See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254423929

A Framework of Project Risk Management for the Underground Corridor

Construction of Metro Rail

Article

CITATIONS READS

6 794

2 authors:

Debasis Sarkar Goutam Dutta

Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University Indian Institute of Management, Ahmeadbad
18 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   382 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blast Furnace Project View project

Electric load scheduling with a novel dynamic pricing scheme View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Goutam Dutta on 06 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
INDIA

A Framework of Project Risk Management for the

Underground Corridor Construction of Metro Rail

Debasis Sarkar
Goutam Dutta

W.P. No. 2011-02-05

February 2011

The main objective of the working paper series of the IIMA is to help faculty members,
research staff and doctoral students to speedily share their research findings with professional
colleagues and test their research findings at the pre-publication stage. IIMA is committed to
maintain academic freedom. The opinion(s), view(s) and conclusion(s) expressed in the
working paper are those of the authors and not that of IIMA.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

AHMEDABAD-380 015
INDIA

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 1

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

A Framework of Project Risk Management for the Underground Corridor

Construction of Metro Rail
Debasis Sarkar1
Goutam Dutta2

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a method of measurement of project risk, based on the expected
value method (EVM). Project risk management primarily comprises cost and schedule
uncertainties and risks associated with each activity of the project network. We have
identified the major risk sources and quantified the risks in terms of likelihood, impact
and severity in a complex infrastructure project for the construction of an underground
corridor for metro railways. A case study of the underground metro corridor in the
capital city of an emerging economic nation of South Asia has been considered for this
research work. The methodology for this work was the response from the experts
associated and involved in this and other similar projects in metro rail. The risk analysis
for the determination of risk cost, risk time, expected cost and expected time of the
project has been carried out by the expected value method. Based on this study we find
that the project cost overrun and time overrun can be about 22.5 % and 23.4 %
respectively, if we use the expected value method.

Keywords: Project risk management, Underground corridor, Metro rail, Expected

value method

1
Associate Professor, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
2
Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Email: goutam@iimahd.ernet.in

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 2

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

1. Introduction

Risk management is an essential and integral part of project management in major

construction projects. For an infrastructure project, risk management can be carried out
effectively by investigating and identifying the sources of risks associated with each activity
of the project. These risks can be assessed or measured in terms of likelihood and impact.

The major activities in underground corridor construction consist of feasibility studies, design,
traffic diversion, utility diversion, survey works, shoulder piling and king piling works, timber
lagging works, soil and rock excavation, construction decks, steel struts, rock anchors, sub-
floor drainage, waterproofing, permanent structure works, mechanical and electrical
installations, backfilling and restoration works. We have developed a questionnaire survey
and personally interviewed experts from the underground corridor project. In this process, we
have identified the risks at various phases of the project starting from the feasibility phase to
the completion of the project. Then we have used the expected value method (EVM) to
compute the effect of risky sources in terms of their impact and severity and also the overall
effect on the project time and cost.

This paper is organized as follows. In section two, we discuss the review of related literature.
In section three, we narrate the case study. In section four we discuss the methodology, which
is based on the work of Roetzheim (1988) and Nicholas (2007). In section five we analyze the
case by applying the EVM model to the underground metro construction project. We have
also demonstrated the application of the Monte Carlo simulation on the risk management
methodology to predict the expected time and cost of the project. Finally, in section six we
discuss the conclusion and scope for future research.

2. Literature survey

Risk can be defined as a measure of the probability, severity and exposure to all hazards for
an activity (Jannadi and Almishari, 2003). For an infrastructure project there is always a

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 3

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

chance that things will not turn out exactly as planned. Thus project risk pertains to the
probability of uncertainties of the technical, schedule and cost outcomes.

Williams, Walker and Dorofee (1997) worked on developing methods by which risk
management could be put into practice. Their methods were based on software intensive
programs (SEI) along with which specific road maps were designed. These could guide and
help identify various risk management methods which could be easily put into practice.

Complex projects like the construction of an underground corridor for metro rail operations
involve risks in all the phases of the project starting from the feasibility phase to the
operational phase. These risks have a direct impact on the project schedule, cost and
performance. Reilly (2005), Reilly and Brown (2004), Sinfield and Einstein (1998) carried out
their research on underground tunnel projects. Reilly and Brown (2004) state that
infrastructure underground projects are inherently complex projects with many variables
including uncertain and variable ground conditions. As per Reilly (2005), for a complex
infrastructure project like underground construction, it is very important to identify the risk
events in the early phases of the project. A proper risk mitigation plan, if developed for
identified risks, would ensure better and smoother achievement of project goals within the
specified time, cost and quality parameters. Further, it would also ensure better construction
safety throughout the execution and operational phase of the project.

Mulholand and Christan (1999) explain that due to the complexity and dynamic environments
of construction projects, certain circumstances are created which result in a high degree of
uncertainty and risk. Often these risks are compounded by demanding time constraints. Dey
(2001) developed an Integrated Project Management Model for the Indian petroleum industry
where he incorporated risk management into the conventional project management model and
cited it as an integral component of project management. But Dey (2001) carried out the risk
analysis by finding out the respective likelihoods of the identified risks which were found to
have a summation of 1 for the respective work packages on a local percentage (LP) basis. The
summation of the likelihoods of all the concerned work packages was found to be equal to 1
on a global percentage (GP) basis. Nehru and Vaid (2003) carried out the risk analysis with

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 4

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

similar concepts. As per Roetzheim (1988) as quoted by Nicholas (2007), the likelihood of the
identified risks can have a value ranging from 0 to 1, which indicates a 0% or a 100% chance
of occurrence. But the weightage associated with all risk sources for a work package / activity
is always equal to 1. The product of the likelihood and the respective weightages is equal to
the cumulative likelihood factor (CLF).

Dey and Ogunlana (2002) describe that conventional project management techniques are not
always sufficient to ensure time, cost and quality achievement of a large scale construction
project, which may be mainly due to changes in scope and design, changes in government
policies and regulations, unforeseen inflation, underestimation and improper estimation. Such
projects which are exposed to such risks and uncertainties can be effectively managed with
the application of risk management throughout the projects’ life cycle. Dey (2002) developed
a tool for risk analysis, also through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which is a multiple
attribute decision making technique and decision tree approach. Rahman and Kumaraswamy
(2002) carried out their research on joint risk management (JRM). Moreover, they generally
preferred to assign reduced risks from either one or both contrasting parties to JRM, rather
than shifting more risks to the other party. This is indicative of the fact that more collaborative
effort and team based work can reduce the risk component of a project. Jannadi and Almishari
(2003) developed a risk assessor model (RAM) for assessing the risk associated with a
particular activity and tried to find out a justification factor for the proposed remedial
measure for risk mitigation. Ward and Chapman (2003) in their research work made an
argument indicating that all current project risk management processes induce a restricted
focus on the management of project uncertainty. Zoysa and Russel (2003) developed a
knowledge based approach for risk management. According to them effective risk
management is a function in the successful planning and execution of large infrastructure
projects.

3. Case study
The project considered for analysis is the construction of an underground corridor for metro
rail operations in the capital city of an emerging economic nation in South Asia. Phase-I of
the project is about 65 kms with 59 stations. The estimated capital cost of Phase-I is about

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 5

 IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

INR 105 billion. The project under study for this research work is a part of Phase I. The scope
of work is the design and construction of a 6.6 km underground metro corridor with six
underground stations and a twin tunnel system. The underground stations are referred to as S1,
S2,…. S6. Here S6 is the terminal station equipped with an over-run tunnel (where an up train
can be converted to a down train). The client is a public sector company floated jointly by the
State and Central Government. The principal contractor is a Joint Venture (JV) of three
foreign contractors and two domestic contractors. The type of contract is a Design Build
Turnkey (DBT) where the principal contractor is required to design the underground corridor
and execute the project. The project cost for the execution of 6.6 kms is about INR 18 billion.
The contract period is about five years (exclusively for execution). The feasibility phase of the
project is an additional five years. The activity chart of the sample stretch under analysis
consisting of the tunnel connecting two stations S5 and S6, S6 station box and the over-run
tunnel succeeding S6 station box is provided in Table 1. The corresponding network diagram
is given in Figure 1. Some additional project details are furnished in Appendix 1.
Table 1: Major Activities and their Time Estimates in the Underground
Corridor Construction Project (Terminal Station S6)
Activity Description Immediate Duration
Predecessors (Days) ES EF LS LF
A Feasibility studies - 1875 0 1875 0 1875
B Design A 295 1875 2170 1985 2280
C Technology selection A 90 1875 1965 1875 1965
D Traffic diversion B,E 475 2280 2755 2280 2755
E Utility diversion C 315 1965 2280 1965 2280
F Survey works B,E 290 2280 2570 2821 3111
G Shoulder / King piles D 356 2755 3111 2755 3111
H Timber lagging C 240 1965 2205 2871 3111
I Soil excavation G,F,H 330 3111 3411 3111 3441
J Rock excavation L,R 165 2655 2820 3276 3441
K Fabrication and erection of C 170 1965 2135 2941 3111
construction decks
L Fabrication and erection of steel struts C 690 1965 2655 2421 3111
M Rock anchor installation N,O 285 2280 2565 3156 3441
N Shotcreting & rock bolting L,R 120 2655 2775 2871 2991
O Subfloor drainage Q 170 2110 2280 2821 2991
P Water proofing I,K,J,M 120 3441 3561 3441 3561
Q Diaphragm wall construction C 145 1965 2110 2604 2749
R Top down construction Q 122 2110 2232 2749 2871
S Permanent structure N,O 570 2280 2850 2991 3561
T Mechanical / Electrical installations & P,S 225 3561 3786 3561 3786
services
U Backfilling & restoration works N,O 225 2280 2505 3561 3786
ES: Early Start; EF: Early Finish; LS: Late Start; LF: Late Finish

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 6

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
INDIA

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 7

 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
INDIA

4. METHODOLOGY

Risk Analysis by Expected Value Method (EVM)

We assume a network of deterministic time and cost. We also assume that the critical path
model network has “N” activities which are indicated by j = (1…… N) and there are “M” risk
sources indicated by i = (1…..M). We extend the work of Roetzheim (1988) and Nicholas
(2007), and explain, in this section, the concept of risk analysis by the Expected Value
Method (EVM).
We define the variables as follows:

Lij : Likelihood of i th risk source for j th activity

Wij : Weightage of i th risk source for j th activity
Iij : Impact of i th risk source for j th activity
CLFj : Composite Likelihood Factor for j th activity
CIFj : Composite Impact Factor for j th activity
BTEj : Base Time Estimate for j th activity
BCEj : Base Cost Estimate for j th activity
CCj : Corrective Cost for j th activity
CTj : Corrective Time for j th activity
RCj : Risk Cost for j th activity
RTj : Risk Time for j th activity
ECj : Expected Cost for j th activity
ETj : Expected Time for j th activity

Base time estimate (BTE) of the project is the estimated basic project duration determined by
critical path method of the project network. Similarly, the estimated basic cost of project
determined by the cost for each activity is termed as the base cost estimate (BCE). The BTE
and BCE data of all the major activities of the project have been obtained as per the detailed
construction drawings, method statement and specifications for the works collected from the
project. The corresponding corrective time (CT) or the time required to correct an activity in
case of a failure due to one or more risk sources for each activity and their corresponding
corrective cost (CC) have been estimated based on the personal experiences of the first author

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 8

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

and have been tabulated. An activity may have several risk sources each having its own
likelihood of occurrence. The value of likelihood should range between 0 through 1. The
likelihood of failure (Lij) defined above, of the identified risk sources of each activity were
obtained through a questionnaire survey. The target respondents were experts and
professionals involved in and associated with the project under analysis and also other similar
projects. The corresponding weightage (Wij) of each activity has also been obtained from the
feedback of the questionnaire survey circulated among experts. The summation of the
weightages should be equal to 1.
M

∑ Wij = 1 for all j ( j = 1 …. N)

i =1
…. (1)

The weightages can be based on local priority (LP) where the weightages of all the sub-
activities of a particular activity equal 1. Also, weightages can be based on global priority
(GP) where the weightages of all the activities of the project equal 1. The mean of all the
responses should desirably be considered for analysis. Inconsistent responses can be modified
using a second round questionnaire survey using the Delphi technique. The next step is to
compute the risk cost (RC) and risk time (RT) of the activities of the project. RC and RT for
an activity can be obtained from the following relationship:
Risk Cost for activity j (RC)j = (CC)j x Lj for all j. …… (2)
Risk Time for activity j (RT)j = (CT)j x Lj for all j …… (3)
The total risk time for an activity is the summation of the risk time of all the sub activities
along the critical path.

The likelihood (Lij) of all risk sources for each activity j can be combined and expressed as a
single composite likelihood factor (CLF)j. The weightages (Wij) of the risk sources of the
activities are multiplied with their respective likelihoods to obtain the CLF for the activity.
The relationship of computing the CLF as a weighted average is given below:
M

Composite Likelihood Factor (CLF)j = ∑L

i=1
ij Wij for all j. …….. (4)

M
0 ≤ Lij ≤ 1 and ∑ Wij = 1 for all j
i =1

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 9

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

The impact of a risk can be expressed in terms of the effect caused by the risk to the time and
cost of an activity. This time impact and cost impact can be considered as the risk time and
risk cost of the activity. A similar computation as that of likelihood can be done for obtaining
a single combined composite impact factor (CIF) by considering the weighted average as per
the relationship given below:
M

Composite Impact Factor (CIF)j = ∑I W

i=1
ij ij ………… (5)

0 ≤ Iij ≤ 1 and ∑W
i=1
ij = 1 for all j.

Risk consequence or severity can be expressed as a function of risk likelihood and risk
impact. Thus the numerical value will range from 0 to 1. This severity can also be expressed
in terms of qualitative rating as “no severity” for value 0 and “extremely high severity” for
value 1. The numerical value of the Risk Severity (RS) is obtained from the below mentioned
relationship:
Risk Consequence / Severity (RS)j = Lj x Ij for all j ….. (6)

The risk consequence derived from this equation measures how serious the risk is to project
performance. Small values represent unimportant risks that might be ignored and large values
represent important risks that need to be treated.

The expected cost (EC)j and expected time (ET)j for each project activity and subsequently
the computation of the expected project cost and time was carried out from the concept of
the expected value (EV) of a decision tree analysis.
Expected value (EV) = probability of occurrence (p) [higher payoff] + (1-p) [lower payoff].

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 10

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

p (BCE + CC) BTE +CT

p

(1-p) BCE BTE

(1-p)

BTEj + CTj
Lj BCEj + CCj
Lj CTCT

BCEj BTEj
(1-Lj) (1-Lj)

Expected Cost (EC)j = Lj (BCEj + CCj) + (1-Lj) BCEj

= BCEj + CCj (Lj)
= BCEj + RCj for all j. …….. (7)
Expected Time (ET)j = Lj (BTEj + CTj) + (1-Lj) BTEj
= BTEj + CTj (Lj)
= BTEj + RTj for all j. ……. (8)

5. CASE ANALYSIS

The sample stretch under analysis consists of a 530 metre(m) cut and cover tunnel connecting
station S5 and S6, a 290m S6 station box and a 180m cut and cover over run tunnel adjoining
the S6 station box. S6 station being the terminal station, the down trains towards this station
after leaving station S5 will travel through the 530m cut and cover tunnel and enter the
platforms of the terminal station S6. After the commuters vacate the train at this terminal
station, this down train will travel through the 180m over run tunnel and will be converted
into an up line train which will travel from station S6 to S1.

The activities of the sample stretch under analysis consist of the installation and erection of
temporary supporting and retaining structures to enable construction by cut and cover
technology and for the construction of permanent structures like tunnels and station boxes

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 11

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

which are RCC single boxes / twin boxes for tunnels and RCC boxes with intermediate
concourse slab for station boxes.

We have considered some basic assumptions during the analysis. These assumptions are (i)
the maximum cost overrun permissible is 25 % of the basic cost estimate beyond which the
project becomes less feasible and (ii) the maximum permissible time overrun for
infrastructure projects is about 30% of the base time estimate, beyond which the feasibility of
the project reduces.

Table 2: Identification and Classification of Risks Involved in the Project

S. No. Risk Classification Risk Description

Nomenclature
1 FPR Feasibility Project Risk
2 PEPR 1 Pre execution Project Risk – Design Risks
3 PEPR 2 Pre execution Project Risk – Technology Risks
4 EPR 1 Execution Project Risk – Risks in traffic diversion works
5 EPR 2 Risks in utility diversion works
6 EPR 3 Risks in survey works
7 EPR 4 Risks in soldier piling and king piling works.
8 EPR 5 Risks in timber lagging works.
9 EPR 6 Risks in soil excavation works
10 EPR 7 Risks in rock excavation works
11 EPR 8 Risks in installation of construction decks
12 EPR 9 Risks in installation of steel struts
13 EPR 10 Risks in installation of rock anchors
14 EPR 11 Risks in shotcreting and rock bolting works
15 EPR 12 Risks in subfloor drainage works
16 EPR 13 Risks in waterproofing works
17 EPR 14 Risks in diaphragm wall construction
18 EPR 15 Risks in top down construction
19 EPR 16 Risks in permanent structure works
20 EPR 17 Risks in mechanical and electrical installation works
21 EPR 18 Risks in backfilling and restoration works

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 12

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

The common risk sources identified for all the activities A …. U as per Table 1 and Figure 1
are listed in Table 3 and a detailed description of the same is furnished in Appendix 2

Table 3: Common Risk Sources of the Project Activities

S No. Risk Source Description
1 Risks due to delay in approval of detailed project report (DPR)
2 Land acquisition risks
3 Design risks
4 Technology selection risks
5 Approval and permit risks
6 Joint venture risks
7 Financial and investment risks
8 Political risks
9 Environment related risks
10 Geo technical risks
11 Major / minor accidents during execution
12 Unforeseen heavy rain
13 Force Majeure risks like flood, fire earthquake etc.
14 Labour agitation and strikes
15 Inflation risks
16 Risks due to delayed payment from client
17 Risks due to delayed payment to subcontractor

The risks identified under each activity have been listed and a detailed questionnaire
consisting of all the identified risks as per the classification stated above has been framed.
This questionnaire was circulated amongst 67 experts having adequate experience in
underground construction projects or similar infrastructure projects. These experts were
required to respond with respect to the likelihood of occurrence and the weightages associated
with each risk based on their experience. The methodology for receiving the filled up
questionnaires from the respondents was through personal approach, telephonic conversation,
e-mails and post. The experts were Designers, Consultants, Deputy Project Leaders, Project
Managers, Deputy Project Managers, CEOs, Managing Directors, Area Managers, people in
charge of Quality assurance / Quality control, and Safety, Senior Engineers and Project

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 13

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

Engineers of the principal contractor of the above project, the client organization, the
consulting organization, major sub-contractors of the above project and other ongoing metro
rail projects within the country. Of around 67 experts, 45 had responded to this study and the
mean of all the responses of respective risk likelihoods and their associated weightages in the
related activities have been considered. The inconsistent responses were revised by
conducting a second round questionnaire survey using the Delphi technique.

A sample of a part of a filled up questionnaire consisting of the likelihood of risks and the
weightage associated with the identified risks for the feasibility project risk (FPR) is presented
in Appendix 3. The value of likelihood (Lij) varies from 0 to 1 and the sum of the weightages
(Wij) on local priority (LP) basis is 1 (0.121+0.185+0.155+0.295+0.075+0.169). The
M
corresponding Composite Likelihood Factor (CLF)j = ∑
i =1
Lij Wij for all j (j = 1…. N) =

0.348 (refer Appendix 2)

Similar tables have been formulated for pre-execution project risk (PEPR 1 and PEPR2) and
execution project risk (EPR 1 to EPR 18).

Application of EVM for Risk Analysis of the Project

The network diagrams consisting of the major activities of the project have been drawn and
their activity times (early start, early finish, late start and late finish) have been calculated by
forward and backward pass and then their critical path has been tracked out. The duration
along the critical path is the longest duration path and is considered as the duration of the
project. The BCE and BTE of each activity and sub-activity of the project have been
calculated as per the actual site data. The corrective cost and time for each activity have been
assumed as a certain percentage (25% to 75%) of BCE and BTE respectively depending upon
the severity and casualty caused by that risk.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 14

 IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

Each activity of the project as presented in figure 1 has been analyzed at the sub-activity level
for computation of RC, RT, EC, ET and risk severity. The detailed analysis for computation
of risk cost and time for all the activities of the project is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Expected Cost and Time Analysis for the Project

Base
Corrective Risk Base Corr- Expected
Cost Risk EC % ET %
Cost Cost Time ective Cost Expected
Estimate Time Higher Higher
Activity (CLF)j (CC)j (RC)j Estimate Time (EC)j Time
(BCE)j (RT)j than than
INR. INR (BTE)j (CT)j INR (ET)j
INR Days BCE BTE
Million Million Days Days Million Days
Million
A 0.348 240 60 20.88 1875 1130 393.24 260.88 2268.24 8.7 20.97
B 0.356 110 32 11.392 295 245 87.22 121.392 382.22 10.36 29.57
C 0.27 40 10 2.7 90 85 22.95 42.7 112.95 6.75 25.5
D 0.319 50 11.9 3.7961 475 355 113.25 53.7961 588.25 7.59 23.84
E 0.262 100 82.4 21.5888 315 267 69.95 121.5888 384.95 21.59 22.21
F 0.186 10 8.66 1.61076 290 247 45.94 11.61076 335.94 16.11 15.84
G 0.28 220 176.465 49.4102 356 356 99.68 269.4102 455.68 22.46 28
H 0.252 20 15.975 4.0257 240 180 45.36 24.0257 285.36 20.13 18.9
I 0.377 150 122 45.994 330 205 77.29 195.994 407.29 30.66 23.42
J 0.419 80 56 23.464 165 140 58.66 103.464 223.66 29.33 35.55
K 0.398 120 108 42.984 170 113 44.97 162.984 214.97 35.82 26.46
L 0.367 300 245 89.915 690 485 178 389.915 868 29.97 25.8
M 0.345 50 49.2 16.974 285 250 86.25 66.974 371.25 33.95 30.26
N 0.343 80 70.3 24.1129 260 185 63.46 104.1129 323.46 30.14 24.41
O 0.306 60 58 17.748 170 130 39.78 77.748 209.78 29.58 23.4
P 0.384 120 83.2 31.9488 120 95 36.48 151.9488 156.48 26.62 30.4
Q 0.278 60 59.2 16.4576 145 115 31.97 76.4576 176.97 27.43 22.05
R 0.227 80 77.2 17.5244 122 88 19.98 97.5244 141.98 21.91 16.37
S 0.223 800 596.5 133.0195 570 415 92.55 933.0195 662.55 16.63 16.24
T 0.398 300 217.7 86.6446 225 180 71.64 386.6446 296.64 28.88 31.84
U 0.354 250 189.3 67.0122 225 163 57.7 317.0122 282.7 26.8 25.65
3240 2329 729.20256 3786 884.47 3969.2026 4670.47 22.51 23.36

Note: Base time estimate and Risk time is considered as the time estimate along the critical path
(refer Figure 1)

As per Figure 1 which represents the critical path diagram of the entire project of the
underground corridor construction, and Table 4, for activity A (feasibility studies) the CLF is
0.348 as obtained from the feedback of the questionnaire survey (refer appendix 2). The base
cost estimate (BCE)j for the activity feasibility studies (A) is INR 240 Million, the corrective
cost (CC)j is INR 60 Million (assumed in consultation with experts); the base time estimate

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 15

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

(BTE)j is 1875 days; the corrective time (CT)j is 1130 days (assumed in consultation with
experts).

As per equations (2) and (3), Risk cost (RC)j = 0.348 x 60 x 106 = INR 20.88 x 106; Risk time
(RT)j = 0.348 x 1130 days = 393.24 days. Thus as per equations (7) and (8), the expected cost
(EC)j = BCEj + RCj = INR 260.88 Million, expected time (ET)j = BTEj + RTj = 2268.24
days.

A similar computation has been carried out for activities B, C, D….. and U (refer Table 4).
Henceforth, the expected cost (EC)project of the entire project of underground corridor
construction has been calculated as follows:
U
Expected Cost (EC)Project = ∑
j =A
ECj

= INR 3969.20 Million

Base Cost Estimate (BCE)Project = INR 3240 Million.

Expected Time (ET)Project = (BTE)Project + (RT)Project

= 3786 + 884.47 days
= 4670.47 days

Table 5: Project Expected Cost and Time Analysis [Based on Questionnaire Survey]

Base Cost Risk Cost Base Time Risk Time Expected Cost Expected
Estimate (INR Estimate (Days) (INR Time
(INR Million) (Days) Million) (Days)
Milion)

3240 729.2 3786 884.47 3969.2 4670.47

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 16

 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
INDIA

Thus as per the analysis, the EC of the project is 22.51 % higher than the BCE of the project.
The ET of the project is 23.36 % higher than the BTE. As per the basic assumptions
considered for risk management analysis the cost overrun should not exceed 25% of the
estimated base cost and the time overrun should not be more than 30% of the estimated base
time. Exceeding these limits would increase the chances of the project becoming less feasible.
The risk management analysis predicts that the expected cost of the project is 22.51% higher
than the estimated base cost. This situation is highly alarming as it is the upper limit of the
permissible cost overrun. It requires meticulous planning and proper risk mitigation measures
to enhance the probability of success of the project. The expected time predicted from the
analysis is 23.36% higher than the estimated base time which is close to the upper limit of the
permissible time overrun. Thus it is essential to judiciously follow the risk mitigation
measures to ensure that the project is completed within the scheduled time frame.

Risk Severity Analysis using the Concept of CLF and CIF

Risk severity can be computed from equation (6). The product of the likelihood and impact of
a risk can be considered as the severity of that risk. This concept can be extended for multiple
risk sources in a work package, the likelihood and impact of which can be expressed in terms
of CLFj and CIFj respectively. Thus for the underground corridor construction project, the risk
severity of each major activity of the project is computed as presented in Table 6.
The scale for the classification of the risk severity is expressed as

Table 6: Risk Severity Classification

Severity Classification
0.00 – 0.02 V. Low
0.03 – 0.05 Low
0.06 – 0.15 Medium
0.16 – 0.20 High
0.21 – 1.00 V. High

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 17

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

Table 7: Risk Severity Analysis of Total Project using the Concept of Composite
Likelihood Factor (CLF) and Composite Impact Factor (CIF)

Composite Composite Severity

Description
Likelihood Impact
of project
Factor Factor
risk (activity)
(CLF)j (CIF)j Quantitative
Qualitative
CLFj x CIFj

FPR (A) 0.348 0.875 0.305 V. High

PEPR 1 (B) 0.393 0.868 0.341 V. High
PEPR 2 (C) 0.27 0.829 0.224 V. High
EPR 1 (D) 0.319 0.784 0.25 V. High
EPR 2 (E) 0.262 0.809 0.212 V. High
EPR 3 (F) 0.186 0.832 0.155 Medium
EPR 4 (G) 0.28 0.827 0.232 V. High
PER 5 (H) 0.252 0.818 0.206 High
PER 6 (I) 0.377 0.863 0.325 V. High
EPR 7 (J) 0.419 0.816 0.342 V. High
EPR 8 (K) 0.398 0.842 0.335 V. High
EPR 9 (L) 0.367 0.828 0.303 V. High
EPR 10 (M) 0.345 0.86 0.298 V. High
EPR 11 (N) 0.343 0.827 0.284 V. High
EPR 12 (O) 0.306 0.806 0.247 V. High
EPR 13 (P) 0.384 0.858 0.329 V. High
EPR 14 (Q) 0.278 0.872 0.242 V. High
EPR 15 (R) 0.227 0.837 0.19 High
EPR 16 (S) 0.223 0.811 0.181 High
EPR 17 (T) 0.513 0.845 0.433 V. High
EPR 18 (U) 0.254 0.544 0.138 Medium

The risk severity analysis has also been carried out by PERT analysis and the outcome of both
the EVM and PERT analysis in terms of the severity of the major activities of the project is
presented in Table 8
Table 8: Outcome of Risk Severity analysis by Expected Value and PERT
V. High High Medium Low

Design Technology selection Traffic diversion Top down Survey Backfilling & Nil
Utility diversion Soldier construction Timber lagging Restoration
Piles King Piles Mechanical & Electrical
Soil / Rock excavation Works, Permanent Structure
Diaphragm wall
Steel struts
Rock anchors
Shotcreting and rock bolting

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 18

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

Application of Monte Carlo Simulation

We apply the Monte Carlo simulation to predict the outcome of the expected time (ET) and
expected cost (EC) of all the possible paths of activities as represented in the network diagram
of the project (figure 1). The Monte Carlo simulation also takes into account the effects of the
near critical paths becoming critical. By carrying out a detailed path analysis of the project
network diagram, we observed that the path A-C-E-D-G-I-P-T has the longest duration of
3786 days. Hence this path is considered as the critical path of the project network (refer
figure 1). The corresponding cost for the completion of activities along this path is INR 1220
Million. It is also observed that the probability of the successful completion of the project
within the stipulated time and cost frame is only 4% (0.625 x 0.730 x 0.738 x 0.681 x 0.720 x
0.623 x 0.616 x 0.602 = 0.040). Path A-B-D-G-I-P-T is a near critical path with a probability
of about 4.8% for successful completion within the stipulated time and cost frame. There are
chances of this path becoming critical.

The application of the Monte Carlo simulation to the above path analysis resulted in the
following outcome:

Table 9: Outcome of Path Analysis of the Project Network Diagram Applying

Monte Carlo Simulation

Path Cost
Path Activity / Node duration (Rs. Crores)
(days)
1 A-B-D-G-I-P-T 3676.17 119.28
2 A-C-E-D-G-I-P-T 3785.98 122.28
3 A-C-E-F-I-P-T 3244.88 96.17
4 A-C-H-I-P-T 2879.88 87.11
5 A-C-K-P-T 2479.67 82.09
6 A-C-L-J-P-T 3164.79 108.19
7 A-C-Q-R-J-P-T 2741.60 92.20
8 A-C-Q-O-S-T 3074.89 150.10
9 A-C-Q-O-U 2504.95 65.07

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 19

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

From the above analysis we observed that path 2 (A-C-E-D-G-I-P-T) has the longest duration of
3785.98 days and remains critical. The corresponding cost for the completion of all the
activities along the critical path is INR 1222.8 Million. The probability of the successful
completion of path 2 or the critical path within the scheduled time is 50%. The probability of
the successful completion of the near critical path or path 1 within the scheduled time is
84.13% (Z = 1.009, P = 0.8413). Also the probability of the successful completion of all the
paths within the scheduled time is 42.05% (P = 0.8413 x 0.5 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 =
0.4205)

Carrying out about 10,000 runs of the Monte Carlo simulation, the EC was found to have a
value of INR 3532.9 Million and the ET of the project was found to be 4351.12 days.

Proposed Risk Management Model for the Underground Corridor Construction for
Metro Rail

The generalized risk management model for the underground corridor construction for the
metro rail is proposed on the basis of the detailed analysis carried out. This model can be
effectively implemented in the ongoing and upcoming metro rail projects across the nation.

As a part of the formulation of risk mitigation strategies, the following risk response planning
can be adapted by the project authority: (i) risk transfer, (ii) risk sharing (iii) risk reduction
(iv) risk contingency planning and (v) risk mitigation through insurance.

6. CONCLUSION

Project risk management which primarily comprises schedule and cost uncertainties and risks
should be essentially carried out for complex urban infrastructure projects such as the
construction of an underground corridor for metro rail operations. In the current research
work we found that the number of major and minor risks involved during the construction of
the project, from the feasibility to the completion of the execution, are large, and if not treated
or mitigated properly, the probability of successful completion of the project within the
stipulated time and cost frame will reduce. This will have a direct impact on the efficiency
and profitability of the organization.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 20

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

As per the analysis carried out by EVM, based on the expert questionnaire survey, the
expected project cost for the sample stretch under analysis (530 m tunnel from station S5 to
S6, S6 station box and 180 m over-run tunnel) is about 22.51% higher than the base cost
estimate of the project. According to the basic assumptions made for the analytical procedure
adopted, the maximum permissible cost overrun for the project is 25%. Thus if proper project
risk management is not carried out by the authority, the project may result in a cost and time
overrun which will ultimately reduce the feasibility of the successful completion of the
project. The expected project time as obtained by the analysis is about 23.36% higher than the
base time estimate of the project, the maximum permissible time overrun as per the basic
assumptions being 30% of the base time estimate. This value is also quite alarming making
the concerned authority feel the need for carrying out proper risk management for such
complex infrastructure projects.

Hence considering the results of all the analyses carried out in this research work, it can be
concluded that for complex infrastructure projects like that of an underground corridor
construction, based on EVM, about INR 0.82 Million extra per day per station would be
incurred if proper risk management is not followed to mitigate the anticipated risks. Thus for
six underground stations for this 6.6 km underground metro corridor package approximately
INR 4.92 Million extra per day will have to be incurred by the project authorities. A major
limitation of the model adopted for analysis is that the entire model being probabilistic, the
outcome of the analysis is largely dependent on the opinion of the likelihood and weightages
of the identified risks obtained from the expert questionnaire survey. Also any sort of
misinformation provided will result in erroneous results. Although at present, a very nominal
percentage of identified risks can be insured under the existing “Contractors All Risk Policy”,
the potentiality of insurance and the means of making insurance a strong risk mitigation tool
for the construction industry provide scope for future research.

The proposed risk management model will definitely benefit the ongoing metro corridor
works and about 20 future anticipated metro projects in cities across the nation under study.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 21

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH

As the nation under study is an emerging economy, there are proposals for several metro rail
construction projects likely to come up in the next two decades. This study can be used as an
aid to plan for the quantitative risk management for these projects. An integrated decision
support system for underground corridor metro rail projects can also be developed based on
the risk management model. As the concept is generic, we can extend the concept to several
other types of complex infrastructure projects like highways, oil and gas refineries, airports,
bridges, nuclear, thermal and hydro power plants and other forms of mass rapid transit system
(MRTS) projects. The potentiality of insurance as a risk mitigation tool should also be
explored.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 22

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

REFERENCES

Dey , P.K. (2001) “Integrated Project Management in Indian Petroleum Industry” NICMAR
Journal of Construction Management, Vol. XVI, pp. 1 – 34.

Dey, P.K. (2002) “Project Risk Management: A Combined Analytic Hierarchy Process and
Decision Tree Approach” Cost Accounting, Vol. 44, pp. 13 – 26.

Dey, P.K. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2002) “Risk based Decision Support System for Effective
Implementation of Projects” International Journal of Risk Assessment & Management Vol. 3,
pp. 189 – 204.

Jannadi, O.A. and Almishari, S. (2003) “Risk Assessment in Construction” Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129(5), pp. 492-500.

Mulholland, B. and Christan, J.(1999) “ Risk Assessment in Construction Schedules” Journal

of Construction Engineering & Management, Vol. 125(1), pp.8 – 15.

Nehru, R. and Vaid, K.N. (2003) Construction Project Management,NICMAR Publication,

Mumbai.

Nicholas, J.M. (2007) Project Management for Business and Technology: Principles and
Practice, Second edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Delhi.

Rahman, M.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2002) “Risk Management Trends in the
Construction Industry: Moving towards Joint Risk Management” Engineering Construction &
Architectural Management, Vol. 9(2), pp.131-151.

Reilly, J. and Brown, J. (2004) “Managing and Control of Cost and Risk for Tunneling and
Infrastructure Projects” Proceedings of International Tunneling Conference, Singapore,
pp.703 -712.
Reilly, J.J. (2005) “Cost Estimating and Risk Management for Underground Projects”
Proceedings of International Tunnelling Conference, Istanbul.

Roetzheim.W. (1988) Structured Computer Project Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersy.

Sarkar, D. (2009) “Project Management for Urban Infrastructure: A Study of Application of

Statistical Quality Control and Project Risk Management” Ph.D.
Thesis, D. D. University, Gujarat, India.

Sinfield, J.V.and Einstein, H.H. (1998) “Tunnel Construction Costs for Tube
Transportation Systems” Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, Vol. 124(1),
pp.48 – 57.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 23

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (2003) “ Transforming Project Risk Management into Project
Uncertainty Management” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21(2), pp.97 –
105.

Williams, R.C., Walker, A.J. and Dorofee, A.J. (1997) “Putting Risk Management into
Practice” IEEE Software Vol. 3, pp.75 –81

Zoysa, S.D. and Russel, A.D. (2003) “Knowledge Based Risk Identification in Infrastructure
Projects” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.30 (3), pp.511 – 522.

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 24

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

APPENDIX 1: Additional Project Details

Project Description Details

Length of route 6569 m

(a) Tunnel (by Tunnel Boring Machine [TBM]) - 3811 m
(b) Tunnel (by Cut & Cover method) - 937 m
(c) Station boxes - 1821 m

Average depth of stations 15 - 20 m below ground level

Typical width of stations Average 20 m
Typical length of stations 275m to 300m
Design life 120 years for underground
structures and 50 years for super
structures
Major Scope of Civil Engineering Works
(a) Excavation (soil) : 10,90,000 cum.
(b) Excavation (rock) : 2,15,000 cum.
(c) Concreting : 3,00,000 cum.
(d) Reinforcement : 47,500 MT
(e) Strutting : 24,500 MT

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 25

IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaire for Feasibility Project Risk (FPR)

FPR 1: Feasibility Project Risk 1 – Risks in Preparation of Feasibility Report

Weightage Impact
Likelihood
Risk Description (LP) (Iij)
(Lij)
(Wij)
Delay in submission of preliminary feasibility report 0.65
0.15 0.029
Delay in approval for carrying out detailed feasibility study 0.75
0.20 0.030
Delay in preparation and submission of detailed project report 0.85
0.20 0.018
(DPR)
Delay in approval of DPR 0.90
0.30 0.044
Total
CLF = 0.027
0.121
CIF = 0.096

FPR 2: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Risks

Resettlement site not accepted by affected parties

0.35 0.085 0.95
Resettlement site very costly
0.15 0.055 0.80
Litigation by affected parties
0.45 0.035 0.95
Resistance and agitation by political parties
0.5 0.01 0.90
CLF = 0.059 Total
CIF = 0.167 0.185

FPR 3: Pre-investment Risks

Cancellation of project after bidding

0.1 0.023 0.90
Delay in setting of consortium(JV)
0.35 0.052 0.95
Prolonged delay in project finalization
0.3 0.08 0.80
Total
CLF = 0.045
0.155
CIF = 0.134

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 26

 IIMA
INDIA
Research and Publications

FPR 4: Land Acquisition Risks

Risk Description Likelihood Weightage

Political interference
0.55 0.013 0.9
Delay in finalizing temporary rehabilation schemes
0.4 0.055 0.85
Public interference for changing the alignment
0.25 0.055 0.9
Interference of environmental activists
0.4 0.012 0.9
Delay due to interdepartmental issues
0.35 0.03 0.9
Delay in construction of diversion roads for existing traffic
0.2 0.014 0.85
Problems with the physical possession of land
0.65 0.116 0.95
Total:
CLF = 0.136
0.295
CIF = 0.264
FPR 5: Financial Closure Risks

Project not bankable

0.2 0.035 0.85
Lenders not comfortable with project viability
0.15 0.005 0.75
Adverse investment climate
0.1 0.035 0.80
CLF = 0.011 Total:
CIF = 0.061 0.075

FPR 6: Permit and Approval Risks

Delay in contractual clearances

0.2 0.023 0.80
Delay in project specific orders and approvals
0.25 0.019 0.85
Delay in the approval of major utilities ( telecom cables,
electrical cables, storm water drains, sewer lines, filtered and
unfiltered water lines)
0.45 0.049 0.90
Delay in clearance from environmental and forest departments
0.5 0.078 0.95
CLF = 0.070 Total:
CIF = 0.153 0.169
CLF Feasibility = 0.348 (0.027 + 0.059 + 0.045 +
0.136 + 0.011+ 0.070) Grand
CIF Feasibility = 0.875 (0.096 +0.167+0.134 + Total: 1
0.264 + 0.061 + 0.153)

W.P. No. 2011-02-05 Page No. 27

View publication stats