Risk Identification and Assessment of the Development of Final Optics Assembly

  • Wei-gang Li
  • Yi Pan
  • Xin Xu
  • Chao-zhong GuoEmail author
Conference paper


The Final Optics Assembly (FOA is one of the most important equipment of the photoelectric control system. Its development process has great uncertainty and risk. Based on the general methods of the project risk management, this paper proposes a “DOUBLE work breakdown structure (WBS) + Risk breakdown structure (RBS)” three-dimensional risk identification model and a risk assessment model combining risk analysis with AHP. The risk identification model helps to quickly and fully identify similar risks that may exist in the current project. The proposed risk assessment model is beneficial to find out the key risks in the huge analysis data, and it has stronger practicality. Additionally, a risk source breakdown structure of the development project is also proposed. This paper provides guidance on risk identification and assessment of other large development projects.


Final optics assembly Risk assessment Risk identification Risk management 



This paper is supported by the Special Financial Grant from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2016T90305).


  1. 1.
    L.R. Ireland, Risk management model for the defense system acquisition process. NTIS:AD-P002313/5/HD M (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.G. Ingalls, P.R. Schoeffel, Risk assessment for defense acquisition management. NTIS:AD-P002 303/6/HDM (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.G. Harrison, Methodology for assessing acquisition technical risk. NTIS:AD-A255130/ 7/HDM (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. Chunxiu, Research on risk management of civil aircraft project based on WBS-RBS. Proj. Manag. Technol. 04, 98–103 (2014) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu. Haichan, Application of PDCA circulation method in risk management of large instrument development project. Technol. Econ. 80, 77–80 (2015) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Tao, Exploration and reflection on risk management of aviation model development project. Aviat. Sci. Technol. 6, 67–70 (2016) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Karaulova, S. Kramarenko, E. Shevtshenko, Risk factors in project management life cycle, in Proceedings of the International Conference of DAAAM Baltic Industrial Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Harron, R. Barlow, T. Farquhar, Enhanced leak detection risk model development. Int. Pipeline Conf. 4, 559–564 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Siami-Irdemoosa, S.R. Dindarloo, M. Sharifzade, Work breakdown structure (WBS) development for underground construction. Autom. Constr. 58, 85–94 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Xingbang, Research on Risk Management of Shenzhou X Spacecraft Development Project (Harbin Institute of Technology, 2014) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Hillson, S. Grimaldi, C. Rafele, Managing project risks using a cross risk breakdown matrix. Risk Manag. 8, 61–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Perez, D. Weir, C. Seguin, R. Ferdous, Development and implementation of a liquid pipeline quantitative risk assessment model, in ASME. International Pipeline Conference, Materials and Joining; Risk and Reliability, vol. 3, V003T12A029.
  13. 13.
    G. Yunfeng, Research on Risk Management of High Pressure Compressor Development Project (Jilin University, 2010) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Kokangül, U. Polat, C. Dağsuyu, A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf. Sci. 91, 24–32 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Franek, A. Kresta, Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Econ. Financ. 12, 164–173 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations