Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 87


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 86
86 should use their own knowledge of the project and consult What does it do? with others who have significant knowledge of the project or its environment. Risk checklists serve as a final step in the risk identification process to ensure that common risks are not overlooked. Resources When to use it? Caltrans Office of Statewide Project Management Improvement (2007). Project Risk Management Handbook: Threats and Opportunities, Risk checklists should be used only after the team has sought 2nd ed., May 2007, Caltrans, Sacramento, CA. http://www.dot.ca. to identified risks on its own (e.g., through an examination of gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance_prmhb.htm. scope and estimating assumptions, brainstorming of issues and Curran, Michael W. (1998). Professional Practice Guide 2: Risk Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International. concerns, or the creation of a red flag list). Risk checklists FHWA (2004). Major Project Program Cost Estimating Guidance. should not be used as the first step in risk identification because Grey, S. (1995). Practical Risk Assessment for Project Managers. John they may not contain important project-specific risks. If a proj- Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England. ect team relies too heavily on a risk checklist, it could easily Molenaar, K. R. (2005). "Programmatic Cost Risk Analysis for Highway overlook project-specific risks, and the risks may not be phased Mega-Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage- ment, Vol. 131, No. 3. correctly for the unique aspects of the project. NCHRP (2005). NCHRP Project 20-7/172 Final Report, Recommended AASHTO Design-Build Procurement Guide, Washington, DC. How to use it? A risk checklist should be reviewed at the start of a project I2.2 Not Used and potentially several more times throughout the project. This tool is not used, but the numbering remains for consis- The list should be reviewed by a project team, and the risks tency with NCHRP Report 574 Guidance for Cost Estimation that may have impacts should be documented and added to and Management for Highway Projects During Planning, the risk register and possibly marked for quantitative analysis. Programming, and Preconstruction. Example I2.3 Risk Checklists Caltrans has a sample list of risks in its Project Risk Manage- Risk checklists are a tool for risk identification that can be ment Handbook. This sample list of risks can be used as the used at the earliest stages of risk identification to learn from basis for creating a list of red flag items for an individual proj- past projects and past team member experience. The list helps ect or by an agency to create its own risk checklist. Caltran's list estimators to better understand the required contingency is quite comprehensive, and any single project's list of risks and helps managers to more effectively control scope growth should not include all of these elements. throughout the project development process. The use of a risk checklist is the final step of risk identification to ensure that common project risks are not overlooked. Caltrans Sample Risk List (Caltrans 2007) Technical Risks Design incomplete What is it? Right of Way analysis in error Risk checklists are a historic list of risks identified or real- Environmental analysis incomplete or in error ized on past projects. Risk checklists are meant to be shared Unexpected geotechnical issues between estimators and discipline groups. Change requests because of errors Inaccurate assumptions on technical issues in planning stage Why use it? Surveys late and/or surveys in error The risk checklists capture corporate knowledge within a Materials/geotechnical/foundation in error state highway agency and ensure that common risks are not Structural designs incomplete or in error overlooked in the estimating or risk management process. Hazardous waste site analysis incomplete or in error Risk checklists are simple to maintain if the agency has a cen- Need for design exceptions tral estimating or risk management sections. Risk checklists Consultant design not up to Department standards also can be maintained by individual estimators or project Context sensitive solutions managers. Fact sheet requirements (exceptions to standards)

OCR for page 86
87 External Risks lack of understanding of complex internal funding pro- Landowners unwilling to sell cedures Priorities change on existing program not enough time to plan Inconsistent cost, time, scope, and quality objectives priorities change on existing program Local communities pose objections new priority project inserted into program Funding changes for fiscal year inconsistent cost, time, scope and quality objectives Political factors change Stakeholders request late changes Project Management Risks New stakeholders emerge and demand new work Project purpose and need is poorly defined Influential stakeholders request additional needs to serve Project scope definition is poor or incomplete their own commercial purposes Project scope, schedule, objectives, cost, and deliverables Threat of lawsuits are not clearly defined or understood Stakeholders choose time and/or cost over quality No control over staff priorities Too many projects Environmental Risks Consultant or contractor delays Permits or agency actions delayed or take longer than Estimating and/or scheduling errors expected Unplanned work that must be accommodated New information required for permits Communication breakdown with project team Environmental regulations change Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule Water quality regulation changes Lack of coordination/communication Reviewing agency requires higher-level review than assumed Lack of upper management support Lack of specialized staff (biology, anthropology, archeol- Change in key staffing throughout the project ogy, etc.) Inexperienced workforce/inadequate staff/resource avail- Historic site, endangered species, wetlands present ability EIS required Local agency issues Controversy on environmental grounds expected Public awareness/support Environmental analysis on new alignments is required Agreements Formal NEPA/404 consultation is required Formal Section 7 consultation is required Right-of-Way Risks Section 106 issues expected Utility relocation may not happen in time Project in an area of high sensitivity for paleontology Freeway agreements Section 4(f) resources affected Railroad involvement Project in the coastal zone Objections to Right-of-Way appraisal takes more time Project on a scenic highway and/or money Project near a wild and scenic river Project in a floodplain or a regulatory floodway Construction Risks Project does not conform to the state implementation plan Inaccurate contract time estimates for air quality at the program and plan level Permit work windows Water quality issues Utility Negative community impacts expected Surveys Hazardous waste preliminary site investigation required Buried man-made objects/unidentified hazardous waste Growth inducement issues Cumulative impact issues Regulatory Risks Pressure to compress the environmental schedule Water quality regulations change New permits or new information required Organizational Risks Reviewing agency requires higher-level review than assumed inexperienced staff assigned losing critical staff at crucial point of the project Sample Risk Checklist from the Minnesota DOT: insufficient time to plan unanticipated project manger workload No. of lanes internal "red tape" causes delay getting approvals, decisions Traffic volumes functional units not available, overloaded Level of Service (LOS) analysis

OCR for page 86
88 Lane continuity Aesthetics High-occupancy vehicle, single-occupancy vehicle, etc. Bike/Pedestrian trails Policies, purpose, and need Airport location Lighting and signing Access Soils/Foundations Functional classification of roadways Waterway analysis Traffic volumes Bridge clearance (overlays) Traffic movements Utilities Traffic forecasts Staging/detour Right-of-way impacts Bridge approach costs Environmental issues Temps and shoefly Existing interchange/conditions Municipal land use planning Retaining walls Design speed/engineering standards Type Access category Cross sections Bike/pedestrian Aesthetics Crash data Drainage Right-of-way impacts Horizontal Utilities Right-of-way impacts Soils/foundations Environmental issues Soils Traffic Utilities Design speed Existing conditions Functional classification Topography Roadway type Pavement condition Access locations Staging/detour Traffic movements Municipal community planning Traffic volumes Design speed LOS analysis Enforcement issues Signal warrant analysis Engineering standards Crash data Park and ride Safety systems HOV/transit elements Lighting warrants Signing Vertical Striping determination Design speed/engineering standards Airports Soils rock, muck, water Foundation analysis Utilities Topography Water Resources Engineering (WRE) Bridges Alignments Municipal community planning Profiles Noise Cross sections Adjacent land use Drainage areas Drainage Existing conditions Airports Impervious areas Banking Bridge Waterway analysis Cross section mainline DNR Cross section cross street Corps Profiles Watersheds/WCA/BWSR Skew NPDES/PCA/MS4 Type selection City/county coordination

OCR for page 86
89 Right of way impacts Earthwork Soils Alignments Drinking water areas Profiles Airports Soil borings Ponding Intersections Drainage elements Pavement Subsurface drains Soils Foundation analysis Cross sections Contaminated soils remediation Traffic volumes Vehicle classification Noise walls Profiles Alignments Water table Profiles Drainage Land use maps Pavement selection Traffic volumes Shoulder use LOS Traffic staging/control Traffic classifications Dynamic shoulders Utilities Transit shoulders Pavement condition R/W impacts Municipal consent Utilities Historic property review As-builts (Mn/DOT and city) Drainage elements Surveys Airports Gopher 1 Aesthetics Aerial photography Wall type Right-of-way (R/W) maps Foundation analysis Plats Site plans Maintenance Coordinate with city/county Maintenance elements/issues Permits Drain tile Alignments Anti-icing Profiles HOV bypass Cross sections Snow storage Drainage elements Snow control Retaining walls Noise walls Transportation Management System Bridges Traffic Management System (TMS), Intelligent Trans- Construction staging portation System (ITS), Intelligent Vehicle Highway Sys- tem (IVHS) elements Railroad Aerial photos Construction Alignments Innovative construction services Profiles Detours Cross sections Drainage Staking Retaining walls Extraordinary enforcement Noise walls Extraordinary public relations Bridges Seasonal impacts R/W maps Vibration and noise Plats Railroad office coordination Surveys Construction staging Survey