RELATIVE IMPACT A Negligible consequence that routine procedure would be sufficient to deal with the consequences. b Minor consequence that would threaten an element of the project. Normal control and monitoring neasures are sufficient Moderate consequence would necessitate significant adjustment to the project. Requires dentification and control of all contributing factors by monitoring conditions and reassessment at roject milestones. ignificant consequence that would threaten goals and objectives, requires close management d Could substantially delay the project schedule or significantly affect technical performance or osts, and requires a plan to handle xtreme consequence would stop achievement of project or organizational goals and objectives E Most likely to occur and prevent achievement of objectives, causing unacceptable cost overruns, schedule sli Figure 2. Relative Impact Definitions In summary, responses from the workshops were evaluated and the collective input was used to develop a Baseline Relative Impact value for each IPRA risk element. The Relative Impact value is composed of the element's rank based on its potential impact to the project within its category, section, and the overall IPRA tool. Several statistical tests-described in detail in CIl 181-11-were performed and the Relative Impact values were incorporated into the final version of the IPRA worksheets Likelihood of Occurrence values were also developed by dividing probability that the identified risk will occur into the following five designations (with numerical range from I to 5): 1= Very Low (<10%),2=Low(10%to<35%)3= Mediun(35%to<65%),4=High(65%to<90%) High(90% or greater). These designations are based on the research team's review and assessment of the literature and industry practices in determining and assigning risk probabilities. Figure 3 gives the probability division for the likelihood of Occurrence used in the IPRa Probability NA- Not applicable to this project. Zero 1-Very Low chance of occurrence, rare and occurs only n exceptional circumstances (<10% chance) 2- Low chance and unlikely to occur in most (10% chance of occurrence <35%) Medium chance and possible to occur in most (35% chance of occurrence <65%) 4- High chance of happening and will probably occur in (65% chance of occurrence <90%) 5. Very High chance of occurrence and almost certain and expected in most circumstances (90% or greater chance of occurrence) igure 3. Division for Likelihood of Occurrence in the Ipra As a supplement to the workshops, the October 2002 Cll Emerging Markets Forum in Baltimore Maryland, USA, provided an opportunity for 29 industry representatives to test the mechanics of using the IPRA Tool and Element Descriptions on a case study cement production facility located in Bulgaria Forum participants were also asked to assess and comment on the theory, structure, and usefulness of our work. Introducing the IPRa to the Forum participants and having them participate in this case study evaluation provided value. The case study issues and expectations of Forum participants were well defined during an introduction to the IPRA. These factors combined with an interactive group discussion on assessing the project risks and then reporting the results helped to: 1) create a high level of interest in the IPRA, 2)check the thoroughness of the tool, and 3) provide an excellent opportunity to observe the personal interaction of participants when using the tool. In the concluding discussion session at the8 RELATIVE IMPACT A Negligible consequence that routine procedure would be sufficient to deal with the consequences. B Minor consequence that would threaten an element of the project. Normal control and monitoring measures are sufficient. C Moderate consequence would necessitate significant adjustment to the project. Requires identification and control of all contributing factors by monitoring conditions and reassessment at project milestones. D Significant consequence that would threaten goals and objectives; requires close management. Could substantially delay the project schedule or significantly affect technical performance or costs, and requires a plan to handle. E Extreme consequence would stop achievement of project or organizational goals and objectives. Most likely to occur and prevent achievement of objectives, causing unacceptable cost overruns, schedule slippage, or project failure. Figure 2. Relative Impact Definitions In summary, responses from the workshops were evaluated and the collective input was used to develop a Baseline Relative Impact value for each IPRA risk element. The Relative Impact value is composed of the element’s rank based on its potential impact to the project within its category, section, and the overall IPRA tool. Several statistical tests—described in detail in CII 181-11—were performed and the Relative Impact values were incorporated into the final version of the IPRA worksheets. Likelihood of Occurrence values were also developed by dividing probability that the identified risk will occur into the following five designations (with numerical range from 1 to 5): 1 = Very Low (<10%), 2 = Low (10% to <35%), 3 = Medium (35% to <65%), 4 = High (65% to <90%), and 5 = Very High (90% or greater). These designations are based on the research team’s review and assessment of the literature and industry practices in determining and assigning risk probabilities. Figure 3 gives the probability division for the Likelihood of Occurrence used in the IPRA. Occurrence Probability NA - Not applicable to this project. Zero 1 - Very Low chance of occurrence, rare and occurs only in exceptional circumstances. (<10% chance) 2 - Low chance and unlikely to occur in most circumstances. (10% chance of occurrence <35%) 3 - Medium chance and possible to occur in most circumstances. (35% chance of occurrence <65%) 4 - High chance of happening and will probably occur in most circumstances. (65% chance of occurrence <90%) 5 - Very High chance of occurrence and almost certain and expected in most circumstances. (90% or greater chance of occurrence) Figure 3. Division for Likelihood of Occurrence in the IPRA As a supplement to the workshops, the October 2002 CII Emerging Markets Forum in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, provided an opportunity for 29 industry representatives to test the mechanics of using the IPRA Tool and Element Descriptions on a case study cement production facility located in Bulgaria. Forum participants were also asked to assess and comment on the theory, structure, and usefulness of our work. Introducing the IPRA to the Forum participants and having them participate in this case study evaluation provided value. The case study issues and expectations of Forum participants were well￾defined during an introduction to the IPRA. These factors combined with an interactive group discussion on assessing the project risks and then reporting the results helped to: 1) create a high level of interest in the IPRA, 2) check the thoroughness of the tool, and 3) provide an excellent opportunity to observe the personal interaction of participants when using the tool. In the concluding discussion session at the