The International Project Risk Assessment (IPRA)Tool Background Investigation Our research project was guided by an industry research team composed of twelve individuals. This team met periodically to guide our efforts and to provide input into our development activities. Our nvestigation began with an extensive literature review on the topics of risk identification, assessment, and management, as well as issues related to international construction. Information was also gleaned from industry practices for assessing international project risks and CIls periodic globalization forums to gain additional insight on these issues To further evaluate the approaches that organizations use to manage the risks incurred on international projects, we conducted 26 structured interviews with mid-to upper-level management personnel, including eight each from contractor and owner organizations, and the remainder distributed among legal, professional service financial, and insurance experts. Construction industry experience of interviewees ranged from 20 to over 50 years, and all participants had at least 10 years of working experience with international projects of various types and sizes(Walewski and Gibson 2003) Both the literature review and these interviews showed that a variety of techniques and practices exist to identify and assess risks that occur on international projects, but there was no standard technique or practice specifically targeted for such projects(Cll 1989, Walewski et al. 2002). We found that decisions on country specific risks are often made by top management and separated from other business, technical and operational risks of the project. Few project participants have a complete understanding of the portfolio of risks that happen on such projects, and a life cycle view of the risks is uncommon. As such, compartmentalization of the risk occurs, and international projects are often organized and managed in ways that create information and communication disconnects Development of the Tool To address a structured management approach, we developed a detailed list of the risk elements that impact the projects life cycle(planning, design, construction, and operations) of international facilities- effectively this is the"risk identification"portion of the risk management process. We used help from five primary sources for this list: the expertise of the research team, literature review the structured interviews, input from 10 Cll Globalization Committee members, and further w by industry representatives. Initial topic categories were gathered from previous research and the str interviews and screened using the research team's expertise. The final list of international risks was further refined and an agreement reached regarding exact terms and nomenclature of element definitions. Once this completed, separate reviews were performed by Globalization Committee members and vetted participants during a series of workshops The final list consists of 82 Elements grouped into 14 Categories and further grouped into four main Sections that reflect the projects life cycle. This list, which forms the basis of the IPRa tool, is presented in Figure 1. This list can be considered very comprehensive for pursuing capital projects outside of one's home jurisdiction. Each Section, Category, and Element of the IPRa has a corresponding detailed description to assist project participants in gaining an understanding of the issues related to that component of the risk being considered. An example element description is given in Appendix A. The IPRA Assessment Sheets and Element Descriptions are used in concert by a project manager and project team members to identify and assess specific risk factors, including the likelihood of occurrence and relative impact for each element We hypothesized that all elements are not equally important with respect to their relative impact on overall project success. These issues are different depending on the project type and location as well.Our dustry sponsors believed there would be significant benefit if a standard baseline(impact)risk value could be determined for each element. This guidance value of a risk's effect on the project would be of assistance when the risk is unknown by project participants, and could also provide a framework to rank order risk elements project for subsequent mitigation5 The International Project Risk Assessment (IPRA) Tool Background Investigation Our research project was guided by an industry research team composed of twelve individuals. This team met periodically to guide our efforts and to provide input into our development activities. Our investigation began with an extensive literature review on the topics of risk identification, assessment, and management, as well as issues related to international construction. Information was also gleaned from industry practices for assessing international project risks and CII’s periodic globalization forums to gain additional insight on these issues. To further evaluate the approaches that organizations use to manage the risks incurred on international projects, we conducted 26 structured interviews with mid- to upper-level management personnel, including eight each from contractor and owner organizations, and the remainder distributed among legal, professional service, financial, and insurance experts. Construction industry experience of interviewees ranged from 20 to over 50 years, and all participants had at least 10 years of working experience with international projects of various types and sizes (Walewski and Gibson 2003). Both the literature review and these interviews showed that a variety of techniques and practices exist to identify and assess risks that occur on international projects, but there was no standard technique or practice specifically targeted for such projects (CII 1989, Walewski et al. 2002). We found that decisions on country￾specific risks are often made by top management and separated from other business, technical and operational risks of the project. Few project participants have a complete understanding of the portfolio of risks that happen on such projects, and a life cycle view of the risks is uncommon. As such, compartmentalization of the risks occurs, and international projects are often organized and managed in ways that create information and communication disconnects. Development of the Tool To address a structured management approach, we developed a detailed list of the risk elements that impact the project’s life cycle (planning, design, construction, and operations) of international facilities— effectively this is the “risk identification” portion of the risk management process. We used help from five primary sources for this list: the expertise of the research team, literature review results, the structured interviews, input from 10 CII Globalization Committee members, and further review by industry representatives. Initial topic categories were gathered from previous research and the structured interviews and screened using the research team’s expertise. The final list of international risks was further refined and an agreement reached regarding exact terms and nomenclature of element definitions. Once this effort was completed, separate reviews were performed by Globalization Committee members and vetted again by participants during a series of workshops. The final list consists of 82 Elements grouped into 14 Categories and further grouped into four main Sections that reflect the project’s life cycle. This list, which forms the basis of the IPRA tool, is presented in Figure 1. This list can be considered very comprehensive for pursuing capital projects outside of one’s home jurisdiction. Each Section, Category, and Element of the IPRA has a corresponding detailed description to assist project participants in gaining an understanding of the issues related to that component of the risk being considered. An example element description is given in Appendix A. The IPRA Assessment Sheets and Element Descriptions are used in concert by a project manager and project team members to identify and assess specific risk factors, including the likelihood of occurrence and relative impact for each element. We hypothesized that all elements are not equally important with respect to their relative impact on overall project success. These issues are different depending on the project type and location as well. Our industry sponsors believed there would be significant benefit if a standard baseline (impact) risk value could be determined for each element. This guidance value of a risk’s effect on the project would be of assistance when the risk is unknown by project participants, and could also provide a framework to rank order risk elements on the project for subsequent mitigation