Search results

This essay contributes to the ongoing exposition of a project management-focused understanding of “public policy” implementation. Distinct from previous studies that take a predominantly administrative sciences perspective, the delivery and implementation of publicly funded infrastructure projects as an instrument of public policy is explored through the lens of legal frameworks.

We adopt the explanation-building review approach to provide descriptions and explanations of the relevant enablers and context necessary for the successful delivery and implementation of publicly funded infrastructure projects.

The ambiguity associated with public policy is more likely to hinder than facilitate the use of publicly funded infrastructure projects as preferred instruments of choice for implementing public policy.

Despite substantial interest among academics and practitioners in utilising projects as tools for public policy implementation, thorough discussions on the legal complexities inherent in these projects remain scarce.

We identify and further aggregate the most commonly engaged risk factors in dry port projects into dimensions. Noting the importance of developing a multi-perspective view of risk, we further assess the priority, interdependency and heterogeneity of the identified risk dimensions.

We identified 44 risk factors from the literature, which were aggregated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) into 8 major risk dimensions. We employ a fuzzy-based decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) relationship map to articulate various relationships among the risk dimensions.

“Cost” emerged as the most important risk influencing the success of the dry port project, followed by “location,” “accessibility,” “infrastructural” and “operational,” which were also ranked prominently.

This study offers significant insight into the management of risk in dry port projects. By aggregating key risk factors into distinct dimensions, we develop a structured framework for effective risk assessment and management. The insights gleaned from the study extend globally, as it serves as a concrete knowledge base to understand potential barriers to successful dry port projects.

We explore the design risk factors and associated managerial practices driving collaborative risk management for design efficacy in green building projects. By illuminating project design risk as an important project risk category in its own right, the study contributes to our understanding of optimising design efficacies for collaborative project risk management.

The study comprises exploratory interviews conducted with 27 industry project practitioners involved in the design and delivery/implementation of Green Star-certified building projects in South Africa.

The findings discursively highlight seven sources of design risk. We also identify seven specific collaborative risk management practices for design efficacy emerging from a consideration of how risk environments vary in the Green Star-certified projects, each with its own project design risk implications.

The study advances our understanding of how collaborations emerging from particular relational yet context-specific practices can be optimised to strengthen project risk management.

This paper aims to draw on historical conceptions of true and false prudence within the broader context of virtue ethics ideas, to create a prudence framework for developing risk-and-ethics cultures in organisations.

The authors use a theoretical analytical approach as a means of examining plausible representations of risk as ethical practice.

While the ethical ideal of true prudence is explained primarily with reference to psychological theories of generativity, false prudence is explained as undesirable, primarily with reference to psychological problems of narcissism and the broader dark triad. True and false prudence are represented as centring upon very different motivations for foresight, each of which might set the cultural tone for organisational risk management.

This paper’s main contribution is therefore to call attention to the benefits for organisations of reflecting upon differences between true and false prudence when planning the risk management they want.