Forum, participants made it clear that their preference was for the IPRa tool to provide separate assessment scales for likelihood of occurrence and relative impact for each element Consistency Testing To verify the usefulness and to assess the viability of the Baseline Relative Impact values, we tested the IPRA on completed and ongoing capital projects. Data from 22 projects in 18 countries, representing greater than $4.2 billion in project value, were used to test the efficacy of the IPRA. This sample included a retrospective look at 15 recently completed projects and observation of IPRa use on seven projects that were ongoing at the time of the study. Further details and summary information on the test projects are provided in Cll Research Report 181-11(Cl 2003b) The completed test projects were a convenience sample nominated by research team members and others. On each sample project, historical project data were collected for all 82 project risk elements at the time of contract formation. These data were used to build risk profiles for each of the 82 elements so that a rank ordering for the test projects could be developed and compared to the baseline rankings developed using the workshop data In general, the relative impacts of the 82 risk issues on these test projects were similar to the predicted Baseline Relative Impact values. There were, however, some differences. The test sample consisted mainly of projects from developing nations with experienced owner and contractor involvement. Therefore, some risk elements related to working in a developing country(mostly in Section llI of the IPRA), and those risk elements related to funding and marketing(mostly in Section I of the IPRA)were significantly different than predicted by the Baselines. This assessment underscores the need to tailor the Baseline values to the project at hand and to ensure that experienced individuals are availabl to perform the assessment We asked respondents to identify risk issues not addressed at contract formation that had Seve or Extreme impacts on cost, schedule, and/or business drivers for the sample projects. Figure 4 gives a summary of these IPRA risk elements, listed by frequency of occurrence. We also asked the respondents to identify the unforeseen Severe and Extreme risks that existed at the contract formation phase of their projects, the impacts of those issues to the project's ultimate performance, and mitigation steps taken. A selected sub-sample of these unforeseen issues is given in Figure 5 IPRA Risk elements requency of Occurrence Ill. Al. Scope development process IIL D8 Schedule 27 L B3. Estimate uncertainty IlCl. Traditions and business practice Ill. DIO. Safety during construction IILE1. Trained workforce Figure 4. Frequency of IPRa elements identified during testing, having a significant project impact not addressed at the time of contract formation(N= 15)9 Forum, participants made it clear that their preference was for the IPRA tool to provide separate assessment scales for likelihood of occurrence and relative impact for each element. Consistency Testing To verify the usefulness and to assess the viability of the Baseline Relative Impact values, we tested the IPRA on completed and ongoing capital projects. Data from 22 projects in 18 countries, representing greater than $4.2 billion in project value, were used to test the efficacy of the IPRA. This sample included a retrospective look at 15 recently completed projects and observation of IPRA use on seven projects that were ongoing at the time of the study. Further details and summary information on the test projects are provided in CII Research Report 181-11 (CII 2003b). The completed test projects were a convenience sample nominated by research team members and others. On each sample project, historical project data were collected for all 82 project risk elements at the time of contract formation. These data were used to build risk profiles for each of the 82 elements so that a rank ordering for the test projects could be developed and compared to the Baseline rankings developed using the workshop data. In general, the relative impacts of the 82 risk issues on these test projects were similar to the predicted Baseline Relative Impact values. There were, however, some differences. The test sample consisted mainly of projects from developing nations with experienced owner and contractor involvement. Therefore, some risk elements related to working in a developing country (mostly in Section III of the IPRA), and those risk elements related to funding and marketing (mostly in Section I of the IPRA) were significantly different than predicted by the Baselines. This assessment underscores the need to tailor the Baseline values to the project at hand and to ensure that experienced individuals are available to perform the assessment. We asked respondents to identify risk issues not addressed at contract formation that had Severe or Extreme impacts on cost, schedule, and/or business drivers for the sample projects. Figure 4 gives a summary of these IPRA risk elements, listed by frequency of occurrence. We also asked the respondents to identify the unforeseen Severe and Extreme risks that existed at the contract formation phase of their projects, the impacts of those issues to the project’s ultimate performance, and mitigation steps taken. A selected sub-sample of these unforeseen issues is given in Figure 5. IPRA Risk Elements Frequency of Occurrence (Percent) III.A1. Scope development process 33 III.A2. Technology 33 III.D8. Schedule 27 I.B3. Estimate uncertainty 20 II.C1. Traditions and business practices 20 III.D10. Safety during construction 20 III.E1. Trained workforce 20 Figure 4. Frequency of IPRA elements identified during testing, having a significant project impact not addressed at the time of contract formation (N = 15)