The Panama Canal (Mini-Case Study: 4.1)
This mini-case study explores how brainstorming and a risk breakdown structure can support risk identification in a complex international construction project. The Panama Canal provides a setting for considering technical, environmental, workforce, and management uncertainties.
Select and apply risk identification tools that could have helped identify the project's risks.
Failing to identify a potential risk can leave a project exposed to problems affecting its schedule, budget, and intended quality. A difficulty project managers may face is the absence of a suitable reference list to guide identification.
Risk identification is therefore an important part of risk management planning. It identifies risks that could affect the project and describes their characteristics. To reduce the likelihood of unexpected problems in an international project such as this, two useful tools are risk brainstorming and a risk breakdown structure.
1. Risk Brainstorming
Even when an organization has experience with international projects, brainstorming can help identify gaps in knowledge, challenge assumptions, and establish where further information is needed.
PMI describes brainstorming as encouraging participants to propose ideas without fear of criticism during the idea-generation stage. Its risk identification guidance also emphasizes describing what might happen, why, when, and with what effect.[1]
Applying Brainstorming to the Project
An illustrative workshop could bring together people with knowledge of engineering, construction, workforce welfare, logistics, finance, and local conditions. Each would examine the project from a different perspective.
Useful questions would include:
- Which assumptions about the site need further investigation?
- What could interrupt excavation or the movement of materials?
- What could make equipment unsuitable or unavailable?
- Which conditions could threaten workforce health or safety?
- What could cause resource needs or costs to exceed expectations?
- Which decisions depend on information that is not yet reliable?
Ideas should first be collected broadly, then reviewed to clarify duplicates, causes, and consequences. The aim is to expose uncertainty, rather than produce the longest possible list.
2. Risk Breakdown Structure
A risk breakdown structure, or RBS, organizes sources of risk into a hierarchy. Broad categories are divided into more specific areas so that the team can examine exposure systematically.
As the original answer suggests, this can help managers look beyond general concerns and consider particular sources of uncertainty. However, adding more levels does not automatically create more control. The structure must remain relevant and lead to investigation, assessment, and action.
David Hillson's PMI paper explains how an RBS can guide a brainstorming workshop by prompting participants to examine different risk areas.[2]
Illustrative Risk Hierarchy
The following table proposes an RBS for a canal construction project. It is not a reproduction of the textbook's Section 4.5 or a historical Panama Canal risk register.
| Level 1: Broad category | Level 2: Risk source | Level 3: Identification question |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Ground conditions and excavation design | Could unstable slopes require additional excavation or design changes? |
| Technical | Equipment suitability and reliability | Could equipment limitations prevent the planned production rate? |
| Environmental | Rainfall, drainage, and water movement | Could water conditions interrupt work or damage temporary facilities? |
| Workforce | Health and safety | Could illness or accidents harm workers and interrupt activities? |
| Workforce | Skills and staffing availability | Could shortages leave critical activities without sufficient capability? |
| Logistics | Transport and supply | Could disrupted deliveries or material removal delay construction? |
| Commercial | Estimates and funding | Could uncertain quantities or production assumptions create a funding gap? |
| Management | Coordination and decision-making | Could unclear responsibilities delay decisions between work areas? |
Connecting the Analysis to Historical Context
The Panama Canal Authority's account of the end of construction identifies landslides, a design change, and deaths from disease and accidents during the American construction era.[3] These provide historical context for considering ground conditions and workforce health and safety.
They do not establish that the proposed tools would have predicted every event. A retrospective analysis must also distinguish what is known today from information available to planners at the time.
Illustrative Workshop Schedule
This proposed two-hour session shows how the tools could be combined. It is not a historical project schedule.
| Time | Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0–15 minutes | Confirm objectives, scope, and known assumptions. | Shared boundaries for the discussion. |
| 15–45 minutes | Collect ideas through open brainstorming. | Initial risk and information-gap list. |
| 45–75 minutes | Review the list against the RBS categories. | Additional risks and areas needing investigation. |
| 75–105 minutes | Clarify causes, uncertain events, and consequences. | More precise risk statements. |
| 105–120 minutes | Assign follow-up responsibilities and review dates. | Actions for evidence gathering and subsequent assessment. |
Example of a Clear Risk Statement
Instead of recording only “landslides,” an illustrative statement would be:
If excavated slopes are unstable, material may slide into the working area, threatening worker safety and increasing the time and resources needed to complete excavation.
This wording separates the underlying condition, the possible event, and its consequences. Further investigation would be required before assigning likelihood or impact ratings.
Conclusion
Brainstorming brings different perspectives into risk identification, while an RBS provides a structured check for overlooked areas. Used together, they can turn broad concerns into clearer questions and risk statements. Identification should continue as investigations, design decisions, and construction experience provide new information.
Sources and Further Reading
- Project Management Institute. Risk Identification.
- Hillson, D. Use a Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS) to Understand Your Risks. Project Management Institute.
- Panama Canal Authority. End of the Construction.