I am undertaking a research on risk in Infrastructure project finance where I have ranked questions developed for my questionnaire. My interest is to see which risks are more severe within each of the nine categories that I have profiled (ie each category has 5 sub risks). What would be the best statistical outputs to analyse this data? Besides wanting to know which risks are more severe within each risk category, I would be interested in knowing the differences in the responses between the public and private sector. Your thoughts?
Hi Paul
A million thanks for your well elaborated response. I reckon it would be more helpful if i could share with you the survey questionnaire so that you could advise on perhaps changing the tone of some questions. Kindly drop me a blank email to [email protected] so that i could share with you my proposal and questionnaire.
I noted that most surveys tend to use means testing, concordance analysis, Kendall and the rank correllation etc.
Regards.
Dear Bruno
Following up on Pauls second point about the ability/willingness of officials to answer in a usefull way, I think that you would be well adviced to study Professor Bent Flybjergs work on risks and failures in large infrastructure projects. Flyvbjerg is professor at Oxford these days. The problem is, that one reason why risks appear large is that they are often ignored (and hence not planned for/adapted to) in the initial stages of the decision making. Flyvbjergs work is not as much quantitatve as an anthropological/sociological study of a phenomenon, but if you could take his finding sinto account somehow, and perhaps elicit information of value to that discussion, that could improve your contribution to the field.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning