KR100711572B1 - Management method for risk in construction using risk checklist and apparatus threrof - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for managing a risk of construction work using a risk checklist, comprising: a risk factor database forming step of collecting a risk factor data that can be generated to form a risk factor database; A risk factor data display step of displaying risk factor data of the risk factor database; Selecting a risk factor data to select a specific risk factor from the displayed risk factor data; A sensory level data input step of evaluating a level of sensory level for the selected risk factor data, and receiving the evaluated sensory level data; An occurrence probability level data input step of evaluating the occurrence probability level for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated occurrence probability level data; An impact intensity level data input step of evaluating an impact intensity level on the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated impact intensity level data; A level data calculation step for each risk factor that calculates the level data for each risk factor by combining the sensory level data, probability of occurrence level data, and impact intensity level data; Preparing a risk level evaluation report for preparing an evaluation report based on the level data for each risk factor; By presenting an inclusive configuration, it is possible to derive a reasonable risk level quantification methodology while providing useful results from a practical perspective.

Construction work, risks, checklist

Description

MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR RISK IN CONSTRUCTION USING RISK CHECKLIST AND APPARATUS THREROF}

1 is a flow chart of a research procedure for developing a risk management method.

2 is a schematic diagram of a risk level estimation method in a conventional risk management method.

3 to 24 illustrate an embodiment of a risk management method and apparatus according to the present invention.

3 is a flowchart of a first embodiment of a risk management method;

4 is a flowchart of a second embodiment of a risk management method.

5 is a block diagram of a risk management apparatus.

6 is a schematic diagram of a risk level calculation method.

7 is a conceptual diagram of an SE checklist.

8 is a schematic diagram of an SE checklist;

9 is a diagram of risk management types and methods.

10 is a block diagram of a procedure for utilizing a risk checklist.

11 to 20 illustrate an embodiment in which the risk management method according to the present invention is implemented by a web-based online system.

11 is an initial screen.

12 is a management purpose setting screen;

13 is a risk factor selection screen;

14 is a chart relating to risk level ratings.

15 is a level evaluation screen for each risk factor.

16 is a risk loss calculation screen.

17 is a risk response strategy establishment screen.

18 is a diagram relating to risk management types and methods.

19 is a table relating to the quantitative evaluation of risk management status.

20 is a risk management status screen.

21 is a diagram relating to the contents and purpose of an expert interview.

22 is a table relating to expert interview results.

Fig. 23 is a table about a result of analysis of concordance rate ranking with expert judgment;

24 is a table relating to an expert final evaluation result.

** Description of the symbols for the main parts of the drawings **

100: risk factor database 110: cause group database

111: upper factor group database 112: lower factor group database

120: case group database 121: upper factor group database

122: subfactor group database 210: risk factor data display unit

220: level data display unit 310: risk factor data selection input unit

320: sensory level data input unit 330: probability of occurrence level data input unit

340: impact intensity level data input unit 400: level data operation unit

500: control unit

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to the field of construction management systems, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for managing risks occurring in construction work using a risk checklist.

Risk management by checklist is the most widely used in advanced construction companies in foreign countries because of its easy to understand and simple to use method. We have been developing risk checklists for many years, starting with basic checklists, and now have internal checklists that are elaborately built around a few large companies.

However, the checklist thus far emphasizes the ease of use, which is overly simplified, and thus it is difficult to select key risk factors and reasonably estimate the reserve costs because most of them are judged for existence rather than evaluating the level of risk. There are limitations in providing practically valuable information, such as the lack of a variety of management strategies required.

On the other hand, the traditional quantification method of measuring the level of risk based on the probability of occurrence and the intensity of impact has the drawback that it does not take into account the other criteria needed to actually assess the risk.

Identifying risk factors from various perspectives contributes to more effective risk management. In practice, however, risks are causal and multi-layered, with complex impacts on different risk factors, and most studies tend to treat risks as independent and primary without taking this into account in depth. Han (2001) and Makarand (2001) studied a methodology that could reflect the causal relationship of risk.

The most widely known traditional technique for assessing risk priorities is based on two criteria: probability and intensity. However, Anna (2002), Shou (2000), Kartam (2001), New Issue (2002), and Kang In-seok (2001b) approached from a more practical perspective by introducing a single criterion of "risk importance." Makarand (2000) and Kang In-seok (2001a) presented a methodology that can consider the concept of probability and strength simultaneously with the importance of risk to overcome the limitations of using both methods separately.

Risk priorities are determined by assigning weight values to the risk levels derived from probability and intensity assessments to derive the final level.

On the other hand, most front-line practitioners still adhere to a method of estimating a percentage of the quoted price as a reserve, based on past project experience or accumulated data, which in many ways is less accurate and likely overpriced. It has a high problem.

Kim Doo-yeon (2003), Lee Dong-jun (2003), Kang In-seok (2000), Stephen (2000), etc., suggest a solution by reflecting the characteristics and conditions of the target project in individual risks.

The risk response strategy can only be different depending on the country (region), the environment in which the project is carried out, the type of construction, the characteristics of the participants, etc. Intensive investigation of the project ensures sufficient practical use. On the other hand, if most of the above research results focused on presenting a concrete response strategy, Alfredo (2002) and Seo Seok-won (2002), etc. studied the standards and methods of planning.

From the academic achievements examined so far, the measures to maximize the practicality of the risk management model are as follows.

First, a system is established to record and share the information on the relationship and path of influence with other risk factors.

Second, in evaluating the priorities of risks, the importance of each risk factor itself, the probability of occurrence and the intensity of impact within the target project are introduced.

Third, the accuracy of reserve calculation is increased by considering the risk factors that are expected to cause direct loss if they occur. Fourth, differentiated risk management information is required according to business environment or project type, and systematic response strategy can be executed through standardized procedures.

The primary purpose of predicting and analyzing risk is to reduce the level and likelihood of actual damage by identifying factors that may be the cause of the damage, establishing a response strategy, or allocating a reserve. And develop a reasonable project plan.

Risk checklists are the most basic model for achieving this goal, but they are easy to create and manage, which makes them very practical, and construction companies are adapting to their needs.

First, in order to diagnose the risk management using the checklist, the common contents of the checklist used by foreign advanced companies and some large construction companies in Korea are as follows.

Enterprise-wide risk management flows vary slightly from company to company, but it is most common to go through three stages of `` risk identification → risk analysis → risk response '' as shown in FIG.

Everyone is aware of the project's feasibility and predicting the feasibility of the project through the exchange of opinions and brainstorming between departments from the time a project is ordered, and the procedures are reasonable. It can be seen that it is fixed.

However, despite the fact that the importance of continuous observation and response to the existence of risks is emphasized in carrying out overseas construction projects, which are very uncertain in terms of overall conditions, they are relatively weak compared to the initial prediction results.

On the other hand, there are two ways to quantify risks. When determining probability and impact intensity between 0 and 1, the estimation method using the probability × intensity formula underestimates risk. It has been criticized for being able to make the mistake of evaluating it.

Therefore, as an alternative to this, as shown in FIG. 2, a method of classifying the risk as the distance from the evaluation position to the origin has been proposed, and is currently widely applied. .

However, these traditional methods are easy to understand and easy to use, but they are easy to acquire information for risk analysis and management, the ability to predict the target or extent of damage caused by risk, or when the risk is realized. There is a limit to not taking into account other key aspects of risk assessment, such as potential damage, such as external image damage.

The final risk response phase is the most critical part of risk management, where various strategies can be used to avoid or mitigate risks, and the results are accumulated in the database to create risks under similar conditions. It is used as a basis for establishing city response strategies. Many domestic large construction companies are currently looking for more effective risk management measures by recording information related to the occurrence and damage of risks by project.

Nevertheless, due to the very uncertain nature of the overseas construction market, it is almost impossible to predict and manage all risks, especially for small and medium-sized companies with little experience in overseas construction.

We have diagnosed the risk management status of overseas construction at home and abroad, and suggest the following improvement plans from the results.

First, an organizational management system at the enterprise level is essential to continuously grasp the risk fluctuations during the project. The risk management should be realized by determining the departments or personnel who are responsible for the risks in each project execution area and granting the authority to inquire, prepare, review and approve the checklist.

Second, an assessment should be made to reflect the various points of view when considering risk. Existing levels of probability and intensity are likely to make the error of fractionally estimating risk, so alternatives are needed, such as the introduction of additional criteria.

Third, a series of rational procedures are needed to estimate reserves by suggesting appropriate risk response strategies and estimating residual damage levels. In particular, the amount of loss due to risk can be estimated from the smallest factor, so detailed risk identification is required for the determination of reserve cost.

In order to implement such improvement measures, a comprehensive risk checklist model should be constructed that can be utilized by all companies performing overseas construction based on the integrated risk database through the exchange of information and the use of experts. do. The ultimate goal of this study is here. For this purpose, we will present a practical risk management checklist focusing on establishing and managing proactive response strategies by broadly predicting potential risks in the early stages of project execution. .

The present invention aims to present a checklist structure that can precisely diagnose the problems of the existing risk management as described above, draw out a reasonable risk level quantification methodology, and provide useful results from a practical point of view.

In order to achieve the object of the present invention, the process of clearly recognizing the limitations of the existing system should be preceded through intensive related literature review and company status survey, and above all, directly collecting opinions and criticisms from experienced practitioners. This is important. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 1, the research execution process can be divided into three parts: "considering existing risk management model, presenting a reasonable risk level evaluation methodology and preliminary cost estimation methodology, and verifying the validity and practical utilization of research results".

The present invention first examines existing risk management models and draws implications for further development.

Based on these preliminary investigations, the next step was to find alternatives to more reasonably determine the level of risk by introducing new criteria.

Then, we analyzed the causal relationship between the factors that could cause loss during the project and suggested the basic algorithm to estimate the reserve cost by constructing the risk scenario.

The present invention provides a comprehensive set of procedures for managing overseas construction project risks, including the above risk assessment techniques.

Lastly, this study attempted to verify the proposed risk management model.

In order to achieve the object described above, the present invention, as shown in Figures 3 and 4Y, in the method for managing the risk of construction work using the risk checklist, by collecting the risk factor data that can occur A risk factor database forming step of forming a risk factor database; A risk factor data display step of displaying risk factor data of the risk factor database; Selecting a risk factor data to input a specific risk factor among the displayed risk factor data; A sensory level data input step of evaluating a level of sensibility for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated level of sensory level data; An occurrence probability level data input step of evaluating the occurrence probability level for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated occurrence probability level data; An impact intensity level data input step of evaluating a level of impact intensity on the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated impact intensity level data; A level data calculation step for each risk factor that calculates the level data for each risk factor by combining the haptic level data, occurrence probability level data, and impact intensity level data; A risk level evaluation report preparation step of preparing an evaluation report based on the level data for each risk factor; It suggests how to manage construction risks using the included risk checklist.

A risk factor rating data generation step of generating rating data for each risk factor based on the risk factor level data; A management object risk factor data input step of selecting and inputting the risk factor data to be managed based on the risk data for each risk factor; A management status database forming step of displaying the management risk factor data and receiving management status data corresponding to each management risk factor data to form a management status database; It is preferable to further include.

A management type data input step of inputting a management type of risk avoidance, risk transfer, risk mitigation, and risk acceptance in response to the management target risk factor data; The management status database forming step may further include displaying the management type data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and receiving the management status data corresponding to the management type data; It is preferable to include.

When the risk avoidance of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, the management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the degree of management of the complete evasion, partial avoidance corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: When a complete avoidance of the control data is selected in the control data input step, the control status database forming step displays the control data corresponding to the displayed control object factor data and corresponds to the control data. Selecting and inputting whether or not management is performed to completely avoid the risk as the management status data; It is preferable to include.

When the risk avoidance of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, the management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the degree of management of the complete evasion, partial avoidance corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: When a part of the control degree data is selected in the control degree data input step, the management status database forming step displays the control degree data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the control degree data. Selecting and inputting a degree of management to avoid partial risk of the risk as the management status data; It is preferable to include.

If the risk transfer of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, a management method data input step of inputting by selecting a contract clause and a management method during insurance, corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: If the contract clause of the management method data is selected in the management method data input step, and further comprising a management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the management degree of full transfer, partial transfer in response to the selected management method data, When the complete transfer of the control degree data is selected in the control degree data input step, the management status database forming step displays the management accuracy data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the control degree data. The risk as the management status data Selecting and inputting whether management has been performed for full transfer of the data; It is preferable to include.

If the risk transfer of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, a management method data input step of inputting by selecting a contract clause and a management method during insurance, corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: If the contract clause of the management method data is selected in the management method data input step, and further comprising a management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the management degree of full transfer, partial transfer in response to the selected management method data, When some transfer of the control degree data is selected in the control degree data input step, the management status database forming step displays the control degree data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the control degree data. The risk as the management status data The step of receiving input to select the degree to which performs management for the part transfer; It is preferable to include.

If the risk transfer of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, a management method data input step of inputting by selecting a contract clause and a management method during insurance, corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: If the insurance method is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, the management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the management degree of full transfer, partial transfer in response to the selected management method data, further comprising: When the complete transfer of the control degree data is selected in the control degree data input step, the management status database forming step displays the control degree data corresponding to the displayed control object factor data and corresponds to the control degree data. The risk as the management status data Selecting and inputting whether management has been performed for full transfer of the data; It is preferable to include.

If the risk transfer of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, a management method data input step of inputting by selecting a contract clause and a management method during insurance, corresponding to the selected management type data, further comprising: If the insurance method is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, the management degree data input step of inputting by selecting the management degree of full transfer, partial transfer in response to the selected management method data, further comprising: When some transfer of the control degree data is selected in the control degree data input step, the management status database forming step displays the control degree data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the control degree data. The risk as the management status data The step of receiving input to select the degree to which performs management for the part transfer; It is preferable to include.

When the risk mitigation is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, the method further includes a management method data input step of selecting a management method among risk sharing and risk reduction corresponding to the selected management type data. When risk sharing is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, the management status database forming step displays the management method data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the management method data. Selecting and inputting a degree of management for sharing the risk as the management status data; It is preferable to include.

When the risk mitigation is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, the method further includes a management method data input step of selecting a management method among risk sharing and risk reduction corresponding to the selected management type data. When the risk reduction is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, the management status database forming step displays the management method data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and corresponds to the management method data. Selecting and inputting a degree to which management is performed to reduce the risk as the management status data; It is preferable to include.

If the risk acceptance of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, the management method data input step of receiving a selection of the management method of the reserve cost allocation, simple holding in response to the selected management type data, further comprising: When the reserve cost allocation is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, the management status database forming step displays the management method data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and corresponds to the management method data. Selecting and inputting whether or not management has been performed to allocate the reserve cost as the management status data; It is preferable to include.

If the risk acceptance of the management type data is selected in the management type data input step, the management method data input step of receiving a selection of the management method of the reserve cost allocation, simple holding in response to the selected management type data, further comprising: When a simple retention is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, the management status database forming step displays the management type data corresponding to the displayed management target factor data and corresponds to the management type data. Receiving the management status data; It is preferable to include.

The risk factor database forming step includes: a cause group database forming step of grouping risk factor data corresponding to a cause of a risk among the risk factor data to form a cause group; An event group database forming step of grouping risk factor data corresponding to a result of the cause among the risk factor data to form an event group; The risk factor data displaying step includes displaying the risk factor data of the cause group database and corresponding risk factor data of the event group database; Preferably, the risk factor data selection step is received by selecting from the risk factor data of the event group database.

The cause group database forming step includes: forming an upper factor group database to form a higher factor group by grouping risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among risk factor data of the cause group database; Forming a lower factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the cause group database to form a lower factor group; And the risk factor data displaying step includes displaying the risk factor data of the higher factor group database and the corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database corresponding to each other; It is preferable to include.

The event group database forming step includes: forming a higher factor group database to form a higher factor group by grouping risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among risk factor data of the event group database; Forming a lower factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the event group database to form a lower factor group; And the risk factor data displaying step includes displaying the risk factor data of the higher factor group database and the corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database corresponding to each other; It is preferable to include.

A loss amount data input step of receiving a loss amount corresponding to the risk factor data by dividing the loss amount corresponding to the risk factor data into minimum, most frequent, and maximum cases; An estimated loss amount data calculating step of calculating an estimated loss amount data by assigning a predetermined weight to each of the input loss amount data; Preparing an estimated loss amount evaluation report for preparing an evaluation report based on the estimated loss amount data; It is preferable to include.

A redundant loss amount input step of receiving duplicate redundant loss amount data with respect to a risk factor in the case of causing the same or similar loss as a result of occurrence in the risk factor data; Further, the estimated loss data calculation step preferably includes the step of excluding the duplicate loss amount from the expected loss amount.

On the other hand, the present invention, as another means for achieving the above object, proposes a recording medium on which a program that implements the construction engineering risk management method using the risk checklist is recorded.

On the other hand, the present invention is another means for achieving the above object, that is, in the device for managing the risk of construction work using the risk checklist, as shown in Figure 5, possible risk factor data is stored Risk factor database 100; A risk factor data display unit 210 for reading and displaying the risk factor data from the risk factor database 100; A risk factor data selection input unit 310 for inputting a specific risk factor among the displayed risk factor data; A sensory level data input unit 320 for evaluating the level of sensibility for the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated sensory level data; An occurrence probability level data input unit 330 for evaluating the occurrence probability level for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated occurrence probability level data; An impact intensity level data input unit 340 for evaluating a level of impact intensity on the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated impact intensity level data; A risk factor level data calculation unit 400 for calculating the level data for each risk factor by combining the haptic level data, occurrence probability level data, and impact intensity level data; A level data display unit 220 for displaying the calculated level data for each risk factor; A control unit (500) for controlling the database (100), the operation unit (400), and the display unit (210, 220) by the input unit (310, 320, 330, 340); A construction management risk management system using a risk checklist is included.

Here, the risk factor database 100 includes a cause group database 110 in which risk factor data corresponding to a cause of a risk is stored among the risk factor data; An event group database (120) in which risk factor data corresponding to a result of the cause among the risk factor data are stored; The risk factor data display unit 210 displays the risk factor data of the cause group database 110 and the risk factor data of the event group database 120 corresponding to each other, and selects the risk factor data. The input unit 310 may be selected to be input from the risk factor data of the event group database 120.

The cause group database 110 includes a higher factor group database 111 in which risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among risk factor data of the cause group database 110 are stored; A lower factor group database 112 in which risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the cause group database 110 are stored; Preferably, the risk factor data display unit 210 displays the risk factor data of the upper factor group database 111 and the risk factor data of the lower factor group database 112 corresponding thereto.

The event group database 120 includes a higher factor group database 121 in which risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among risk factor data of the event group database 120 are stored; A lower factor group database 122 in which risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the event group database 120 are stored; Preferably, the risk factor data display unit 210 displays the risk factor data of the upper factor group database 121 and the risk factor data of the lower factor group database 122 corresponding thereto.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

Risk has been traditionally assessed by the Likelihood of Occurrence and the Severity of Loss, and from many studies to date, this logic has been established as a theory.

On the other hand, multiplication, ie probability x intensity, has long been recognized for the methodology of combining two criteria quantitatively, but as mentioned earlier, criticisms about the distortion of the evaluation results have raised the two standards. The most common method of estimating the level of risk based on the distance from the origin to the point predicted by the axis is widely used.

However, these two standards-based methods are not practically correct. As a representative example, when there are two risk factors, one with a very high probability of occurrence, but one with a very low impact intensity and a very low probability of occurrence, but a very high impact intensity, in practice, people may perceive the latter as more important. do.

From a practical point of view, the likelihood of occurrence, however, should be greater than that of vice versa.

As evidenced by this, insurance companies that are actively applying risk theories are dealing with risks under the same judgment.

Under this problem recognition, in order to assess risk more reasonably, there should be new measures besides current probability and intensity, and many studies can measure the level of risk from various points of view, including two existing criteria. It was confirmed that there is.

1. Potential frequency, likelihood, or probability of loss due to risk

2. Potential level, or intensity, of loss due to risk

3. Ease of Information Acquisition for Risk Analysis and Management

4. Levels of obstacles in establishing and implementing risk response strategies

5. Clarity of consequences (damages) when risks are realized

6. External image damage when risk is realized

7. Ability required to anticipate the extent or extent of damage caused by risk

8. Material responsible for damage caused by risk

In order to reasonably quantify risks, there should be additional metrics along with existing probabilities and strengths, and many studies, including CII (2003) and Eun Hoe Park (1998), can assess the level of risk from various perspectives as suggested above. It was confirmed that it could.

In the present invention, a new standard called "significance" has been introduced as a concept that can encompass risk attributes other than probability of occurrence and impact intensity.

Risk sensitivities are literally defined as the degree to which an evaluator feels intuitively and comprehensively about the importance of risk, and the concept is guided by evaluators to make decisions based on past experience.

Five detailed criteria for risk sensibility assessment were derived through extensive literature review. By taking these criteria into consideration, the evaluator can fully reflect the various risk attributes other than probability and intensity in assessing the haptic.

1. General probability and intensity (loss) of risk

2. Difficulty in obtaining and managing information to predict and analyze risk

3. Indirect Additional Potential Damages Due to Risk

4. Linkage between Risk Management Performance and Project Revenue Generation

5. Attitudes of practitioners who accept risks: victims, responsible materials, etc.

In the present invention, PIS quantification is used in the sense that the evaluation method considering the sensation of risk uses the three criteria of probability, impact, and sensitivities with respect to existing PI quantification. Technique.

6 is a visual representation of the risk level estimation by this PIS quantification method.

,

)를 해당 리스크의 수준으로 산정하는 방식을 채택하였다. In addition to the existing two-dimensional coordinate plane for quantifying risks from the probability of occurrence and impact intensity, the sensory axis is extended to three dimensions.

,

) Was adopted as the level of risk.

This is designed to overcome the limitation that the risk factors of different size may be located at the same distance from the origin in the existing coordinate plane composed of two axes of probability and intensity.

In FIG. 2, which follows the PI quantification method, the risk factors X and Y were found to have the same level. However, in FIG. The strengths of

When evaluating many risk factors with different attributes simultaneously, risk priorities are identified by comparing the distances to the origin and identifying the points corresponding to each risk in the cube formed by the probability of occurrence, impact intensity, and haptic axis. Can be subdivided more realistically.

By using the risk metric of risk, the following effects can be expected with the primary advantage of complementing the assessment by probability and intensity.

First, the high level of sentiment means that the risk factors have a significant impact on profit generation and are also exposed to damage. In other words, high-risk risk is a key factor in the success of the project and should be managed intensively to minimize the probability of occurrence and impact intensity.

Second, practitioners assign haptic values by comprehensively considering various aspects, including the general probability and intensity of risks to be evaluated, based on experience and construction conditions. Thus, perceived per se is a sufficient basis for judging the importance and priority of risk.

Third, unlike other probabilities or strengths, the perceived sensitivity to a particular risk can be fixed to a characteristic value unique to the risk itself.

Companies that participate in overseas construction are making considerable efforts to estimate the amount of losses due to risks and to estimate the uncertainty in the cost estimates and to estimate the amount of spare funds that need to be secured in advance.

Therefore, such a calculation of contingency is another main purpose of risk analysis.

In the present invention, the study focused on the methodology of reasonably predicting the damage level caused by the occurrence of risk by improving the checklist model having the highest practical utilization and calculating the reserve ratio from the result.

Checklists are the most basic model for risk management, but they are easy to create and manage, which makes them very practical, and construction companies are adapting to their needs. There is a slight difference in the company-wide risk management flow using checklists.However, the three steps of Step 1: Identify Risk Factors → Step 2: Quantify Risk Levels (Select Key Risk Factors) → Step 3: Establish Risk Response Strategy It is common to go through steps.

In this example, a risk check methodology can be adopted that facilitates risk assessment and countermeasures by adopting a universal checklist model as an improvement target and by providing a wider range of information at the practical level, focusing on the first process for risk management. To present.

In this process, we will include the methods to effectively apply the PIS risk quantification techniques introduced above, and the algorithms to reasonably estimate the risk loss for project reserve cost estimation.

In order to reasonably assess risks and establish an appropriate response strategy according to the results and risk characteristics, the process of designing a structure that can classify the characteristics of risks from various perspectives and deriving factors suitable for the frameworks should be preceded. .

In addition, it is also essential to find appropriate methodologies for estimating risk paths and their likelihoods in order to identify losses due to risks.

In fact, most of the managers who manage risks at overseas corporations are more likely to have difficulty in evaluating or appropriately dealing with risks, rather than identifying risk factors. The primary cause can be found in the general checklist structure.

Problems with existing checklists also lead to difficulties in establishing risk management strategies. Even if major risks are selected by predicted probabilities and intensities, it is not easy to suggest appropriate countermeasures because the factors to be managed are comprehensive and their attributes are not specifically identified.

Therefore, in order to overcome these limitations, it is necessary to first look at risks from various perspectives such as causes and consequences, external / internal factors, relevant sectors or sectors, timing and management stages, and phase structure. On the other hand, due to the nature of these various risks, many practitioners criticize the way all risks are assessed by uniform criteria, such as probability and intensity. Alternatively, one or more of the evaluation criteria, such as the existence of the risk itself, a description of the process and conditions of occurrence of the risk, or the transfer of risk by contract or insurance, may be adopted, depending on the characteristics of each target risk, and the result Present a system for comprehensive judgment by experts.

Such evaluation is ideal because it provides a deep and broad understanding of the overall risk level of the project, but in reality, a model is required that can be utilized without consulting consulting or excessive additional costs. Therefore, this study intensively reviewed and reflected the following items in order to synthesize all the above discussions and present an advanced form of checklist that can overcome the limitations of the existing model and secure sufficient versatility.

First, the checklist was organized in such a way that risks could be divided into causes and events.

When deriving risk factors based on a causal relationship, the path of occurrence of a series of risks can be identified to determine how the risk of interest has a relationship with neighboring factors and is located in the scenario.

The probability of a particular scenario becoming a reality can be estimated taking into account the probability of occurrence of each of the associated risk factors, thus minimizing uncertainty as much as possible.

Also, the causal identification of risks is very useful in that the final risk factors of the causal structure derived are the smallest events, and it is easy to estimate the amount of loss expected in the event of occurrence, and the impact intensity and reserve can be estimated from them.

Second, we proposed a framework to construct a hierarchy by subdividing all risks into sub-factors of levels 2-3 above.

It aims to diversify the path of risk realistically by focusing on more specific targets in risk management by deriving the lowest factors that can represent independent causes or single events from the highest risk that contains the most comprehensive concept. There is this.

By using these risks at the same time as the above-mentioned causal relationships, we can improve the accuracy of anticipated damage estimates.

In the Overseas Construction Risk Management Program Advisory Meeting (2004), which was attended by overseas construction practitioners of large domestic construction companies, including experts who had previously answered the questionnaire, estimating the amount of loss due to risk is `` the risk factor that can be the smallest event. '' Suspensions have been collected as possible from.

In the present invention, by actively accepting the opinions of these experts, the risk risk hierarchy is derived through causal classification of risks, and the evaluator can grasp the range of predictable loss amount based on the lowest factors.

The overall composition of the checklist is illustrated in FIG. 7 by integrating the risk causality and risk topology information presented above.

This checklist is referred to hereinafter as "SE checklist" through the meaning of sources and events used as key terms.

Since the risks of overseas construction projects are very diverse and many factors are combined in many cases, sufficient time and intensive consultation process are necessary to rationally classify risks according to the checklist proposed in the present invention. Do.

Despite these limitations, however, the methodology used in the checklist through the risk scenario analysis presented in this study is easier to rationally quantify the risks of overseas corporations and to select key factors and establish countermeasures. Provide an effective foothold

At the same time, it contributes to reducing the likelihood of cost prediction errors by providing a basis for estimating the loss due to risk as accurately as possible.

In the present invention, a rational risk quantification technique is derived and a methodology for estimating the loss amount and the reserve cost due to risk is presented.

In the process, the SE checklist was established to identify risks based on causal relationships, and the risks were classified into hierarchies to induce differentiated countermeasures.

In this example, we will propose a practical application process of the SE checklist and review the effects based on the core contents presented so far for systematic risk management.

First, the SE checklist can be used to assess risk priorities.

As can be seen in Figure 8, the probability, intensity (loss) and sensory information evaluated for each risk scenario is determined by the PIS quantification technique to determine the level and grade (A, B, C, D, E) of the risk. To be utilized.

Factors selected as top risks such as A and B grades are subject to core management, and the loss amount is centered around them, minimizing the burden on the checklist users.

In this case, the checklists established for the calculation of reserve costs are omitted, but the lost losses and risk management costs, as in all previous assessments, are to be written for individual paths.

The initial reserves calculated through this process will change along with the risk factors, probability of occurrence, and losses to be managed as the project progresses and the risk response strategy is carried out, and the amount of the reserve can be continuously identified by tracking the amount. . 9 illustrates a representative risk management type and method that can be usefully referred to when managing risk through a checklist.

The biggest difference that the SE checklist presented in this study has compared with the existing method lies in the concept of "SE".

"SE" stands for "Source / Event" and enables the creation of a risk causality hierarchy on a checklist.

This causal hierarchy facilitates estimating losses due to risks and estimating project reserves and assists in establishing a reasonable risk response strategy. The concept of risk path based on causal relationship is the basic basis of the checklist management model proposed in this study.

The risk checklist is a risk management process with detailed project-related information from the contract phase to the construction, completion, and maintenance phases. Implemented faithfully.

In order to improve the problems of the existing quantification method, effective risk management is possible by introducing the PIS quantification technique and the risk path concept described above.

As shown in FIG. 10, the risk checklist application procedure first sets the purpose of risk management in various aspects such as cost, air, quality, and safety of the target project.

Through this process, the purpose of risk management was specified to enable more effective management.

In the second phase, the risks associated with or occurring in the project will be screened in a five-tier risk hierarchy.

The hierarchical structure of risks and the concept of cause-incident paths allow users to identify the topological relationship of risk occurrences, thereby making the risk identification process easier.

In the third stage, the level assessment process for the identified risk factors takes place.

The assessment of the level of risk factor is based on the evaluation of individual attributes on a five-point scale for the three criteria of sensation, probability of occurrence, and impact intensity.

The level of risk is calculated as a 100-point conversion score through the distance on the three-dimensional coordinates based on the evaluation results on the sensation, probability of occurrence, and impact intensity. Over-focused 'effect.

In the fourth stage, the damage amount due to the occurrence of individual risks is calculated.The risk identified through the hierarchical path concept consists of the events that occur in the end, so it is easier to calculate the damage amount compared to the existing method, and through this, reasonable reserve cost It helps to determine the scale.

The amount of risk loss can be estimated by setting the minimum, most frequent, and maximum scenarios, and the range of possible damages contributes to the determination of the appropriateness of the reserve size.

In the fifth stage, management by grade is performed based on the information entered for individual risks, and a response strategy for each risk is determined and input of management costs is decided.

Finally, in step 6, the evaluation results of individual risks are comprehensively presented, support for the preliminary cost calculation through the estimation of the expected damages of the entire project, and the management status of each risk factor are drawn up for continuous risk management in the progress of the project. Make it possible.

Hereinafter, an embodiment of a risk management method and apparatus according to the present invention implemented based on a web-based system will be described.

As shown in FIG. 11, in the initial screen, a brief introduction of the overall SE checklist, a description page of the utilization procedure, and the basic algorithm can be viewed.

Once you have a basic understanding of the basic structure and use of the SE checklist, press the 'Next Step' button to begin the full evaluation.

As shown in FIG. 12, the utilization of the risk checklist begins with setting a risk management objective for the project.

It is a process of establishing a plan to record the risk management objectives in the air, cost, quality, and stability of the project, and the overall risk management strategy, so that the risk management can be consistent with the progress of the project.

When the establishment of a plan such as a risk management purpose is completed, as shown in FIG. 13, the process proceeds to the step of identifying the risk.

It is configured to select and input the risks that can occur in the project in the structured risk hierarchy. The user can identify the risk hierarchy and identify the risks by following the risk path from the cause risk to the lower level event risk. You will go through the process.

In addition to the 201 risk factors in the five categories derived from this study, the user can add risk factors to the risk tree through the 'Custom Risk Input' button displayed. Risk management is possible.

The biggest feature of the risk hierarchy proposed in the present invention is that the risk factor is divided into cause risk and result risk. The risks are divided into causes and effects, and each cause and effect is also staged. Accordingly, the concept of a path makes it easy to understand the algorithm of the occurrence by the concept of paths, and the final damage amount generated through the risk is calculated. It is easy.

When the risk identification of the project is completed, the level of risk is evaluated by the PIS quantification technique described above as shown in FIGS. 14 and 15.

The risk incidence, impact intensity, and sensation of risk were set to allow the user to enter the level on the Likert 5-point scale, and the risk level was calculated according to the three evaluation criteria. Can increase the ease of understanding.

In addition, according to the level score of each risk, it is graded from A to E so that the risk management target can be selected for intensive management.

In addition, the risk level criteria according to the risk level can be changed arbitrarily by the user so that the meaning of each risk level can be set according to the corresponding project.

The process of calculating the risk level is described in detail as follows.

의 공식에 의해 계산되는데, 체감도 및 발생확률, 영향강도는 5점 척도에 대한 사용자의 측정에 따라 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0의 값을 갖는다.The risk level is basically

It is calculated by the formula, and the sensory, occurrence probability, and impact intensity values are 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 according to the user's measurement on the 5-point scale.

이다.Therefore, the maximum value of risk level

to be.

을 곱해주어 나온 점수가 100점 만점 기준의 리스크 수준 점수가 되며, 이를 화면에 표시해준다.If the risk level is considered as the maximum value of 100 points, and the risk level is converted into 100 points,

Multiplying by the score results in a risk level score of 100 out of 100, and displays it on the screen.

The risk grade is divided by the risk level score calculated on the basis of 100 points, and the grade is set by basically presenting the criteria as shown in FIG. 14.

In the next step, as shown in Figure 16, the risk loss amount is calculated.

Event risks are ultimately derived by the concept of risk paths, so losses resulting from end event risks on these risk paths are estimated.

The risk pass concept is designed to facilitate the calculation of the risk loss amount, and the loss amount can be calculated by entering three scenarios: minimum, most frequent and maximum.

In addition, the amount of overlapping losses due to the overlapping risks caused by various risk paths was entered so that the total amount of damages could be reduced, resulting in the actual reserve cost calculation.

By calculating the probability value entered from the risk loss amount, the estimated loss amount is automatically calculated and output as a result value. This process is used as a basic data for the reserve cost calculation.

After the user has identified the risks that may occur in the project in step 2, enter the losses for each of these risks.

The user was able to identify the path of each risk and divide the losses that could be incurred in the project when each risk occurred into the minimum, most frequent, and the maximum.

Based on the loss amount entered by the user, the expected loss amount is derived by multiplying the probability of occurrence for each risk in step 3.

Expected loss = user input loss × probability of occurrence (0 ~ 1.0)

According to the probability distribution theory, the minimum and maximum weights are 0.2 by weight and the most frequent weight is 0.6 by weighting the values corresponding to the minimum, mode, and maximum of the estimated losses calculated through the probability of occurrence. do.

Expected Loss (Total) = Min × 0.2 + Mode × 0.6 + Max × 0.2

On the other hand, it is possible to input overlapping losses in case the risks result in similar or identical losses. As a result, the amount of duplicate losses is excluded from the total damage.

When the risk loss amount calculation is completed, a risk response strategy is established as shown in FIG.

Establishing a risk response strategy establishes a response strategy against the risk level calculated by the PIS quantification technique and the risk set by the user as the scope of management.

For example, if the user inputs that he / she manages risks up to 'B' level, the risks are displayed by grade from the 5th strategy stage, and only risks of 'A' and 'B' level are established and managed. do.

In establishing a response strategy, information on the expected occurrence of risk and the risk management entity (person in charge) is input. Response strategies are classified into avoidance, transfer, mitigation and acceptance according to their types. Configure to choose the degree.

In addition, the cost of risk management was input so that it could be reflected in the preliminary cost calculation, and the target level of individual risk management could be calculated by establishing a risk response strategy.

By establishing a response strategy based on this target residual risk concept, it is possible to quantitatively calculate the amount of risk loss that can be coped with.

In step 5, each risk is classified according to the risk level and grade calculated in step 3, and only the risks up to the management scope set by the user are shown.

For example, if the user sets up the level B as the management range, only the risks up to the level B are displayed on the screen.

Therefore, in step 5, a response strategy is established for the risks up to the level that the user is managing.

The timing of occurrence is selected by the user from order planning, bid preparation period, contract negotiation and conclusion, construction stage, completion and maintenance, and the whole process.

Next, in the risk response strategy, a matrix as shown in FIG. 18 is established.

In step 5, the information on “management status evaluation” is not entered, and management status evaluation is used in “stage 6 risk management status”.

However, if the response strategy is selected as “risk acceptance – simple retention”, it means taking risks, so the target residual risk items and the expected loss amount are not corrected at the same level as the initial risk level.

Next, the target residual risk is set, which is how much the level of each risk is to be lowered by managing the risk.

In the target residual risk, the risk of each risk does not change, so no measurement is made, and the probability of occurrence and the intensity of impact are entered.

In this case, the probability of occurrence and the intensity of impact are used to calculate the target risk level and grade in the same manner as in step 3 together with the sensation that the user has already entered for the risk.

In the next step, the risk management status is finally checked as shown in FIGS. 19 and 20.

Risk management takes place according to the established response strategy and target risk level. In step 6, the information entered for each risk factor is summarized and the overall risk management information of the project is synthesized.

In step 6, the user inputs the risk management status information such as the occurrence of each risk and the progress of the management strategy. Through this, it is possible to continuously manage the risk according to the progress of the project.

In other words, in step 6, the response strategy entered in step 5 will be examined, and the amount of the estimated damages and the required reserve cost will be comprehensively shown.

Responsive strategies for each risk can be managed continuously by entering achievements according to types, and these achievements are calculated as a percentage.

In the “Response Status”, enter the response status according to the classification of “Management Status Evaluation” in the five-step risk response strategy.

The risk type corresponding to “Performance Check” is selected from two items, performance and non-execution, and is calculated as 100% for performance and 0% for performance.

The risk type corresponding to “quantitative assessment” is selected from four stages of progress as shown in FIG. 19.

Risk types corresponding to “early risk taking” deactivate the response and are not included in the calculation of the average level of achievement.

Therefore, this process finally calculates and shows the projected initial loss and risk level of the project, thereby managing the degree of achievement of the response strategy and the response strategy, and appropriately size the reserve cost including the management cost of risk. Calculate and present.

Here, the estimated reserve amount is calculated by the following equation.

Estimated reserve size = estimated remaining loss + risk management cost

Since the above has been described only with respect to some of the preferred embodiments that can be implemented by the present invention, the scope of the present invention, as is well known, should not be construed as limited to the above embodiments, the present invention described above It will be said that both the technical idea and the technical idea which together with the base are included in the scope of the present invention.

In the risk management method according to the present invention, new methodologies such as PIS quantification technique and risk path concept have been tried in the SE checklist. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the practical usability of the newly introduced method. In the present invention, the PIS quantification technique is evaluated through expert consultation on the verification of the PIS quantification technique, the risk path concept composed of the cause-incident, and the structure of the overall SE checklist. .

First of all, to evaluate the PIS method, we performed the method that can determine the most feasible method through comparative analysis with the existing PI priority evaluation method.

In the evaluation process, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used, expert interviews were conducted in quantitative manner, and expert consultation was conducted in qualitative manner.

First of all, the expert interviews were conducted by working professionals who have been in the overseas construction field for 10 ~ 20 years in construction companies, and 9 interviewed experts. Each interview was divided into three stages, the contents and purpose of which are briefly described in FIG.

Respondents were asked to assess the risks of the projects that their firms are most likely to predict with respect to the risk target or level of actual overseas construction, which is currently scheduled to be bidding or at the beginning of the order.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd interviews were distributed at intervals of 3 to 7 days from each other, so that the respondents' perceptions of the relative level of risk in each interview did not directly affect the preparation of subsequent surveys. Since the number of risk factors (4 to 8) that were requested for evaluation in each questionnaire was small enough to be recognized at the same time, considering the high level of expertise of the respondents, the results of the first interview were sufficiently reliable in practical terms. We concluded that it could be considered a priority.

Therefore, the results of the priority judgments obtained through the 2nd and 3rd interviews are evaluated for accuracy according to the degree of agreement with the 1st interview results, respectively.

A total of nine interviews were conducted on nine future overseas construction projects, and the concordance rate was calculated by comparing the results of risk prioritization by the PI quantification method and the PIS quantification method with expert judgment.

22 summarizes the above analysis results.

As a result of evaluating the risk priorities by the two methods, the agreement with the intuitive judgment was mostly around 90%, and the PIS method (93.8%) was superior to the PI method (92.8%). However, it is difficult to say that the number of nine interview samples is statistically different.

Although no statistically verifiable difference could be found from the mean of the match rates, the PIS method has the highest match rate and the smallest standard deviation as shown in FIG. 21 when the standard deviations are considered simultaneously. Providing.

Experts' advisory, on the other hand, has clearly identified a phenomenon where the level of risk felt from past project execution experience for a particular risk factor has the highest priority on the risk assessment.

As mentioned above, the concept of `` feeling '' can be used to evaluate risk priorities.

Thus, it can be concluded that hapticity is one of the most important concepts for identifying key risk factors.

In addition, most experts say that risks are identified and assessed by gathering sufficient information about current project characteristics and conditions and reviewing contract terms.

This can be seen as an intention to supplement the limitations of risk information generalized by experience by reassessing the probability of occurrence and impact intensity of major risks for the project to be carried out.

Although there was a gap between experts in considering risk sensitivities, probabilities, and intensities, the consensus was that certain criteria could not be excluded.

In other words, PIS quantification is the most reasonable risk assessment technique. For this purpose, the highest and lowest coincidence rates for each of the techniques applied to the nine target projects of FIG. 21 are counted, as shown in FIG. 23.

In FIG. 23, the sum of the highest and lowest coincidence numbers occupied by the PI quantification technique is 8, whereas the PIS quantification technique shows a relatively small value (5) for the same result.

In other words, the results of the evaluation by the PI technique are once again emphasized that there may be some deviations depending on the expert's experience and ability, criteria, and level of information on the target project.

In comparison, the PIS quantification method had the smallest standard deviation of the agreement, and the maximum number of agreements (4) was comparable to that of the PI method.

Given these facts, we could indirectly confirm that the PIS method, which can minimize the risk of deviation and ensure the validity of the results, is an improved technique.

In addition, the PIS method is expected to be effective for non-expert risk assessment. This is because the concept of PIS is closest to the expert's perception of risk and can be used as a guide for risk assessment for non-experts. Moreover, the complementary relationship between sensory, probability, and intensity can minimize the errors that can occur in the judgment process of non-experts.

On the other hand, expert advisors look at risk from a chain of scenario scenarios of causes and events to identify risk factors on a more realistic level, prioritize management, and estimate losses from the smallest set of event factors. We asked for a view of the process.

As a result, it could be concluded that the concept of “SE” could be fully utilized only if a systematic solution for risk scenario composition and loss calculation was proposed.

Finally, for the practical evaluation of the SE checklist, an expert group survey of overseas construction experts was similarly conducted. As for the evaluation items, 7 points of Likert scales were used for 4 items such as' model completeness', 'model algorithm' adequacy ',' adequacy of checklist risk factor structure 'and' practical practical use of model '. 1: very low-7: very high).

As a result of a survey of 10 foreign construction risk experts from domestic construction companies and academia, as shown in FIG. 24, the evaluation of the overall SE checklist scored 5.13.

In detail, the completeness of the model received the highest evaluation with an average of 5.50, and the appropriateness of the risk factor structure and the algorithm were 5.40 and 5.10, respectively. However, in terms of practical utilization of the system, it received a relatively low evaluation (average 4.50) compared to other items.

However, the overall assessment of the risk checklist and the subjective response in terms of practical applicability led to the conclusion that the applicability was encouraging.

In the present invention, a technique for selecting a target risk management target and performing a preliminary cost calculation during the overseas construction is presented.

Lastly, the risk management procedures for overseas construction projects are established, including this methodology. The SE checklist provides the following benefits:

First, we introduced the concept of haptic to complement the probability and intensity criteria in risk assessment.

Second, we verified that the PIS method, which considers the probability, intensity, and perceived risk, is the most appropriate risk prioritization method.

Third, risk scenarios were composed based on the causal relationship between risk factors, and a checklist for management could be presented for each scenario.

Fourth, the SE checklist was developed on a practical level based on attributes that required different approaches in terms of management.

The biggest significance of the SE checklist is its practical use. In addition, all research results are implemented in a web-based program, which provides an optimal solution for simplifying algorithms and ensuring sufficient user interface without increasing the reliability of the model and reducing the reliability of the results. I wanted to find out.

However, there are still limitations in relying on the user's expertise for input factors such as risk factor identification and correlation, probability and loss estimation.

Practitioners who adopt this risk management model need to fully understand these constraints and be cautious in their application, as well as reconsider their validity.

Risk management should be adopted in the context of providing supplementary data for decision making, and the evaluator will be able to reach the most reasonable conclusion when the results are complemented with other techniques or expert judgments.

In addition, it is possible to accumulate risk information for specific types of projects and to ensure sufficient practical use when improving the accuracy of the model while continuously comparing and analyzing the previously predicted values.

The risk management method presented in the present invention has generality that can be applied to other fields requiring risk assessment from an engineering point of view.

Effectively developing these benefits will allow the model to be used at the enterprise level, which seeks to diversify the business beyond individual project levels.

In addition, it is essential to build a system that systematically accumulates relevant information on the risks that occur and share the results effectively, which is an important task to be studied in the future.

Claims (23)

In the method for managing the risk of construction work using the risk checklist, Forming a risk factor database by collecting possible risk factor data to form a risk factor database; A risk factor data display step of displaying risk factor data of the risk factor database; Selecting a risk factor data to input a specific risk factor among the displayed risk factor data; A sensory level data input step of evaluating a level of sensibility for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated level of sensory level data; An occurrence probability level data input step of evaluating the occurrence probability level for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated occurrence probability level data; An impact intensity level data input step of evaluating a level of impact intensity on the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated impact intensity level data; Calculating the level data for each risk factor by integrating the sensory level data, probability of occurrence level data, and impact intensity level data; A risk level evaluation report preparation step of preparing an evaluation report based on the level data for each risk factor; Construction risk management method using risk checklist, including. The method of claim 1, A risk factor grade data generation step of generating grade data for each risk factor based on the risk factor level data; A management object risk factor data input step of selecting and inputting the risk factor data to be managed based on the risk data for each risk factor; A management status database forming step of displaying the management risk factor data and receiving management status data corresponding to each management risk factor data to form a management status database; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist characterized in that it further comprises. The method of claim 2, A management type data input step of selecting a management type among risk avoidance, risk transfer, risk mitigation, and risk acceptance in response to the management target risk factor data; Including more, The management status database forming step Displaying the management type data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and receiving the management status data corresponding to the management type data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 4 was abandoned when the registration fee was paid. The method of claim 3, When risk avoidance is selected among the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management degree data input step of selecting and inputting a management degree among complete avoidance and some avoidance in response to the selected management type data. When a complete avoidance of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data, and selecting and inputting whether or not management is performed to completely avoid the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 5 was abandoned upon payment of a set-up fee. When risk avoidance is selected among the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management degree data input step of selecting and inputting a management degree among complete avoidance and some avoidance in response to the selected management type data. When some of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data, and selecting and inputting a degree of management performed for avoiding partial risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 6 was abandoned when the registration fee was paid. The method of claim 3, When the risk transfer is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among contract clauses and insurance in response to the selected management type data. If a contract clause is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, When the complete transfer of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data, and selecting and receiving whether or not management has been performed for full transfer of the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 7 was abandoned upon payment of a set-up fee. The method of claim 3, When the risk transfer is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among contract clauses and insurance in response to the selected management type data. If a contract clause is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, And a management degree data input step of selecting and inputting a management degree among full transfer and partial transfer in response to the selected management method data. In the case where the partial control of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and selecting and inputting a degree of management performed for partial transfer of the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 8 was abandoned when the registration fee was paid. The method of claim 3, When the risk transfer is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among contract clauses and insurance in response to the selected management type data. If insurance is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, And a management degree data input step of selecting and inputting a management degree among full transfer and partial transfer in response to the selected management method data. When the complete transfer of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and selecting and inputting whether or not management has been performed for full transfer of the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 9 was abandoned upon payment of a set-up fee. The method of claim 3, When the risk transfer is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among contract clauses and insurance in response to the selected management type data. If insurance is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, And a management degree data input step of selecting and inputting a management degree among full transfer and partial transfer in response to the selected management method data. When some transfer of the control data is selected in the control data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management degree data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and selecting and inputting a degree of management performed for partial transfer of the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management degree data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 10 was abandoned upon payment of a setup registration fee. The method of claim 3, When risk mitigation is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among risk sharing and risk reduction in response to the selected management type data. When risk sharing is selected among the management method data in the management method data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management method data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and selecting and inputting a degree of management for sharing the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management method data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 11 was abandoned upon payment of a setup registration fee. The method of claim 3, When risk mitigation is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, And a management method data input step of selecting and inputting a management method among risk sharing and risk reduction in response to the selected management type data. When the risk reduction is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management method data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and selecting and inputting a degree of management to reduce the risk as the management status data corresponding to the management method data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 12 was abandoned upon payment of a registration fee. The method of claim 3, When risk acceptance is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, The method further includes a management method data input step of inputting a management method among the reserve cost allocation and the simple holding in response to the selected management type data. When the reserve cost allocation is selected from the management method data in the management method data input step, The management status database forming step Displaying the management method data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data, and selecting and inputting whether or not management is performed for the reserve cost allocation as the management status data corresponding to the management method data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 13 was abandoned upon payment of a registration fee. When risk acceptance is selected from the management type data in the management type data input step, The method further includes a management method data input step of inputting a management method among the reserve cost allocation and the simple holding in response to the selected management type data. In the management method data input step, if a simple retention is selected from the management method data, The management status database forming step Displaying the management type data corresponding to the displayed management object factor data and receiving the management status data corresponding to the management type data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. The method of claim 1, The risk factor database forming step A cause group database forming step of grouping risk factor data corresponding to a cause of risk among the risk factor data to form a cause group; An event group database forming step of grouping risk factor data corresponding to a result of the cause among the risk factor data to form an event group; Including, The risk factor data display step Displaying risk factor data of the cause group database and corresponding risk factor data of the event group database; Including, The risk factor data selection step Construction risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that the input received by selecting from the risk factor data of the case group database. Claim 15 was abandoned upon payment of a registration fee. The method of claim 14, The cause group database forming step Forming a higher factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among the risk factor data of the cause group database to form a higher factor group; Forming a lower factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the cause group database to form a lower factor group; Including, The risk factor data display step Displaying risk factor data of the upper factor group database and corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 16 was abandoned upon payment of a setup registration fee. The method according to claim 14 or 15, The event group database forming step Forming a higher factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among the risk factor data of the event group database to form a higher factor group; Forming a lower factor group database for grouping risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the event group database to form a lower factor group; Including, The risk factor data display step Displaying risk factor data of the upper factor group database and corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. The method of claim 1, A loss amount data input step of receiving a loss amount corresponding to the risk factor data by dividing the loss amount corresponding to the risk factor data into minimum, most frequent, and maximum cases; An estimated loss amount data calculating step of calculating an estimated loss amount data by assigning a predetermined weight to each of the input loss amount data; Preparing an estimated loss amount evaluation report for preparing an evaluation report based on the estimated loss amount data; Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises. Claim 18 was abandoned upon payment of a set-up fee. The method of claim 17, A redundant loss amount input step of receiving duplicate redundant loss amount data with respect to a risk factor in the case of causing the same or similar loss as a result of occurrence in the risk factor data; Including more, The estimated loss data calculation step Construction engineering risk management method using a risk checklist, characterized in that it comprises the step of excluding the redundant loss from the expected loss. 19. A recording medium having recorded thereon a program that implements a construction engineering risk management method using the risk checklist according to any one of claims 1 to 15 or 17 or 18. In the device for managing the risk of construction work using the risk checklist, A risk factor database 100 in which possible risk factor data is stored; A risk factor data display unit 210 for reading and displaying the risk factor data from the risk factor database 100; A risk factor data selection input unit 310 for inputting a specific risk factor among the displayed risk factor data; A sensory level data input unit 320 for evaluating the level of sensibility for the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated sensory level data; An occurrence probability level data input unit 330 for evaluating the occurrence probability level for the selected risk factor data and receiving the estimated occurrence probability level data; An impact intensity level data input unit 340 for evaluating a level of impact intensity on the selected risk factor data and receiving the evaluated impact intensity level data; A risk factor level data calculation unit 400 for calculating the level data for each risk factor by combining the haptic level data, occurrence probability level data, and impact intensity level data; A level data display unit 220 for displaying the calculated level data for each risk factor; A control unit (500) for controlling the database (100), the operation unit (400), and the display unit (210, 220) by the input unit (310, 320, 330, 340); Construction engineering risk management system using a risk checklist that includes. The method of claim 20, The risk factor database 100 is A cause group database 110 in which risk factor data corresponding to a cause of a risk is stored among the risk factor data; An event group database (120) in which risk factor data corresponding to a result of the cause among the risk factor data are stored; Including, The risk factor data display unit 210 The risk factor data of the cause group database 110 and corresponding risk factor data of the event group database 120 are displayed to correspond to each other, The risk factor data selection input unit 310 is Construction engineering risk management apparatus using the risk checklist, characterized in that the input received by selecting from the risk factor data of the case group database (120). The method of claim 21, The cause group database 110 is A higher factor group database 111 storing risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among the risk factor data of the cause group database 110; A lower factor group database 112 in which risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the cause group database 110 are stored; Including, The risk factor data display unit 210 Risk factor data of the construction factor using the risk check list, characterized in that the risk factor data of the upper factor group database 111 and the corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database (112) corresponding to each other. The method of claim 21 or 22, The event group database 120 is A higher factor group database 121 in which risk factor data corresponding to higher factors among the risk factor data of the event group database 120 are stored; A lower factor group database 122 in which risk factor data corresponding to lower factors of the upper factor among the risk factor data of the event group database 120 are stored; Including, The risk factor data display unit 210 Risk factor data of the construction factor using the risk check list, characterized in that the risk factor data of the upper factor group database 121 and the corresponding risk factor data of the lower factor group database 122 is displayed to correspond to each other.

Images