International Journal of Construction Project Management ISSN: 1944-1436

Volume 10, Number 1 © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

RISK IDENTIFICATION FOR BUILDING

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

Ehab Soliman
Kuwait University, Civil Engineering Department

ABSTRACT
Building maintenance projects have been received increased consideration in the last
decades. There are many previous research works conducted to define and assess risk
factors for new construction projects. There is limited studies regarding risk factors in
building maintenance projects. This study aims to identify risk factors in governmental
building maintenance projects by using questionnaire distributed for ongoing
governmental building maintenance project in Kuwait. Mean values and coefficient of
variance then Severity index methods used to rank risk factors. The study revealed that
risk of miscommunication with governmental agencies is the top ranked risk factor. Lack
of experienced technical staff from owner party then financial problems for contractor are
the follower of top ranked risk factor. The output of this study identified the most
important risk factors in such type of projects. Any attempt to mitigate effect of risk
factors in building maintenance project should consider these results.

Keywords: risk factors, identification, building maintenance projects

INTRODUCTION
Construction projects are always exposed to many risk factors. These risks are resulted
from many sources either internally or externally sources. Construction building maintenance
project exposed to many risk factors other than that of new construction projects because of
the different nature of the two types of projects. Construction building maintenance project
always performed during running daily work of project site place. The design in building
maintenance projects is partially left to the contractor. The scope of work of the building
maintenance project is always not clearly defined as in the new project contracts. While, the
contracting procedure of assigning contractors in building maintenance project is similar to
what is used in new projects. Enormous number of research work done to define the risk
factors in new construction projects. This previous research work concentrated in defining
risk factors, modeling risks and ranking risk factors in new construction projects. Limited


E-mail: ehab.solimanmoursi@ku.edu.kw
38 Ehab Soliman

research work conducted to define risk factors in building maintenance projects. This study
aims to identify the most significant risk elements in building maintenance projects in a state
Kuwait as an example of countries with huge value of maintenance projects. Ministry of
Public Works (MPW) in state of Kuwait manages building maintenance projects in Kuwait.
These risk factors should considered during the contract period and during execution periods.
These factors are very important to identify procedures to mitigate their effects in case of
occurrence during construction phase.

BACKGROUND
Risks are inherent in all construction industry projects, perhaps more than other industries
plagued by risk (Thompson and Perry, 1992 and Flanagan and Norman, 1993).
Mark et al., (2004) stated that risk is simply the potential for complications and problems
with respect to the completion of a project task and the achievement of a project goal.
Others defined risks as the exposure to possibility of economic, or financial loss, or gain,
physical damage or injury, or delay, as a consequence of the uncertainty associated with
pursuing a particular course of action” (Perry and Hayes, 1985). Jaafari, (2001) defined risks
in construction projects as “the probability of losses in a project.” Baloi and Price, 2003
defined risks as the likelihood of a detrimental event occurring to the project. Although risk
has been defined in various ways, some common characteristics can be found as per (Chia,
2006):

 A risk is a future event that may or may not occur.

 A risk must also be an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has an effect on,
at least, one of the project objectives, such as scope, schedule, cost or quality.
 The probability of the future event occurring must be greater than 0% but less than
100%. Future events that have a zero or 100% chance of occurrence are not risks.
 The impact or consequence of the future event must be unexpected or unplanned for.

Latham, 1994 suggested that project risks can be transferred, accepted, managed,
minimized, or shared, but cannot be ignored in construction projects.
Many research works conducted to search the sources and classification of risks in
construction projects. Perry and Hayes (1985) gave an extensive list of factors assembled
from several sources, and classified in terms of risks initiated by contractors, consultants, and
clients. Cooper and Champan, (1987) focuses on the risk nature and their magnitude grouping
risks into two major groups of primary and secondary risks. Edward and Bowen (1998)
classified risks in construction projects for natural and human risks. The natural are resulted
from weather conditions and geological system, while the human risks resulted from social,
political, economic, financial, legal, health, managerial, technical and cultural sources. Tah
et al., (1993) used a risk-breakdown structure to classify risks according to their origin and to
the location of their impact in the project.
Wirba et al., (1996) adopt a model by combining of Tah et al., 1993 approach for risk
hierarchy and that of Cooper and Chapman (1987).
Tah and Carr, (2000) adapted a hierarchical risk breakdown structure (HRBS) to allow
risks to be separated into those that are related to the management of internal resources and
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 39

those that are related to the external environment. External risks are those which are relatively
uncontrollable, and due to their nature there is a need the continual scanning, forecasting and
a company strategy for managing the effects of external risks. Internal risks are relatively
more controllable and vary between projects.
Risks in construction are handled by risk analysis and risk management. By using the
terminology from BSI 8444: 1996, the systematic five steps involved for a comprehensive
risk management process are

 Risk identification
 Risk estimation
 Risk evaluation
 Risk response
 Risk monitoring

While, Nieto-Morote and Ruz-Vila (2011) stated that the effective risk management
involves four-phase process:

1. Risks identification: The process of determining which risks may affect the project
and documenting their characteristics.
2. Risk assessment: The process of prioritizing risks for further analysis by assessing
and combining, generally, their probability of occurrence and impact.
3. Risk response: The process of developing options and actions to enhance
opportunities and to reduce threats to the project objectives.
4. Risk monitoring and reviewing: The process of implementing a risk response plan,
tracking identified risks, monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, and
evaluating the risk process effectiveness throughout the project.

The risk identification process is beneficial as it focuses the attention of project

management to highlight those areas where further work is needed. Risk identification relies
heavily on the experience and insight of the key project personnel. Al-Bahar and Crandall
(1990) defined risk identification as the process of systematically and continuously
identifying, categorizing, and assessing the initial significance of risks associated with a
construction project.
Toakley and Ling (1991) reported that if a risk is not identified it cannot be controlled,
transferred or otherwise managed, and therefore risk identification is a necessary first step
before risks can be analyzed and an appropriate response can be determined.
Al-Tabtabai and Diekmann (1992) stated that the primary basis for identifying risks is
historical data, experience and insight. While, Lambert, et al., (2001) specified these
mechanisms to collect risk identification information, which are:

1. Interviews at the work site with approximately twenty managers

2. Review of requirements documents and other program planning materials
3. Review of third-party analyses of the cost and schedule for the project
4. Review of a list of risks prepared by program managers
5. Consultation with a third-party management consultant familiar with the program
40 Ehab Soliman

Many of globally research work conducted for identifying risks in special types of
construction projects. For example, Songer et al., (1997), Lam (1999), Grimsey and Lewis
(2002) and Guo et al., (2014) searched for the risk analysis and management for infrastructure
projects. Baker et al., (1999) and Lambert et al., (2001) searched for identifying risk factors
for major projects. Hwang et al (2014) investigated the process of risk management in small
projects. Marcelino-Sádaba et al., (2014) proposed a methodology for risk management of
small firms.
Special researches were conducted to distinguish risk identification and management for
different locations. Lu and Yan (2013), Zou et al., (2007) studied risks in China construction
industry, Ahmed et al., (1999) and Shen (1997) for Hong Kong construction projects, El-
Sayegh (2008) for UAE projects and Kartam and Kartam (2001) in Kuwait Construction
projects.
Although, there are overwhelming research work done for many types of construction
projects, there is limited research work conducted in building maintenance projects.
Building maintenance projects are differing than new projects. The building maintenance
projects often conducted in confined places and in some times during the daily works
for the facility. The building maintenance works applied in some times for covered or
unforeseen items such as seepage for piping works, which make work difficult for unforeseen
elements.
Building maintenance projects have recorded an increase in construction sector. Lam
et al., (2010) found that starting from the year 2002, remarkable percentage of all annual
construction activities are solely for building maintenance projects. Meanwhile Hong Kong
recorded an increase in the cost of building maintenance work over the past 5 years. While
El-Haram et al., (2002) stated that UK showed rapid increase in building maintenance cost.
Wood, (2005) stated that, BM1 reported that in the last 10 years, building maintenance are
increased about 66% and between 1989 and 2000, its takes about 43.6% increasing. Mohd-
Noor et al., (2011) stated that Malaysian National Budget shows more attention has been
given to the building maintenance work especially beginning 2000s.
Gajzler (2013) stated that maintenance consists in a number of activities aimed at
keeping the facility in good repair so that it meets all the requirements set down in the
design stage. The classified maintenance for existing buildings undertaken with the purpose
of:

1. Re-instating physical condition to a specified standard

2. Preventing further deterioration of failure
3. Restoring correct operation within specified parameters
4. Replacing components at the end of their useful/economic life with modern
engineering equivalents
5. Making temporary repairs for immediate health, safety and security reasons

Sometimes building maintenance is perceived as merely about the mechanical and

electrical system in the buildings without much consideration given to civil and structural
elements (Suffian, 2013).
Isa (2001) revealed that building maintenance management in Malaysia has been very
insufficient and inefficient. The contributing factors for this inefficient building maintenance
are identified as follows;
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 41

 Execution of work are not to the standard

 Insufficient Planning and control
 Insufficient Budget/ malpractice in the financial management

Kuwait is an Arabic gulf state with GDP about 176 Billion American dollars. The
construction industry sector contributes about 7% of GDP (CKB-2012). A great portion of
this value is dedicated to the building maintenance projects.
Kartam and Kartam (2001) surveyed risk factors that are facing by large contractors in
Kuwait. They found that contractors show more willing to accept risks that are contractual
and legal-related rather than other types of risks and there is limited application of formal risk
analysis techniques.
The objective of this study is identifying the most significant risk factors in governmental
building maintenance projects in Kuwait. Kuwaiti public buildings and facilities are mainly
constructed under the supervision of Ministry of Public Works (MPW). A separate sector in
the ministry is responsible for public facilities maintenance. This sector has two branches; one
for building maintenance and one for roads and utilities network maintenance. MPW
maintenance sector is responsible for conduct all contractual and technical duties required for
maintaining maintenance functions.

METHODOLOGY
 Getting list of risk factors of maintenance building projects
To define the risk factors in building maintenance project, a deep survey for risk
factors that were used in previous research work done in all types of projects. This
research work contains- in addition to what is listed in background- Rahman and
Kumaraswamy (2002), Eybpoosh et al., (2011), Carr and Tah (2001), Olajide (2012),
Wang et al., (2000), and Chan et al., (2011). Then, these risk factors were revised to
choose which of them are suitable for building maintenance projects. A list of risk
factors was resulted, and then this list of risk factors was revised by consulting four
of experts who were working for maintenance projects for more than 20 years. A list
of thirty seven risk factors was used to design a questionnaire.
 Questionnaire design
A questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding risk factors in building
maintenance projects. The resulted listed thirty seven risk factors were grouped into
six group of influence. Each participant was asked if he faced this problem before, if
yes he then asked to evaluate the probability of occurrence and level of importance of
each one of the listed thirty seven risk factors.
 Questionnaire distribution and sample
Questionnaire distributed for engineers working in building maintenance projects in
(MPW). One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed for engineers working
in Al-Jahra province. Kuwait state is divided into six provinces. All provinces
sharing same work environment. The participants were selected based on existing
projects in Al-Jahra province. The engineers were working either for client (MPW)
or contractors. The questionnaire was distributed in sites for in progress building
42 Ehab Soliman

maintenance projects. Fifty one questionnaires were answered and gathered in a 34%
of respondents. In the construction enterprises, a good response rate is around 30%
(Black et al., 2000), therefore, the response rate in this research is acceptable.
 Getting most important risk factors for maintenance building projects
The thirty seven risk factors are examined if the participants were facing before or
not. The risk factors which common faced are then analyzed to get the most
important risk factors. To rank risk factors, two methods were used; risk factors are
ranked based on mean value, coefficient of variance and then by severity index.

DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRE
Thirty seven risk factors were revised from literature review and consulting expert
personnel. The used thirty-seven risk factors were divided into six groups based on the
responsible for risk initiator. These six groups are:

1. Risk factors related to owner: This group contains all risk factors that can be coming
from the end user, and/or technical MPW members.
2. Risk factors related to contractor: This group contains all the risk factors that project
contractor is causing or controlling during building maintenance project work.
3. Risk factors related to subcontractor: This group contains all the risk factors which
subcontractor is causing or controlling.
4. Risk factors related to governmental third party: This group of contains risk elements
that coming from external sources other than the owner and/or contractor or his
subcontractors. This group of risk factors contains risk factors resulted mainly from
governmental agencies.
5. Risk factors related to site location and work environment: This group contains risk
factors related to building maintenance project site and environmental conditions.
6. Risk factors related to design works: This group contains risk factors resulted from
design works.

Each respondents is asked first to evaluate if this risk factors is faced as a source of risk
in building maintenance project based on respondent’ experience. If the risk factor answered
for the mentioned risk factors as yes, then respondent is asked to evaluate both: the
probability level of occurrence of risk factor and its level of importance in case of occurrence.
The level of probability and importance is graded in five ranks as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Scale used to identify risk factor probability level and effect of risk factor

Scale Level of probability occurrence Level of importance

0%-20% Very low Very low
20% - 40% Low Low
40% -60% Average Average
60% -80% High High
80%-100% Very high Very high
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 43

Table 2. Answers for risk factors occurrence

Did you face this problem

before in building
Risk elements maintenance projects?
No Yes Yes %
1 Decision not taken in the proper time 9 42 %82.4
2 Lack of manpower staff to direct work 8 43 %84.3
3 No sufficient and clear work steps 22 29 %56.9
4 No adequate work planning and scheduling 17 34 %66.7
5 No prior work order budget estimate 9 42 %82.4
6 Change order during work implementing 9 42 %82.4
7 Changes for contract clauses during work or adding new items 19 32 %62.7
8 Owner cannot pay contractor payments in time 22 29 %56.9
9 Inflexible work budget 16 35 %68.6
10 Inexperience for assigned contractor 11 40 %78.4
11 Contractor financial problems 12 39 %76.5
Inability to comply with project requirements such as
12 16 35 %68.6
materials, quality
13 Unavailability of required materials in the proper time 6 45 %88.2
14 Unclear of specifications of materials and procedures 26 25 %49.0
Inability of contractor to manage and coordination between
15 14 37 %72.5
subcontractors
16 Inadequate of contractor's schedule program 12 39 %76.5
17 Mistakes in workmanship 12 39 %76.5
18 Insufficient of used safety procedures 6 45 %88.2
19 Disputes between subcontractors and vendors 12 39 %76.5
Subcontractors do not provide the required information in the
20 17 34 %66.7
proper time
21 Inability to cost estimate in the proper time and proper way. 23 28 %54.9
22 Obstacles in site submittal to contractor 17 34 %66.7
23 Traffic jam surrounding the site location 19 32 %62.7
24 Difficult in material transportation to site 25 26 %51.0
25 Weather conditions, (humidity, rains, temperature) 12 39 %76.5
26 Soil unforeseen conditions 19 32 %62.7
27 Wastage difficulty transportation 20 31 %60.8
28 Soil not ready to execute 17 34 %66.7
29 Soil tests not sufficient 28 23 %45.1
30 Connections with existed old buildings 10 41 %80.4
31 Work needs existed old buildings to re-habitation before work 16 35 %68.6
32 Conflict with service utilities in site 7 44 %86.3
33 Delay of information from governmental agencies 3 48 %94.1
34 Weak of coordination with governmental agencies 5 46 %90.2
35 Changes of design and delay of required approval 15 36 %70.6
36 Mistakes, incomplete design information 16 35 %68.6
37 Unavailability of design requirement skills 19 32 %62.7
44 Ehab Soliman

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Risk Factors Occurrence

Table 2 shows respondents answers for the question if these risk factors were faced
before in their practical life. Thirty factors out of used thirty seven factors have been faced by
more than 70% of the sample. Only one factor faced by less than 50% of the sample. This
means that the surveyed risk factors are significantly chosen.

Risk Factors Assessment and Ranking

The second step in risk management is the risk assessment. Many methods and technique
are commonly used to assess risk factors. In this study the assessment and ranking of the used
risk factors will be based on mean values and coefficient of variance then by severity index.

Ranking Based on Mean Values and Coefficient of Variance

The mean value is calculated from Likert scale ranking as shown in Table 1. The
following equation is used to calculate risk factor mean value.

Mean value = wi*ni/51 (1)

where wi takes a value 0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9 based on respondents judgement

Ni is the number for each level as respondents’’ answers.

Figure 1. Scatter Curve for mean values of probability and impact level.
 Table 3. Summary for top ranked risk factors ranking based on mean value and coefficient of variance

Rank based on Rank based on Rank based on Rank based on

Risk Global rank-
Risk factors Probability Importance Probability Importance
factor # mean for all
mean value mean value coefficient of variance coefficient of variance
33 Delay of information from governmental agencies 1 1 1 1 1

11 Contractor financial problems 2 3 10 7 6

2 Lack of manpower staff to direct work 3 2 2 2 2

32 Conflict with service utilities in site 4 4 7 6 5

34 weak of coordination with governmental agencies 5 5 4 3 3

1 Decision not taken in the proper time 6 6 3 5 4

18 Insufficient of used safety procedures 7 11 6 8 8

6 Change order during work implementing 8 10 9 9 9

13 Unavailability of required materials in the proper time 9 8 5 4 7

19 Disputes between subcontractors and vendors 10 13 12 13 10

30 Connections with existed old buildings 11 21 13 15 14

16 Inadequate of contractor's schedule program 12 14 14 11 13

5 No prior work order budget estimate 13 16 8 12 12

10 Inexperience for assigned contractor 14 7 17 10 11

46 Ehab Soliman

Figure 1 shows scatter diagram for all risk factors based on mean values for probability
of occurrence and level of importance. As shown in Figure 1, most of the surveyed risk
factors placed in the average zone of probability of occurrence and level of impact. It is
beneficial to determine which of these risk factors is most significant and most important.
Holt (2013) criticizes the rank based on mean values only and he suggested that the
dependent of mean value without taking into consideration the standard of deviation is
misleading. He suggested that using the rank based on coefficient of variance is better than
using the mean values only.
The mean values for each risk factor is calculated for probability of occurrence and level
of impact, then the coefficient of variance is calculated for probability of occurrence and level
of impact. Table 3 shows summary of ranking based on mean values and coefficient of
variance. A global rank is calculated by adding all ranks shown in Table 3.

Risk Factors Ranking Based on Severity Index

Many of previous research works used severity index to rank elements which have been
measured by questionnaire data gathering based on Likert scale. Severity index is used to
combine the relative of importance with the probability of occurrence of risk factors. Severity
index is combing the probability index and impact index as described in following equations.

Pr obability _ Index ( P. I ) 
 ( wi * Ci) (2)
N

Im pact _ Index ( I .I ) 
 (wj * Cj ) (3)
N

Severity _ Index(S.I )  F .I * I .I (4)

where:
wi is the weight for level of frequency as per respondent judgment ranging from
(0,1,2,3,4)
wj is the weight for level of impact as per respondent judgment ranging from (0,1,2,3,4)
ciis the respondents numbers for each frequency level (0,1,2,3,4)
cjis the respondents numbers for each impact level (0,1,2,3,4)

Microsoft excel 13 software was used to calculate indexes. Table 4 shows the rank of risk
factors based on Severity Index and Table 5 shows the top ranked based on the two methods
(mean value, coefficient of variance and severity index) and their risk factors’ groups.
The top nine ranked risk factors for the two methods are identical. It is seen that the top
ranked risk factors are belonging for third party- governmental related risk factors, owner
related risk factors and contractor related risk factors. It was very strange that the risk
factors related to site location and work environment are not shown in the top ten ranked risk
factors.
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 47

Table 4. Top ranked risk factors in building maintenance

projects based on severity index

# Risk factor Rank based on Severity Index

33 Delay of information from governmental agencies 1
2 Lack of manpower staff to direct work 2
11 Contractor financial problems 3
32 Conflict with service utilities in site 4
34 Weak of coordination with governmental agencies 5
1 Decision not taken in the proper time 6
18 Insufficient of used safety procedures 7
13 Unavailability of required materials in the proper time 8
6 Change order during work implementing 9
10 Inexperience for assigned contractor 10
19 Disputes between subcontractors and vendors 11
16 Inadequate of contractor's schedule program 12
5 No prior work order budget estimate 13
Inability of contractor to manage and coordination between
15 14
subcontractors
Inability to comply with project requirements such as
12 15
materials, quality

Connection with existed old buildings is the only risk factor that was in the 15th rank of
top ranked which belongs to site location and work environment group.
The top ranked risk factors as presented in Table 5 are:

 Delay of information from governmental agencies

 Contractor financial problems
 Lack of manpower staff to direct work
 Conflict with service utilities in site
 Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
 Decision not taken in the proper time
 Insufficient of used safety procedures
 Change order during work implementing
 Unavailability of required materials in the proper time

These top ranked belong to governmental third party, owner and contractor-related risk
factors.

Analysis of Top Ranked Risk Factors

The top ranked risk factors were belonging to three groups as indicated in Table 5. These
groups are governmental related risk factors, owner related risk factors and contractor related
risk factors. The following is discussion of each one of these groups and why these were top
ranked then propose set of recommendations and remedial actions to be taken to mitigate their
effect in case of occurrence.
48 Ehab Soliman

Table 5. Risk factors ranking based on the used two methods

Rank
based on Rank
Risk Risk factor
Risk factors Mean Severity Rank
factor # group
Value and index
CV
Delay of information from governmental
33 1 1 1 TG
agencies
11 Contractor financial problems 2 3 2 CT
2 Lack of manpower staff to direct work 3 2 2 OW
32 Conflict with service utilities in site 4 4 4 TG
Weak of coordination with governmental
34 5 5 5 TG
agencies
1 Decision not taken in the proper time 6 6 6 OW
18 Insufficient of used safety procedures 7 7 7 CT
6 Change order during work implementing 8 9 8 OW
Unavailability of required materials in the
13 9 8 8 CT
proper time
Disputes between subcontractors and
19 10 11 10 CT
vendors
10 Inexperience for assigned contractor 14 10 12 CT
16 Inadequate of contractor's schedule program 12 12 12 CT
5 No prior work order budget estimate 13 13 14 OW
30 Connections with existed old buildings 11 16 15 ST
TG –third party – governmental related risk factors.
OW- owner related risk factors.
CT- contractor related risk factors.
ST- site location related factors.

Governmental Third Party Related Risk Factors

All the group of governmental- third party risk factors are placed in top ranked as
shown in Table 5. These three factors are ranked in the first, fourth and fifth rank. These
risk factors are:

 Delay of information from governmental agencies

 Weak of coordination with governmental agencies
 Conflict with service utilities in site

The service utilities are the public means which belonging to governmental agencies.
These important risk factors reflect the miscommunication problems with governmental
agencies such as the Kuwaiti municipality, ministry of water and electricity and ministry of
communication. These governmental agencies can postpone maintenance work until getting
work permission or provide required documentations and approvals. The owner provides
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 49

usual work order for the assigned contactor, and then the contactor has to get approval from
governmental agencies in some work types especially for underground utilities maintenance.
This process is mainly done manually by contractor application for governmental agency and
going through the bureaucracy steps until getting approval. This process may take too long
time, and then project might delay.
These risk factors reflect a need for a systematic or automated procedure to accelerate the
procedure for getting governmental agencies’ approvals. Application of e-government and
web-based applications in governmental procedures started to be dominant in region, but the
application in building maintenance is limited. It is recommended to revise the used methods
for communications with governmental agencies which responsible to contact contractors
who working in maintenance projects.

Owner-Related Risk Factors

Three risk factors related to owner were top-ranked as shown in Table 5. These three
elements are:

 Lack of manpower staff to direct work

 Decision not taken in the proper time
 Change order during work implementing

Lack of work force staff required to manage work from owner side noticed as the third
top risk factors ranked. The participants in this study were belonging to owner side and
contractors, both see that there is need for appointing extra owner technical people to manage
building maintenance projects. MPW is a governmental organization and technical staff
recruitment procedure is subject to normal governmental procedures. Although most of fresh
graduated engineers are joining MPW as it is the biggest engineering employer in Kuwait but
not too many of them prefer to join the maintenance branches as they prefer to join new
projects to gain experience. It is recommend encouraging fresh and experienced technical
staff in MPW to join building maintenance projects and to maintain training courses to
enhance technical skills for existed technical staff.
The second risk factor related to owner side was delaying decision making. Decision not
taken in the proper time was ranked as the sixth top ranked risk factors in building
maintenance projects. Decision taking in proper time is very essential in all projects
especially in maintenance projects. Time of taking action in building maintenance projects
can highly affect not only on the maintenance work under progress, but also for all the related
works and even on the routine daily work. So taking decision in the proper time will highly
affect the performance of building maintenance work.
Because of the nature of building maintenance projects as it exposing to environmental,
technical or managerial sources of risks, changing orders are very common in this type of
projects and then affect the progress of work. Channing order during work implementation
was recorded as the eighth top ranked risk factor. Some of changing order cannot be issued
unless taking approval from top management in MPW. It is recommended to revise the
changing order procedure and the cycle time for changing approval in all governmental
projects in Kuwait.
50 Ehab Soliman

Contractor-Related Risk Factors

Three top-ranked risk factors were belonging to contractor side. These risk factors are:
 Contractor financial problems
 Insufficient of used safety procedures
 Unavailability of required materials in the proper time

Contractor financial problem is the second ranked risk factor as shown in Table 5.
A previous study by Soliman (2010) revealed that contractor financial problem is an
essential cause for construction project delay in Kuwait. Contractor financial problems
will affect all building maintenance work under the responsibility of contractor. Providing
required material on time, providing technical personnel, manage daily work, all these
contractor functions are highly affected by contractor financial ability. Most of contactor
financial problems are coming from bad choice of contractor. The usual project awarding
system in Kuwait is the lowest price. Many problems resulted from this type of awarding
have been recorded and discussed worldwide. It is recommended to changing contractor
awarding method in governmental projects to match owner objectives with contractor
capability.
Another risk factor related to contactor which is using improper and insufficient safety
procedures during maintenance work. Insufficient of safety procedures provided by the
contractor is essential especially for certain types of building maintenance projects. Many of
building maintenance projects executed in confined and old places. Insufficient safety
procedures taken by contractor will affect the progress of both the maintenance work and
routine daily work in the building facility under maintenance.
Using improper materials in building maintenance projects may be due to unclear
definition of the required materials or due to insufficient time to check the used material in
the proper time. A clear and quick procedure should be taken in building maintenance project
to make sure that the used materials are as per specifications. A lead-time should be provided
by contract to test and approve of the required materials.
By comparing this study results with a previous study conducted by Kartam and Kartam
(2001) for risk elements in Kuwaiti projects from contractor prospective. The two studies
confirming that the competence of contactor is a source of risks in construction projects either
a new or building maintenance project.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, a survey for risk factors for building maintenance projects was conducted in
governmental Kuwaiti projects. A questionnaire of predefined risk factors which gathered
from previous research work regarding risk factors identification in construction projects. The
list of these predefined risk factors was revised by consulting four of top management
personnel working in governmental building maintenance projects in Kuwait. Thirty-seven
risk factors were used and divided into six groups based on risk factor initiator. Questionnaire
participants were asked to evaluate probability of occurrence and level of importance of set of
predefined risk factors. Mean value and coefficient of variance then severity index were used
to rank risk factors.
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 51

Nine risk factors were top-ranked, three of them related to governmental reasons, three of
them resulted from owner and three of them are contractor related. The three risk factors
related to governmental reasons are: delay of information from governmental agencies, weak
of coordination with governmental agencies and conflict with service utilities in site.
While three owner causes are lack of work force staff to direct work, decision not taken
in the proper time and change order during work implementing.
The three contractor related risk factors are: contractor financial problems, insufficient of
used safety procedures and Unavailability of required materials in the proper time.
It is very important to revise work environment in building maintenance projects in
such countries taking into consideration this study results. This study suggested many
recommendations to enhance this work environment such as changing contractor selection
system to make sure that the winner contractor has the satisfactory financial and managerial
ability to manage a project. In addition to revision of owner changing order procedures to be
faster and more efficient and using modern and up to date communication channels between
the site staff location and governmental agencies to accelerate approval procedure from
governmental agencies be more fast and efficient.
Limitations of the study relate to the boundaries of sample size and its geographic focus,
while findings are specific to state of Kuwait and can be useful for all similar work
environments such as all gulf area.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. M. & Ahmad, R. and De Saram, D. D. (1999). Risk management trends in the
Hong Kong construction industry: A comparison of contractors and owners perceptions.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6 (3), 225–234.
Al-Bahar, J. F. & Crangell, K. C. (1990). Systematic risk management approach for
construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering, and Management, 116 (3),
533–546.
Al-Tabtabai, H. & Diekmann, J. E. (1992). Judgmental forecasting in construction.
Construction Management and Economics, 10 (1), 19- 30.
Baker, S. & Ponniah, D. and Smith, S. (1999). Risk response techniques employed currently
for major projects. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 205-213.
Baloi, D. & Price, A. D. F., (2003). Modeling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance. International Journal of Project Management 21 (4), 261–269.
Black, C. & Akintoye, A., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). Analysis of Success Factors and
Benefits of Partnering in Construction. International J. of Project Management, 18~6!,
423–434.
BSI (1996). Risk Management: Part 3, Guide to Risk Analysis of Technological Systems, BS
8444: Part 3: 1996, The British Standards Institution, London.
Carr, V. & Tah, J. H. M. (2001). A Fuzzy Approach to Construction Project Risk Assessment
and Analysis: Construction Project Risk Management System. Advances in Engineering
Software, 32, 847-857.
Centre of Kuwait Bank (CKB) – 2012.
52 Ehab Soliman

Chan, A.& Yeung J. & Calvin C. P. & Wang S., and Ke Y. (2011). Empirical Study of Risk
Assessment and Allocation of Public-Private Partnership Projects in China. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 27 (3),136-148.
Chia, S. E., (2006). Risk Assessment Framework for Project Management. 10.1109/IEMC
.2006.4279889, IEEE, 376–379.
Cooper, D. F. and Chapman, C. B. (1987). Risk Analysis for Large Projects. Wiley,
Chichester.
Edwards, P. J. & Bowen, P. A. (1998). Risk and Risk Management in Construction: a Review
and Future Directions for Research. Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, 5 (4), 339-349.
El-Haram, M. A. & Marenjak, S and Horner, M. W. (2002). Development of Generic
Framework for Collecting Whole Life Cost Data for the Building Industry. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 8 (2), pp 144-151.
El-Sayegh, S. M. (2008). Risk Assessment and Allocation in the UAE Construction Industry.
International Journal of Project Management, 26 (4), 431–438.
Eybpoosh, M. & Dikmen, I. and Talat Birgonul, M. (2011). Identification of Risk Paths in
International Construction Projects Using Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 137 (12), 1164-1175.
Flanagan, R. & Norman, G. (1993). Risk Management and Construction. Blackwell, UK.
Gajzler, M. (2013). The Support of Building Management in the Aspect of Technical
Maintenance. Proceeding Engineering, 54, 615 – 624, The 2nd International Conference
on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Civil Engineering.
Grimsey, D. & Lewis, M. K. (2002). Evaluating the Risks of Public Private Partnership for
Infrastructure Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 107-118.
Guo, F. & Change-Richards, Y. & Wilkinson, S. and Li, T. C. (2014). Effects of Project
Governance Structures on the Management of Risks in Major Infrastructure Projects: A
Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (5), 815-826.
Holt, G. D. (2013). Asking Questions, Analyzing Answers: Relative Importance Revisited.
Construction Innovation, 14 (1), 2 – 16.
Hwang, B. & Zhao, X. and Toh, L. (2014). Risk Management in Small Construction Projects
in Singapore: Status, Barriers and Impact. International Journal of Project Management,
32 (1), 116–124.
Isa, Z. M. (2001). The Management of Public Property in Malaysia. New Technology New
Century International Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of Risk, Uncertainties and Opportunities on Projects: Time
for a Fundamental Shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19 (1), 89–101.
Kartam, N & Kartam, S. (2001). Risk and Its Magnitude in the Kuwaiti Construction
Industry: A Contractors’ Prospective. International Journal of Project Management, 19,
325-335.
Lam, E. W. & Chan, A. P. C and Chan, D. W. M. (2010). Benchmarking Success of Building
Maintenance Projects. Facilities, 28 (5/6), 290-305.
Lam, P. T. (1999). A Sectorial Review of Risk Associated With Major Infrastructure Projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 17 (2), 77-78.
Lambert, J. H. & Haimes, Y. H. & Li D.& Schooff R. M. and Tulsiani V. (2001).
Identification, Ranking, and Management of Risks in a Major System Acquisition.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72, 315-325.
 Risk Identification for Building Maintenance Projects 53

Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the Team, HMSO.

Lu, Shaokai & Yan, Hong. (2013). A Comparative Study of the Measurements of Perceived
Risk among Contractors in China. International Journal of Project Management, 31 (2),
307–312.
Marcelino-Sádaba, S. & Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. & Lazcano, A. M. and Villanueva, P. (2014).
Project Risk Management Methodology for Small Firms. International Journal of Project
Management, 32 (2), 327–340.
Mark, W. & Cohen, P. E. and Glen, R. P. (2004). Project Risk Identification and
Management. AACE International Transaction. INT.01, 1-5.
Mohd-Noor, N. & Hamid, M. Y. & Abdul-Ghani, A. A. and Haron, S. N. (2011). Building
Maintenance Budget Determination: An Exploration Study in the Malaysia Government
Practice. The 2nd International Building Control Conference, Proceeding Engineering
20, 435 – 444.
Nieto-Morote, A. & Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A Fuzzy Approach to Construction Project Risk
Assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (2), 220–231.
Olajide, F. & Afolarin, A. (2012). Evaluation of Maintenance Management Practice in
Banking Industry in Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable
Construction Engineering & Technology (ISSN: 2180-3242) 3 (1).
Perry, JG & Hayes RW. (1985). Risk and Its Management in Construction Projects.
Proceeding International Civil Engineering, 1-78, 499-521.
Rahman, M. & Kumaraswamy, M. (2004). Potential for Implementing Relational Contracting
and Joint Risk Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20 (4), 178–189.
Shen, LY. (1997). Project Risk Management in Hong Kong. International Journal of Project
Management, 15 (2), 101-105.
Soliman, E M. (2010). Delay Causes in Kuwait Construction Projects AICSGE7, Structural
Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Songer, A. D. & Diekmann, J. and Secsok, R. S. (1997). Risk Analysis for Revenue
Dependent Infrastructure Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 15, 337-
385.
Suffian, A. (2013). Some Common Maintenance Problems and Building Defects: Our
Experiences. The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in
Civil Engineering, Procedia Engineering 54, 101 – 108.
Tah, J. H. M & Carr, V. (2000). A Proposal for Construction Project Risk Assessment Using
Fuzzy Logic. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 491–500.
Tah, J. H. M. & Thorpe, A. and McCaffer, R. (1993). Contractor Project Risks Contingency
Allocation Using Linguistic Approximation. Computing Systems in Engineering, 4(2–3),
281–93.
Thompson, PA & Perry, JG. (1992). Engineering Construction Risks: A Guide to Project Risk
Analysis and Risk Management, Thomas Telford, London.
Toakley, A. R. & Ling, S. M. C. (1991). Risk management and the building procurement
process. Innovation and Economics in Building Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 23-24
September, pp. 63-70.
Wang, S. & Tiong, R. & S. K. Ting, S. and Ashley D. (2000). Evaluation and management of
foreign exchange and revenue risks in China’s BOT projects. Construction Management
and Economics, 18, 197-207.
54 Ehab Soliman

Wirba E. N. & Tah J. H. M. and Howes, R. (1996). Risk interdependencies and natural
language computations. Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, 3(4), 251–69.
Wood, B. (2005), Towards Innovative Building Maintenance. Structural Survey, 23 (4), 291-
297.
Zou, P. X. W. & Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the Key Risks in
Construction Projects in China. International Journal of Project Management 25, 601–
614.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.