multi-party risk management for water resources project

2,037 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,037
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,256
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning everyone. Thank you prof. Watanabe for the introduction and I would like to thank committee members for this opportunity for me to present my research progress today.My research topic is “Application of Multi-Party Risk and Uncertainty Management Process to local water resources project management”
  • This presentation is organized as following. Fist I will start with introduction of small-scale water resources project failure in Thailand and how it occurs.Then the main objective of this research is to develop systematic multi-party risk management process and project consensus building guidance for better management. In this research, related conceptual foundation are multi-party risk management, water resources management, mental model and risk management.For research progress, there are 2 phases in this research; conceptual phase and empirical phase. Now I am in the developing risk management process.And the last part is to introduce future work and research plan.
  • Let start with research background
  • After the rapid economic development in the past thirty years, the water resources development program has been implemented to support rapid rural development, industrialization, tourism development, domestic consumption, agriculture and other purpose drastically. The Thai government has funded for many small, medium and large scale water resources construction projects.
  • SurveyResults from the department of water resources Thailand shows that in North-eastern Thailand only 17% of project are in good condition while 43% needs rehabilitation, 8% need to be reconstructed and 5% were neglected by stakeholders.
  • To analyze this problem, the literatures indicated that water resources management problem in Thailand can be categorized into 2 levels: National level and Basin level.In national level, problems are unclear national water policy and plan, no water law, budget limitation and defragmented water organization.In basin level, lack of stakeholder participation and no effective management mechanism which cause no sense of ownership are problems.In this research, problem in basin level will be focus.
  • To analyze small-scale water resources project failure, failure knowledge database concept was employed. Failure elements is comprised of sequences of cause, action and results.
  • In small water resources failure project cases, these actions were taken.
  • From action taken and trace back to identify causes. These are causes of failure project. Detail of failure analysis is in attachment#1.Passive public participation (Poor strategy/ concept)No project life cycle operation and maintenance plan (Poor strategy/ concept)No project monitoring system (Poor strategy/ concept)Low data exchange between stakeholders (Narrow outlook)Low acceptance of local’s knowledge (Narrow outlook)No awareness of public participation (Insufficient knowledge)Lack of project understanding among stakeholders (Insufficient knowledge)
  • In conclusion, context of problem areProject not meet stakeholder’s needInsufficient communicationLack of risk awarenessNo effective process in decision-makingDynamic problem
  • Research objectives
  • Research questions areWhat are key aspects and limitations of current participation in decision-making process?Can Multi-party Risk and Uncertainty Management Process (MRUMP) be applied as a tool to improve stakeholder participation in decision making activities?
  • Research hypothesis is “Implementation of Multi-party Risk and Uncertainty Management Process (MRUMP) as a tool for local communities participation in decision-making activity could decrease likelihood of small-scale water resources project failure in Thailand”
  • Which leads to research objectivesDevelop a systematic risk management process for better small-scale water resources project managementDevelop a guidance for small-scale water resources project consensus building through multi-party risk and uncertainty management process
  • This research design consists of conceptual phase and empirical phase.The research started with problem analysis and develop tool to tackle the problem.In the empirical phase is to apply the developed process and verify the findings.Output of this research will be a systematic process for small-scale water resources project risk management and the outcome will be guidance or suggestions for project risk consensus building.
  • The literature study was done to comprehend the context of Water resources risk management and to provide a clear theoretical framework for this research.These are list of research related conceptual foundation.Water resources management in ThailandWater resources risk managementRisk management processRisk perception and risk communicationMental model
  • Regarding to project participation in Thailand water resources literatures have mentioned that
  • This is participation form on Thai water resources project There are 4 types of participation: public hearing, committee/working group, dialogue and local initiation.Most of the cases are public hearing and committee, but this still lack of consensus building.
  • To develop consensus building it is required to understand how stakeholders perceive the systems within which they live and functionbuild a shared understanding between involved stakeholders form their mental model
  • This is mental model schematicMental model are what people use to understand and interpret phenomena of everyday life. This schematic shows how Mental model supports decision making.
  • multi-party risk and uncertainty management process (MRUMP), which was originally developed for better risk management for aninfrastructure project by Jirapong and Prof. Watanabe, seems an effective way of achieving consensus building. Major deliverables of the MRUMP includes:Risk/uncertainty map. The HSRU structure is structured based on hierarchical flow of source, consequence, occurrence, and outcome.Duration valuation process (DVP) give the delay date in construction project due to risk and uncertainty map. All parties are required to incorporate to identify, communicate and cooperatively solve the problem.
  • But there are some constraints to apply MRUMP to water resources projectMRUMP did not mention stakeholder analysis as a first step to identify stakeholders, their power and importance.MRUMP was conducted by an assessor’s point of view which associated with the assessors’ bias, and it may not yield an in-depth analysis.The duration valuation process (DVP) providing risk and uncertainty dimension in form of delay date is not applicable for local environmental management.
  • This is a proposed Multi-party risk and uncertainty management process.This process composed of five elements namely Stakeholders and resources identificationMulti-party risk assessmentMulti-party risk responseMulti-party risk consensusImplementThis process is supported by monitor, evaluation, and communication for the whole process.
  • The first step is to identify project related stakeholders and resources by using Actor, Resource, Dynamic, Inter-action, and Law mapping.
  • This is schematic of stakeholder and resource map from ARDIL method which will illustrate project system.
  • The second step of the process is to identify and asses project risks by employing hierarchical structure of risk, risk register and semi-quantitative risk analysis. Output of this step is risk register matrix which will yield a project risk ranking.
  • Risk identification will be conducted through project life cycle risk breakdown structure.Project life cycle is separated into three phase; planning phase, construction phase and operation and maintenance phase.In each phase risks will be identified by stakeholders.
  • In risk identification process, Hierarchy structure of risk is structured based on hierarchical flow of source, consequence, occurrence, and outcomeAsking and questioning “what’s can go wrong?” , “How it happen?”, and “what is impact?” in other word “what are cause events and what are effect events?”
  • Results form risk identification will be input into risk register matrix as shown in this slide.
  • In order to quantify risk, semi-quantitative risk assessment is employed.It based on definition of risk = multiplication of probability and impact
  • For probability scoring is to investigate the likelihood that each risk will occur.It can be in form of ordinal scale, cardinal scale or quantitative approach (probability)
  • For impact scoring four types of impact; materials loss, human lives, environmental consequences and social loss with five scaling is reflected here.
  • Finally overall project risk ranking is available in probability-impact matrix. Risk ranking can help guide risk response.
  • Up to this stage, we can have update risk register matrix which show risk ranking. However, this result yields only numerical result (risk ranking) but how to deal with stakeholder mental model structure regarding to physical risk and how stakeholder will evaluate and response risks need to be investigated.
  • From numerical result (risk ranking),how to deal with stakeholder mental model structure regarding to physical risk and how stakeholder will evaluate and response risks need to be investigated.
  • Socio-cultural context, risk characteristics and personal advantages are factors that affect individual risk perception and risk response.
  • Further study is needed from field investigation to observe and analyze stakeholder risk perception, decision making process, and how they response to those risks that was identified in the previous step.
  • To study stakeholder risk response mental model, ethnographic study in Thailand will be conducted.First to apply concept of multi party risk management process to one project then elicit and construct stakeholder risk response which leads to development of risk consensus.The stakeholder risk response from the first project will be adjust and used as a pilot model then conduct the same process in the second project to validate the pilot model.
  • The ultimate output of this research is to develop guidance for consensus building for water resources project.Since many stakeholders exist, it is necessary to develop a risk communication strategy that can obtain consensus among many stakeholders (Ookawara, 2012)Consensus communication is riskcommunication to inform and encouragegroups to work together to reach adecision about how the risk will bemanaged (prevented or mitigated).This process is to be studied.
  • multi-party risk management for water resources project

    1. 1. Application of Multi-Party Risk andUncertainty Management Process to local water resources project management Piriya Uraiwong Professor Tsunemi Watanabe’s Laboratory 1 2012/2/14
    2. 2. • Small-scale water resources project failure Background • Problem analysis • Develop systematic multi-party risk management Objectives process and project consensus building guidance for small-scale water resources project Conceptual • Multi-party risk and uncertainty management • Mental model and risk management Foundation Research • Developing risk management process; stakeholder identification, risk assessment, risk response Progress Research • Risk response mental model • Field study in Thailand Plan2 2012/2/14
    3. 3. Background Research objectives Conceptual foundation Progress and results Research plan3 2012/2/14
    4. 4.  Background Thailand water resources  Research objectives  Conceptual development  foundation Progress and results  Research plan  Thailands past three decades of sustained and rapid economic development stimulated an explosive expansion of demand for water services  Resulting in many small medium and large-scale construction projectshttp://www.google.com/ 4 2012/2/14
    5. 5.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem statement  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Malfunction of medium and small scale projects Examples of ineffective small-scale water resources project in the Northeastern Thailand 5 2012/2/14
    6. 6.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem statement  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Good Condition Minor re-construction Rehabilitation Re-construction Rejected 8% 5% 17% 27% 43% Source: the Department of Water Resources Thailand, 20086 2012/2/14
    7. 7.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem analysis  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Policy and plan Legal framework National level Budget Institutional Management framework problems Stakeholder participation Management Basin level mechanism Sense of (Adapted from Sethaputra, 2001 and WWAP, 2006) ownership7 2012/2/14
    8. 8.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem analysis  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Failure Knowledge Database Cause Actions Results Dr.Yotarou hatamura, 2005 www.sozuku.com 8 2012/2/14
    9. 9.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem analysis  foundation Progress and ACTIONS  results Research plan Poor planning RESULTS Hardware  Economic loss production  Social loss Maintenance/  Change in Repair perception Nonobservant of  Fracture/ instruction Damage Inaction  External Ethics violation/ Damage Rule violation Self-protection (Based on Hatamura, 2005)9 2012/2/14
    10. 10.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProblem analysis CAUSES  foundation Progress and resultsInsufficient ACTIONS  Research plan knowledge  Poor planningDisregard of  Hardware procedure productionNarrow outlook  Maintenance/ RepairInflexible Nonobservant of management instruction structure  InactionPoor staffs  Ethics violation/Poor authority Rule violation structure  Self-protectionPoor strategy/ (Based on Hatamura, 2005) concept 10 2012/2/14
    11. 11.  Background  Research objectives  Conceptual Context of Problem  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Water resources projects were inadequately meet stakeholder needs Stakeholders may not communicate sufficiently and effectively Stakeholders are lack of risk awareness No effective process in the decision-making activities Problem is dynamic 11 2012/2/14
    12. 12. Background Research objectives Conceptual foundation Progress and results Research plan12 2012/2/14
    13. 13.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualResearch questions  foundation Progress and results  Research plan 1. What are key aspects and limitations of current participation in decision-making process in small-scale water resources project? 2. Can Multi-party Risk and Uncertainty Management Process (MRUMP) be applied as a tool to improve stakeholder participation in decision making activities in small-scale water resources management in Thailand?13 2012/2/14
    14. 14.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualResearch hypothesis  foundation Progress and results  Research plan “Implementation of Multi-party Risk and Uncertainty Management Process (MRUMP) as a tool for local communities participation in decision-making activity could decrease likelihood of small-scale water resources project failure in Thailand”14 2012/2/14
    15. 15.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualResearch objectives  foundation Progress and results  Research plan1. Develop a systematic risk management process for better small-scale water resources project management2. Develop a guidance for small-scale water resources project consensus building through multi-party risk and uncertainty management process 15 2012/2/14
    16. 16.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualResearch framework  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Problem analysis Conceptual phase Develop multi-party risk management process Developed process application Data collection and Empirical phase analyze Guidance development16 2012/2/14
    17. 17. Background Research objectives Conceptual foundation Progress and results Research plan17 2012/2/14
    18. 18.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualConceptual foundation  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Water resources management in Thailand Water resources risk management Risk management process Risk perception and risk communication Mental model 18 2012/2/14
    19. 19.  BackgroundReviews on Thai water resources  Research objectives  Conceptualproject participation  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Strong push to small-scale water resources project from engineer approach (Hirch) Lack of policy commitment to participation (MRCS) Involvement of water users and stakeholders in decision-making process is poor (Lien, 2003) Participation process needs to begin with asking what stakeholders need and designing the projects according to it (WWWP, 2007: Bjorge et. al., 2011) Agencies carry operation plans year to year with little change and plans are subjected to change due to intense political lobbying (Sethapura et.al., 2003) 19 2012/2/14
    20. 20.  BackgroundParticipation form in Thai water  Research objectives  Conceptualresources projects  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Participation Committee/ Public Local working Dialogue hearing initiation group Lack Basin /Sub- Passive ofbasin/ Ad-hoc Support byparticipation government Projectconsensus buildingNo sense of Institutional Ban Pa Ping river Mae Chaem ownership weakness Kong basin watershed 20 2012/2/14
    21. 21.  BackgroundHow to develop consensus building in  Research objectives  Conceptualsmall-scale water resources project?  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Need to understand how stakeholders perceive the systems within which they live and function Taking stakeholder mental model into account to build a shared understanding between involved stakeholders in the co-operative project management (Biggs et.al., 2008) 21 2012/2/14
    22. 22.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualMental Model and Decision Making foundation  Progress and results  Research plan (Adapted from Kolkman, M. J., 2005) Real world data flow Mental model Information flow Problem evaluation recognition Frame Problem Implementatio definition n Solution Weighting Alternative Alternative space benefit & Choice selection analysis generation cost22 2012/2/14
    23. 23.  BackgroundMulti-Party Risk and Uncertainty  Research objectives  ConceptualManagement Process  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Hierarchy structure of Risk/uncertainty map risk and uncertainty framework MRUMP Multi-party Duration valuation involvement process management process (Pipattanawong and Watanabe, 2004)23 2012/2/14
    24. 24.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualConstraints of MRUMP  foundation Progress and results  Research plan1. Lack of stakeholder analysis2. The assessors’ bias3. The duration valuation process (DVP) is not applicable for local water resources project management. Suitable process is needed 24 2012/2/14
    25. 25. Background Research objectives Conceptual foundation Progress and results Research plan25 2012/2/14
    26. 26.  BackgroundProposed Multi-party risk and  Research objectives  Conceptualuncertainty management process  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Monitor, Evaluation, Modification Stakeholde Multi-party Multi-party Multi-party Implement rs and risk risk risk resources assessmen response consensus identificatio t n Communication26 2012/2/14
    27. 27.  BackgroundStakeholders and resources  Research objectives  Conceptualidentification  foundation Progress and results  Research planInputProject information and status Tool and techniqueRelated stakeholders Stakeholder and resource Output identification (Actor, Resource, Dynamic, Inter- action, and Law) Project related stakeholder and resource map 27 2012/2/14
    28. 28.  BackgroundStakeholder and resource map from  Research objectives  ConceptualARDIL method  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Actor 1 Actor 4 Economic dynamics Social dynamic Actor 2 Resource A/ Actor 5 project A Social dynamic Actor 3 Resource B/ project B Actor 6 Laws/ Policies28 2012/2/14
    29. 29.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualMulti-Party risk assessment  foundation Progress and results  Research planInput Tool and techniqueProject related Outputstakeholder and Hierarchicalresource map structure of HSRU mapStakeholder risk riskperception Risk register Risk register matrix Semi- quantitative risk analysis 29 2012/2/14
    30. 30.  BackgroundProject life cycle risk breakdown  Research objectives  Conceptualstructure  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Activity Project Planning phase Management risks External technology Construction Management phase External technology Operation and Management maintenance External phase technology (Hillson, 2002)30 2012/2/14
    31. 31.  BackgroundHierarchy structure of risk  Research objectives  Conceptualand uncertainty  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Risk causeRisk perception Risk effect event event Causes event Cooperation form land-owner Source of risk/uncertainty Land acquisition Consequence form risk/uncertainty Effect event Site accessibility Activity Influenced risk/ uncertainty Project situation Impact of risks/uncertainties31 2012/2/14
    32. 32.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualRisk register matrix  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Output from HSRU tailored to project ARDILRisk Risk Risk Risk effect Risk impact Related# descriptio cause event stakeholders n event 32 2012/2/14
    33. 33.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualSemi-quantitative Risk assessment  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Useful in providing a structured way to rank risks according to their probability and impact represented by Probability-Impact (PI) matrix offers a visual results of identified risk Remark : max of Ii,j will need to be concerned , for example, change of law/ policy (Hillson, 2003) 33 2012/2/14
    34. 34.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProbability scoring  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Ordinal scale: very low, low, medium, high, very high Cardinal scale: 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 Quantitative approach: 1% - 99% Verbal description Category Level Probability Occurs annually Very high 5 >0.1 , not 1 High probability of High 4 0.1-0.01 occurrence Occasional Medium 3 0.01-0.001 occurrence Possible Low 2 0.001-0.0001 phenomenon Phenomenon has Very low 1 <0.0001, not 0 never been 34 observed 2012/2/14
    35. 35.  Background  Research objectives  Conceptual Impact scoring  foundation Progress and results 5 4 3 2  1 Research planMaterial >1000 M- 100 -1000 M- 100,000- 10,000 - <10,000losses Euro Euro 1M-Euro 100,000 Euro EuroHuman lives High loss of serious numerous Single small No injuries lives injuries to lightly injuries at all numerous injuriesEnvironment Ecological Ecosystem Damage to Only a Regeneratioal breakdown seriously several single n in daysconsequence disrupted species speciess affectedSocietal Extensive Basic Local Difficulty in Almost nolosses evacuation infrastructure problems delivery to consequenc s interrupted single es households 35 2012/2/14
    36. 36.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualProbability-Impact matrix  foundation Progress and results  Research planHSRU Pi,1 I-material I-human I-env I-socie ∑P*I Risk ranking 36 2012/2/14
    37. 37.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualUpdate risk register matrix  foundation Progress and results  Research plan P-I Output from HSRU ARDIL matrixRisk Risk Risk Risk Risk Related Risk# descriptio cause effect impact stakeholder ranking n event event s Numerical Result !! 37 2012/2/14
    38. 38.  BackgroundProposed Multi-party risk and  Research objectives  Conceptualuncertainty management process  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Monitor, Evaluation, Modification Stakeholde Multi-party Multi-party Multi-party Implement rs and risk risk risk resources assessmen response consensus identificatio t n RISK RANKING Communication38 2012/2/14
    39. 39.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualMulti-Party risk response  foundation Progress and results  Research planSocio-cultural Individual cognition of risks and risk behaviorContextRisk Individual Riskcharacteristics cognition attitudePersonaladvantages Risk Risk Risk perception acceptance behavior (Baan and Kliin, 2004) 39 2012/2/14
    40. 40.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualRisk response scenario  foundation Progress and results  Research plan How to deal with different risk perception and risk response among stakeholders? Evaluate and ranked risk Reduce Reduce Accept consequenc Transfer Avoid likelihood e To be developed Stakeholder A Stakeholder B40 2012/2/14
    41. 41.  BackgroundStakeholder risk response  Research objectives  Conceptualmental model  foundation Progress and results  Research plan 1st site visit: Project A 2nd site visit: Project B Risk response Evaluate Evaluate mental modeland ranked and ranked risk input risk input Semi-structure Semi-structure interview interview Validate/ improve Elicit, construct Initial Risk Risk response response mental model mental model 41 2012/2/14
    42. 42.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualRisk consensus  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Necessary to develop a risk communication strategy that can obtain consensus among many stakeholders Consensus communication is risk communication to inform and encourage groups to work together to reach a decision about how the risk will be managed (prevented or mitigated). Risk Multi-party risk Risk communi- response mental consensu cation model s strategy To be developed 42 2012/2/14
    43. 43. Background Research objectives Conceptual foundation Progress and results Research plan43 2012/2/14
    44. 44.  Background  Research objectives  Conceptual Research plan  foundation Progress and results  Research planItem T ask 2012 2013 Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Sep Oct N ov Dec Jan Feb Finish MRUMP for small-scale water 1 resources project 2 Preparation for ethnographic study 2.1 contact local staff and stakeholders 2.2 select case to conduct a field study 3 Conduct a 1st fieldstudy 4 Conduct a 2nd field study 5 Refine the MRUMP 6 Preparation for thesis report 44 2012/2/14
    45. 45.  Background  Research objectives  ConceptualEthnographic study  foundation Progress and results  Research plan Location : Thailand Project : 2 projects Methodology : ethnographic study (data sources are supplemented by data collected through participant observation, interviews, documents and informal social contact); (Myers, 1999) 45 2012/2/14
    46. 46. Published paper Reviewed paper  Piriya Uraiwong and Tsunemi Watanabe, “Stakeholder analysis of water resources project in Thailand”, Social Society and Management System (SSMS) online journal, January 2012 Conference paper  Piriya Uraiwong and Tsunemi Watanabe, “Community mechanism for water resource risk management”, International conference for a sustainable greater Mekong sub region, Bangkok Thailand, 2010  Piriya Uraiwong and Tsunemi Watanabe, “Model for small- scale water resources project development: based on a Thai case”, 4th Thailand-Japan international academic conference, Tokyo Japan, 2011 46 2012/2/14
    47. 47. 47 2012/2/14

    ×