A theoretical conceptual model for risk and uncertainty

management in projects

Joo Walter Saunders Pacheco do Vale (joao-walter@hotmail.com)

University of So Paulo, Brazil

Marly Monteiro de Carvalho

University of So Paulo, Brazil

Abstract
This paper aims to systematize a conceptual framework of risks and uncertainties in project
management. A systematic review of the literature was performed combining bibliometric and
content analysis. The Hive Structure of Risk and Uncertainty Management is proposed, mixing
soft and hard approaches.

Keywords: project management, risk, uncertainty

Introduction

In general, organizations develop projects to achieve set goals. Organizations use human,
physical or material resources to plan and execute their projects. To ensure the success of the
projects, risk management is essential for the mitigation or elimination of surprises, such as
rework and excessive costs.
Many innovation projects finish far from their initial estimates and are surrounded by
uncertainties. Goffin and Mitchell (2005) indicated that the development of new products,
services and processes is inherently uncertain, and dealing with risk and uncertainty is
fundamental to the management of innovation.
In their work on managing uncertainty in projects, Meyer et al. (2002) noted that risk
management is directed to the identification and control of variations and predictable
uncertainties. However, for innovation projects or projects embedded in dynamic environments,
wherein large uncertainties are concentrated, one should go beyond the traditional methods of
risk management and adopt fewer techniques focused on planning and more directed to flexibility
and learning.
The risks and uncertainties concepts are differentiated in the literature. For that is
necessary to distinguish these two terms to explain their influence on the performance of projects.
(Perminova et al. 2008).
This work aimed to explore the concepts of risks and uncertainties in the context of
project management and innovation and to provide a model for integrated management. For this,
an analysis of the academic research on the topic of risks and uncertainties was performed in
the literature of project management and innovation. Two searches were performed using the
Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge, the first with the topics risk,
1
project management and innovation and the second with the topics uncertainty, project
management and innovation.
This paper is structured into 4 sections. Section 2 provides a summary of the research
methods adopted, followed by the research results and the theoretical model in section 3. Section
4 finishes the article with the conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

Research Methods

The methodological approach used was a systematic review of the literature guided by
bibliometric and content analysis methods.

Sample and Procedure

The ISI Web of Knowledge (Web of Science) database was selected for their focus on search
articles from other databases, such as Scopus, Proquest and Wiley, that are published in indexed
journals and with an impact factor calculated in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR).
Two searches were performed in September 2013. The terms used in the first search were
risk* and Project* management and in the second search were uncertainty*, Project*
management and innovation. Both searches were investigated in all the databases of the ISI
Web of Knowledge, resulting in 65 studies for the first search and 72 for the second. The asterisk
(*) inserted into the 2 searches was used as a wildcard character that represented any other
character. At this stage, it was not used as a filter of area, temporal or document type. The term
innovation was added to the search because uncertainties are inherent to the innovation process.
Subsequently, the result was filtered by selecting only articles, decreasing the number of
studies in the first search to 34 and in the second search to 54. These numbers constitute the final
search sample. The final samples were published during the period from 1994 (first occurrence
for the search of risks) and 1995 (first occurrence for the search of uncertainty) to 2013.
The metadata of the sample of these articles were extracted from the ISI databases, and the
analyses were performed using two software programs: Sitkis 2.0 (Schildt 2002) and Ucinet for
Windows, 6.289 (Borgatti et al. 2002). The Sitkis program imported and debugged the metadata,
and the Ucinet program designed the networks.

Results

The search result was divided into four topics: the main topics related to each term, the most cited
papers, the concept of each term in the literature and a concept model to integrate both terms.

Risks

Figure 1 shows the network of keywords. To create this network, a filter of a minimum of three
citations of each keyword was used. In the organization of words, it was possible to identify four
groups of words. At the top is the group of words related to organizational strategy and tactics. At
the bottom left is the group of words that attempt to define the word risk, at the center are the
words related to competitive advantages and on the right are the words related to product
development and radical innovation.

2
Figure 1. Network of keywords of the analyzed articles. Note: the thickness of the line indicates the degree
of relationship

Uncertainties

Figure 2 shows the network of keywords. To generate this network, a filter of a minimum of five
citations of each keyword was used. In the organization of words, it was possible to identify five
groups. At the top is the group of words related to strategy and management. At the top left is the
group of words related to product development, at the center are words related to competitive and
motivating advantages for the study of uncertainties in the searches, in the lower right corner are
the words that approximate to a concept of uncertainty in a sense of cause (ambiguity and
complexity) and consequence (failure) and on the right are the set of words directed to
uncertainties using a more macro approach (i.e., not only directed to the individuality of the
project). On the bottom of the figure is a group of words related to techniques and procedures for
dealing with the uncertainties.

Figure 2. Network of keywords of the analyzed articles.

3
Most cited articles
Of the 34 articles, the sum of all citations was 430. To identify the most cited papers, the cutoff
was at least 15 citations per article; using this criterion, 8 articles were highlighted. The sum of
citations of these articles was 351, corresponding to 81.62% of the total citations with the average
of 18 citations per year and 2 citations per article per year. These articles are shown in Table 5.
Figure 3 shows a graph with the evolution of the citations of these articles over time.

100%
Zwikael and Globerson (2006)
90%
80% Wang and Lin (2009)

70%
Kwak and Anbari (2009)
60%
50% Tiwana et al. (2006)

40%
De maio et al. (1994)
30%
20% Hall and Andriani (2003)
10%
Eppinger (2001)
0%
1997

2002

2007

2012
1998
1999
2000
2001

2003
2004
2005
2006

2008
2009
2010
2011

2013
Huchzermeier and Loch (2001)

Figure 3. Evolution of the 8 most cited articles over time.

The article by Huchzermeier and Loch (2001) was the search article with the highest
number of citations and of greater current relevance. The goal of this article was to present the
values of flexible management in Research and Development (R&D) projects. The authors used
the term uncertainty to indicate stochastic variability. Five types of uncertainties in the R&D
environment and how they influence management flexibility were presented in the article:
variability in market payments, budgets, performance, market requirements and deadlines.
Regarding the flow of information in the process of new product development, Eppinger
(2001) provided a tool that can simplify the process of iteration. According to this author, the
management of the process of new product development should focus more on the flow of
information than on the delegation of activities. The author correlated the term risk with
technological complexity and learning.
With respect to knowledge management in the context of the management of innovative
projects, Hall and Andriani (2003) presented the knowledge needs required for the process of
innovation. Furthermore, the authors correlated risk with the term vulnerability.
According to De maio et al. (1994), the need to manage the interdependence between
projects at the portfolio level was presented as a way to support the success of new product
development. In the article, the authors presented a framework that models the organizational
dynamics in the organizations that develop products. The authors used the term risk as
synonymous with uncertainty.
In their article made by Tiwana et al. (2006) on escalation situations in software projects
noted that managers recognize the value of real options in the decision-making process. The real
options would be the process of delaying the projects decisions to the latest possible moment to
make the decisions with a greater assertiveness and a smaller number of uncertainties. The

4
authors noted the need to have flexibility to address the uncertainties in the software projects and
designated uncertainty as a cause for risk.
Kwak and Anbari (2009) presented the result of a study on subjects associated with
project management. In this study, 8 subjects that provide greater support to project management
were identified: (1) Portfolio Management and Strategy, (2) Operations Research and the Science
of Decisions, (3) Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management, (4) Information
Technology and Information Systems, (5) Applied Technologies and Innovations, (6)
Performance Management and Earned Value Management, (7) Engineering & Construction and
(8) Quality Management and Six Sigma. In the same article, the growth and importance of the
management of risk and uncertainties by professionals and academics was observed; however,
the concept of risks or uncertainties was not presented.
The article by Wang and Lin (2009) addressed the evaluation of the risks of overlapping
activities in the process of new product development. The authors presented a model to analyze
the impact of overlapping activities and used the term risk as being a doubtful event with an
associated probability.
Zwikael and Globerson (2006) described the Success Critical Factors that distinguish the
projects that achieved success from those that did not. From this concept, the authors performed a
study of the impact of 16 processes and identified what they termed the Success Critical
Processes. The method was based on a field study with 282 project managers. The terms risk and
uncertainty were distinct from each other. The author relied on the definition of Meyer et al.
(2002), where the uncertainties were classified into 4 types: variation, foreseen uncertainty,
unforeseen uncertainty and chaos.

Uncertainties

Regarding the search of uncertainties, from the total of 54 articles, the sum of all citations was
1454. To identify the most cited articles, the cutoff was at least 50 citations per article, and 11
articles were highlighted based on this criterion. The sum of the citations of these articles was
1040, which correspond to 71.52% of the total citation with the average of 18 citations per year
and 2 citations per paper per year. These articles are shown in Table 6.
Figure 4 shows a graph of the evolution of the citations of these articles over time.

100%
90% Thieme et al. (2003)

80% Shenhar (1998)

Sommer and Loch(2004)
70%
Clegg et al. (2002)
60%
Lewis et al. (2002)
50%
Green et al. (1995)
40%
Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000)
30%
Pich et al. (2002)
20%
Huchzermeier and Loch (2001)
10%
Shenhar (2001)
0%
Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss (2001)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Figure 4. Evolution of the 11 most cited articles over time.

5
 Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss (2001) presented a study on the multidisciplinary in the
process of new product development through the integration of operations with marketing. The
term uncertainty was noted as an absence of knowledge on the exact means to complete a task or
project.
In the context of project types, Shenhar (2001) indicated that although the literature on
project management notes similarities of tools and procedures among the successful projects, the
same form of management by processes and tools does not fit all of the contexts of projects. In
the same article, projects were classified into four levels of uncertainty and 3 of complexity. The
levels of uncertainty were projects of low technological uncertainty, medium technological
uncertainty, high technological uncertainty and super-high technological uncertainty, and the
dimensions of complexity were a simple assembly project, a systemic project that includes more
than one component and a joint project that comprises several systems.
The article written by Pich et al. (2002) is one of the articles with the highest growth in
the number of citations; these authors addressed uncertainties, ambiguity and complexity in terms
of the suitability of the information. In their article, the authors defined three strategies for project
management: instructionism, learning and selectionism. For these authors, risk was defined as the
relationship between the probability of an event happening and its impact, and uncertainty was
defined as a lack of knowledge.
Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000) applied the concept of uncertain activity in the context of
product development, characterization and outcome. Their results suggest that the high levels of
complexity were not associated with the total failure of the project but with some specific
elements of the outcome. The uncertain activity was defined by the authors as the difference
between the total knowledge required to perform a task and the existing knowledge in the
organization. The concept of technological risks was observed in the article as being synonymous
with uncertain activity.
Green et al. (1995) presented a study on radical technological innovation in which
various dimensions of the concept of radical innovation were addressed. In the article, the term
risk was synonymous with a lack of experience. The term uncertainty was presented as
technological doubts.
The exploration of different types of project management was tackled by Lewis et al.
(2002). In their study of 80 projects, the authors found that a mix of management styles increased
the performance of the teams. In the context of the article, uncertainty was described as a lack of
knowledge.
Clegg et al. (2002) presented the concept of governmentality applied to Project
Management. According to the authors, governmentality would be a liberal form of governance.
One of the points addressed by the authors was that governmentality can support quality
management in projects, the concept of alliance, knowledge exchange and low cost transactions.
In the article, there was no distinction between the terms risk and uncertainty.
Sommer and Loch (2004) presented selectionism and learning strategies in the context of
uncertain projects and unforeseeable uncertainties. The authors defined unforeseeable uncertainty
as that for which it is not possible to plan contingencies or estimate probabilities.
The article written by Shenhar (1998) was based on a study of 26 cases. The author
showed that there was a need to adopt a more specific contingency approach than in project
management in organizations. In the article, the projects were classified by four levels of
uncertainty, as in the article by the same author from 2001 (Shenhar, 2001).
Thieme et al. (2003) presented a conceptual model to support the development of new
products that have market survival. The authors did not distinguish between the terms risk and
6
uncertainty; however, they used the term uncertainty in the context of environment.

Concept
Table 1 presents a summary of the concepts used by the authors of the most cited articles
from both searches.

TABLE 1. List with the concepts used by the most cited authors in the first and second search.
Author Article R/U Concept
Project management under risk: Using the
Huchzermeier and
real options approach to evaluate U Used the term as stochastic variability
Loch (2001)
flexibility in R&D
Used the term risk as technological and learning complexity
Eppinger (2000) Innovation at the speed of information R
Hall and Andriani Managing knowledge associated with
R Used the term risk as vulnerability
(2003) innovation
De maio et al. A Multi-Project Management Framework
R/U Used the term risk as synonymous with uncertainty
(1994) For New Product Development
Information systems project continuation
Tiwana et. al (2006) in escalation situations: A real options R/U Cited uncertainty as a cause for the risk
model
Analyzing project management research:
Kwak and Anbari
Perspectives from top management - There was no reference to risks or uncertainties
(2009)
journals
Wang and Lin An overlapping process model to assess
R Used the event risk as a doubtful event with a linked probability
(2009) schedule risk for new product development
Designated the term risk as distinct from uncertainty. Uncertainty
Zwikael and From Critical Success Factors to Critical
R/U was classified into four types: variation, foreseen uncertainty,
Globerson (2006) Success Processes
unforeseen uncertainty and chaos
Integrating operations and marketing
Tatikonda and perspectives of product innovation: The
The term uncertainty was noted in the article as a lack of
Montoya-Weiss influence of organizational process factors U
knowledge about the exact means to complete a task or project
(2001) and capabilities on development
performance
One size does not fit all projects: Categorized uncertainties as projects of low, medium, high, and
Shenhar (2001) U
Exploring classical contingency domains super-high technological uncertainty
Risk was defined as the relationship between the probability of an
On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity
Pich et. al. (2002) R/U event happening and its impact, and uncertainty was defined as a
in project management
lack of knowledge
Technology novelty, project complexity,
Uncertainty was the difference between the total knowledge
Tatikonda and and product development project execution
R/U required to perform a task and the existing knowledge in the
Rosenthal (2000) success: A deeper look at task uncertainty
organization; the term risk was used as uncertain activity
in product innovation
Assessing A Multidimensional Measure Of
Green et al. (1995) U The term was used as technological doubts
Radical Technological Innovation
Product development tensions: Exploring
Lewis et al. (2002) U The term was used as a lack of knowledge
contrasting styles of project management
Governmentality matters: Designing an
Risks or uncertainties were not mentioned
Clegg et al. (2002) alliance culture of inter-organizational -
collaboration for managing projects
Sommer, and Loch Selectionism and learning in projects with The authors defined unforeseeable uncertainty as that for which it
U
(2004) complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty is not possible to plan contingencies or estimate probabilities
Project management characteristics and Used the term uncertainty in the context of an uncertain
Thieme et al. (2003) U
new product survival environment
Legend: R, risk; U, uncertainty

As is shown in Table 1, the terms were sometimes treated as synonyms; however, there
were some authors who presented elements that justified the separation of the concepts. For Ward
and Chapman (2003), the use of the term risk in organizations did not include the lack of
knowledge of the other events (uncertainties). Therefore, the authors noted that it would be
important that the organizations transform risk management into uncertainty management.

Conceptual Model
Normally, the process of risk management is carried out as follows: when a cause is

7
identified, its impact is analyzed by the project team, depending on the risk aversion of the
project, a response plan is prepared and then the risk is then monitored and controlled by a
resource. One problem with this process is that risk management, in general, analyzes the cause
as having only one outcome in a ratio of 1 to 1, when in fact the cause can lead to many other
uncertain impacts (ratio of 1 to n).
In this situation, one outcome has been identified and will be monitored; however, the
others possible effects are ignored because they were not identified or because of the lack of
resources in the organization. Resource in this context are related to human resources.
In this approach, the resources are using all of their efforts in the contingency actions and
containment of the identified risk (Figure 5). Typically in organizations, one of these resources is
considered to be responsible for the risk.

Figure 5 - Resources dedicated to monitoring the identified risk.

The Hive Structure of Risk and Uncertainty Management is presented in contrast to the
method just described (Figure 6). In this approach, the resources are not completely allocated
with a focus on a particular risk but are allocated in a way in which two or more resources are
considered responsible for each risk and uncertainty.
In a way, the Hive Structure of Risk and Uncertainty Management can be compared to a
fire brigade at a company, the brigade is formed by some employees who are selected to be
trained. When an uncertain claim happen, these are able to act. In the structure, employees are
trained to know how to proceed with the uncertainties and / or risks at the project;
In this management format, the organization has to possess the necessary skills to address
the uncertainties, including the following:
Flexibility (Huchzermeier & Loch, 2001)
Knowledge Management (Hall & Andriani, 2003)
Ability to generate alliances (Clegg et al., 2002)
Ability to improvise (Leybourn, 2006)
Resilience (Thomas & Mengel, 2008)

8
 Figure 6 - Hive Structure of Risk and Uncertainty Management.

In an organization with the necessary skills, when an uncertainty is discovered and

identified and transformed into a risk, the need to make a decision at that moment is assessed. If a
decision is required, some of the techniques mentioned in the literature are used. Otherwise, the
identified uncertainty moves to the process of risk management, where it will be identified,
analyzed and, if necessary, monitored.

1. Conclusions
This study analyzed the concepts of risk and uncertainty in the literature of project
management and innovation in a horizontal manner. Although the terms risks and uncertainties
appear similar, the literature shows that for many authors, these terms have distinct meanings and
are used in different contexts. The term risk is closer to a cause and consequence relationship
with a linked probability, while the term uncertainty stands out in the context of a lack of
knowledge.
This study contributed to the identification of gaps for future studies, the identification of
key journals addressing the subjects, the main authors, the keywords that relate to each of the
terms, the distinction of the terms found in the literature and the presentation of a theoretical
conceptual model to perform the joint management of uncertainties and risks.
For future studies (in addition to those mentioned in section 3.4), it is important to
perform a practical study of the theoretical conceptual model presented.
A limitation of this study was that only a single database was used, and the analysis was
performed only on articles with the highest number of citations.
A possible future study (in addition to the studies indicated in section 3) is to identify
when to address risk management and when to address uncertainty management.

Bibliography
Arajo, C. A. 2007. Bibliometria: evoluo histrica e questes atuais. Em Questo, 12(1).
Bardin, L. 1979. Anlise de contedo. Lisboa: Edies 70.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.
Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., Rura-Polley, T., & Marosszeky, M. 2002. Governmentality matters: designing an
alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organization Studies, 23(3),
317-337.
De Maio, A., Verganti, R., & Corso, M. 1994. A multi-project management framework for new product
development. European Journal of Operational Research, 78(2), 178-191.
Eppinger, S. D. 2001. Innovation at the Speed of Information. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 149-158.

9
Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. 2005. Innovation management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. 1995. Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological
innovation. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 42(3), 203-214.
Hall, R., & Andriani, P. 2003. Managing knowledge associated with innovation. Journal of Business Research,
56(2), 145-152.
Huchzermeier, A., & Loch, C. H. 2001. Project Management Under Risk: Using the Real Options Approach to
Evaluate Flexibility in R D. Management Science, 47(1), 85-101.
Kwak, Y. H., & Anbari, F. T. 2009. Analyzing project management research: Perspectives from top management
journals. International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 435-446.
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. 2002. Product development tensions: exploring
contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564.
Leybourne, S. A. 2006. Managing improvisation within change management: Lessons from UK financial services.
The Service Industries Journal, 26(1), 73-95.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. 2002. From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 60-
7.
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., & Wikstrm, K. 2008. Defining uncertainty in projectsa new perspective.
International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 73-79.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. 2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project
management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008-1023.
PMI. (2013). A guide to the Project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 5 Ed. EUA: Project
Management Institute
Schildt, H. A. 2002. SITKIS: Software for Bibliometric Data Management and Analysis. Helsinki: Institute of
Strategy and International Business, 6.
Shenhar, A. J. 2001. One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains. Management
Science, 47(3), 394-414.
Shenhar, A. J. 1998. From theory to practice: Toward a typology of project-management styles. Engineering
Management, IEEE Transactions on, 45(1), 33-48.
Jeffrey Thieme, R., Michael Song, X., & Shin, G. C. 2003. Project management characteristics and new product
survival. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 104-119.
Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with complexityAdvanced project
management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 304-315.
Sommer, S. C., & Loch, C. H. 2004. Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable
uncertainty. Management Science, 50(10), 1334-1347.
Tague-Sutcliffe, J. 1992. An introduction to informetrics. Information processing & management, 28(1), 1-3.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. 2000. Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development
project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. Engineering
Management, IEEE Transactions on, 47(1), 74-87.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. 2001. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product
innovation: The influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance.
Management Science, 47(1), 151-172.
Tiwana, A., Keil, M., & Fichman, R. G. 2006. Information systems project continuation in escalation situations: A
real options model. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 357-391.
Wang, J., & Lin, Y. I. 2009. An overlapping process model to assess schedule risk for new product development.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57(2), 460-474.
Ward, S., & Chapman, C. 2003. Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 97-105.
Zwikael, O., & Globerson, S. 2006. From critical success factors to critical success processes. International Journal
of Production Research, 44(17), 3433-3449.

10