پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,232 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,791 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,268,956 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,009,729 |
ارزیابی پاسخ به ریسک در پروژه‌های پیچیده ساختمانی با استفاده از روش تاپسیس فازی | ||
| مدیریت صنعتی | ||
| دوره 15، شماره 2، 1402، صفحه 335-364 اصل مقاله (2 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/imj.2023.352751.1008010 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| امید تاسا* 1؛ محمود گلابچی2؛ مهدی روانشادنیا3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مهندسی و مدیریت ساخت، دانشکده عمران، معماری و هنر، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استاد، گروه مدیریت پروژه و ساخت، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشیار، گروه مهندسی و مدیریت ساخت، دانشکده عمران، معماری و هنر، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: در کل چرخه حیات پروژه‌های پیچیده، شناسایی و ارزیابی و فرایند اولویت‌بندی پاسخ به ریسک، برای مدیریت مؤثر، بسیار ضروری و دشوار است. تجربه نشان داده است که موضوع پیچیدگی و ریسک‌های ناشی از آن، به‌دلیل داشتن سهمی بزرگ در شکست پروژه‌ها از منظر هزینه و زمان، همواره دغدغه مدیران پروژه بوده است. ارتباط میان پیچیدگی پروژه و مدل‌سازی ریسک‌های ناشی از آن، هدف این مطالعه است تا به دریافت وابستگی بین آن‌ها و اهداف پروژه، کمک کند. روش: در گام نخست، به بررسی تاریخچه و مفهوم پروژه‌های پیچیده در ادبیات موضوع پرداخته شد و عوامل بالقوه ایجاد ریسک با توجه به ریشه‌های پیچیدگی در پروژه شناسایی شدند؛ سپس با توجه به نوع قرارداد پروژه، برای فعالیت‌های متفاوت پاسخ به ریسک و یافتن نزدیک‌ترین گزینه بهینه از منظر شاخص‌های مالی، مدلی جامع پیشنهاد شد. برای آزمایش مدل، ریسک‌های یک پروژه موردی، بررسی شد و برای هر یک از ریسک‌ها، نمودارهای شاخص هزینه ـ پاسخ به‌طور جداگانه محاسبه و ترسیم شد. یافته‌ها: مطالعات میدانی نشان داد که ریسک‌ها به‌طور یکسان بر همه ابعاد پروژه تأثیر نمی‌گذارند. تأثیر ریسک هم به رویداد ریسک و هم به اقدام‌های مدیریتی در برخورد با رویداد احتمالی و زمانبندی آن بستگی دارد. تأثیرهای هزینه‌ای آن نیز، به‌صورت آبشاری در سازمانی که پروژه اجرا میشود، تأثیر می‌گذارد. نتیجه‌گیری: در پروژه‌های پیچیده ساختمانی، از میان معیارهای ایجادکننده پیچیدگی، سه معیار محتوا، سازمان‌دهی و محیط خارجی پروژه، بیشترین ایجادکننده ریسک شناسایی شدند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| پیچیدگی؛ پروژه پیچیده؛ ریسک؛ پاسخ به ریسک؛ تاپسیس فازی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluating the Response to Risks in Complex Construction Projects Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Omid Tasa1؛ Mahmoud Gholabchi2؛ Mehdi Ravanshadnia3 | ||
| 1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Prof., Department of Project and Construction Management, School of Architecture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3Associate Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: The swift expansion of intricate projects in the global construction industry has prompted numerous investigations in the last twenty years, highlighting the significance of comprehending project intricacy for the triumph of construction project management. Identifying, assessing, and ranking procedures in response to risk is a crucial yet currently difficult aspect of project management to handle intricate projects at every phase of their existence effectively. Project managers have consistently focused on complexity and its linked hazards since it is a significant factor in project cost and time delays. This study explores the correlation between project complexity and modeling its outcomes' risks. Methods: The study employed a deductive, positivistic methodology. The literature review examined the history and definition of complex projects. The risk factors were identified based on the underlying causes of the project's complexity. To achieve the best possible outcome in financial terms, a comprehensive model was proposed that considered the type of project contract with different risk response activities. The model was then tested by analyzing the risks associated with a sample project, and cost-response index graphs were generated for each risk individually and aggregated. Results: This research aimed to examine the current state and developments in project complexity research and to provide valuable insights for scholars and practitioners. The study's findings indicated that risks do not impact all projects equally. It was found that the actual effects of a risk event depend not only on the event itself but also on the management actions taken to address the contingency and their timing. These factors can influence the severity of the problems caused by the event and its ripple effects throughout the project organization. Conclusion: According to the results of this field study, risks do not uniformly affect all projects. The actual impact of a risk event is contingent not only on the nature of the event itself but also on the managerial response to the contingency and its timing. These factors can influence the severity of problems caused by the event and the cascading effects within the project organization. While no single set of guidelines can guarantee project success, it is essential to recognize that the process is not random. A better understanding of the organizational dynamics that affect project performance and the factors contributing to risks in complex projects is a crucial precondition for creating a cross-functional solid team capable of managing risks before they negatively impact project outcomes. Therefore, this study can represent the first attempt to investigate the relationship between project complexity, risk consequences, and financial goals in complex construction projects. Among the various criteria contributing to complexity, the project's content, organization, and external environment were identified as the most significant risk generators in complex construction projects. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Complexity, Complex project, Risk, response to risk, Fuzzy TOPSIS | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
تاسا، امید، گلابچی، محمود و روانشادنیا، مهدی (1401). شناسایی و بررسی عوامل پیچیدگی در پروژه‌های صنعتی ایران با استفاده از مدل معادلات ساختاری (مطالعه موردی: پروژه چند منظوره (تونل، سد و نیروگاه) اومااویا در کشور سریلانکا. مهندسی تونل و فضاهای زیرزمینی، 11(1)، 47-71.
مهاجری برج قلعه، رضا؛ پوررستم، توحید؛ منصور شریف‌لو، ناصر؛ مجروحی سردرود، جواد و صفا، ابراهیم (1401). بهبود فرایند مدیریت ریسک پروژه در پروژه‌های ساخت با ارائه یک روش پیشنهادی بر اساس استاندارد PMBOK و مدل SHAMPU. مهندسی سازه و ساخت، 9(5)، 5-19.
References Ackermann, F., Howick, S., Quigley, J., Walls, L., Houghton, T. (2014). Systemic risk elicitation: using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (1), 290–299. Ardeshir, A., Amiri, M., Ghasemi, Y., & Errington, M. (2014). Risk assessment of construction projects for water conveyance tunnels using fuzzy fault tree analysis. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(4), 396-412. Bakhshi, J. (2016). Exploring project complexities and their problems: a critical review of the literature. (Doctoral dissertation). Botchkarev, A., & Finnigan, P. (2015). Complexity in the context of information systems project management. Organisational Project Management, 2(1), 15-34. Browning, T. R. (2014). Managing complex project process models with a process architecture framework. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 229-241. Butler, C. W., Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Roberts, N. (2020). Managing software development projects for success: Aligning plan-and agility-based approaches to project complexity and project dynamism. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 262-277 Cotterman, H., Forsberg, K., & Mooz, H. (2005). Visualizing project management: models and frameworks for mastering complex systems. John Wiley & Sons. Daniel, P. A. (2022). Multi-level perspective framework in macro project studies: Towards a complex project organizing approach to sustainability transitions. International Journal of Project Management, 40(8), 865-870. Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S., & Hare, E. (2016). Exploring and assessing project complexity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(5), 04016126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001275 Dhlamini, J. (2022). Strategic risk management: A systematic review from 2001 to 2020. Journal of Contemporary Management, 19(2), 212-237. Dikmen I., Birgonul M. T., Han S., (2007). Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 25, 494-505. Ghosh, S., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2010). Enterprise resource planning systems implementation as a complex project: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(4), 533-549. Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2016). Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? (pp. 21-53). University of Toronto Press. Gorod, A., Gandhi, S. J., Sauser, B., & Boardman, J. (2008). Flexibility of system of systems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 9(4), 21-31. Gorod, A., Hallo, L., Ireland, V., & Gunawan, I. (Eds.). (2019). Evolving Toolbox for Complex Project Management. CRC Press. Gransberg, D. D., Shane, J. S., Strong, K., & del Puerto, C. L. (2013). Project complexity mapping in five dimensions for complex transportation projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(4), 316-326. Guide, A. (2021). Project management body of knowledge (pmbok® guide). In Project Management Institute (Vol. 11, pp. 7-8). Ibadov, N., Kulejewski J. (2014). The assessment of construction project risks with the use of fuzzy sets theory. Technical Transactions, Cracow University of Technology, 175-182. Iso, I. (2009). Risk management–Principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Jaber, H., Marle, F., Vidal, L. A., Sarigol, I., & Didiez, L. (2021). A Framework to Evaluate Project Complexity Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. Sustainability, 13(6), 3020. Jayasudha, K., & Vidivelli, B. (2016). Analysis of major risks in construction projects. ARPN journal of engineering and applied sciences, 11(11), 6943-6950. Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards: a guide to measuring and monitoring project performance. John Wiley & Sons. Kliem, R. L., Ludin, I. S., & Robertson, K. L. (1997). Project management methodology: A practical guide for the next millenium. CRC Press. Lind, C., Rose, L., Franzon, H., & Nord-Nilsson, L. (2014). RAMP: Risk management Assessment tool for Manual handling Proactively. In Nordic Ergonomics Society Annual Conference–46/Human Factors In Organizational Design And Management–XI (pp. 107-110). Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D., & Wu, G. (2017). Investigating the relationship between project complexity and success in complex construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(2), 04016036. Lyons, T., & Skitmore, M. (2004). Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: a survey. International journal of project management, 22(1), 51-61. Mohajeri Borje Ghaleh, R., Pourrostam, T., Mansour Sharifloo, N., Majrouhi Sardroud, J., & Safa, E. (2022). Improving the project risk management process in construction projects by provide a suggested method based on PMBOK standard and SHAMPU model. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 9(5), 5-19. (in Persian) Nachbagauer, A. (2021). Managing complexity in projects: Extending the Cynefin framework. Project Leadership and Society, 2, 100017. Nădăban, S., Dzitac, S., & Dzitac, I. (2016). Fuzzy TOPSIS: A general view. Procedia computer science, 91, 823-831. Raz, T., & Hillson, D. (2005). A comparative review of risk management standards. Risk Management, 7(4), 53-66. Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68. Tasa, O., Gulabchi, M. & Ravanshadnia, M. (2022). Identifying and investigating the complexity factors in Iran's industrial projects using the structural equation model (case study: Umaawiya multi-purpose project (tunnel, dam, and power plant) in Sri Lanka). Tunnel engineering and underground space. Doi: 10.22044/TUSE.2023.12405.1464 Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–Advanced project management education. International journal of project management, 26(3), 304-315. Verzuh, E. (2021). The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management: The Comprehensive, Easy-to-Read Handbook for Beginners and Pros. John Wiley & Sons. Vidal, L. A., & Marle, F. (2008). Understanding project complexity: implications on project management. Kybernetes. Wideman, R. M. (2022). Project and program risk management a guide to managing project risks and opportunities. Project Management Institute, Inc. Yang, L., Lou, J., & Zhao, X. (2021). Risk response of complex projects: Risk association network method. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(4), 05021004. Young, L., Ockelford, P., Milne, D., Rolfe‐Vyson, V., Mckelvie, S., & Harper, P. (2006). Post-treatment residual thrombus increases the risk of recurrent deep vein thrombosis and mortality. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 4(9), 1919-1924. Younus, D., Muayad, A., & Abumandil, M. (2021). The Impact of Agile Risk Management Utilization in Small and Medium (SME) Enterprises. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development, 4(3). Zou P. X. W., Zhang G., Wang J., (2007), Understanding the key risk in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 601-614. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 440 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 308 |
||