Risk Assessment of Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects—Assumptions and Context
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with an interesting subject concernig partial outputs of large-scale infrastructure projects risk assessment.
The following major concerns should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.
- The authors should enrich their introduction. It is clear that the introduction includes the literature review of the paper; thus much more relevant literature should be added.
- In the introduction section it is important to highlight the reason for choosing Czechia as a case study; it is understood that this is choise is due to the fact that Czechia is the authors' country, but the relevance and interest for this case should be supported.
- The research questions should be clearly presented and explained based on the relevant literature.
- The research methodology should be explained better; why did the authors choose the specific indexes to analyze the case? Is this choise theoretically supported?
- A full section of possible limitations and caveats should be added.
- A complete discussion on how the results of the research and can be used in both the theory and practice should be added. Furthermore, the paper's novelty and contribution should be highlighted.
Author Response
The answers are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
If the system is analyzed, it is necessary to specify its boundaries (they result from either its functions or processes). Each project has its specific processes, which consist of specific activities, the failure of which may have an impact on meeting the requirements of the process, and thus on the overall objectives of the project. When assessing the risks of projects, it is necessary to take into account all factors that affect the required activities, and thus the processes and thus the objectives of the project, negative or positive. These factors can have an internal as well as an external character (e.g. a problem in the implementation of the activity in the event of public disagreement). The risk register must contain identified internal and external threats (or opportunities), which must be evaluated in the next step on the basis of the established methodology in the form of "positive or negative risk".
The identification of loss/opportunity scenarios (in our case financial, time, possibly even loss of goodwill) is the basis for the identification of threats, and subsequently, each of these threats must be evaluated using an appropriate tool for estimating and assessing risk. The aim is to take appropriate measures for those risks (their probability and/or even consequence) that are unacceptable in terms of the project objectives. The initial risk assessment may be the basis for the selection of those "risks" that need to be analyzed in more detail, i. for their further "quantitative evaluation".
For this reason, I consider it appropriate to add in Chapter 2.2 Methods, a methodology for estimating and evaluating risks (eg risk matrix), where the levels of I - impact intensity and p - probability will be clearly described. I assume that in Table 3, R1 is only a framework related to a given area e.g. R1 to "Expected Demand" and 8 risks are actually R1.1 to R1.8 risks assessed for specific threats in this process. It would be appropriate to supplement this information. In Chapter 3 Results, it is not clear why the parameter of the probability distribution of the investment costs of the beta-PERT probability distribution assumption and similarly for the probability distribution of the investment costs in the case of the asymmetric triangular probability distribution assumption are identical. I assume these parameters are a criterion for the acceptability of risks/opportunities in project management (Impact). Risk management - requires thorough identification of scenarios/threats/opportunities, and their evaluation in a qualitative or quantitative way in order to effectively prevent them by applying appropriate tools. I recommend defining abbreviations in the text for the first time when they occur (eg ENPV, ERR, B/C line 45).
Author Response
The answers are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Limited review of the literature, no indication of what is an original contribution in the current state of knowledge.
- Language changes required.
- The same sentence is repeated on lines 66-67 and 85-86.
- The formula on line 94 has no number.
- Lines 155-180 should be in the previous chapter.
- No reference in line 159.
- In lines 164-166 the authors writes: "In order to be able to correctly compare the impact of the use of partial probability distributions of investment costs on the overall project results, an equally normal distribution was used for the second critical variable "time savings of infrastructure users" for both simulation variants."There is no explanation why the normal distribution ensures correctly comparison and others do not.
- For time savings of infrastructure users normal distribution was chosen, where the mean value corresponded to the project value of time savings. However, there is no information on the standard deviation for this distribution.
- Are BCR and B/C one and the same? If so, one abbreviation should be used consistently.
- Unnecessary colon in the caption of table 6.
- The caption of Table 8 should make its content more precise. CL abbreviation was not explained.
- The results raise serious doubts as to the correctness of the analyzes carried out. The P6 project, which was found to be profitable, does not show any cost-effectiveness in the simulations, although lower cost and higher than planned time savings options are considered. How is this possible? The situation is similar in the case of P15. P20 with the lowest profitability (B/C = 1.02) always shows profitability in simulations.
- Conclusions made in chapter 4 discussion should be moved to the appropriate chapter.
Author Response
The answers are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors seem to have adequately addressed all the concerns raised in the first round of the paper's revision.
Author Response
We haven't changed anything anymore.
Reviewer 3 Report
Response to comment no. 12 is unsatisfactory and does not explain why Certainty level (CL) equals to 0 for projects P6 and P15. As the probability distribution is asymmetric, we can expect that mean BCR is lower than the original value (even lower than 1), but in 10,000 simulations you should have got some BCRs higher than original, some lower than original but higher than 1 and some lower than 1, which means CL should be higher than 0.
What is more for P6 you got mean BCR equal to 0.55 (0.48 for triangular asymmetric probability distribution), while the original value was 1.09. To get such decrease, the investment costs should be twice higher than expected. And we need to remember that 0.55 is not the lowest BCR in 10,000 simulations, but mean value. These results does not seem correct.
In line 246 there should be "beta-PERT" not "Beta-PERTH".
Author Response
The answer for the reviewer is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is almost fine.
Please correct the information on project P6 in lines 302-303: "Project P6 showed negative efficiency for all combinations of interactions of both critical variables".
In table 10 mean BCR for project P14 and variant 2 is 4.97 which appears to be too high. Probably a typographical error.
Author Response
Please correct the information on project P6 in lines 302-303: "Project P6 showed negative efficiency for all combinations of interactions of both critical variables".
We removed the sentence and adjusted the text according to the current data.
In table 10 mean BCR for project P14 and variant 2 is 4.97 which appears to be too high. Probably a typographical error.
Yes, this was an incorrect transcript, thank you for your warning. It is fixed.
