Stretching risk management standards: multi-organizational perspectives

Abstract

Purpose

Standard frameworks for project risk management (RM) are currently mostly focussed on single-firm organizations, whereas in practice, construction project RM involves multiple organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identify and systematically maps practical processes that bridge the gap between single-organizational RM standards and multi-organizational RM (MORM) needs.

Design/methodology/approach

This case study covers three large construction management (CM) projects in Finland. The 35 interviews with project owners, project management consultants, design groups, and contractors identify the participants’ positions on RM roles, integration within organizations, and further development requests.

Findings

Most (16 of 21) of the identified RM practices are multi-organizational; i.e. they involve two or more organizations. Compared to single-organizational standards, MORM practices involve less emphasis on detailed risk analysis processes but highlight both participant selection and managing collaborative performance.

Research limitations/implications

The research results are attached to Finnish CM projects but may be applicable to other types of collaboration-based construction projects, such as alliances and public-private partnerships. The efficiency of the MORM model requires further evaluation in future research.

Practical implications

A model for MORM is a systematic presentation of the research results. The model provides guidance for efficiently setting up MORM processes and for refining multi-organizational research.

Originality value

The multi-organizational interfaces of RM processes are mainly overlooked in the current literature, standards, and frameworks. This research provides a rare explication of parallel MORM processes.

Citation

Lehtiranta, L. and Junnonen, J.-M. (2014), "Stretching risk management standards: multi-organizational perspectives", Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-06-2013-0019