Name : SUSHILAWATI BINTI ISMAIL Matric No: 2012464236

Case Study
A tragedy of tower collapse in Ampang on 1993 are standing remained until this day. The Highland Tower consists of 3 blocks of 12 storey apartments, named as Block 1, Block 2 and Block 3. On Saturday, 11 December 1993, after 10 days of continuous rainfall, Block 1 was collapsed cause by landslide of steep hill behind the Highland Tower. 48 death were recorded in the tragedy whilst other 2 blocks were forced evacuation for safety precaution of the related residents. Besides that, the impact arises from the incident are reduction of property value and closure of the surround area. From the tragedy, the evacuation of remaining blocks, Block 2 and Block 3, resulting vandalism and theft problem on the both blocks. Some of their properties were stolen and damaged (Maniam, 1992).

1. Introduction
From the above case, the architects and the engineers for the project responsible to secure the safety, health and welfare of the public on their professional services because they are the expert in those related construction job. Even the authority not directly involve in the construction process, MPAJ (Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya) is one of the defendant for this case. According to (Maniam, 1992), MPAJ liable to not taken reasonable care, skill and diligence in ensuring the plans submitted fit for the geotechnical condition of the site for residential development. Besides that, MPAJ failed to ensure the sufficient drainage system and adequate rubble wall provided for the construction activities before issuance of the Certificate of Fitness and after the apartment was constructed. Since the local authority in one of the responsible party in the development of the project, they must have their own risk management system not only for or during construction stages but also take into account on how to minimise the impact of structure failure or collapse of the building.

2. Risk Managemant System.

Risk Management System defined as the integrated process of defining objectives, identifying sources and analyse the uncertainties also formulating managerial responses, to balance the risk and opportunities (Thevendran & Mawdesley, 2004).

Name : SUSHILAWATI BINTI ISMAIL Matric No: 2012464236

Zhi (1995) divides impact of risks into two parts consist of environmental impact which are called external risk and internal risk which from existing uncertainties in the project itself. Every construction project must have their own proper risk management system to identify the potential of project failure through risk identification, risk analysis, risk planning, the implementation of mitigation measure and followed by the monitoring process. According to Lyons & Skitmore (2004), the most common method for risk identification is branstorming, for risk assessment is qualitative method and risk reduction frequently used for risk response. Although factor of risks are different from project to other project, depending on type, size, location and cost of the project, the risks can be classified into 4 main factor. The first came from factor which depending on political, economical, financial and social environment situation of a nation or region. The second factor generated from the construction industrys market fluctuation, law and regulation, standard and codes and its contract system used. Employer or project owner, architect, subcontractor, labours, materials and equipment as well as internal problem in the company contribute to the risk factor. For the above case, risk management system should not only covered during precollapse of building but also post-collapse situation. According to Banaitiene & Banaitis (2012), the first stage of risk management system is risk identification, followed by risk assessment, risk mitigation and risk monitoring. 2.1. Risk Identification Risk identification is the basis of the following stages in the risk management system to ensure the effectiveness of the system. Risk identification in the process to recognize the potential risk either giving the positive or negative effect to the project duration or influence the cost of project for the whole project life cycle (Touran, 2006). Banaitiene & Banaitis (2012) classified risk into six which are local, global, economic, physical, political and technological changes. Risk identification also an be classified by the factor of the risk came from such as risk from defective work, schedule delay, cost overrun or materials and equipment matter. In the Highland Tower case, post-collapse risk identified includes loss of life, loss of properties,

Name : SUSHILAWATI BINTI ISMAIL Matric No: 2012464236

criminal activities on the remaining building such as theft and vandalisme and also reduction on property value. 2.2. Risk Assessment There are two common method for risk assessment; using qualitative or quantitative analysis in order to judge the level of risk by measuring the seriousness degree, the unwanted occurance probability and the subsequent impact (Zhi, 1995). Qualitative analysis used to identify the key risk factor by assessing the impact and likelihood of the risk (Banaitiene & Banaitis, 2012). Determination of the risk likelihood requires experience and scrutiny from the previous construction project. So then, the priority of mitigation can be proposed. Quantitative analysis will provide more precise result, however it takes longer time and involves sophisticated technique to investigate and analyse the identified risks. Quantitative analysis needs coorperation from the project stakeholder to assemble the data for analysis. Quantitative risk analysis attempts to estimate the frequency of risks and the magnitude of their consequences by various approaches to model and quantifies the occurrence probability of the risk factors and the potential impacts (Banaitiene & Banaitis, 2012). 2.3. Risk Mitigation Risk mitigation taken place after prioritized the identified risk. According to Touran, (2006) there are many mitigation measure option can be considered in the risk mitigation process such as the following: 1. Accept risk if the most effective way is to accept and absorb the impact of the risk nature. 2. Reduce risk if impossible to eliminate the risk factor, the alternative have to been studied to reduce the risk. For an example, the MPAJ should spend money for the maintenance of the drainage system. 3. Sharing risk Possible in various condition. As an example for theft problem, MPAJ can deal with the owners of the residential to provide security services for that area for certain period of time before they can move out their belonging safely. 4. Transfering risk Insurance mechanism. 5. Avoiding risk If the impact of the risk cannot be tolerate at any cost. For example, forced evacuation of the remained blocks of Highland Tower.

Name : SUSHILAWATI BINTI ISMAIL Matric No: 2012464236

It is important to understand how to determine the best mitigation measure to take place to reduce the cost and time overrun and at the same time reduce the risk impacts. 2.4. Risk Monitoring The purpose of risk monitoring is to measure the effectiveness of mitigation measure that have been took place (Hagelsteen & Becker, 2013). Besides that monitoring process required to identified new potential risk from time to time. Some of existing risk also maybe can be negleted if the factor of the risk eliminated. However at the same time the approach use in the mitigation process could be change to the other alternative if the situation require to do so.

3. Conclusion
The risk management goals precisely to achieve higher target levels of safety and security (Fekete, 2012). Based on the risk management stages explained above, the following question must be answered well in the system; what are the risk? Which impact whom? How can be mitigate? How useful the action? How can be communicated? From the survey done by Lyons & Skitmore (2004), no dominant factor was identified that limits the implementation of risk management. Implementation of systematic and effective risk management system may result better in decision making, increase project success rate, better productivity and financial savings.

References Banaitiene, N., & Banaitis, A. (2012). Risk Management in Construction Projects. Fekete, A. (2012). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Safety and security target levels!: Opportunities and challenges for risk management and risk communication, 2, 6776. Hagelsteen, M., & Becker, P. (2013). Challenging disparities in capacity development for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 3, 413. Lyons, T., & Skitmore, M. (2004). Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: a survey. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 5161.

Name : SUSHILAWATI BINTI ISMAIL Matric No: 2012464236

Maniam, B. M. D., Undang-undang, P., Perbandaran, M., & Pinang, P. (1992). Lessons Learned From Highland Towers, (iv), 2127. Thevendran, V., & Mawdesley, M. J. (2004). Perception of human risk factors in construction projects: an exploratory study. International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 131137. Touran, A., (2006). Owners risk reduction techniques using a cm, (October). Zhi, H. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction projects, 13(4), 231237.