The document discusses the risk management plan for the Sydney Opera House project. It identifies 19 risks that impacted the project, such as incomplete designs, cost overruns, and timeline delays. It then describes 8 different risk response strategies - avoidance, transfer, reduce, accept, contingency, share, exploit, and enhance. For each risk response, it provides an example of how it could have been applied to specific risks for the Sydney Opera House project, such as using avoidance for design changes or contingency planning for budget issues. Finally, it qualitatively ranks the identified risks based on probability, impact, and hazard level.

1. RISK RESPONSE PLANNING
6
Christopher Mihun
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN – RISK RESPONSE PLANNING
PM650-1801B-01
Professor Al-Nizami
Risk Response
The risks identified are essential in the development of an
essential risk response. Risk responses are the different ways
and processes for which an organization can effectively use to
manage risk. In the construction project, the project managers
and stakeholders could have used different responses in the
management of the risks. The risk identified and their responses
includes:
Risks Identified
Responses
i. Incomplete designs which resulted in poor structural planning
and delivery of the project.
Avoidance
ii. Poor stakeholder involvement in the due process and project
planning
Contingency
iii. Lack of project leadership from the project manager
Accept
iv. Lack of project progress reports and this hampered the
performance appraisals
Reduce
v. Poor Cost Estimates and budgeting

2. Avoidance
vi. Incomplete designs requirement gathering
Transfer
vii. Failure to keep within the cost estimate.
Exploit
viii. Inability to meet the completion timeline
Contingency
ix. Changes in project scope and requirements.
Accept
x. Project scope and design changes.
Reject
xi. Lack of project change controls and Scope of the project
Reduce
xii. The pressure to deliver projects on an accelerated schedule.
Reject
xiii. Inaccurate contract time estimates.
Exploit
xiv. Lack of communication between project participants.
Reduce
xv. Inadequately defined roles and responsibilities.
Share
xvi. Insufficient skilled staff.
Avoid
xvii. Political risks.
Enhance
xviii. Poor task and roles assigning among the project
stakeholders
Reduce
xix. Inexperienced project managers
Share
Application of these Risk Responses
According to the risk responses as shown above, the responses
for the opportunities and threats in the risk management. The
responses are an opportunity for structural competency and how
to effectively manage the risk. The process for risk

3. identification and mitigation can be effectively managed to
improve project performance. Therefore, the application for the
risk responses can be effectively developed through:
a) Avoidance
Avoidance is a risk response which is essential for the changing
the project to meet the expectations of the stakeholders while
managing the risk. For instance, the change in the designs could
have improved the outcome of the project. The change affects
and reduces the ability for an effective risk mitigation and
process. Avoidance also helps to change the necessary
expectations, planning, and how to fully develop and improve
resource allocation to ensure the impact of the risk does not
affect the project.
b) Transfer
Transferring the risk is a risk response which is all concerned
with the mitigation and management of the risk by transferring
it to another aspect and event. For instance, transferring the risk
to the project stakeholders could have helped to designing
complete and effective designs. It is a process for ensuring the
transfer for risk meets the value, resources, and exposition for
the project. The risks could have been transferred to help in the
mitigation and management of designs.
c) Reduce
Reduction of the risk means creating an opportunity such as
reducing the occurrences bytapping the root causes of the risk.
This can be completed and especially managed due to poor
planning before implementation, planning and creating the
resources for the risk. The reduction is essential for focusing on
the risk entities. This will increase, change and effectively
reduce by targeting the root cause of the risks.
d) Accept

4. Accepting the risk can be an essential process for ensuring the
project meets the expectations of its stakeholders. Some risks
can be accepted by the stakeholders. It is also a process to
ensure and how to fully develop and support the performance of
stakeholders. It is also a process for enhancing the changes,
processes and accepting the risk to a manageable state. This will
effectively help in improvement and gaining the value, resource
and process management. Some risk such as unskilled staff and
poor leadership can be accepted by managed effectively.
e) Contingency
The contingency planning is an essential risk management
technique which helps companies in the modern society to
develop backup plans. Backups can be an essential resource to
help in the processing and functional performance. It can be
effectively used for an effective process to improve
performance and develop project success. Contingency can be
developed in place of lack of budgeting and cost-timelines. The
use of contingency planning can be a process for influencing
change in performance through risk expectations.
f) Share
Sharing risks can be an essential opportunity to minimize the
impact of the risk to a project. It is also an essential policy to
effectively influence and increase performance based on values
such as mitigation, planning, and process development. It is
also important for an effective allocation of risk to other
stakeholders. Stakeholders can share risk, develop the necessary
roles such as engaging and defining the processes.
g) Exploit
Sometimes, it is important to exploit an opportunity. This is
essential for curbing on the opportunities for affecting the
project. The exploitation can be used effectively in
improvement of risks and using the impacts for making another

5. plan. This is management of risk opportunities by the project
managers. It is also an opportunity for an effective planning to
provide, develop and influence resources such as poor
leadership to introduce change and increase resource
processing. Effectively using exploitation, a project manager
can allocate for more resources and skilled staff.
h) Enhance
Enhancing the occurrence of a risk can effective result in risk
response and this can be used effectively to improve and
develop financial allocations. The manner and ability for an
effective resource is to effectively, develop, and improve
financial planning. The process can be used progressively to
help in the mitigation approaches. It is also important to
develop and improve processes such as organization,
performance and value creation.
i) Reject
Sometimes, if the risk is too high, it is important for an
effective development, planning and creative allocation of
resources. Mitigating risk can be a risk process which affects
the performance of a project. Rejecting poor relations, unskilled
and poorly designed requirements can be effectively improved
and this can improve resource allocation and planning.
Risk Breakdown StructureSydney Opera House Project Risk
Work Breakdown
References
Edwards, L. (1995). Practical Risk Management In The
Construction Industry. Thomas Telford.
McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., &Embrechts, P. (2015). Quantitative
risk management: Concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton
university press.

6. National Research Council. (2005). The Owner's Role in Project
Risk Management. National Academies Press.
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN SCOPE AND IDENTIFICATION
5
Christopher Mihun
Risk Management Plan Scope and Identification – Sydney Opera
House Project
PM650-1801B-01
Professor Al-Nizami
Risks Associated with the Project
The development of the Sydney Opera House was scheduled to
be completed in 4 years with a budget of around AUD 7 million.
But the project ended costing more than AUD 102 million and
14 years to complete. The risks associated with the development
of the project include:
i. Incomplete designs which resulted in poor structural planning
and delivery of the project.
ii. Poor stakeholder involvement in the due process and project
planning
iii. Lack of project leadership from the project manager
iv. Lack of project progress reports and this hampered the
performance appraisals
v. Poor Cost Estimates and budgeting
vi. Incomplete designs requirement gathering

7. vii. Failure to keep within the cost estimate.
viii. Inability to meet the completion timeline
ix. Changes in project scope and requirements.
x. Project scope and design changes.
xi. Lack of project change controls and Scope of the project
xii. The pressure to deliver projects on an accelerated schedule.
xiii. Inaccurate contract time estimates.
xiv. Lack of communication between project participants.
xv. Inadequately defined roles and responsibilities.
xvi. Insufficient skilled staff.
xvii. Political risks.
xviii. Poor task and roles assigning among the project
stakeholders
xix. Inexperienced project managers
xx. Lack of stakeholders engagement in the development of the
project development
Techniques Used to Identify the Risks
There are different techniques which can be used in the risk
identification and this will be critical to risk assessment and
management in any project. Based on the project carried and
developed by the Sydney Opera House, risk identification was

8. conducted through the use of risk screening using risk registers
and identification of the risk associated with the project
(Shenhar, Aaron, & Dvir, 2007). The risk registers as indicated
in the table below, it indicates the process of meeting and
identification of the critical risks which impacts the different
phases of the project. The project considers the development of
a construction project which takes into consideration process of
planning, site reconnaissance and survey. It is only possible by
ensuring there is a process for engaging in the managerial of
risks and their root causes. Therefore, through root cause
analysis, the risks as identified were analyzed and this helped in
the planning, development and recognition of the necessary and
ideal breakdown phases or work structures(National Research
Council, 2005). The risks identified also were conducted
through work uncertainties and checking the work phases such
as planning on the phases and plotting the risks through risk
registers. Risk registers indicates the ranking the risks in terms
of impacts, probability and hazard level.
Stakeholders involved in the Risk Process
The risk identification involves all the stakeholders of the
project. In this case study, stakeholders of the Sydney opera
house include: the engineers in the design and system analysts
in gathering the facts from the owners, the New South Wales
Government. The stakeholders are the active members in the
designing of the project (National Research Council, 2005). The
architecture planning and designing was the sole responsibility
of architect Utzon. They are able to identify the risks and
develop the root cause analysis in the gathering of facts and
designing of the opera house. The incomplete designs was due
to the change in the scope of the project. The owner, the New
South Wales Government considered the process of choosing
the right to change the scope of the project. This impacted the
responsibility of the architect and how to fully develop the
project without completion of its designs. The financing of the
house such the New South Wales Government also faced

9. challenges in financial budgeting and allocations of resources to
the construction of the opera house.
Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Ranking
Risk
Probability
Impact
Hazard Level
1. Poor Cost Estimates and budgeting
3
3
Critical
2. Incomplete designs
1
4
High
3. Failure to keep within the cost estimate.
3
4
Critical
4. Inability to meet the completion timeline
4
3
Critical
5. Changes in project scope and requirements.
1
3
High
6. Project scope and design changes.
2
2
Low
7. Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule.
2
2
Low

10. 8. Inaccurate contract time estimate.
3
4
Critical
9. Lack of communication between project participants.
3
4
Critical
10. Inadequately defined roles and responsibilities.
1
4
High
11. Insufficient skilled staff.
1
2
Low
12. Political risks.
4
2
Medium
13. Lack of stakeholders involvement in the project
development and progress
3
4
Critical
14. Inexperienced project managers
2
4
High
15. Poor and lack of task and role assigning amongst the
stakeholders of the project.
3
4
High
16. Lack of project change and scope control of the project
4

11. 5
Critical
17. Lack of project progress reports and this hampered the
performance appraisals.
2
4
High
18. Poor stakeholder involvement in the due process and project
planning
2
5
Critical
19. Poor project manager leadership
2
4
High
20. Poor project design planning in meeting the structural
planning and delivery of the project.
3
5
Critical
Project Sponsor’s Risk Tolerance Level
With the objectives of the architect and the client clashing, the
time and cost of the project was ignored, which in turn proved
to be very problematic. In the long run of the project, the New
South Wales government decided to change the architect, which
did not do the project any good either in cost or time
management. As the project manager and sponsor for the Opera
House development, it did not meet the expectations, process
and planning to improve and help in the support and operational
performance (McNeil, Frey, & Embrechts, 2015). The sponsor
needed clarification on the project, which accelerated the
project from the initial 3 phases to 4 phases of the construction
design. The sponsor also had a low level risk assessment and
management or consideration. The initial financial budgeting

12. for the project was as AUD 7million and a timeline of 4 year to
the completion of the project. Eventually, the project cost more
than AUD102 million covering 14 years of development. This
indicates poor planning and resource management from the
project sponsor.
References
Bent, F. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects
And Why: An Overview. Project Management Journal, 45.2, 6-
19.
Edwards, L. (1995). Practical Risk Management In The
Construction Industry. Thomas Telford.
McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., & Embrechts, P. (2015). Quantitative
risk management: Concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton
university press.
National Research Council. (2005). The Owner's Role in Project
Risk Management. National Academies Press.
NSW, G.O.V (2018). About Sydney Opera House. Retrieved Feb
17, 2018, from: http://www.eoi.es/blogs/cristinagarcia-
ochoa/2012/01/14/the-sidney-opera-house-construction-a-case-
of-project-management-failure/
Phil, N., Harrington, M., &Parker. D. (2012). Leadership
Performance Is Significant To Project Success Or Failure: A
Critical Analysis. International Journal Of Productivity And
Performance Management, 61.2 ,204-216.
Shenhar, Aaron, & Dvir, D. (2007). Project Management
Research-The Challenge And Opportunity. Project Management
Journal, 38.2, 93.
Smith, N. J., Merna, T., & Jobling, P. (2009). Managing Risk:
In Construction Projects. John Wiley & Sons.

13. Utzon, J. (2002). ‘Design Principles: Sydney Opera House.
Utzon Design Principles. Sydney: Sydney Opera House.
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT
1
Christopher Mihun
Project Risk Management
PM650-1801B-01
Professor Al-Nizami
Introduction
Construction and house project development involves
multifaceted processes of several activities such as;
renovations, leasing of existing lands, and purchase of lands and
sell of developed land. The property development processes are
essential to the success of the projects. Over time we have come
across a number of property development and other large scale
projects which have failed or undergone critical failures in
different levels before completion. There are several reasons
that have contributed to the failure of these projects. For a
successful project, there is the need for developing a risk
management plan which will highlight all risky areas of failure
of the project. For instance, in this risk management will
consider the Sydney Opera house project. The Sydney Opera
House became and has been today a disastrous project coupled
with multiple failures from the poor risk management especially
in the project planning and assessment. This project seeks to
determine the major risk management processes which could

14. have been used by the project developers in the reduction of the
risk which impacted the development of the Sydney Opera
House.
Project Description
The Sydney Opera House is one of the iconic structures
recognized in Australia and around the world (NSW, 2017). The
project was contracted to architect Jorn Utzon from Denmark,
who won the bid from the New South Wales government in
1957. The project began in 1959. The project had been divided
into three separate stages consisting of the podium as the first
stage, outer shells as the second stage and interiors plus
windows as the third stage. Architect Utzon after being selected
he presented the “Red Book” in early March 1958 which was a
detailed report on the Sydney Opera House. The report
consisted of the indications in part of the plans, reports from
consultants, sections and other elements of the project (Utzon,
2002). The New South Wales governments were not worried
about the financial burden of the project. The project report
established that the architect was to complete the project in
1962 and its grand opening would have been in early 1963. The
original budget of the project had been estimated of AUD 7
million. But the project ended costing more than AUD 102
million and 14 years to complete.
a) Project Objectives
The project considered a number of objectives focusing on the
development of the Opera House and helping to meet the
expectations of the community. The developer focused on
creating an iconic structure for quality and style. The aim of the
project developers was to create a structure which has value for
the cultural representation of the community. It was also
important for the New South Wales government opting to
develop a functional opera house to serve and offer cultural
interactions for the community(Phil, Harrington, & Parker,
2012). The community was responsible for creating the needed
resources such as support for the development and offering the

15. community an established foundation focusing on growth and
holding entertainment services. The project manager aimed to
improve, develop and plan on the resources to meet the demands
and timeline of the project developers and stakeholders. The
project objectives for the development of the Sydney Opera
House was to create a structure which will help diversify the
image of the Australian society.
b) External Dependencies
The project manager had to coordinate with other members of
the community and stakeholders ensure all the project
deliverables were and will be met. The lead architect, Utzon
worked closely with the government on the allocation of
resources. There was an issue of communication within the
project hierarchy and this changed and affected the outcome and
relations which the management and architect. Requirement
gathering and documentation was another dependency based on
the stakeholders of the project. The architect and project
manager failed in communication due to the process of
gathering the necessary needs and user expectations. Allocation
of resources through project planning was a responsibility of the
New South Wales government (Phil, Harrington, & Parker,
2012). As a stakeholder for the project, the New South Wales
government was also responsible for allocation, budget control
and specification planning on the expectations and needs of the
project. For a creative allocation of resources, there is the need
for developing and meeting the expectations of external
dependencies.
c) Stakeholder Analysis
The project developer and leader architect was he project
stakeholder of the Sydney Opera House construction project was
architect Utzon. Utzon had the responsibility to ensure the
proposed project met the set budget plans and its culture aspect
of its development was fulfilled. As a project manager, Utzon
has the responsibility of managing and leading the project to
fulfillment of its functional and operational expectations.

16. Another stakeholder was the NSW government as the client. As
the client of the project, the government needed to focus on the
performance, allocation and planning to fully meet the project
expectations of the project manager such as planning and
creating the allocation of resources for the project (Bent, 2014).
Finally, the public was another stakeholder of the Sydney Opera
House construction project responsible for gathering user
requirement such as on the cultural aspect and how to meet the
expectations and process planning for the project.
Planned format for the Risk Management Plan
The construction industry is susceptible to more risk in
comparison to other industries. The risks in the construction
industry often creep from the initial appraisal of the project to
the final stage of completion. There is the need to take risk
management into consideration and if necessary develop
different strategies to mitigate and control the risks. The risk
management plan for the Sydney Opera House development will
be conducted through:
· Conducting a risk process. This is through the project manager
identifying the risks associated with the project.
· Conducting a risk identification: this will generate a risk log
which will consider the project deliverables and identify any
risk associated with the project (Smith, Merna, & Jobling,
2009).
· Conducting risk analysis: through a qualitative and
quantitative risk analysis to determine the possible outcome of
the risks on the project.
· Risk response monitoring by the team members.
· Finally, controlling, planning, monitoring and evaluation of
the risks for reporting.

17. References
Bent, F. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects
And Why: An Overview. Project Management Journal, 45.2, 6-
19.
Edwards, L. (1995). Practical Risk Management In The
Construction Industry. Thomas Telford.
NSW, G.O.V (2018). About Sydney Opera House. Retrieved Feb
17, 2018, from: http://www.eoi.es/blogs/cristinagarcia-
ochoa/2012/01/14/the-sidney-opera-house-construction-a-case-
of-project-management-failure/
Phil, N., Harrington, M., & Parker., D. (2012). Leadership
Performance Is Significant To Project Success Or Failure: A
Critical Analysis. International Journal Of Productivity And
Performance Management, 61.2 ,204-216.
Shenhar, Aaron, & Dvir, D. (2007). Project Management
Research-The Challenge And Opportunity. Project Management
Journal, 38.2, 93.
Smith, N. J., Merna, T., & Jobling, P. (2009). Managing Risk:
In Construction Projects. John Wiley & Sons.
Utzon, J. (2002). ‘Design Principles: Sydney Opera House.
Utzon Design Principles. Sydney: Sydney Opera House.