Detection of schedule delay risk of empirical construction projects

doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2018086

Front. Eng

2018, Vol. 5

Issue (2) : 251-267 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2018086

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Detection of schedule delay risk of empirical construction projects

Tsegay GEBREHIWET(

), Hanbin LUO

Department of Construction Management, School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

Download: PDF(741 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

In Ethiopian construction projects, schedule delay risk is a predominant issue because it is not properly addressed. Although several studies have been focused on the various effects of risk in construction projects, limited efforts have been made to investigate the typical and the overall schedule delay risk. In this study, our aim is to detect the typical and overall schedule delay risk throughout the construction project lifecycle, which consists of the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction stages, and compare the stages with each other. Common criteria, sub-criteria, and attributes were developed for all alternatives for the purpose of making a risk decision. The methodology that was followed integrated the multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process comprehensive evaluation (FAHPCE) and the relative important index (RII). Data were collected from 77 participants, who were selected through purposive sampling from different contracting organizations in Ethiopian construction projects by means of questionnaires that were distributed to experienced experts. The findings showed that there is a typical delay risk either in the type or in the level of the different construction activities. Consequently, the most influenced alternative is the construction stage because of the high-risk responsibility, resource, and contract condition related criteria. The post-construction stage was the second most influenced stage because of the high-risk responsibility-related criteria. The pre-constructed stage was the least influenced stage that consist high-risk criteria of responsibility, resource, and contract condition related. These differences provided noteworthy information about risk mitigation in construction projects by identifying the exact risk level on specific activity to make appropriate decision.

Keywords fuzzy analytic hierarchy process comprehensive evaluation construction project detection of delay risk relative important index

Corresponding Author(s): Tsegay GEBREHIWET

Just Accepted Date: 10 April 2018 Online First Date: 14 May 2018 Issue Date: 28 June 2018

Cite this article:

Tsegay GEBREHIWET,Hanbin LUO. Detection of schedule delay risk of empirical construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(2): 251-267.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2018086
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2018/V5/I2/251

Fig.1 Proposed model to detect delay risk factors in the construction lifecycle

Goal	Criteria	Sub-criteria	Alternatives
Construction project delay factors	Responsibility-Related (A)	Client-related (A1)	Lack of on-time finance and payments of completed work (A11)
			Interference in the execution of the work (A12)
			Slowness in decision making (A13)
			Late site delivery for construction work and design (A14)
			Improper project feasibility study (A15)
			Poor communication and coordination with other parties (A16)
		Contractor-related (A2)	Subcontractor-related problems (A21)
			Poor site management and performance (A22)
			Ineffective project planning and scheduling (A23)
			Inappropriate construction methods (A24)
			Poor communication and coordination with other parties (A25)
			Inadequate contractor experience (A26)
			Rework for the correction of unsatisfactory work (A27)
		Consultant-related (A3)	Inadequate experience of consultant (A31)
			Late in approving and receiving a complete project work (A32)
			Poor supervision and late in performing inspection and testing (A33)
			Poor communication and coordination with other parties (A34)
		Designer-related (A4)	Unclear and inadequate details and specification of design (A41)
			Late design and design documents (A42)
			Design mistakes and errors (A43)
			Misunderstanding of client requirements (A44)
	Resource-Related (B)	Material-related (B1)	Lack of quality materials (B11)
			Slow delivery of material (B12)
			Changes in material types and specifications (B13)
			Damage of materials (B14)
			Inflation/price increase in materials (B15)
		Finance-related (B2)	Problem in the processing of financial claims (B21)
			Government funding processes (B22)
			Late-release budget/funds (B23)
			Global financial crisis (B24)
		Labor-related (B3)	Low productivity (B31)
			Less motivation and lower morale (B32)
			Unqualified/inexperienced workers (B33)
			Discipline problem (conflicts and absenteeism) (B34)
			Labor accidents and injuries (B35)
		Equipment-related (B4)	Insufficient or shortage of equipment (B41)
			Low efficiency and productivity of equipment (B42)
			Failures of equipment and lack of spare parts (B43)
			Equipment allocation or mobilization problem (B44)
			Outdated equipment (B45)
	Contract-Related (C)		Absence of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) on contract (C1)
			Mistakes & discrepancies/ambiguities in contract documents (C2)
			Unrealistic contract durations and cost (C3)
			Inadequate delay penalties/poor incentives in contract (C4)
			Insufficient details in contract documents (C5)
			Lack of clear understanding of contract documents (C6)
	External-Related (D)		Adverse weather conditions (D1)
			Force majeure (acts of God) (D2)
			Corruption (D3)
			Effect of social and cultural factors (D4)
			Government policy and commitment (D5)
			Unavailability of utilities on site (D6)

Tab.1 The index system for the evaluation of delay risk factors in a construction project

Tab.2 The scale of the pairwise comparison matrix

Tab.3 Frequency–Severity matrix

Tab.4 Global and local weights on the criteria and sub-criteria of the construction lifecycle

	Pre-construction		Construction		Post-construction
Attributes	Local Weight	Global Weight	Local Weight	Global Weight	Local Weight	Global Weight
A11	0.1471	0.0162	0.2917	0.0397	0.2778	0.0281
A12	0.2059	0.0227	0.2083	0.0284	0.1667	0.0184
A13	0.0882	0.0097	0.125	0.0170	0.0556	0.0062
A14	0.2059	0.0227	0.2083	0.0284	0.2778	0.0306
A15	0.2647	0.0292	0.125	0.0170	0.1667	0.0184
A16	0.0882	0.0097	0.0417	0.0057	0.0556	0.0062
A21	0.1111	0.0095	0.1707	0.0166	0.2	0.0203
A22	0.2593	0.0222	0.2195	0.0213	0.2	0.0203
A23	0.3333	0.0286	0.1220	0.0119	0.1556	0.0158
A24	0.1111	0.0095	0.1707	0.0166	0.0667	0.0068
A25	0.0370	0.0032	0.0732	0.0071	0.0667	0.0068
A26	0.1111	0.0095	0.1707	0.0166	0.1556	0.0158
A27	0.0370	0.0032	0.0732	0.0071	0.1556	0.0158
A31	0.2273	0.0139	0.1364	0.0133	0.1154	0.0083
A32	0.3182	0.0195	0.3182	0.0309	0.3462	0.0250
A33	0.2273	0.0139	0.2273	0.0221	0.2692	0.0195
A34	0.2273	0.0139	0.3182	0.0309	0.2692	0.0195
A41	0.3	0.0184	0.2692	0.0052	0.25	0.0109
A42	0.3	0.0184	0.3462	0.0067	0.35	0.0152
A43	0.3	0.0184	0.2692	0.0052	0.25	0.0109
A44	0.1	0.0061	0.1154	0.0022	0.15	0.0066
B11	0.2195	0.0314	0.2432	0.0213	0.2432	0.0339
B12	0.2195	0.0314	0.2432	0.0213	0.2432	0.0339
B13	0.1707	0.0245	0.1892	0.0166	0.1351	0.0188
B14	0.1707	0.0245	0.0811	0.0071	0.1351	0.0188
B15	0.2195	0.0314	0.2432	0.0213	0.2432	0.0339
B21	0.2692	0.0300	0.25	0.0219	0.219	0.0305
B22	0.2692	0.0300	0.1786	0.0156	0.281	0.0392
B23	0.2692	0.0300	0.3214	0.0281	0.281	0.0392
B24	0.1923	0.0214	0.25	0.0219	0.219	0.0305
B31	0.2941	0.0140	0.1579	0.0059	0.2308	0.0046
B32	0.1765	0.0084	0.2632	0.0099	0.2308	0.0046
B33	0.4118	0.0197	0.3684	0.0138	0.3846	0.0077
B34	0.0588	0.0028	0.0526	0.0020	0.0769	0.0015
B35	0.0588	0.0028	0.1579	0.0059	0.0769	0.0015
B41	0.4546	0.0072	0.4286	0.0161	0.4667	0.0093
B42	0.2728	0.0043	0.4286	0.0161	0.3333	0.0066
B43	0.0909	0.0014	0.0476	0.0018	0.0667	0.0013
B44	0.0909	0.0014	0.0476	0.0018	0.0667	0.0013
B45	0.0909	0.0014	0.0476	0.0018	0.0667	0.0013
C1	0.05	0.0114	0.0455	0.0114	0.1786	0.0406
C2	0.05	0.0114	0.0455	0.0114	0.0357	0.0081
C3	0.25	0.0568	0.3182	0.0796	0.25	0.0568
C4	0.15	0.0341	0.2273	0.0568	0.25	0.0568
C5	0.25	0.0568	0.2273	0.0568	0.1786	0.0406
C6	0.25	0.0568	0.1364	0.0341	0.1071	0.0244
D1	0.1	0.0136	0.0385	0.0058	0.0333	0.0046
D2	0.1	0.0136	0.0385	0.0058	0.1	0.0136
D3	0.3	0.0409	0.3462	0.0519	0.3	0.0409
D4	0.0333	0.0046	0.0385	0.0058	0.0333	0.0046
D5	0.1667	0.0227	0.1923	0.0289	0.2333	0.0318
D6	0.3	0.0409	0.3462	0.0519	0.3	0.0409

Tab.5 Global and local weights on the attributes of the construction lifecycle

Tab.6 Severity and frequency occurrence of sub-criteria of the schedule delay factors

	Pre-construction		Construction		Post-construction
Attributes	Severity	RII	Severity	RII	Severity	RII
A11	0.2498	0.5893	0.4157	0.6348	0.4122	0.5855
A12	0.3376	0.6088	0.3063	0.6167	0.2802	0.5567
A13	0.1620	0.6270	0.1969	0.5886	0.1148	0.5387
A14	0.3376	0.6105	0.3063	0.6192	0.4456	0.5804
A15	0.4253	0.6676	0.1969	0.5881	0.2802	0.5719
A16	0.0578	0.5549	0.0546	0.5831	0.0559	0.5212
A21	0.0576	0.5677	0.0676	0.6418	0.0733	0.6353
A22	0.0695	0.6092	0.0732	0.6743	0.0733	0.6571
A23	0.0755	0.6897	0.0619	0.6333	0.0678	0.6061
A24	0.0576	0.5531	0.0674	0.6486	0.0565	0.5541
A25	0.0516	0.5514	0.0563	0.5973	0.0565	0.5565
A26	0.0576	0.5735	0.0674	0.6613	0.0672	0.6090
A27	0.0516	0.5172	0.0563	0.6028	0.0672	0.6091
A31	0.0617	0.5750	0.0635	0.6081	0.0584	0.5647
A32	0.0669	0.6242	0.0842	0.6553	0.0783	0.6686
A33	0.0617	0.5839	0.0739	0.632	0.0717	0.6114
A34	0.0617	0.5917	0.0842	0.6462	0.0717	0.5971
A41	0.0659	0.6583	0.0541	0.6553	0.0614	0.5810
A42	0.0659	0.6658	0.0558	0.6732	0.0666	0.6226
A43	0.0659	0.6394	0.0541	0.6479	0.0614	0.5897
A44	0.0544	0.575	0.0505	0.6030	0.0562	0.5733
B11	0.0782	0.6343	0.0729	0.6879	0.0889	0.6414
B12	0.0782	0.6457	0.0729	0.6768	0.0889	0.6367
B13	0.0716	0.6164	0.0673	0.6364	0.0709	0.59
B14	0.0716	0.6235	0.0562	0.6135	0.0709	0.5869
B15	0.0782	0.6831	0.0729	0.6865	0.0889	0.65
B21	0.0768	0.5941	0.0736	0.6329	0.0848	0.6310
B22	0.0768	0.6	0.0663	0.632	0.0952	0.6381
B23	0.0768	0.620	0.0809	0.6754	0.0952	0.6433
B24	0.0688	0.5940	0.0736	0.6441	0.0848	0.6068
B31	0.0618	0.5882	0.0549	0.6107	0.0539	0.5516
B32	0.0566	0.5581	0.0595	0.6192	0.0539	0.5559
B33	0.0671	0.6539	0.0641	0.6494	0.0576	0.5788
B34	0.0513	0.4899	0.0502	0.5260	0.0502	0.5238
B35	0.0513	0.5175	0.0549	0.6	0.0502	0.5212
B41	0.0554	0.5778	0.0668	0.6632	0.0595	0.5911
B42	0.0527	0.5594	0.0668	0.6727	0.0563	0.5815
B43	0.05	0.5508	0.05	0.5730	0.05	0.5302
B44	0.05	0.528	0.05	0.5816	0.05	0.5188
B45	0.05	0.5129	0.05	0.5432	0.05	0.4939
C1	0.0564	0.5467	0.0566	0.5714	0.0933	0.5815
C2	0.0564	0.5206	0.0566	0.5811	0.0543	0.5516
C3	0.0993	0.582	0.1372	0.6448	0.1128	0.6035
C4	0.0779	0.5647	0.1103	0.6139	0.1128	0.6033
C5	0.0993	0.5913	0.1103	0.6343	0.0933	0.5759
C6	0.0993	0.5864	0.0835	0.6118	0.0738	0.5746
D1	0.0586	0.575	0.05	0.5842	0.05	0.5365
D2	0.0586	0.5544	0.05	0.5672	0.0609	0.5536
D3	0.0843	0.7273	0.1045	0.7781	0.0937	0.7576
D4	0.05	0.54	0.05	0.56	0.05	0.5508
D5	0.05	0.5970	0.05	0.6328	0.05	0.6167
D6	0.05	0.6781	0.5336	0.7371	0.5850	0.6730

Tab.7 Severity and frequency occurrence of the attributes of schedule delay factors

Tab.8 Risk and risk matrix of the sub-criteria of the schedule delay factors

	Pre-construction			Construction			Post-construction
Attribute	Risk	Rank	Matrix	Risk	Rank	Matrix	Risk	Rank	Matrix
A11	0.1472	4	H	0.2639	2	H	0.2413	3	H
A12	0.2055	3	H	0.1889	4	H	0.156	5	H
A13	0.1016	5	M	0.1159	5	M	0.0618	9	M
A14	0.2061	2	H	0.1897	3	H	0.2586	2	H
A15	0.284	1	H	0.1158	6	M	0.1602	4	H
A16	0.0321	36	M	0.0318	43	M	0.0291	45	M
A21	0.0327	34	M	0.0434	26	L	0.0466	21	M
A22	0.0423	23	M	0.0493	17	M	0.0482	20	M
A23	0.0521	11	M	0.0392	30	M	0.0411	28	M
A24	0.0319	38	L	0.0437	25	M	0.0313	40	M
A25	0.0285	45	L	0.0336	38	M	0.0314	39	M
A26	0.033	33	M	0.0446	23	M	0.041	30	M
A27	0.0267	48	L	0.0339	37	M	0.041	29	M
A31	0.0355	30	M	0.0386	31	M	0.033	36	M
A32	0.0418	25	M	0.0552	11	M	0.0524	18	M
A33	0.036	29	M	0.0467	20	M	0.0438	22	M
A34	0.0365	27	M	0.0544	13	M	0.0428	23	M
A41	0.0434	22	M	0.0354	34	L	0.0357	32	M
A42	0.0439	21	M	0.0376	32	M	0.0414	27	M
A43	0.0421	24	M	0.035	35	L	0.0362	31	M
A44	0.0313	40	M	0.0305	45	L	0.0322	38	M
B11	0.0496	13	M	0.0501	15	M	0.057	13	M
B12	0.0505	12	M	0.0493	18	M	0.0566	14	M
B13	0.0441	18	M	0.0429	27	M	0.0418	25	M
B14	0.0447	17	M	0.0345	36	M	0.0416	26	M
B15	0.0534	10	M	0.05	16	M	0.0578	12	M
B21	0.0457	16	M	0.0466	21	M	0.0533	17	M
B22	0.0461	15	M	0.0419	28	M	0.0607	11	M
B23	0.0476	14	M	0.0546	12	M	0.0612	10	M
B24	0.0408	26	M	0.0474	19	M	0.0515	19	M
B31	0.0364	28	M	0.0335	39	L	0.0297	44	L
B32	0.0316	39	M	0.0368	33	M	0.03	42	L
B33	0.0439	20	M	0.0416	29	M	0.0333	35	M
B34	0.0251	52	L	0.0264	52	L	0.0263	49	L
B35	0.0265	49	L	0.0329	40	L	0.0262	50	L
B41	0.032	37	L	0.0443	24	M	0.0352	33	M
B42	0.0295	43	L	0.045	22	M	0.0328	37	M
B43	0.0275	46	L	0.0287	48	L	0.0265	48	L
B44	0.0264	50	L	0.0291	47	L	0.0259	51	L
B45	0.0256	51	L	0.0272	51	L	0.0247	52	L
C1	0.0309	41	M	0.0324	42	M	0.0542	15	M
C2	0.0294	44	M	0.0329	41	M	0.0299	43	L
C3	0.0578	9	M	0.0884	7	M	0.0681	7	M
C4	0.044	19	M	0.0677	10	M	0.068	8	M
C5	0.0587	7	M	0.07	9	M	0.0537	16	M
C6	0.0582	8	M	0.0511	14	M	0.0424	24	M
D1	0.0337	32	M	0.0292	46	L	0.0268	47	L
D2	0.0325	35	M	0.0284	49	L	0.0337	34	M
D3	0.0613	6	M	0.0813	8	H	0.071	6	M
D4	0.027	47	L	0.028	50	L	0.0275	46	L
D5	0.0299	42	L	0.0316	44	L	0.0308	41	L
D6	0.0339	31	L	0.3933	1	H	0.3937	1	H

Tab.9 Risk rank and risk matrix of the attributes of the schedule delay factors

Tab.10 Risk rank and risk matrix of the criteria of the schedule delay factors

Tab.11 Occurrence probability of the risk in alternative and Ethiopian construction projects

Fig.2 Comparison of severity and frequency occurrence of attributes at each stage of construction

(the severity was determined through linear interpolation from the global weight and risk matrix;

the frequency occurrence was computed via the RII to prioritize the delay risk factors)

Fig.3 Comparison of severity and frequency occurrence of sub-criteria at each stage of construction

(the severity was determined through linear interpolation from the global weight and risk matrix;

The frequency occurrence was computed via the RII to prioritize the delay risk factors)

1	Abd El-Karim M S B A, Mosa El Nawawy O A, Abdel-Alim A M (2017). Identification and assessment of risk factors affecting construction projects. HBRC Journal, 13(2): 202–216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2015.05.001
2	Abd El-Razek M E, Bassioni H A, Mobarak A M (2008). Causes of delay in building construction projects in Egypt. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(11): 831–841 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:11(831)
3	Adeleke A Q, Bahaudin A Y, Kamaruddeen A M, Khan M W A, Yao L, Sorooshian S, Salimon M G (2017). The influence of organizational external factors on construction risk management in Nigerian construction companies. Safety and Health at Work, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.05.004
4	Aminbakhsh S, Gunduz M, Sonmez R (2013). Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. Journal of Safety Research, 46(Supplement C): 99–105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.05.003 pmid: 23932691
5	Assaf S A, Al-Hejji S (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4): 349–357 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010
6	Ayalew T, Dakhli Z, Lafhaj Z (2016). Assessment on performance and challenges of Ethiopian construction industry. Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2(11): 1–11
7	Dziadosz A, Rejment M (2015). Risk analysis in construction project—Chosen methods. Procedia Engineering, 122(Supplement C): 258–265 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.034
8	El-Sayegh S M (2008). Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4): 431–438 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.004
9	El-Sayegh S M, Mansour M H (2015). Risk assessment and allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE. Journal of Management Engineering, 31(6): 04015004 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000365
10	Fallahnejad M H (2013). Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1): 136–146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.003
11	Forteza F J, Carretero-Gómez J M, Sesé A (2017). Effects of organizational complexity and resources on construction site risk. Journal of Safety Research, 62(Supplement C): 185–198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.06.015 pmid: 28882266
12	Gibson G, Walewski J, Dudley G (2003). Life-cycle considerations to optimize risk assessment and management for international projects. In: Proceedings of ASCE Construction Research Congress. Hawaii
13	Gładysz B, Skorupka D, Kuchta D, Duchaczek A (2015). Project risk time management – A proposed model and a case study in the construction industry. Procedia Computer Science, 64(Supplement C): 24–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.459
14	González P, González V, Molenaar K, Orozco F (2014). Analysis of causes of delay and time performance in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(1): 04013027 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000721
15	Hossen M M, Kang S, Kim J (2015). Construction schedule delay risk assessment by using combined AHP-RII methodology for an international NPP project. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 47(3): 362–379 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2014.12.019
16	Ibrahim M (2011). Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects: Owners’ perspective. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 18(6): 609–617 https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981111180917
17	Koushki P A, Al-Rashid K, Kartam N (2005). Delays and cost increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3): 285–294 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000326710
18	Kuo Y C, Lu S T (2013). Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4): 602–614 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.003
19	Lee M C (2014). Information security risk analysis method and research trends: AHP and fuzzy comprehensive method. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, 6(1): 29–45 https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsit.2014.6103
20	Li D, Yang Q, Yu D (2013). On enterprise social responsibility comprehensive evaluation based on two-step fuzzy evaluation method. Modern Economy, 4(1): 66–72 https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2013.41008
21	Liu H Y, Guo J, He W T (2014). The research on subject behavioral risk of whole life-cycle water conservation projects. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 1(4): 348 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2014048
22	Luu V T, Kim S Y, Tuan N V, Ogunlana S O (2009). Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1): 39–50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.003
23	Mahamid I, Bruland A, Dmaidi N (2012). Causes of delay in road construction projects. Journal of Management Engineering, 28(3): 300–310 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000096
24	Mojtahedi S M H, Mousavi S M, Makui A (2010). Project risk identification and assessment simultaneously using multi-attribute group decision making technique. Safety Science, 48(4): 499–507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.016
25	Nguyen A T, Nguyen L D, Long L H, Dang C N (2015). Quantifying the complexity of transportation projects using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6): 1364–1376 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.007
26	Rao G S S, Raghavan S V (2014). Construction risk identification and assessment. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 4(5): 388–391
27	Saaty T L (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill International Book Co
28	Samantra C, Datta S, Mahapatra S S (2017). Fuzzy based risk assessment module for metropolitan construction project: An empirical study. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 65(Supplement C): 449–464 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.04.019
29	Toth T, Sebestyen Z (2015). Time-varying risks of construction projects. Procedia Engineering, 123(Supplement C): 565–573 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.109
30	Wang J, Yuan H (2017). System dynamics approach for investigating the risk effects on schedule delay in infrastructure projects. Journal of Management Engineering, 33(1): 04016029 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000472
31	Wu Z D, Chen M, Xu H J (2010). Risk assessment of oil and gas drilling engineering cooperation project based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management
32	Zeng J, An M, Smith N J (2007). Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6): 589–600 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.006
33	Zhu J W, Zhou L N, Zhai Z, Wang C (2016). Financing model decision of inter-basin water transfer projects. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 3(4): 396–403 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2016060
34	Zou P X W, Zhang G, Wang J (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6): 601–614 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001

[1]	Hongtao ZHOU, Hongwei WANG, Wei ZENG. Smart construction site in mega construction projects: A case study on island tunneling project of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 78-87.
[2]	Dongping CAO, Heng LI, Guangbin WANG. Impacts of building information modeling (BIM) implementation on design and construction performance: a resource dependence theory perspective[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 20-34.
[3]	Guang-she Jia,Song-yu Yan,Wen-jun Wang,Ralf Müller,Chen Lin. An Empirical Study on the Generation Mechanism of NIMBY Conflicts of Construction Projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(1): 39-49.
[4]	Ji-ming Wang. A Study of the Functional Mechanism of Petrochemical Engineering Construction Project Management[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(2): 129-139.
[5]	Ru-gui Chen,Jia-meng Chen. Research and Practice of Meta-synthesis Management for the Government-led Urban Complex Construction Project[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(1): 52-61.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed