Effective risk management practices help organisations and project managers foresee future project problems and thus institute measures to ensure successful project completion. This study aims to identify factors hindering the Northern Cape Provincial Government Departments from implementing risk management practices for public infrastructure construction projects.
This study uses a qualitative research methodology. Workers who deliver infrastructure projects in the Northern Cape Provincial Government Departments were purposively sampled and interviewed face-to-face using open-ended questions. The data gathered was analysed using content analysis to identify main and sub-themes, as well as their frequencies.
The results indicate that several obstacles hinder the effective implementation of risk management in construction project execution across departments. Some of these obstacles include poor project planning, inadequate communication, insufficient supervision and a lack of risk management culture. These obstacles were categorised into funding issues, management attitudes, personnel problems and documentation challenges.
The study is confined to a province in South Africa, making it difficult to generalise the findings. However, it provides an in-depth understanding of the risk management practices used in public infrastructure construction projects.
Challenges affecting risk management in public infrastructure construction projects within the department may negatively affect project outcomes, leading to the loss of public resources. There is, therefore, an urgent need to tackle these challenges to ensure effective project implementation and safeguard municipal meagre resources.
This study helps us understand the sources of risk challenges for public infrastructure project execution. The government can use the findings to strategise to eliminate these risk factors for project delivery, ensure projects are delivered as planned and reduce waste in public funds management.
1. Introduction
Risk management (RM) is the practice of managing risk exposures to prevent or minimise the impact of a loss (Moses and Obioha, 2024). Risk management planning, risk identification, risk analysis, developing a risk response action plan and monitoring and controlling risk throughout a project are all essential components of project risk management. RM methods, approaches, processes and measures are used to manage uncertainty in a project (Munier, 2014). RM is necessary to identify and respond to potential project risks (Yornu and Ackah, 2019). It is necessary to develop and implement RM strategies and policies in organisations so that these risks can be successfully minimised and controlled. Sols (2018) claims that a substantial percentage of projects fail due to problems with performance, cost and schedule (Stewart, 2021). Although there are various reasons why projects fail, one of the most common is a lack of RM. As a result, a successful RM system is thought to provide an advanced understanding of risk repercussions and an organised, centrally effective regulated strategy. RM is critical to project completion; expertise in this area helps to minimise issues and increase the likelihood of successful construction progress. It broadens the scope of success by guiding the project manager to successful results throughout the project lifecycle stages (Sadeq, 2017).
The government plays a significant part in developing and constructing these infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects have a direct impact on economic growth, job creation and community transformation. According to (National Treasury, 2017):
Provincial Government Departments within the Northern Cape Province are mandated into the delivery of these infrastructure projects and other services which are related to their sectors. Implementing agents, who usually work for provincial agencies, assist these departments; for example, the Department of Roads and Public Works plays a critical role in the planning, organisation, monitoring and supervision of infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Projects have a direct effect on the quality of life and the inclusive wellbeing of communities.
Provincial Government departments are also perceived as agents of change and are expected to improve the implementation of these infrastructure projects. As such, they are tasked with executing infrastructure projects, such as roads, houses, water facilities, schools, hospitals, clinics and offices, among others, to benefit the public. Due to the nature of these projects, they are prone to several risks. Watermeyer and Phillips (2020) suggest that such infrastructure projects are complex, involving diverse stakeholders, contractual arrangements, consulting professionals, varying site conditions, design, materials and technologies, as well as multiple contractors, sub-contractors and workforces. Therefore, risks involved are multifaceted and must be tackled in a coordinated and effective manner. Likewise, Yornu and Ackah (2019) state that infrastructure, such as that mentioned above, often undergoes a life cycle consisting of distinct stages or phases, with a clear description of how the project begins and ends. According to the South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions (SACPCMP, 2011), infrastructure projects must undergo six stages, including project initiation and briefing, concept and feasibility studies, design development, tender documentation and procurement, construction documentation and management and project closeout. Each of these stages involves risks that must be properly identified and managed effectively. For instance, at the project initiation stage, there is a risk of not gaining buy-in from the community and other stakeholders due to inadequate consultation and engagement (Watermeyer and Phillips, 2020). At the tender documentation stage, there is a risk of engaging with poor contractors and managers, which can lead to subpar project deliverables and, in some cases, project abandonment (Sols, 2018).
Risk management refers to identifying and managing potential risks, a method for carefully examining risk areas in a project and determining how each should be handled. It is a management tool for identifying sources of risk and uncertainty, assessing their impact and formulating solutions (Rastogi and Trivedi, 2016). As such, RM must be accomplished in all public infrastructure projects by identifying, analysing, assessing, treating, monitoring and reviewing the probability, emergence and impact on each project lifecycle before advancing to the next stage. The South African government spends enormous amounts of public money to deliver the necessary infrastructure projects that address the public’s needs. However, several risks are confronted when delivering infrastructure projects within the public sector throughout the lifecycle. The efficient implementation of risk management practices throughout the project’s lifecycle leads to improved project performance, thereby reducing the likelihood of potential failures. This study aims to identify the challenges to implementing risk management in public infrastructure delivery from the perspective of public departments responsible for project planning and delivery.
2. Literature review
2.1 Project risk management challenges
According to Pellerin and Perrier (2019), a lack of systematic risk detection methodologies for a specific project, based on lessons learned from comparable projects, is a significant challenge in executing project risk management. Engineers argue that poor project management, particularly in the planning and design phases, inadequate risk management and insufficient stakeholder involvement during project planning all contribute to project failure (Dithebe et al., 2019). Despite ongoing improvements in project risk management, Nyqvist et al. (2024) contend that several construction projects experience mismanagement. Therefore, a thorough examination of the construction environment is required to provide the groundwork for developing a standard construction risk management solution for future use. Thus, Nyqvist et al. (2024) indicate that ChatGPT has demonstrated a remarkable ability to devise an effective risk management plan. However, risk management plans generated by ChatGPT often lack practicality and specificity compared to those generated by humans. Likewise, Li et al. (2024) suggest that artificial intelligence has the capability to expedite the risk assessment process and foster effective response strategies and communication among project stakeholders in real-time; issues of ethical considerations affect its usage.
According to Crispim et al. (2019), organisational risk management maturity influences their ability to undertake risk management exercises, and this is often moderated by project complexities. This means that the more complex a project is, the more likely it is that risk management will be done. It has been identified that the project management team’s ability to select the most suitable risk management strategies is a challenge. This often leads to ineffective risk management practices; thus, organisations must address this issue to enhance their risk management practices (Vorgers, 2020). According to Eyieyien et al. (2024), risk management processes go beyond risk assessment methodologies to identifying the necessary project stakeholders. More often, failure to identify project stakeholders by the project team or organisations poses a risk to the successful delivery of projects. This is because a successful project is underpinned by local knowledge, strategic partnerships and cultural sensitivity. Therefore, organisations that prioritise stakeholder engagement proactively mitigate potential risk, enhancing project success outcomes. AI tools and analytical techniques can address risk management challenges in the project initiation process, such as predicting costs and making informed decisions, but they are found to be ineffective in addressing project risks in subsequent phases (Muhammad and Raharjo, 2023).
According to Serpella et al. (2014), the reductionist method has been used to control risk in building projects; however, it has yet to be successful and has compromised the project management standard. For instance, in most cases, the risk is managed by providing money or time as floats or contingencies, which are usually insufficient to tackle the effects of risks during project execution. These contingencies or floats are typically chosen not based on a comprehensive analysis of the risks that may negatively influence the project. A lack of formal education may hinder the effective use of risk management strategies. Additional challenges were measuring risks, the complexity of the risk component, and managers’ failure to comprehend basic risk instruments. Some writers consider the most significant risk management barriers to be the absence of high-quality data, limited data access owing to poor system integration and a lack of data mapping and tools for adequate risk modelling (Zhao et al., 2015). Previous research has identified various issues that hinder the application of risk management in numerous businesses, as indicated in Table 1. Given these challenges, businesses across multiple industries often require assistance in implementing risk management procedures thoroughly, and the proportion of firms that do so could have been higher (Zhao et al., 2015).
Obstacles to risk management implementation
| Obstacles to risk management implementation practices | Source |
|---|---|
| Zhao et al. (2015) |
| Dandage et al. (2018); Abed (2018) |
| Buniya et al. (2021) |
| Adamtey and Kereri (2021) |
| Kotb and Ghattas (2017) |
2.2 Public sector risk management implementation
Public sector risk management has traditionally been the responsibility of senior management, with limited involvement from lower-level employees. Lower-level employees were limited to risk management documentation in terms of compliance and audit trail (Carlsson-Wall et al., 2019). According to Hinna et al. (2018), over the years, public sector organisations have sought better ways to manage risk through formal tools and frameworks, ensuring efficiency in project delivery. Thus, Rana et al. (2019) state that organisations should recognise that risk management cuts across many departments within organisations and external agencies. Therefore, there must be a shift from a top-down approach to an integrated approach, incorporating risk management responsibilities. Kenya and Nyamwaya’s (2025) recent study identified a positive correlation between the implementation of risk management policies and an organisation’s project performance. This means effective risk management significantly enhances the quality of project performance in organisations.
Moloi (2016) states that further research is needed on risk management in South Africa’s public sector. Risk management was a relatively new topic in the South African public service. This was due to the increased attention placed on financial risks and other hazards, as risk management was a relatively new topic in South Africa (SA) (Siswana, 2007). The emphasis on financial risk was due to PFMA’s control over public sector risk management at the time (RSA, 2003). The South African National Treasury Regulations (NCC, 2017), Section 27.2.1, state that the Accounting Authority ensures that risk assessment is carried out routinely to identify possible risks within the organisation. The strategy for managing risk, including a plan for fraud prevention, should guide the priority of internal auditors’ efforts. Managers and staff should possess the skills to enhance effective risk management control through collaboration and continuous training (Daulay et al., 2025). The Public Sector Risk Management Framework (PSRMF) was established in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act and the Municipal Finance Management Act to support institutions in developing and maintaining efficient, effective and transparent risk management and control systems (National Treasury, 2019). The governing board must manage risk and opportunity in accordance with the King Code of Governance, Chapter 4, Principle 4.1 (NCC, 2017), so that the organisation can define its fundamental purpose and determine and accomplish its strategic goals. The PSRMF oversees public sector risk management in South Africa. In responding to the demands of the Public Finance Management Act (RSA, 2003) and the Municipal Finance Management Act (RSA, 2003), the PSRMF document was also formulated for the relevant public service institutions to assist in implementing and maintaining effective, efficient and transparent systems for controlling risk management (National Treasury, 2010). The PSRMF defines risk as an “unwanted result, real or possible, to the institutions’ service delivery and another performance target, induced by the existence of risk variables” (National Treasury, 2010).
The South African Constitution 1996, Chapter 3, Section 40(1), establishes three separate, interconnected and interdependent government domains. The primary principles of service delivery clearly outline the necessity of managing risk to achieve government objectives; therefore, the public sector should be familiar with risk management (Koops et al., 2017). Pillay and Wang (2015) suggest that the South African national government implemented a risk management plan to promote a robust public sector that contributes to economic development and social upliftment throughout the country. According to the World Bank, governments play a crucial role in systemic risk management, fostering an atmosphere of shared responsibility and providing direct help to susceptible individuals (World Bank, 2013). The ISO (2018) defines risk management as “coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation concerning risk”. Risk management is thus the responsibility of all employees, not least in a public entity. The Institute of Risk Management (IRM) (2018) claims that embedding risk management in any organisation to the degree that it adds value consistently is difficult.
South African government agencies and public organisations have sporadically used risk management. Over the years, the public sector has experienced challenges in implementing and practising effective and efficient risk management procedures. However, specific public sector organisations, such as developing public financial skills, have established fundamental risk management procedures (Moses and Obioha, 2024). Coetzee and Lubbe (2013) contend that the South African public sector is a prime example of a setting where risk laws are there but are not well implemented. According to Moloi (2016), the Treasury’s rules and the PFMA require public institutions to implement risk management strategies, risk communication, training and awareness initiatives. The regulatory framework does not mean that risk management techniques are ingrained. According to the organisation’s manager, risk management could have been more consistently on the agenda of senior management or the executive committee meetings. The various business units within the organisation also needed more individual risk and mitigation plans. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) describes risk assessment as a cooperative and consultative process where hazards are identified, quantified and analysed according to a predetermined methodology (DEA, 2013). The DEA (2013) also emphasises a critical viewpoint that presently, institutions widely apply risk assessment. For instance, risk assessment is frequently used to describe safety and security, assess disasters, continue business and conduct internal audits. When risks are recognised in the business context, a plan is devised to handle those risks and a procedure is built for risk review (Hopkin, 2018).
Aside from adhering to the principles, systems that manage risk must establish specific objectives and comprehensively deploy them internally (Hopkin, 2018). Risk management is hampered by a variety of issues, such as those listed by Williams (2017):
Executing risk management in an ad hoc manner instead of following systematic processes or using a “silo” approach at the departmental level rather than a strategy approach.
A lack of a methodical approach usually originates from the mistaken notion that managing risk is naturally built into day-to-day choices, and the ambiguous nature of reports issued to senior management and the audit committee.
Risk management misunderstanding, its objectives and its importance to the organisation, with some viewing it as purely an exercise for compliance purposes, coupled with a lack of risk connection between the higher and lower levels of the organisation.
A failure to accept responsibility commonly results from a lack of employees’ interest in or understanding of risk, caused by poorly defined job descriptions and ineffective or non-existent procedures for risk management.
A risk register is one of the most crucial resources for organisational risk management, and it must be used correctly (Chappel, 2014). To prevent inaccurate information or irrelevant results, the risk register must encompass the entire risk landscape, be directly linked to data performance, support risk managers’ thinking, monitor and manage risk performance internally and ensure that companies emphasise matters in front of them and put them on the radar (Joel, 2016). The National Consumer Commission (NCC) advises South African public sector organisations to have risk management units to guarantee effective risk management (NCC, 2017). This indicates the seriousness attached to risk management in the South African public sector.
2.3 Barriers to implementing risk management in public infrastructure projects
RM is a critical component in the successful delivery of public infrastructure projects, which are often characterised by high complexity, long durations, large budgets and multiple stakeholders. Despite its recognised importance, the practical implementation of RM in public infrastructure projects remains limited, particularly in developing economies. Recent studies have increasingly explored the underlying barriers to implementing RM in public projects. These barriers can be broadly categorised into organisational, technical, institutional and socio-political domains. For instance, Owusu-Manu et al. (2019) argue that public agencies often lack a risk management culture, which hinders the proactive identification and mitigation of risks. Likewise, poor leadership commitment, unclear responsibilities and insufficient training further impede RM adoption. According to Bahamid et al. (2022), the absence of RM integration into organisational processes is a key issue. Many public project teams rely on traditional project management approaches, viewing RM as an optional or bureaucratic task rather than a strategic tool. Zailani et al. (2019) ranked inadequate knowledge and a lack of government legislation as high contributors to the lack of RM implementation.
Other barriers include unclear regulations, a lack of enforcement and fragmented project governance structures within the public sector, which hinder the effective implementation of public infrastructure projects. Aside from this, overlapping mandates among government agencies cause confusion and increase the risk of delay in decision-making processes, affecting RM implementation (Agyeman et al., 2017). Again, weak procurement systems and corruption hinder transparency, making it difficult to conduct effective risk assessments. More often, project risks are not disclosed or are underestimated by public project implementers to secure funding or political approval (Tamošaitienė et al., 2021). In support of this assertion, Ampratwum et al. (2023) study raised issues such as corruption, sabotage, a lack of a centralised mechanism for coordinating projects, inconsistent government policies, inadequate supervision, a lack of supporting risk policy, a lack of open communication, unstable government, political interference and legislation inadequacies as topmost barriers influencing effective RM in public projects.
Wang et al. (2023) studies show that many project team members in the public sector are unaware of RM techniques or lack the expertise to apply them effectively on projects. Limited application technologies, such as risk modelling software, have also been found to contribute to poor RM outcomes in public project management. For instance, Globa et al. (2023) observed that public sector projects in sub-Saharan Africa underuse RM software due to a lack of training and budget constraints. According to Zailani et al. (2019), political interference, stakeholder conflicts and public opposition are common in infrastructure projects, making RM a complex task to execute. This may also be affected by frequent changes in political leadership, which disrupt continuity in RM practices and increase project uncertainty. Many public project leaders rarely adopt a participatory approach to risk assessment, making the management of issues such as public resistance to land acquisition or environmental concerns challenging (Abubakar et al., 2021). In Sri Lanka, Lebunu Hewage et al. (2024) identified challenges including a lack of funding, insufficient time, economic constraints and a lack of knowledge. Public project implementers often lack sufficient time for project implementation due to pressures from political leaders (often for political gain) and communities to complete projects, forcing them to forgo RM exercises. Often, project leaders fail to recognise the economic benefits of undertaking RM exercises, primarily due to a lack of in-house expertise and a limited understanding of the importance of RM in project execution.
Regardless of project size, RM must be implemented to ensure the achievement of project objectives. However, Amoah and Pretorius (2020) suggest that project implementers often believe that the time spent implementing RM on some projects does not match the benefits thereof. These assumptions thus lead to RM being disregarded in some government projects. Again, due to a lack of internal RM expertise in most government organisations, RM exercises for most projects are conducted ineffectively (Aboneh and Mahesh, 2023). Adu Gyamfi et al. (2018) study shows that rampant under-budgeting in public projects contributes to their inability to undertake appropriate RM before project implementation. Most government projects do not allocate a budget for the RM.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Research approach
The qualitative research approach investigates and understands how individuals, people or groups think and interpret social or human problems they experience (Creswell, 2014). Flick (2014) suggests that the main advantage of qualitative research is its ability to thoroughly examine incidents. Again, the authors used a deductive and inductive approach to ascertain the facts in the South African context, using firsthand information in comparison with existing literature from other settings. Therefore, the qualitative research approach was deemed suitable, as this study aims to investigate how participants comprehend and make sense of their experiences with the challenges of implementing risk management for public infrastructure construction projects.
3.2 Target population and sampling method
Bryman (2015) describes a population as the group of people considered necessary to be contacted in a research study. The study’s population comprises individuals from government departments responsible for delivering public infrastructure projects in the Northern Cape province. Thus, the participants interviewed are middle and senior management, quantity surveyors, planners, engineers, architects, project managers and stakeholders. Participants were chosen via a purposive sampling method. Qualitative research typically uses purposive sampling, enabling researchers to identify individuals with expertise and knowledge relevant to the situation under investigation (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, the researcher has purposively chosen individuals from various Northern Cape province departments who are experts or have experience with the phenomenon under investigation, namely, obstacles to the implementation of risk management for infrastructure delivery (Creswell, 2012).
3.3 Data collection process and methods
Interviews were used, and the ethics committee issued an approval letter. The Heads of Department offices were contacted via a formal letter to seek permission and organise interview appointment dates. The researcher personally visited the targeted individuals to schedule the interview, collect data and determine a suitable time, and explained the reasons behind the study. Before the due date for the interview, the researcher called the participants to remind them and confirm the appointment date. The interviews were conducted face-to-face at a time convenient to the participants using open-ended questions. According to Bhattacherjee (2012), an interview facilitates follow-up questions to seek clarity and probe further into the participant’s responses to the researcher. Likewise, open-ended questions allow participants to express their views about phenomena without restriction. The objectives were explained to the participants during the interview session, and the interviews were conducted in English. Although the researcher recorded the interviews using a cell phone, notes were taken to supplement the recorded material. The original recordings were kept secure to ensure the credibility of the interviews. The research asked participants to express their opinions based on their experiences with obstacles to risk management implementation in their projects. In all, 28 participants from different departments were interviewed. However, saturation was reached on the 23rd interview.
3.4 Data analysis methods
The thematic content analysis technique was used to analyse the gathered data, as it helps comprehensively analyse the recorded data. This method enables the researcher to thoroughly review transcriptions of recorded data. In analysing the data, the researcher followed the steps for qualitative data analysis proposed by Vaismoradi et al. (2013), as shown in Figure 1. The recorded data were played and listened to repeatedly to fully comprehend participants’ opinions. The data was then transcribed into a Word document. The researcher then read the transcribed data to identify keywords mentioned in the participants’ narrations. Similar and identical keywords were merged and listed (see Table 3). The keywords were then grouped under main themes based on their origin. Then, their frequencies and percentages were calculated to indicate how often each risk implementation obstacle was mentioned (see Table 4).
The image shows a flowchart outlining six steps in thematic data analysis. The left column lists the steps sequentially from one to six: Step 1: Familiarise yourself with the data, Step 2: Come up with the initial codes, Step 3: Identify themes, Step 4: Review themes, Step 5: Define and name themes, and Step 6: Produce the report. Each step is accompanied by a brief explanation of the researchers actions, such as listening to recordings, generating codes, defining themes, and producing a report based on the analysis.Processes of data analysis for qualitative content
Source: Adopted from Vaismoradi et al. (2013:402)
The image shows a flowchart outlining six steps in thematic data analysis. The left column lists the steps sequentially from one to six: Step 1: Familiarise yourself with the data, Step 2: Come up with the initial codes, Step 3: Identify themes, Step 4: Review themes, Step 5: Define and name themes, and Step 6: Produce the report. Each step is accompanied by a brief explanation of the researchers actions, such as listening to recordings, generating codes, defining themes, and producing a report based on the analysis.Processes of data analysis for qualitative content
Source: Adopted from Vaismoradi et al. (2013:402)
Participants’ demographic data
| Demographics | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 18 | 64 |
| Female | 10 | 36 |
| Total | 28 | 100 |
| Position | ||
| Engineer | 6 | 20 |
| Director | 4 | 14 |
| Project manager | 5 | 18 |
| Deputy director | 5 | 18 |
| Planner | 3 | 11 |
| Architect | 3 | 11 |
| Control works inspector | 1 | 4 |
| Quantity surveyor | 1 | 4 |
| Total | 28 | 100 |
| Experience | ||
| 0–5 years | 6 | 21 |
| 6–10 years | 8 | 29 |
| 11–15 years | 4 | 14 |
| Over 15 years | 10 | 36 |
| Total | 28 | 100 |
Barriers to risk management implementation
| Lack of funding | Poor project planning | Capacity issues |
| Shortage of funds | Poor project coordination | Lack of experience |
| Poor budget allocation | No project steering committee | Unskilled personnel |
| Budget cuts | No risk policy directive | Working in silos |
| Lack of supervision | Inadequate communication | Use of non-technical officials |
| Risk management knowledge assumptions of appointed contractors | Lack of risk management training | Lack of official responsibilities and accountability |
| Lack of implementation of recommendations | Lack of transparency | Lack of knowledge |
| Political interference | Lack of punitive measures | Lack of responsibility awareness |
| Ruch project implementation | Lack of monitoring and evaluation | Poor skill development |
| Ineffective risk approach | Poor prioritisation | Resistant to new technologies |
| No risk policy standard | No risk management guidelines | Engagement of incompetent service providers |
| No risk management process documents | Lack of enforcement | Resistant to change |
| Lack of risk management culture | Lack of a risk management officer on site | Lack of leadership |
| Lack of training | ||
Categories for barriers to risk management implementation
| Main theme | Sub-themes | Frequencies | Total | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding | Lack of funding | 1 | 4 | 6.67 |
| Shortage of funds | 1 | |||
| Poor budget allocation | 1 | |||
| Budget cuts | 1 | |||
| Management attitudes | Poor project planning | 3 | 39 | 65.00 |
| Poor project coordination | 2 | |||
| No project steering committee | 1 | |||
| No risk policy directive | 1 | |||
| Inadequate communication | 5 | |||
| Lack of risk management training | 2 | |||
| Lack of transparency | 2 | |||
| Lack of punitive measures | 1 | |||
| Lack of monitoring and evaluation | 1 | |||
| Poor prioritisation | 1 | |||
| Lack of supervision | 3 | |||
| Risk management knowledge assumptions of appointed contractors | 1 | |||
| Lack of implementation of recommendations | 1 | |||
| Political interference | 2 | |||
| Ruch project implementation | 1 | |||
| Ineffective risk approach | 2 | |||
| Lack of enforcement | 2 | |||
| Lack of a risk management officer on site | 1 | |||
| Lack of risk management culture | 3 | |||
| Engagement of incompetent service providers | 1 | |||
| Resistant to change | 1 | |||
| Lack of leadership | 1 | |||
| Lack of training | 1 | |||
| Personnel | Capacity issues | 1 | 14 | 23.33 |
| Lack of experience | 1 | |||
| Unskilled personnel | 1 | |||
| Working in silos | 1 | |||
| Use of non-technical officials | 2 | |||
| Lack of official responsibilities and accountability | 2 | |||
| Lack of knowledge | 1 | |||
| Lack of awareness | 1 | |||
| Poor skill development | 2 | |||
| Resistance to new technologies | 2 | |||
| Documentation | No risk policy standard | 1 | 3 | 5.00 |
| No risk management process documents | 1 | |||
| No risk management guidelines | 1 |
The participants’ demographic data are shown in Table 2.
Of the 28 participants interviewed, 64% were male and 36% were female. Again, most (20%) are engineering workers who execute projects in government departments; project managers and deputy directors constitute 18% of the respondents, respectively. In addition, 50% have 10 years of experience in executing public infrastructure construction projects, and 29% have 6–10 years of experience. This indicates participants’ experiences and knowledge of the challenges in implementing risk management for infrastructure projects.
4. Results
4.1 Participants’ views on the barriers to risk management practices implementation
The participants were asked to describe the challenges they encountered while implementing risk management practices during their project execution, based on their experience. This question aimed to determine the barriers to implementing risk management practices for public infrastructure construction projects. The responses from the participants were analysed to identify the keywords listed in Table 3. The analysis reveals that numerous obstacles hinder the implementation of risk management by public departments executing public projects. Among these are a lack of funding, poor project planning, the use of non-technical officials and a lack of a standardised risk policy, among others.
The above risk obstacles were then grouped into categories (main themes) based on their origins, frequencies and calculated percentages as indicated in Table 4. The analysis indicates that most risk implementation challenges originate from management attitude (65%), followed by personnel issues (23%). Other sources of risk, including implementation challenges by the department, were identified as funding issues (6.67%) and documentation problems (5%). This indicated that management should examine the attributable challenges facing risk management implementation in project departments to ensure the successful execution of projects.
The author has summarised the barriers to risk management in Table 4 based on the main themes in Figure 2 to further elaborate on the magnitude of each contributor. It clearly shows that management attitudes play a significant role in the department’s inability to implement risk management in project execution, followed by personnel issues.
This image is a bar chart showing the percentage distribution of four categories labeled Funding, Management attitudes, Personnel, and Documentation. The chart indicates that Management attitudes comprise sixty-five percent, making it the most substantial category, followed by Personnel at twenty-three point thirty-three percent. Funding is represented at six point sixty-seven percent, while Documentation is the smallest category at five percent. Each bar is presented in a uniform style with clearly marked percentages above the bars. The vertical axis shows the percentage scale, ranging from zero to seventy percent, with increments for clarity. The horizontal axis lists the categories, facilitating easy comparison across the bars.Main contributors to the barriers to risk management implementation
Source: Adopted from Vaismoradi et al. (2013:402)
This image is a bar chart showing the percentage distribution of four categories labeled Funding, Management attitudes, Personnel, and Documentation. The chart indicates that Management attitudes comprise sixty-five percent, making it the most substantial category, followed by Personnel at twenty-three point thirty-three percent. Funding is represented at six point sixty-seven percent, while Documentation is the smallest category at five percent. Each bar is presented in a uniform style with clearly marked percentages above the bars. The vertical axis shows the percentage scale, ranging from zero to seventy percent, with increments for clarity. The horizontal axis lists the categories, facilitating easy comparison across the bars.Main contributors to the barriers to risk management implementation
Source: Adopted from Vaismoradi et al. (2013:402)
5. Discussions of the findings
5.1 Main theme 1: Management attitudes
Management attitudes are significant barriers influencing the development of risk management practices. Issues include inadequate communication, poor project planning, lack of training, inadequate supervision, incompetent service providers, ineffective leadership, inadequate consequence management, a lack of risk management culture and political interference. Participants mentioned that they do not create effective communication among project implementors; thus, there needs to be more synergy among them to investigate possible challenges about the project earmarked for implementation. This situation contributes to their ineffective risk management practices. For instance, P4 indicates that project committees are only contacted when crises occur, rather than being involved in project communication from the outset. In support of this, P7 highlights the challenges of communicating risk management guidelines to the project team within the department:
P4: “It is mainly coordination between local government and provincial departments all government should work together. Steering committees are not formed only in project planning only when there is a crisis”.
P7: “Communication to implement these risk management practices are the huge challenge. We do not have clear guidelines. We work on own knowledge and experience which sometimes does not align with the current project”.
Zhao et al. (2015) states that the biggest barriers to successful risk management applications are the absence of high-quality information, limited access to information, a lack of information mapping and risk modelling tools. Kotb and Ghattas (2017) also identified poor communication in the project environment as a significant factor contributing to the project team’s inability to execute risk management, thereby negatively affecting project outcomes. Likewise, poor project planning, a lack of training and inadequate supervision were also challenges. Poor project planning led to omissions whereby critical issues affecting project execution were overlooked, thus preventing them from foreseeing future project problems. Project contractor and site supervision could be better organised by the department managers, leading to inefficiencies in the project management structure. This project management inefficiency may have arisen due to a lack of risk management training for departmental workers to oversee project implementation. This means personnel cannot execute risk management exercises during project implementation. P25, P12, P20 and P11:
P11: “Non-technical officials dealing with projects, capacity and skills”.
Dandage et al. (2018) and Buniya et al. (2021) identified a need for formal training of project managers in risk management procedures, which affects their capacity to manage project risk. The department’s lack of risk management culture has also led to poor risk management practices. No guidelines were established for the project team to follow; thus, they either completely abandoned risk identification exercises or applied their knowledge, which may not have been the most appropriate or efficient approach for identifying project risks. For instance, P7 and P16 indicated the department’s absence of risk management guidelines:
P7: “No clear guidelines to implement these risk management practices are the huge challenge we do not have clear guidelines we work on own knowledge and experience which sometimes does not align with the current project”.
P16: “There is also no guidelines with regard to risk management”.
The existence of guidelines will ensure that project managers have no excuse to skip risk management implementation during project execution. However, if these guidelines are non-existent, as mentioned by the participants, there is no incentive for them to implement risk management. A lack of risk management culture within organisations has led to poor risk management practices, as there is no enforcement from the management regarding what employees must do regarding risk analysis before the projects start (Kotb and Ghattas, 2017). The issue of political interference as a risk management preventive factor is a new finding which has yet to be seen in the literature. Political leaders often instruct project managers to expedite project implementation in communities for vote buying, especially during election years. These political intrusions hamper project teams’ ability to identify risk and analyse project challenges, sometimes leading to project failure.
5.2 Main theme 2: Personnel problems
Personnel problems identified from the participants’ narrations include the use of non-technical officials, a lack of official responsibilities and accountability, poor skill development, resistance to new technologies and a lack of experience. Departments do not engage technically inclined personnel in construction project management, thus limiting their capacity to understand the need for risk management. Likewise, personnel managing projects lack experience in risk management processes; thus, they become ineffective when applying risk management practices to their projects. P26 mentioned a lack of personnel knowledge in risk mitigation strategies, which hampers their efforts to identify project challenges:
P26: “I think it is important for people who are going to implement projects to understand that every project is bound to have a risk and be equipped with the necessary skills to mitigate the risk, by providing continuous training to officials”.
The personnel’s inability to take on project responsibilities was also a critical barrier to effective risk management practices. Personnel unwilling to take responsibility and accountability for project issues will blame others for their failures. This attitude prevents the sharing of practical ideas on project challenges, leading to project management failures. For instance, P13 mentions the lack of willingness of project officials to take responsibility for their actions as a significant issue:
P13: “No consequence management and willingness from officials to take responsibility and accountability for their actions”.
Zhao et al. (2015) identified a lack of qualified personnel as a contributory factor to a firm’s inability to implement risk management effectively. Again, Lebunu Hewage et al. (2024) state that significant barriers to risk management may be the staff’s lack of knowledge and commitment, which often prevents departments from adopting a common understanding and risk management strategy. Firms must engage qualified and experienced personnel in the project environment to see the necessity of risk management in project execution. Poor skill development and resistance to change, as well as a reluctance to adopt new technology, also limit personnel capacity in addressing project-related issues. Project managers must develop their skills in modern project management to execute project activities with a clear understanding of potential issues. However, the project managers in the department were reportedly lacking in skill development, which hindered their ability to recognise the need for risk identification and management in projects assigned to them. Likewise, some personnel were reluctant to embrace changes in project management by embracing technology to ascertain project parameters and challenges. For instance, P12 is resistant to change due to personnel’s inability to implement risk management in their project. P18, however, linked it to a lack of personnel skill development:
P12: “Poor leadership and Resistance to change within the organisation”.
It is believed that a lack of knowledge and skills in risk management contributes to risk management failure in a project environment (Buniya et al., 2021). Again, Bahamid et al. (2022) suggest that risk management fails due to project teams’ inability to identify the tools and techniques to adopt in managing project risks. Complexities in risk management analytical tools prevent project teams with no skill development from effectively assessing project risk.
5.3 Main theme 3: Funding issues
Lack of funding, shortage of funds, poor budget allocation and budget cuts were identified as funding issues that inhibit risk management practices. Funding for risk management activities is usually non-existent, as the budget allocated to projects is insufficient. Management usually cuts project funds, limiting people’s ability to undertake risk management activities on their projects. Risk management activities entail a significant amount of work, including site visits, organising meetings for the project team and meeting with project community members to address their grievances and take necessary actions to resolve their concerns. In South Africa, communities usually stop or vandalise projects due to a lack of consultation during project implementation. Thus, if a project has limited funding for community engagement, project leaders may be unable to ascertain the community’s grievances; therefore, the project may be negatively affected if it starts without their involvement. P27 stresses this view:
P27: “Budget cuts lead to a lack of placing a risk management officer on site are barriers impacting”.
Risk management-related funding is critical to effective risk management practices in an organisation. A lack of management support for project teams, resulting in insufficient resources allocated for risk identification, has led to the failure of many projects (Kotb and Ghattas, 2017). Likewise, a lack of budget support hinders the implementation of risk in projects (Adamtey and Kereri, 2021). Limited committed resources to deal with risks prevent successful project risk implementation (Eyieyien et al., 2024). The municipalities usually face funding challenges whereby the allocated budget is either not made available or cut by the provincial and national governments after the project has started. This situation hampers project managers’ ability to monitor project risk, adversely affecting project execution.
5.4 Main theme 4: Documentation
Documentation issues stated by the participants are the no-risk policy standard, risk management process documents or risk management guidelines. Municipalities need guidelines or standard documents to govern the implementation of risk management. Therefore, Employees are not obligated to implement risk management in accordance with the guidelines. Project managers may or may not analyse risk for their assigned projects. Even when they are at an advanced stage of their evolution and want to implement risk analysis, they may still fail because the procedure may be unsuitable for the project. P17, for instance, indicated that he has never seen any risk management plan governing their project since he joined the organisation. P16 was more emphatic about his department’s lack of risk management guidelines. This suggests the absence of risk management principles and culture within the municipality departments:
P17: “I’ve never seen a risk management plan here since, been involved with projects”.
P16: “There is also no guidelines with regard to risk management”.
For effective risk management, the organisation must have clear risk policies and guidelines and ensure that project leaders follow these guidelines during project implementation. Kotb and Ghattas (2017) identified improper risk systems and processes among organisations as contributing factors to poor risk management practices. The lack of a clear management implementation plan has contributed to the project team’s unwillingness to undertake risk management in their project (Eyieyien et al., 2024).
6. Implications of the findings
6.1 Policy implications
The findings suggest that policy formulation for risk management is lacking, allowing project leaders to execute the project in their own manner. The management’s inability to allocate budget for risk activities will encourage the project team to forgo processes that help identify potential project risks and develop plans to address these challenges, ultimately hindering successful project implementation. This situation may lead to project implementation failures, negatively affecting the municipalities.
6.2 Social implications
The lack of project risk management within the provincial departments executing public projects may lead to failure. This will have social implications for citizens and communities where these projects are executed, as they may not benefit from the project. Projects are incomplete within communities, whilst others are completed but have become white elephants due to the project implementers’ inability to consult the necessary people to identify their concerns.
6.3 Economic implications
As a result of poor risk management practices, project outcomes might have failed to be successful, leading to a plethora of uncompleted projects and projects that could not fulfil the purpose for which they were undertaken. This situation wastes public resources and deprives municipalities of generating meaningful income from these projects.
7. Conclusion and recommendations
The study aimed to identify the barriers that influence the development of risk management practices in public infrastructure construction. The participant’s responses, based on their experiences, identified barriers to risk implementation in provincial departments in charge of public infrastructure delivery as a lack of clear guidelines on project risk management practices and implementation, lack of project risk management practitioners, lack of communication; poor project planning; lack of training, lack of supervisory; incompetent service providers; poor leadership; no consequence management, fundings challenges and political interference, among others. This phenomenon may adversely affect project performance, resulting in a loss of public funds and the inability to generate income from such projects. To mitigate risk-related challenges and enhance the application of risk management in public projects, it is recommended that departments responsible for project execution establish clear guidelines for implementing risk management practices in public infrastructure construction projects. The Public Finance Management Act and regulations should be reviewed to ensure that project risk management practices are legislated in the regulations before amending the Public Sector Risk Management Framework. Before approving any infrastructure construction project, a risk management plan must be incorporated into the project documentation as a mandatory document that requires daily review and monitoring. To address the difficulties, project designers must conduct regular risk management practice awareness sessions. Project departments must establish a specialised risk management unit that focuses strictly on infrastructure construction projects, with personnel who have a technical and project management background in the language. Involve all stakeholders (both external and internal) throughout the project’s lifecycle stages to ensure effective risk management practices, regardless of their role in the project. Departments should provide enough training for construction and project managers through accredited professional bodies and certified universities. The study focused on the project department within one South African province, limiting the generation of the findings. However, the findings serve as a trend that may be experienced in other provinces. Future studies may broaden the scope to other provinces.
