Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 81, 2016
2016 5th International Conference on Transportation and Traffic Engineering (ICTTE 2016)
Article Number 03005
Number of page(s) 9
Section Traffic Control
Published online 25 October 2016
  1. B. Flyvbjerg, N. Bruzelius, & W. Rothengatter, Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. M. Pacione, Dubai, Cities, 22, no. 3, pp. 255–265, (2005) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. K. Beck & C. Andres, Extreme programming explained: Embrace change, Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, (2004) [Google Scholar]
  4. M. Giezen, Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning, International Journal of Project Management, 30, no. 7, pp. 781–790, (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. W. R. Scott, R. E. Levitt, & R. J. Orr, Global projects: Institutional and political challenges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. PMI, A guide to the project management body of knowledge (5th ed.): Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, (2013) [Google Scholar]
  7. H. P. Berg, Risk management: Procedures, methods and experiences, Rsik Management, 1, no. 6, pp. 79–95, (2010) [Google Scholar]
  8. KPMG, How to successfully manage your mega-project, KPMG International Cooperative, [Google Scholar]
  9. http://us/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/how-to-manage-mega-project.aspx. Accessed March 5, (2013) [Google Scholar]
  10. D. Cooper, S. Grey, G. Raymond, & P. Walker, Project risk management guidelines: Managing risk in large projects and complex procurements, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, (2005) [Google Scholar]
  11. O. Renn, The role of risk perception for risk management, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59, no. 1, pp. 49–62, (1998) [Google Scholar]
  12. H. Drummond, MIS and illusions of control: an analysis of the risks of risk management, Journal of Information Technology, 26, no. 4, pp. 259–267, (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. H. F. Cervone, Project risk management, OCLC Systems & Services, 22, no. 4, pp. 256–262, (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. C. Traeger, Conducting a business impact analysis, Faulkner Information Services, Docid: 0018494, (2005) [Google Scholar]
  15. Z. F. Lansdowne, Risk matrix: an approach for prioritizing risks and tracking risk mitigation progress, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA, October, pp. 10–16, (1999) [Google Scholar]
  16. T. Kendrick, Identifying and managing project risk: essential tools for failure-proofing your project, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn., New York, (2003) [Google Scholar]
  17. S. H. Han, D. Y. Kim, H. Kim, & W. S. Jang, A web-based integrated system for international project risk management, Automation in Construction, 17, no. 3, pp. 342–356, (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. V. T. Luu, S. Y. Kim, N. V. Tuan, & S. O. Ogunlana, Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks, International Journal of Project Management, 27, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2009 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. P. Love, C. Sing, X. Wang, D. Edwards, & H. Odeyinka, Probability distribution fitting of schedule overruns in construction projects, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64, no. 8, pp. 1231–1247, (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. A. Öztaş, & Ö. Ökmen, Judgmental risk analysis process development in construction projects, Building and Environment, 40, no. 9, pp. 1244–1254, (2005) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ö. Ökmen & A. Öztaş, Construction project network evaluation with correlated schedule risk analysis model, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134, no. 1, pp. 49–63, (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. D. Schatteman, W. Herroelen, S. Van de Vonder, & A. Boone, Methodology for integrated risk management and proactive scheduling of construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134, no. 11, pp. 885–893, (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. M. Vanhoucke, On the dynamic use of project performance and schedule risk information during projecttracking, Omega, 39, no. 4, pp. 416–426, (2011) [Google Scholar]
  24. S. F. Moosavi & O. Moselhi, Schedule assessment and evaluation, Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, West Lafayette, pp. 535–544, (2012) [Google Scholar]
  25. G. Jia, F. Yang, G. Wang, B. Hong, & R. You, A study of mega project from a perspective of social conflict theory, International Journal of Project Management, 29, no. 7, pp. 817–827, (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. B. M. Byrne, Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, Routledge, (2013) [Google Scholar]
  27. M. Mainul Islam & O. O. Faniran, Structural equation model of project planning effectiveness, Construction Management and Economics, 23, no. 2, pp. 215–223, (2005) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. K. Molenaar, S. Washington, & J. Diekmann, Structural equation model of construction contract dispute potential, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126, no. 4, pp. 268–277, (2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.