Retaining risk internally, also known as risk acceptance, is a viable strategy in construction projects when the cost of mitigating the risk outweighs the potential impact. This is because:
Cost-Benefit Analysis – Organizations evaluate the cost of risk mitigation strategies (insurance, safety measures, additional testing) versus the financial and operational impact of the risk itself.
Low Probability, Low Impact Risks – If a risk has a low likelihood and minimal consequences, investing heavily in mitigation may not be justified.
Strategic Risk Allocation – Some risks, such as minor material delays or minor weather-related delays, may be absorbed without major disruption.
Self-Insurance Approach – Companies with a strong financial position may choose to retain certain risks rather than pay for insurance or mitigation measures.
Project-Specific Considerations – Risk retention is often seen in projects with tight budgets, well-understood processes, or where external risk transfer options (such as insurance) are too costly.
Option B (Avoid using external consultants) – Risk retention should be based on financial and strategic considerations, not just avoiding consultants.
Option C (Fully understanding risks) – Even well-understood risks may still require mitigation, depending on their impact.
Option D (Stakeholders agreeing to share risk equally) – Risk-sharing is different from internal risk retention, which involves keeping the risk within the organization rather than distributing it.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect:References:
Quality Management in Construction Projects.pdf – Risk Assessment and Management in Construction
Construction Risk Planning – Risk Cost Analysis and Retention Strategies
Risk Management in Infrastructure Projects – Evaluating the Impact of Risk Retention
