CASO 1: MULTICRITERIO EN LA TOMA DE DECISIONES (MODELO DE

PROCESO ANALÍTICO JERÁRQUICO) CON APOYO DE EXCEL

Usted desea comprar una residencia en Antofagasta y desea seguir un proceso analítico
de decisiones. Tiene tres alternativas:

1) Departamento en lado Sur

2) Casa en lado Norte
3) Departamento en la Costa

Además han definido cuatro criterios para la selección:

A. Costo
B. Seguridad
C. Servicios y
D. Cercanía a su lugar de trabajo.

Utilice la planilla definida para realizar su análisis y determinar la mejor alternativa, considere
inicialmente los datos siguientes:

Proceso Analítico Jerárquico (AHP)

Costo Seguridad Servicios Cercania

Costo 1 2 5 7
Seguridad 1/2 1 3 5
Servicios 1/5 1/3 1 5
Cercania 1/7 1/5 1/5 1

CRITERIO: Costo
Departamento Sur Casa Norte Departamento Costa
Departamento Sur 1 2 7
Casa Norte 1/2 1 2
Departamento Costa 1/7 1/2 1

CRITERIO: Seguridad
Departamento Sur Casa Norte Departamento Costa
Departamento Sur 1 5 1/3
Casa Norte 1/5 1 1/7
Departamento Costa 3 7 1

CRITERIO: Servicios
Departamento Sur Casa Norte Departamento Costa
Departamento Sur 1 1/7 1/2
Casa Norte 7 1 4
Departamento Costa 2 1/4 1

CRITERIO: Cercania
Departamento Sur Casa Norte Departamento Costa
Departamento Sur 1 1/8 1/4
Casa Norte 8 1 3
Departamento Costa 4 1/3 1
 CASO 1b: MULTICRITERIO EN ANALISIS DE RIESGOS CON FUZZY LOGIC
(MODELO FAHP)

Revise rápidamente el artículo "Identifying and Evaluating Risks of Construction Projects in

Fuzzy Environment: A Case Study in Iranian Construction Industry", y particularmente la sección
número 4 "Case Study: Iranian Construction Industry".

En un grupo de tres alumnos seleccione cuatro riesgos de la tabla 17. Luego realice un análisis
FAHP y prepare una presentación con el resultado de su trabajo. Considere cada alumno como un
stakeholder.

Utilice la planilla definida para realizar su análisis.

 CASO 2: ANALISIS DEL PUNTO DE EQUILIBRIO CON APOYO
DE EXCEL

Automotora Fast Ldta. vende automóviles chinos en Antofagasta y desea determinar cual es la
cantidad mínima de unidades que debe vender mensualmente para tener una utilidad positiva.

Se tienen los siguientes datos:

• Los costos de arriendo y servicios suma mensualmente $18.300.000.Este valor incluye el

sueldo de una secretaria por 500.000 y dos vendedores por 1.000.000 cada uno
• El precio de compra de los automóviles puesto en Antofagasta es de $4.635.000 y el precio
de venta de $4.900.000.

Utilizando la planilla definida para responder las siguientes preguntas:

a) Si la empresa vende 70 unidades mensuales, ¿pierde o gana dinero?

b) ¿Cuanto debiera vender en pesos mensualmente para alcanzar su PE? Grafique su respuesta.
c) Por una crisis se proyecta que solo podrá vender 65 unidades en el fututo, ¿cuál seria el nuevo
precio a cobrar?
d) ¿Cuál es el efecto en el PE de un aumento del 10% de remuneraciones?
 CASO 3: ESTUDIO ECONOMICO EN DISTINTOS ESCENARIOS CON APOYO
DE EXCEL
Usted es el propietario de una tienda de segunda mano que revende ropa y artículos para
el hogar en una ciudad universitaria en EE.UU. Muchos de sus clientes son estudiantes
universitarios. Su negocio es inusual, ya que las ventas, en realidad, aumentan durante una
recesión económica. El costo de la obtención de artículos usados, básicamente, sigue el índice de
precios al consumidor (IPC).

Es a finales del año 2011, y el negocio ha ido muy bien debido a la continua
recesión. Usted está pensando en expandir su negocio comprando una tienda que está en venta al
lado de la suya, pero usted tendrá que solicitar un préstamo para financiar este proyecto. El banco
requiere una proyección de sus ganancias y flujos de efectivo durante los próximos dos años antes
de prestarle el dinero para ampliar su negocio, por lo que tiene que determinar su ingreso neto
(ganancia) y flujos de efectivo para el 2012 y 2013. Usted ha decido que su pronóstico debe
basarse en cuatro factores:

1) Las ventas en dólares del 2011,

2) el costo de ventas por cada dólar de ventas,
3) sus estimaciones del estado de la economía,
4) y la cantidad del pago y la tasa de interés del préstamo.

Dado que va a presentar este modelo a los posibles bancos prestamistas, usted decide
usar un estado de ingresos y flujo de efectivo como soporte. Se especificará los valores de dos
estados posibles de la economía para 2012 y 2013: “R” para una continúa recesión y “B” para un
boom (recuperación). Sus ventas en la recesión fueron creciendo a un 20% por año. Si la recesión
continúa y se expande el negocio, se espera que las ventas continúen creciendo a un 30%
por año. Sin embargo, si la economía se recupera, algunos de sus clientes optarán por comprar
"nuevo", por lo que esperamos que el crecimiento en ventas de su tienda de segunda mano sea de
15% respecto al año anterior (sólo el 5% de crecimiento más un 10% por la expansión del
negocio). Si no se expande, los porcentajes de crecimiento en recesión o en boom sólo serán del
20% y 5%, respectivamente. Para determinar el costo de ventas de la compra de su mercancía,
que actualmente es el 70% de sus ventas, especificará los valores de dos puntos de vista posibles
de precios al consumidor: “H” para la alta inflación (1,06 multiplicado por el costo promedio de
ventas) y “L” de baja inflación (1,02 multiplicado por el costo de bienes vendidos). Usted es
propietario actualmente de la mitad de la tienda y tendrá que pedir prestado $100.000 para
comprar y renovar la otra mitad. El banco ha indicado que, en función de su pronóstico, puede
estar dispuesto a prestarle el dinero para su expansión a un 5% de interés durante la actual
recesión con un pago de 10 años compuesto anual ("R"). Sin embargo, si la tasa de interés
preferencial cae a principios de 2012 debido a una recuperación económica ("B"), el banco puede
bajar su tasa de interés al 4% con los mismos plazos de amortización. Como empresario, un tema
de interés inmediato es la posición de flujo de efectivo con la carga adicional de un pago del
préstamo. Después de todo, uno de sus principales objetivos es obtener un beneficio (ingresos
netos después de impuestos). ¿Es más rentable ampliar o no el negocio?

Para sus cálculos considere ratios de impuesto de 33% y 35% para 2012 y 2013
respectivamente, además que la venta total de 2011 fue USD $ 350.000 y que el dinero en efectivo
al final de ese año fueron USD $15.000.
 CASO A
Ejercicio de repaso del valor del dinero a través en el tiempo

Utilizando la planilla Excel Matemáticas Financieras 2012 determine:

1. El pago total de un crédito por $4.636.785 al final del período 6 con una tasa de interés
simple del 4,9%.
2. El pago total de un crédito por $4.631.935 al final del período 10 con una tasa de interés
compuesto del 8%.
3. El valor presente de una anualidad de $50.000 por cinco años considerando una de tasa de
7% (compuesta).
4. Determine el valor presente neto dada una TMAR de 22% y los siguientes flujos
Periodo FNE
0 ($112.387)
1 $22.000
2 $50.000
3 $67.000
4 $25.000
5 $34.000
¿Cuál es el TIR?

5. Su TMAR es 27% y tiene $92.000 totales para invertir en 5 posibles proyectos alternativos
(A, B, C, D y E). Estos son los flujos (período 0 es inversión) de los proyectos:

Períodos
0 1 2 3 4
A ($50.000) $25.000 $34.000 $20.000 $22.000

B ($30.000) $43.433 $12.000 $12.000 $12.000

C ($19.000) $14.000 $17.000

D ($15.000) $5.000 $15.000 $12.000 $5.000

E ($10.000) $6.000 $6.000 $6.000 $16.000

Se le informa que se pueden realizar las siguientes combinaciones de proyectos:

- A, C,D y E
- A, B y E
- B, C y D

¿Cuál combinación es la mejor? (¿Si aumenta su total a invertir a $100.000?)

 CASO B
CREACIÓN DE UNA EMPRESA. VALORACIÓN DEL PROYECTO

Un grupo de amigos decide crear una empresa. Para ello deberán invertir en unos terrenos
valorados en 10.000.000 de euros, en unas instalaciones valoradas en 6.000.000 de euros y en un
determinado capital circulante. Con estos activos se generan unos cobros por ventas de productos
de 12.000.000 €/año, con los siguientes pagos por gastos de funcionamiento, que pueden
considerarse constantes en el tiempo: materia prima (mp): 4.000.000 €/año; mano de obra (mo):
1.000.000 €/año; gastos generales (gg): 2.000.000 €/año.

También sabemos que:

− Las instalaciones se amortizan contable (CAcontable) y fiscalmente (CAfiscal) en 3 años de

forma lineal.
− Período medio (PM) de 36 días y año de 360 días.
− El costo medio ponderado de capital después de impuestos será de 10%.
− La tasa impositiva (t) será el 30%.
− La empresa piensa liquidarse al final de tercer año, siendo el precio de venta de los
terrenos de 12.000.000 de euros, el de las instalaciones de 1.000.000 de euros y el capital
circulante se recupera en su totalidad.

Con estos datos se desea conocer:

1. El capital invertido (incluyendo la necesidad de activos corrientes)
2. La dimensión financiera de la inversión
3. El valor actual neto de la inversión
4. La tasa interna de rentabilidad del proyecto (utilice la función TIR de Excel).

Trabaje en miles de euros y suponga que las corrientes de renta y tesorería coinciden.
 CASO C
LA EMPRESA C. VARGAS, S.A.

La empresa de agroturismo C. VARGAS, S.A. tiene previsto realizar una inversión de turismo rural
en la Sierra norte de Sevilla. Consiste en la explotación de 15 cabañas rurales, cuyo coste de
adquisición e instalación asciende a 10.000 euros cada una. Además, es necesario acometer obras
de acondicionamiento por 300.000 euros para la construcción de un embarcadero, un depósito de
agua y otras inversiones varias. El total de la cuota de amortización contable por los anteriores
activos sería de 112.500 euros cada año, estando la totalidad de la cuota admitida como gasto
fiscal.
El proyecto se desarrollaría en cuatro ejercicios económicos (años), y al final de éstos se venderían
los anteriores activos (tanto los fijos como los circulantes) al propietario de la finca donde se
instalaría el negocio por 15.000 euros. Durante los cuatro años, el propietario recibirá en concepto
de alquiler 12.000 euros anuales.
La capacidad máxima que soportan las cabañas es de diez personas, previéndose una ocupación
media diaria del 50% durante los próximos cuatro años. El precio medio de una estancia de tres
días por persona se estima en 60 euros. Además, se han previsto ingresos procedentes de la
restauración y de las actividades deportivas que van a realizarse. Con todas estas estimaciones, se
calcula que los ingresos de explotación totales ascenderán a 580.000 euros al año.
Los gastos de explotación anuales se reparten entre materia prima, 150.000 euros; mano de obra,
160.000 euros, y gastos generales (no incluyen el alquiler) 38.000 euros.
La financiación del proyecto se compone de:

− Capital social por 220.000 euros, con una política de dividendos del 10% sobre el nominal.
− 240.000 euros, con un préstamo bancario a tres años, al 6% de interés anual vencido sobre
saldos dispuestos, con amortización lineal.

Se da por supuesto que la corriente renta coincide con la corriente tesorería, que el período medio
de la empresa es de 10 días (año 360), que el capital circulante no se recupera y que la tasa
impositiva es del 30%:

1. Valore el proyecto y represente la dimensión financiera de la inversión.

2. Coste de los recursos, CMPC.
3. Suponiendo una rentabilidad mínima a exigir a la inversión del 10%, determine si es
factible, desde el punto de vista económico, la futura empresa.
 CASO D
EVALUACION ECONOMICA DE PROYECTOS CON ESCENARIOS
A. Considere el siguiente caso de evaluación de proyecto de inversión a 5 años con una
TMAR del 25%.

Sabemos que:
La inversión inicial se ha determinado en 900, el 50% será para activos fijos (que se deprecian a 5
años) y el resto como capital de trabajo, considere que este capital de trabajo no se recupera al
final del proyecto y que el valor de salvamento de los activos fijos es cero.
Para financiar la inversión se solicitará un préstamo bancario por el 40% del total, el resto será
financiado con capital propio. Este préstamo se pagará en 5 años con una tasa de interés que se
estima dependerá del estado de la economía, tal como sigue:

Crecimiento económico Tasa de interés

Alto 12%
Medio 15%
Nulo 20%

Los ingresos anuales del proyecto también se estiman para el primer año en 1.400, y su posible
crecimiento los siguientes 4 años dependerá del estado de la economía, tal como sigue:

Crecimiento económico Crecimiento anual de

ingresos
Alto 10%
Medio 5%
Nulo 0%

Los costos de producción anuales del proyecto se estiman con un componente variable,
equivalente a un porcentaje de los ingresos, sumado un componente fijo, equivalente a la
depreciación del total de los activos fijos. Para el primer año este componente variable es un 25%
de los ingresos, y los siguientes 4 años dependerá de una tasa asociada a los posibles avances
tecnológicos, tal como sigue:
Tasa de disminución de costos % de los ingresos
Alta 20%
Baja 23%
Nula 25%

Los costos de administración anuales se estiman para todo el proyecto como el 2% de los costos
de producción, igualmente los costos de ventas anuales se estiman para todo el proyecto como el
5% de los ingresos.
La tasa de impuesto sobre la renta anual se deben calcular como un 20% sobre las utilidades
brutas. Se desea realizar un reparto de utilidades equivalente al 60% de las utilidades brutas.

1. Evalué el proyecto en todos los escenarios establecidos.

2. ¿Qué pasa con una TMAR = 10%?

B. Considere los datos anteriores y determine el costo efectivo del crédito que la empresa
solicitara para todos los escenarios posibles de crecimiento económico.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846

Identifying and Evaluating Risks of Construction Projects in Fuzzy Environment: A Case

Study in Iranian Construction Industry

A. Sotoodeh Gohar1 , M. Khanzadi1, Maryam Farmani2,*

1
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran.
2
Department of IT Management, Electronic Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
* m.farmani  58@yahoo.com

Abstract
There is uncertainty in success of large scale construction projects in terms of time, cost, and quality due to technological constraints,
large number of stakeholders, long time, much capital requirements, and improper definition of scope of the project. Such projects with
uncertain environment can be managed using the risk management concept in the project life cycle. Although concept of the risk depends
on the management’s opinions, it represents obstacles on not meeting the project’s goals as well. In addition, analyzing the risk of the
whole project can present perils regarding the extension of improper reactions. The present paper presents a quantitative method based
on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to manage the risk of construction projects in the uncertain environment. To
do so, after identifying all risk factors, fuzzy AHP is applied to determine the priority of risk factors. The priority of risk factors could
help construction project managers to do preventive attempts. The proposed method applied the fuzzy AHP approach such that it covers
uncertainty present in the experts’ opinions.
Keywords: Construction Projects; Risk Evaluation; Fuzzy Logic; Analytic Hierarchy Process.

1.  Introduction
Evaluating and analyzing the risks of a project and planning
to manage them are the most critical steps should be done in
the project definition stage. Risk evaluation and analysis were
ignored. Only after occurrence of unfavourable consequences of
risks, managers of projects could understand the importance of
risk management. Nowadays, almost every project is of its risks.
There are numerous definitions of risks in the scientific
sources. Rowe (1997) defines the risk as the potential negative
consequence(s) of an activity or an occurrence. In PMBOK (Edition
2004), the risk is defined as discrete happenings with negative or
positive effects on the project. Despite of varied definitions for the
risk, all contain a unique concept. In most of definitions for the
risk, two aspects “loss” and “uncertainty” have been mentioned.
Risk management is a system to identify and quantify all risks of
a project/business in order to intelligent decision making (Flanagan
and Norman 1993). PMI (2004) considers the risk management as
the systematic practice of management policies, procedures, and
processes related to activities on the risk analysis, evaluation, and
control. Thus, the risk management is the documentation process
of the final decisions, identifying and applying criteria which are
used to reduce the risk to the acceptable level. PMI (2004), in its
guide on general knowledge of the project management (Edition
2004), presents six phases of the risk management as follows: 1)
risk management planning, 2) risk identification, 3) quantitative
risk analysis, 4) qualitative risk analysis, 5) risk response planning,
and 6) risk control and supervision.
Risk identification is defined as detecting, classifying,
and documenting the risks influencing on the project and their
specifications. First, a list including all potential occurrences and
a list of different scenarios and causes regarding each occurrence
are provided. Risk identification is a repetitive process which
is performed by a part of project management team. The risk
identification process uses the risk management plans, objective
planning, time and cost estimation and schedules, resources
assignment, limitation list, different classes of risk, information of
previous projects. Also, following methods are applied to identify
risks and their causes in the risk identification process.
The word risk analysis was introduced by Hertz (1984). Hertz
(1984) proposed using the computer simulation for extracting the
distribution of risks in the investment projects. Basically, the risk
management is not a new concept and it has been applied natively
using experts’ opinions (Mills 2001). People usually tend to use
their direct intuitive understandings, experiences, and judgements
in the decision making in the construction projects. According to
Baker et al. (1999), the risk management has been applied formally
in the construction projects as an integrated process in the recent
decades. This is due to fast growth of technology. Therefore, risk
and risk management is the construction projects is a certain issue
in recent decades. Flanagan et al. (1993) and Smith (1999) define
the construction project as a set of non-repetitive activities with
unique specifications such as long term period, complex processes,
and unfavorable environment, financial/investment issues, and
dynamic organizational structure. There are different methods of
risk evaluation. The construction projects are naturally of imposing
uncertainties which their analysis depends on the analyzer’s
mentality. Thus, many risk assessment methods cannot be applied.
Fuzzy inference technique is a useful method for managing the
complex and not well-defined problems such as those are in
construction projects. For instance, Tah and Carr (2000) applied

Research article 3593 www.indjst.org

Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846
the fuzzy logic for risk assessment in the construction projects. In
addition, Kuchta (2001) evaluated risk in the construction projects
using fuzzy numbers. Also, Baloi and Price (2003) used fuzzy set
theory in the risk management. Zheng and Ng (2005) analyzed
cost and time in the construction projects management, risk
management, and productivity using the fuzzy set theory. Kangari
(1988) presented the knowledge based system using the fuzzy sets
for construction projects risk management. Such system called
risk-expert performs risk analysis in two separate conditions:
before construction and during the construction. Although an
extensive research has been conducted to extend basic concepts of
the fuzzy sets, the fuzzy operations in Kangari (1988) need to get
standardized.
Paek et al. (1993) and Tah et al. (1993) analyzed the proposed
criteria for assessment of risks in pricing while risk present in
pricing is one of risk types in the construction projects before the
project get started. Tah and Carr (2000) used a hierarchical risk
breakdown to provide a model for qualitative risk assessment
in the construction projects. Cho et al. (2002) proposed a new
approach for risk assessment with combining uncertainty (using
fuzzy concepts) and traditional frameworks of risk assessment.
To reach this goal, Cho et al. (2002) presented a new form
of fuzzy membership curves (a revised form of risk analysis
and management for projects (RAMP)) in order to consider
uncertainty ranges (degree of uncertainties with two parameters:
probabilistic and personal judgements). It should be noted that as
in the construction projects usually data of the previous projects
are not available, the approach of Cho et al. (2002) could not be
applied efficiently.
Ch oi et al. (2004) presented a methodology for risk
assessment of underground construction projects. The authors
provided methods and tools to evaluate and manage risks present
in the underground construction projects based on fuzzy sets.
Dikmen and Birgonul (2006) presented a methodology to fuzzy
risk assessment for international construction projects. The
proposed methodology uses effect diagrams to build the risk
model and a fuzzy risk assessment approach to estimate priority of
risks in terms of extra costs over the budget. Lee and Lin (2008)
presented a novel method for fuzzy risk assessment in which the
fuzzy numbers were directly used instead of linguistic variables.
Fuzzy logic has been applied for risk evaluation in other
projects: Lee et al. (2003) for assessment of risks in application
development, Liadis (2005) for evaluation of risk of fire, Ngai and
Wat (2005) for assessment of risks in E-commerce development,
Serguieve and Hunter (2004) for investment risk, and Sadiq and
Husian (2005) for environmental risks.
Multi-criteria decision making is a proper analysis process
to evaluate and estimate losses related to alternatives regarding
a number of criteria. Tsaur et al. (1997) mentioned that a part of
multi- criteria decision making problems are those with focus
on ranking and evaluating set of possible alternatives with
www.indjst.org 3594
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
considering different factors. One of common methods of multi-
criteria decision making is the analytic hierarchy process method.
The AHP technique, a well-known decision making method, is
easily understandable distinguishing it from other multi-criteria/
attributes decision making approaches.
Mustafa and Al-Bahar firstly applied AHP to evaluate risks
in construction projects in uncertain environment in Bangladesh.
Zayed et al. (2008), through identifying two major scopes affecting
on highway projects (organization and project as the main level
and lower level, respectively) and evaluating their effects on risks,
provided a risk model facilitating the evaluation and ranking of the
organization’s projects. Zayed et al. (2008) designed the risk model
using AHP. Azuma and Miyagi (2009) presented a new approach
based on AHP for the risk evaluation. In their proposed approach,
the traditional AHP evaluation was considered as the utility. Then,
degree of importance related to each risk was replaced with the
value of utility.
Wang et al. (2008) used an integrated AHP and data envelop-
ment analysis (DEA) to evaluate risks in the bridge construction
projects. Wang and Elhag (2007) applied the fuzzy group decision
making approach to assess the risks in constructing the bridge.
They showed that the fuzzy group decision making approach is
flexible, operational, and effective in modeling the risks in bridge
construction. Then, the current paper uses a fuzzy AHP method to
evaluate risks of construction projects in Iran.
2.  Identifying Risks Factors In Construction
Projects
Analyzing critical causes of failure and success in construction
projects is one of useful methods in identification of risk factors.
Failure and success factors (risks) were introduced by Rubin and
Seeling (1967) for the first time. They analyzed effects of project
managers’ experience on the failure and success of the project.
Avots (1969) followed the research and identified causes of the
project failure. Avots (1969) identified miss-selection of the
project manager, unplanned terminate stage of the project, and
no support from the top management as the major causes of the
project failure. Hughes (1986) studied factors influencing on the
project performance. Hughes (1986) concluded that the projects
failure come from improper management principles such as lack of
focus, wrong activities, and vagueness of the project’s objectives.
Zou et al. (2006) believe that variety of stakeholders’ interests can
intensify changeability and complexity of risks in the construction
projects. Table 1 shows some studies on risk factors identification
in the construction projects.
As mentioned, the first step of the risk management is the
risk identification in which potential risks related to construction
projects are identified. The risks classification, as an integrated part
of the risk identification process, creates a structure for different
risk effect on the project. Perry and Hayes (1985) presented a list
of risks in construction projects in three groups: risks controllable
by contractors, risks controllable by consultancies, and risks
Research article
Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846

Table 1. Risk factors in construction projects extracted from the literature review

Researchers
Belassi and Tukel (1996)
Tah and Carr (2000)
Bunni (2003)
Baloi and Price (2003)
Iyer and Jha (2005)
Zeng et al. (2007)
Dikmen et al.. (2007)
Saqib et al. (2008)
Zayed et al. (2008)
Zavadskas et al. (2010)
Wang and Yuan (2011)
Criteria
Factors related to the project/factors related to project managers and team members/factors
related to the organization/factors related to the project external environment
Internal risks/external risks
Geographical position/project complexity/legal issues/risk outcomes/contract
Project auditors/design/competition/cheat/project nature/economy/political climate
Project manager’s commitment/top management support/coordinating between the project manager and
skills management/supervision and feedback/project shareholders/owners
competence and favourable climate
Human factors/workplace factors/materials factors/equipment factors
Industrial risks/managerial risks/resources risks/productivity risks/design risks/payment risk (money)/cli-
ent risk/stakeholders risk
Project management/risks of procurement/factors of clients/factors related to design
team/factors of contractors/factors of project managers/factors of business environment
Technology/contracts and legal issues/resources/design/quality/construction/others
Political/economical/social/climate/time/cost/quality/technical/building/resoy=urces/project team mem-
bers/project location/documents
Decision making consequences/engineering experience/completeness of project information/external
information criticality/decision motivation/professional knowledge/knowledge scope/boldness/judgement
power/company economy/social experience/values/interest in technical
issues/interest in reaching the decision goals/external economic environment

controllable by clients. Tah et al. (1993) used the risk breakdown
structure for classification of risks regarding their origin and
effects on the project. Flanagan and Norman (1993) presented
three ways to classify the risks using combining the holistic
doctrine (of the general systems theory) and the work breakdown
structure arrangement. The three ways are as: identification of
risks outcomes, identification of risk types, and identification
risks influences. Dias and Ioannou (1995) classified the origin
and sources of risks in 10 groups: country, unexpected accidents,
physical, financial, construction, benefits, advance, logistics
and procurement, extension, and operational risks. Wirba et al.
(1996) combined approaches of Tah et al. (1993) and Cooper and
Chapman (1987). In the combined approach of Wirba et al. (1996),
risks are wholy classified. Then, risks are grouped into initial and
secondary classes. Chapman (2001) divides risks in four subsets:
environment, clients, industry, and project. Shen et al. (2001)
classified identified risks of construction projects in six major
groups according to the risks’ nature. The six groups are as follows:
financial risks, legal risks, management risks, market risks, policy
risks, and technical risks. Zou et al. (2007), through evaluating
construction projects in China, classified risks of construction
projects in five groups: cost, time, quality, environment, and safety.
3.  Fuzzy AHP
Multi-criteria decision-making methods are effective tools
that assist in confronting decision challenging. Analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) is as one of the popular methods used in multi criteria
decision-making processes (Sotoudeh Gohar, 2011). Saaty (1980,
1986) defines analytic hierarchy process as a decision method
Research article
that decomposes a complex multi-criteria decision problem into a
hierarchy. One of the main benefits of AHP is its relative easiness
with which it handles multiple criteria. AHP allows decision
makers to model a complex problem in a hierarchical structure
which consists of the goal, objectives (criteria), sub-objectives,
and alternatives (Saaty, 1990). Traditional methods of AHP cannot
be used when uncertainty in data of problems is observed (Hahn,
2003). To address such uncertainties, Zadeh (1965) for the first
time introduced the fuzzy set theory, which was based on the
rationality of uncertainty due to imprecision or vagueness. A major
contribution of fuzzy set theory is its capability of representing
uncertainty knowledge. Because our around world is actually full
of ambiguities or in one word is fuzzy, several researchers have
combined fuzzy theory with AHP. Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz
(1983) proposed the first method of implementing Fuzzy AHP
in 1983 in which triangular fuzzy numbers were compared
according to their membership functions. FAHP method was used
in various research areas for decision making in different fields
such as selecting, prioritizing, evaluating, and so on. Readers can
refer to Azadeh et al.. (2010, 2011), Rezaie et al.. (2009), Nazari-
Shirkouhi et al.. (2011), and Iranmanesh et al.., (2008) for more
studies and applications. Required steps for applying FAHP in
evaluating construction risk factors are as follows.
The first step in fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is establishing
a hierarchal tree based on our goal which here is evaluating the
construction project factors.
According to Kaufmann and Gupta (1988), triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs) help the decision maker to make easier decisions.
Hence, in this paper TFN is used as the membership function.
3595 www.indjst.org
 Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846 Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Membership function of a TFN is as equation (1) and is shown by C1 C2 ... C n

the triplet (l, m, u).
C1  1 a12  a1n 

C 2 1/ a12 1  a2 n 
 x −l A [a=
= ij ] (7)
m −l l≤x≤m       
  
C n 1/ a1n 1/ a2 n  1 
 u -x
U ( x) 
= m≤x≤u (1) The Liou and Wang’s method (1992) to defuzzify fuzzy matrix
 u -m A into crisp matrix hα ,β is shown in (8-9):
0 Otherwise
 (aij ) [β . fα (lij ) + (1 − β ). fα (uij )], 0 ≤ α , β ≤ 1
hα ,β= (8)

Saaty (1986) proposed pair-wise comparisons to create the hα ,β ( aij ) 1/ hα ,β ( a ji ), 0 ≤ α , β ≤ 1 : i > j
= (9)
fuzzy judgment matrix. equation (2) illustrate the pair-wise
In which (α), (β) are preference and risk tolerance of the
comparisons or fuzzy judgment matrix which used in AHP
decision maker, respectively.
technique. Number aij indicates the relative importance of criterion
The single pair wise comparison matrix is stated in (10).
i (Ci) in comparison with criterion j (Cj) in the scale of Saaty
C1 C2 ... Cn
(1980). 1 hα ,β (a12 )  hα ,β (a1n ) 
C1 
c1 c2 ... cn 
C2 1/ hα ,β (a12 ) 1  hα ,β (a2 n ) 

hα ,β ( A ) h=
= α ,β ([ a
ij ]) (10)
      
c1  1 a12  a1n  
Cn 1/ hα ,β (a1n ) 1/ hα ,β (a2 n )  1
 (10)


  c2 1 / a21 1  a2 n 
=A =a   (2)
 ij        
  To validate the consistency of the matrix, Saaty (1980)
cn 1 / a1n 1 / a2 n  1  proposes consistency index (C.I.) and consistency ratio (C.R).
Where Random index (R.I.) shows the average consistency index over
aij = 1: ∀i = j; aij = 1
a ji : ∀i ≠ j numerous random entries of the same order reciprocal matrices. The
value of R.I depends on the Saaty’s Scale (1980). If C.R. < 0.1
FAHP substitutes crisp number aij by triangular fuzzy numbers. , the approximation is accepted; otherwise, a new comparison
Because each number in the matrix A shows the experts’ judgment, matrix is solicited.
fuzzy numbers are the best solution for translating expert opinions.
To find the Consistency Index (C.I.), first we must calculate
The Eigenvector method which is proposed by Buckley (1985)  ) . The number λ is defined
eigen-value of the matrix hα ,β ( A max
is used in this paper to analyze and achieve the consensus of the  ) calculated by (11-12):
as the eigen-value of the matrix hα ,β ( A
experts. As above mentioned, TFN can be shown by the triplet
(l, m, u). The equations (4-6) show the minimum possible, most hα ,β ( A ).W − λ max .W =0 (11)
likely and the maximum possible value of a fuzzy number (l, m,
[hα ,β ( A ) − λ max ]. W =
0 (12)
u). Triangular fuzzy number ( U ij ) is established as the following
according to Saaty Scale: In which W is the eigenvector of matrix hα ,β ( A  ) and also
= U ij (lij , mij , uij ) : lij ≤ mij ≤ uij lij , mij , uij ∈[1/ 9, 9] W indicates the weights of criteria C1 to Cn. After calculating
(3)
λ max , values of C.I. and C.R. can be calculated according to
lij = min( B ) (4) equations (13-14):
ijk
λ −n
n C .I . = max (13)
mij = n ∏ B (5) n −1
1 ijk
C .I .
C .R . = (14)
uij = max( B ) (6) R .I .
ijk After calculating the local weights for all levels of the hierar-
In which Bijk show the relative importance of criteria Ci and Cj chical tree to evaluate construction risk factors, we can find the fi-
given by expert k. nal weight of the alternatives or final level of hierarchical tree and
Matrix A  (7) is defined for the rest of AHP method. The then the decision makers can make decision based on the weight
number aij in Matrix A  is a triangular fuzzy number and shows of alternatives.
the relative importance of criteria Ci and Cj according to equations
4.  Case Study: Iranian Construction Industry
(3-6):
The present paper aims to determine priority of risk factors
In this step, we need defuzification process. In this paper, the
related to construction projects. Thus, it is required to have a
method proposed by Liou and Wang in (1992) is used:
www.indjst.org 3596 Research article
Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846

group of experienced experts working in construction projects

to answer the questionnaires. Due to multi-dimensional nature
of construction project which need experienced and skilful
people in fields such as projects, construction, project activities,
management, financial management, and also regarding the
similar research by Tueysuez and Kahraman (2006) (they used
opinions of 11 information technology (IT) managers to evaluate
risks of IT projects.), in this paper managers of construction
projects in big companies Mahabghodss Consulting Engineering
Co., Kayson Co., , Perlite-Co., and Boland Payeh Co., are selected
as the experts statistical population. The mentioned companies
have had big construction projects. Mahabghodss Consulting
Engineering Co. has had projects of study and design of more
than 200 dams and has supervised construction of more than 45
dams and many other construction operations. Kayson  Co. has
built 10,000 apartments in Venezuela, Tehran fruit market, Navvab
highways’ buildings, Sattar-khan mall, and Tehran book garden.
The Perlite-Co., has had big construction projects such as Tohid
tunnel, Resalat tunnel, Masjed Soleiman dam, and Chabahar port.
The Boland Payeh Co. has had big projects such as Milad tower,
Shahed University, Qeshm’s Kaveh dock, Karoon 3 dam, and
power stations in Shanad, Arak, Isfahan, Kazeroon, and Yazd, and
Bojnoord cement factory, Karoon, and Zabol. Totally, 35 experts
in construction projects are identified as the statistical population
Fig.1. The hierarchical structure of identified risk factors
4.1  Identifying Risks of Iranian Construction
Projects
Keeny and Raiffa (1993), to formulate and create hierarchical
structure of criteria, mentions follows five basic principles:
integrity (criteria should include all important specifications
of decision making problems.), practicality (criteria should be
meaningful for decision makers and should be accessible for an
open study.), decomposability (criteria should be decomposed
from higher hierarchy to the lower hierarchy in order to facilitate
evaluation processes), not reputability (criteria should avoid from
re-measurement of similar performance.), and minimum number
(number of criteria should be as much as possible low to decrease
time, human resources, and costs.). In the present research, the
hierarchical structure related to risk factors in construction projects
has been created based on these principles. The risk factors are
identified through a comprehensive literature review and experts’
opinions. To satisfy the principle practicality of risk factors, the
identified factors have been localized by experts according to
situation of Iranian construction projects. The decomposability of
factors has been considered in two levels major factors and sub-
factors in such way that major factors and sub-factors overlap
the least (which leads to minimum repeatability). To simplify
calculations, we reduce number of risk factors as much as possible.

Risk Factors

operational Financial Project Management Project type

contract risks External risks
risks risks risks risks
(C5) (C3)
(C6) (C4) (C2) (C1)

contract responsibility definition of number of activities

Fraud (C61) project funding Political (C31)
(C51) objectives (C21) (C11)
(C41)

personnel and he organization

Defect in structure or Guarantee and pay for materials expenses (C Sub-Contractors (C32 familiarity level (C12
Executive managers
failure of operations the losses (C52) 42) ) )
support (C22)
(C62)
Construction site
Deadlines clause (C Investment (C43) conditions (C33) Selection of the Project density (C13)
Losses to equipment 53) project team (C23)
and properties of
contractors (C63) Top management
deposit to account Business (C44) Losses and physical Emergency (C14)
clauses (C54) support (C24)
damages (C34)

Losses and damages

to the organization`s Communication ways
equipment (C64) (C25)

Design (C26)

of the current study. 35 questionnaires are distributed among
experts. Only 20 questionnaires were collected from the experts
among them Mahabghodss, Kayson, Perlite, and Boland Payeh
companies had six, five, five, and four questionnaires, respectively.
Figure 1 shows the hierarchical structure related to risk factors of
construction projects in Iran.
4.2  Aggregating the Experts’ Opinions
In the present research, opinions of 15 experts are aggregated.
Values above the diagonal of the Tables 2 to 8 indicate seven
matrixes of Buckley (1985) method for experts’ opinions.

Research article 3597 www.indjst.org

Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846 Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Table 2. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts for the first level of the hierarchical structure
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 (1,1,1) (0.11, 0.30, 4) (0.13, 0.50,6) (0.11, 0.22,4) (0.11, 0.49,8) (0.11, 0.68, 8)

C2 - (1,1,1) (0.11, 1.21,8) (0.11, 0.31,5) (0.11, 0.61,9) (0.17, 1.63,9)

C3 - - (1,1,1) (0.11, 0.19, 0.50) (0.11, 0.44,6) (0.11,0.47,6)
C4 - - - (1,1,1) (0.17,2.77,8) (0.17,3.7,9)
C5 - - - - (1,1,1) (0.17,1.82,9)
C6 - -- - - - (1,1,1)

Table 3. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts for sub-factors C1

C11 C12 C13 C14
C11 (1,1,1) (0.11, 0.34, 6) (0.13, 0.61,8) (0.13, 0.48,6)
C12 - (1,1,1) (1, 3.07,8) (0.25, 1.65,8)
C13 - - (1,1,1) (0.17, 0.42, 1)
C14 - - - (1,1,1)

Table 4. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts for sub-factors C2

C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26
C21 (1,1,1) (0.13, 0.9,8) (0.11, 0.44,6) (0.17, 0.39,4) (0.17, 1.6,6) (0.11, 0.52, 6)
C22 - (1,1,1) (0.13, 0.76,8) (0.13,0.65,4) (0.13, 1.79,6) (0.17, 0.75,8)
C23 - - (1,1,1) (0.13, 1.16,6) (0.13, 1.36,6) (0.13,1.09,8)
C24 - - - (1,1,1) (0.25,2.45,8) (0.17,1.08,8)
C25 - - - - (1,1,1) (0.17,0.47,6)
C26 - -- - - - (1,1,1)

Table 5. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts for Table 7. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts
sub-factors C3 for sub-factors C5
C51 C52 C53 C54
C31 C32 C33 C34
C51 (1,1,1) (0.17,1.82,9) (0.17,1.24,9) (0.17,1.69,9)
C31 (1,1,1) (0.17, 1.54, 6) (0.17, 1.25,8) (0.17,2.27,9)
C52 - (1,1,1) (0.17, 1,9) (0.17,1.55,9)
C32 - (1,1,1) (0.13, 0.53,6) (0.17,0.94,9)
C53 - - (1,1,1) (0.17, 1.518,48)
C33 - - (1,1,1) (0.17, 1.39, 9)
C54 - - - (1,1,1)
C34 - - - (1,1,1)

Table 6. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts Table 8. Aggregation of pair comparisons of experts
for sub-factors C4 for sub-factors C6

C41 C42 C43 C44 C61 C62 C63 C64

C41 (1,1,1) (1,4.7,9) (0.17, 2.39,9) (1,4.19,9) C61 (1,1,1) (0.11,0.24,4) (0.11,0.53,4) (0.11,0.63,4)

C42 - (1,1,1) (0.11, 0.54,6) (0.11,0.84,6) C62 - (1,1,1) (0.11, 1.79,8) (0.11,2.2,8)

C43 - - (1,1,1) (0.11, 1.55, 8) C63 - - (1,1,1) (0.22, 0.68,6)

C44 - - - (1,1,1) C64 - - - (1,1,1)

4.3  Defuzzifying Matrix of Experts’ Opinions and
calculating the consistency ratio
After aggregation of the Experts’ opinions using the
Buckley method, the consistency of aggregated answers should
be analyzed. Examining the consistency ratio of pair comparisons
of risk factors in level 1 and their sub-factors in level 2 indicates
www.indjst.org
the consistency of the pair comparison matrixes. Weights of each
factor and the identified matrix are shown in Tables 9 to 15.
4.4  Final weight and rank of each risk
Table 16 shows the weight for factors of the first level, the
weight of the second level sub-factors, and the final weight of each
risk factor. Table 17 shows the rank and priority of risk factors
in Iranian construction projects. Results show that construction
3598 Research article
Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846

Table 9. Matrix of deterministic values of the first level of the proposed Table 10. Matrix of deterministic values of the second
hierarchical structure for evaluation of construction projects’ risks level of the proposed hierarchical structure
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Weight for sub-factors C1
C11 C12 C13 C14 Weight
C1 1 1.1767 1.7833 1.1377 2.2752 2.3669 0.2191
C11 1 1.6955 2.3374 1.7689 0.3665
C2 0.8498 1 2.6305 1.4338 2.5827 3.1083 0.2461
C12 0.5898 1 3.7832 2.8861 0.3545
C3 0.5608 0.3802 1 0.2453 1.7497 1.7613 0.1072 C13 0.4278 0.2643 1 0.5034 0.1069
C4 0.879 0.6974 4.0768 1 3.426 4.1399 0.2653 C14 0.5653 0.3465 1.9866 1 0.1721
C5 0.4395 0.3872 0.5715 0.2919 1 3.2031 0.1002
C6 0.4225 0.3217 0.5678 0.2416 0.3122 1 0.0621

Table 11. Matrix of deterministic values of the second level of the proposed hierarchical
structure for sub-factors C2
C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 Weight
C21 1 2.4827 1.7497 1.2363 2.3402 1.7884 0.2606
C22 0.4028 1 2.4097 1.3582 2.4287 2.4165 0.2173
C23 0.5715 0.415 1 2.1136 2.2106 2.577 0.1836
C24 0.8088 0.7363 0.4731 1 3.2888 2.5821 0.1736
C25 0.4273 0.4117 0.4524 0.3041 1 1.777 0.0872
C26 0.5592 0.4138 0.388 0.3873 0.5627 1 0.0777

Table 12. Matrix of deterministic values of the second level of the Table 13. Matrix of deterministic values of the second level of the
proposed hierarchical structure for sub-factors C3 proposed hierarchical structure for sub-factors C4
C31 C32 C33 C34 Weight C41 C42 C43 C44 Weight
C31 1 2.3116 2.6668 3.427 0.4581 C41 1 4.8525 3.4865 4.5975 0.5743
C32 0.4326 1 1.7985 2.7635 0.2573 C42 0.2061 1 1.796 1.9458 0.18
C33 0.375 0.556 1 2.9869 0.1911 C43 0.2868 0.5568 1 2.8006 0.1593
C34 0.2918 0.3619 0.3348 1 0.0935 C44 0.2175 0.5139 0.3571 1 0.0863

Table 14. Matrix of deterministic values of the second level of the Table 15. Matrix of deterministic values of the second level of the
proposed hierarchical structure for sub-factors C5 proposed hierarchical structure for sub-factors C6
C51 C52 C53 C54 Weight C61 C62 C63 C64 Weight
C51 1 3.2031 2.9098 3.1362 0.4941 C61 1 1.1454 1.2951 1.3439 0.2786
C52 0.3122 1 2.7917 3.0676 0.2669 C62 0.8731 1 3.0122 3.1265 0.3936
C53 0.3437 0.3582 1 1.6335 0.1361 C63 0.7722 0.332 1 1.8678 0.1903
C54 0.3189 0.326 0.6122 1 0.1029 C64 0.7441 0.3198 0.5354 1 0.1374

project managers consider the financial risk as the most important 5.  Conclusion
major factor for the success and failure of the construction projects.
Due to multi-dimensional nature of risk and the proposed
After the financial risk, the factor “project management” is of
framework’s hierarchical structure, in this paper fuzzy AHP
the highest rank and most important role in success and failure
method was used to evaluate and prioritize the risk factors using
of projects. The factor “project type” is of the third rank. Three
experts’ opinions. Also, due to relative understanding of experts on
factors external risk, “contract risk”, and “operational risk” have
importance of a phenomenon compared with another phenomenon
the next ranks with much far from the other factors. Regarding
and low efficiency of the traditional AHP, the fuzzy AHP method
the high importance of the three factors “financial risk”, “project
was used in the current paper. The proposed fuzzy AHP method
type”, and “project management”, the sub-factors related to these
was able to model the uncertainty available in experts’ opinions.
factors such as “project funding”, “number of activities”, and
Results of the proposed fuzzy approach showed that the
“executive managers support” have the five highest priority. The
ranking of the factors influencing on failure and success of the
less importance of factor “operational risk” has led to the lowest
construction projects in Iran is as follows: financial risks, project
rank for the sub-factor “losses to the construction equipment”.
Research article 3599 www.indjst.org
Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846 Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Table 16. The final weight and rank of each risk factor Table 17. Prioritizing the risk factors of the construction projects
Risk factor Weight ID Priority

The weight The level project funding 0.152362 C41 1

The The local The final
of risk of the
first weight of weight of number of activities 0.0803 C11 2
factors of the sub-
level sub-factors sub-factors
first level factors The organization familiarity level 0.077671 C12 3
definition of objectives 0.064134 C21 4

C11 0.3665 0.0803 Executive managers support 0.053478 C22 5

C12 0.3545 0.077671 contract responsibility 0.049509 C51 6
C1 0.2191
C13 0.1069 0.023422 Political 0.049108 C31 7
C14 0.1721 0.037707
personnel and materials expenses 0.047754 C42 8
C21 0.2606 0.064134
Selection of the project team 0.045184 C23 9
C22 0.2173 0.053478
Top management support 0.042723 C24 10
C23 0.1836 0.045184
C2 0.2461 Investment 0.042262 C43 11
C24 0.1736 0.042723
C25 0.0872 0.02146 Emergency 0.037707 C14 12
C26 0.0777 0.019122 Sub-Contractors 0.027583 C32 13
C31 0.4581 0.049108 Guarantee and pay for the losses 0.026743 C52 14
C32 0.2573 0.027583 Defect in structure or failure of 0.024443 C62 15
C3 0.1072
C33 0.1911 0.020486 operations
C34 0.0935 0.010023 Project density 0.023422 C13 16
C41 0.5743 0.152362 Business 0.022895 C44 17
C42 0.18 0.047754
C4 0.2653 Communication ways 0.02146 C25 18
C43 0.1593 0.042262
Construction site conditions 0.020486 C33 19
C44 0.0863 0.022895
Design 0.019122 C26 20
C51 0.4941 0.049509
C52 0.2669 0.026743 Fraud 0.017301 C61 21
C5 0.1002
C53 0.1361 0.013637 Deadlines clause 0.013637 C53 22
C54 0.1029 0.010311 Losses to equipment and properties of 0.011818 C63 23
C61 0.2786 0.017301 contractors

C62 0.3936 0.024443 deposit to account clauses 0.010311 C54 24

C6 0.0621
C63 0.1903 0.011818 Losses and physical damages 0.010023 C34 25
C64 0.1374 0.008533 Losses and damages to the 0.008533 C64 26
organization`s equipment

management, project type, external, contract, and operational risks. 1. Using the proposed method in designing a decision support
The results indicate that construction project managers usually system for risk management of construction projects,
consider risk factors before start of the project (such as project 2. Extending risk factors and other factors influencing on
funding, organization familiarity level, definition of the objectives, success and failure,
and selection of the project team) more important than other risk
3. Comparing the results with another method,
factors. This indicates importance of planning and definition of
objectives and responsibilities before start of the projects. Also, 4. And using the proposed method for prioritizing the risk
results of ranking show that risks of project contracts and external factors in other fields.
risks are placed in the lowest ranks. This means that if there are an
experienced project team and careful planning, the risks available
in contracts and external factors can be handled. Followings are
proposed for future research:

www.indjst.org 3600 Research article

Indian Journal of Science and Technology
6.  References
1. Avots I (1969) Why does project management fail? (Project
management systems failure analysis, discussing cost,
products quality and project objectives). California Manage.
Rev. 12, 77–82.   17. Dikmen I, Birgonul MT and Han S (2007) Using fuzzy
2. Azadeh A, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Hatami-Shirkouhi L and
Ansarinejad A (2011) A unique fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making: computer simulation approach for productive
operators’ assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with
uncertainty and vagueness. Int. J.Adv. Manuf. Technol. 56(1-
4), 329–343.
3. Azadeh A, Shirkouhi SN and Rezaie K (2010). A robust
decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection
of simulation software package. Int. J.Adv. Manuf. Technol.
47(1), 381–393.
4. Azuma R and Miyagi H (2009) AHP for risk management based
on expected utility theory. IEEJ Transact. Electronics, Info.
Systems. 129, 1123–1128.
5. Baker S, Ponniah D and Smith S (1999) Risk response techniques
employed currently for major projects. Constr. Manage. Econ.
17(2), 205–213.
6. Baloi D and Price ADF (2003) Modeling global risk factors
affecting construction cost performance. Int. J. Proj.
Manage.21(4), 261–269.
7. Baloi D and Price ADF (2003) Modeling global risk factors
affecting construction cost performance. Int. J. Proj. Manage.
21(4), 261–269.
8. Belassi W and Tukel OI (1996) A new framework for determining
critical success/failure factors in projects. Int. J.Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 14(3), 141-151.
9. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets &
Systems. 17, 233–247.   27. Keeney RL and Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple
10. Bunni NG (2003) Risk and insurance in construction. Taylor
& Francis.
11. Chapman RJ (2001) The controlling influences on effective
risk identification and assessment for construction design
management. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 19(3), 147–160.   approach. Manage. 1(4), 6–7.
12. Cho HN, Choi HH and Kim YB (2002) A risk assessment
methodology for incorporating uncertainties using fuzzy
concepts. Reliability Eng. System Safety. 78(2), 173–183.   risk in software development. Info. Sci. 153, 177–197.
13. Choi HH, Cho HN and Seo JW (2004) Risk assessment
methodology for underground construction projects. J. Constr.
Eng.Manage.130, 258.  
14. Cooper DF and Chapman CB (1987) Risk analysis for large
projects. Wiley, Chichester.
15. Dias Jr, A and Ioannou PG (1995) A desirability model for the
development of privately-promoted infrastructure projects.
UMCEE Rep.  
Research article
Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846
16. Dikmen I and Birgonul MT (2006) An analytic hierarchy
process based model for risk and opportunity assessment of
international construction projects. Can.J.Civil. Eng. 33(1),
58–68.  
risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 25(5), 494–505.
18. Flanagan R and Norman G (1993) Risk management and
construction. Wiley-Blackwell.  
19. Hahn ED (2003) Decision making with uncertain judgments:
A stochastic formulation of the analytic hierarchy process.
Decision Sci. 34(3), 443–466.
20. Hertz D (1990) Risk analysis in capital investment. Harvard
Bus.Rev. 42(1), 95-106.
21. Hughes MW (1986) Why projects fail: the effects of ignoring
the obvious. Industrial Eng. 18(4), 14–18.  
22. Iliadis LS (2005) A decision support system applying an
integrated fuzzy model for long-term forest fire risk estimation.
Environ. Modeling & Software. 20(5), 613–621.  
23. Iranmanesh H, Shirkouhi SN and Skandari M (2008) Risk
evaluation of information technology projects based on fuzzy
analytic hierarchal process. Int.J. Compu.Info. Sci. Eng.2(1),
38–44.
24. Iyer KC and Jha KN (2005) Factors affecting cost performance:
evidence from Indian construction projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manage. 23, 283–295.  
25. Kangari R (1988) Construction risk management. Civil Eng.
Environ. Systems. 5(3), 114–120.  
26. Kaufmann A and Gupta MM (1988) Fuzzy mathematical
models in engineering and management science. Elsevier
Science Inc. New York, NY, USA.
objectives. Cambridge Books.
28. Kuchta D (2001) Use of fuzzy numbers in project risk criticality
assessment. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 19)5(, 305–310.
29. Lee HM and Lin L (2008) A new fuzzy risk assessment
30. Lee HM, Lee SY, Lee TY and Chen JJ (2003) A new algorithm
for applying fuzzy set theory to evaluate the rate of aggregative
 
31. Liou TS and Wang MJ (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with
integral value. Fuzzy sets & Systems. 50(3), 247–255.
32. Mills A (2001) A systematic approach to risk management for
construction. Structural Survey. 19(5), 245–252.  
33. Mustafa MA and Al-Bahar JF (1991) Project risk assessment
using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transact. Eng.
Manage. 38(1), 46–52.  
3601 www.indjst.org
Vol:5 Issue:11 November 2012 ISSN:0974-6846 Indian Journal of Science and Technology

34. Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Ansarinejad A, Miri-Nargesi S, Dalfard 51. Tah JHM and Carr V (2000) A proposal for construction project
VM and Rezaie K (2011) Information systems outsourcing risk assessment using fuzzy logic. Construction Manage.
decisions under fuzzy group decision making approach. Int. J. Econ. 18,491–500.  
Info. Technol & Decision Making. 10(06), 989–1022. 52. Tah JHM, Thorpe A and McCaffer R (1993) Contractor project
35. Ngai EWT and Wat FKT (2005) Fuzzy decision support system risks contingency allocation using linguistic approximation.
for risk analysis in e-commerce development. Decision Compu. Systems in Eng.4(2-3), 281–293.  
Support Systems.40(2), 235–255.   53. Tsaur SH, Tzeng GH and Wang KC (1997) Evaluating tourist
36. Paek JH, Lee YW and Ock JH (1993) Pricing construction risks from fuzzy perspectives. Ann. Tourism Res. 24(4), 796–
risk: fuzzy set application. J. Construction Eng.Manage. 812.  
119(4), 743–756.   54. Tuysuz F and Kahraman C (2006) Project risk evaluation
37. Perry JG and Hayes RW (1985) Risk and its management in using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: An application to
construction projects. In ICE Proc. The Institution of Civil information technology projects. Int. J.Intelligent Systems.
Eng., Part I, pp: 499–521. 21, 559–584.  
38. PMI (2004) A guide to the project management body 55. Van Laarhoven P and Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of
of knowledge: PMBOK Guide. 3rd ed. USA: Project Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy sets & Systems. 11(1-3), 199–
Management Institute Inc. 227.
39. Rezaie K, Byat M and Shirkouhi SN (2009) Evaluating 56. Wang J and Yuan H (2011) Factors affecting contractors’ risk
effective factors of implementing knowledge management attitudes in construction projects: Case study from China. Int.
based on FAHP method. AMS’09. Third Asia Intl. Conf. on J. Project Manage. 29(2), 209–219.
Modelling & Simulation. (pp. 398–403). 57. Wang YM, Luo Y and Hua Z (2008) On the extent analysis
40. Rowe WD (1977) Anatomy of a risk. John Wiley and sons.   method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur.J. Operational
41. Rubin IM and Seeling W (1967) Experience as a factor in Res. 186,735–747.  
the selection and performance of project managers. IEEE 58. Wang YM and Elhag TM (2007) A fuzzy group decision
Transact. on Eng.Manage. 14(3), 131–134.   making approach for bridge risk assessment. Compu. &
42. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, Industrial Eng. 53(1), 137–148.  
New York. 59. Wirba EN, Tah JHM and Howes R (1996) Risk
43. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy interdependencies and natural language computations. J. Eng.
process. Manage. Sci.32(7), 841–855. Constr. Architect. Manage. 3(4), 251–69.

44. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy 60. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information & Control. 8(3),
process. Eur.J.Operational Res. 48(1), 9–26. 338–353.

45. Sadiq R and Husain T (2005) A fuzzy-based methodology for 61. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z and Tamošaitien J (2010)
an aggregative environmental risk assessment: a case study of Risk assessment of construction projects. J. Civil Eng.
drilling waste. Environ. Modelling & Software. 20(1), 33–46.   Manage.16(1), 33–46.  
46. Saqib M, Farooqui RU and Lodi SH (2008) Assessment of 62. Zayed T, Amer M and Pan J (2008) Assessing risk and
critical success factors for construction projects in Pakistan. uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP.
First Int. Conf. on Construction In Developing Countries, Int.J. Project Manage. 26(4), 408–419.
Karachi, Pakistan. 63. Zeng J, An M and Smith NJ (2007) Application of a fuzzy
47. Serguieva A and Hunter J (2004) Fuzzy interval methods in based decision making methodology to construction project
investment risk appraisal. Fuzzy Sets & Systems. 142(3), 443– risk assessment. Int.J. Project Manage. 25(6), 589–600.  
466.   64. Zheng DXM and Ng T (2005) Stochastic time-cost optimization
48. Shen LY, Wu GWC and Ng CSK (2001) Risk assessment for model incorporating fuzzy sets theory and non-replacement.
construction joint ventures in China. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. J. Constr.Eng. Manage. 131(2), 176–186.
127(1), 76–81.   65. Zou PXW, Zhang G and Wang J (2007) Understanding the key
49. Smith NJ (1999) Managing risk in construction projects. risks in construction projects in China. Int.J. Project Manage.
Oxford: Blackwell. 25, 601–614.

50. Sotoudeh Gohar A, Khanzadi M and Parchami Jalal M (2011) 66. Zou PXW, Zhang G and Wang JY (2006) Identifying key
A Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating risk of construction projects. risks in construction projects: life cycle and stakeholder
Aus. J.Basic & Appl.Sci. 5(12), 162-171. perspectives. In: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference.

www.indjst.org 3602 Research article

Copyright of Indian Journal of Science & Technology is the property of Indian Society for Education &
Environment and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.