_publications/credential_recognition/~/media/Files/CTHRC/Home/research_publications/credential_recognition/program_comparison_articulation_reciprocity/FCR-EMBOK-comparison-en.ashx) Appendix B The Risk Control Model in Construction (Source: Smith, Merna & Jobling, Managing Risks in Construction Projects, p. 40) Read More