Infrastructure projects, based on the Build-Operate-Transfer, (BOT), method, have been of interest to governments of developed and developing countries for some time, resulting in their worldwide use. Using the BOT method enables governments to reallocate risks and rewards to the private sector for larger infrastructure projects throughout the projects' operating life. In order to implement a BOT infrastructure project successfully, one of the essential requirements is to carry out a thorough analysis of risks relating to the project including the social, economic, environmental, political, legal, and the financial aspects. Due to the fact that the type of risk study required for large-scale projects is so sophisticated, and therefore expensive and time consuming, the government, due to lack of expertise and time, often obtains a project viability study from the private sector. This can cause problems in that the private sector may incur financial losses or even bankruptcy, unless the host government guarantees compensation to the losers of the bid. Because all parties have different targets which they wish to achieve from the project, a may conflict arise and cause lengthy negotiations, sometimes lasting for years which often result in the death of the project. The greatest opportunity for a successful outcome for a BOT project is obtained when the extensive efforts and costs involved in the risk study process are shared by all parties. The responsibility of the decision maker is to identify, understand and analyze the many risk factors both, qualitative, (linguistic in nature) and quantitative, that will affect funding, procurement, developing, construction and operation, before proceeding with the build stage of the project. Firstly, it is necessary to evaluate the quantitative Risk Factors subjectively, and list them in order of importance. Secondly, conduct an evaluation of the qualitative factors and since the consideration of qualitative factors is subjective, the decision maker will often limit the number of factors being evaluated possibly resulting in inconsistent results. This study proposes a decision framework, which would be useful in determining the influence of the qualitative Risk Factors on the project management of BOT infrastructure projects. A methodology is provided to enable the identification of interrelationships between the Risk Factors and their influence on the project. Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques, which model the relationships between the Risk Factors, a validation of this approach will be sought using a decomposed evaluation method and also information obtained from three existing case studies, (the Channel Tunnel, Sulaibiya Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant and Marsa Allam Airport). The results of the decomposed approach were compared to experts' holistic evaluations for the same case studies mentioned above. The findings indicate that the decomposed approach showed a strong correlation to the holistic approach. An evaluation of the risks for the Sulaibiya Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant study is provided and suggestions made to highlight risks attached to such a project before it is actually undertaken. Using the decomposed approach enables the decision maker to see the contribution of each risk compared to all of the risks in the total project and will help to determine and subsequently minimize or preventing any risk factors and so considerably improving the risk management of the project.

Listeriosis caused by Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes) has been of public concern since the 1980s. Among all the RTE food, deli meats are the major carrier for this pathogen. Eliminating or lowering the initial level of L. monocytogenes in RTE meat and poultry product in the plants is an important practice in reducing the risk of L. monocytogenes to the public due to the growth potential of L. monocytogenes in the RTE food product during storage. Research identifying the contamination at plants provided information for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish the Interim Final Rule, requiring the food processing plants that produce post-lethality exposed RTE meat and poultry product choose one of the three alternative plans to ensure good sanitation conditions during food processing or suppress the growth of L. monocytogenes during storage: post-processing treatment and use of growth inhibitor (Alternative1), post-processing alone (Alternative 2a) or use of growth inhibitor and sanitation program (Alternative 2b), and sanitation program alone (Alternative 3). This research developed a comprehensive model that simulated the entire processes of RTE food production, taking into account potential transfer and growth of L. monocytogenes in RTE meat and poultry products. This plant-to-consumption model analyzed the effectiveness of the three alternative processes on reducing the L. monocytogenes in the RTE food products and also investigated the optimal sampling and sanitizing program. Results showed that formulation of food products with growth inhibitor has the greatest impact on reducing the risk of L. monocytogenes, followed by the post-processing treatment and sanitation intervention. Risk can also be reduced depending on alternatives. For example, 70% reduction if all are switched to alternative 2b and 91% reduction if all are switched to Alternative 1, compared with the current alternative selection by food establishments. This study investigated several important factors in the sanitation program, analyzed the sensitivities of these factors, and proposed the reasonable improvement of the hold-and-test strategies by the plant-to-consumer mathematic model. Holding all the lots during the food contact surface (FCS) testing period instead of holding lots after finding the positive FCS would increase the detection rate of positive lots by three "times. These results may help the food establishments under Alternative 3 choosing the proper sampling and sanitation program or switching to Alternative 1 or 2. / Ph. D.

Research in risk awareness has been relatively neglected in the health informatics literature, which tends largely to examine project managers’ perspectives of risk awareness; very few studies explicitly address the perspectives held by senior executives such as directors. Another limitation evident in the current risk literature is that studies are often based on American data and/or they are restricted to American culture. Both factors highlight the need to examine how senior executives (i.e., directors) who oversee or direct eHealth projects in Canada perceive risk awareness. This research explores and discusses the perspectives of risk awareness (i.e., identification, analysis, and prioritization) held by directors and project managers who implement Canadian eHealth projects. Semi-structured interviews with nine directors and project managers uncovered six key distinctions in these two groups’ awareness of risk. First, all project managers valued transparency over anonymity, whereas directors believed that an anonymous reporting system for communicating risks had merit. Secondly, most directors emphasized the importance of evidence-based planning and decision making when balancing risks and opportunities, an aspect none of the project managers voiced. Thirdly, while project managers noted that the level of risk tolerance may evolve from being risk-averse to risk-neutral, directors believed that risk tolerance evolved toward risk-seeking. Directors also noted the importance of employing risk officers, a view that was not shared by project managers. Directors also believed the risk of too little end-user engagement and change management was the most important risk, whereas project managers ranked it as the least important. Finally, when directors and project managers were asked to identify and define the root cause(s) of eHealth risks, directors identified the complexity of health care industry, while project managers attributed it to political pressure and a lack of resources where eHealth projects are concerned. This research proposes that the varied perspectives of risk awareness held by directors and project managers must be considered and integrated to properly align expectations and build partnerships for successful eHealth project outcomes. Understanding risk awareness offers a means to systematically identify and analyze the complex nature of eHealth projects by embracing uncertainties, thereby enabling forward thinking (i.e., staying one step ahead of risks) and the ability to prevent avoidable risks and seize opportunities. / Graduate / 0723 / 0489 / 0454 / randbpark@gmail.com