3.9 Article

Modelling and assessment of critical risks in BOT road projects

期刊

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 407-424

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01446190500435275

关键词

BOT projects; risk modelling; risk assessment; fuzzy sets; possibility distribution

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the years, many private sector participation (PSP) models have been evolved for infrastructure procurement and the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model is one of the most common approaches used for the same. Private infrastructure projects under BOT arrangement have a complex risk profile and to a considerable extent, the success of any BOT project is influenced by the degree to which various project risks are managed. The major steps involved in risk management of a project are risk identification, risk assessment and the processes of prioritization and response to the risks. The conventional risk assessment approaches may not be effective in privatized infrastructure projects because of the fact that, they have very long project lifecycle with many country and sector specific risk factors. The assessment of complex risks is often a difficult task when past data on similar risks are not available. In this research, a risk probability and impact assessment framework based on fuzzy-fault tree and the Delphi method is proposed. The framework includes extensive scenario modelling of critical risks in projects and systematic processing of professional judgement (subjective knowledge) of experts and is developed and demonstrated in the context of critical risks in Indian BOT road projects. Detailed scenario modelling of most critical risks such as traffic revenue risk, delay in land acquisition, demand risk and delay in financial closure are also presented. The proposed risk assessment framework is generic and can be applied with appropriate modifications to suit any complex developmental project where past data is inadequate for risk assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据