Artículos
Received: 29 August 2023
Accepted: 30 October 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18273/revuin.v23n1-2024011
Abstract: Construction projects have a high level of uncertainty because of several risk factors. Risks may affect projects in many ways resulting in time delays or cost overruns. Thus, the evaluation of uncertainty is required to get a reliable schedule. This research proposes a method for project scheduling considering risks. Expert judgment is used to identify and analyze risks. Potential risks are identified through Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA). Risks impact is evaluated through fuzzy logic and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). The simulation considered the relationship between risks, and risks and activities.
Keywords: Construction Projects, Critical risks, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, Fuzzy logic, Monte Carlo Simulation, Project scheduling, Quantitative Risk Analysis, Risk Correlations, Risk management, Uncertainty.
Resumen: Los proyectos de construcción sufren un alto nivel de incertidumbre debido a múltiples factores de riesgo. Los riesgos incertidumbre para tener programaciones confiables. Esta investigación propone un método para la programación de proyectos considerando los riesgos. Se aprovecha el juicio de expertos para identificar y analizar los riesgos. Los riesgos potenciales son identificados a través del Análisis modal de fallos y errores (FMEA). El impacto de los riesgos se evalúa a través de lógica difusa y simulación Monte Carlo (MCS). La simulación considera la relación entre riesgos y entre riesgos y actividades. La aplicación del método en un proyecto de construcción permitió obtener una programación más precisa.
Palabras clave: Proyectos de construcción, Riesgos críticos, Análisis modal de fallos y efectos, Lógica difusa, Simulación Monte Carlo, Programación de proyectos, Análisis Cuantitativo de Riesgos, Correlaciones de riesgo, Gestión de riesgos, Incertidumbre.
1. Introduction
In Colombia, the construction industry is divided into buildings and civil work subsectors. Building subsector comprises residential and non-residential buildings. Civil work includes highways, bridges, and big engineering work. The construction industry is one of the most dynamic in the country.
Civil work is usually conducted through public work contracts under Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method. In this industry, projects have high financial investment restricted to time requirements. But these projects often have problems. On the one hand, the project duration may last 25% more than planned. The main reasons are scope changes and unconsidered risks [1]. Mckinsey estimates that 98% of megaprojects suffer cost overruns of more than 30%. And 77% of the projects are at least 40% late. Reasons are insufficient risk management, poor short-term planning and poor organization among others [2]. HKA, a consultancy specialized in risk mitigation and dispute resolution, has analyzed 1,800 projects in 106 countries. Top causes of conflicts are: unforeseen physical conditions, changes in scope and incorrect design. Risks have resulted in high disputed costs representing over 33% of capital expenditure, more than a third of projects value [3].
Another issue is culture. The culture in public work is oriented to only follow the regulatory framework. Plans are based on low quality previous studies and designs [4]. Poor studies, inadequate planning and poor contingency analysis also affect projects [5].
Risk management covers the processes to mitigate the impact and likelihood of contingencies. It includes the identification, analysis, responses, and control [6], [7], [8], [9].
The identification of risks is a critical phase. Non-identified risks are dangerous for achieving project objectives with harmful consequences [10]. Some methods are checklists, brainstorming, surveys, documents review and SWOT analysis [11], [7], [12]. Interviews and surveys are broadly used in construction projects research [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].
The analysis of risks covers the understanding of their sources and potential impacts. This last activity helps to understand risks and to identify response strategies. Several categories have been developed in construction literature as seen in Table 1.
Risk categories
The analysis of risks is followed by the analysis of the impacts of those risks. This analysis can be conducted by qualitative or quantitative approaches. Qualitative analysis is the process followed to prioritize the project identified risks. This allows the project manager to make decisions. Specific response strategies may be used for important risks, while accepting the rest. Techniques applied in construction research are: multicriteria analysis (AHP, and PROMETHEE), fuzzy analysis, relative importance index (RII), risk matrix, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [15], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].
Quantitative analysis numerically estimates the risk effect over project time or cost. Techniques applied in construction research are Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), Bayesian believe networks (BBN), neural networks, Markov chain and mathematical models [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [40], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].
The purpose of this research was to study the impact of risks over the project schedule. This, considering the relationship between activities and risks in the Colombian construction environment. Following those steps, this research identified potential risks from the literature. Later, the qualitative analysis identified critical project risks. And finally, the quantitative analysis identified the impact of correlated risks.
2. Methods
The approach for the research followed the general process of risk management. Authors in the construction field propose similar steps with some variations. The first step is usually risk identification.
Several proposals were found for the rest of the process. Potential steps are control, and opportunities exploitation [64], [65], [66], [67]. Risk assessment, risk response plan, and risk response control [68], [69]. To assess risk, risk responses plan and track and risk control [70], [71]. Risk quantification and risk control [72], [73]. And risk quantification and risk mitigation strategies [66], [65], [74]. In these cases, the analysis of impacts is mainly performed by qualitative methods. The last part of the process is the design of responses and their control later.
The method covered identification, prioritization, and evaluation considering the particularities of the project. The research did not consider the design of responses and control. To conduct the research, potential risks were identified and categorized. Potential risks in construction projects were found in a literature review. Sources reviewed were Science Direct, EBSCO, Scielo, and Emerald. Keywords were delay causes and schedule risks in construction and highway projects.
This input was adjusted to the local construction environment through an expert panel. This allowed the extraction of risks repeated and included in others. Finally, those risks were categorized to facilitate the analysis. The second phase was performing the qualitative analysis. This allows deciding which risks should be used in the quantitative analysis. To this end, the method applies the Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA). It uses likelihood, impact, and detection attributes for every risk to build a risk priority number (RPN). The analysis is conducted through an expert panel.
Finally, it was conducted a quantitative analysis. It was applied MCS and fuzzy logic to include uncertainty in activities duration. The first step was gathering the project schedule information. The second step was gathering project risk information. Risks correlation, probability limits, the scale of activity-risk influence degrees and the activity-risk influence corresponds to that information. After that, the simulation model was built, and a sensitivity analysis was performed.
3. Results
The method was applied in a construction project from the building subsector. The purpose of the building was to offer a group of street vendors a better health condition place. The project had two phases: design (plans, budget, and programming) and construction work.
The bid established a short timeline of six months starting on April 28th 2015. So, the stipulated deadline was October 28th 2015. Nonetheless the project needed more time because of several change orders. In the following, the findings and the analysis of change orders are presented.
3.1. Identification and Categorization of Risks
The literature review allowed to identify 14 papers related to the topic. Surveys and interviews are the most used methods. There were found 650 risks in construction projects.
This initial list was adjusted by extracting repeated and included in others. The list was adjusted to 209 risks. The following Table 2, shows the sources of the potential risks for the project.
Risks sources
Critical risks are the risks that may be considered in the project. The expert panel identified those risks that could happen in the local context. The panel consisted of three engineers from the contracting party. Finally, the risk list was reduced to 109 risks.
A project life cycle includes the planning, execution, and delivery phases. The life cycle of a construction project has certain particularities. The phases used in the research were formulation, pre-contractual, contractual and construction.
The final risk list was categorized according to those phases. It resulted in formulation (37 risks), pre-contractual (2 risks), contractual (one risk) and construction (69 risks). The last category was then used for the qualitative analysis.
3.2. Qualitative Analysis
This analysis was conducted through the FMEA method in an expert panel. The method analyses likelihood, impact, and detection attributes of every risk. The scale used was adjusted from Santos and Cabral [92] and Carbone and Tippett [46] in detection difficulty as seen in Table 3.
FMEA Categories
The Risk Priority Number (RPN) is the product of the likelihood, impact, and detection risk factors. This metric allows having only one risk value to build a ranking better than using the three factors. The next figure shows the Pareto chart built with RPN values.
The Pareto analysis found that only 7 risks corresponded to 42,6% of the accumulated RPN as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Pareto Chart.
However, the research applied 31 risks that corresponded to 80% of the accumulated RPN as seen in Table 4.
Critical risks
3.3. Qualitative Analysis
This analysis used Fuzzy logic and MCS to include uncertainty in activities duration. MCS also included risk-risk and risk-activity relationships. The information required was the project schedule and risk relationships. Finally, the model was simulated in several instances to test results sensitivity. Information required for the model was as follows:
Activities, duration and precedence relationships. The contracting party provided the schedule information produced after the design phase. The project had a deadline of 180 days, including designing and building. But, after the design phase, the new deadline was 568 days. The expert panel estimated fuzzy data, minimum, most likely, and maximum activities duration.
Correlated risks. Correlated risks. The expert panel identified the following nine correlated risk groups:
Group 1: Delays in material supply, Unreliable suppliers, Restriction on capital transactions Relation with the third party, Delayed payments, Difficulty in choosing a business dealer.
Group 2: Weather conditions and other natural delay causes, Late handing over of the site, Inadequate project management assistance, Ineffective project planning, and scheduling.
Group 3: Equipment quality, Shortage in machine tools and workers mobilization due to clashes of several projects.
Group 4: Earthquake.
Group 5: Fire.
Group 6: Social conditions (e.g. population density & wealth distribution), Safety regulation.
Group 7: Material theft & damage, Changes in material types and specifications during construction, Bad quality of workmanship.
Group 8: Infrastructure damage caused by irresponsible people, Inappropriate contractor's policies, Low motivation and morale of labor, Low productivity of labor.
Group 9: Cost Overrun, Unexpected surface & subsurface conditions (soil, water table, etc.), Cash flow problem, Additional construction. Group 10: Slowness in decision making, Loss of time by traffic control and restriction at the job site.
Risks probability degrees. Risks may occur as better than expected, expected or worse than expected [29]. The estimation of this variability range is between 0 and 1. Correlated risks received the same valuation.
Risks influence degrees. For every risk also, it was decided a scale of the potential influence that can be ineffective, effective, and very effective. The numerical valuation is from 0 to 100, as proposed by [40].
Risk-activity influence grades. The scale for this evaluation was ineffective, effective, and very effective as proposed by [40].
3.4. Simulation model
The model was built on the Palisade @Risk software. Input data were schedule and risk information. The schedule information was fuzzy duration and precedence relationships for every activity. Risk information was the correlated risks, risk probability degrees, risk influence degrees, and risk-activity influence grades. The output data was the fuzzy duration of the project and its upper and lower limits.
The fuzzy duration of the project has three values: lower, average, and upper duration. Nonetheless, uncertainty also affects those values that add minimum, maximum, and mean values. So, the duration is the lowest value of the lower limit, the average of the fuzzy duration, and the highest data of the upper limit.
After 1.000 runs, the simulation model produced the fuzzy duration of the project. The three durations were 490,14 days (lower limit), 573,35 days (average duration) and 598,91 days (upper limit) as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Fuzzy project duration (days)
The value of 573,35 days has the greatest possibility of being the duration of the project. Its degree of belonging is 1 in a membership interval of [0,1]. Values that are less than 490,14 and greater than 598,91 have a membership: mA (x)=0. This means that the element does not belong to the set. The duration of the project could be between 490,14 and 598,91 days. The duration values decrease as they move away from 573,35 and approaching 490,14 and 598,91 days.
It was also found that groups 2 and 9 are which have the greatest impact on the duration of the project as seen in Table 5. Group 2 has the highest incidence in the lower limit and in the average fuzzy duration of the project. While Group 9 has the greatest impact on the upper limit of the fuzzy duration of the project.
Risks from group 2 and group 9 occurred during the construction phase of the project. Risk events related to Group 2 affected the project, adding 218 days. While risks from group 9 affected the project in 210 days. Despite the expert panel identified those risks, their impact was bigger than considered.
Regression coefficients for the fuzzy project duration
3.5. Simulation Results
As a sensitivity analysis, the behavior of the variables was studied under several scenarios. Simulations with 500 and 5.00 iterations were run considering risk correlations.
The average duration is the same for the correlation and non-correlation scenarios, as seen in Table 6. The lower limit and the average duration are the same for all correlated risk scenarios. The upper limit is one day different. The results have little variation when changing scenarios, so the model is stable.
Project durations with different configurations
Considering that the actual duration of the project was 658 days, the gap when compared to the contracted duration was 478 days. It corresponds to almost three times its planning. The same analysis but against the estimated fuzzy duration limit, 599 days, the gap was only 59 days, as shown in Table 7.
Project analysis
As there was a design stage after the signing the contract, there was a new estimated duration. The duration estimated in the design phase was higher than the duration awarded. This results from the detailed design and schedule resulting in 568 days. This duration was in the range between the lower and middle limits of the simulation results. This estimate is within the fuzzy range of the model, but the contract was not changed. So, the original estimate of 180 days was the goal of the scheduling. The real duration exceeded all estimates because of risk events not considered before.
4. Conclusions
This research contributes in development of project scheduling including the impact of risks. Specific risks for the project are identified and evaluated. The use of critical risks in the scheduling method allows to conduct a detail analysis. Specific risks analysis is conducted to perform fuzzy logic simulation for project scheduling.
It was validated in a building construction project with the support of expert judgment. The results suggest that it may be obtained project estimated duration with minimum error. Schedules based on deterministic approaches without risk analysis may produce a lower duration.
Regarding risk prioritization, the model reduces the number of risks to work. The model takes advantage of the expert's knowledge with no need for historical data. There is a clear challenge for the application of expert-based methods. It depends on the willingness, commitment, and experience of the people involved. Also, the level in which the qualitative analysis may be performed may require a lot of time and effort to rank the potential risks.
Future research could consider other project objectives as costs or quality. Real project situations such as resource constraints may also improve the method.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the engineers from the Cali Department of Transportation and the contractor company.
References
PricewaterhouseCoopers, "En la ruta de la Competitividad. Principales hallazgos de la 1ra Encuesta Nacional de Madurez en Gerencia de Proyectos," 2011.
McKinsey, "The construction productivity imperative," 2015. [Online]. Available in: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/the-construction-productivity-imperative
HKA, "FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED Anticipating challenges, mitigating risk," 2023. [Online]. Available in https://www.hka.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CRUX-2023-Forewarned-is-Forearmed.pdf
I. A. Diaz, "Fallas de Planeacion y su Incidencia en el Contrato Estatal de Obra," Rev. Digit. Derecho Adm., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 177-207, 2014. [Online]. Available in: https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/Deradm/article/view/3831
CCI and SCI, "Los factores que afectan el buen desarrollo de las obras en el país," Cámara Colombiana de Infraestructura, Sociedad Colombiana de Ingenieros, Bogotá, 2013.
J. Jeynes, Risk Management. New York: CRC Press, 2023.
P. M. Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 6th ed. Project Management Institute (PMI), 201. in PMBOK Guide. Project Management Institute, 2017.
P. M. Institute, Construction Extension to the PMBOK® Guide. in BusinessPro collection. Project Management Institute, 2016.
R. Mejía, "La Administración de Riesgos Empresariales," AD-minister, no. 05, 2004.[En línea]. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/10784/14094
A. Salah, "Fuzzy Set-based Risk Management for Construction Projects," Concordia University, 2015. [Online]. Available in: https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/id/eprint/980339/
M. Heydari, K. K. Lai, "A Study on Risk and Expense Evaluation of Agility Supply Management of Machinery," Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc., vol. 2020, p. 7030642, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7030642
E. Cheraghi, M. Khalilzadeh, S. Shojaei, S. Zohrehvandi, "A mathematical Model to select the Risk Response Strategies of the Construction Projects: Case Study of Saba Tower," Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 121, pp. 609-616, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.080
Z. Bissah, V. Nkrumah, "Project Risk Management Practices in the Construction Industry in Ghana: A Case Study of Two Construction Companies in Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis," International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT), vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 759-768, 2021.
Z. Wang, Z. Liu, J. Liu, "Risk Identification and Responses of Tunnel Construction Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Adv. Civ. Eng., vol. 2020, p. 6620539, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6620539
A. Salah, O. Moselhi, "Risk identification and assessment for engineering procurement construction management projects using fuzzy set theory," Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 429-442, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0154
M. Sambasivan, Y. W. Soon, "Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 517-526, 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.1L007
H. Doloi, A. Sawhney, K. C. Iyer, S. Rentala, "Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian construction projects," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 479-489, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.10.004
B. Gladysz, D. Skorupka, D. Kuchta, A. Duchaczek, "Project Risk time Management - A Proposed Model and a Case Study in the Construction Industry," Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 64, pp. 24-31, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.459
S. A. Assaf, S. Al-Hejji, "Causes of delay in large construction projects," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 349-357, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010
Z. Zheng, Q. W. Chen, T. C. Zhang, R. J. Zhang, X. F. Wang, C. Ma, "Construction risk analysis of water environment treatment project based on WBS-RBS and AHP in flood period --Take the EPC project of comprehensive treatment of water environment in the east of a city as an example," E3S Web Conf., vol. 236, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202123604025
L. M. Khodeir, M. Nabawy, "Identifying key risks in infrastructure projects - Case study of Cairo Festival City project in Egypt," Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 613-621, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.11.003
C. P. Hudoyo, Y. Latief, L. Sagita, "Development of WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) Risk Based Standard for Planning Cost Estimation at Port Project," IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 258, no. 1, p. 12051, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/258/1/012051
O. Okudan, C. Budayan, I. Dikmen, "A knowledge-based risk management tool for construction projects using case-based reasoning," Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 173, p. 114776, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114776
PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 5th ed. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania : Project Management Institute, Inc., 2013.
M. A. Mustafa, J. F. Al-Bahar, "Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process," IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 46-52, 1991, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/17.65759
H. Abdul-Rahman, S. C. Loo, C. Wang, "Risk identification and mitigation for architectural, engineering, and construction firms operating in the Gulf region," Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55-71, Dec. 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/l11-111
S. M. El-Sayegh, "Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 431-438, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.004
M. Badawy, F. K. Alqahtani, M. A. Sherif, "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on risk factors in residential projects," J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1637-1647, May 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2097239
M. Basak, V. Coffey, R. K. Perrons, "The interaction between non-technical and technical risks in upstream natural gas project schedule overruns: Evidence from Australia," Extr. Ind. Soc., vol. 8, no. 4, p. 100971, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100971
W. Farid, N. I. Kureshi, S. Babar, A. S. Mahmood, "Critical Risk Factors of Construction Industry of Pakistan for Improving Project Outcome," Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 39, p. 71-80, Apr. 2020.
R. A. Bahamid, S. I. Doh, "A review of risk management process in construction projects of developing countries," IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 271, no. 1, p. 12042, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/012042
M. Amiri, A. Ardeshir, M. H. Fazel Zarandi, "Fuzzy probabilistic expert system for occupational hazard assessment in construction," Saf. Sci., vol. 93, pp. 16-28, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.n.008
V. Paul, D. Basu, "Scenario Planning and Risk Failure Mode Effect and Analysis (RFMEA) based Management," J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag., vol. 6, pp. 24-29, Jun. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2016.6.2.024
P. Nowotarski, J. Paslawski, "Barriers in Running Construction SME - Case Study on Introduction of Agile Methodology to Electrical Subcontractor," Procedia Eng., vol. 122, pp. 47-56, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.006
H. X. Li, M. Al-Hussein, Z. Lei, Z. Ajweh, "Risk identification and assessment of modular construction utilizing fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and simulation," Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 11841195, Jun. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0013
P. Boateng, Z. Chen, S. O. Ogunlana, "An Analytical Network Process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1795-1811, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.08.007
G. Polat, S. Baytekin, E. Eray, "Mark-up Size Estimation in Railway Projects using the Integration of AHP and Regression Analysis Techniques," Procedia Eng., vol. 123, pp. 423-431, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.076
M. Ahmadi, K. Behzadian, A. Ardeshir, Z. Kapelan, "Comprehensive risk management using fuzzy FMEA and MCDA techniques in highway construction projects," J. Civ. Eng. Manag., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 300-310, Feb. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1068847
A. Kharola, "A fuzzy risk assessment model (FRAM) for risk management (RM)," PM World Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 18-125, 2014.
A. Öztaş, Ö. Ökmen, "Uncertainty evaluation with fuzzy schedule risk analysis model in activity networks of construction projects," J. South African Inst. Civ. Eng., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 9-20, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC158381
R. Yehiel, "Root-Cause Analysis of Construction-Cost Overruns," J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 140, no. 1, p. 4013039, Jan. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000789
G. Khazaeni, M. Khanzadi, A. Afshar, "Optimum risk allocation model for construction contracts: fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 789-800, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/12012-038
O. Nyvlt, S. Privara, L. Ferkl, "Probabilistic risk assessment of highway tunnels," Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 71-82, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.06.010
P. K. Dey, "Managing project risk using combined analytic hierarchy process and risk map," Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 990-1000, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.03.010
B. Gaudenzi, A. Borghesi, "Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method," Int. J. Logist. Manag., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 114-136, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090610663464
T. A. Carbone, D. D. Tippett, "Project Risk Management Using the Project Risk FMEA," Eng. Manag. J., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 28-35, Dec. 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2004.11415263
L. Chen, Q. Lu, D. Han, "A Bayesian-driven Monte Carlo approach for managing construction schedule risks of infrastructures under uncertainty," Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 212, p. 118810, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118810
M. Sami Ur Rehman, M. J. Thaheem, A. R. Nasir, K. I. A. Khan, "Project schedule risk management through building information modelling," Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1489-1499, May 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1728606
N. R. Ortiz-Pimiento, F. J. Diaz-Serna, "A comparison of different redundancy based methods to solve the project scheduling problemwith probabilistic activivies duration," Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. No 3, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.24425/mper.2019.129600
A. Mahmoudi, M. Feylizadeh, "A mathematical model for crashing projects by considering time, cost, quality and risk," J. Proj. Manag., vol. 2, pp. 27-36, Jan. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2017.5.002
I. Shabtai, S. Yi, L. Gunnar, D. David, "Work-Path Modeling and Spatial Scheduling with Singularity Functions," J. Comput. Civ. Eng., vol. 31, no. 4, p. 4017008, Jul. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000650
A. Qazi, J. Quigley, A. Dickson, K. Kirytopoulos, "Project Complexity and Risk Management (ProCRiM): Towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in construction projects," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1183-1198, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.008
H. D. Gómez, A. Orobio, "Effects of uncertainty on scheduling of highway construction projects," Dyna, vol. 82, no. 193, pp. 155-164, 2015.
F. Taillandier, P. Taillandier, E. Tepeli, D. Breysse, R. Mehdizadeh, F. Khartabil, "A multi-agent model to manage risks in construction project (SMACC),"Autom. Constr., vol. 58, pp. 1-18, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.06.005
S. S. Leu, C.M. Chang, "Bayesian-network-based safety risk assessment for steel construction projects," Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 54, pp. 122-133, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.019
C. Zhou, L. Y. Ding, R. He, "PSO-based Elman neural network model for predictive control of air chamber pressure in slurry shield tunneling under Yangtze River," Autom. Constr., vol. 36, pp. 208-217, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.03.001
M. J. Thaheem, A. De Marco, K. Barlish, "A Review of Quantitative Analysis Techniques for Construction Project Risk Management," in Creative Construction Conference, 2012, no. May 2014, pp. 656-666.
H. P. Tserng, G. F. Lin, L. K. Tsai, P. C. Chen, "An enforced support vector machine model for construction contractor default prediction," Autom. Constr., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1242-1249, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.05.007
S. S. Leu, T. J. W. Adi, "Probabilistic prediction of tunnel geology using a Hybrid Neural-HMM," Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 658-665, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.02.010
V. T. Luu, S. Y. Kim, N. Van Tuan, S. O. Ogunlana, "Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39-50, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.003
Z. Y. Zhao, Q. L. Lv, W. Y. You, "Applying Dependency Structure Matrix and Monte Carlo simulation to predict change in construction project," in 2008International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2008, pp. 670-675. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2008.4620489
Ö. Önder, Ö. Ahmet, "Construction Project Network Evaluation with Correlated Schedule Risk Analysis Model," J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 49-63, Jan. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:1(49)
Y. H. Kwak, L. Ingall, "Exploring Monte Carlo Simulation Applications for Project Management," Risk Manag., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 44-57, Apr. 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250017
Y. Liu, K. Ruan, "Application of Kano Model in Risk Identification of Software Development Projects," BCP Bus. Manag., vol. 40 SE-Articles, pp. 33-39, Mar. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v40i.4357
N. Fariq, S. Ismail, N. Ab Rani, "Cost Risk of Railway Project and Its Effective Mitigation Strategies," J. Crit. Rev., vol. 7, pp. 1275-1280, Jul. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.08.262
R. M. Iqbal, H. Purwanto, "Risk Analysis of Investment Costs in PPP Projects Using Monte Carlo Simulation," Log. J. Ranc. Bangun dan Teknol., vol. 22, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 13-21, Mar. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.31940/logic.v22i1.13-21
J. Delaney, Construction Program Management. in Best Practices and Advances in Program Management Series. Taylor & Francis, 2013.
S. H. Fateminia, A. R. Fayek, "Hybrid fuzzy arithmetic-based model for determining contingency reserve," Autom. Constr., vol. 151, p. 104858, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104858
W. J. D. Pico, Project Control: Integrating Cost and Schedule in Construction. in RSMeans. Wiley, 2013.
M. Alshawabkeh, X. Li, M. Sullabi, "New Information Security Risk Management Framework as an Integral Part of Project Life Cycle BT," - Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2019), Atlantis Press, May 2019, pp. 133-139, doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/ichssr-19.2019.24
J. M. Nicholas, H. Steyn, Project Management for Business, Engineering, and Technology: Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2008.
S. Mubin, S. Jahan, E. Gavrishyk, "Monte Carlo Simulation and Modeling of Schedule, Cost and Risks of Dasu Hydropower Project," Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Vol38No 3 July Issue, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1903.03
A. De Marco, Project Management for Facility Constructions: A Guide for Engineers and Architects, Springer Cham, 2nd ed., 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75432-1
B. J. Jackson, Construction Management JumpStart: The Best First Step Toward a Career in Construction Management. in Serious skills. Wiley, 2010.
M. Kassem, M. A. Khoiry, N. Hamzah, "Evaluation of Risk Factors Affecting on Oil and Gas Construction Projects in Yemen," International Journal of Engineering & Technology, vol. 8, no. 1.2, pp. 6-14, Jan. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i1.2.24864
M. A. Akhund, A. R. Khoso, J. S. Khan, H. U. Imad, K. M. Memon, "Prompting Cost Overrun Factors during PCP in Construction Projects," Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1-7, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i4/140936
A. Firdaus, T. H. Setiawan, E. L. Sitepu "The risk rating of delay risk factor of road construction project in Papua," Malaysian J. Civ. Eng., vol. 29, no. 3 SE- Articles, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.11113/mjce.v29.15608
E. Quezon, M. Mengistu, Emer T. Quezon, G. Kebede, "Assessment of Factors Affecting Labor Productivity on Road Construction Projects in Oromia Region, Bale Zone," International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 899-910, 2016.
R. F. Aziz, A. A. Abdel-Hakam, "Exploring delay causes of road construction projects in Egypt," Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 1515-1539, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.03.006
G. S. A. Elawi, M. Algahtany, D. Kashiwagi, "Owners' Perspective of Factors Contributing to Project Delay: Case Studies of Road and Bridge Projects in Saudi Arabia," Procedia Eng., vol. 145, pp. 1402-1409, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.176
J. Park, B. Park, Y. Cha, C. Hyun, "Risk Factors Assessment Considering Change Degree for Mega-projects," Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 218, pp. 5055, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.04.009
Y. H. Suseno, M. A. Wibowo, B. H. Setiadji, "Risk Analysis of BOT Scheme on Post-construction Toll Road," Procedia Eng., vol. 125, pp. 117-123, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.018
M. S. B. A. Abd El-Karim, O. A. Mosa El Nawawy, A. M. Abdel-Alim, "Identification and assessment of risk factors affecting construction projects," HBRC J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 202-216, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2015.05.001
A. Dziadosz, M. Rejment, "Risk Analysis in Construction Project - Chosen Methods," Procedia Eng., vol. 122, pp. 258-265, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.034
S. Goh, H. Abdul-rahman, "The Identification and Management of Major Risks in the Malaysian Construction Industry," J. Constr. Dev. Ctries., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 19-32, 2013.
R. F. Aziz, "Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian revolution," Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 387-406, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.03.002
T.-C. Tsai, M. L. Yang, "Risk assessment of design-bid-build and design-build building projects," J. Oper. Res. Soc. Japan, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 20-39, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.15807/jorsj.53.20
B. A. K. S. Perera, I. Dhanasinghe, R. Rameezdeen, "Risk management in road construction: The case of Sri Lanka," Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 87-102, Jun. 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.87-102
A. S. Bu-Qammaz, I. Dikmen, M. T. Birgonul, "Risk assessment of international construction projects using the analytic network process," Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1170-1181, Jul. 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/1.09-061
H. Makarand, S. Aury, "ICRAM-1: Model for International Construction Risk Assessment," J. Manag. Eng., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 59-69, Jan. 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:1(59)
H. Zhi, "Risk management for overseas construction projects," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 231-237, 1995, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00015-I
F. Santos, S. Cabral, "FMEA and PMBOK applied to project risk management," J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manag. , vol. 5, Aug. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752008000200008
Notes
Author notes
a Emails: nicolle.cruces@correounivalle.edu.cobclaudia.marcela.ortiz@correounivalle.edu.co
Conflict of interest declaration
