Information Control Problems in Manufacturing Proceedigs of 15th Symposium Proceedigs of the theOttawa, 15th IFAC IFAC Symposium on on May 11-13, 2015. Canada Proceedigs of the 15th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Information Control Problems in in Manufacturing Manufacturing Information Control Problems in Manufacturing May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540 An integrated management approach of the project and project risks An integrated management approach of the project and project risks An An integrated integrated management management approach approach of of the the project project and and project project risks risks
E. Rodney*, Y. Ducq**, D. Breysse*, Y. Ledoux* E. E. Rodney*, Rodney*, Y. Y. Ducq**, Ducq**, D. D. Breysse*, Breysse*, Y. Y. Ledoux* Ledoux* E. Rodney*, Y. Ducq**, D. Breysse*, Y. Ledoux*
*Univ. Bordeaux, I2M, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France (Tel: +33 540 007 158; [email protected]
). *Univ. Bordeaux, I2M,e-mail: UMR 5218, 5218, F-33400 Talence, Talence, France France *Univ. Bordeaux, I2M, UMR F-33400 *Univ. Bordeaux, I2M, UMR F-33400 **Univ. Bordeaux, IMS,e-mail: UMR5218, 5218, F-33400Talence, Talence,France France (Tel: +33 540 007 007 158; 158; e-mail: [email protected]
). (Tel: +33 540 [email protected]
). (Tel: +33Bordeaux, 540 007 158; e-mail: [email protected]
). **Univ. IMS, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France **Univ. Bordeaux, IMS, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France **Univ. Bordeaux, IMS, UMR 5218, F-33400 Talence, France Abstract: Risk is an inherent property of every project. In many cases, project management and risk management areis quite independently. Theproject. traditional project management do notand include Abstract: Risk isapplied an inherent inherent property of of every every project. In tools manyofcases, cases, project management and risk Abstract: Risk an property In many project management risk Abstract: Risk isapplied an inherent property of every project. In the many cases, project management and risk the notion of risk and the tools of risk management focus on representation of risks without explicitly management are quite independently. The traditional tools of project management do not include management are applied quite independently. The traditional tools of project management do not include management are applied quite independently. The traditional tools of projectprocess management do not include representing the project, which leads to implement the risk management independently of the the notion of risk and the tools of risk management focus on the representation of risks without explicitly the notion of risk and the tools of risk management focus on the representation of risks without explicitly the notion of the riskproject, and process. the which tools This ofleads risk management focus on the representation of integrated risks without explicitly project management paper demonstrates the need to develop an approach to representing to implement the risk management process independently of the representing the project, which leads to implement the risk management process independently of the representing the project, which leads toour implement the risk need management process independently of the risk management and presents approach which is able to represent the risks, but also project management process. This paper demonstrates the to develop an integrated approach to project management process. This paper demonstrates the need to develop an integrated approach to project management process. paper the need to to develop an integrated approach to project, risk its components andand its This environment. project risk management and presents ourdemonstrates approach which which is able able represent the risks, risks, but but also the the project management presents our approach is to represent the also project risk management and presents our approach which is able to represent the risks, but also the project, its components components and its its environment. environment. Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, InnovationControl) and System concepts. project, and © 2015, its IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. project, its components and its environment. Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System concepts. concepts. Keywords: Risk, Project management, Model, Innovation and System concepts. 1. INTRODUCTION cause as well as its consequence, and specially its interaction with other risks in consequence, the project. These observations motivate 1. INTRODUCTION cause as as and its 1. of INTRODUCTION as well well as its its consequence, and specially specially its interaction interaction In the current context market globalization, and in order to cause 1. INTRODUCTION cause as well as its consequence, and specially its interaction the research on methods of modelling risk project (Zur with other risks in the project. These observations motivate with other risks in the project. These observations motivate increase theircontext competitiveness, companies have offer In of and order to with otherand risks inmethods the project. These observations motivate In the the current current context of market market globalization, globalization, and in in to order to the Muehlen Rosemann, 2005). research on of modelling risk project (Zur the research on methods of modelling risk project In the current context of market globalization, and in order to innovativetheir products. In this context, a particular is the research on methods of modelling risk project (Zur increase competitiveness, companies have to (Zur increase their competitiveness, companies haveattention to offer offer Muehlen and Rosemann, 2005). Muehlen andpresents Rosemann, 2005). increase their competitiveness, companies have to offer paid to project management tools and methods. attention Moreover, paper an integrated management approach of innovative products. In aa particular is Muehlen and Rosemann, 2005). innovative products. In this this context, context, particular attention is This innovative products. In this use context, a particular attention is This more more companies those and methods to the and project risks. Such an approach aims of at paid project management tools and methods. Moreover, paper an management approach paid to toand project management tools andtools methods. Moreover, Thisproject paper presents presents an integrated integrated management approach of paid to project management tools and methods. Moreover, This paper presents an integrated management approach of manage their innovations and so to ensure a better product anticipating potential events and at measuring their possible more and more companies use those tools and methods to the project and project risks. Such an approach aims at more and more companies use those tools and methods to the project and project risks. Such an approach aims at more andbetter moredeadlines companies useso those tools(Marmier methods to anticipating the project and risks. an the approach aims of at quality, lower cost et al., consequences on project the project lifeSuch andmeasuring on achievement manage to aaand better events at their manage their their innovations innovations and and so to ensure ensure better product product anticipating potential potential events and and at measuring their possible possible manage their innovations and so to ensure a better product anticipating potential events and at measuring their possible 2013). Every project, innovative or not, is subject to the project objectives. quality, better deadlines and lower cost (Marmier et al., consequences on the project life and on the achievement of quality, better deadlines and lower cost (Marmier et al., consequences on the project life and on the achievement of quality, better and lower orcost (Marmier etissue al., consequences on the project life and on the achievement of numerous risks. deadlines Being able to control 2013). project, innovative not, subject to objectives. 2013). Every Every project, innovative orthem not,is ais iscrucial subject to the the project project objectives. following section introduces the risk management and 2013). Every project, innovative orthem not, isneed subject to The the project objectives. in project management. Companies will project numerous risks. Being able to control is a crucial issue numerous risks. Being able to control them is a crucial issue The the project management, exploresthe tools and following section risk management numerous risks. Being able to control them is a crucial issue The following section introduces introduces thethe riskexisting management and management tools, especially if they develop innovative in project Companies will project in project management. management. Companies will need need project the The following section introduces thethe riskexisting management and methods, andmanagement, presents theexplores need to establish a method of project tools in project management. Companies will need project the project management, explores the existing tools and and products. Thus, many tools and methods of risk management management tools, especially if they develop innovative management tools, especially if they develop innovative methods, the projectand management, explores the existing tools and integrated management of risk project. Section 3 presents our presents the need to establish a method of management tools, especially if et they develop and presents the need to establish a method of have beenThus, developed (Taillandier al., of 2011). Ainnovative recurring methods, products. many and risk products. Thus, many tools tools and methods methods of risk management management methods, presents the need to establish method of model of and project risk management, section 4 showsour integrated management of Section 33apresents products. Thus, many tools and methods of risk management integrated of risk risk project. project.then Section presents oura weakness these methods is that et they not represent the integrated management have been (Taillandier al., A have beenofdeveloped developed (Taillandier et al.,do2011). 2011). A recurring recurring management of risk academic project.then Section 3 presents our project case study in which researchers and an model of project risk management, section 4 shows have been developed (Taillandier et al., 2011). Atherecurring of project risk management, then section 4 shows aa project andof environment, treatrepresent riskthe in model weakness these methods that they weakness of its these methods is is and that therefore they do do not not represent the model of project risk work management, thenresearchers section a industrial the aim of 4 ashows better project study academic and an weakness of its these methodsofisand that they do not represent the project case casecompany study in in which which with academic researchers and an isolation, other processes project therefore treat the risk project and andindependently its environment, environment, and therefore treat of the project risk in in industrial project casecompany study ininwork which academic researchers and an management of risks project. with the aim of a better project and its environment, and therefore treat the project risk in industrial company work with the aim of a better management (Neiger et al.,of 2006). However, thereof riskisolation, other processes isolation, independently independently of other processes ofis no project industrial company work with the aim of a better management of in project. isolation, independently of other processes ofis no project management of risks risks in PROJECT project. free project. In the context of a project, and especially in an management (Neiger et al., 2006). However, there risk2. DEALING WITH management (Neiger et al., 2006). However, there is no risk- management of risks in project. RISK MANAGEMENT management (Neiger et al., market, 2006). However, there is no riskinnovative project have to free In the and especially in 2. free project. project.and In competitive the context context of of aa project, project, andmanagers especially in an an 2. DEALING DEALING WITH WITH PROJECT PROJECT RISK RISK MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT free project. In the context of a project, and especially in an 2. Risk DEALING WITHand PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT 2.1 management Project management evaluate different developments (scenarios) of the project, innovative and competitive market, project managers have to innovative and competitive market, project managers have to innovative and competitive market, projectrisks. managers have to 2.1 Risk management and Project management paying attention to the set of potential Risks being evaluate different developments (scenarios) of the project, 2.1 Risk management and Project management evaluate different developments (scenarios) of the project, 2.1 Risk management and Project management evaluate different developments (scenarios) of necessary the project, generated by the to project andof it is to A project is “a unique process, which consists of a set of paying the potential Risks paying attention attention to the set set ofaffecting potentialit,risks. risks. Risks being being coordinated activities withconsists start dates A project “a unique which of set of paying attention to the set of potential risks. Risks being take into account the interaction between the project generated project is isand “a controlled unique process, process, which consists of aaand setend of generated by by the the project project and and affecting affecting it, it, it it is is necessary necessary to to A A project isand “a controlled unique process, which consists of aand setend of dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to activities with start dates generated byaccount the project and affectingare it, facing it is necessary to coordinated management and the risks. Projects a growing take into the interaction between the project and controlled activities with start dates and end take into account the interaction between the project coordinated coordinated and controlled activities with start dates and end specific requirements such as time, cost and resources dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to take into account the interaction between the project complexity. Indeed, project managers have to consider many management and the risks. Projects are facing a growing undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to management and the risks. Projects are facing a growing dates, dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to constraints.” (ISO 10006, 2003). specific requirements such as management and theproject risks.managers Projects are facing a growing and variousIndeed, parameters, are have strongly interrelated, complexity. to many requirements such as time, time, cost cost and and resources resources complexity. Indeed, projectwhich managers have to consider consider many specific specific requirements such as time, cost and resources constraints.” (ISO 10006, 2003). complexity. Indeed, project managers have to consider many inside and outside the project. complexity leads to constraints.” and parameters, which are interrelated, If the project(ISO is a 10006, unique2003). process, the views on the project and various various parameters, which This are strongly strongly interrelated, constraints.” (ISO 10006, 2003). and various parameters, which aretostrongly interrelated, complex risk interactions and so a decrease in the inside and outside the project. This complexity leads to may be multiple. The ultimate goalthe is to control the project is a unique process, views on inside and outside the project. This complexity leads to If the project is a unique process, the views on the the project project inside and outside the project. This complexity to If performance conventional risk so management toolsleads (Marle, complex and to in If thebeproject is toaThe unique process, the views on the project complexity and anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the multiple. ultimate goal is to control the project complex risk riskof interactions interactions and so to aa decrease decrease in the the may may be multiple. The ultimate goal is to control the project complex risk interactions and so to a decrease in the 2014). performance of conventional risk management tools (Marle, may be multiple. The ultimate goal is to control the project actions to perform (Marle, 2002). This point is addressed by performance of conventional risk management tools (Marle, complexity and to anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the and to anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the performance of conventional risk management tools (Marle, complexity 2014). complexity and to anticipate the behaviour to adopt and the the systemic vision of the project. The project is then viewed actions to perform (Marle, 2002). This point is addressed by 2014). An improvement track is the simultaneous representation in a actions to perform (Marle, 2002). This point is addressed by 2014). actions (Marle, 2002). This point isisaddressed as asystemic set to of perform interacting It The should be addressed by by an the vision the project common framework ofis in its environment andin An improvement track the simultaneous representation systemic vision of of elements. the project. project. The project is then then viewed viewed An improvement track isthe theproject simultaneous representation inofaa the the systemic vision of the project. The project is then viewed external view which describes the environment with which it as a set of interacting elements. It should be addressed by an An improvement track is the simultaneous representation in a risks, ableframework to translateof complexity and of the common the project in environment of a set of interacting elements. It should be addressed by an common framework ofthe therichness project and in its itsthe environment and of as as a set of interacting elements. It should be addressed by an interacts, and an internal view that can show the components external view which describes the environment with which it common framework of the project in its environment and of interactions between processes. Moreover, of to external view which describes the environment with which it risks, the and risks, able able to to translate translate the richness richness and the the complexity complexity of the the external view which describes the environment withthewhich it of the system (Sperandio, 2005). notion interacts, and internal that can show risks, able to translate the richness complexity of the comprehensively understand aprocesses. risk, and it is the helpful to identify its interactions between Moreover, to and an an internal view view that The can analysis show the theofcomponents components interactions between processes. Moreover, to interacts, interacts, and an internal view that can show the components interactions between processes. Moreover, to of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion comprehensively comprehensively understand understand aa risk, risk, it it is is helpful helpful to to identify identify its its of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion comprehensively understand a risk, it is helpful to identify its 567 of the system (Sperandio, 2005). The analysis of the notion Copyright © 2015 IFAC 2405-8963 © 2015, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright 2015 IFAC 567 Copyright ©under 2015 responsibility IFAC 567Control. Peer review© of International Federation of Automatic Copyright © 2015 IFAC 567 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.136
INCOM 2015 May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada 536
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
of project has led us to retain a set of eight concepts to describe it. Indeed, a project responds to the objectives by the realization of deliverables and achieving results. These results are obtained by performing activities supported by resources. It needs to make decisions in an uncertain and changing environment. Projects are becoming increasingly multi-company and multi-site, thus requiring an exchange of information between many actors with different interests.
According to the previous section, it is possible to highlight the shortcomings of the methods of project management on the one hand and of the methods of risk management on the other. The most important pitfall is the fact that risk management and project management are carried out independently, thus preventing the integrated management of risk project. Some tools for integrated management of project risk have been developed. They are typically based on a temporal representation of the project (PERT, Gantt) and therefore of risks. The project, limited in time, is broken down into activities associated with risks. These risks result in terms of additional lead time and cost overruns. These tools also make it possible to increase the resources allocated to an activity and by the way, to reduce its duration. We can mention in particular CVEP procedure established by WSDOT (Parker and Reily, 2009). The major drawback of this temporal representation is that the risks are related to activities and resources, while practice shows that risks are related to all components of the project (Rodney et al, 2014). Thus, these tools do not allow to integrate all aspects of risk and even less all project components. Our proposal is to develop a method of risk project management which must be applicable to the entire process of risk management, with a multi-view representation in order to consider all aspects of the project, with dynamic aspects to include the evolution of the project which is by no means frozen in time and finally multi-scale, to allow to adapt the level of detail desired.
Project management has many tools and methods to guide management toward achieving project objectives. Generally, these tools are based on a chronological and hierarchical description. However these methods of description neglect project complexity. Indeed, the problem is to highlight certain components of the project, making visible information that are not formalized on conventional tools (information relates to the component, as well as the interactions it has with others). The only interactions considered are hierarchical membership and sequential order, while other links (as for instance those between stakeholders and resources) are not formalized (Marle, 2002). Furthermore, the current project management tools insist on the description and optimization of a project situation fully known and controlled, ignoring the notion of uncertainty and therefore risk. The concept of risk is highly polysemous and supports a large number of definitions (Breysse, 2009). In agreement with ISO / FDIS 31000 which is the reference for risk management, we define it as being the “effect of uncertainty on objectives” (ISO 31000, 2009). In the context of project management, project risk is related to the occurrence of events, from internal or external origin, which may affect the achievement of the initial target. Referring to ISO 31000 standard, risk qualifies the effect of these events on the achievement of project objectives. The anticipation of these events via the identification of internal or external factors which are the basic cause of risk, the evaluation of their impact on the project progress and the proposal of appropriate treatment actions are the purpose of risk management, whose different steps are described by the ISO 31000 standard. The deployment of this risk management process requires the handling of various tools available in the literature. After analysis of relevant literature and common practice, it is possible to consider that:
3. PROPOSAL OF AN INTEGRATED METHOD OF PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT The model is based on the following main hypotheses: (1) the risk integration to the project management takes into account the deadlines, the quality and the cost criteria and (2) the project implementation depends on the user requirements and objectives. At any time, the objectives of the model implementation are to analyse the possible scenarios (must cover all considered risk factors and risk events in a given project), to evaluate the global risk level and to select the best treatment strategies. The method involves the following phases: (1) Definition of user requirements objectives. (2) Modelling of the project.
(1) The majority of tools used in the context of risk management is not applicable to the whole process of risk management (Breysse, 2013).
(3) Identification of all risk factors and risk events. This identification is based on the literature and on the analysis of the project model.
(2) The relevant methods for the identification, analysis, evaluation and treatment of risks, such as brainstorming, are unstructured, only handle qualitative information and are limited by users’ experience (Grimaldi et al., 2012).
(4) Generation of different possible scenarios of the project. (5) Simulation of these scenarios considering potential risks.
(3) Risk is usually addressed independently of the project and its environment.
(6) Estimation of the project cost, duration, quality and risk level.
2.2 Integrated management of project risk
3.1Model description: the modelling framework A modelling framework describes the relative positioning in the model, and the dynamics of transition along three 568
INCOM 2015 May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
dimensions: the views, the instantiation and the life cycle (Fathallah, 2011). This framework inspired by the GERAM framework (IFAC–IFIP Task Force, 1999) is presented in Figure 1.
aiming at a desired objective. The execution responsibility of all or part of the activities by an actor corresponds to an operational role. The development of the process is backed up by a set of resources and conditioned by the occurrence of triggering events, of internal or external origin. The resources view (cf. Figure 2) represents the human and technical resources used throughout the different project activities. It concerns the set of necessary means to carry out the transformation of raw materials and components into finished products.
Fig. 2. The resources view The organization view represents the different actors, as well as their responsibilities and individual or collective abilities. The different organizational units are made up of some profiles, each of them having an organizational role expressing their responsibilities and their authority, and an operational role corresponding to their experience as well as their abilities. It is noted that the view organization highlights the concept of decision, by an organizational role, with a set of information, selection criteria and a decision given power.
Fig. 1. The modelling framework (1) The generation axis defines the modelling views (function, organization, resources, information and risk). These different views allow to have access to the model by focusing on some aspects. A modelling view point is a specific perception which underlines some aspects and makes the others transparent. It is thus a particular prospect to represent, then to observe a same project with the help of the model.
Finally, the information view represents all the necessary data and information to complete a given activity.
(2) The derivation axis identifies the stage of the project life cycle.
3.3Model description: the entities of the project
(3) The genericity axis permits to distinguish the range of applicability. It is made up of three levels: the generic level applicable to all types of projects, the partial level applicable to a particular field (typically construction projects), and finally the specific level corresponding to specialized model devoted to a particular project (the project case study presented below).
The model is composed of sixteen entities: Process, Event (process), Event (Activity), Activity (execution), Activity (decision), Result (process), Result (activity), Objective (process), Objective (activity), Performance (process), Performance (activity), Operational role, organizational role, Profile, Organizational unit and Resources. These entities were selected for their ability to take into account all the aspects of project and to allow a simulation of the project in a realistic way. In each view (Function, Organization, Information and Resources), only some entities are visible. All links between entities are visible in at least one view. All the entities are characterized by a set of attributes taking different values at time of the project. For example, the entity Resources is considered among others in the information and the resources view. The difference is that a resource belonging to the resource view is just a reusable resource, namely human resource or production equipment, or consumable resource as raw material. However, in the information view, a resource is immaterial. Another major difference is that the resources view is relative to execution activities contrary to the information view that considers both, the decisions and execution activities.
3.2Model description: the modelling views of the project The stake is double: (1) to propose compatible different views of the project, (2) to add a risk view compatible with each of the above views. These views describe the concepts (entities) used, their properties and connections (Fathallah, 2011). They has to allow the description of the interactions among the components of the project, as well as the interactions between the latter and the risk in terms of causes and consequences. We have made the choice of using standards ISO 31000 (2009) and ISO 19440 (2004). In fact the latter defines a set of concepts allowing the process modelling. Added to this point, four different project views are considered, each of them taking into account different aspects of the project. The function view describes the processes and their structure. It represents a set of processes broken down into activities, and undertaken to get a result 569
INCOM 2015 May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
renewable targets and substantial governmental subsidies. These factors have helped CSP technology to become commercially attractive, resulting in increased investment in CSP innovation projects. The management of the construction of a CSP plant has to be in accordance with the best practice of general construction project management. Therefore the aim is to construct the project to the required level of quality, and within the time and cost limits. During construction, issues like environmental impact or for example health and safety of the workforce must be carefully managed. The construction performance of a CSP plant depends on many factors, hence the interest to apply our method to this case. The use of such developed tool is a useful tool to assist the engineers to consider on the same time the project management, the associated risk and their evolutions.
3.4Model description: the risk view Risk is directly related to links between entities. All attributes of an entity (entity known as source) as “risk factors” which may, in some conditions (change of value), induce “risk events”. These risk events will result in change(s) of one or several values of some attributes of impacted entities (entity known as target) (cf. Figure 3).
From an organizational point of view, the project contract and the interfaces (depending on the contracting structure) management are of central importance. Indeed, to name only the civil works, the different stakeholders (Organizational units), internal or external to the project involved are among others civil contractor, Mounting or tracking system supplier, Central inverter supplier, Electrical contractor, Grid connection contractor and Security. In the function view, the project programme has different levels of detail and outlines the timescale of each activity, the ordering of the activities and the interdependencies between activities. The overall sequence of activities is: site access, site clearing, making site secure, foundation construction, substation construction, mounting frame construction, electrical site works and then testing and commissioning. Each of these works is broken down into a series of activities.
Fig. 3. Description of the links between the risk view and the modelling view of the project The same rule applies to relationships between system entities and entities of the environment, each of them being possible as source or a target entity. “Risk interaction” is not explicit in the model but is a direct result of these dependencies once time steps are considered since any change of value of any entity may create different risk factors at next time steps.
4.2 Implementation and simulation: example of an activity of the construction process from the resource view We are considering here an activity of the construction process of the CSP plant. This activity consists in the onsite mounting of the assembly plant of some components (the reflectors) forming the solar field of the CSP plant. This activity takes place in parallel with the realization of civil works, and can be divided into the following two activities: mounting the structure and assembling the different processes inside the structure.
According to the general definition of the risk, the considered effects can be either positive (opportunities), or negative. The dynamic nature of those project risks is due to the fact that some risks disappear (not achieving the hazard), and other lead to an undesired event during the project life (Mehdizadeh et al., 2012) (Hamzaoui et al., 2014). 4. A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CASE STUDY
As we explained previously, the resource view represents all necessary means to carry out an execution activity. A profile (actor) is, in this view, characterized by an operational role which represents his abilities in terms of learning (knowledge, training), of know-how (experience / practice) and of life-skills (attitude / personal qualities). This operational role takes charge of an execution activity ending in a result aiming at an objective (in terms of cost, delay and quality) and reaching some performance (equally in terms of cost, delay and quality). This execution activity requires a number of consumable resources, human resources (differ from the profile by the fact that they have no power of decision) and production facilities.
We will present an illustration based on a real project, taking place in the framework of the thesis. Results will be presented by resource view. It should be noted that although the formalism is set, the model is still in development. 4.1 CSP project presentation Our application project is a real Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) project led by a French industrialist that we will not name for confidentiality reasons. For the same reason, some details will be intentionally omitted, such as the type of CSP technology and the localization. The CSP market interest is due to a combination of rising fossil fuel costs, firm 570
INCOM 2015 May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
It has been selected a particular activity with a budget of 61,600.00€ and the total allowed time of 14 working days. Two profiles are considered and twenty operators (human resources). The progress of the activity depends on different parameters: the amount of mobilized resources (human resources, production facilities and consumable resources) per time step (here by day), the efficiency and the qualification level of human resources, the Overall Equipment Effectiveness and the skills level of the operational role. Thus, according to the values of these attributes, the effective duration of the activity will be different from the initial duration (with optimal values of different attributes). Furthermore, the cost of the activity is directly related to its duration, but also to its location, to the use and the consumption of resources and finally to the mobilization of an operational role which provides oversight or realization. Regarding resources, consumables are characterized by the purchase cost, the transportation cost and the storage cost; production facilities by the purchase cost, the operation cost, the maintenance cost and the storage cost; and finally human resources through a salary. As for the quality of the activity, it depends on the resources (origin, storage area ...), on its location and on the skills and loading rate of the operational role. The activity quality evolves with the activity progress.
We also considered the number of operators mobilized per day (RF3) (quality is not considered in this example). The risk data have initially been characterized by experts referring to their experience. The different numerical data were slightly modified accordingly without any impact on the scientific logic of our approach.
Table 2. Activity performance Activity performance
RF1, RF2, RF3
Figures 4 represents the activity duration and the cumulated cost without risks (green dots) and with risks (RF1, RF2 and RF3) (red crosses). It should be noted that these results were obtained after a simulation.
Once the project modeled, it is possible to identify various risk factors induced by the attributes of entities. Then identification of risky events from these factors is performed. Attributes values can be modified during the activity progress due to risk factors and risk events. The table 1 presents some risk factors likely to be induced by the entities of the resource view. Table 1. Risk associated with the project - Partial list of risk factors Source entity Consumable resources Consumable resources Consumable resources Consumable resources Consumable resources Consumable resources Human resources Human resources Human resources
Risk factors Purchase cost per unit Transportation cost per unit Storage cost per unit Amount stored Quality of the storage area Quality of the supplier Number of operators mobilized per day Level of qualification Efficiency
Fig. 4. Cost and duration of the activity. The most damaging case overlooked the delay and the cost of the project is the combination of the three risk factors. Taken individually, the risk factor number 3 (number of operators mobilized per day) is responsible for the worst effects. What is important to note is that although the interactions between risks are not explicitly described, these appear in the results anyway. This is due to the structure of the model. The various deviations we observe between the costs and time limits referred and those finally obtained in the different scenarios of implementation of the activity show the interest this method. In addition, the results are presented here according to the view resource, but take into account all aspects of the project, defined in the other modeling views. The observed difference is due to the change in values of some attributes of the entities used for modeling of both execution activities. Two points can be discussed on this approach. To ensure the robustness of our approach, we have to test it with several real projects achieved. Indeed, this model required a lot of parameters defined by the users. This parameters are difficult
A risk event would be that the activity cannot take place on a given day due to a lower number of operators than the required minimum. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 presents the results obtained with this approach. Those results have been obtained by considering three risks factors related to the level of qualification (RF1) and the efficiency of the local manpower (RF2) (human resources).
INCOM 2015 May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada 540
E. Rodney et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 535–540
to assess. The implementation of this approach could also allow us to know the influence of all this parameters on the results. More detailed results will be presented at the conference.
REFERENCES Breysse, D., Tepeli, E., Khartabil, F., Taillandier, F., Medhizadeh, R., Morand, D. (2013). Project risk management in construction projects: Developing modelling tools to favor a multidisciplinary approach. Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle Performance of structures and Infrastructures, Deodatis, Ellingwood and Frangopol. Fathallah, A. (2011). Modélisation d’entreprise : Proposition d’une démarche de construction et de validation de modèles réalisant la cohérence des systèmes de l’entreprise, Ecole Centrale Paris, Thèse de doctorat. Grimaldi, S., Rafele, C., Cagliano, A.C. (2012). A framework to select techniques supporting project risk management, licensee inTech, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50991. Hamzaoui, F., Taillandier, F., Mehdizadeh, R., Breysse, D., Allal, A. (2014). Evolutive Risk Breakdown Structure for managing construction project risks : application to a railway project in Algeria. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, volume 19:2, pp. 238-262. IFAC–IFIP Task Force. (1999). GERAM, Version 1.6.3, IFAC–IFIP Task Force on Architecture for Enterprise Integration. ISO/DIS 10006. (2003). Systèmes de management de la qualité – Lignes directrices pour le management de la qualité dans les projets, ISO. ISO/DIS 19440. (2004). Enterprise integration — Constructs for enterprise modelling, ISO. ISO/DIS 31000 (2009). Risk management - Principles and guidelines on implementation, ISO. Marle, F. (2002). Modèles d’informations et méthodes pour aider à la prise de decision en management de projet, Ecole Centrale Paris, Thèse de Doctorat. Marle, F. (2014). A structured process to managing complex interactions between project risks. International Journal Project Organisation and Management, volume 6, Nos. ½, pp.4-32. Marmier, F., Gourc, D., Laarz, F. (2013). A risk oriented model to assess decisions in new product development projects. Decision Support Systems, volume 56, pp. 74-82. Mehdizadeh, R., Taillandier, F., Breysse, D., Niandou, H. (2012) Methodology and tools for risk evaluation in construction projects using Risk Breakdown Structure. European Journal of Environmental an Civil Engineering, volume 16:1, s78s98. Neiger, D., Churilov, L., Zur Muehlen, M., Roseman, M. (2006). Integrating risks in business process models with value focused process engineering. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 16061615, Sweden. Parker, H.W., Reilly, J. (2009). Life cycle cost considerations using risk management techniques, World tunneling conference, Budapest. Rodney, E., Ledoux, Y., Ducq. Y., Breysse, D. (2014). Integrating risks in project management, Dependency and structure modelling conference, Paris. Sperandio, S. (2005). Usage de la modélisation multi-vue d’entreprise pour la conduite des systems de production, Université Bordeaux 1, Thèse de Doctorat. Taillandier, F., Mehdizadeh, R., Breysse, D. (2011). Evaluation et aggregation des risques pour les projets de construction par le recours aux Risk Breakdown Structures. Zur Muehlen, M., Rosemann, M. (2005). Integrating risks in business process models. Proceedings of the 2005 Australian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005). Manly, Sydney, Australia.
6. CONCLUSIONS In this article, we discuss the need for an integrated management of risk project. Indeed, there are tools for managing risks, but they do not represent the project or its environment, and thus address independently the risks. On the other hand, conventional project management tools do not incorporate the concept of risk. Some tools for integrated management of risk project have been developed. However, they do not allow to integrate all aspects of risk and even less all project components. Choose the best strategy in a project is often tricky, even more when the project should deliver a result presenting technology novelty (Marmier et al., 2013). Moreover, projects are in essence complex and the complexity is a major source of risk. As a consequence, the complexity of projects leads to the higher complexity of risks in projects which are interrelated with all components of the projects and of the projects environment. Each possible scenario of the project could have different planning but also different risks. To estimate the risk for each project scenario, we propose an approach to model, to simulate and to evaluate project risks in term of cost, delay and quality. The main contribution of these approach is the nature of the model used. As part of a project, the complex nature of the risks is due to the fact that they affect several interrelated objectives, they are perceived differently by different actors who have divergent interests, they are interacting with various components of project as well as other risks and they manifest themselves differently depending on the level of abstraction of the project. The risk view allow the representation of its internal structure in terms of cause and consequence, and its relations with other project components. The implementation of the proposed method aims to reproduce the behaviour of the project, evaluate its performance and anticipate its possible drifts while respecting the following specifications: be applicable to the entire process of risk management, be dynamic (taking into account the evolution of the project) be multi-views (consider all aspects of the project) and multi-scales (present different levels of detail). For this, this method uses an iterative process composed of several successive steps. The starting point is the modelling of a project at a t time with a set of views and entities (from the ISO 31000 and ISO 19440 standards) and an architectural framework (GERAM). The example presented here shows that our approach is wellsuited to take into account the complexity of interactions among the risks and the project. Furthermore, such an approach allows us to estimate the project cost, duration, quality and risk level. The actual model is a prototype which is being improves by its implementation on different projects.