Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Construction Project Management and PerformanceManagement Systems and Quality ImprovementLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Risk identification approaches and the number of risks identified: the use of work breakdown structure and business process

Open access
Kountur, Ronny, Sari, Martdian Ratna·2023·Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
DOI 10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Losses and damages that any company or organization experience is usually caused by some unidentified risks that hit them unprepared. Some companies even must close their business or discontinue their operation due to the huge negative impact of the risk that hit them. Knowing the risks that an organization face is important. Risk needs to be identified properly. Though there had been some approaches a person can use in identifying risk, most of those approaches are complex, require several people involved, are too subjective, and are not able to identify unseen risks. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to know which risk identification method can identify more risks when knowledge of the context is controlled. The study made use of experimental research design with the use of covariance analysis in analyzing the data. With a 95% level of confidence, it was found that risk identification methods affect the number of risks identified. The business process approach seems to identify more risks than the work breakdown structure approach and placebo. The step-by-step procedures in doing the business process approach and work breakdown structure approach are also introduced in this study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Aboutorab H, Hussain OK, Saberi M, Hussain FK (2022) A reinforcement learning-based framework for disruption risk identification in supply chains. Future Gen Comput Syst 126:110–122 · DOI
  2. Ahmed A, Kayis B, Amornsawadwatana S (2007) A review of techniques for risk management in projects. Bench 14(1):22–36 · DOI
  3. Ameyaw EE, Chan APC (2015) Risk allocation in public-private partnership water supply projects in Ghana. Constr Manag Econ 33:187–208 · DOI
  4. Aven T (2011) On the new ISO guide on risk management terminology. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(7):719–726 · DOI
  5. Bowling DM, Rieger L (2005) Success factors for implementing enterprise risk management: building on the COSO framework for enterprise risk management to reduce overall risk. Bank Acc Finder 18:29–34
  6. Barghi B, Sikari SS (2020) Qualitative and quantitative project risk assessment using a hybrid PMBOK model developed under uncertainty conditions. Heliyon 6(1):1–22 · DOI
  7. Brown L, Grundy T (2016) Project management for the pharmaceutical industry. Routledge · DOI
  8. Chaher Z, Soomro AR (2016) Facilitate risk management in the construction process by using hierarchical risk breakdown structure. Int J Sci Res Publ 6(7):703–709
  9. Chapman C, Ward SC (2003) Project risk management: processes, techniques, and insights. John Wiley & Sons, Corp, Chichester
  10. Cope EW, Kuster JM, Etzweiler D, Deleris LA, Ray B(2010) Incorporating risk into business process models. J Res Dev 54(3):4-1–4-13
  11. Elkington P, Smallman C (2002) Managing project risks: a case study from the utility sector. Int J Proj Manag 20(1):49–57 · DOI
  12. Elsye V, Latief Y, Sagita L (2018) Development of work breakdown structure (WBS) standard for producing the risk-based structural work safety plan of the building. MATEC Web Conf 147 (06003). https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201814706003 · DOI
  13. Farrell M, Gallagher R (2015) The valuation implications of enterprise risk management maturity. J Risk Insur 82(3):625–657 · DOI
  14. Gatzert N, Martin M (2015) Determinants and value of enterprise risk management: empirical evidence from the literature. Risk Manag Insur Rev 18(1):29–53 · DOI
  15. George C (2020) The essence of risk identification in project risk management: an overview. Int J Sci Res 9(2):973–978
  16. Gjerdrum D, Peter M (2011) The New International Standard on the practice of risk management—a comparison of ISO 31000:2009 and the COSO ERM framework. Soc Actuar 12:8–12
  17. Hardy C, Maguire S (2016) Organizing risk: discourse, power, and “riskification”. Acad Manag Rev 41(1):80–108 · DOI
  18. Hardy C, Maguire S, Power M, Tsoukas H (2020) Organizing risk: organization and management theory for the risk society. Acad Manag Ann 14(2):1032–1066 · DOI
  19. Hartono B, Ghifari MDA, Dianita O (2021) Risk allocation preferences in Indonesian Electricity public–private partnership projects: a conjoint analysis. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 49:154–174 · DOI
  20. Hoon Kwak Y, Dixon CK (2008) Risk management framework for pharmaceutical research and development projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 1(4):552–565 · DOI
  21. Kasap D, Kaymak M (2007) Risk identification step of the project management. In: PICMET 2007 proceedings, edited by Aissa S, et al., IEEE · DOI
  22. Kletz TA (1999) HAZOP and HAZAN, 4th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
  23. Kountur R (2018) The likelihood value of residual risk estimation in the management of enterprise risk. Invest Manag Financ Innov 15(3):49–55
  24. Lambert JH, Jennings RK, Joshi NN (2006) Integration of risk identification with the business process model. Syst Eng 9(3):187–198 · DOI
  25. Lei S (2012) WBS-based risk identification for the whole process of real estate projects and countermeasures. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science, edited by Chen B, Hu V, & Kong D, CITCS
  26. Liu Y, Sun C, Xia B, Liu S, Skitmore M (2018) Identification of risk factors affecting PPP Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects in China: a multiple case study. Adv Civ Eng 2018(1):1–16
  27. Maytorena E, Winch GM, Freeman J, Kiely T (2007) The influence of experience and information search styles on project risk identification performance. IEEE Trans Eng Man 54(2):315–326 · DOI
  28. Moeller RR (2017) COSO enterprise risk management: understanding the new integrated ERM framework. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA
  29. Nelson CR, Taran G, Hinojosa LL (2008) Explicit risk management in agile processes. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, edited by Abrahamsson P et al., Springer · DOI
  30. Nyden E, Hagglund WJ (2022) Pharmaceutical project risk identification: a qualitative study of Swedish companies’ pharmaceutical project risk identification process. Thesis, Umea School of Business and Economics, Umea University
  31. Osei-Kyei R, Tam V, Ma M (2021) Risk assessment of retirement village public–private partnership homes. J Agric Environ 36(3):289–303
  32. Ould MA (1995) Business processes: Modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement. Wiley, Chichester
  33. Picciotto R (2019) Towards a “New Project Management” movement? An international development perspective. Int J Proj Manag 38(8):1–12
  34. PMI (Project Management Institute) (2013) A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide). PMI, USA · DOI
  35. Rasheed N, Shahzad W, Khalfan M, Rotimi JOB (2022) Risk identification, assessment, and allocation in PPP projects: a systematic review. Buildings 12(1109):1–19
  36. Raz T, Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2002) Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Manag 32(2):101–109 · DOI
  37. Recker J, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Green P (2009) Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(5):333–363
  38. Salmela HHS (2008) Analyzing business losses caused by information systems risk: a business process analysis approach. J Inf Technol 23(3):185–202 · DOI
  39. Schieg M (2006) Risk management in construction project management. J Bus Econ Manag 7:77–83 · DOI
  40. Siddique L, Hussein BA (2014) Practical insight about risk management process in Agile Software Projects in Norway. A paper published in 2014 IEEE International Technology Management Conference · DOI
  41. Smith NJ (2008) Engineering project and management. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford
  42. Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI
  43. Sullivan GM, Feinn R (2012) Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ 4(3):279–282 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Suriadi S et al. (2014) Current research in risk-aware business process management-overview, comparison, and gap analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 34(1):933–984
  45. Tchankova L (2002) Risk identification—basic stage in risk management. Environ Manag Health 13(3):290–297 · DOI
  46. Thompson W (2002) IT and business process management glossary. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York
  47. Weske M (2007) Business process management. Springer-Verlag, New York
  48. Willumsen P, Oehmen J, Stingl V, Geraldi J (2019) Value creation through project risk management. Int J Proj Manag 37(5):731–749 · DOI
  49. Wu Y, Xu C, Li L, Wang Y, Chen K, Xu RA (2018) Risk assessment framework of PPP waste-to-energy incineration projects in China under a 2-dimension linguistic environment. J Clean Prod 183:602–617 · DOI
  50. Zhang L, Zhao Z, Chai J, Kan Z (2019) Risk identification and analysis for PPP projects of electric vehicle charging infrastructure based on 2-tuple and the DEMATEL model. World Electric Veh J 10(1):4 · DOI
  51. Ziana MA, Charles J (2022) Stepping towards explicit risk identification in agile software development. Int J Res Anal Rev 9(4):276–281

Metadata

Authors
Kountur, R., & Sari, M. R.
Affiliations
PPM School of Management (ID)
Corresponding author
Kountur, Ronny
ORCID
Venue
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-09-19
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2662-9992
DOI
10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8
OpenAlex
W4386846282
Cited by
11
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management Systems and Quality Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
risk identification, work breakdown structure, risk management, organizational risk

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk identification approaches and the number of risks identified: the use of work breakdown structure and business process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8
The paper
Kountur, R., & Sari, M. R. (2023). Risk identification approaches and the number of risks identified: the use of work breakdown structure and business process. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.