Share This Article:

Top 10 Key Risk Factors of GZA Project Implementation Are Analyzed with Interpretative Structural Model

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2513KB) PP. 275-280
DOI: 10.4236/ojbm.2014.24032    2,535 Downloads   2,954 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The top 10 risk factors of GZA project implementation are analyzed with interpretative structural model. There is scientific decision-making, policy supporting, design quality, supervisory mechanism, drawing accuracy, costing, budget control, organization structure, personnel quality, democratic participation, and its interpretative structural model is established. The result illustrates that the relationship among the top 10 risk factors of GZA project implementation is like a pagoda: the root risks are risk of scientific decision-making and risk of drawing accuracy, and risk of organization structure is on the top floor. Those three risks are the most critical factors which affect GZA project implementation’s success or failure. The study attempts to facilitate designing of the specific strategy to avoid risk in order to enhance the success rate of GZA project implementation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Wan, J. and Pan, G. (2014) Top 10 Key Risk Factors of GZA Project Implementation Are Analyzed with Interpretative Structural Model. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2, 275-280. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2014.24032.

References

[1] Wan, J.P. and Pan, G.W. (2014) Top 10 Key Risk Factors of GZA Project Implementation are Identified with Analytic Hierarchy Process. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2, 172-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2014.23021
[2] 233 Network School (2008) The Classification and Characteristics of Engineering Project Risk Management and Countermeasures.
http://www.233.com/jzs1/xmgl/fudao/20080922/085417974.html
[3] Zhao, Z.Y., Liu, Y.S. and Yang, H.C. (2002) Application of Fault Tree Analyzing Method to Risk Management of a Construction Project. Modern Electric Power, 19, 95-99.
[4] Guo, P. and Shi, P.G. (2005) Research on Fuzzy-Grey Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Project Risk. Journal of Xi’an University of Technology, 21, 106-109.
[5] Zhao, H. and Yin, Y.L. (2011) An Analysis of Influencing Factors of Reasonable Risk Allocation in Construction Project Based on Interpretative Structural Modeling, Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 13, 15-19.
[6] Warfield, J.N. (1976) Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity, Wiley Interscience, New York, 208-366.
[7] Cheng, B. (2010) Empirical Analysis on the Capability of Our Entrepreneures Factors Based on ISM. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 40, 71-79.
[8] Wan, J.P. and Hou, J.J. (2012) Research on SAP Business One Implementation Risk Factors with Interpretive Structural Model. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 5, 147-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2012.53022
[9] Wan, J.P., Cao, Y.H. and Hou, J.J. (2013) Case Study on H Corp. Software Project Risk Management with ISM. Technology and Investment, 4, 145-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ti.2013.43017
[10] Wan, J.P., Zhu, Y.H. and Liang, L.Y. (2013) The Research on the Key Success Factors of Mobile Internet with Interpretative Structural Modeling. iBusiness, 5, 107-112.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.