Pergamon

International Journal of ProJect Management Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 35-41, 1998
(~ 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Prmted in Great Britain
0263-7863/98 $19.00 + 0.00

Plh S0263-7863(97)00015-X

The evaluation of risk management

in public sector capital projects
David Baldry
Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Saljbrd, Salford, UK

Risk is an implicit element in the execution of capital projects and manifests itself in numerous
forms at different stages in the project life cycle. For public sector organisations, which act as a
project sponsor, the risk exposure, and the consequent risk impacts, are a function of the cultural and environmental framework within which they are required to operate. This paper discusses and evaluates the significance of project risk in this setting and examines the impact of
risk outcomes which are both financial and non-financial in nature. The ability and capacity of
public sector organisations to manage project risk are considered together with proposals for the
wider adoption of risk management techniques. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA
Keywords: Risk, pubhc sector, organlsat~onal culture, risk management

The management of project activity in the public sector has been traditionally characterised by the pursuit
of financial rectitude, reliability of performance, and
the mitigation of risk and uncertainty. Methods of
project delivery have often been extensively developed
and refined but objectives and success criteria poorly
defined with responsibility and authority for delivery
widely distributed across a broad range of participants.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s dramatic
changes have occurred in the manner in which public
sector projects have been planned, commissioned, and
controlled. Compulsory Competitive Tendering of services, including those of a professional nature, the
ongoing conversion of government departments to
Executive Agencies, the transfer of some central government project management functions to commercial
project organisations, and the emerging use of Private
Finance Initiatives, have done much to alter the manner of delivery of project services. When coupled with
the explicit standards of performance to be delivered
by public sector agencies and the increased transparency expected of their activities, it can be readily seen
that the profile of risk inherent in these major capital
ventures is becoming increasingly significant and substantial.
This paper sets out to consider and evaluate the risk
profile present in public sector capital projects and to
develop an understanding of how this may be structured and controlled by the application of appropriate
project management techniques. Reference is made to
the cultural and environmental framework within
which the public sector now operates and traces the
link between the impact of project performance and
the quality of service delivery, and the degree to which

an appreciation of risk influences the manner of delivery of these services. The paper will conclude with an
identification of the way in which operational research
techniques may contribute to the effective management
of risk in this specific context.
Nature and characteristics o f public sector
organisations
The public sector of the United Kingdom is substantial, diverse, and highly significant in economic, social,
and political terms. Expenditure on public services,
excluding defence and support for nationalised industries, totalled 212bn during 1991/92, and employed
over 4 million people, concentrated in Local
Government and major central government functions
such as Social Security, Health Care, Inland Revenue,
and Home Office. 1 The emphasis of public sector activity has been upon the delivery of services, often of a
personal nature, rather than the production and distribution of goods.
Political initiatives during the 1980s, and continuing
into the 1990s, have sought to modify the modus operandi and cultures of public sector organisations by the
introduction of the practices and processes of the commercial marketplace. Hitherto the government had
functioned as both provider and deliverer of services
to its constituent departments, including project functions, thereby in effect purchasing from itself.
Carnaghan and Bracewell-Milnes 2 have articulated
how a service which is provided monopolistically by
an arm of government, and which is free at the point
of consumption, is divorced completely from the market economy, resulting in inefficiencies of delivery with
consequent cost and time penalties. The history of
35

Risk management in public sector capital projects: D Baldry

public sector projects is far from distinguished and a

H.M. Treasury report 3 discovered that of a sample of
803 non-military government projects conducted
during 1993/94 the average performance resulted in a
cost overspend of 13.1% and a time overrun of 6.5%.
The emergence of alternative organisational forms
such as Executive Agencies, the development of new
inter-organisational relationships, based on the private
sector model of purchaser and provider, and the
increasing involvement of private sector commercial
organisations in the delivery of functions previously
the exclusive preserve of state departments, have done
much to alter the manner of delivery of public services
and the forms of contractual and commercial relationships which are formed. The behaviour of public
bodies as clients has radically altered as value for
money and certainty of performance have come to the
forefront of client expectations, to be placed alongside
the traditional public sector requirements of financial
probity, accountability, and conformance with organisational objectives. Furthermore the government has
promoted assertive client behaviour and the adoption
of innovative procurement processes. For the public
sector of the 1990s Baldry 4 identified the following
expected features of the organisational culture:
heightened demand for value for money and quality
of performance in public services;
increased reliance upon private sector supply organisations;
expectations that innovative and creative methods of
procurement and delivery will be achieved;
requirement for credible and sustained organisational leadership capable of the consistent realisation of client objectives;
maintenance of traditional values of certainty of performance, accountability, and systems of equitable
commercial and social relationships.
The values required to provide public services are
often different from those needed to run a successful
commercial business. Flynn 5 describes how it is rarely
possible for a public authority or agent to withdraw
from the provision of services to a particular sector of
the 'market' if it is proving excessively costly or managerially difficult to deliver, neither can those 'customers' who cannot afford to pay be denied their
entitlements which are derived from their status as a
citizen and from social policy. Values of equity and
justice must play a part in both operational and project management activities in a way that would be irrelevant to most businesses and which create the
distinguishing features of the environment in which
public sector activity is conducted. Capital projects for
a public sector sponsor straddle the considerable gulf
between the orbits of public service requirements and
commercial sector supply capabilities requiring a particular managerial competence to achieve the expected
standards of performance.

Risk features of public sector capital projects

The traditionally accepted definition of risk is "the potential for realisation of unwanted, negative consequences of an event". F o r an event to be considered as
a source of risk there must be a reasonably predictable
loss associated which arises as a consequence of this
36

chance event. The scale of the loss is referred to as the

risk impact and attempts to place an acceptable value
on this loss, often in monetary terms. For commercial
organisations the impact of the incidence of almost
every risk event can be measured in financial terms as
the effect upon turnover, market share, and profitability even if the initial effect of the risk event is upon
some other operational feature such as reputation,
product or service quality, geographical range of operations, or technological lead. Managerial actions which
are stimulated as a response to the occurrence of such
events are ultimately focused upon mitigating the
damaging effects upon the financial indicators
although initial attention will be directed at the specific
area of failure or non-conformance. Risk losses which
arise may manifest themselves over varying periods of
time, thereby introducing a time effect upon any financial losses. Ren 6 describes the lifecycle of a risk event
which may occur on a construction project, distinguishing between the time effects of a sudden physical event such as an earthquake and a sustained long
term occurrence such as inflation. Notwithstanding the
complexity of this approach it still presents the opportunity for risk to be anticipated and measured in a
c o m m o n currency, an approach which is not so readily
transferable to all aspects of public sector projects.
Ansoff 7 has characterised a commercial organisation
as being an economically or 'money' motivated purposive social organisation which has a set of objectives
or purposes which are identified explicitly in a firm's
business plan or implicitly through the past history of
the organisation and the individual motivations of the
key personnel. The result of these endeavours of the
business is commonly profit, that is the excess of financial returns to the firm over the costs incurred, this
being, in Ansoff's view, the measure which distinguishes a business from other forms of social organisation including those found in the public sector
whose role or mission may be identified as some form
of social profit or public benefit. This distinguishing
feature, which is derived from the cultural orientation
of the different sectors, permeates into the attitude
held towards the operation of capital projects and the
management of the differing risks which arise within
them.
Public sector capital projects have a number of distinguishing features which, in aggregate, are uncommonly found in those of the commercial sector:
commencement, progress, and conclusion may rely
upon the authority of a higher level organisation
which is not the direct project sponsor or party to
the project but which retains the power of veto;
project function is invariably to support an operational activity or to meet a service need to be of
benefit to a large body of consumers;
execution is rarely intended as a means of realising a
pure financial reward or speculative gain except in
situations such as where a 'marriage value' may be
realised with a commercial partner;
benefits sought are commonly of a non-financial
nature, equally the risk impacts extend beyond
straightforward financial damage into operational
disturbance, loss of service or amenity, user dissatisfaction, and disruption of strategic planning processes.

Risk management in public sector capital projects: D Baldry

very broad range of procurement methods and techniques are employed, sometimes involving the commercial contract partner in some aspects of the
funding or resource provision;
success criteria are many and varied, often particular
to a stakeholder's perspective, and are commonly of
a non-financial, qualitative nature relating to such
matters as functional satisfaction, aesthetic merit,
environmental improvement, or hazard removal;
the project cycle is conducted within the public
domain and is subject to formal review and evaluation by statutory bodies and informal scrutiny by
stakeholders and interested parties.
The impact of these features is to create a project
culture in which the majority of risk outcomes which
occur have their causes, and most importantly their
effects, beyond the scope and terms of reference of the
project itself. When attempting to analyse risk in these
circumstances it becomes difficult to distinguish
between single and multiple events, to identify where
there is an interaction of risk events, and even to separate cause from effect. What becomes evident, however, is that the impact of risks which arise in public
sector capital projects is capable of extending beyond
the current project which is the vehicle for the risk
event and into other projects of the organisation, into
the general operational activities of the organisation,
and beyond the boundaries into the constituency of
users, dependants, clients, and consumers. These
impacts may include:
project cost overrun causing deferment or even cancellation of other projects within same funding
period;
project time overrun causing operational difficulties
due to unavailability of new or improved facility or
service, or to evolution of changed operational practices now incompatible with facilities created;
project performance criteria not fully achieved
resulting in inadequate operational support, consumer dissatisfaction, or perpetuation of hazardous or
unacceptable conditions;
perceived inadequate project performance causing
erosion of stakeholder confidence in project delivery
service to disadvantage of other projects.
Negative aspects of inadequate public sector capital
projects are often long lasting and widespread and
penetrate deeply into the associated activities of the
project sponsor and beyond into everyday community
experiences. A House of Commons Committee Report
into the troubled history of the building of the new
British Library concluded that the project has failed to
provide the nation with the building it deserves.

The significant role of stakeholders

Any organisation has a range of stakeholders who
have a specific and conspicuous interest in the outcomes of the corporate operations, the manner in
which the business is conducted, and the strategic
direction of the enterprise. These stakeholders may be
identified as owners, customers, employees, funders,
regulators, and the greater community. The aggregate
sum of values, beliefs, and expectations of these
diverse groups will determine the cultural profile of the

organisation. Organisations in the public sector have a

rich mix of stakeholders as by definition they discharge
their functions within the public domain and are therefore subject to the influences and expectations of a
diverse constituency of interested parties, located both
internally and externally to the organisation. In the
specific context of capital projects these interested parties may influence the timing, method of delivery, the
success criteria to be adopted, and the means and outcomes of a post-completion performance evaluation.
Oldfield and Ocock 8 argue that the perceptions, motivations, and competence of these stakeholders can be a
positive agent in a project as they assist in the risk perception process by widening the scope of risk identification, thereby improving project risk management.
Conversely the power and influence exerted by sectarian interests may compromise the overall integrity of
the project by requiring the project to satisfy a limited
range of objectives which may be incompatible with
the global project mission. Taken to the extreme of the
argument Tuman 9 attributes the tragic failure of the
Challenger space mission in 1986 to NASA's response
to pressures for action as a result of several previous
launch cancellations, exceptional media interest due to
the presence of civilian crew members, and a highly
successful track record of successful missions contributing to a sense of routine.
The input of stakeholders to the project process
emphasises the human rather than the technical factors
and brings to the foreground some of the 'soft issues'
which can equally contribute to project failure as well
as technical deficiencies, yet are less readily measurable
and capable of rigorous analysis in a project risk management process. The key features of stakeholder
inputs which influence project risk can be identified as:
degree of influence related to status and political
power rather than project relevance;
pursuance of limited range of personal objectives
with little concept of total project aspirations;
varied agenda of performance criteria make agreement upon success factors, and therefore identification of risks, difficult to achieve;
subject to irrationality and inconsistency as stakeholder participation changes over project life cycle
and displays varying standards of expertise and
informed capabilities.
The expectations and behaviour patterns of stakeholders are likely to differ markedly, giving rise to the
potential for conflict. Johnson and Scholes ~ describe
how issues of sub-optimisation may arise in the presence of a mixed group of stakeholders who are exercising influence over a capital project, notably at the
stage of the development of the project strategy.
Stakeholders may belong to more than one group or
will align themselves in different groupings according
to the issue in hand. Johnson and Scholes continue to
propose the process of 'stakeholder mapping' which
requires judgements to be made upon how each stakeholder group is likely to impress its expectations upon
the organisation or project activity, the extent of
power held by these groups as a measure of their capacity to influence the process, and the likely impact
of their expectations upon future activity.
The values and expectations held by individual or
collectives of stakeholders in public sector capital pro37

Risk management in public sector capital projects." D Baldry

jects centres upon issues of social responsibility, in particular as to whether some projects should proceed at
all, the manner in which they should be conducted,
and the success criteria to be adopted for their contemporary and post-completion evaluation. Milton
Friedman's maxim l' that "the only social responsibility
of business is to increase its profit" can clearly not be
readily transferred to the public sector although the
obligation to behave in a manner which is economic in
the consumption of financial and material resources
can not be ignored. Covello '2, writing in the context of
risk management of safety in the nuclear power industries, expressed the view that despite an inherent distrust of public agencies the public has a greater level
of concern about managerial competence and conscientiousness than about specific risks, and that determining what is an acceptable level of risk is a value
judgement to be considered rather than a technical
issue to be resolved.
The development of alternative methods of procuring and managing public sector capital projects,
including the increasingly significant role of private
sector contractors in design, management, and consultancy roles, has changed the composition of the body
of stakeholders, and modified the ethical standards
and mission-based values of the project process. The
selection of project participants by the project sponsor
is a critical task as the cultures and values which a
range of experts bring to the project process will be a
significant determinant of the manner of delivery and
the risk profile of the project as success relies considerably upon the level of their performance. Chicken '3
identifies the selection of expert consultants as one
critical issue and describes the World Bank procedures
in this regard in which a consultant's suitability is
judged on the basis of three weighted factors: the
firm's general experience, their work plan, and their
key personnel, with a greater weighting being applied
to the latter. Private finance initiatives and BuildOperate-Own-Transfer project types place contractors
in a different position than hitherto as they assume a
client role as well as that of a constituent member of
the supply process.

Evaluation of the approaches to risk management

As discussed the impact of risk occurrences in public
sector capital projects extends beyond the boundaries
of the project, enters the operational activity of the
sponsor organisation, and influences the strategic planning process. The scope and range of these risk
impacts present a daunting task if their anticipation
and management are to be effectively conducted.
One approach is to accumulate past project experience which may be extrapolated from to provide a synthesis of the likely risk impact of a particular project.
The data arising from such studies may be valuable in
assessing the range of the impact of risk events beyond
the project terms of reference. Bowers t4 summarises
three major sources of experience which may be
exploited:
Corporate: knowledge of past projects which is dis-

persed throughout the organisation and is held in a

variety of forms ranging from personal memories to
formal databases. The erosion of large directly
38

employed professional employee groupings within

major public sector organisations has had a damaging effect upon the completeness of this data source
as personal experiences and records become distributed, transferred out, or fragmented.
Project-team: the corporate experience possessed by
individuals within the project team of the particular
project which is likely to be relevant if limited in
scope. However the value and availability of this
source of experience can be traced back to the project team selection which may be made on grounds
such as commercial opportunity, bid success, or
funding powers, rather than the opportunity to
exploit past experience.
E:cternal: the transfer in of relevant lessons from
other comparable projects. The selection of such
data sources requires considerable skill and project
knowledge, thus the value is again determined by
the expertise available within the specific project
team.
The need for a systematic analysis of potential risks,
and thereafter their management is undeniable. Husby
and Skogen '5 describe a method for the quick assessment of alternative options and risk to improve and
optimise the project outcome. This process has the
purpose of generating what these authors refer to as a
"platform of understanding" for running the project
effectively using a systematic approach which is particular to the time period of the project and unifies the
needed activities and parties to the project activity.
The end result is intended to be a common understanding of the project objectives and goals as perceived by a strong and motivated project team, and
the development of scenario studies of different technical solutions and concepts with time, cost, and profitability estimates, and risk assessments.
All the above sources of information for risk assessment can be usefully brought together in a Project
Risk Register, as described by Williams '6 which is a
rigorously controlled document which lists strictly
defined events which, in the opinion of expert participants, have a deemed likelihood of occurring, and analyses them according to their probability of
occurrence, their potential impact, the risk response
actions which would be appropriate and effective, and
the degree to which risk transfer may be achieved.
Typical defined events in the particular context of public sector capital projects may include:
deterioration of international relationships causing
review of requirement for capital good;
shift in stakeholder attitude towards environmentally
damaging project activities and consequences;
public response to strategic direction forcing rethink
on implementation;
political expediency requiring change in funding provisions;
deterioration of relationship with supplier or customer nation making contractual relationships illegal;
change of governing political party at national or
local level forcing policy change in capital investment.
The risk register provides a body of knowledge and
experience over a range of highly diverse project types
which would be unlikely to be found in the experience

R&k management in public sector capital projects: D Baldrv

of individuals, or even full project teams, and which

would go some way towards assisting the risk assessment process in the novel, often unique circumstances
of public sector capital projects. There is an overriding
importance that the analysis of the register and the
benefits arising from the import of its data into a new
project should be conducted in an independent,
unbiased manner to avoid distortion and misinterpretation of the data.
The response to, or the allocation of, risk can take
any of four basic forms in most project activity. These
forms are identified as risk retention, risk reduction,
risk transfer, and risk avoidance. For public sector
capital projects the significance of these may be seen
as:
Risk retention: In almost all public sector projects
the public corporation acting as client is physically
and financially dominant over the supply organisations and therefore may choose to retain a substantial portion of the risk, in addition to the degree
of risk which it is not possible to transfer. Public
sector organisations commonly do not arrange
insurance cover but rely upon their considerable
resources to underwrite any financial losses which
may arise. The most significant risks which are
retained, and which are not capable of transfer in
most circumstances, are the disruption risks arising
from postponement, cancellation, or non-performance of projects which have a damaging effect upon
operational activity or service delivery.
Risk reduction: A c o m m o n way of reducing risk
exposure for commercial organisations is distribute
financial risks over a range of other parties, such as
when a main contractor arranges to devolve obligations to pay liquidated damages upon a number
of sub-contractors. For the public sector client the
careful selection of contractual form and terms will
establish the culture of the relationship with the prim a r y contractor to avoid a risk exposure which
arises from such relationships as cost-plus contracts.
In a recent example the House of C o m m o n s Public
Accounts Committee exposed as m a n y as 1000 design consultants from 67 firms were working on
cost-plus design contracts on the building and civil
engineering portion of the M O D Trident submarine
programme, resulting in a 800 m overspend. '7 In
terms of reducing the impact of risk upon operational activities a high risk project m a y be compensated for in terms of contingency provision of
alternative sources of service delivery or the development of alternative strategic plans to be followed
according to the unfolding of events.
Risk transfer." The commonest form of risk transfer is by the arrangement of insurance but for m a n y
public sector clients the potential scale of the financial risk and the indeterminate nature of the range
of the impact of the risk make this an impracticable
proposition resulting in the adoption of a self-insurance approach. The result is a limited capacity of
the public sector to consciously transfer project
risks other than of a financial nature within the
terms of the contractual arrangements although this
is highly constrained in practice, and likely to produce undesirable side effects. This was noted by
L a t h a m '8 who observed "Attempts to pass all risks
J P M A 16/I

on to the contractor will lead to higher prices and

an antagonistic atmosphere". The outcome is inevitably considerable risk absorption by the public sector body or transfer by default to other
organisations or the wider population in terms of,
for example, inadequate public services such as
transport systems which must be endured, national
defence which must be compromised, or public
safety risks which must be tolerated for longer. '9
Risk avoidance: This is synonymous with the refusal to accept risks, the refusal to enter into contracts
and project activity being the most extreme example
of risk avoidance. The public sector is obligated to
deliver certain functions and to provide certain services notwithstanding the prevailing marketplace
conditions, the state of technology, or the predictable consequences of failure or inadequate performance. Although the public sector may be considered
to be risk averse in behaviour it is compelled to be
risk-accepting, a condition which it attempts to mitigate by defensive procedures and contingencies.
However recent developments in the adopted
approach to project management, the increased
involvement of commercial operators, and the
encouragement of a more entrepreneurial approach
amongst government or local authority agencies,
has created a differing culture and attitude towards
the acceptance of a reasonable degree of risk.
Writing specifically about National Health Service
contracts Clark 2 described how the tradition of
public accountability had meant no scope for any
element of speculation with public money to provide
a public service and maintained the requirement to
expend substantial sums to address risks of marginal significance. Recent legislation and policy
changes had created a climate for the spending of
money on a more flexible basis according to locally
defined needs within a locally managed budget,
including the acceptance of circumstantial risks.
The ability and capacity of public sector organisations to effectively manage project risks will depend
upon a range of factors which are derived from the
cultural orientation of the organisation and the
dynamics of the environment in which it operates. An
attempt at the generalisation of these produces the following factors:
the awareness of the broad impact of risk events
beyond the boundaries of the immediate project and
the implications for other corporate activities;
the recognition of the occurrence of both generic
risks, which are c o m m o n to all projects based on
similar technologies, and specific risks which threaten a particular project due to its particular characteristics;
the degree of expertise in the array of risk evaluation
and management techniques available within the
project sponsor organisation or its appointed advisors;
the degree of expertise to comprehend and judiciously select from the range of procurement initiatives available, to evaluate the contractual and
organisational relationships which will be formed,
and the ability to identify the novel risks and benefits which may arise from such arrangements;

39

Risk management in public sector capital projects. D Baldry

the level of understanding of the role, influence, and

source of power of stakeholder individuals or groupings and the impact of these upon project form, progress, and achievement of success criteria.

improved mechanisms for disseminating project experiences such that design, planning, and management procedures may benefit from a continual
learning process.

It is proposed that so much of the risk which can be

recognised in public sector capital projects is derived
from the 'soft issues' such as performance expectations, stakeholder perspectives, and the impact of
political will or strategic direction, rather than the
more readily measurable and comprehensible matters
such as cost or time variances from planned outcomes.
Pidgeon et a121 have argued that the perceptions of stakeholders, which are largely social and subjective processes, cannot be reduced to elements of mathematical
models of risk. The project risk management task must
encompass the human factors, the potency of interpersonnel and inter-organisational relationships, and
in particular recognise the inevitable incidence of
human fallibility, demonstrations of bias and sectarian
interests.

A survey of project analysis and risk management

techniques employed by a sample of practitioners z2 indicates a wide range of techniques in use and establishes the most desirable benefits which are to be
gained as the formulation of more realistic plans,
increased understanding of risks in a project, and a
means of assessing the contingencies that actually
reflect the risks. There is a clear requirement for the
wider adoption of risk management techniques, based
on well considered and refined operational research
methods, which are capable of modelling the total environment of the public sector capital project process
including the full range of impacts and consequential
effects.

References
Conclusion
Public sector capital projects are characterised by an
emphasis on prescribed methods of delivery which, in
principle, are designed to facilitate rigorous standards
of control and promote indicators of measurable performance. In practice, however, the history of the performance of such projects in general, and certain
notable projects in particular, has indicted a less than
satisfactory level of performance resulting in substantial cost and time overruns, inappropriate project outcomes, and significant secondary effects in terms of
disruption and frustration of operational and strategic
activity.
In recent years dramatic changes have taken place
to the operating environments of public projects in the
form of organisational restructuring, the adoption of
innovative and novel procurement and contracting
arrangements, and the influences arising from the
raised profile of a heterogeneous group of stakeholders
who have become advocates of new measures of project success. The delivery of successful projects has
resulted in the process becoming exceedingly complex
and presenting demanding managerial challenges.
There is an overwhelming need for a markedly
improved system of risk management which identifies
and analyses those risks which may occur within the
very broad sphere of influence of a major project,
including the impact which is likely to occur beyond
the parameters of the project process. The benefits to
be derived from this would be:
clearer and better informed perceptions of the types
of risk, their range of impact, and the interactions
which occur firstly amongst risk outcomes, and secondly within the broad context of the project including secondary outcomes;
improved and refined ways of recognising risk
impacts, in particular the effects of the 'soft issues'
which arise from human behaviour and intervention
in the project process;
superior means of developing contingency arrangements to mitigate the negative effects of project failure upon the functions and processes of the sponsor
organisation and the expectations of stakeholders;
40

1. Flynn, N. Public Sector Management, 2nd. edn. Harvester

Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1993, p. 5.
2. Carnaghan, R. and Bracewell-Mdnes, B., Testing the Market-Competitive Tendermg for Government Services in Britain and
Abroad. Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1993.
3. H.M. Treasury, Settmg New Standards a Strategy for
Government Procurement. HMSO, London, 1995.
4. Baldry, D., The exercise of leadership in public sector projects.
In Proceedmgs of 12th I N T E R N E T Worm Congress on Project
Management, Vol. 1. Oslo, Norway, 1994, pp. 386 391.
5. Flynn, N , ibid, 1993, p. xlii.
6. Ren, H Risk lifecycle and risk relationships on construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management 12(2),
1994, 68-74.
7. Ansoff, I., Corporate Strategy, revised edn. Penguin Business
Books, London, 1987
8. Oldfield, A. and Ocock, M., Project risk management: the importance of stakeholders. In Proceedings of 12th I N T E R N E T
Worm Congress on ProJect Management, Vol. 2. Oslo, Norway,
1994, pp. 384-388.
9. Tuman, J., The psychology of choice in project execution decision making and risk management. In Proceedings of 12th
I N T E R N E T Worm Congress on Protect Management, Vol. 2.
Oslo, Norway, 1994, pp. 247-260.
10. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K., Exploring corporate strategy, 3rd
edn. Prentice Hall International, UK, 1993.
11. Friedman, M., The social responsibility of business is to
increase it's profits. New York Ttmes Magazine. 13 September,
1970.
12. Covello, V. T., Guidelines for communicating about the risks
of nuclear energy effectively, responsibly, and ethically. In Risk
Management." Expanding Horizons m Nuclear Power and Other
Industries, ed R. A. Knief et al. Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, New York, 1991, pp. 29-44.
13. Chxcken, J. C., Managing Risks and Decisions m Major
Projects. Chapman and Hall, London, 1994.
14. Bowers, J. A. Data for project risk analyses. Internattonal
Journal of Project Management 12(1), 1994, 9-16.
15. Husby, O. and Skogen, S., A new systematic approach to the
general start-up challenges. Proceedings of 12th 1NTERNET
Worm Congress on Project Management, Vol. 2. Oslo, Norway,
1994, pp. 158-165.
16. Williams, T. M. Using a risk register to integrate risk management m project definition. International Journal of Project
Management 12(1), 1994, 17-22.
17. Building, MPs slam MOD's use of cost plus design contracts.
Building 14 July, 1995, p. 12.
18. Latham, M., Constructing the Team. Final Report of the
Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual
Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry, HMSO,
London, 1994.
19. Court, M., and Anderson, G., Jubilee late and twice the price.
Construction News, 1 June, 1995, p. 1.

R i s k m a n a g e m e n t #l public' sector capital projects: D B a M r v

20.

Clark, T., Risk analysis and decision theory. In Thmkmg

Ahead," for Project Managers and their employers in the N H S
and related sectors. Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies,

Umversity of York, UK, 1990.

21. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C , Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R.,
Risk: Anal wis, Perception and Management Report of a Royal
Society Study Group, London, 1992.
22. Slmister, S. Usage and benefits of project risk analysis and
management. International Journal o f Project Management
12(1), 1994, 5 8

David Baldry IS a Lecturer m the

Department of Surveying at the
Umverst O, o f Salford, UK. and a
member of the Research Centre for
the Budt alld Human Environment
at that UmversiO'. He Is a
Chartered Surveyor and Chartered
Builder and holds a Masters Degree
in Construction Management and
Economics from the UniverslO' o f
Aston, UK. He has managed construction projects on behalJ o f public
sector organisations, notably in the
health care sector

41