شناسایی و الویت‌‏بندی ریسک پروژه‌‏های مهندسی، تدارکات و ساخت (EPC) مطالعه موردی: شرکت بهره‏برداری نفت و گاز کارون

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه اقتصاد و مدیریت انرژی، دانشگاه صنعت نفت، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه اقتصاد و مدیریت انرژی، دانشگاه صنعت نفت، تهران، ایران.

10.48308/jimp.14.4.257

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف: یکی از انواع قراردادهای مطرح در اجرای پروژه‌‏ها، روش مهندسی، تدارکات و ساخت بوده که ابزاری برای انتقال فعالیت‌‏ها و نیز ریسک‌‏های پروژه به پیمانکار می‌باشد. با توجه به اهمیت ارزیابی ریسک در پروژه‌های نفتی، به‌ویژه برای پیمانکاران، هدف اصلی این پژوهش، شناسایی و رتبه‌بندی ریسک‌های پیرامون پروژه‌های مهندسی، تدارکات و ساخت (EPC) در شرکت بهره‌برداری نفت و گاز کارون است. همچنین این مقاله به دنبال ارائه راهکارهایی برای مدیریت موثر ریسک‌های پروژه‌های مزبور توسط پیمانکاران می‌­باشد.
روش‌ها‌:‌ روش تحقیق در این مطالعه شامل چندین گام می‌­باشد. ابتدا با استفاده از روش کتابخانه‌ای و نظرات خبرگان، ریسک‌های موثر در پروژه‌های EPC شناسایی، استخراج و طبقه‌بندی شده است. در این گام، تیم تحقیق با مطالعه منابع علمی و مصاحبه با خبرگان صنعت نفت و گاز، لیستی از ریسک‌های احتمالی را تهیه کرده و سپس با ارائه مدلی مبتنی بر روش دلفی فازی و دیدگاه 5 خبره با 15 معیار، تعدادی از ریسک‌های شناسایی شده به عنوان ریسک‌های اصلی انتخاب گردیده‌اند. نظرات خبرگان در قالب اعداد فازی جمع‌آوری و تحلیل شده است تا به اجماع نسبی در مورد ریسک‌های اصلی دست یابند. در گام بعد، با بهره‌گیری مجدد از نظرات خبرگان و روش آنالیز سلسله مراتبی فازی مبتنی بر عدد ریسک،ریسک‌های منتخب بر اساس احتمال وقوع و شدت تاثیر آنها ارزیابی و رتبه‌بندی شده‌اند. برای افزایش دقت نظرات خبرگان و پرهیز از اعمال سلیقه شخصی از سیستم فازی استفاده شده است. در واقع، اعداد فازی به جای اعداد قطعی برای بیان نظرات خبرگان به کار گرفته شده است.
 یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل از این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که ریسک‌های پروژه شرکت مزبور به ترتیب اولویت عبارت از نرخ تورم، اعمال فشار کارفرما بر توقف اجرای کار، افزایش قیمت تجهیزات، تاخیر در پرداخت مالی، وجود عوامل ناهمخوان و استفاده از استانداردهای فرعی در پروژه، ایرادات در طراحی اولیه و اعمال مدیریت مهندسی غیرموثر پروژه می‌باشند. این نتایج می‌تواند به پیمانکاران کمک کند تا ریسک‌های اصلی را شناسایی و برای مدیریت آنها برنامه‌ریزی کنند. همچنین یک نقشه شناختی سناریومحور برای مواجهه با ریسک‌های اثرگذار ارائه شده است. شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی ریسک‌های مزبور، امکان سناریوسازی توسط پیمانکاران برای مدیریت این ریسک‌ها را فراهم می‌سازد تا احتمال رخداد عواقب این چالش‌ها را در شرکت بهره‌برداری نفت و گاز کارون کاهش دهند. در واقع، این نقشه شناختی به عنوان نقشه راه پیمانکاران برای مدیریت ریسک در پروژه‌های EPC عمل می‌کند. برای مثال، این راهکارها می‌تواند شامل برنامه‌ریزی دقیق، مدیریت قراردادها، مدیریت تامین مالی، مدیریت تدارکات، مدیریت ذینفعان و ... باشد. هدف اصلی این راهکارها پیشگیری از بروز چالش‌های احتمالی در پروژه می­باشد.
 نتیجه‌گیری: این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که ارزیابی ریسک در پروژه‌های EPC بسیار حائز اهمیت است. پیمانکاران باید با شناسایی ریسک‌های اصلی و ارائه راهکارهای مدیریتی مناسب، از بروز چالش‌های احتمالی جلوگیری کنند. استفاده از ابزارهای تحلیلی مانند آنالیز سلسله مراتبی فازی و نقشه‌های شناختی سناریومحور می‌تواند به پیمانکاران در این زمینه کمک شایانی نموده و نقش بسزایی در موفقیت پروژه‌های EPC ایفا نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comprehensive Risk Identification and Prioritization for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Projects: A Case of Karoon Oil and Gas Exploitation Company

نویسندگان [English]

  • Asgar Khademvatani 1
  • Mohammad Reza Shokouhi 1
  • Fatemeh Naami 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Energy Economics and Management, Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 M.Sc. student, Department of Energy Economics and Management, Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction and Objectives: One of the prominent contract types for project execution is the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) method, which serves as a mechanism for transferring project activities and associated risks to contractors. Given the significance of risk assessment in oil and gas projects, particularly for contractors, the primary objective of this research is to identify and rank the risks surrounding EPC projects in Karoon Oil and Gas Exploitation Company. Additionally, this study seeks to propose effective strategies for managing these risks.
 Methods: The research methodology consists of several stages. Initially, relevant risks in EPC projects are identified, extracted, and categorized through a literature review and expert opinions. At this stage, the research team compiled a list of potential risks by reviewing scientific sources and conducting interviews with experts in the oil and gas industry. Subsequently, a fuzzy Delphi method, based on the insights of five experts and 15 criteria, was applied to select the key risks. The experts' opinions were collected and analyzed using fuzzy numbers to reach a relative consensus on the primary risks. In the next stage, the selected risks were assessed and ranked using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) based on their probability of occurrence and severity of impact. To enhance the accuracy of expert evaluations and minimize subjective biases, a fuzzy system was employed, utilizing fuzzy numbers instead of precise values to represent expert opinions.
Findings: The results of this study reveal that the key risks in the company's EPC projects, ranked in order of priority, include inflation rate, employer pressure to halt execution, rising equipment costs, delays in financial payments, the presence of incompatible factors and the use of substandard materials, deficiencies in initial design, and ineffective engineering management. These findings help contractors recognize and plan for the management of major risks. Additionally, a scenario-based cognitive map has been developed to address the identified risks, allowing contractors to devise appropriate strategies for risk mitigation. By identifying and prioritizing these risks, contractors can formulate scenario-based strategies to manage them effectively, thereby reducing the likelihood of adverse consequences in Karoon Oil and Gas Exploitation Company. This cognitive map serves as a roadmap for contractors in managing risks in EPC projects. For instance, recommended strategies include meticulous planning, contract management, financial management, procurement management, and stakeholder management. The primary goal of these strategies is to prevent potential challenges in project execution.
 Conclusion: This study underscores the critical importance of risk assessment in EPC projects. Contractors must identify major risks and implement appropriate management strategies to mitigate potential challenges. Analytical tools such as the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and scenario-based cognitive maps significantly aid contractors in this regard and play a crucial role in the successful execution of EPC projects.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Risk assessment
  • Fuzzy Delphi
  • Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
  • Risk priority number
  • Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC)
  • Karoon Oil and Gas Exploitation Company

مراجع

  1. Al-Mhdawi, M. S. (2020). Proposed risk management decision support methodology for oil and gas construction projects. The 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 407-420.
  2. Ataei, M. (2009). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making. Shahroud University of Technology (In Persian).
  3. Berawi, M. A., Soepardi, A., Sayuti, M. S. (2020). Risk analysis on the equipment and material procurement process of engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects. International Journal of Real Estate Studies, 14(1), 78–90.
  4. Bi, X., Tan, H.-t. (2010). The study on risk assessment of EPC contractor based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. 1129-1132.
  5. Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., von der Gracht, H. A., Schmidt, S. L., Schweitzer, V. M. (2021). Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. MethodsX, 8.,1-20.
  6. Cagno, E., Micheli, G. J. (2011). Enhancing EPC supply chain competitiveness through procurement risk management. Risk Management, 13(3), 147-180.
  7. Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
  8. Cheng, C.-H., Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 174-186.
  9. Daneshvar, M., Dori, B., Hashemkhani, S. (2019). EPC projects risk analysis using FMEA-ANP. Organizational Resources Management Researchs, 9(1), 73-92. (In Persian).
  10. Dai, Y. and Solangi, Y. A. (2023). Evaluating and Prioritizing the Green Infrastructure Finance Risks for Sustainable Development in China. Sustainability, 15(9),7068, 1-18.
  11. Dabbaghi, A., Ebrahimzadeh rajaee, S., Parvazdavani, M., and Gramai, Sh. (2024). A Comprehensive Approach for Assessing and Prioritizing EOR Risks: a Case Study of Water-based EOR in an Oil Field in Southwest Iran. Journal of Petroleum Research, 34(135), 103-117. (In Persian).
  12. Dadkani, P., Heydari, O., Mahdavifar, A., and Irandegani, M.Y.(2024). Investigating the most important potential risks in the activities of gas power plants(Bampur gas power plant), Journal of Environmental Sciences Studies, 8(4), 7449-7455 (In Persian).
  13. Firouzi Jantigh, F., Esmaeilian, G., Hazavei, M. (2015). Fuzzy TOPSIS model for economic risk assessment of oil and gas EPC projects. Journal of Industrial Management, 10(32), 55-66. (In Persian).
  14. Firouzi Jahantigh, F., Malmir, B., Aslani Avilaq, B. (2017). Economic risk assessment of EPC projects using fuzzy TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 27(2), 161-179 (In Persian).
  15. Farmahini Farahani, A., Didehkhani, H., Khalili-Damghani, K., Sarfaraz, A. H. (2022). A framework for interactive risk assessment in projects: case study of oil and gas megaprojects in presence of sanctions. Journal of Modelling in Management, 17(2), 569-600. (In Persian).
  16. Gupta, R., Das, B., Jain, K. (2021). Risk management of oil refinery construction project: an Indian case study. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 13(3), 218-244.
  17. Hatmoko, J., Khasani, R. R. (2019). Mapping delay risks of EPC projects: A case study of a platform and subsea pipeline of an oil and gas project. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
  18. Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative. International Journal of Engineering Science, 3(4), 8-13. (In Persian).
  19. Habibi, A., Firouzi Jahantigh, F., Sarafrazi, A. (2015). Fuzzy Delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 5(2), 130-143 (In Persian).
  20. Hu, A. H., Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., Wu, W.-C. (2009). Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7142-7147.
  21. Hoseinzadeh, M., Mehregan, M. R., Ghayoumi, H. (2021). Sustainable supply of rotating equipment parts in the oil industry using system dynamics meta-synthesis and strategic assumption surfacing and testing. Industrial Management Perspective, 11(3), 9-43. doi: 10.52547/jimp.11.3.9 (In Persian).
  22. Hasanzadeh, A., Nilipour Tabatabaei, S. A., and Shekarchizadeh A. R. (2024). Analyze, Evaluate and Prioritize Risks of Outsourcing Projects in the Section of Procurement of Esfahan Province Gas Company. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(9). 2345-2633.
  23. Joula, J. and Oshrieh, M.H. (2024). Identifying and Prioritizing the Risks of Crude Oil and Gas Condensate Deposit Certificates in the Iran Energy Exchange, Using the Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Journal of Financial Management Knowledge, 1(1), 43-54. (In Persian).
  24. Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M. (2019). The impact of engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) phases on project performance: A case of large-scale residential construction project. Buildings, 9(1), (In Persian).
  25. Khedry, H., Jamali, G., Ghorbanpour, A. (2020). A mixed approach for evaluation preventive maintenance performance based on anti-fragility factors. Research in Production and Operations Management, 11(3), 73-94. (In Persian).
  26. Lopez, D., Manogaran, G., Gunasekaran, D. (2015). Assessment of vaccination strategies using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Springer International Publishing, 415, 195-208.
  27. Merrow, E. W. (2012). Oil and gas industry megaprojects: Our recent track record. Oil & Gas Facilities, 1(2), 38–42.
  28. Mubin, S. (2013). Innovative approach to risk analysis and management of oil and gas sector EPC contracts from a contractor's perspective. Journal of Business & Economics, 5(2), 149-170.(In Persian)
  29. Murray, T. J., Pipino, L. L., Gigch, J. P. (1985). The application of the fuzzy Delphi technique to the required aspect of parental involvement in the effort to inculcate positive attitude among preschool children. Human System Management, 5, 76-80.
  30. Maniri, M. R., Alem Tebriz, A., Eyvazi, A. (2022). Risk assessment of major maintenance projects in upstream oil industries using a combined fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method. Industrial Management Perspective, 12(2), 135-173. (In Persian).
  31. Maleki, M. H., Bahnamiri Zare, M. J., Ghotbi Vayeghan B., Adeli, O.A., and Hasnkhani, F. (2023). dentifying and Prioritizing Risks Related to Time Delays in Oil and Gas Projects. Petroleum Business Review, 7(3), 89-110.
  32. Nurdiana, A., Susanti, R. (2020). Assessing risk on the engineering procurement construction (EPC) project from the perspective of the owner: A case study. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 506.
  33. Nazari, A., Parchami Jalal, M., Shahidi Nashrood Kali, S., Hojatpanah, S. (2022). Analytical study of the challenges facing construction contractors in contract claims. Industrial Management Perspective, 12(4), 199-221. (In Persian).
  34. Noor A. A. J., Breesam, H. K. (2023). Risk Management in The Oil Sector / Oil Exploration Company as A Case Study. Journal of Petroleum Research and Studies, 40, 183-201.
  35. Norouzi, Sh., Shariatmadar, H. (2024). Ranking and Analysing the Risks of Green building Development and Construction using the combination of Hierarchical and Fuzzy analysis techniques. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 10(2). 69-93. (In Persian).
  36. Srdjevic, B., Lakicevic, M., Srdjevic, Z. (2023). Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Urban Parks Quality and Importance in Novi Sad City, Serbia. Forests, 14(6), 1-17.
  37. Savino, M. M., Brun, A., Riccio, C. (2011). Integrated system for maintenance and safety management through FMECA principles and fuzzy inference engine. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 5(2), 132-169.
  38. Saaty, T. L. (1978). Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and systems, 1(1), 57-68.
  39. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  40. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9-26.
  41. Saaty, T.L, (2002). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
  42. Saaty, T. L., Özdemir, M. S. (2014). How Many Judges Should There Be in a Group? Annals of Data Science, 1(3-4), 359–368.
  43. Sarvari, H., Yahaya, N., Noor, N. M. (2013). Analytic network process (ANP) to risk assessment of gas refinery EPC projects in Iran. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(3), 1359-1365.
  44. Shafie Nategh, M. M., Rashidi, M. A., Tohidi, M. (2023). Designing an Interpretive Structural Model for Identifying and Prioritizing Financial Strategic Risks in the Petrochemical Industry of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Journal of Asset Management and Financing, 11(1), 29-52, (In Persian).
  45. Thevendran, V., Mawdesley, M. (2004). Perception of human risk factors in construction projects: an exploratory study. International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 131-137.
  46. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Mousavi, S.M, Hashemi, H. (2011). A Fuzzy Comprehensive Approach for Risk Identification and Prioritization Simultaneously in EPC Projects. In M. Savino (Ed.) Risk Management in Environment, Production and Economy (1st ed., 123-146). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Open Access Publisher. DOI: 10.5772/16247.
  47. Wang, T., Tang, W., ASCE, A.M., Du, L., Duffield, C. F., Wei, Y. (2016). Relationships among risk management, partnering, and contractor capability in international EPC project delivery. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(6),1-10.
  48. Wu, Y., Zhou, J. (2019). Risk assessment of urban rooftop distributed PV in energy performance contracting (EPC) projects: An extended HFLTS-DEMATEL fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47 (2019) 101524, 1-22.
  49. Yang, H.-y., Lv, W.-b., Xu, H.-l. (2010). Risk evaluation of EPC project based on ANP fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 1091-1096.
  50. Yang, Y., Tang, W., Shen, W., Wang, T. (2019). Enhancing risk management by partnering in international EPC projects: Perspective from evolutionary game in Chinese construction companies. Sustainability, 11(19),
  51. Yang, J.-n., Cai, W.-n., Fang, W.-g. (2015). Risk assessment for international EPC projects. International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation, 1, 143–148.
  52. Zhenhua, R., Cui, K., Wang, X., Chun, J.-H., Li, Y., Zhang, Z., Lu, J., Chen, G., Zhou, X., Patil, S. (2018). A comprehensive investigation on the performance of oil and gas development in Nigeria: Technical and non-technical analyses. Energy, 158, 666-680.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار