Current trends in project management include risk management in the process of project implementation. After identifying the risks of the project, the task arises to identify the most dangerous risks for the project out of all numerous risks, in order to subsequently take planned actions to avoid them or reduce their impact. This objective – the task of prioritizing (ranking) risks – is reached at the stage of qualitative risk analysis. As a rule, the danger (importance) of risks is determined by the risk magnitude, which depends on the occurrence probability of a risky event and the impact of risk on the main target parameters of the project. However, due to the peculiarities of the methods of determining the amount of risk at the stage of qualitative analysis, the problems of prioritizing several risks having an equal amount of risk often arise. Moreover, there are no rules or recommendations on how to practically act in such cases and prioritization is carried out with a high degree of subjectivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose a new risk prioritization method that project teams could practically use at the stage of qualitative risk analysis in these cases. This improvement in qualitative risk analysis methods will expand the ability of project participants to manage risks, reduce subjectivity in decision-making and, accordingly, improve the quality of project implementation. To do this a risk prioritization method based on the use of the analytical hierarchy procedure proposed by T. Saaty is suggested. This method consists in decomposition of the problem to be solved – obtaining hierarchies, and synthesis based on either quantitative estimates or relative judgments. Additional parameters (criteria) are considered for implementation of this method that characterize the compared risks, as well as the value coefficients of these criteria in the overall assessment. Based on the estimates obtained for each criterion and each risk, an overall score is calculated taking into account certain weighting factors of the criteria for each risk. As a result, according to the estimates obtained, risks are prioritized. The use of such a procedure enables reaching a reasonable decision, obtained not by means of simple conclusions, but on the basis of comparative assessments of each risk. This, accordingly, reduces subjectivity of risk prioritization. The proposed method is described in detail in the article and can be used in real projects.
| Published in | International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management (Volume 8, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12 |
| Page(s) | 43-48 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Risk, Risk Analysis, Risk Prioritization, Criteria, Alternatives, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
| [1] | Pulse of the Profession 2018: Success in Disruptive Times (2018). https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018.pdf |
| [2] | Project Management Institute (2021). Beyond Agility: Flex to the Future. Pulse of the Profession. (2021). https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/beyond-agility-gymnastic-enterprises-12973 |
| [3] | Project Management Institute, Inc. A Guide to the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBОK Guide) Sixth Edition, 2017. |
| [4] | Project Management Institute, Inc. A Guide to the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBОK Guide) Seventh Edition and The Standart for Project Management, 2021. |
| [5] | Project Management Institute 2019. The Standard for Risk management in Portfolios, Programs, and Projects. Newtown Square, PA: Author. |
| [6] | Саати Т. Л. Принятие решений. Метод анализа иерархий [Saaty T. L. Making decisions. Hierarchy analysis method]. - М.: Радио и Связь, 1993. |
| [7] | Бескорсый Н. С., Олейников Б. В. О влиянии шкалы на результаты многокритериального выбора в методологии AHP Т. Саати [About influence of scale on result of complex decisions in methodology AHP by T. Saaty].// Образовательные ресурсы и технологии. Выпуск 2014-1 (4), стр. 331-337. |
| [8] | Зайцева И. А., Острякова Ю. Е. Возможности использования и перспективы развития метода анализа иерархий в научных исследованиях [Possibilities of using and development prospects of the method of analysis of hierarchies in scientific research]// Международный журнал гуманитарных и естественных наук, 2020, №1-2, стр. 77-80. DOI: 10.24411/2500-1000-2020-10066. |
| [9] | Bedessi, S., Lisi, S. (2011) AHP, ANP, and ANN: Technical Differences, Conceptual Connections, Hybrid Models, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, (2011, Sorrento Italy Editor Emilio Esposito). |
| [10] | Романчак В. М. Проблема адекватности метода анализа иерархий [The problem of the adequacy of the method of analysis of hierarchies] // Моделирование и анализ данных. 2020. Том 10. № 4, стр. 79–87. DOI: 10.17759/mda.2020100407. |
| [11] | Mu, E. (2022). Reporting Public Multicriteria Decision-Making Applications:: A Journal Editor’s Perspective. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i2.1025. |
| [12] | Водопьянова Т. П., В. С. Жуковень В. С. Метод анализа иерархий как инструмент управления рисками инновационной деятельности предприятий. [Hierarchy Analysis Method as a risk management foreign economic activity]. // Труды БГТУ. Сер. 6, История, философия. 2021. № 1 (245), стр. 181–185. |
| [13] | Singh, L. P., & Suthar, H. (2021). Development of risk assessment method for small sized hospitals using AHP: a case in northern India: An Application of AHP in Hospitals for Risk Assessment Among Employees Attending Patients. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v13i2.771 |
| [14] | Hossein Armin, Reza Gholamnia, Shokoohsadat Khaloo. (2020) Assessing and Ranking Health, Safety and Environmental Risks Through Analytical Network Process (ANP) Method in Cement Plant in 2020. Journal of Industrial Safety Engineering, Vol 7, No 3 (2020), p. 23-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37591/joise.v7i3.4426. |
| [15] | Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2023). Focusing on Important Problems. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i3.1066 |
| [16] | Горский К. Аналитическая иерархическая процедура Саати [Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process]. (2003). http://www.gorskiy.ru/Articles/Dmss/AHP.html |
| [17] | Марков Л. Н. Анализ и процедуры принятия решений [Analysis and decision-making procedures]. – Мн.: Институт управления и предпринимательства, 2001. |
APA Style
Neroslavsky Igor. (2023). Risk Prioritizing Method at the Stage of Qualitative Risk Analysis in the Process of Project Implementation. International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management, 8(2), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12
ACS Style
Neroslavsky Igor. Risk Prioritizing Method at the Stage of Qualitative Risk Analysis in the Process of Project Implementation. Int. J. Account. Finance Risk Manag. 2023, 8(2), 43-48. doi: 10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12
AMA Style
Neroslavsky Igor. Risk Prioritizing Method at the Stage of Qualitative Risk Analysis in the Process of Project Implementation. Int J Account Finance Risk Manag. 2023;8(2):43-48. doi: 10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12,
author = {Neroslavsky Igor},
title = {Risk Prioritizing Method at the Stage of Qualitative Risk Analysis in the Process of Project Implementation},
journal = {International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management},
volume = {8},
number = {2},
pages = {43-48},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijafrm.20230802.12},
abstract = {Current trends in project management include risk management in the process of project implementation. After identifying the risks of the project, the task arises to identify the most dangerous risks for the project out of all numerous risks, in order to subsequently take planned actions to avoid them or reduce their impact. This objective – the task of prioritizing (ranking) risks – is reached at the stage of qualitative risk analysis. As a rule, the danger (importance) of risks is determined by the risk magnitude, which depends on the occurrence probability of a risky event and the impact of risk on the main target parameters of the project. However, due to the peculiarities of the methods of determining the amount of risk at the stage of qualitative analysis, the problems of prioritizing several risks having an equal amount of risk often arise. Moreover, there are no rules or recommendations on how to practically act in such cases and prioritization is carried out with a high degree of subjectivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose a new risk prioritization method that project teams could practically use at the stage of qualitative risk analysis in these cases. This improvement in qualitative risk analysis methods will expand the ability of project participants to manage risks, reduce subjectivity in decision-making and, accordingly, improve the quality of project implementation. To do this a risk prioritization method based on the use of the analytical hierarchy procedure proposed by T. Saaty is suggested. This method consists in decomposition of the problem to be solved – obtaining hierarchies, and synthesis based on either quantitative estimates or relative judgments. Additional parameters (criteria) are considered for implementation of this method that characterize the compared risks, as well as the value coefficients of these criteria in the overall assessment. Based on the estimates obtained for each criterion and each risk, an overall score is calculated taking into account certain weighting factors of the criteria for each risk. As a result, according to the estimates obtained, risks are prioritized. The use of such a procedure enables reaching a reasonable decision, obtained not by means of simple conclusions, but on the basis of comparative assessments of each risk. This, accordingly, reduces subjectivity of risk prioritization. The proposed method is described in detail in the article and can be used in real projects.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Risk Prioritizing Method at the Stage of Qualitative Risk Analysis in the Process of Project Implementation AU - Neroslavsky Igor Y1 - 2023/05/29 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12 T2 - International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management JF - International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management JO - International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management SP - 43 EP - 48 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2578-9376 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijafrm.20230802.12 AB - Current trends in project management include risk management in the process of project implementation. After identifying the risks of the project, the task arises to identify the most dangerous risks for the project out of all numerous risks, in order to subsequently take planned actions to avoid them or reduce their impact. This objective – the task of prioritizing (ranking) risks – is reached at the stage of qualitative risk analysis. As a rule, the danger (importance) of risks is determined by the risk magnitude, which depends on the occurrence probability of a risky event and the impact of risk on the main target parameters of the project. However, due to the peculiarities of the methods of determining the amount of risk at the stage of qualitative analysis, the problems of prioritizing several risks having an equal amount of risk often arise. Moreover, there are no rules or recommendations on how to practically act in such cases and prioritization is carried out with a high degree of subjectivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose a new risk prioritization method that project teams could practically use at the stage of qualitative risk analysis in these cases. This improvement in qualitative risk analysis methods will expand the ability of project participants to manage risks, reduce subjectivity in decision-making and, accordingly, improve the quality of project implementation. To do this a risk prioritization method based on the use of the analytical hierarchy procedure proposed by T. Saaty is suggested. This method consists in decomposition of the problem to be solved – obtaining hierarchies, and synthesis based on either quantitative estimates or relative judgments. Additional parameters (criteria) are considered for implementation of this method that characterize the compared risks, as well as the value coefficients of these criteria in the overall assessment. Based on the estimates obtained for each criterion and each risk, an overall score is calculated taking into account certain weighting factors of the criteria for each risk. As a result, according to the estimates obtained, risks are prioritized. The use of such a procedure enables reaching a reasonable decision, obtained not by means of simple conclusions, but on the basis of comparative assessments of each risk. This, accordingly, reduces subjectivity of risk prioritization. The proposed method is described in detail in the article and can be used in real projects. VL - 8 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: