51 American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 https://asrjetsjournal.org/index.php/American_Scientific_Journal/index Methodological Foundations of Risk Register Development for Large-Scale Projects Valentin George Cretu* Project Planning Manager at Totalenergies,Paris, France Email:georgecretu2003@gmail.com Abstract The article examines the methodological foundation for developing a risk register for large-scale projects, including the key principles of its formation, integration, and application in managing uncertainty. The urgency of the topic is justified by the scale of systemic deviations in megaprojects: the average budget overrun reaches 62 percent, while in 91.5 percent of cases projects experience cost overruns, delays or both simultaneously, which underscores the need to embed a risk‑management framework at the investment justification stage, when the work breakdown structure and preliminary budget are refined. The study aims to conduct a systematic analysis and comparison of methodologies for developing a risk register, drawing on PMI, USACE and ISO standards and practical regulator recommendations, to identify novel approaches to consolidating information in a single source of truth, linking risks to WBS elements and explicitly declaring residual risk; the novelty of the research lies in combining empirical data from more than sixteen thousand megaprojects, the results of a survey of four hundred companies and software‑market forecasts to produce cohesive methodological recommendations. Key findings demonstrate that integrating the risk register with the project baseline during the investment justification phase transforms it from a passive catalogue into an active driver of schedule and cost forecasts. Additionally, four methodological principles form a dynamic system capable of supporting decision-making and enhancing the adaptability of project teams. This article will be valuable to project managers, risk managers, and researchers in the field of large‑scale initiative management. Keywords: risk register; large‑scale projects; risk management; integration with WBS; single source of truth; methodological principles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Received: 7/6/2025 Accepted: 9/6/2025 Published: 9/16/2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Corresponding author. https://asrjetsjournal.org/index.php/American_Scientific_Journal/index American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 52 1.Introduction Most large‑scale initiatives exhibit chronic deviations from baseline targets: in a database of over sixteen thousand megaprojects the average budget overrun is 62 percent, and 91.5 percent of cases involve cost overruns, delays orboth simultaneously [1], which indicates that without systematic work on uncertainty it is unlikely to achieve acceptable predictability, thus a comprehensive risk‑management loop, centred on the risk register, must be established at early stages of the project life cycle.In Project Management Institute terminology, the risk register is defined as a document containing a list of identified threats and opportunities, with descriptions of the risk itself, timeframe, probability, potential impact, and assigned owner; it is the primary output of the identification process Reference [2]. Such a formalized list turns disparate expert judgments into a structured dataset that can undergo both qualitative and quantitative analysis, enabling prioritization based on comparable metrics. Since the register accumulates all current and emerging uncertainty, many organisations regard it as the single source of truth, ensuring stakeholder alignment on risk perceptions and accelerating decision‑making when conditions change; an empirical study of four hundred companies in the EU and the USA found that single‑source‑of‑truth practices correlate with greater IT‑infrastructure adaptability and a data‑sharing culture [3]. Consolidating information in a unified repository reduces the likelihood of parallel shadow lists that fragment knowledge and dilute accountability. The practical value of the register increases sharply when it is directly linked to other planning artefacts. The PMI methodology requires each register entry to be mapped to elements of the work breakdown structure: risks are associated with WBS packages, their impact on task duration and cost is specified, and response actions are incorporated into the schedule and budget relative to the baseline; in this way the register evolves from a passive catalogue into an active driver of schedule and cost forecasts [4]. Such integration ensures that threat-mitigation measures are funded, monitored, and, if necessary, adjusted through standard project-management procedures, rather than remaining disparate initiatives. Thus, the scale of systemic deviations in megaprojects lends particular urgency to the formation of a risk register, its rigorous definition, its role as a centralized data source, and its close linkage with other project plan components, which together form the methodological foundation for enhancing the reliability of large-project delivery. 2.Materials and Methodology The study of methodological foundations for developing a risk register for large-scale projects is based on the analysis of 21 sources. The empirical basis comprises statistical data on over sixteen thousand megaprojects [1], the results of a survey of four hundred companies in the European Union and the USA [3], a review of risk-profile update frequencies according to KPMG data [19], an analysis of third-party risk-management approaches within ERM and TPRM frameworks [20], and software-market forecasts for risk-management tools from Verified Market Research [21]. The regulatory and standards-based foundation includes standardized descriptions of risk- management processes from the Project Management Institute [2, 4, 14], practical recommendations from the U.S. American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 53 Army Corps of Engineers [5], ISO 31073 [6] and ISO 31000 [7] standards, and regulatory requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission [8]. The theoretical foundation of the study includes the key principles for integrating the risk register with work breakdown structure (WBS) elements and CPM network diagrams according to PMI and GAO [4, 13, 14], defining the role of risk owners per ISO 31073 [6], methodologies for declaring residual risk under ISO 31000 [7] and CPUC [8], as well as a set of quantitative threat-assessment methods like probability-impact matrices and stochastic modelling from AACEI [11, 15]. Qualitative aspects draw upon experimental comparisons of risk- identification methods [9] and a U.S. Federal Highway Administration case study on linking contingency to a CPM model [10]. However, the existing body of literature on project risk management, while extensive, is often fragmented and disjointed. A significant portion of prior research focuses on specific, isolated components of the process, such as the mathematical sophistication of quantitative risk analysis models, the behavioral aspects of risk perception, or procedural compliance with a single standard, like the PMBOK Guide. While invaluable, these studies tend to examine the tools and techniques in isolation. A noticeable gap exists in scholarly work that synthesizes the procedural guidelines from diverse standards bodies (e.g., PMI, USACE, ISO), empirical data on corporate practices, and regulatory requirements into a cohesive set of foundational methodological principles for developing the risk register itself. To address this gap, the research methodology combines several approaches: comparative analysis of standards (PMI, USACE, ISO, GAO, AACEI) concerning regulatory and industry requirements [5, 7, 8, 13, 17]; a systematic review of corporate and commercial register templates (Smartsheet [16], Safran Risk [18]); and content analysis of risk-responsibility allocation practices [20]. Quantitative methods include the statistical processing of project cost-overrun and delay data [1], analysis of risk profile update frequency [19], and predictive analysis of the risk-management software market growth [21]. This paper seeks to move beyond a discussion of individual tools to propose an integrated framework that positions the risk register as the central, dynamic core of project planning from the earliest stages. 3.Results and Discussion Formation of the risk registry should begin concurrently with development of the baseline project plan, that is, in the same phase when the work breakdown structure and preliminary estimate are refined; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommendations explicitly require that risk identification and linking to the WBS be conducted already during preparation of the investment justification, otherwise the contingencies obtained will be underestimated and will not cover subsequent expansion of work scope [5]. Such early integration enables the registry to be viewed not as an auxiliary report, but as an integral part of the initial design information: each risk is assigned a code, which subsequently contributes to calculations of cost, duration, and schedule reserves. Maintaining the registry in an up‑to‑date state is as important as creating it; USACE methodological guidelines prescribe conducting a review at least once a year and employing the same model in the development, American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 54 procurement, and construction phases, to reflect the emergence of new threats and to retire risks that have been eliminated [5]. Thus, the registry serves as a sliding window of uncertainty, excluding obsolete entries and adding new scenarios before they have a chance to materialize without preparation. In a survey [19] among senior executives in Hong Kong, 38% of participants reported that they update their risk profile (analogous to the risk registry) only once a year, 14% admitted that they have no formal risk profile at all. In comparison, over 80% assess their organization as adequately responding to identified key risks and emerging new threats, as shown in Figure 1. Figure1: Frequency of Organizational Risk Profile Refresh Including Emerging Risks Identified [19] This data reveals a critical disconnect between methodological recommendations and corporate practice. While standards advocate for the risk register to be a dynamic, continuously updated tool, the prevalence of annual or even less frequent reviews effectively transforms it into a static, formal-only document. Such an approach fundamentally negates the principle of full lifecycle management, leaving projects highly vulnerable to threats that arise and evolve between infrequent updates. This gap in procedural discipline is a significant contributing factor to the rapid exhaustion of contingency reserves and, ultimately, to the very cost and schedule overruns that plague large-scale projects. The high self-assessed confidence of executives, contrasted with the low frequency of formal reviews, may also point towards an "optimism bias" or a reliance on informal, undocumented control mechanisms, which are inherently unreliable, non-transparent, and insufficient for the complexity of a megaproject environment. The effectiveness of control tools is primarily determined by the assignment of an owner to each risk, who possesses the authority and resources to respond: it is this distribution of responsibility that ISO 31073 describes, American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 55 defining the risk owner as the person or unit endowed with both the duty and the right to undertake actions to manage the corresponding uncertainty [6]. Assigning owners not only eliminates problem anonymity but also creates a legal basis for including mitigation costs in the budget of specific work packages, since the cost of response becomes part of the appointed manager’s reporting. Even after planned measures have been implemented, some threats remain; therefore, the methodology requires an explicit declaration of residual risk and the criteria for its acceptability [22]. ISO 31000 emphasizes that the decision to accept residual risk must be made at the management level capable of assessing its impact on strategic objectives, and that the document justifying acceptance be included in the registry, together with the assessment of probability and consequences [7]. Regulatory practice goes further: for example, the California Public Utilities Commission introduced a requirement for operators to publish annual schedules of allowable residual risk exceedances and to demonstrate that the total risk level remains within the agreed tolerance threshold; otherwise, the project does not receive funding at the next stage [8]. Transparency of such thresholds removes questions about why some threats are funded while others are accepted, and prevents the covert transfer of risk to third parties. Thus, the four methodological principles, early integration, coverage of the whole life cycle, personal accountability, and explicit documentation of residual risk with acceptability criteria, form an interconnected system. They transform the registry from a static list into a dynamic management mechanism, supporting the project team at all stages of implementation and enabling investors to make informed decisions based on an up- to-date, verifiable dataset. The study [20] found that about 10% of organizations appoint a single risk owner for the entire company, approximately 25% for each business segment, another 25% at the level of business units, and the remaining companies either have no formal approach to responsibility allocation or are only beginning to establish such a practice, as shown in Figure 2. Figure2: Ownership Structures in Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Approaches [20] American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 56 Effective development of the risk register begins with systematic identification of sources of uncertainty, conducted in parallel with project decomposition. Methodological guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prescribe linking identified events to WBS elements already at the investment justification stage, to control the volume of reserves throughout planning [5]. An experimental study published in 2023 in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications demonstrated that a process-oriented approach enabled expert groups to identify a statistically significantly greater number of unique risks compared to WBS-based modeling at a 95% confidence level, which confirms the importance of methodological diversity during initial data collection [9]. After capturing the raw list, each risk is transformed into a formalized event‑cause‑consequence record, with assignment of a category (e.g., HSE, cost, schedule), an owner, and an indicative review date. Concurrently, an initial qualification is performed: events whose probability falls below the threshold but whose consequences are critical are retained in the register with the label low probability–high impact, whereas routine risks of minimal influence are aggregated for simplified reporting. The methodology of the U.S. Federal Transit Administration allows for the synchronization of qualified entries with the schedule and estimate using unique risk-register codes, ensuring that subsequent changes are automatically reflected in procurement control plans and budgets [10]. Quantification involves a probability–impact matrix for rapid ranking and stochastic modeling of key threats. The AACE Recommended Practice 57R‑09 extends this approach by linking risk drivers to specific tasks in the CPM schedule, thereby accounting for shifts in the critical path during each simulation run [11]. A concrete example from an LRT project in the FTA report illustrates that transitioning from a deterministic estimate of USD 402.6 million to a probabilistic P-65 value of USD 415.5 million resulted in a contingency of approximately three percent, which is substantially more accurate than a traditional fixed factor [10]. Thus, the sequence of identifying, qualifying, and quantifying embeds risk parameters into the project’s management system, ensuring the comparability of data and justification of reserves across all life-cycle phases. Response planning begins with the quantitative valuation of each threat based on its expected monetary value, where probability and impact data from the register are converted into a currency equivalent of potential loss. This allows for the formation of a target risk reserve before the approval of the detailed budget [12]. Such a reserve is allocated by cost category and calendar period in proportion to the risk realization time windows; consequently, the baseline plan expenditure table already includes a risk contingency line, justified by specific scenarios rather than a round-number markup. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration also recommends earmarking a separate reserve for contract changes. A practical example for a bridge project applies a fixed rate to the construction cost specifically for such unforeseen works, illustrating the principle of segregating reserves by purpose. After calculation of the total reserve, it is distributed across WBS codes, which enables automation of subsequent fund release upon event occurrence and inclusion of expenditure in earned‑value reports without diluting the transparency of the base estimate. Integration of response measures with the baseline is achieved by including risk tasks in the network schedule and assigning the same WBS codes as for other tasks. GAO guidance emphasizes that the WBS creates a unified American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 57 structure for the simultaneous tracking of duration, cost, and responsible parties; this enables the assessment of risk measures at the work-package level [13]. The concept of risk work packages is further developed in the PMI methodology for integrating risk management and earned value. Each significant scenario is designed as a separate work package, complete with its budget and timeline. Afterward, the actual execution of risk work automatically feeds into EVMS reports, simplifying control during threat response [14]. Because financial and temporal buffers are closely linked, AACE recommends planning them in parallel: if the estimate includes a monetary contingency, it is logical to provide a schedule contingency as well, since the same uncertainty drivers affect both project dimensions; moreover, the time reserve should be explicitly visible in the schedule and based on quantitative assessment results rather than being hidden as duration padding in tasks [15]. Once measures are incorporated into the schedule and budget, the register must not remain static. USACE guidance requires an annual review of the Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis for significant projects, updating estimates during the design, procurement, and construction phases to reflect retired threats and newly emerging ones [5]. In practice, many teams adopt a quarterly revision cycle: updated probability distributions are drawn from actual data, reserves are recalculated, and released funds are either reallocated or returned to the investor. Thus, the sequence calculates reserves, embeds them in the baseline, tracks execution, and regularly adjusts to provide not only financial protection but also continuous feedback between the risk model and actual project progress. For small project teams, especially at conceptual evaluation stages, the risk register is most often maintained in a spreadsheet. The combination of row entries and conditional formatting is license-free, allowing for rapid sorting of threats, construction of probability–impact matrices, and file sharing via email. Commercial providers support this approach: the Smartsheet library regularly publishes free Excel templates for both project and enterprise registers, and the Download Risk Register Template section remains one of the most visited sections on their portal, indicating sustained demand for tabular solutions in the small- to medium-sized project segment [16]. Meanwhile, the study [21] forecasts that the risk management software market will grow from USD 11.87 billion in 2024 to USD 35.08 billion by 2031, at a CAGR of 14.50 percent over the 2024–2031 period, as shown in Figure 3. American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 58 Figure 3:Risk Management Software Market [21] As the project budget and number of stakeholders grow, risk data can no longer be contained in a flat file, and the primary objective becomes linking that data to the network schedule and WBS codes. Classical project- management tools provide built-in mechanisms. In Oracle Primavera Cloud, risk-matrix data, thresholds, and individual risk entries can be imported directly from P6, along with the schedule. Afterward, both qualitative and quantitative analyses can be conducted within a single package, and schedule changes instantly update the risk- impact evaluation. GAO methodological guidance on schedule assessment notes that embedding threat-mitigation activities in the baseline schedule and tying them to the work breakdown structure signals a mature cost-and- schedule control model, as it enables the traceability of threats, responses, and effects in earned-value reports [17]. Thus, integrating the risk register into enterprise tools such as Primavera or Microsoft Project bridges the divide between risk analysis and resource allocation. When an organization manages multiple major initiatives simultaneously, spreadsheet files and local installations no longer provide a consolidated view, so teams migrate to specialized SaaS platforms. Safran Risk implements a unified model in which schedule and cost data are linked to risks within a common database and processed as a single distribution, thereby permitting an integrated budget and schedule forecast instead of separate buffers [18]. Such services simplify browser-based access to up-to-date information, automatically notify risk owners of metric changes, and eliminate version-control issues, which is especially critical in distributed governance structures. Accordingly, the methodological foundations for developing a risk register for large‑scale projects rest on four key principles, early integration with the baseline plan, consolidation in a single source of truth, linkage of entries to WBS elements and explicit declaration of residual risk, each of which ensures systematic identification and structured data; this approach transforms the register from a static catalogue into a dynamic management American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 59 mechanism capable of rapidly adjusting schedule and budget forecasts, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, it is essential to emphasize that developing a risk register for large-scale projects is a pivotal element in managing uncertainty, thereby enhancing the predictability of schedule and cost. The magnitude of systemic deviations in megaprojects underscores the necessity of establishing a comprehensive risk‑management framework at the investment‑justification stage, when the work breakdown structure and preliminary estimate are still being refined. Early incorporation of the register into the project’s baseline plan elevates it from an auxiliary report to an integral component of the initial design information, in which each risk is assigned a unique code and defined by its time windows, probabilities, impacts, and responsible parties. Methodological principles derived from analysis of PMI, USACE, ISO and other standards coalesce into a unified system for risk‑register development: integration with WBS elements ensures alignment of risks with work activities and budget, consolidation in a single source of truth guarantees organizational consistency in perception, assignment of risk owners establishes the legal and resource basis for response and explicit documentation of residual risk with acceptability criteria lays the groundwork for transparent decision‑making. The operational sequence of identifying, qualifying, quantifying, planning responses, integrating them into the schedule and budget, and regularly updating the register converts the register from a static catalogue into a dynamic management mechanism.It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study to provide a balanced perspective. The research is primarily a systematic review and synthesis of existing standards, industry reports, and published data. It does not include the collection of new primary empirical evidence through case studies or direct project intervention. Consequently, while the methodological framework is robustly supported by established literature, its practical effectiveness has not been validated by the authors in a specific project environment. Furthermore, the recommendations are presented for "large-scale projects" as a broad category; the specific nuances and risk profiles of different industries—such as construction, IT, or aerospace—are not deeply explored. Finally, the study focuses on defining the methodological ‘what’ rather than the organizational ‘how,’ and does not extensively cover the behavioural, political, and cultural barriers that can impede the successful implementation of these principles.Thus, the presented methodological foundations not only structure expert judgments and support development of justified reserves but also ensure continuous feedback between the risk model and actual project progress. The implementation of this approach reinforces process transparency, heightens participant accountability, and enhances the adaptability of project teams, collectively fostering the successful delivery of large-scale initiatives under conditions of high uncertainty and evolving environments. References [1] D. Akst, “Why do large projects go over budget?” Strategy and business, Jun. 19, 2023. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/Why-do-large-projects-go-over-budget (accessed Jun. 23, 2025). American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 60 [2] N. K. Shrivastava, “Project risk management--another success-boosting tool in a PM’s toolkit,” PMI, Oct. 23, 2012. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-risk-management-success-tool-6078 (accessed Jun. 24, 2025). [3] M. Queiroz, P. Tallon, and T. Coltman, “Data Value and the Search for a Single Source of Truth: What is it and Why Does it Matter?,” Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Jan. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2024.795. [4] K. Richard, “Managing Risk in The Project Portfolio,” PMI, 2007. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/managing-risk-project-portfolio-7297 (accessed Jun. 27, 2025). [5] “USACE Recommended Best Practices: Cost & Schedule Risk Analysis,” USACE. https://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/CSRA%20Best%20Practices%202024.pdf (accessed Jun. 28, 2025). [6] ISO, “ISO 31073:2022,” ISO. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:31073:ed-1:v1:en [7] ISO, “ISO 31000,” ISO. https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100426.pdf (accessed Jun. 29, 2025). [8] CPUC, “Overall Residual Risk, Risk Tolerance and Simple Optimization,” CPUC, 2024. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/safety-policy-division/meeting- documents/risk-tolerance-staff-proposal_110624.pdf (accessed Jul. 01, 2025). [9] R. Kountur and M. R. Sari, “Risk identification approaches and the number of risks identified: the use of work breakdown structure and business process,” Humanities & social sciences communications, vol. 10, no. 1, Sep. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02028-8. [10] “Oversight Procedure 40 - Risk and Contingency Review,” US DOT Federal Transit Administration. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-05/OP40-Risk-Contingency-Review-Mar- 2022.pdf (accessed Jul. 01, 2025). [11] “Integrated Cost And Schedule Risk Analysis Using Risk Drivers And Monte Carlo Simulation Of A Cpm Model,” AACEI, 2019. https://web.aacei.org/docs/default-source/toc/toc_57r-09.pdf (accessed Jul. 23, 2025). [12] N. K. Shrivastava, “A model to develop and use risk contingency reserve,” PMI, Oct. 26, 2014. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/model-risk-contingency-reserve-9310 (accessed Jul. 03, 2025). [13] GAO, “Best Practices for Developing and Managing Program Costs,” GAO, 2020. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-195g.pdf (accessed Jul. 07, 2025). American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) - Volume 102, No 1, pp 51-61 61 [14] PMI, “Integration of earned value and risk management using contingency reserves,” PMI, 2 011. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/integration-earned-value-risk-management-6227 (accessed Jul. 08, 2025). [15] AACEI, “Principles Of Schedule Contingency Management As Applied In Engineering, Procurement, And Construction,” AACEI. https://web.aacei.org/docs/default-source/toc/toc_70r-12.pdf (accessed Jul. 09, 2025). [16] SmartSheet, “Free Risk Register Templates,” SmartSheet, 2020. https://www.smartsheet.com/risk- register-templates?srsltid=AfmBOopv- 9WXxdbUhC3HBlCqsEnQt2Mzm0FeYRkJBdDa702DzecpDG6O (accessed Jul. 10, 2025). [17] GAO, “Best Practices for project schedules,” GAO, 2012. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-120g.pdf (accessed Jul. 12, 2025). [18] Safran, “Costs,” Safran, 2025. https://docs.safran.com/docs/safran-risk-costs (accessed Jul. 17, 2025). [19] “Risk management survey: Empowering success,” KPMG, 2020. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2020/11/risk-management-survey-empowering- success.pdf (accessed Jul. 18, 2025). [20] “ERM and Third-Party Risk,” St. John's, 2022. https://www.stjohns.edu/sites/default/files/2023- 05/CEERM%20Whitepaper%20on%20ERM%20and%20Third%20Party%20Risks%202022.pdf (accessed Jul. 20, 2025). [21] “Risk Management Software Market,” Verified Market Research, Apr. 24, 2024. https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/risk-management-software-market/ (accessed Jul. 22, 2025). [22] V. G. Cretu, Planning Engineering - Principles and Memories, English. Amazon, 2025.