CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Construction Project Management and PerformanceCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisResource-Constrained Project Scheduling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 32 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Beyond probability-impact matrices in project risk management: A quantitative methodology for risk prioritisation

Open access
Acebes, F., González-Varona, J. M., López-Paredes, A., Pajares, J.·2024·Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
DOI 10.1057/s41599-024-03180-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The project managers who deal with risk management are often faced with the difficult task of determining the relative importance of the various sources of risk that affect the project. This prioritisation is crucial to direct management efforts to ensure higher project profitability. Risk matrices are widely recognised tools by academics and practitioners in various sectors to assess and rank risks according to their likelihood of occurrence and impact on project objectives. However, the existing literature highlights several limitations to use the risk matrix. In response to the weaknesses of its use, this paper proposes a novel approach for prioritising project risks. Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is used to perform a quantitative prioritisation of risks with the simulation software MCSimulRisk. Together with the definition of project activities, the simulation includes the identified risks by modelling their probability and impact on cost and duration. With this novel methodology, a quantitative assessment of the impact of each risk is provided, as measured by the effect that it would have on project duration and its total cost. This allows the differentiation of critical risks according to their impact on project duration, which may differ if cost is taken as a priority objective. This proposal is interesting for project managers because they will, on the one hand, know the absolute impact of each risk on their project duration and cost objectives and, on the other hand, be able to discriminate the impacts of each risk independently on the duration objective and the cost objective.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes a Monte Carlo simulation-based methodology to prioritise project risks quantitatively by modelling each risk’s probability and impact on duration and cost, instead of using probability-impact matrices. In a real EPC case study, the method produces separate duration and cost rankings that differ from the risk matrix and quantify each risk’s absolute impact.

Key findings

  • In the case study, 11 risks were identified (with duration/cost codes R1–R15); R3 was the most important risk for total duration, while R15 was the most important for total cost. R5, initially identified as a duration risk, ranked fourth for cost impact.
  • Risks that impacted only cost had zero contribution to project duration; risks that impacted duration also impacted total cost, and this impact could be more significant than that of risks directly affecting cost.
  • The proposed quantitative prioritisation yielded a different risk order from the probability-impact matrix. For example, at P95, R3 added 26.330 days, R5 added 750.362 ×1000 monetary units in cost, and R15 added 3,060.927 ×1000 monetary units in cost.
  • The method provides absolute impacts on duration and cost independently, allowing managers to prioritise according to whether schedule or cost is the dominant project objective.

Methods

  • The proposed method identifies risks, assigns probability and impact distributions, and incorporates them into a Monte Carlo simulation of the project model using the MCSimulRisk software. The methodology describes Bernoulli-type PDFs for stochastic risk events and uniform distributions for epistemic uncertainty; in the case study, risks are modelled with uniform distribution functions.
  • The case study is a real-life engineering, procurement and construction project in South America with 32 activities, a planned duration of 300 days, and a planned cost of 30,000 (×1000) monetary units. Each simulation used 20,000 iterations.
  • A baseline simulation is run without risks, then one simulation is run per risk. Using a chosen percentile (P95 as value at risk in the case study), the impact of each risk is calculated as the difference between the total duration/cost with that risk and the baseline, and risks are ranked separately for duration and cost.

Limitations

  • The paper states that results depend on the accuracy of estimates, including probability distributions, their parameters, and risk aversion parameters; it assumes risks are independent, which may not hold in very complex projects with interrelated risks.
  • The paper states that further research is needed on interrelated risks, a sensitivity study across many projects, and implementation in real projects across sectors.
  • Evident from the text: the empirical demonstration is a single EPC case study, so generalisability to other project types or sectors is not established.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41599-024-03180-5

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

8 of 32 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Existing literature highlights several limitations to use the risk matrix.

    “However, the existing literature highlights several limitations to use the risk matrix.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “However, the probability-impact matrix has severe limitations (Goerlandt and Reniers, 2016;Duijm, 2015;Vatanpour et al. 2015;Ball and Watt, 2013;Levine, 2012;Cox, 2008;Cox et al. 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Goerlandt and Reniers, 2016 source
    • cites Duijm, 2015 source
    • cites Vatanpour et al. 2015 source
  • Premisecitation

    Probabilistic representations of uncertainty have been successfully employed with uniform distributions to characterise uncertainty when knowledge is sparse or absent.

    “Probabilistic representations of uncertainty have been successfully employed with uniform distributions to characterise uncertainty when knowledge is sparse or absent (Curto et al. 2022;Vanhoucke, 2018;Helton et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Curto et al. 2022 source
    • cites Vanhoucke, 2018 source
    • cites Helton et al. 2006 source
  • Premisecitation

    Aleatoric risk uncertainty can be modelled using a probability distribution function (PDF), exactly as when modelling activity uncertainty.

    “This aleatoric risk uncertainty can be modelled using a probability distribution function (PDF), exactly as we do when modelling activity uncertainty (Acebes et al. 2015(Acebes et al. , 2014)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Acebes et al. 2015 source

      The case-study table accompanying the Conclusions (page unavailable) says activity durations are modelled as normal distributions. Section 3.2 describes estimating a probability density function from simulated project data, but the copy does not say that aleatoric risk uncertainty itself is modelled with a PDF in the same way as activity uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Acebes et al. 2014 source
  • Findingown data

    For the example project, risk R3 is the most important risk for controlling total duration because it contributes the most duration to the project if it exists.

    “For the project proposed as an example, we find that risk R3 is the most important one if we wish to control the total duration because it corresponds to the risk that contributes the most duration to the project if it exists.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The P95 corresponding to cost is 30,339 ×1000 monetary units.

    “Similarly, the P95 corresponding to cost is 30,339 ×1000 monetary units.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    With the MCSimulRisk software, the impact of each risk on project duration objectives (quantified in time units) and cost objectives (quantified in monetary units) is determined.

    “With the help of the 'MCSimulRisk' simulation software (Acebes et al. 2024;Acebes et al. 2023), this paper determines the impact of each risk on project duration objectives (quantified in time units) and cost objectives (quantified in monetary units).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Acebes et al. 2024 source
    • cites Acebes et al. 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Risk matrices are widely recognised tools by academics and practitioners in various sectors to assess and rank risks according to likelihood of occurrence and impact on project objectives.

    “Risk matrices are widely recognised tools by academics and practitioners in various sectors to assess and rank risks according to their likelihood of occurrence and impact on project objectives.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “Risk matrices emerge as established familiar tools for assessing and ranking risks in many fields and industry sectors (Krisper, 2021;Qazi et al. 2021;Qazi and Simsekler, 2021;Monat and Doremus, 2020;Li et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Krisper, 2021 source

      The Introduction describes risk matrices as established tools for assessing and ranking risks across many domains and industries. Phase 1 identifies impact and probability (likelihood of occurrence) as common assessment factors. Our copy does not specifically define impact in terms of project objectives, so that qualification is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Qazi et al. 2021 source
    • cites Qazi and Simsekler, 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    MCS can be invaluable to risk managers and helpful for estimating project durations and costs.

    “This technique can be invaluable to risk managers and helpful for estimating project durations and costs (Ali Elfarra and Kaya, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ali Elfarra and Kaya, 2021 source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) says Monte Carlo simulations help estimate confidence levels for electricity costs in wind-energy projects, supporting the cost-estimation part of the claim. It also discusses minimizing investment risk, but does not address risk managers or estimating project durations. The pay-off period in §4.4 is not a project-duration estimate. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The risk matrix is a tool included in the qualitative analysis for risk management and used to analyse, visualise and prioritise risks to make decisions on resources.

    “The risk matrix, or probabilityimpact matrix, is a tool included in the qualitative analysis for risk management and used to analyse, visualise and prioritise risks to make decisions on the resources to be employed to combat them (Goerlandt and Reniers, 2016;Duijm, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Goerlandt and Reniers, 2016 source
    • cites Duijm, 2015 source

      The Abstract says risk matrices are widely used in risk management and discusses qualitative assessment of likelihood and consequence. It also says they serve as corporate risk acceptance criteria, but the available passages do not say they are used to visualise and prioritise risks or to decide how to allocate resources. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The case study project comprises 32 activities, divided into three groups: engineering, procurement and construction (EPC).

    “The project comprises 32 activities, divided into three groups: engineering, procurement and construction (EPC).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Risks that impact project duration also impact total costs, whereas cost-only risks do not impact total project duration.

    “Unlike cost risks (which do not impact the total project duration), the risks that can impact project duration also impact total costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The planned project duration is 300 days and has a planned cost of 30,000 (x1000) monetary units.

    “Under these conditions, the planned project duration is 300 days and has a planned cost of 30,000 (x1000) monetary units.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given

    The contribution to total duration of identified risks that impact only cost is zero.

    “As expected, the contribution to the total duration of the identified risks that impact only cost is zero.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Risk R5 is the fourth most important risk in terms of impact on total project costs, even though it is initially identified as a risk that impacts project duration.

    “It is noteworthy that risk R5 is the fourth most important risk in terms of impact on the total project costs, even though it is initially identified as a risk that impacts project duration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    When comparing traditional and proposed methods, the risk prioritisation results are entirely different and lead to a distinct ranking.

    “When comparing both methods (traditional vs. our proposal), the risk prioritisation results are entirely different and lead to a distinct ranking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The expert panel's identification of risks and their probability and impact estimates are valid and sufficiently accurate for quantitative prioritisation.
    • Rests on an assumption: The impact of each risk can be quantified by simulating it individually and subtracting the baseline project duration and cost, without needing to model interactions among risks.
    • Rests on an assumption: The chosen numerical ranges for probability and impact levels are appropriate for the case study project.
    • Rests on an assumption: The case study project is suitable for illustrating the proposed method and its comparative results.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    Risks R10 to R15 do not impact project duration; if they materialise, their contribution to project duration is nil.

    “We note that risks R10 to R15 do not impact project duration.If these risks materialise, their contribution to increase (or decrease, as the case may be) project duration is nil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    A VL duration impact is between 0 and 5 days, while the same range (VL) in cost is between 0 and 100 (x1000) monetary units.

    “Thus a VL duration impact is between 0 and 5 days, while the same range (VL) in cost is between 0 and 100 (x1000) monetary units.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The chosen numerical ranges for probability and impact levels are appropriate for the case study project.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Choosing P80 instead of P95 yields a considerably lower total cost value of 3.03 × 10^7 monetary units and might completely ignore the impact of the risk on total project cost.

    “Choosing a lower percentile, e.g.P80, means that the value we can obtain with this choice can be considerably lower (3.03 × 10 7 monetary units), and might completely ignore the impact of the risk on the total project cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The experts' panel identifies 11 risks, of which nine have the potential to directly impact the project duration objective (R1 to R9), while six may impact the cost objective (R10 to R15).

    “It identifies 11 risks, of which nine have the potential to directly impact the project duration objective (R1 to R9), while six may impact the cost objective (R10 to R15).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The expert panel's identification of risks and their probability and impact estimates are valid and sufficiently accurate for quantitative prioritisation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The reliability of the proposed method depends mainly on the accuracy of estimates, from identifying risks to modelling the probability and impact of each risk.

    “Undoubtedly, the reliability of the proposed method depends mainly on the accuracy of estimates, which starts by identifying risks and ends with modelling the probability and impact of each risk.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Risk matrices offer a well-defined structure for carrying out a methodical risk assessment, provide a practical justification for ranking and prioritising risks, visually and attractively inform stakeholders.

    “Risk matrices offer a well-defined structure for carrying out a methodical risk assessment, provide a practical justification for ranking and prioritising risks, visually and attractively inform stakeholders, among other reasons (Talbot, 2014;Ball and Watt, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Talbot, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ball and Watt, 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    MCS have been recognised as outperforming other methods due to their accessibility, ease of use and simplicity.

    “MCS have been recognised as outperforming other methods due to their accessibility, ease of use and simplicity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Ontological uncertainty cannot be modelled and is not considered.

    “Ontological uncertainty is not considered because it goes beyond the limits of human knowledge and cannot, therefore, be modelled ( Alleman et al. 2018a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alleman et al. 2018a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Risk matrix use is frequent, partly due to its simple application and easy construction compared to alternative risk assessment methods.

    “Risk matrix use is frequent, partly due to its simple application and easy construction compared to alternative risk assessment methods (Levine, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Levine, 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The proposed methodology will allow project managers to discover the most relevant project risks so they can focus their control efforts on managing those risks.

    “The proposed methodology will allow project managers to discover the most relevant project risks so they can focus their control efforts on managing those risks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The main criticism of the probability-impact matrix is its failure to consider complex interrelations between various risks and use precise estimates for probability and impact levels.

    “The main criticism levelled at this methodology is its failure to consider the complex interrelations between various risks and use precise estimates for probability and impact levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A methodology based on Monte Carlo Simulation avoids using the probability-impact matrix and allows prioritising project risks by evaluating them quantitatively and assessing the impact of risks on project duration and cost objectives.

    “To answer this question, this paper proposes a methodology based on Monte Carlo Simulation that avoids using the probability-impact matrix and allows us to prioritise project risks by evaluating them quantitatively, and by assessing the impact of risks on project duration and the cost objectives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    The proposed method provides not only the order of importance of risks but also the magnitude of their impact on the project, as absolute delay or cost overrun.

    “We know not only the order of importance of risks (R3, R5, etc.) but also the magnitude of their impact on the project (which is the absolute delay caused by a risk in duration terms or what is the absolute cost overrun generated by a risk in cost terms).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    MCS allow the analysis of opportunities, uncertainties, and threats.

    “MCS also allow the analysis of opportunities, uncertainties, and threats (Al-Duais and Al-Sharpi, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Al-Duais and Al-Sharpi, 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    All these approaches propose the probability-impact or risk matrix as a technique or tool for prioritising project risks.

    “In turn, all these approaches propose the probability-impact or risk matrix as a technique or tool for prioritising project risks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Quantitative assessment involves performing a numerical analysis of the joint effect of the identified individual risks and additional sources of uncertainty on the overall project objectives.

    “A quantitative assessment involves performing a numerical analysis of the joint effect of the identified individual risks and additional sources of uncertainty on the overall project objectives (Project Management Institute, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Project Management Institute, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Individual project risks are ranked for further analyses or action with a qualitative assessment by evaluating the probability of their occurrence and potential impact.

    “Individual project risks are ranked for further analyses or action with a qualitative assessment by evaluating the probability of their occurrence and potential impact.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    The categorisation of severity of consequences is subjective in uncertainty situations, and assessment of probability, impact and risk ratings depends on subjective interpretations.

    “Furthermore, the categorisation of the severity of consequences is subjective in uncertainty situations, and the assessment of probability, impact and risk ratings very much depends on subjective interpretations, which can lead to discrepancies between different users when assessing the same quantitative risks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The results of simulations depend on the estimations of variables, including probability distributions and their parameters and risk aversion parameters.

    “First of all, the results of simulations depend on the estimations of variables (probability distributions and their parameters, risk aversion parameters, etc.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Risk matrices can be inaccurate when comparing risks and sometimes assign similar ratings to risks with significant quantitative differences.

    “The most critical problems identified in using risk matrices for strategic decision-making are that risk matrices can be inaccurate when comparing risks and they sometimes assign similar ratings to risks with significant quantitative differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The more project knowledge available, the more accurate the proposed model is for each uncertainty.

    “The more project knowledge available, the more accurate the proposed model is for each uncertainty, regardless of it lying in the number of intervals, their magnitude or the type of probability function (PDF) chosen to model that risk.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisereasoning

    All the aforementioned approaches contain a subprocess related to risk assessment.

    “All the aforementioned approaches contain a subprocess related to risk assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The proposed methodology overcomes many of the problems of previous methodologies but still has some limitations for future research.

    “The methodology we propose in this paper overcomes many of the problems of previous methodologies, but still has some limitations for future research to deal with.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    In project management, the P80 percentile is sometimes chosen as the most appropriate percentile to measure risk appetite.

    “However in project management, the P80 percentile is sometimes chosen as the most appropriate percentile to measure risk appetite (Kwon and Kang, 2019;Traynor and Mahmoodian, 2019;Lorance and Wendling, 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kwon and Kang, 2019 source
    • cites Traynor and Mahmoodian, 2019 source
    • cites Lorance and Wendling, 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    In financial terms, it is traditional to choose a P95 percentile as risk appetite.

    “In financial terms, it is traditional to choose a P95 percentile as risk appetite (Chen and Peng, 2018;Joukar and Nahmens, 2016;Gatti et al. 2007;Kuester et al. 2006;Giot and Laurent, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chen and Peng, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joukar and Nahmens, 2016 source
    • cites Gatti et al. 2007 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The methodology allows differentiation of critical risks according to their impact on project duration, which may differ if cost is taken as a priority objective.

    “This allows the differentiation of critical risks according to their impact on project duration, which may differ if cost is taken as a priority objective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The assumption that risks are independent is reasonable for most projects.

    “This is a reasonable assumption for most projects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Risks are independent.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The contribution or effect of a particular risk can be estimated by including it in simulation and computing its impact on project cost and duration.

    “Secondly, as risks are assumed to be independent, the contribution or effect of a particular risk can be estimated by including it in simulation and by computing its impact on project cost and duration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Risks are independent.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    In some very complex projects, risks can be related to one another.

    “In some very complex projects, however, risks can be related to one another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    The probability-impact matrix presents particular problems and offers erroneous and contradictory results.

    “However, we also study how this risk matrix presents particular problems and offers erroneous and contradictory results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The expert panel's identification of risks and their probability and impact estimates are valid and sufficiently accurate for quantitative prioritisation.

    “To do this, the experts' panel meets, analyses all the project documentation.Based on their personal experience with other similar projects and after consulting all the involved stakeholders, it provides a list of risks (see Table 3).”
    “Having analysed the project and consulted the involved stakeholders, the team determines the project's different probability and impact levels (duration and cost).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The impact of each risk can be quantified by simulating it individually and subtracting the baseline project duration and cost, without needing to model interactions among risks.

    “To do so, we subtract the original value of the total project expected duration and costs (excluding all risks) from the total duration and costs of the simulation in which we include the risk we wish to quantify (Eq.5).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The chosen numerical ranges for probability and impact levels are appropriate for the case study project.

    “The estimation of these ranges depends on the project budget, the estimated project duration, and the team's experience in assigning the different numerical values to each range.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The case study project is suitable for illustrating the proposed method and its comparative results.

    “In this section, we use a real-life project to illustrate how to apply the proposed method for quantitative risk prioritisation purposes.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Risks are independent.

    “Secondly, as risks are assumed to be independent, the contribution or effect of a particular risk can be estimated by including it in simulation and by computing its impact on project cost and duration.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Project teams are sufficient experts to make rational estimations based on experience and previous knowledge.

    “Methodologies for improving estimations are beyond the scope of this research; we assume project teams are sufficient experts to make rational estimationsbased on experience and previous knowledge.”
6 of 6

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • A duration risk has zero reported cost impact

    Minor

    Table 4 reports that R3 increases project duration by 26.330 days but has a cost impact of 0.000. This contradicts the conclusion that risks affecting project duration also affect total cost.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Alleman GB, Coonce TJ, Price RA (2018a) Increasing the probability of program succes with continuous risk management. Coll Perform Manag, Meas N. 4:27–46
  2. Alleman GB, Coonce TJ, Price RA (2018b) What is Risk? Meas N. 01(1):25–34
  3. Chapman CB, Ward S (2003) Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights (John Wiley and Sons, Ed.; 2nd ed.). Chichester
  4. European Commission. (2023) Project Management Methodology. Guide 3.1 (European Union, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union
  5. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – Guidelines (Vol. 2)
  6. Kerzner H (2022) Project Management. A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (Inc. John Wiley & Sons, Ed.; 13th Editi)
  7. Lorance RB, Wendling RV (2001) Basic techniques for analyzing and presentation of cost risk analysis. Cost Eng 43(6):25–31
  8. Project Management Institute. (2017) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBoK(R) Guide. Sixth Edition (6th ed.). Project Management Institute Inc
  9. Project Management Institute. (2021) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBoK(R) Guide. Seventh Edition (7th ed.). Project Management Institute, Inc
  10. Simon P, Hillson D, Newland K (1997) PRAM Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide (P. Simon, D. Hillson, & K. Newland, Eds.). Association for Project Management
  11. Vose, D (2008). Risk Analysis: a Quantitative Guide (3rd ed.). Wiley

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Acebes, F., González-Varona, J. M., López-Paredes, A., & Pajares, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
  • Universidad de Málaga (ES)
Corresponding author
Acebes, F.
ORCID
Venue
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-05-24
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2662-9992
DOI
10.1057/s41599-024-03180-5
OpenAlex
W4398764709
Cited by
74
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 5
FWCI
16.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Hispana (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga (University of Málaga) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Keywords
project risk management, risk prioritization, risk matrix, Monte Carlo simulation, project duration, project cost, risk impact assessment, critical risks

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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