Optimizing construction project completion: A risk-based approach

Nurul Ummi, Hadi Setiawan, Putiri Bhuana Katili, Virda Ayu Rahmawati

Abstract


A construction company has a significant issue within the project planning division in determining which construction projects to undertake, as the company only assesses them based on feasibility studies and overall project risks. To support the decision-making process in selecting construction project resolutions, research was conducted to propose selections based on risk criteria. This research aims to establish the risk criteria used, determine the ratings of risk criteria and sub-criteria, and identify project alternatives with the lowest risk ratings. From the data processing results, the risk criteria utilized are contractor risk, financial risk, environmental and natural risk, quality risk, and material risk. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process manual method and Expert Choice 11 software, the ratings for contractor risk are 46%, financial risk 16.2%, environmental & natural risk 5%, quality risk 22.8%, and material risk 10.1%. Sub-criteria risk ratings are as follows: experience 15.2%, performance 30.8%, project funds 13.1%, budget increase 3.1%, social disturbances 3.5%, natural events 1.5%, material quality 8%, design quality 7.5%, building quality 7.2%, material delay 5.9%, and material specification 4.1%. The construction project alternative with the lowest risk rating is the guest house construction project at 0.132. Therefore, the guest house construction project is proposed for immediate prioritized completion.

Keywords


Analytical Hierarchy Process; Construction Project; Risk Criteria; Expert choice

Full Text:

PDF

References


L. Shen, V. W. Y. Tam, L. Tam, and Y. Ji, “Project feasibility study: the key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 254–259, 2010.

E. Tezel and H. Giritli, “A scientometric analysis of studies in Turkey: Driving BIM into facilities management,” Res. Anthol. BIM Digit. Twins Smart Cities, pp. 533–549, 2022.

J. U. M. Smith, Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights, vol. 49, no. 7. 1998.

J. Zeng, M. An, and N. J. Smith, “Application of a fuzzy based decision-making methodology to construction project risk assessment,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 589–600, 2007.

H. Xie and Z. Yang, “The Risk Management Mode of Construction Project Management in the Multimedia Environment of Internet of Things,” Mob. Inf. Syst., vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021.

F. T. Dweiri and M. M. Kablan, “Using fuzzy decision making for the evaluation of the project management internal efficiency,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 712–726, 2006.

K. M. Mazher et al., “Identifying measures of effective risk management for public–private partnership infrastructure projects in developing countries,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 14149, 2022.

K. T. Lee, S. J. Park, and J. H. Kim, “Comparative analysis of managers’ perception in overseas construction project risks and cost overrun in actual cases: a perspective of the Republic of Korea,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2291–2308, 2023.

A. Qazi, J. Quigley, A. Dickson, and K. Kirytopoulos, “Project Complexity and Risk Management ( ProCRiM ): Towards Modelling Project Complexity driven Risk Paths in Construction Projects Management Science Department , Strathclyde Business School , 130 Rottenrow , Glasgow , Economics Department , Strathclyde,” Whart. Res. Sch. J., 2011.

T. F. Abdelmaguid and W. Elrashidy, “Halting decisions for gas pipeline construction projects using AHP: a case study,” Oper. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 179–199, 2019.

P. M. Spanidis, C. Roumpos, and F. Pavloudakis, “A fuzzy-ahp methodology for planning the risk management of natural hazards in surface mining projects,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–23, 2021.

G. Y. Din and A. B. Yunusova, “Using AHP for evaluation of criteria for agro-industrial projects,” … Journal of Horticulture and …. pdfs.semanticscholar.org, 2016.

N. Praščević and Ž. Praščević, “Application of Fuzzy AHP Method based on Eigenvalues for Decision Making in Construction Industry,” Teh. Vjesn., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 57–64, 2016.

D. Danesh, M. Ryan, and A. Abbasi, “Using Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Decision-Making Tool in Project Portfolio Management,” World Acad. Sci. Eng. …, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 4054–4064, 2015.

T. A. Carbone and D. D. Tippett, “Project risk management using the project risk fmea,” EMJ - Eng. Manag. J., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 28–35, 2004.

S. Iqbal, R. M. Choudhry, K. Holschemacher, A. Ali, and J. Tamošaitienė, “Risk management in construction projects,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 65–78, 2015.

F. Afzal, S. Yunfei, D. Junaid, and M. S. Hanif, “Cost-risk contingency framework for managing cost overrun in metropolitan projects: Using fuzzy-AHP and simulation,” Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1121–1139, 2020.

H. X. Li, M. Al-Hussein, Z. Lei, and Z. Ajweh, “Risk identification and assessment of modular construction utilizing fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and simulation,” Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1184–1195, 2013.

S. Unver and I. Ergenc, “Safety risk identification and prioritize of forest logging activities using analytic hierarchy process (AHP),” Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1591–1599, 2021.

T. L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 1990.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.62870/jiss.v10i1.24868

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


  is supported by