A systematic approach to develop risk registry frameworks for complex projects

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to build upon the extensive application of risk registries in the construction literature and establish a systematic methodology to develop risk registries. Risk registries channel judgment of experts as a basis for risk analysis and should be tailored for each project to be more effective. Given their prevalence, there is a need for systematic integration of tacit and explicit knowledge to develop practical risk registries.

Design/methodology/approach

A combined approach is proposed using the systematic literature review (SLR) technique to integrate explicit knowledge and Delphi technique to integrate tacit knowledge in the development of risk registries. This two-step approach further increases the robustness of the registries by validating them through integrating and contrasting multiple forms of knowledge for a tailored risk registry.

Findings

The application of the proposed approach indicates that the use of multiple forms of knowledge can increase the robustness and practicality of risk registries. It also showcased its potential in the development of risk registries for complex projects. Examples include modification of risk factors obtained from the explicit sources of knowledge based on contextual tacit knowledge.

Originality/value

The proposed approach is an imperative step to standardize the development of risk registries. With its inherent validation process through integrating and contrasting tacit and explicit knowledge, practitioners can use this approach to develop practical risk registries for different categories of projects. Integrating different forms of knowledge can increase the impact of registries beyond risk assessment and in contexts such as decision making and performance assessment.

Citation

Khallaf, R., Naderpajouh, N. and Hastak, M. (2018), "A systematic approach to develop risk registry frameworks for complex projects", Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 334-347. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-08-2017-0051