ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Building maintenance projects have been received increased consideration in the last decades. There are many previous research works conducted to define and assess risk factors for new construction projects. There is limited studies regarding risk factors in building maintenance projects. This study aims to identify risk factors in governmental building maintenance projects by using questionnaire distributed for ongoing governmental building maintenance project in Kuwait. Mean values and coefficient of variance then Severity index methods used to rank risk factors. The study revealed that risk of miscommunication with governmental agencies is the top ranked risk factor. Lack of experienced technical staff from owner party then financial problems for contractor are the follower of top ranked risk factor. The output of this study identified the most important risk factors in such type of projects. Any attempt to mitigate effect of risk factors in building maintenance project should consider these results.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Construction Project Management ISSN: 1944-1436
Volume 10, Number 1 © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
RISK IDENTIFICATION FOR BUILDING
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Ehab Soliman
Kuwait University, Civil Engineering Department
ABSTRACT
Building maintenance projects have been received increased consideration in the last
decades. There are many previous research works conducted to define and assess risk
factors for new construction projects. There is limited studies regarding risk factors in
building maintenance projects. This study aims to identify risk factors in governmental
building maintenance projects by using questionnaire distributed for ongoing
governmental building maintenance project in Kuwait. Mean values and coefficient of
variance then Severity index methods used to rank risk factors. The study revealed that
risk of miscommunication with governmental agencies is the top ranked risk factor. Lack
of experienced technical staff from owner party then financial problems for contractor are
the follower of top ranked risk factor. The output of this study identified the most
important risk factors in such type of projects. Any attempt to mitigate effect of risk
factors in building maintenance project should consider these results.
Keywords: risk factors, identification, building maintenance projects
INTRODUCTION
Construction projects are always exposed to many risk factors. These risks are resulted
from many sources either internally or externally sources. Construction building maintenance
project exposed to many risk factors other than that of new construction projects because of
the different nature of the two types of projects. Construction building maintenance project
always performed during running daily work of project site place. The design in building
maintenance projects is partially left to the contractor. The scope of work of the building
maintenance project is always not clearly defined as in the new project contracts. While, the
contracting procedure of assigning contractors in building maintenance project is similar to
what is used in new projects. Enormous number of research work done to define the risk
factors in new construction projects. This previous research work concentrated in defining
risk factors, modeling risks and ranking risk factors in new construction projects. Limited
E-mail: ehab.solimanmoursi@ku.edu.kw
Ehab Soliman
38
research work conducted to define risk factors in building maintenance projects. This study
aims to identify the most significant risk elements in building maintenance projects in a state
Kuwait as an example of countries with huge value of maintenance projects. Ministry of
Public Works (MPW) in state of Kuwait manages building maintenance projects in Kuwait.
These risk factors should considered during the contract period and during execution periods.
These factors are very important to identify procedures to mitigate their effects in case of
occurrence during construction phase.
BACKGROUND
Risks are inherent in all construction industry projects, perhaps more than other industries
plagued by risk (Thompson and Perry, 1992 and Flanagan and Norman, 1993).
Mark et al., (2004) stated that risk is simply the potential for complications and problems
with respect to the completion of a project task and the achievement of a project goal.
Others defined risks as the exposure to possibility of economic, or financial loss, or gain,
physical damage or injury, or delay, as a consequence of the uncertainty associated with
pursuing a particular course of action” (Perry and Hayes, 1985). Jaafari, (2001) defined risks
in construction projects as “the probability of losses in a project.” Baloi and Price, 2003
defined risks as the likelihood of a detrimental event occurring to the project. Although risk
has been defined in various ways, some common characteristics can be found as per (Chia,
2006):
A risk is a future event that may or may not occur.
A risk must also be an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has an effect on,
at least, one of the project objectives, such as scope, schedule, cost or quality.
The probability of the future event occurring must be greater than 0% but less than
100%. Future events that have a zero or 100% chance of occurrence are not risks.
The impact or consequence of the future event must be unexpected or unplanned for.
Latham, 1994 suggested that project risks can be transferred, accepted, managed,
minimized, or shared, but cannot be ignored in construction projects.
Many research works conducted to search the sources and classification of risks in
construction projects. Perry and Hayes (1985) gave an extensive list of factors assembled
from several sources, and classified in terms of risks initiated by contractors, consultants, and
clients. Cooper and Champan, (1987) focuses on the risk nature and their magnitude grouping
risks into two major groups of primary and secondary risks. Edward and Bowen (1998)
classified risks in construction projects for natural and human risks. The natural are resulted
from weather conditions and geological system, while the human risks resulted from social,
political, economic, financial, legal, health, managerial, technical and cultural sources. Tah
et al., (1993) used a risk-breakdown structure to classify risks according to their origin and to
the location of their impact in the project.
Wirba et al., (1996) adopt a model by combining of Tah et al., 1993 approach for risk
hierarchy and that of Cooper and Chapman (1987).
Tah and Carr, (2000) adapted a hierarchical risk breakdown structure (HRBS) to allow
risks to be separated into those that are related to the management of internal resources and
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
39
those that are related to the external environment. External risks are those which are relatively
uncontrollable, and due to their nature there is a need the continual scanning, forecasting and
a company strategy for managing the effects of external risks. Internal risks are relatively
more controllable and vary between projects.
Risks in construction are handled by risk analysis and risk management. By using the
terminology from BSI 8444: 1996, the systematic five steps involved for a comprehensive
risk management process are
Risk identification
Risk estimation
Risk evaluation
Risk response
Risk monitoring
While, Nieto-Morote and Ruz-Vila (2011) stated that the effective risk management
involves four-phase process:
1. Risks identification: The process of determining which risks may affect the project
and documenting their characteristics.
2. Risk assessment: The process of prioritizing risks for further analysis by assessing
and combining, generally, their probability of occurrence and impact.
3. Risk response: The process of developing options and actions to enhance
opportunities and to reduce threats to the project objectives.
4. Risk monitoring and reviewing: The process of implementing a risk response plan,
tracking identified risks, monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, and
evaluating the risk process effectiveness throughout the project.
The risk identification process is beneficial as it focuses the attention of project
management to highlight those areas where further work is needed. Risk identification relies
heavily on the experience and insight of the key project personnel. Al-Bahar and Crandall
(1990) defined risk identification as the process of systematically and continuously
identifying, categorizing, and assessing the initial significance of risks associated with a
construction project.
Toakley and Ling (1991) reported that if a risk is not identified it cannot be controlled,
transferred or otherwise managed, and therefore risk identification is a necessary first step
before risks can be analyzed and an appropriate response can be determined.
Al-Tabtabai and Diekmann (1992) stated that the primary basis for identifying risks is
historical data, experience and insight. While, Lambert, et al., (2001) specified these
mechanisms to collect risk identification information, which are:
1. Interviews at the work site with approximately twenty managers
2. Review of requirements documents and other program planning materials
3. Review of third-party analyses of the cost and schedule for the project
4. Review of a list of risks prepared by program managers
5. Consultation with a third-party management consultant familiar with the program
Ehab Soliman
40
Many of globally research work conducted for identifying risks in special types of
construction projects. For example, Songer et al., (1997), Lam (1999), Grimsey and Lewis
(2002) and Guo et al., (2014) searched for the risk analysis and management for infrastructure
projects. Baker et al., (1999) and Lambert et al., (2001) searched for identifying risk factors
for major projects. Hwang et al (2014) investigated the process of risk management in small
projects. Marcelino-Sádaba et al., (2014) proposed a methodology for risk management of
small firms.
Special researches were conducted to distinguish risk identification and management for
different locations. Lu and Yan (2013), Zou et al., (2007) studied risks in China construction
industry, Ahmed et al., (1999) and Shen (1997) for Hong Kong construction projects, El-
Sayegh (2008) for UAE projects and Kartam and Kartam (2001) in Kuwait Construction
projects.
Although, there are overwhelming research work done for many types of construction
projects, there is limited research work conducted in building maintenance projects.
Building maintenance projects are differing than new projects. The building maintenance
projects often conducted in confined places and in some times during the daily works
for the facility. The building maintenance works applied in some times for covered or
unforeseen items such as seepage for piping works, which make work difficult for unforeseen
elements.
Building maintenance projects have recorded an increase in construction sector. Lam
et al., (2010) found that starting from the year 2002, remarkable percentage of all annual
construction activities are solely for building maintenance projects. Meanwhile Hong Kong
recorded an increase in the cost of building maintenance work over the past 5 years. While
El-Haram et al., (2002) stated that UK showed rapid increase in building maintenance cost.
Wood, (2005) stated that, BM1 reported that in the last 10 years, building maintenance are
increased about 66% and between 1989 and 2000, its takes about 43.6% increasing. Mohd-
Noor et al., (2011) stated that Malaysian National Budget shows more attention has been
given to the building maintenance work especially beginning 2000s.
Gajzler (2013) stated that maintenance consists in a number of activities aimed at
keeping the facility in good repair so that it meets all the requirements set down in the
design stage. The classified maintenance for existing buildings undertaken with the purpose
of:
1. Re-instating physical condition to a specified standard
2. Preventing further deterioration of failure
3. Restoring correct operation within specified parameters
4. Replacing components at the end of their useful/economic life with modern
engineering equivalents
5. Making temporary repairs for immediate health, safety and security reasons
Sometimes building maintenance is perceived as merely about the mechanical and
electrical system in the buildings without much consideration given to civil and structural
elements (Suffian, 2013).
Isa (2001) revealed that building maintenance management in Malaysia has been very
insufficient and inefficient. The contributing factors for this inefficient building maintenance
are identified as follows;
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
41
Execution of work are not to the standard
Insufficient Planning and control
Insufficient Budget/ malpractice in the financial management
Kuwait is an Arabic gulf state with GDP about 176 Billion American dollars. The
construction industry sector contributes about 7% of GDP (CKB-2012). A great portion of
this value is dedicated to the building maintenance projects.
Kartam and Kartam (2001) surveyed risk factors that are facing by large contractors in
Kuwait. They found that contractors show more willing to accept risks that are contractual
and legal-related rather than other types of risks and there is limited application of formal risk
analysis techniques.
The objective of this study is identifying the most significant risk factors in governmental
building maintenance projects in Kuwait. Kuwaiti public buildings and facilities are mainly
constructed under the supervision of Ministry of Public Works (MPW). A separate sector in
the ministry is responsible for public facilities maintenance. This sector has two branches; one
for building maintenance and one for roads and utilities network maintenance. MPW
maintenance sector is responsible for conduct all contractual and technical duties required for
maintaining maintenance functions.
METHODOLOGY
Getting list of risk factors of maintenance building projects
To define the risk factors in building maintenance project, a deep survey for risk
factors that were used in previous research work done in all types of projects. This
research work contains- in addition to what is listed in background- Rahman and
Kumaraswamy (2002), Eybpoosh et al., (2011), Carr and Tah (2001), Olajide (2012),
Wang et al., (2000), and Chan et al., (2011). Then, these risk factors were revised to
choose which of them are suitable for building maintenance projects. A list of risk
factors was resulted, and then this list of risk factors was revised by consulting four
of experts who were working for maintenance projects for more than 20 years. A list
of thirty seven risk factors was used to design a questionnaire.
Questionnaire design
A questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding risk factors in building
maintenance projects. The resulted listed thirty seven risk factors were grouped into
six group of influence. Each participant was asked if he faced this problem before, if
yes he then asked to evaluate the probability of occurrence and level of importance of
each one of the listed thirty seven risk factors.
Questionnaire distribution and sample
Questionnaire distributed for engineers working in building maintenance projects in
(MPW). One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed for engineers working
in Al-Jahra province. Kuwait state is divided into six provinces. All provinces
sharing same work environment. The participants were selected based on existing
projects in Al-Jahra province. The engineers were working either for client (MPW)
or contractors. The questionnaire was distributed in sites for in progress building
Ehab Soliman
42
maintenance projects. Fifty one questionnaires were answered and gathered in a 34%
of respondents. In the construction enterprises, a good response rate is around 30%
(Black et al., 2000), therefore, the response rate in this research is acceptable.
Getting most important risk factors for maintenance building projects
The thirty seven risk factors are examined if the participants were facing before or
not. The risk factors which common faced are then analyzed to get the most
important risk factors. To rank risk factors, two methods were used; risk factors are
ranked based on mean value, coefficient of variance and then by severity index.
DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRE
Thirty seven risk factors were revised from literature review and consulting expert
personnel. The used thirty-seven risk factors were divided into six groups based on the
responsible for risk initiator. These six groups are:
1. Risk factors related to owner: This group contains all risk factors that can be coming
from the end user, and/or technical MPW members.
2. Risk factors related to contractor: This group contains all the risk factors that project
contractor is causing or controlling during building maintenance project work.
3. Risk factors related to subcontractor: This group contains all the risk factors which
subcontractor is causing or controlling.
4. Risk factors related to governmental third party: This group of contains risk elements
that coming from external sources other than the owner and/or contractor or his
subcontractors. This group of risk factors contains risk factors resulted mainly from
governmental agencies.
5. Risk factors related to site location and work environment: This group contains risk
factors related to building maintenance project site and environmental conditions.
6. Risk factors related to design works: This group contains risk factors resulted from
design works.
Each respondents is asked first to evaluate if this risk factors is faced as a source of risk
in building maintenance project based on respondent’ experience. If the risk factor answered
for the mentioned risk factors as yes, then respondent is asked to evaluate both: the
probability level of occurrence of risk factor and its level of importance in case of occurrence.
The level of probability and importance is graded in five ranks as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Scale used to identify risk factor probability level and effect of risk factor
Scale
Level of probability occurrence
Level of importance
0%-20%
Very low
Very low
20% - 40%
Low
Low
40% -60%
Average
Average
60% -80%
High
High
80%-100%
Very high
Very high
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
43
Table 2. Answers for risk factors occurrence
Risk elements
Did you face this problem
before in building
maintenance projects?
Yes
Yes %
1
Decision not taken in the proper time
42
82.4%
2
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
43
84.3%
3
No sufficient and clear work steps
29
56.9%
4
No adequate work planning and scheduling
34
66.7%
5
No prior work order budget estimate
42
82.4%
6
Change order during work implementing
42
82.4%
7
Changes for contract clauses during work or adding new items
32
62.7%
8
Owner cannot pay contractor payments in time
29
56.9%
9
Inflexible work budget
35
68.6%
10
Inexperience for assigned contractor
40
78.4%
11
Contractor financial problems
39
76.5%
12
Inability to comply with project requirements such as
materials, quality
35
68.6%
13
Unavailability of required materials in the proper time
45
88.2%
14
Unclear of specifications of materials and procedures
25
49.0%
15
Inability of contractor to manage and coordination between
subcontractors
37
72.5%
16
Inadequate of contractor's schedule program
39
76.5%
17
Mistakes in workmanship
39
76.5%
18
Insufficient of used safety procedures
45
88.2%
19
Disputes between subcontractors and vendors
39
76.5%
20
Subcontractors do not provide the required information in the
proper time
34
66.7%
21
Inability to cost estimate in the proper time and proper way.
28
54.9%
22
Obstacles in site submittal to contractor
34
66.7%
23
Traffic jam surrounding the site location
32
62.7%
24
Difficult in material transportation to site
26
51.0%
25
Weather conditions, (humidity, rains, temperature)
39
76.5%
26
Soil unforeseen conditions
32
62.7%
27
Wastage difficulty transportation
31
60.8%
28
Soil not ready to execute
34
66.7%
29
Soil tests not sufficient
23
45.1%
30
Connections with existed old buildings
41
80.4%
31
Work needs existed old buildings to re-habitation before work
35
68.6%
32
Conflict with service utilities in site
44
86.3%
33
Delay of information from governmental agencies
48
94.1%
34
Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
46
90.2%
35
Changes of design and delay of required approval
36
70.6%
36
Mistakes, incomplete design information
35
68.6%
37
Unavailability of design requirement skills
32
62.7%
Ehab Soliman
44
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Risk Factors Occurrence
Table 2 shows respondents answers for the question if these risk factors were faced
before in their practical life. Thirty factors out of used thirty seven factors have been faced by
more than 70% of the sample. Only one factor faced by less than 50% of the sample. This
means that the surveyed risk factors are significantly chosen.
Risk Factors Assessment and Ranking
The second step in risk management is the risk assessment. Many methods and technique
are commonly used to assess risk factors. In this study the assessment and ranking of the used
risk factors will be based on mean values and coefficient of variance then by severity index.
Ranking Based on Mean Values and Coefficient of Variance
The mean value is calculated from Likert scale ranking as shown in Table 1. The
following equation is used to calculate risk factor mean value.
Mean value = wi*ni/51 (1)
where wi takes a value 0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9 based on respondents judgement
Ni is the number for each level as respondents’’ answers.
Figure 1. Scatter Curve for mean values of probability and impact level.
Table 3. Summary for top ranked risk factors ranking based on mean value and coefficient of variance
Risk
factor #
Risk factors
Rank based on
Probability
mean value
Rank based on
Importance
mean value
Rank based on
Probability
coefficient of variance
Rank based on
Importance
coefficient of variance
Global rank-
mean for all
33
Delay of information from governmental agencies
1
1
1
1
1
11
Contractor financial problems
2
3
10
7
6
2
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
3
2
2
2
2
32
Conflict with service utilities in site
4
4
7
6
5
34
weak of coordination with governmental agencies
5
5
4
3
3
1
Decision not taken in the proper time
6
6
3
5
4
18
Insufficient of used safety procedures
7
11
6
8
8
6
Change order during work implementing
8
10
9
9
9
13
Unavailability of required materials in the proper time
9
8
5
4
7
19
Disputes between subcontractors and vendors
10
13
12
13
10
30
Connections with existed old buildings
11
21
13
15
14
16
Inadequate of contractor's schedule program
12
14
14
11
13
5
No prior work order budget estimate
13
16
8
12
12
10
Inexperience for assigned contractor
14
7
17
10
11
Ehab Soliman
46
Figure 1 shows scatter diagram for all risk factors based on mean values for probability
of occurrence and level of importance. As shown in Figure 1, most of the surveyed risk
factors placed in the average zone of probability of occurrence and level of impact. It is
beneficial to determine which of these risk factors is most significant and most important.
Holt (2013) criticizes the rank based on mean values only and he suggested that the
dependent of mean value without taking into consideration the standard of deviation is
misleading. He suggested that using the rank based on coefficient of variance is better than
using the mean values only.
The mean values for each risk factor is calculated for probability of occurrence and level
of impact, then the coefficient of variance is calculated for probability of occurrence and level
of impact. Table 3 shows summary of ranking based on mean values and coefficient of
variance. A global rank is calculated by adding all ranks shown in Table 3.
Risk Factors Ranking Based on Severity Index
Many of previous research works used severity index to rank elements which have been
measured by questionnaire data gathering based on Likert scale. Severity index is used to
combine the relative of importance with the probability of occurrence of risk factors. Severity
index is combing the probability index and impact index as described in following equations.
N
Ciwi
IPIndexobability
)*(
).(_Pr
(2)
N
Cjwj
IIIndexpact
)*(
).(_Im
(3)
IIIFISIndexSeverity .*.).(_
(4)
where:
wi is the weight for level of frequency as per respondent judgment ranging from
(0,1,2,3,4)
wj is the weight for level of impact as per respondent judgment ranging from (0,1,2,3,4)
ciis the respondents numbers for each frequency level (0,1,2,3,4)
cjis the respondents numbers for each impact level (0,1,2,3,4)
Microsoft excel 13 software was used to calculate indexes. Table 4 shows the rank of risk
factors based on Severity Index and Table 5 shows the top ranked based on the two methods
(mean value, coefficient of variance and severity index) and their risk factors’ groups.
The top nine ranked risk factors for the two methods are identical. It is seen that the top
ranked risk factors are belonging for third party- governmental related risk factors, owner
related risk factors and contractor related risk factors. It was very strange that the risk
factors related to site location and work environment are not shown in the top ten ranked risk
factors.
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
47
Table 4. Top ranked risk factors in building maintenance
projects based on severity index
#
Risk factor
Rank based on Severity Index
33
Delay of information from governmental agencies
1
2
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
2
11
Contractor financial problems
3
32
Conflict with service utilities in site
4
34
Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
5
1
Decision not taken in the proper time
6
18
Insufficient of used safety procedures
7
13
Unavailability of required materials in the proper time
8
6
Change order during work implementing
9
10
Inexperience for assigned contractor
10
19
Disputes between subcontractors and vendors
11
16
Inadequate of contractor's schedule program
12
5
No prior work order budget estimate
13
15
Inability of contractor to manage and coordination between
subcontractors
14
12
Inability to comply with project requirements such as
materials, quality
15
Connection with existed old buildings is the only risk factor that was in the 15th rank of
top ranked which belongs to site location and work environment group.
The top ranked risk factors as presented in Table 5 are:
Delay of information from governmental agencies
Contractor financial problems
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
Conflict with service utilities in site
Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
Decision not taken in the proper time
Insufficient of used safety procedures
Change order during work implementing
Unavailability of required materials in the proper time
These top ranked belong to governmental third party, owner and contractor-related risk
factors.
Analysis of Top Ranked Risk Factors
The top ranked risk factors were belonging to three groups as indicated in Table 5. These
groups are governmental related risk factors, owner related risk factors and contractor related
risk factors. The following is discussion of each one of these groups and why these were top
ranked then propose set of recommendations and remedial actions to be taken to mitigate their
effect in case of occurrence.
Ehab Soliman
48
Table 5. Risk factors ranking based on the used two methods
Risk
factor #
Risk factors
Rank
based on
Mean
Value and
CV
Rank
Severity
index
Rank
Risk factor
group
33
Delay of information from governmental
agencies
1
1
1
TG
11
Contractor financial problems
2
3
2
CT
2
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
3
2
2
OW
32
Conflict with service utilities in site
4
4
4
TG
34
Weak of coordination with governmental
agencies
5
5
5
TG
1
Decision not taken in the proper time
6
6
6
OW
18
Insufficient of used safety procedures
7
7
7
CT
6
Change order during work implementing
8
9
8
OW
13
Unavailability of required materials in the
proper time
9
8
8
CT
19
Disputes between subcontractors and
vendors
10
11
10
CT
10
Inexperience for assigned contractor
14
10
12
CT
16
Inadequate of contractor's schedule program
12
12
12
CT
5
No prior work order budget estimate
13
13
14
OW
30
Connections with existed old buildings
11
16
15
ST
TG third party governmental related risk factors.
OW- owner related risk factors.
CT- contractor related risk factors.
ST- site location related factors.
Governmental Third Party Related Risk Factors
All the group of governmental- third party risk factors are placed in top ranked as
shown in Table 5. These three factors are ranked in the first, fourth and fifth rank. These
risk factors are:
Delay of information from governmental agencies
Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
Conflict with service utilities in site
The service utilities are the public means which belonging to governmental agencies.
These important risk factors reflect the miscommunication problems with governmental
agencies such as the Kuwaiti municipality, ministry of water and electricity and ministry of
communication. These governmental agencies can postpone maintenance work until getting
work permission or provide required documentations and approvals. The owner provides
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
49
usual work order for the assigned contactor, and then the contactor has to get approval from
governmental agencies in some work types especially for underground utilities maintenance.
This process is mainly done manually by contractor application for governmental agency and
going through the bureaucracy steps until getting approval. This process may take too long
time, and then project might delay.
These risk factors reflect a need for a systematic or automated procedure to accelerate the
procedure for getting governmental agencies’ approvals. Application of e-government and
web-based applications in governmental procedures started to be dominant in region, but the
application in building maintenance is limited. It is recommended to revise the used methods
for communications with governmental agencies which responsible to contact contractors
who working in maintenance projects.
Owner-Related Risk Factors
Three risk factors related to owner were top-ranked as shown in Table 5. These three
elements are:
Lack of manpower staff to direct work
Decision not taken in the proper time
Change order during work implementing
Lack of work force staff required to manage work from owner side noticed as the third
top risk factors ranked. The participants in this study were belonging to owner side and
contractors, both see that there is need for appointing extra owner technical people to manage
building maintenance projects. MPW is a governmental organization and technical staff
recruitment procedure is subject to normal governmental procedures. Although most of fresh
graduated engineers are joining MPW as it is the biggest engineering employer in Kuwait but
not too many of them prefer to join the maintenance branches as they prefer to join new
projects to gain experience. It is recommend encouraging fresh and experienced technical
staff in MPW to join building maintenance projects and to maintain training courses to
enhance technical skills for existed technical staff.
The second risk factor related to owner side was delaying decision making. Decision not
taken in the proper time was ranked as the sixth top ranked risk factors in building
maintenance projects. Decision taking in proper time is very essential in all projects
especially in maintenance projects. Time of taking action in building maintenance projects
can highly affect not only on the maintenance work under progress, but also for all the related
works and even on the routine daily work. So taking decision in the proper time will highly
affect the performance of building maintenance work.
Because of the nature of building maintenance projects as it exposing to environmental,
technical or managerial sources of risks, changing orders are very common in this type of
projects and then affect the progress of work. Channing order during work implementation
was recorded as the eighth top ranked risk factor. Some of changing order cannot be issued
unless taking approval from top management in MPW. It is recommended to revise the
changing order procedure and the cycle time for changing approval in all governmental
projects in Kuwait.
Ehab Soliman
50
Contractor-Related Risk Factors
Three top-ranked risk factors were belonging to contractor side. These risk factors are:
Contractor financial problems
Insufficient of used safety procedures
Unavailability of required materials in the proper time
Contractor financial problem is the second ranked risk factor as shown in Table 5.
A previous study by Soliman (2010) revealed that contractor financial problem is an
essential cause for construction project delay in Kuwait. Contractor financial problems
will affect all building maintenance work under the responsibility of contractor. Providing
required material on time, providing technical personnel, manage daily work, all these
contractor functions are highly affected by contractor financial ability. Most of contactor
financial problems are coming from bad choice of contractor. The usual project awarding
system in Kuwait is the lowest price. Many problems resulted from this type of awarding
have been recorded and discussed worldwide. It is recommended to changing contractor
awarding method in governmental projects to match owner objectives with contractor
capability.
Another risk factor related to contactor which is using improper and insufficient safety
procedures during maintenance work. Insufficient of safety procedures provided by the
contractor is essential especially for certain types of building maintenance projects. Many of
building maintenance projects executed in confined and old places. Insufficient safety
procedures taken by contractor will affect the progress of both the maintenance work and
routine daily work in the building facility under maintenance.
Using improper materials in building maintenance projects may be due to unclear
definition of the required materials or due to insufficient time to check the used material in
the proper time. A clear and quick procedure should be taken in building maintenance project
to make sure that the used materials are as per specifications. A lead-time should be provided
by contract to test and approve of the required materials.
By comparing this study results with a previous study conducted by Kartam and Kartam
(2001) for risk elements in Kuwaiti projects from contractor prospective. The two studies
confirming that the competence of contactor is a source of risks in construction projects either
a new or building maintenance project.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, a survey for risk factors for building maintenance projects was conducted in
governmental Kuwaiti projects. A questionnaire of predefined risk factors which gathered
from previous research work regarding risk factors identification in construction projects. The
list of these predefined risk factors was revised by consulting four of top management
personnel working in governmental building maintenance projects in Kuwait. Thirty-seven
risk factors were used and divided into six groups based on risk factor initiator. Questionnaire
participants were asked to evaluate probability of occurrence and level of importance of set of
predefined risk factors. Mean value and coefficient of variance then severity index were used
to rank risk factors.
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
51
Nine risk factors were top-ranked, three of them related to governmental reasons, three of
them resulted from owner and three of them are contractor related. The three risk factors
related to governmental reasons are: delay of information from governmental agencies, weak
of coordination with governmental agencies and conflict with service utilities in site.
While three owner causes are lack of work force staff to direct work, decision not taken
in the proper time and change order during work implementing.
The three contractor related risk factors are: contractor financial problems, insufficient of
used safety procedures and Unavailability of required materials in the proper time.
It is very important to revise work environment in building maintenance projects in
such countries taking into consideration this study results. This study suggested many
recommendations to enhance this work environment such as changing contractor selection
system to make sure that the winner contractor has the satisfactory financial and managerial
ability to manage a project. In addition to revision of owner changing order procedures to be
faster and more efficient and using modern and up to date communication channels between
the site staff location and governmental agencies to accelerate approval procedure from
governmental agencies be more fast and efficient.
Limitations of the study relate to the boundaries of sample size and its geographic focus,
while findings are specific to state of Kuwait and can be useful for all similar work
environments such as all gulf area.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. M. & Ahmad, R. and De Saram, D. D. (1999). Risk management trends in the
Hong Kong construction industry: A comparison of contractors and owners perceptions.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6 (3), 225234.
Al-Bahar, J. F. & Crangell, K. C. (1990). Systematic risk management approach for
construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering, and Management, 116 (3),
533546.
Al-Tabtabai, H. & Diekmann, J. E. (1992). Judgmental forecasting in construction.
Construction Management and Economics, 10 (1), 19- 30.
Baker, S. & Ponniah, D. and Smith, S. (1999). Risk response techniques employed currently
for major projects. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 205-213.
Baloi, D. & Price, A. D. F., (2003). Modeling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance. International Journal of Project Management 21 (4), 261269.
Black, C. & Akintoye, A., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). Analysis of Success Factors and
Benefits of Partnering in Construction. International J. of Project Management, 18~6!,
423434.
BSI (1996). Risk Management: Part 3, Guide to Risk Analysis of Technological Systems, BS
8444: Part 3: 1996, The British Standards Institution, London.
Carr, V. & Tah, J. H. M. (2001). A Fuzzy Approach to Construction Project Risk Assessment
and Analysis: Construction Project Risk Management System. Advances in Engineering
Software, 32, 847-857.
Centre of Kuwait Bank (CKB) 2012.
Ehab Soliman
52
Chan, A.& Yeung J. & Calvin C. P. & Wang S., and Ke Y. (2011). Empirical Study of Risk
Assessment and Allocation of Public-Private Partnership Projects in China. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 27 (3),136-148.
Chia, S. E., (2006). Risk Assessment Framework for Project Management. 10.1109/IEMC
.2006.4279889, IEEE, 376379.
Cooper, D. F. and Chapman, C. B. (1987). Risk Analysis for Large Projects. Wiley,
Chichester.
Edwards, P. J. & Bowen, P. A. (1998). Risk and Risk Management in Construction: a Review
and Future Directions for Research. Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, 5 (4), 339-349.
El-Haram, M. A. & Marenjak, S and Horner, M. W. (2002). Development of Generic
Framework for Collecting Whole Life Cost Data for the Building Industry. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 8 (2), pp 144-151.
El-Sayegh, S. M. (2008). Risk Assessment and Allocation in the UAE Construction Industry.
International Journal of Project Management, 26 (4), 431438.
Eybpoosh, M. & Dikmen, I. and Talat Birgonul, M. (2011). Identification of Risk Paths in
International Construction Projects Using Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 137 (12), 1164-1175.
Flanagan, R. & Norman, G. (1993). Risk Management and Construction. Blackwell, UK.
Gajzler, M. (2013). The Support of Building Management in the Aspect of Technical
Maintenance. Proceeding Engineering, 54, 615 624, The 2nd International Conference
on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Civil Engineering.
Grimsey, D. & Lewis, M. K. (2002). Evaluating the Risks of Public Private Partnership for
Infrastructure Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 107-118.
Guo, F. & Change-Richards, Y. & Wilkinson, S. and Li, T. C. (2014). Effects of Project
Governance Structures on the Management of Risks in Major Infrastructure Projects: A
Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (5), 815-826.
Holt, G. D. (2013). Asking Questions, Analyzing Answers: Relative Importance Revisited.
Construction Innovation, 14 (1), 2 16.
Hwang, B. & Zhao, X. and Toh, L. (2014). Risk Management in Small Construction Projects
in Singapore: Status, Barriers and Impact. International Journal of Project Management,
32 (1), 116124.
Isa, Z. M. (2001). The Management of Public Property in Malaysia. New Technology New
Century International Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of Risk, Uncertainties and Opportunities on Projects: Time
for a Fundamental Shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19 (1), 89101.
Kartam, N & Kartam, S. (2001). Risk and Its Magnitude in the Kuwaiti Construction
Industry: A Contractors’ Prospective. International Journal of Project Management, 19,
325-335.
Lam, E. W. & Chan, A. P. C and Chan, D. W. M. (2010). Benchmarking Success of Building
Maintenance Projects. Facilities, 28 (5/6), 290-305.
Lam, P. T. (1999). A Sectorial Review of Risk Associated With Major Infrastructure Projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 17 (2), 77-78.
Lambert, J. H. & Haimes, Y. H. & Li D.& Schooff R. M. and Tulsiani V. (2001).
Identification, Ranking, and Management of Risks in a Major System Acquisition.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72, 315-325.
Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects
53
Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the Team, HMSO.
Lu, Shaokai & Yan, Hong. (2013). A Comparative Study of the Measurements of Perceived
Risk among Contractors in China. International Journal of Project Management, 31 (2),
307312.
Marcelino-Sádaba, S. & Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. & Lazcano, A. M. and Villanueva, P. (2014).
Project Risk Management Methodology for Small Firms. International Journal of Project
Management, 32 (2), 327340.
Mark, W. & Cohen, P. E. and Glen, R. P. (2004). Project Risk Identification and
Management. AACE International Transaction. INT.01, 1-5.
Mohd-Noor, N. & Hamid, M. Y. & Abdul-Ghani, A. A. and Haron, S. N. (2011). Building
Maintenance Budget Determination: An Exploration Study in the Malaysia Government
Practice. The 2nd International Building Control Conference, Proceeding Engineering
20, 435 444.
Nieto-Morote, A. & Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A Fuzzy Approach to Construction Project Risk
Assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (2), 220231.
Olajide, F. & Afolarin, A. (2012). Evaluation of Maintenance Management Practice in
Banking Industry in Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable
Construction Engineering & Technology (ISSN: 2180-3242) 3 (1).
Perry, JG & Hayes RW. (1985). Risk and Its Management in Construction Projects.
Proceeding International Civil Engineering, 1-78, 499-521.
Rahman, M. & Kumaraswamy, M. (2004). Potential for Implementing Relational Contracting
and Joint Risk Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20 (4), 178189.
Shen, LY. (1997). Project Risk Management in Hong Kong. International Journal of Project
Management, 15 (2), 101-105.
Soliman, E M. (2010). Delay Causes in Kuwait Construction Projects AICSGE7, Structural
Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Songer, A. D. & Diekmann, J. and Secsok, R. S. (1997). Risk Analysis for Revenue
Dependent Infrastructure Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 15, 337-
385.
Suffian, A. (2013). Some Common Maintenance Problems and Building Defects: Our
Experiences. The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in
Civil Engineering, Procedia Engineering 54, 101 108.
Tah, J. H. M & Carr, V. (2000). A Proposal for Construction Project Risk Assessment Using
Fuzzy Logic. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 491500.
Tah, J. H. M. & Thorpe, A. and McCaffer, R. (1993). Contractor Project Risks Contingency
Allocation Using Linguistic Approximation. Computing Systems in Engineering, 4(23),
28193.
Thompson, PA & Perry, JG. (1992). Engineering Construction Risks: A Guide to Project Risk
Analysis and Risk Management, Thomas Telford, London.
Toakley, A. R. & Ling, S. M. C. (1991). Risk management and the building procurement
process. Innovation and Economics in Building Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 23-24
September, pp. 63-70.
Wang, S. & Tiong, R. & S. K. Ting, S. and Ashley D. (2000). Evaluation and management of
foreign exchange and revenue risks in China’s BOT projects. Construction Management
and Economics, 18, 197-207.
Ehab Soliman
54
Wirba E. N. & Tah J. H. M. and Howes, R. (1996). Risk interdependencies and natural
language computations. Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, 3(4), 25169.
Wood, B. (2005), Towards Innovative Building Maintenance. Structural Survey, 23 (4), 291-
297.
Zou, P. X. W. & Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the Key Risks in
Construction Projects in China. International Journal of Project Management 25, 601
614.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
... This step is crucial for evaluating the levels of risk and devising strategies to mitigate them. To address the need, researchers have utilized various tools such as brainstorming, interviews, questionnaires, cause-and-effect analysis, literature study, and combinations thereof (Qazi et al. 2016;Soliman 2018;Tembo-Silungwe and Khatleli 2018;Na et al. 2021). However, these conventional data collection methods typically require sufficient experienced experts and involve significant time and cost. ...
Article
Historical construction accident reports have been widely used to gain insights into the primary causes of past incidents in construction. Previous studies have successfully identified accident causes and affected body parts. However, there remains a gap in understanding the high-risk actions of workers. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting a novel investigation into the most prevalent sequential patterns between workers' actions prior to severe accidents. The study extracted sequential accident patterns by applying the PrefixSpan sequential pattern mining algorithm on a large database of action-accident-consequences manually built from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's construction accident reports. Social Network Analysis was then performed to determine high-risk workers' actions leading to severe accidents. Additionally, statistical tests were employed to explore the sectoral differences in the rank of high-risk actions. The study revealed the priority for 24 high-risk actions leading to severe accidents in construction. The ranking of these actions was found statistically different between construction sectors. Organizations can utilize the findings to develop targeted safety programs and interventions to mitigate future incidents in the construction industry. This study, however, was limited by the size of the sequential database, resulting from the manual data annotation process. This issue could be mitigated in future research by exploring semi-automated annotation approaches.
... The Risk identification can also be termed as one of the key factor of project success (Simanjuntak & Suryaningrum, 2020). Construction projects are always exposed to many risk factors, they can internal risk or external risks (Soliman, 2018). Construction industry has become one the most unsafe industry because of its dynamic and complex environment and high probability of risk involvement (Tsoukalis & Chassiakos, 2019). ...
... Risk management unfolds through a series of stages, including risk identification, risk analysis, and monitoring of risk management actions [29]. The initial stage occurs during project planning, aiming to identify risk elements and assess associated risks. ...
... The Risk identification can also be termed as one of the key factor of project success (Simanjuntak & Suryaningrum, 2020). Construction projects are always exposed to many risk factors, they can internal risk or external risks (Soliman, 2018). Construction industry has become one the most unsafe industry because of its dynamic and complex environment and high probability of risk involvement (Tsoukalis & Chassiakos, 2019). ...
Article
Construction productivity is significantrequirement which is point of focus for every constructionmanager. The main purpose of this study is to understand andhighlight the factors which affect the labor productivity inPakistan focusing Karachi which is the financial hub of thecountry. Karachi generates a big chunk of revenue andcontributes to gross domestic product (GDP) of Pakistan. Themain objective of this study is to identify the main factorsaffecting labor productivity of contractor, consultant andperspective of client. The data collection was carried out by onehundred sixty (160) questionnaire surveys. The results showedthat feeble management and worst site conditions are solelyresponsible for degradation in both efficiency and output of theproject.
... Due to the one-time feature of construction projects and organization, practitioners and academics tend to use experience-based information to make decisions. Experience-based methods, such as brainstorming, Delphi method, questionnaires, interviews, literature studies, and their combination, are primarily used to collect data and information [6][7][8]. This may lead to biased judgements, and the result will be limited by the number and knowledge of the experts. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the advent of the Industry 4.0 era, information technology has been widely developed and applied in the construction engineering field. Text mining techniques can extract interesting and important data hidden in plain text, potentially allowing problems in the construction field to be addressed. Although text mining techniques have been used in the construction field for many years, there is a lack of recent reviews focused on their development and application from a literature analysis perspective; therefore, we conducted a review with the aim of filling this gap. We use a combination of bibliometric and manual literature analyses to systematically review the text mining-based literature related to the construction field from 1997 to 2022. Specifically, publication analysis, collaboration analysis, co-citation analysis, and keyword analysis were conducted on 185 articles collected from the SCOPUS database. Based on a read-through of the 185 papers, the current research topics in text mining were manually determined and sorted, including tasks and methods, application areas, and core methods and algorithms. The presented results provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of TM techniques, thereby contributing to the further development of TM techniques in the construction industry.
... The Risk identification can also be termed as one of the key factor of project success (Simanjuntak & Suryaningrum, 2020). Construction projects are always exposed to many risk factors, they can internal risk or external risks (Soliman, 2018). Construction industry has become one the most unsafe industry because of its dynamic and complex environment and high probability of risk involvement (Tsoukalis & Chassiakos, 2019). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The construction industry is subjected to more risk than many other industries. One of the major parameters in every aspect of the project management life cycle is cost, and can be termed as one of the key variable of a project and have major impact on project success. Construction projects having many risk events that leads project to cost overruns. This study focused towards the identification and assessment of major risk events, causing overrun in construction projects of Pakistani construction industry. Study conducted with the identification of risk events by the literature review,156 risk events were identified by the literature after through questionnaire surveys and some statistical techniques, 156 risk events were shortlisted to 40 and were denoted as major risk events. Project cost overruns was also found out with the help of questionnaire surveys. Assessment of the events was done on the basis of risk score that is product of probability and impact
Article
Workplace accidents in construction commonly cause fatal injury and fatality, resulting in economic loss and negative social impact. Analysing accident description reports helps identify typical construction safety risk factors, which then becomes part of the domain knowledge to guide safety management in the future. Currently, such practice relies on domain experts' judgment, which is subjective and time-consuming. This paper developed an improved approach to identify safety risk factors from a volume of construction accident reports using text mining (TM) technology. A TM framework was devised, and a workflow for building a tailored domain lexicon was established. An information entropy weighted term frequency (TF-H) was proposed for term-importance evaluation, and an accumulative TF-H was proposed for threshold division. A case study of metro construction projects in China was conducted. A list of 37 safety risk factors was extracted from 221 metro construction accident reports. The result shows that the proposed TF-H approach performs well to extract important factors from accident reports, solving the impact of different report lengths. Additionally, the obtained risk factors depict critical causes contributing most to metro construction accidents in China. Decision-makers and safety experts can use these factors and their importance degree while identifying safety factors for the project to be constructed.
Article
Full-text available
This paper draws on an exploratory study of determination of the maintenance budget in government-owned buildings. Today situation witness drastic developments in government policy direction with the establishment of a strategic and effective asset management. The Government's main focus is to establish robust guidelines in determining budget allocations for maintenance of government building projects. The purpose of this study is to investigate the current and various practices used in the management of the maintenance budget determination by the Government of Malaysia in particular by the Public Works Department or the local authority and the challenges faced by the maintenance contractor in the project. Discussions will lead to a critical analysis of the current scenario, the gap in knowledge and challenges. Scientific surveys and reviews will also focus on effective practice models that have been implemented by other governments throughout the world.
Article
Full-text available
Poor and improper building maintenance will definitely cause more damages and costly repair works if left unattended. In Malaysia, buildings are built in accordance with British Standard and under strict supervision. Unfortunately the maintenance aspects of the building are still weak. Making it worse, sometimes building maintenance is perceived as merely about the mechanical and electrical system in the buildings without much consideration given to civil and structural elements. This non-research paper is to discuss the common maintenance problems and building defects on civil and structural elements at the Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) buildings across Malaysia due to various factors. Some common problems involving water proofing system, cracks, soil settlement are discussed in this paper. For instance, with tropical climate and average rainfall of 250 centimetres in a year, a good water proofing system is crucial for buildings with flat roof in Malaysia. However the performance of water proofing systems depend on many factors i.e. quality of the materials, the skill of workers, application methods, substrates condition, weather, maintenance, etc. Recent roof leakage incidents at numerous prestigious buildings such as parliament house, high court and other government buildings has sparked more awareness among the engineering fraternity on the importance of good and systematic building maintenance. With 34 office buildings throughout Malaysia, Property Division of SOCSO has been dealing with such problems regularly and would like to share them with other participants of this conference.
Article
The literature on construction and project risk management published during the period from 1960 to 1997 is reviewed and analysed to identify trends and foci in research and practice. This analysis is used to identify gaps and inconsistencies in the knowledge and treatment of construction and project risk. The findings suggested that political, economic, financial and cultural categories of construction risk deserve greater research attention, as do those associated with quality assurance, and occupational health and safety. Temporal aspects of risk, and risk communication, are also important fields for investigation.
Article
The major aim of this research is to demonstrate that causal relationships exist among various risk factors that necessitate identification of risk paths, rather than individual risk factors, during risk assessment of construction projects. International construction projects have more complex risk-emergence patterns because they are affected by global and foreign country conditions and project-related factors. Identification of a network of interactive risk paths, each of which initiated from diverse vulnerabilities of the project system, is considered to be a better reflection of the real conditions of construction projects than the use of generic risk checklists. In this study, using the data from 166 projects carried out by Turkish contractors in international markets and utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques, 36 interrelated risk paths were identified and the total effects of each vulnerability factor and risk path on cost overrun were assessed. SEM findings demonstrate that every risk path is initiated from a specific vulnerability factor related to project environment, and that contractor-specific vulnerabilities have the most effect on project cost overrun. Risk identification using SEM helps decision makers in answering what-if questions in the early stages of a project, tracing the effects of interdependent risks throughout the life cycle of the project and evaluating the influence of alternative mitigation strategies, not only on specific risks but also on the whole network of interrelated risk factors.
Article
Purpose – Construction management research (CMR) surveys frequently use questionnaires that employ “Likert-type” items, Likert-items, and Likert scales to capture respondents ' self-reported attitudes. This Editorial builds substantially on earlier observations by Holt regarding the significance of appropriate questionnaire response scale design and, use of the relative importance index (RII) method to analyse those data such scales yield. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Several RII models are examined by their application to a data set. Objectives include to contrast their practicality in use, compare outputs, highlight limitations of some models and discuss methods of RII data analysis, interrogation and interpretation. Findings – Principal messages are: all components of response scales should be carefully designed; alternative RII models can produce similar results of analysis; “simple percentage” RII models may not yield “real” percentages; the minimum rating scale integer should accurately reflect its descriptor; only rating scales offering a “0” response, or an “adjusted percentage” RII model can achieve unity; and RII outputs should be interpreted cautiously. Research limitations/implications – Uncertain application of the RII has been observed within CMR literature, so implications of the Editorial will be of direct relevance to this research community (and beyond). Originality/value – Aside from that cited above, no additional literature has been identified that specifically links RII usage to CMR.
Article
Earlier research studies on public-private partnership (PPP) indicated that an objective, reliable, and practical risk assessment model for PPP projects and an equitable risk allocation mechanism among different parties are crucial to the successful implementation of these PPP projects. However, actual empirical research works in this research area are limited. This paper reports the first stage of a research study, which aims to identify and assess the principal risks for the delivery of PPP projects in China and to address their proper risk allocation between the private and public sectors. An empirical questionnaire survey was designed to examine the relative importance of different risk factors and to analyze the allocation of risk factors to different parties in PPP projects. A total of 580 questionnaires were sent out, and a total of 105 valid responses were obtained for data analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test is employed to investigate whether significant difference in perception existed first between the private and public sectors and second between industrial practitioners and academics in China. The empirical findings show that the three most important risk factors for PPP projects in China are (1)government intervention; (2)government corruption; and (3)poor public decision-making processes. These findings reveal that the Chinese government intervention and corruption may be the major obstacles to the success of PPP projects in China. A major cause for these risks may be attributed to inefficient legislative and supervisory systems for PPP projects in China. After conducting the Mann-Whitney U test on the 105 survey respondents, the empirical findings indicate that the perceptions of all 34 risk factors in China between the private and public sectors were not significantly different. Similarly, there were no significant differences between academics and industrial practitioners except that the former perceived the problem of government corruption to be more severe than did the latter. For risk allocation, the empirical results indicate that the public and private sectors were in general consensus with most of the risks identified. The major risks that the public sector preferred to accept are within the systematic risk category, especially political, legal, and social risks. The private sector preferred to retain the principal risks within the specific project risk category, especially construction, operation, and relationship risks, in addition to economic risks within systematic risk category. The remaining risk, environment risk, is preferred to be shared between the two sectors. This research study enables international construction companies to better understand how risks should be assessed and allocated for PPP projects in China. It also assists in risk response planning and control for future PPP projects in China. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Article
We present a project management methodology designed for small businesses (SMEs), who need to run projects beyond their normal operations. These projects are critical to the survival of these organisations, such as the development of new products to adapt to the market or new legislation, management system implementations, etc. Very frequently, the managers of these projects are not project management professionals, so they need guidance to have autonomy, using minimal time and documentation resources. The risk management method outlined in this paper is based on extensive research with a large number (72) of Spanish companies. This new methodology considers the factors that are usually neglected by SMEs; i.e., project alignment with the company's strategy and results management. The methodology, based on project risk management, includes simple tools, templates and risk checklists with recommended actions and indicators. For validation it was tested in five different types of real projects (innovation, management systems and ICT implementation) of industrial and service companies with different characteristics.
Article
Large infrastructure construction projects are prone to risks. Using desktop review and interviews with stakeholder organizations in two major infrastructure projects (the Yi-wan Railway Construction Project in China and the Northern Gateway Toll Road (NGTR) Project in New Zealand), this study investigated how different project governance structures affect the management of risks. Comparative analysis shows that project governance provides a structured mechanism to identify and address risks as they occur. Despite varied context, two projects relied upon flexible contractual arrangements to leverage risks among project participants. While a centralized, single-agent governance was adopted in the form of Project Management Headquarters (PMH) in Yi-wan Railway project, an alliance governance structure was used in the NGTR project. The former enabled top-down risk allocation whereas the latter encouraged proactive solutions to risk sharing. The research outcomes will inform the decision making among project stakeholders on establishing appropriate project governance arrangements in order to achieve target risk management outcome. By comparing real-time projects of varied scope, complexity and significance, the findings contribute to an improved understanding of the relationship between project organizations and project risk management.
Article
Risk management (RM) should be implemented in construction projects to assure the achievement of project objectives, regardless of project size. This study aims to investigate RM in small projects in Singapore in terms of status, barriers and impact of RM on project performance. To achieve the objectives, a questionnaire survey was conducted and data were collected from 668 projects submitted by 34 companies. The analysis results indicated a relatively low level of RM implementation in small projects, and that “lack of time”, “lack of budget”, “low profit margin”, and “not economical” were prominent barriers. Also, the results reported the positive correlation between RM implementation and improvement in quality, cost and schedule performance of small projects, respectively. The findings of this study can provide an in-depth understanding of RM in small projects in Singapore and make benefits of RM convincing to the participants of small projects.
Article
Due to the unique character of construction projects, perceived risk is widely used to quantify risks in the construction industry. This study investigates the two main types of measurement of perceived risk used in construction projects: direct measurement and expected utility-based measurement. Project managers from contract firms in China assess 15 independent risks using three different strategies: direct measurement, risk probability and potential impact. The last two are combined to create the expected utility-based measurement. The results show that the risk ranking order obtained from the direct measurement strategy is significantly different from that obtained from the expected utility-based measurement. Moreover, the former measurement is in general a better predictive indicator of relative managerial input than the latter. Based on these conclusions, some suggestions are presented for better risk management and cooperation in the construction industry.