Towards Sustainable Project Management: Evaluation of Relationship-Specific Risks and Risk Determinants Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation in Engineering Projects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- Is the most frequent in interorganizational projects taken by engineering companies?
- (b)
- Has the greatest consequences?
- (c)
- Has the lowest detection possibilities?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Specificity of Interorganizational Building Construction and Environmental Engineering Projects
2.2. Specificity of Interorganizational Corporate Responsibility Projects Taken by Engineering Companies
2.3. Problems with Interorganizational Projects Taken by Engineering Companies
3. Proposed Approach
3.1. Data Gathering
3.2. Research Methodology
4. Results
- -
- 22% of risks generate 35% of effects (RPN+);
- -
- next 28% of risks generate 28% of effects (RPN+);
- -
- the remaining 50% of risks generate 37% effects (RPN+).
- -
- When carrying out Pareto analysis in terms of the value of failure effects (RPN+):
- -
- 67% of risks lead to 78% of effects (RPN+);
- -
- next 22% of risks lead to 16% effects (RPN+);
- -
- the remaining 11% of risks lead to 6% effects (RPN+).
- -
- 21% of risk determinants generate 26% of effects (Significance+);
- -
- next 29% of risk determinants generate 30% of effects (Significance+);
- -
- the remaining 50% of risk determinants generate 34% effects (Significance+).
- -
- When carrying out Pareto analysis in terms of the value of failure effects (Significance+),
- -
- 75% of risk determinants lead to 80% of effects (Significance+);
- -
- next 18% risk determinants lead to 15% effects (Significance+);
- -
- the remaining 7% risk determinants lead to 5% effects (Significance+).
- -
- The need to take into account 18 identified risk factors and their probability of occurrence, consequences, and the possibility of detection.
- -
- The need to connect individual risk factors with logical gates of the or type, because the occurrence of any of them is sufficient to not achieve the intended benefit of interorganizational cooperation.
- -
- The need to include in the model the risk determinants belonging to groups A, B, and C according to the Pareto-Lorenz analysis (due to the flat Lorenz curve and lack of clear regularity that a narrow group of causes generates the highest RPN values).
5. Discussion
5.1. RQ1: Which Relationship-Specific Risk Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation Is the Most Frequent in Interorganizational Projects Taken by Engineering Companies, has the Greatest Consequences and the Lowest Detection Possibilities?
5.2. RQ2: Which Relationship-Specific Risks Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation had the Highest Risk Priority Number in Engineering Interorganizational Projects in General (AAP) and in Three Specified Groups: Interorganizational Building Construction Projects (BCP), Interorganizational Projects in Environmental Engineering (IEEP), and in Interorganizational Socially Responsible Projects (ISRP)?
5.3. RQ3: Which Relationship-Specific Risk Determinants for Failure to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation were the Most Important in Interorganizational Engineering Projects in General (AAP), and in Three Specified Groups (IBCP, IEEP, ISRP)
5.4. Limitations
5.5. Future Research Directions
6. Conclusions
- Providing a novel and comprehensive list of 18 relation-specific risks determining failure to achieve the intended benefit of interorganizational cooperation in engineering projects—risks were presented in Table 1.
- Assessment of risks’ frequency of occurrence, significance, possibility of detection, and the Risk Priority Number associated with the occurrence of individual risks on the basis of data obtained from 100 companies with experience in interorganizational cooperation—it revealed various risks interpretations as well as diverse semantic risk implications, and confirmed the legitimacy of the comprehensive inclusion of 18 risks in the risk assessment model dedicated to inter-organizational projects taken by engineering companies.
- Gathering data from 100 companies with experience in interorganizational projects (the analysed companies have carried out a total of 12,352 projects in cooperation with other entities)—it enabled carrying out quantitative risk and risk determinants assessment.
- Identification of 28 risk determinants (mechanisms) conditioning failure to achieve the intended benefit of interorganizational cooperation in engineering projects—a novel, comprehensive list of risk determinants was presented in Table 2.
- Assessment of the significance of determinants (mechanisms) conditioning failure to achieve the intended benefit of interorganizational cooperation on the basis of data obtained from 100 companies with experience in interorganizational cooperation—it enabled the prioritization among risk determinants and focusing risk managers attention on the most significant risk determinants.
- Development of assumptions for the risk management model in interorganizational engineering projects—such a model will give a helping hand to all managers and practitioners aiming to develop successful interorganizational projects.
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jones, C.; Lichtenstein, B.B. Temporary inter-organizational projects. In The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Stjerne, I.S.; Söderlund, J.; Minbaeva, D. Crossing times: Temporal boundary-spanning practices in interorganizational projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 347–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krechowicz, M.; Kiliańska, K. Interorganizational Relationships in Chosen Areas (Relacje Międzyorganizacyjne W Wybranych ObSzarach; Kielce Universtity of Technology: Kielce, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Silvius, G. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1479–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvius, G.; Schipper, R. Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 2014, 4, 63–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvius, G.; Marnewick, C. Interlinking Sustainability in Organizational Strategy, Project Portfolio Management and Project Management A Conceptual Framework. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 196, 938–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molenaar, K.R.; Sobin, N.; Antillón, E.I. A Synthesis of Best-Value Procurement Practices for Sustainable Design-Build Projects in the Public Sector. J. Green Build. 2010, 5, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, M. Integrating sustainability issues into project management. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvius, G. Integrating sustainability into project trisk management. In Managing Project Risks for Competitive Advantage in Changing Business Environments; Bodea, S., Purnus, A., Huemann, M., Hajdu, M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey; PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Mirhosseini, A.F.; Pitera, K.; Odeck, J.; Welde, M. Sustainable Project Management: Reducing the Risk of Cost Inaccuracy Using a PLS-SEM Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surco-Guillen, Y.C.; Romero, J.; Rodríguez-Rivero, R.; Ortiz-Marcos, I. Success Factors in Management of Development Projects. Sustainability 2022, 14, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eskerod, P.; Huemann, M. Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2013, 6, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig-Thurau, T.; Klee, A. The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: A critical reassessment and model development. Psychol. Mark. 1997, 14, 737–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashnai, B.; Smirnova, M.; Kouchtch, S.; Yu, Q.; Barnes, B.R.; Naudé, P. Assessing relationship quality in four business-to-business markets. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2009, 27, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, K.; Varki, S.; Brodie, R. Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer services: An empirical study. Eur. J. Mark. 2003, 37, 169–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd Nawi, M.N.; Lee, A.; Azman, M.N.A.; Kamar, K. A.M. Fragmentation Issue in Malaysian Industrialised Building System (IBS) Projects Critical Success Factors for Improving Team Integration in IBS Construction Projects. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2014, 9, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
- Mohd Nawi, M.N.; Nifa, F.A.A.; Ahmed, V. A Review of Traditional Project Procurement Towards Integrated Practice. Am.-Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 2014, 8, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
- Sheehy, B. Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 131, 625–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A.B.; Shabana, K.M. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.; Mool, P.; Naa, J.H.; Lee, C.G. The Effects of Creating Shared Value on Corporate Performance. J. Distrib. Sci. 2014, 12, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Riordan, L.; Fairbrass, J. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 125, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kiliańska, K. The activity of socially responsible enterprises as a factor supporting the improvement of the quality of life of the society (Działalność społecznie odpowiedzialnych przedsiębiorstw jako czynnik wspierający poprawę jakości życia społec-zeństwa). Studia I Mater. Misc. Oeconomicae 2017, 3, 355–366. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, H.-H.; Liu, S.-B. Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: A quantile regression approach. Qual. Quant. 2013, 48, 3311–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez-Gomez, S.; Arco-Castro, M.L.; Lopez-Perez, M.V.; Rodríguez-Ariza, L. Where Does CSR Come from and Where Does It Go? A Review of the State of the Art. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Closon, C.; Leys, C.; Hellemans, C. Perceptions of corporate social responsibility, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2015, 13, 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, P.X.W.; Couani, P. Managing risks in green building supply chain. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2012, 8, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Close, R.; Loosemore, M. Breaking down the site hoardings: Attitudes and approaches to community consultation during construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2014, 32, 816–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Wong, J.K. Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry: A study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, E.C.W.; Lee, A.; Mathison, G. Recapitulation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for construction SMEs in the UK. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ARCOM Conference 2011, Bristol, UK, 5–7 September 2011; Egbu, C., Lou, E.C.W., Eds.; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 673–682. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zhao, X.-J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29-30, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernaciak, A.; Halaburda, M.; Bernaciak, A. The Construction Industry as the Subject of Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (the Case of Poland). Sustainability 2021, 13, 9728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duman, D.U.; Giritli, H.; McDermott, P. Corporate social responsibility in construction industry: A comparative study between UK and Turkey. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kowalczyk, R. How does stakeholder pressure influence CSR-practices? A construction industry model based on a European sample. In New Challenges in Economic Policy, Business, and Management; Ujwary-Gil, A., Gancarczyk, M., Eds.; Institute of Economics, Polish Academy of Sciences: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; pp. 319–333. [Google Scholar]
- Paliwoda-Matiolińska, A. Odpowiedzialność Społeczna W Procesie Zarządzania Przedsiębiorstwem (Social Responsibility in the Enterprises Management Process); Wydawnictwo CH Beck: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lehtinen, J.; Aaltonen, K. Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, S.; O’Raghallaigh, P.; Fitzgerald, C.; Adam, F. Shared and fragmented understandings in interorganizational IT project teams: An interpretive case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 762–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, C.Y.; Mustaffa, N.E. Analysis of factors critical to construction project success in Malaysia. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oliveira, G.S.; Rabechini, J., Jr. Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A quantitative study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simard, M.; Aubry, M.; Laberge, D. The utopia of order versus chaos: A conceptual framework for governance, organizational design and governmentality in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 460–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jelodar, M.B.; Yiu, T.W.; Wilkinson, S. A conceptualisation of relationship quality in construction procurement. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 997–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlin, J.M.; Carlström, E.D. Why is collaboration minimised at the accident scene? A critical study of a hidden phenomenon. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2011, 20, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khouja, A.; Lehoux, N.; Cimon, Y.; Cloutier, C. Collaborative Interorganizational Relationships in a Project-Based Industry. Buildings 2021, 11, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savolainen, J.M.; Saari, A.; Männistö, A.; Kähkonen, K. Indicators of collaborative design management in construction projects. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2018, 16, 674–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, P.; Love, P. Alliance contracting: Adding value through relationship development. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2011, 18, 444–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundquist, V.; Hulthén, K.; Gadde, L.E. From project partnering towards strategic supplier partnering. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25, 358–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jelodar, M.B.; Yiu, T.W.; Wilkinson, S. Assessing Contractual Relationship Quality: Study of Judgment Trends among Construction Industry Participants. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 4016028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toppinen, A.; Miilumäki, N.; Vihemäki, H.; Toivonen, R.; Lähtinen, K. Collaboration and Shared Logic for Creating Val-ue-Added in Three Finnish Wooden Multi-Storey Building Projects. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 14, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walker, D.H.T.; Johannes, D.S. Construction Industry Joint Venture Behaviour in Hong Kong—Designed for Collaborative Results? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y. Understanding the Determinants of Program Organization for Construction Megaproject Suc-cess: Case Study of the Shanghai Expo Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 5014019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, P.E.; Atkin, B.; Nilsson, T. Overcoming barriers to partnering through cooperative procurement procedures. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2009, 16, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkling, A.E.; Mollaoglu, S.; Kirca, A. Research Synthesis Connecting Trends in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Project Partnering. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 4016033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segerstedt, A.; Olofsson, T. Supply chains in the construction industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davey, C.L.; Lowe, D.J.; Duff, A.R. Generating Opportunities for SMEs to Develop Partnerships and Improve Performance. Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulstijn, J.; Gordijn, J. Risk analysis for inter-organizational controls. ICEIS 2010, 3, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kubba, S. Types of Building Contract Agreements. In Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Konchar, M.; Sanvido, V. Comparison of U.S. Project Delivery Systems. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 1998, 124, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedita, S.R.; Apa, R. The impact of inter-organizational relationships on contractors’ success in winning public procurement projects: The case of the construction industry in the Veneto region. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1548–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, F. Alliance Partnership Sourcing—A Major Tool for Strategic Procurement; Frank Grifftths Associates Limited: Kib-worth Beauchamp, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, K. No hiding place. Constr. Manag. 1994, 2, 12–14. [Google Scholar]
- Black, C.; Akintoye, A.; Fitzgerald, E. An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2000, 18, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fellows, R. The Culture of Partnering Procurement—A Key to Innovation. In Proceedings of the CIB Proceeding 1977, Edingburgh, UK, 1 September 1977; pp. 193–202. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, D.H.; Hampson, K. Enterprise networks. In Partnering and Alliancing; Blackwell Science Ltd.: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- MacNeil, I.R. Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical and relation contract law. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 1978, 72, 854. [Google Scholar]
- Meng, X.; Sun, M.; Jones, M. Maturity Model for Supply Chain Relationships in Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krechowicz, M. Effective Risk Management in Innovative Projects: A Case Study of the Construction of Energy-efficient, Sustainable Building of the Laboratory of Intelligent Building in Cracow. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 62006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krechowicz, M. Risk Management in Complex Construction Projects that Apply Renewable Energy Sources: A Case Study of the Realization Phase of the Energis Educational and Research Intelligent Building. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 62007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gierczak, M.K. The hybrid Fuzzy Fault and Event Tree analysis in the geotechnical risk management in HDD projects. Georisk: Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2020, 15, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krechowicz, M.; Kiliańska, K. Risk and Opportunity Assessment Model for CSR Initiatives in the Face of Coronavirus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, M.; Hintze, S.; Stille, H. On risk management in large infrastructure projects. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 12–16 September 2000; Millpress: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; pp. 2785–2788. [Google Scholar]
- Pritchard, C. Risk Management in Projects: Concepts and Guidance (Zarządzanie Ryzykiem W Projektach: Teoria I Praktyka); WIG-PRESS: Warszawa, Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Nuchpho, P.; Nansaarng, S.; Pongpullponsak, A. Risk Assessment in the Organization by using FMEA Innovation: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Reform (ICER 2014), Innovations and Good Practices in Education, Seville, Spain, 17–19 November 2014; pp. 781–789. [Google Scholar]
- Krechowicz, M.; Gierulski, W.; Loneragan, S.; Kruse, H. Human and equipment risk factors evaluation in Horizontal Directional Drilling technology using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2021, 12, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knights, P.F. Rethinking Pareto analysis: Maintenance applications of logarithmic scatterplots. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 2001, 7, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bociąga, M.; Klimecka-Tatar, D. Quality management tools in the cement industry, Engineering Knowledge Archive 2016. Narzędzia Zarządzania Jakością W Branży Cementowej. Arch. Wiedzy Inżynierskiej 2016, 1, 36–38. [Google Scholar]
- Roszak, M. Quality management in engineering practice (Zarządzanie jakością w praktyce inżynierskiej). Sci. Int. J. World Acad. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 2014, 1, 51–68. [Google Scholar]
- Cox, A.; Thompson, I. ‘Fit for purpose’ contractual relations: Determining a theoretical framework for construction projects. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 1997, 3, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Potential for Implementing Relational Contracting and Joint Risk Management. J. Manag. Eng. 2004, 20, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X. Assessment framework for construction supply chain relationships: Development and evaluation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 695–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kesidou, S.; Sovacool, B.K. Supply chain integration for low-carbon buildings: A critical interdisciplinary review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.R.; Müller, R. Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: Matching Their Leadership Style to the Type of Project; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Mesa, H.A.; Molenaar, K.R.; Alarcón, L.F. Exploring performance of the integrated project delivery process on complex building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1089–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singleton, T.; Cormican, K. The Influence of Technology on the Development of Partnership Relationships in the Irish Con-struction Industry. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2013, 26, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beach, R.; Webster, M.; Campbell, K.M. An Evaluation of Partnership Development in the Construction Industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Cheng, E.W.; Love, P.E. Partnering research in construction. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2000, 7, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krechowicz, M. Comprehensive Risk Management in Horizontal Directional Drilling Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 4020034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krechowicz, M.; Krechowicz, A. Risk Assessment in Energy Infrastructure Installations by Horizontal Directional Drilling Using Machine Learning. Energies 2021, 14, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Symbol | Risk | O | C | D |
---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | Hiding internal problems and/or problems related to the joint venture | 3.05 | 3.14 | 8.43 |
X2 | Self-interest orientation | 4.36 | 3.01 | 7.95 |
X3 | Problems with communication and listening to each other | 2.23 | 2.59 | 8.06 |
X4 | No willingness to actually cooperate | 1.53 | 2.19 | 8.65 |
X5 | Lack of willingness to share information and transparency of activities | 2.83 | 2.62 | 8.28 |
X6 | Confrontational collaborative environment | 2.14 | 2.23 | 8.59 |
X7 | Lack of a good project coordinator | 3.02 | 3.06 | 7.88 |
X8 | Converting work problems into personal problems and vice versa | 1.69 | 1.64 | 9.04 |
X9 | Conservative approach to problem solving | 2.37 | 2.20 | 8.09 |
X10 | The lack of parties’ experience in the implementation of similar projects | 2.46 | 2.77 | 7.74 |
X11 | Lack of ability to build beneficial relationships | 1.99 | 2.01 | 8.63 |
X12 | Lack of ability to react quickly to crisis situations | 2.27 | 2.67 | 8.78 |
X13 | Lack of party involvement | 2.32 | 2.50 | 8.65 |
X14 | Unfavourable and imprecise contract | 3.26 | 3.13 | 7.52 |
X15 | No clear way to make joint decisions | 2.02 | 2.66 | 8.27 |
X16 | No clear accountability framework | 2.26 | 2.63 | 8.16 |
X17 | No action strategy | 2.72 | 2.59 | 8.28 |
X18 | Problems related to the origin of cooperating entities from different organizational cultures | 2.57 | 1.80 | 8.90 |
Symbol | Risk Determinants | Significance | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAP | IBCP | IEEP | ISRP | ||
D1 | Unfavourable reputation of entities based on their previous experiences in interorganizational projects (e.g., the entity has a dishonest opinion, the entity has in the past imposed their values and patterns on others) | 4.93 | 5.35 | 4.76 | 4.67 |
D2 | No prior experience of the entity in interorganizational projects | 3.56 | 4.15 | 3.52 | 3.00 |
D3 | Different experiences of entities from previous cooperation (very good leading to openness of the entity or bad leading to over-caution) | 4.55 | 4.09 | 5.18 | 4.39 |
D4 | The project formula focused on the price, giving the possibility of unfavourable relations occurrence: a competitor, not a co-worker | 3.64 | 3.79 | 3.88 | 3.24 |
D5 | Personal relationships between employees of different entities constituting a barrier to effective cooperation (e.g., conflict of interest) | 2.53 | 2.82 | 2.45 | 2.30 |
D6 | Personal ambitions of the entities | 3.11 | 3.21 | 3.18 | 2.94 |
D7 | Dependence of one of the cooperating entities on another organization (concern, holding company, group of companies) and the related lack of full decision-making independence | 3.10 | 3.62 | 2.91 | 2.76 |
D8 | Communication problems between cooperating organizations | 3.44 | 3.85 | 3.21 | 3.24 |
D9 | Communication problems within own organization | 2.58 | 3.03 | 2.61 | 2.09 |
D10 | Monopolization, duplication or incompleteness of cooperating entities competences | 2.84 | 3.38 | 2.76 | 2.36 |
D11 | Lack of trust due to the inability to build trust over the years, the rapid need for cooperation between entities from the day of getting to know each other | 3.13 | 3.53 | 3.33 | 2.52 |
D12 | Dependence of the cooperating entity on another entity that generates problems | 3.74 | 3.65 | 4.00 | 3.58 |
D13 | A contract with a disproportionately distributed risk | 4.38 | 4.79 | 4.33 | 4.00 |
D14 | Imprecisely formulated contract regarding, for example, own contribution of the entities, the responsibility of individual parties. leading to disputes, manipulation of the meaning of these clauses; taking advantage of legal complexities and ambiguous interpretation of regulations | 4.30 | 4.29 | 4.39 | 4.21 |
D15 | Imprecise contract clauses or lack of regulations in the contract regarding intellectual property rights and rights to the results of R&D works created during the project | 3.84 | 3.53 | 4.18 | 3.82 |
D16 | Lack of clear competence catalogue of the coordinating entity /coordinating structure | 3.84 | 3.50 | 4.27 | 3.76 |
D17 | Lack of competent person who could be a good coordinator | 4.11 | 4.88 | 3.88 | 3.55 |
D18 | Lack of preparation of the parties in the field of interpersonal communication | 3.23 | 3.35 | 3.45 | 2.88 |
D19 | Lack of coordinating mechanisms developed together by the entities | 3.45 | 3.56 | 3.76 | 3.03 |
D20 | Very different partial goals of the individual entities willing to cooperate | 3.49 | 3.50 | 3.79 | 3.18 |
D21 | Different main goal of the entities willing to cooperate (e.g., desire for profit, willingness to gain experience and references, willingness to gain contacts) | 3.78 | 3.74 | 4.39 | 3.21 |
D22 | Possibility of competition between cooperating entities (not disclosed when signing a cooperation agreement) | 3.34 | 3.38 | 3.73 | 2.91 |
D23 | Imprecise rules for providing information on the activities of each entity and the scope. accuracy and detail of the information which should be provided | 3.12 | 3.53 | 2.97 | 2.85 |
D24 | A large number of projects in which the entity is involved, preventing the appropriate level of involvement for a given project | 3.85 | 4.38 | 3.85 | 3.30 |
D25 | Various scales of operations of cooperating entities (cooperation dominated by a stronger entity) | 3.93 | 4.68 | 3.94 | 3.15 |
D26 | Failure to carry out a preliminary due diligence of one of the cooperating entities, leading to a lack of information about their poor financial condition | 3.31 | 3.62 | 3.09 | 3.21 |
D27 | Individual operating strategy of cooperating entities instead of joint | 3.52 | 3.94 | 3.82 | 2.79 |
D28 | Forced remote work (e.g., due to epidemics. pandemics) | 2.52 | 3.00 | 2.45 | 2.09 |
Symbol | Risks | RPN | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAP | IBCP | IEEP | ISRP | ||
X1 | Hiding internal problems and/or problems related to the joint venture | 80.73 | 59.53 | 77.04 | 101.30 |
X2 | Self-interest orientation | 104.33 | 137.16 | 105.19 | 86.89 |
X3 | Problems with communication and listening to each other | 46.55 | 106.67 | 38.23 | 34.01 |
X4 | No willingness to actually cooperate | 28.98 | 51.58 | 21.05 | 29.25 |
X5 | Lack of willingness to share information and transparency of activities | 61.39 | 73.23 | 66.60 | 52.70 |
X6 | Confrontational collaborative environment | 40.99 | 50.87 | 40.03 | 36.52 |
X7 | Lack of a good project coordinator | 72.82 | 164.00 | 48.78 | 65.64 |
X8 | Converting work problems into personal problems and vice versa | 25.06 | 28.70 | 16.08 | 32.66 |
X9 | Conservative approach to problem solving | 42.18 | 48.61 | 34.23 | 41.68 |
X10 | The lack of parties’ experience in the execution of similar projects | 52.74 | 75.52 | 27.19 | 62.42 |
X11 | Lack of ability to build beneficial relationships | 34.52 | 52.10 | 26.64 | 37.49 |
X12 | Lack of ability to react quickly to crisis situations | 53.21 | 92.80 | 22.75 | 72.60 |
X13 | Lack of party involvement | 50.17 | 49.35 | 47.01 | 45.02 |
X14 | Unfavourable and imprecise contract | 76.73 | 119.97 | 43.91 | 82.49 |
X15 | No clear way to make joint decisions | 44.44 | 72.80 | 31.76 | 44.22 |
X16 | No clear accountability framework | 48.50 | 65.81 | 27.67 | 58.05 |
X17 | No action strategy | 58.33 | 73.10 | 40.57 | 66.98 |
X18 | Problems related to the origin of cooperating entities from different organizational cultures | 41.17 | 31.75 | 55.67 | 25.33 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Krechowicz, M. Towards Sustainable Project Management: Evaluation of Relationship-Specific Risks and Risk Determinants Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation in Engineering Projects. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052961
Krechowicz M. Towards Sustainable Project Management: Evaluation of Relationship-Specific Risks and Risk Determinants Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation in Engineering Projects. Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052961
Chicago/Turabian StyleKrechowicz, Maria. 2022. "Towards Sustainable Project Management: Evaluation of Relationship-Specific Risks and Risk Determinants Threatening to Achieve the Intended Benefit of Interorganizational Cooperation in Engineering Projects" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052961