Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative risk assessment methodology for construction project

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is observed that most of the infrastructure projects fail to meet their cost and time constraints, which will lead to a low return on investment. The paper highlights that the present risk management tools and techniques do not provide an adequate basis for response selection in managing critical risks specific to infrastructure projects. This paper proposes a risk quantification methodology and demonstrates its application for an industrial construction project. A case study is used to present an application of the proposed risk management methodology to help organisations efficiently choose risk response strategy and allocate limited resources. The research adopts an integrated approach to prioritize risks using Group Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (GTOPSIS) and to quantify risks in terms of overall project delays using Judgemental Risk Analysis Process (JRAP), and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). A comparison between the results of qualitative risk analysis using GTOPSIS and quantitative risk analysis i.e., JRAP and MCS is presented. It is found that JRAP along with MCS could provide some powerful results which could help the management control project risks. The crux of this paper is that the risks are highly dependent on project schedule and the proposed methodology could give a better risk priority list because it considers slackness associated with the project activities. The analysis can help improve the understanding of implications of specific risk factors on project completion time and cost, while it attempts to quantify risks. In turn, this enables the project manager to devise a suitable strategy for risk response and mitigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Kalady R 2012 Project management in infrastructure. Construct. Architect. Mag. 20–26

  2. Ahuja H N and Nandakumar V 1985 Simulation model to forecast project completion time. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 111(4): 325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zou P X W, Zhang G and Wang J 2007 Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25: 601–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. PMI 2008 A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Management.

  5. Raz T and Michael E 2001 Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19: 9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. JG Perry 1986 Risk management? An approach for project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 4: 211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper D F 2005 Project risk management guidelines: managing risk in large projects and complex procurements. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kutsch E and Hall M 2010 Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28: 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Isaac I 1995 Training in risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 13: 225–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Giles E L, Brennan M, Albogamy A and Dawood N 2015 Development of a client-based risk management methodology for the early design stage of construction processes: applied to the KSA. Eng. Construct. Archittect. Manag. 22: 493–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dey P K 2001 Decision support system for risk management: a case study. Manag. Decis 39: 634–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nasirzadeh F, Afshar A and Khanzadi M 2007 System dynamics approach to optimum response selection in construction project risks. In: 3rd International Project Management Conference, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran

  13. Ali Hatefi M, Seyedhoseini S M and Noori S 2007 Risk response actions selection. Int. J. Appl. Manag. Technol. 5: 385-408

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sato T and Hirao M 2013 Optimum budget allocation method for projects with critical risks. Int J. Proj. Manag. 31: 126–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Muriana C and Vizzini G 2017 Project risk management: A deterministic quantitative technique for assessment and mitigation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35: 320–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Y 2016 Selecting risk response strategies considering project risk interdependence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34: 819–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 Comput. Sci. 64: 24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen T-H, Marmier F and Gourc D 2013 A decision-making tool to maximize chances of meeting project commitments. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 142: 214–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fang C, Marle F and Zio E 2011 An integrated framework for the optimization of project risk response plan under resource constraints with genetic algorithm. In: Qual. Reliab. Risk, Maintenance, Saf. Eng. (ICQR2MSE), 2011 Int. Conf. pp 856–861

  20. Taylan O, Bafail A O, Abdulaal R M S and Kabli M R 2014 Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl. Soft Comput. 17: 105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chang C W 2014 Develop a ranking algorithm for the green building project. Qual. Quant. 48: 911–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vinodh S and Swarnakar V 2015 Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 6: 313–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shih H-S, Shyur H-J and Lee E S 2007 An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45: 801–813

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Dawood N 1998 Estimating project and activity duration: a risk management approach using network analysis. Construvt. Manag. Econ. 16: 41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Öztaş A and Ökmen Ö 2005 Judgmental risk analysis process development in construction projects. Build. Environ. 40: 1244–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roger C and Petch J 1999 Uncertainty & Risk Analysis: A practical guide from Business Dynamics PricewaterhouseCoopers, MCS

  27. McKenna C K 1980 Quantitative methods for public decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill College

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ling F Y Y and Hoi L 2006 Risks faced by Singapore firms when undertaking construction projects in India. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24: 261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mojtahedi S M H, Mousavi S M and Makui A 2010 Project risk identification and assessment simultaneously using multi-attribute group decision making technique. Saf. Sci. 48: 499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shebob A, Dawood N and Shah R K 2012 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects. J. Construct. Eng. Proj. Manag. 2: 17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goh C S, Abdul-Rahman H and Abdul Samad Z 2013 Applying risk management workshop for a public construction project: case study. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 139: 572–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nasir D, McCabe B and Hartono L 2003 Evaluating risk in construction–schedule model (ERIC–S): construction schedule risk model. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 129: 518–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Islam M S, Nepal M P, Skitmore M and Attarzadeh M 2017 Current research trends and application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to the risk assessment of construction projects. Adv. Eng. Informatics 33: 112–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kumar C, Yadav D K 2015 A probabilistic software risk assessment and estimation model for software projects. Procedia Comput. Sci. 54: 353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Baker S, Ponniah D and Smith S 1999 Risk response techniques employed currently for major projects. Construct. Manag. Econ. 17: 205–213

  36. Ben-David I and Raz T 2001 An integrated approach for risk response development in project planning. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 52: 14–25

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Hillson D 2002 Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20: 235–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ward S and Chapman C 2003 Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21: 97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dey P K and Ogunlana S O 2004 Selection and application of risk management tools and techniques for build-operate-transfer projects. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 104: 334–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kasap D and Kaymak M 2007 Risk identification step of the project risk management. Picmet 07 Portl. Int. Cent. Manag. Eng. Technol. pp 2116–2120. 10.1109/picmet.2007.4349543

  41. Zhang J, Cai M, Li X and Mu Z 2011 Prioritizing highway tunnel risk factors with AHP method. In: Inf. Sci. Technol. (ICIST), 2011 Int. Conf. pp 1205–1207

  42. Dey P K 2012 Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis: a case study of Indian oil refinery. Prod. Plan. Control 23: 903–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Oke A E and Ugoje O F 2013 Assessment of rework cost of selected building projects in Nigeria. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 30: 799–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Acebes F, Pajares J, Galán J M and López-Paredes A 2014 A new approach for project control under uncertainty. Going back to the basics. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32: 423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shanmugapriya S and Subramanian K 2015 Structural equation model to investigate the factors influencing quality performance in Indian construction projects. Sadhana 40: 1975–1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pfeifer J, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez J E and Morshedlou N 2015 Quantifying the risk of project delays with a genetic algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170: 34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang J and Yuan H 2016 System dynamics approach for investigating the risk effects on schedule delay in infrastructure projects. J. Manag. Eng. 4016029

  48. Zhao X, Hwang B-G and Gao Y 2016 A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk assessment: a case of Singapore’s green projects. J. Clean Prod. 115: 203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mohammadipour F and Sadjadi S J 2016 Project cost–quality–risk tradeoff analysis in a time-constrained problem. Comput. Ind. Eng. 95: 111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wanjari S P and Dobariya G 2016 Identifying factors causing cost overrun of the construction projects in India. Sādhanā 41: 679–693

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jung W and Han S H 2017 Which risk management is most crucial for controlling project cost? J. Manag. Eng. 33(5): 22–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Malekitabar H, Ardeshir A, Sebt M H, Stouffs R and Teo E A L 2018 On the calculus of risk in construction projects: contradictory theories and a rationalized approach. Saf. Sci. 101: 72–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shen L 1997 Project risk management in Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15: 101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Frimpong Y, Oluwoye J and Crawford L 2003 Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21: 321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sambasivan M and Soon Y W 2007 Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25: 517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang S Q, Tiong R L K, Ting S K and Ashley D 2000 Evaluation and management of foreign exchange and revenue risks in China’s BOT projects. Construct. Manag. Econ. 18: 197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RCG School of Infrastructure Design and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 721302, India

    Vishal Kumar Gupta

  2. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 721302, India

    Jitesh J Thakkar

Authors
  1. Vishal Kumar Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jitesh J Thakkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishal Kumar Gupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, V.K., Thakkar, J.J. A quantitative risk assessment methodology for construction project. Sādhanā 43, 116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-0846-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-0846-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation