Advertisement

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 4257–4275 | Cite as

An ANP Model for Risk Assessment in Large-Scale Transport Infrastructure Projects

  • Fikri Yucelgazi
  • İbrahim YitmenEmail author
Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Large-scale transport infrastructure projects (LSTIPs) are developed structures that emerged from the essential necessity of fast-paced and convenient transportation in gradually growing populations. Multiple risks, such as technical, financial, economic, political, construction, managerial, natural and environmental and legal risks, may be encountered in LSTIPs. This study aims to list these possible risks in order of priority for European and Middle Eastern LSTIPs by means of an analytical network process method. The priority orders were obtained separately for Europe and the Middle East, and comparisons were made between these regions. The results highlight that Europe and the Middle East share both common and distinctive risk factors in the orders of priority. “The financial strength of the client” ranked as the foremost common risk factor for Europe and the Middle East received a priority value of 13.37 and 11.54%, respectively. However, salient differences in the findings revealed that “change in scope of work” and “water pollution” ranked as the second leading risk factors have priority values of 5.48% for Europe and 4.55% for the Middle East, respectively. To further support the priority orders achieved in this study, two different case studies were conducted. The priority orders achieved in this study could be used as a guideline for identifying and sequencing the risks in planning stages of similar projects conducted in various countries. Future related studies could be juxtaposed with the results of this study to analyse the alterations of priority orders that will have occurred in the course of time.

Keywords

Large-scale Transport Infrastructure projects ANP Europe Middle East 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    UK DfT - UK Department for Transport: Transport Analysis Guidance. The Treatment of Uncertainty in Model Forecasting (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EC Delegation: The Trans-European Transport Network: New Guidelines and Financial Rules. Conference, Warsaw (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venture, O.: GCC Transportation Construction Market. Gulf Traffic, Dubai World Trade Center Arena (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tah, J.H.M.; Carr, V.: Knowledge-based approach to construction project risk management. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 15(3), 170–177 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, J.: Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33(2), 446–457 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jannadi, O.A.; Almishari, S.: Risk assessment in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129(5), 492–500 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, Y.; Liao, X.: Decision support for risk analysis on dynamic alliance. Decis. Support Syst. 42, 2043–2059 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamošaitien, J.: Risk assessment of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 16(1), 33–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Omurbek, N.; Simsek, A.: Selection of online shopping site based on analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process methods. J. Manag. Econ. Res. 22, 306–327 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Masset, O.; Loew, S.: Quantitative hydraulic analysis of pre-drillings and inflows to the Gotthard Base Tunnel (Sedrun Lot, Switzerland). Eng. Geol. 4, 50–66 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Travers, T.: Transport infrastructure in London. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 25(3), 451–468 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Black, M.: Crossrail project: managing geotechnical risk on London’s Elizabeth line. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 170, 23–30 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuente A., Liao L., Pialarissi C., Sergio, H., Aguado A.: Design of FRC tunnel segments considering the ductility requirements of the MC-2010: application to the Barcelona Metro Line 9. American Concrete Institute (ACI), pp. 480–499 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Enright, T.E.: Mass transportation in the neoliberal city: the mobilizing myths of the Grand Paris Express. Environ. Plan. A 45, 797–813 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Omega Centre: UCL Project Profile Netherlands HSL-Zuid. Center for Mega Projects in Transport and Development, Bartlett School of Planning, London (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yusufoğlu, A.: Contingent Liabilities and Financial Risks in PPP Projects: Eurasia Tunneling, An Evaluation on Osmangazi and Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridges. Gazi University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ankara (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, D.A.; Hendy, C.R.: Design of the Dubai Metro light rail viaducts—substructure. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Bridge Engineering, vol. 162 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lowe, J.G.; Altrairi, I.S.: The Gulf Cooperation Council railway. In: Proceedings 29th Annual ARCOM Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abdollahzadeh, G.; Rastgoo, S.: Risk assessment in bridge construction projects using fault tree and event tree analysis methods based on fuzzy logic. J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. 1, 031006 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vishwakarma, A.; Thakur, A.; Singh, S.; Salunkhe, A.: Risk assessment in construction of highway project. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 5(2), 637–641 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghosh, S.; Jintanapakanont, J.: Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: a factor analysis approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 633–643 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ceric, A.; Marcic, D.; Ivandic, K.: A risk-assessment methodology in tunnelling. Tech. Gaz. 18(4), 529–536 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Sabah, R.; Menassa, C.C.; Hanna, A.: Evaluating impact of construction risks in the Arabian Gulf Region from perspective of multinational architecture, engineering and construction firms. Constr. Manag. Econ. 32(4), 382–402 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Al-Sabah, R.; Menassa, C.C.; Hanna A.: Evaluating significant risks in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) construction projects from perspective of multinational firms. In: Proceedings of the CIB W78, 29th International Conference Beirut, Lebanon (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xiang, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, K.; Wu, Q.: Risk analysis and management of submerged floating tunnel and its application. Procedia Eng. 4, 107–116 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Husang, M.S.; Baker, C.J.: Railway risk assessment—the fuzzy reasoning approach and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approaches: a case study of shunting at Waterloo depot. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 221(3), 365–383 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valipour, A.R.; Sarvari, H.; Yahaya, N.; Noor, N.M.; Rashid, A.S.: Analytic network process (ANP) to risk assessment of gas refinery EPC projects in Iran. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 9(3), 359–1365 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saaty, T.L.: Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piantanakulchai, M.: Analytic network process model for highway corridor planning. In: ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dagdeviren, M.; Eraslan, E.; Kurt, M.; Dizdar, E.N.: Tedarikçi Seçimi Problemine Analitik Ağ Süreci İle Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. Teknoloji Dergisi 8(2), 115–122 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karsak, E.E.; Sozer, S.; ve Alptekin, S.E.: Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 44(1), 171–190 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bottero, M.; Lami, I.M.: Analytic network process and sustainable mobility: an application for the assessment of different scenarios. J. Urban. 3(3), 275–293 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen, Z.; Li, H.; Ren, H.; Xi, Q.; Hong, J.: A total environmental risk assessment model for international hub airports. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 856–866 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hasnain, M.; Thaheem, M.J.; Ullah, F.: Best value contractor selection in road construction projects: ANP-based decision support system. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16, 695–714 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    El-Sayegh, S.M.; Mansour, M.H.: Risk assessment and allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE. J. Manag. Eng. 31, 04015004 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pathan, E.R.; Pimplikar, S.S.: Risk assessment of BOT road projects. J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 5(3), 40–59 (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    El-Sayegh, S.M.: Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26(4), 431–8 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Caltrans: Project Risk Management Handbook. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Office of Project Management Process Improvement, Sacramento (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang, T.; Wang, S.; Zhang, L.; Huang, Z.; Li, Y.: A major infrastructure risk-assessment framework: application to a cross-sea route project in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34(7), 1403–1415 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ebrahimnejad, S.; Mousavi, S.M.; Seyrafianpour, H.: Risk identification and assessment for build-operate-transfer projects: a fuzzy multi attribute decision making model. Expert Syst. Appl. 3, 575–586 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Choudhry, R.M.; Aslam, M.A.; Hinze, J.W.; Arain, M.A.: Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge construction in Pakistan: establishing risk guidelines. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140, 04014020 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li, Q.F.; Zhang, P.; Fu, Y.C.: Risk identification for the construction phases of the large bridge based on WBS–RBS. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 6(9), 1523–1530 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vishambar, A.; Kaustubh, S.; Kartik, P.; Salunkhe, A.: Risk planning in construction of highway project: case study. Int. J. Latest Res. Eng. Technol. 2(3), 57–63 (2016)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Diab, M.F.; Varma, A.; Nassar K.: Using risk assessment to improve highway construction project performance. In: Annual International Conference Proceedings (2012)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zayed, T.; Amer, M.; Pan, J.: Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 408–419 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kumar, L.; Jindal, A.; Velaga, N.R.: Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP based Indian highway infrastructure projects. Transp. Policy 62, 2–11 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Institute of Urban Transport of India: Issues and Risks for Monorail Projects and Metro Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zou, P.X.W.; Li, J.: Risk identification and assessment in subway projects: case study of Nanjing Subway Line 2. Constr. Manag. Econ. 28, 1219–1238 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gallagher, M.; Hares, T.; Spencer, J.; Bradshaw, C.; Webb, I.: The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam. Pract. 10(1), 76–81 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Martin, J.; Bell, R.; Farmer, E.; Henry, J.: Collective Notebook (CNB). The Open University, Technique Library, Milton Keynes (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Görener, A.: Use of analytic network process in choosing cutter team supplier. J. Aerosp. Technol. 4(1), 99–110 (2009)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gunhan, S.; Arditi, D.: Factors affecting international construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131(3), 273–82 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zou, P.X.W.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J.Y.: Identifying key risks in con-struction projects: life cycle and stakeholder perspectives. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 1, 1–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Belayutham, S.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Yiu, T.W.: A cleaner production–pollution prevention based framework for construction site induced water pollution. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 363–1378 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Feyen, L.; Dankers, R.; Bódis, K.; Salamon, P.; Barredo, J.I.: Fluvial flood risk in Europe in present and future climates. Clim. Change 112, 47–62 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tuuli, M.M.; Rowlinson, S.; Koh, T.Y.: Dynamics of control in construction project teams. Constr. Manag. Econ. 28, 189–202 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zou, P.X.W.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J.: Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 601–614 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Project Management Institute: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute. Upper Darby (2000)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Birgonul, M.T.; Ozdogan, I.D.: Government Effects on the Turkish Construction Industry. In: Ruddock, L. (ed.) Macroeconomic Issues, Models and Methodologies for the Construction Sector. CIB Publication No. 240, Rotterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kaming, P.F.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Holt, G.D.; Harris, F.C.: Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Constr. Manag. Econ. 15(1), 83–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Assaf, S.A.; Al-Hejji, S.: Causes of delay in large construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 349–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cho, C.S.; Gibson Jr., G.E.: Building project scope definition using project definition rating index. J. Archit. Eng. 7(4), 115–125 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hendrickson, C.: Project Management for Construction, 2nd edn. http://www.ce.cmu.edu/pmbook/ (2000)
  65. 65.
    Kwawu, W.; Hughes, W.: The impact of relational contracting on the construction industry. In: 21st Annual ARCOM Conference (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentEastern Mediterranean UniversityGazimagusaTurkey

Personalised recommendations