外文文献：This analysis used a case study methodology to analyze the issues surrounding the partial collapse of the roof of a building housing the headquarters of the Standards Association of Zimbabwe (SAZ). In particular, it examined the prior roles played by the team of construction professionals. The analysis revealed that the SAZ’s traditional construction project was generally characterized by high risk. There was a clear indication of the failure of a contractor and architects in preventing and/or mitigating potential construction problems as alleged by the plaintiff. It was reasonable to conclude that between them the defects should have been detected earlier and rectified in good time before the partial roof failure. It appeared justified for the plaintiff to have brought a negligence claim against both the contractor and the architects. The risk analysis facilitated, through its multi-dimensional approach to a critical examination of a construction problem, the identification of an effective risk management strategy for future construction prject and riskThe structural design of the reinforced concrete elements was done by consulting engineers Knight Piesold (KP). Quantity surveying services were provided by Hawkins, Leshnick & Bath (HLB). The contract was awarded to Central African Building Corporation (CABCO) who was also responsible for the provision of a specialist roof structure using patented “gang nail” roof trusses. The building construction proceeded to completion and was handed over to the owners on Sept. 12, 1991. The SAZ took effective occupation of the headquarters building without a certificate of occupation. Also, the defects liability period was only three months .The roof structure was in place 10 years At first the SAZ decided to go to arbitration, but this failed to yield an immediate solution. The SAZ then decided toproceed to litigate in court and to bring a negligence claim against CABCO. The preparation for arbitration was reused for litigation. The SAZ’s quantified losses stood at approximately $ 6 million in Zimbabwe dollars (US $1.2m) .After all parties had examined the facts and evidence before them, it became clear that there was a great probability that the courts might rule that both the architects and the contractor were lia ble. It was at this stage that the defendants’ lawyers requested that the matter be settled out of court. The plaintiff agreed to this suxamined the prior roles played by the project management function and construction professionals in preventing/mitigating potential construction problems. It further assessed the extent to which the employer/client and parties to a construction contract are able to recover damages under that contract. The main objective of this critical analysis was to identify an effective risk management strategy for future construction projects. The importance of this study is its multidimensional examination approach.Experience sugge be misleading. All construction projects are prototypes to some extent and imply change. Change in the construction industry itself suggests that past experience is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. A structured approach is required. Such a structure can not and must not replace the experience and expertise of the participant. Rather, it brings additional benefits that assist to clarify objectives, identify the nature of the uncertainties, introduces effective communication systems, improves decision-making, introduces effective risk control measures, protects the project objectives and provides knowledge of the risk history .Construction professionals need to know how to balance the contingencies of risk with their specific contractual, financial, operational and organizational requirements. Many construction professionals look at risks in dividually with a myopic lens and donot realize the potential impact that other associated risks may have on their business operations. Using a holistic risk management approach will enable a firm to identify all of the organization’s business risks. This will increas e the probability of risk mitigation, with the ultimate goal of total risk elimination .Recommended key construction and risk management strategies for future construction projects have been considered and their explanation follows. J.W. Hinchey stated th at there is and can be no ‘best practice’ standard for risk allocation on a high-profile project or for that matter, any project. He said, instead, successful risk management is a mind-set and a process. According to Hinchey, the ideal mind-set is for the parties and their representatives to, first, be intentional about identifying project risks and then to proceed to develop a systematic and comprehensive process for avoiding, mitigat and its location. This is said to be necessary not only to allow alternative responses to be explored. But also to ensure that the right questions are asked and the major risks identified. Heads of sources of risk are said to be a convenient way of providing a structure for identifying risks to completion of a participant’s pa rt of the project. Effective risk management is said to require a multi-disciplinary approach. Inevitably risk management requires examination of engineering, legal and insurance related solutions .It is stated that the use of analytical techniques based on a statistical approach could be of enormous use in decision making . Many of these techniques are said to be relevant to estimation of the consequences of risk events, and not how allocation of risk is to be achieved. In addition, at the present stage of the development of risk management, Atkinson states that it must be recognized that major decisions will be made that can not be based solely on mathematical analysis. The complexity ofconstruction projects means that the project definition in terms of both physical form and organizational structure will be based on consideration of only a relatively small number of risks . This is said to then allow a general structured approach that can be applied to any construction project to increase the awareness of participants .The new, simplified Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM Regulations) which came in to f 1996, into a single regulatory package.The new CDM regulations offer an opportunity for a step change in health and safety performance and are used to reemphasize the health, safety and broader business benefits of a well-managed and co-ordinated approach to the management of health and safety in construction. I believe that the development of these skills is imperative to provide the client with the most effective services available, delivering the best value project possible.Construction Management at Risk (CM at Risk), similar to established private sector methods of construction contracting, is gaining popularity in the public sector. It is a process that allows a client to select a construction manager (CM) based on qualifications; make the CM a member of a collaborative project team; centralize responsibility for construction under a single contract; obtain a bonded guaranteed maximum price; produce a more manageable, predictable project; save time and money; and reduce risk for the client, the architect and the CM.CM at Risk, a more professional approach to construction, is taking its place along with design-build, bridging and the more traditional process of design-bid-build as an established method of project delivery.The AE can review to get the projec. Competition in the community is more equitable: all subcontractors have a fair shot at the work .A contingency within the GMP covers unexpected but justifiable costs, and a contingency above the GMP allows for client changes. As long as the subcontractors are within the GMP they are reimbursed to the CM, so the CM represents the client in negotiating inevitable changes with subcontractors.There can be similar problems where each party in a project is separately insured. For this reason a move towards project insurance is recommended. The traditional approach reinforces adversarial attitudes, and even provides incentives for people to overlook or conceal risks in an attempt to avoid or transfer responsibility.A contingency within the GMP covers unexpected but justifiable costs, and a contingency above the GMP allows for client changes. As long as the subcontractors are within the GMP they are reimbursed to the CM, so the CM represents the client in negotiating inevitable changes with subcontractors.There can be similar problems where each party in a project is separately insured. For this reason a move towards project insurance is recommended. The traditional approach reinforces adversarial attitudes, and even provides incentives for people to overlook or conceal risks in an attempt to avoid or transfer responsibility.It was reasonable to assume that between them the defects should have been detected earlier and rectified in good time before the partial roof failure. It did appear justified for the plaintiff to have brought a negligence claim against both the contractor and the architects.In many projects clients do not understand the importance of their role in facilitating cooperation and coordination; the desi recompense. They do not want surprises, and are more likely to engage in litigation when things go wrong.中文译文：国际建设工程风险分析索赔看来是合乎情理的。