WALIA journal 35(1): 77-89, 2019

Available online at www.Waliaj.com

ISSN 1026-3861
© 2019 WALIA

Risk management in construction projects: Perspective of contractors and owners

Ali Ahmad Jibran Khattak 1, Rehman Akhtar 2, Muhammad Abas 2, Qazi Salman Khalid 2, *, Sahar Noor 2,
AbdurRehman Babar 2, Shakir Azim 2

1Department of Technology Civil, Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
2Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan

Abstract: Construction industry considers risk management as a critical management process, aiming to realize the
project objectives in terms of time, cost, safety, quality, and sustainable environment. The construction projects are
initiated in environments that consist of various interconnected activities, therefore, risk and uncertainty are
always there. To this aim, a methodology was developed to discover and analyze the key risk factors, risk
prevention and mitigation methods and risk analysis techniques from perception of contractors and owners in
Pakistan. Questionnaire was designed and distributed among contractors and owners working on variety of
projects. To achieve the objectives, the data was collected from 311 contractors and 190 owners. The analysis
reveals that the most severe risk factors according to perspective of owner is defective design and not coordinated
design, while most severe risk according to contractor is financial failure and awarding design to unqualified
designers. Furthermore, the owners and contractors tend to consider the subjective judgment as the most effective
way of risk prevention method. According to the contractors’ and owners perspective, close supervision of the
subordinates, and increase in the working hours was the mainly effective mitigative technique for minimizing
negative impacts. The risk analysis techniques used by the contractors and owners are the direct judgment using
experience and personal skills.

Key words: Risk management; Risk factors; Construction projects

1. Introduction essential to have additional information of different

*Even in the modern age, construction businesses
are engulfed with uncertainties and risks. In a
construction industry, risk level defines the success
and failure of a project (Paslawski, 2013).
Construction projects have a greater number of risks
because of participation of numerous parties such
as; contractors, owners, designers, subcontractors,
and suppliers, etc. (Khattak et al., 2015). Recognition
and analysis of risks are one of the most important
areas of decision-making in a construction industry.
The contractors and owners of projects are widely
associated with a high degree of risk due to nature of
construction projects (Kartam & Kartam, 2001).
Hence, it is necessary to analyze and manage risks
for the successful accomplishment of a construction
project. Construction projects require people with
adequate skills and expertise (Enshassi & Abu Mosa,
2008). Some risks that negatively affects
construction industry of Pakistan are: unable to
complete project on time, injuries/ accidents on site,
construction delayed specifically due to weather
conditions, price hike of materials and labor,
construction approval issues, and defective design,
among others (Abas et al., 2016; Iqbal, et al., 2015;
Liu et al.,2016; Mubin & Mubin, 2016; Zafar et al.,
2016). To make a competent risk management, it is
* Corresponding Author.
aspects of project, which can help in making risk-
informed decisions. For example, information
regarding the unforeseen events is needed
throughout the project execution phase and the risk
needs to be assessed. If the risk management of a
project is not efficient then it can have negative
consequences for the stakeholders, as on-time
preventive actions will not be taken against the risks
and uncertainty associated in the project
(Hopkinson, 2017). In addition, if preventive actions
are not taken on time then it results in
communication risks, delays in the project
deliverables, disputes and increases cost (Yang et
al.,2016). Risk management is regarded as one of the
main factors in the designing and management of the
venture (Qazi et al.,2016). The method of starting a
project from financial investment to final completion
is mostly a complicated and may possess uncertainty
in procedures, which incurs additional risks at hand
in the construction industry as compared to others.
European Union, construction industry involve
high risk of accidents, counting 1300 causalities due
to construction accidents per year. Internationally,
the risk of a person being killed in construction
industry is three times and being injured is twice
than the other industries, which cost heavily to the
individual, employer as well as society. Also it is
huge proportion of the contract price (De Lemos et
al., 2004). Occurrence of accidents at construction

77
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
sites is also major risk involved in the construction
of buildings, roads etc. As construction is
environment of hazardous in many aspects, the
accidents it experiences may have different severity
levels, resulting in some major and minor injuries
with even some resulting in fatality. The result of
accidents are delays in construction, cost overrun
and also cost the organization’s reputation, which
results in losing the confidence among workforce
internationally. Now due to authorities actions to
ensure the safety standards, resulted in increased
performance of construction industry (Wang et
al.,2006). Construction industry in Lithuania has
turnover of EUR 1.91 billion, considered as one the
largest industries in of Lithuania, is the source of
employment 94 thousand workers in 2011.
Unfortunately, health and safety issues are also
there. There are more fatalities and injuries than any
other industry. Statistic shows that in 2011 the
number of number of construction workers killed
are 13 compared to 7and 4 industrial and
agricultural workers respectively. While the number
of fatalities increased by twice than 2010 i.e. from 6
to 13 fatalities from 2010 (Šukys et al., 2011).
Theoretical risk analysis techniques for the
construction industry have been established from
number of years, but very rarely applied in real life
except for the few areas and few industries in multi-
disciplinary clients in the private sector (Perry &
Hayes, 1985). The risk factors for all the projects
may be similar for the local or international projects.
The risk factors include reduced detail design,
insufficient quality check and defective materials
which results in defective work. The factors for plan
delays are deficient design, bad weather, late
construction site possession, fluctuation in labor and
materials supply, unforeseen ground conditions and
incompetent connections and coordination with the
involved parties. All these risk factors can be
addressed by a proper project management, but due
to unique nature of projects the risks may vary for
each project due to which it is difficult to assess
these risks in advance. (Zhi, 1995). Any sort of
construction project is always prone to risks and
abundant work has been carried on it in the
developed countries, however, in the context of
developing countries such as Pakistan, are still
struggling to quench the research gaps in risk
perspective of a construction industry (Khan, 2013).
Pakistan’s construction companies industry is
largely impacted by the miscalculation of the
vulnerable risk, and lack of understanding regarding
the risk management including lack of proper
identification, analysis and assessment of risk.
According to Nawaz et al. (2019) there is substantial
requirement in the local environment of Pakistan to
implement and associate the systematic
methodology of risk management, so that
individually and collectively the threats of risk can
be minimized. There is a considerable need of
standards for risk management in the construction
industry that need to be developed. Therefore, the
research has a lot of significance as the risk factors
78
will be discovered in Pakistan’s construction
industry and the significance of other factors such as
severity is analyzed, thereby providing sensible
suggestions toward updating the risk management
process in construction industry and raises the
performance of acquiring firms as well as owners in
the construction industry of Pakistan. The study will
be prolonged for an improved understanding of the
risk factors faced by contractors and owners on daily
basis. The Investigation of the severity of risks as per
opinions of the owners and the contractors, the
examination of efficiency of risk management
techniques that are used by contractors and owners.
Based on the literature review and expert opinion
the identified risk factors are shown in Table 1.
The literature in this regard is nearly sufficient
with models that assess and measure risk or
methods which managers can employ to manage the
risks. However, there are two major gaps in the
existing methods, as pointed out by (Schieg, 2007).
First of all, most of the methods are based on solid
statistics and past data like Monte Carlo simulation
including network analysis and other factors
(Dawood, 1998), and also matrix propagation
method (Tüysüz & Kahraman, 2006). Manager may
experience short of data if the project is done in new
environment with new setting, and also many
problems are ill-defined and imprecise, which these
methods fail to address. Secondly, there always has
been a discrepancy between risk analysis and risk
management. For example, Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) is used to identify the risks and divide
the projects as high, medium and low risk (Dey,
2010), but no response to diminish risks have been
suggested. Since there is a weak link between risk
analysis and risk management, a need for an
integrated framework which addresses both the
aspects is aspired. (Dey, 2002, 2006) has stressed on
the need for such a framework over several
publications. (Cho et al., 2002; Kangari & Riggs,
1989; Zeng et al., 2007) incorporated fuzzy theory in
risk assessment. Other models used in assessment
are sensitivity analysis(White, 1995), fault tree
analysis (Abdelgawad & Fayek, 2010), and critical
path methods(Nasir et al., 2003) etc.
To address these gaps, this study aim to develop
risk management framework for Pakistan’s
construction industry, which combines risk analysis
and risk management while eliminating the need for
previous data and uses the managers’ expertise and
intuition as a substitute. The framework, though
reliant on intuition, should be objective, precise and
easy to apply. The paper first presents a literature
review on the risk factors and risk management
models or tools already available. Next, it elaborates
the tools and methods reviewed, which form the
basis for the new framework, propose the new
framework to address the problems associated with
the existing models. Finally, the paper provides a
detailed discussion on the framework and concludes
with recommendations on the basis of study that will
assist contractors and owners of projects to
effectively manage the common risks.
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

Table 1: Risk parameters and factors identified by authors

(Ibn-Homaid, Eldosouky, & Al-Ghamdi,

(El, El Nawawy, & Abdel-Alim, 2017)

(Rooshdi, Ab Rahman, Baki, Majid, &

(Chang, Hwang, Deng, & Zhao, 2018)

(Zolfagharian, Nourbakhsh, Irizarry,

(Choudhry, Aslam, Hinze, & Arain,

(Wu, Nisar, Kapletia, & Prabhakar,

(Mhatre, Thakkar, & Maiti, 2017)
(Zhao, Hwang, & Low, 2013)
(Hwang, Zhao, & Toh, 2014)
Ressang, & Gheisari, 2012)

(Kartam & Kartam, 2001)

(Sharma & Swain, 2011)

(Hallaq & Raouf, 2003)

(Adeleke et al., 2018)

(Wang et al., 2006)

(El-Sayegh, 2008)

(Paslawski, 2008)
(Liu et al., 2016)

Ismail, 2014)

2014)

2011)

2017)
Authors

Risk
Risk Factors
Parameters
Accidents at site     
Physical Supplies    
Varied labor   
Acts of good   
Environmenta Site not accessible    
l Condition of the weather  
Differing site situations  
Defect in design         
Design not coordinated properly      
Design incorrect quantities   
Lack of consistency    
Awarding design     
Material, Labor & equipment
       
productivity
Logistics
Defining scope of work      
precision of project plan     
Inflation     
Financial
Delayed payment      

Pakistan construction industry is highly impacted from owner’s and contractor’s perspective
by the miscalculation of the risks, and lack of and verify the importance of every factor in terms of
understanding regarding the risk management severity and to develop a risk management strategy.
including lack of proper recognition, analysis and Following are the objectives of the study:
evaluation of risk. In Pakistan very little research
have been carried out on risks in construction  This research is aimed to determine the key risk
projects. (Iqbal et al., 2015) carried out a study factors in the construction industry of Pakistan,
regarding risk factors in construction industry of area of focus is Peshawar.
Pakistan, incorporating different risks i-e site  The Investigation of the severity of risks as per
accidents, unforeseen site condition, corruption and opinions of the owners and the contractors.
bribery at sites in total of 37 factors along with two  The examination of risk management techniques
types of risk management techniques risk preventive that are used by contractors and owners.
techniques. Though, mitigation study of risk was  To conclude and give recommendations in light of
undermined in their work (Choudhry et al., 2014) the study that will help contractors and owners of
carried out study on identification of risk projects to effectively manage common risks.
management systems in construction projects in
Pakistan. However, their study is limited to 2. Materials and methods
identification and quantification on bridge
construction and also lacks a proper framework The following methodology is deployed to meet
endorsing risk prevention and mitigation. (Nawaz et the research objectives. As presented in Fig. 1,
al., 2019), also developed a frame work for risk context establishment/ literature of the state-of-the-
management in construction industry of Pakistan, art research is the foundation, which is to be kept in
but the research was limited to success factors and loop during the whole research. This leads to a bi-
risk management techniques solely based on phased study in which the first phase consist of risk
contractor’s perspective. In light of the above identification and its analysis through measuring the
discussion on gap our research has extended scope severity levels, whilst the second phase derives from
taking into account: development of framework for the prior to model for the preventive and mitigative
effective risk management based model risk factors steps been undertaken.
(divided into 9 groups), risk preventive & mitigative
methods, and risk analysis techniques from 2.1. Respondents
perspective of contractors and owners.
Furthermore, the purpose of the research work is The targeted respondents for the present study
to determine the factors that contribute to risk in the were contractors and owners. Information regarding
construction industry of Pakistan. To address this contractors was extracted from Pakistan
purpose, the risk factors within the construction Engineering Council (PEC) website
industry of Pakistan will be discovered https://verification.pec.org.pk/COFirmList.

79
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

Currently, there are 19,820 contractors
registered with PEC and they are divided into
different categories based on project cost limit,
minimum requirement limit of engineers and
financial soundness of contractors as shown in
Error! Reference source not found..
Unlike contractors as there are no such data
available, which gives exact information about the
owners, so the information were obtained through
personal contacts, contractors and consultants. The
owners are classified as public (government) and
private. The numbers of owners found were
approximately 200 private and 295 public based on
the project worth they conducting more than 1000
million (Rs) and for private between 500 and 2000
million (Rs).

Context Establishment

Risk Identification Risk Analysis Risk Prevention

 Risk Parameters  Direct Judgment
 Subjective Judgment
1….n  Comparing Analysis
 Risk Factors  Probability Analysis  Devise a proper schedule

1…n  Expert System

 Bias risk premium to time estimation
 Sensitivity Analysis

 Simulation Analysis  Stand by alternative method

 Share Risk with concerned parties

Risk Evaluation
Levels Risk Mitigation

 Supervision to Subordinates
Risk Severity

 Increase Work Hours

High  Coordination with Subordinates

Th> n*

 Change sequence of work by overlapping

Medium

Th> o <n* activities

Low
 Increase Manpower

 Change construction method

Fig. 1: Methodology for Risk Measurement & Prevention

Table 2: Contractors Category Details [(https://www.pec.org.pk/fee_Pakistani.aspx)]

Limit of Construction Financial reliability (Rs.
Total
S.No Category Cost of Project in Engineers Required in million)=Paid up
Registered
million (Rs) Capital/Net Worth
Two P.Es having 20 yrs. of
1 C-A Unlimited 100 195
Experience each + RE
Two P.Es having 15 yrs. of
2 C-B ≤ 4000 70 123
Experience each + RE
Two P.Es having 10 yrs.
3 C-1 ≤ 2500 55 353
Experience each + RE
4 C-2 ≤ 1000 One P.E + R.Es 35 1013
5 C-3 ≤ 500 50 percent R.E 20 1627
6 C-4 ≤ 200 50 percent R.E 4 3521
7 C-5 ≤ 65 Only one R.E 2 4686
8 C-6 ≤ 25 Only one R.E 1 9075
Total 20593
Professional Engineer (P.Es), Registered Engineer (RE)

80
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
2.2. Survey Instrument
In this research, the questionnaire deployed has
been adopted from (Mousa, 2005). The
questionnaire was divided in to three sections:
• The first section dealing with necessary
information regarding to the respondents and
organization, such as designation, experience,
number of employees and annual work volume.
• The second section comprises of series of risk
factors, that belong to nine major groups i.e.,
environmental, design, Physical, political,
financial, legal, construction, logistics, and
management risks. To take opinion of
respondents likert scale 1-10 (1-3 represents low
risks, 4-7 represents medium risks, and 8-10
represents high risks) was adopted. This section
includes 36 risk factors and was finalized after
consultation with local experts from both
academia, and construction professionals.
• The third section contains relative use of
preventive methods, mitigative risk methods, and
risk technique based on five point likert scale 1-5
(1 Never, 2 rarely, 3 sometimes, 4 often, and 5
always).
2.3. Sample determination and selection
The targeted populations of respondents were
contractors registered with PEC and owners both
public and private. Hence, a random sample was
needed to make sure to represent the sample of
target respondents. Therefore, for sample size
determination Cochran formula (Cochran, 1977) is
used as shown in Eq. 1.
𝑍2 ×𝑃×(1−𝑃) 𝑍2 ×𝑃×(1−𝑃)
𝑆𝑆 = ( )/(1 + ) (1)
𝐶2 𝑁𝐶 2
where:
SS = Sample Size
Z = Z value (1.96 for 95% confidence interval)
P = Percentage picking a choice (marginal error)
N = Population size
C = Confidence Interval (0.05)
As P value is unknown, so it is suggested to take it
as a conservative value of 0.50 (Cochran, 1977). The
population size determined for contractors were
20,593 and for owners both private and public were
495, so this make total population size of 21,088.
Hence, Eq.1 was applied to reduce the population
size and consider as representative of all
respondents. The desired minimum sample size
calculated was approximately 390. To make
response rate higher questionnaire were distributed
to 670 respondents. The targeted respondents were
contractors of category CA, CB, C1, and owners.
2.4. Analysis method
Reliability of questionnaire instrument were
analyzed through Cronbach’s alpha test. Shapiro
81
Wilk test were performed to ensure the normal
distribution of data. The data didn’t follow normal
distribution so non-parametric tests were performed
to further analyze the data. Kruskal-Wallis test was
performed to analyze whether there exists difference
in opinion between contractors and owner in raking
significant factors. Severity of risk factors were
calculated using mean score, while risk preventative,
mitigative methods and analysis technique were
ranked based on % effectiveness
2.4.1. Demography of the respondents
A total of 501 valid questionnaires out of 670
were received with average response rate of 75
percent as shown in Table 3. Hence, it is considered
to be adequate for analysis as it is greater than
required minimum sample size of 390. Error!
Reference source not found. shows the
demographic information of respondents. The
responses were recorded through personal
interview, electronic means and through courier
services.
2.4.2. Reliability analysis
Reliability provide internal consistency of data
that are collected based on scale, and provide the
amount of inter-correlation among the factors
(Netemeyer et al., 2003). Cronbach Alpha (α) test
was conducted to check reliability of collected data
from contractors and owners. The α value for
contractors and owners were 0.937 and 0.905, while
combined α value were 0.920, so these values are
rationally higher than 0.7 which is the acceptable
value (Alaghbari et al., 2007). This shows that data
was highly reliable and suitable for further analysis.
2.4.3. Normality test
As the sample size is less than 2000, a Shaprio-
Wilk test is performed to check the normal
distribution of collected data (Royston, 1983).
Significance (sig.) value greater than 0.05 shows
evidence for normality. As shown in Error! Reference
source not found., sig. values for each group of risk
factors were less than 0.05, so data is not normally
distributed. It further justified that non parametric
test would be suitable for further analysis.
2.4.4. Kruskal‒Wallis test
Kruskal‒Wallis (Breslow, 1970) test was
conducted to check whether there exist difference in
opinion of contractor and owners on ranking of
significant risk factors in each risk group, risk
mitigation, preventive methods and analysis
techniques. Sig. value less than alpha value of 0.05
shows variation in opinion. The test results as shown
in Error! Reference source not found. reveals that
except physical group factors there exist difference
of opinion between contractors and owner on
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

scoring of significant risk factors in each risk group, techniques.

risk mitigation, preventive methods and analysis

Table 3: Demography of the respondent

Target Respondent Years of Individual Total Response
Distributed
Respondents Designation Experience Responses Received Rate (%)
Managing director 15-20 18
Project Manager 13-15 21
Resident Engineer 10-15 21
CA 125 95 76
Senior site
15-20 20
Engineer
Surveyor 10-15 15
Managing director 15-22 13
Structural Engineer 10-15 15
CB Safety Engineer 12-16 95 15 71 75
Project Manager 15-20 15
Resident Engineer 10-15 13
Managing director 16-20 25
Project Manager 10-15 30
C1 Site Engineer 15-20 190 30 145 76
Safety Engineer 11-15 30
Surveyor 12-16 30
Public Owner 15-20 140 100 100 71
Private Owner 12-17 120 90 90 75
Total 670 501

Table 4: Normality Test % 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 =

∑𝟓𝒊 𝒂𝒊 𝒇𝒊
× 100 (3)
Groups Sig. value 𝟓𝑵

Physical 0.024
Environmental 0.047 where, “a” is the weight assigned to each responses
Design 0.031 (1-5), f =frequency of each response, N =total
Logistics 0.002 number of responses.
Financial 0.041
Legal 0.031 3. Results
Construction 0.019
Political 0.017 This section presents and describes the current
Management 0.013 views of contractors and owners in Pakistan
concerning the severity of the identified 44 risk
Sig.value for physical group is 0.078, which factors divide into 9 groups as shown in Error!
greater alpha value of 0.05 therefore is insignificant Reference source not found..
and shows agreement on ranking of factors, while for
the rest of groups are less than 0.05 therefore is 3.1. Physical group
significant and shows difference of opinion on
ranking of significant factors as evident from ranking Results established that the provision of
in Table 6. materials that are defective is the most severe
hazard in the physical group with mean score of
2.4.5. Ranking of factors 5.95, followed by occurrence of accidents (5.625),
and variations in labor and equipment productivity
The severity of identified risk factors were (4.625).
ranked according mean score (Alaghbari et al., 2007) These results point to the concerns of contractors
as shown in Eq. 2. as well as owners about the fitness of materials and
∑ 𝑓×𝑠
safety actions for construction projects, this outcome
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = (10 − ) (1 ≤ 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ≤ 10) (2) is supported by the results of (Ahmed et al. 1999)
𝑁
both contractors and owners agree upon occurrence
where, f is the frequency of responses to each of accidents and delivery of defective materials as
scoring (1-10), s is the score on scale (ranges from 1 the most severe risks in the physical group. Accident
to 10)given to each factor by the respondents, and N and site safety are amongst the top significant risks
is the total number of responses concerning that which are typically disregarded in Pakistan but are
factor the main setback according to this survey and must
Risk preventative, mitigative methods and be appropriately addressed.
analysis technique were ranked based on
%effectiveness (%frequency index) (Le-Hoai et al.,
2008), which is calculated as shown in Eq. 3.

82
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

Table 5: Kruskal-Wallis test for risk groups

Environmental

Construction

Management
Risk Groups

Financial
Logistics
Physical

Political
Design

Legal
Chi-
18.373 38.040 38.279 38.457 38.235 38.29 38.198 38.401 38.261
Square
sig. value .078 .00272 .0019 .0002 .0023 .0017 .0025 .0005 .0020
Risk Preventive Analysis
Mitigation Methods Technique
Chi-
36.012 36.231 36.193
Square
sig. value .0032 .0021 .0025

Table 6: Overall risk significance

Contractor Owner
Risk factors with groups Group Overall Group Overall
Severity Owner
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Physical group risks
Occurrence of accidents due to poor safety procedures 5.625 2 5 5.575 2 3
Supplies of materials that is defective 5.95 1 7 6.375 1 16
Varied labor and machinery productivity 4.625 3 8 5.35 3 4
Environmental risks
Site not accessible 5.65 1 9 4.025 3 30
Adverse weather conditions 4.75 2 18 4.2 2 23
Environmental factors 3.675 4 28 6.1 1 7
Acts of God 4.2 3 23 3.375 4 34
Design group
Design awarded to unqualified designers 7.35 2 2 5.675 4 6
Not coordinated design 5.975 3 3 7.925 1 2
Lack of consistency 5.6 4 10 7.4 2 8
Defective design 8.2 1 15 6.075 3 1
Inaccurate quantities 4.825 5 17 4.275 5 15
Logistics group
Labor, Material, equipment unavailability 6.6 1 20 4.7 2 21
Scope of work defining 5.475 2 29 6.15 1 25
Accuracy of project program 4.125 3 24 4.125 3 26
Financial group.
Price rises(Inflation) 5.5 2 12 5.2 3 18
Payments delayed 6.375 3 13 5.525 2 12
Financial failure 8.45 1 1 8.10 1 14
Legal group
permit and regulation 4.25 4 25 5.92 1 27
Disputes among labors 5.6 2 19 3.90 4 28
Delays made by third parties 6.1 1 26 3.95 3 29
Delayed dispute resolution 5.55 3 11 5.50 2 13
Construction group
Change of order/negotiation 3.025 4 36 3.025 4 36
Lower work quality due to time constraints 3.35 1 31 4.2 2 24
Change in work plan 3.225 3 34 3.25 3 35
Actual quantities 3.3 2 33 5.025 1 32
Political group
Acts of Government 5.775 2 6 4.975 3 20
Legislation 4.75 3 27 5.675 1 10
War threats 5.875 1 4 5.525 2 11
Blockade 5.3 4 32 4.475 4 33
Management group
Ambiguous planning due to complex projects 3.075 6 35 5.05 4 19
Organization 4.325 3 21 5.275 3 17
Coordination with sub-contractors 4.825 2 16 5.675 2 9
Resource management 4.225 4 22 4.45 5 22
Information unavailability 3.45 5 30 3.475 6 31
Poor communication between involved parties 5.225 1 14 6.3 1 5

83
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
3.2. Environmental group
As seen in Error! Reference source not found.,
according to the contractors site accessibility is the
main reason of delay in construction projects with
mean score of 5.65; adding up the risk of adverse
weather conditions is second most important risk in
this group with mean score of 4.75. On the other
hand, according to owners environmental factors
such as flood, earthquake and hurricanes are
considered as severe risks with mean score of 6.1 for
construction projects while the risks of unfavorable
weather conditions and site accessibility did not
come out to high significant risks amongst the
surveyed risks.
3.3. Design group
Design group factors incorporated one of the
most significant factors among the surveyed risks. As
illustrated in Table 6, defective design with (8.2)
severity and grant the planning to unqualified
designer with (7.8) severity are the key risk factors.
The results conjointly indicate that contractors
expertise deficient or inaccurate design data for a
construction project. This result was obtained from
ranking the defective design risk class mutually of
the foremost vital risks to a project. it's to be noted
that contractors involved concerning defective
design problems as a result of they might be
accountable concerning any crucial problems could
happen because of incorrect design. owners assigned
the risks of un-coordinated style with a mean score
of 7.925, these risks will be decreased by being
attentive and coordinate properly between the
consultants providing the planning. Thus steps
should be taken by a consultant and client to work in
coordination and also involving the contractor if the
contract permits to have correct design & thus avoid
problems in the implementation of a project.
3.4. Logistics group
According to the Contractors unavailability of
labor and materials is a significant risk (Mean score
6.6). The unavailability of material and labor is some
way related to political situation of our country, if
shutter down occurs, material prices will increase.
Vague work scope and inaccurate project program
has nearly equal severity, indicated by the owners.
These risks need to be fully understood to ease and
manage the work properly. Shortage of construction
material supply is a considerable risks and the
contractor is liable for this risk as provision of
materials in most projects is the contractor’s liability
and should be planned accordingly to mitigate this
hazard.
3.5. Financial group
Financial failure risk with mean score of 8.45 got
the highest score among the surveyed risk factors
84
given by contractor’s as well as owner’s. According
to Contractors the financial failure is the most
significant risk in the financial group. Financial
failure of project occurs due to:
 Bank loans with high interest rates.
 Lack of financial resources.
 Lack of knowledge about the ongoing project.
 Poor or insufficient management of cash flow.
 Low profit margin due to large number of
contractors competing for projects.
 Awarding projects to lowest bidder.
Above 80 percent the failure was caused by
financial factors that is why financial risks got the
top weights among the studied risks. Small firms of
category C4,C5,C6 do not have accounting sections
that on regular basis publishes financial reports and
therefore, financial ratios are difficult to monitor as
they appoint private accountants. It is a very good
idea to have adequate funds so the projects are
delivered in time without any delay. Financial risk in
construction projects are of improper cash flow,
bankruptcy due to delayed payments and dispute
with the supplier etc. in addition mega projects
comprise of complex financial planning.
3.6. Legal group
Error! Reference source not found. shows that
third party delays, labor disputes, delayed dispute
resolution had the highest mean score of 6.1, 5.6, and
5.55 in the legal group given by the contractors,
which show the significance of dispute resolution
and its consequences. Owners consider difficulty to
get permits from the government authorities to start
projects as a severe risk. Legal construction risks in
construction projects consist of local law and
building code, contractors should ensure to follow
the legal contractual compulsions so they can benefit
from it.
3.7. Construction group
There were four risks associated with
construction group namely change order
negotiation, lower quality of work due to time
constrains, changes in work and difference between
actual and estimated quantities. According to
contractors there were no significant risks in the
construction group. Owners considered estimation
of incorrect quantities as a risk of medium severity,
due to non-practice of advanced methods to estimate
material quantities there is always difference
between actual and estimated quantities.
3.8. Management group
According to owners in the management risks,
the highest risk is that of poor communication
between different parties (severity 6.3). Lack of
proper coordination with the subordinates is also a
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
matter of concern for the owners (severity 5.675).
According to contractors in the management risks,
the highest risk is that of poor communication
between different parties (severity 5.225). Lack of
proper coordination with the subordinates is also a
matter of concern for the contractors (severity
4.825) and information unavailability has 138
weighted score and 3.45 severity being the risk of
lowest concern. Improper communication has a lot
of effects and consequences on construction projects
such as cost overruns, time dealys, disputes and
finally project failure. It also found that highly
effective communication can attain good cost and
time management in production of flourishing
projects.
3.9. Overall risk significance from perspective of
contractors and owners
The results show that medium as well as high risk
were there from contractors’ point of view.
According to the results, the highest risks of financial
failure (Severity = 8.45), defective design (severity
8.2) followed by awarding design to the unqualified
designers (severity = 7.35). The lowest risk is of
change order negotiation (severity 3.025) and
ambiguous planning due to project complexity
(severity 3.075).
According to the owners’ perspective, the highest
risk is of not coordinated design (severity = 7.925)
and not defective design (Severity = 6.075). The
lowest risk according to the perspective of owners is
of change order negotiation (severity = 3.025) and
changes in work (severity = 3.25).
4. Discussion
This research provides insights about the
perception of contractors and owners towards
different types of risks that construction industry
face in Pakistan. There were 36 risks included in the
questionnaire. The significant risks have been
identified a) defective design; b) not coordinated
design; c) occurrence of accidents during
construction; d) varied labor and equipment
productivity; e) weak communication among
involved parties; f) Project design by incompetent
designers; g) environmental factors; h)lack of
consistency; i) coordination with subcontractors; j)
shortage/delay of material supply and; L) financial
failure.
Varied equipment and labour output is also a
significant risk in construction projects. Good project
management in construction should smartly pursue
the economical utilization of labor, material and
instruments. Improvement of labor productivity
ought to be significant and continual concern of the
construction firms who are accountable for
construction projects. Material handling, which
incorporates procurement, inventory, workshop
fabrication needs special attention for price
reduction. Another major risk is improper
communication between involved technical groups
85
in the construction project. The consequence of poor
communications for an organization is that
employees will misjudge management decisions or
respond to them in a way that was not deliberated.
Equally, managers will misread the prerequisites of
employees and will consequently suffer from lower
performance and a higher turnover of staff.
Construction projects are greatly affected by
environmental factors. The environmental effects on
the Project could include: reduced visibility and
inability to maneuver construction and operation
instrumentation, delays in receipt of materials
and/or provides (e.g., construction materials,
reagents) and/or in delivering merchandise, changes
to the power of employees to access the positioning
(e.g., if a road were to scrub out), injury to
infrastructure, raised structural loading, and/or loss
of electric power leading to potential loss of
production.
Financial failures greatly impact construction
projects. Possible solutions in mitigating financial-
related delay like to structure the market, to not over
develop, to conduct coaching on cash flow
management, right use of risk management, to be
sensible in acceptance of the contract, to settle on a
decent remunerator, and to use payment bond with
bank and consumer were urged to purchasers and
contractors, severally.
Our results are supported by the results of
(Kartam and Kartam, 2001), claiming that supply of
defective materials is accepted as a risk by the
contractors. The same allocation has also been
accepted by the contractors from Hong Kong
(Ahmed et al., 1999). The results of environmental
factors i.e., difficulty in access to site is supported by
the results of the research of (Kartam and Kartam,
2001). The contractors on the other hand also tend
to be worried about the defective design as argued
by (De Lemos et al., 2004; Koushki et al., 2005).
Contractors also tend to be worried about poor
communications and unavailability of labor,
materials as it is related to the political situations.
occurrence of accidents due to poor site safety
conditions are also among the significant risks which
is typically neglected in our country Pakistan but are
the major source of postponement as per this survey
and have to be given proper attention., client and
contractor must also take care to advance safety on
sites and affecting the projects in a positive way all
these findings are also supported by (Iqbal et al.,
2015). (Hallaq and Raouf, 2003) argues that there
are so many reasons that the contractors can
financially fail, which include lack of capital amount,
lack of relevant experience, depending on the banks,
low profit margin, closure and awarding contracts to
the lowest price.(Hallaq and Raouf, 2003) also
argues that greater than 80 percent of the failures
happened due to the economic failure. Moreover, if
any kind of shortage in market occurs then prices of
materials also increases (Ahmed et al., 1999).
Therefore, our results are in line with the results of
(Hallaq and Raouf, 2003). Contractors also argue
that delayed payments by the owners also causes
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
trouble and this is supported by the study of (Kartam
and Kartam, 2001). The delayed resolution of
dispute also needs to be addressed as this creates
ambiguity in the work legislations and it also
enhances difficulty in getting permits. The
construction group risks are in line with the findings
of (Ahmed et al., 1999). Political risks also tend to be
significant due to the unstable condition in the
country.
Owner’s also consider design risks as significant
risks and these results are supported by research
work of (Ahmed et al., 1999; De Lemos et al., 2004;
Shen, 1997). If a rush design is given then it gives
rise to serious risks and the owners tend to have
problems. This means that there is a need of
innovative contract methods through, which the
allocation of risks can be done appropriately so that
the parties are able to handle them.
Risk management in construction isn't restricted
to noting down all the execs and cons or put a label
‘negative risk’ on every troubling event. Management
could be a sophisticated, lasting and comprehensive
method that begins before the investment and
generally lasts even once the completion of project.
To sanely manage risk doesn't mean to stay aloof
from it's however to acknowledge it properly and
direct all connected opportunities and hazards this is
also supported by (Szymański, 2017).
4.1. Risk Preventive actions adopted
contractors and owners
The preventive actions from owners’ perspective
are shown in Fig. 2. Owners tend to consider the
subjective judgment as the most effective way. Next,
owners consider getting up to date information
regarding the project necessary and essential.
Owners consider shift or sharing risk with other
parties as the least efficient preventive action.
The contractors’ perspective is same as owners’
perspective as the most effective method considered
Preventive Actions
Share or transfer risk to/with other
Use quantiative risk analysis methods for correct time
estimate
Plan alternative methods as stand by
Adjust for the bias risk premium to time estimation
Refer to present and past projects for accurate idea
Produce a proper schedule by getting updated project
information
Depend on subjective judgement to produce a proper
program
Fig. 2: Risk preventive actions adopted by owners
is subjective judgment (80%) followed by the
updated project information (77.5%). The least
effective method considered by the contractors’ is
utilization of a quantitative risk analysis technique
(47.5%).
4.2. Risk mitigative methods adopted by
contractors and Owners
Conferring to Fig. 3, according to the contractors’
perspective, close supervision of the subordinates
was the mainly effective mitigative technique for
minimizing negative impacts. Second most effective
method is increase in the working hours. Increasing
working hours helps in speeding up the processes.
The rarely used mitigative method was of change in
the construction method (60%). The six mitigate
methods are presented in the Fig. 3. The first
mitigative technique suggested by the owners is
close supervision to the subordinates for
minimization of the unproductive work (92.5%)
whereas the last method suggested is the change in
construction methods (60%). Coordination with the
sub-contractors is also considered as an efficient
mitigative method by the owners (85%)
4.3. Risk analysis techniques adopted by
contractors and owners
by The risk analysis techniques used by the
contractors as revealed in Fig. 4, the most is the
direct judgment using experience and personal skills
(90%) followed by comparing analysis (82.5%).
Simulation analysis is barely used by the contractors.
Owners also tend to use direct judgment the most
(95%) followed by comparing and probability
analysis (75%). Simulation analysis is the least used
analysis technique (25%).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Owner Contractor
86
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

Mitigative Methods

Change the construction technique

Increase number of labour and/or equipment

Change the sequence of work by overlapping activities

Coordinate closely with subcontractors

Increase the working hours

Close supervision to subordinates for minimizing abortive

work
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Owner Contractor

Fig. 3: Risk mitigative methods adopted by contractors and owners

Analysis Techniques

Simulation analysis using simulator computer packages

Sensitivity analysis

Expert systems

Probability analysis

Comparing analysis

Direct judgement using experience and personal skills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Owner Contractor
-
Fig. 4: Risk analysis techniques adopted by contractors and owners

5. Conclusions  Financial failures should be avoided by the

Construction project typically fail to deliver on
time or affected by price overruns owing to
improper, un-systematized risk management. The
causes of failure (risk factors) are often internal to
the project or are often embedded within the
external surroundings a number of these could also
be governable et al could also be uncontrollable. The
various kinds of risks need different strategies for
mitigation. The uncontrollable ones cannot be
eliminated and only adequate responses to dilute
their effect can be developed. The controllable ones
can be nipped in the bud and should be prevented at
supply. The interior ones have their origin among
the organization and wish effective management of
internal resources to forestall them, whereas the
external ones want continual scanning and
statement of the surroundings.
Additionally, some risks have larger impact on
the project and area unit essential to its timely
completion, while some do not need attention as
they have negligible importance. Following are
recommendations for contractors and owners for
assessing risk before starting construction activities
and during construction activities:
 Contracting companies can add risk premium in
their quotations.
87
contractors and more steps should be taken in
order to ensure any kind of financial failure.
 Both owners and contractors to be more aware
about safety techniques.
 Contractors should thrive to share different risks
that they face.
 Contractors should hire risk managers so
computerized approaches can utilized by the
contractors instead of largely making use of
direct judgment.
 The personnel may be trained so that
management principles can be suitably applied.
 Tenders may be awarded to those contractors
that estimate the costs accurately.
 Continuous training programs may be held to
enhance the risk management process.
 The design products need to be of highest quality
as it is one of the most significant phases.
 Exchange rate variation to be thought of as a risk
issue by owners and donors and that they ought
to provide a compensation mechanism if there's
any hurt because of this risk
 Contractors and owners may concentrate on site
safety techniques.
 A satisfactory level of communication is must to
be maintained by both the owners and the
contractors.
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89
 Proper Documentation works to be used widely
in construction
 Contractors and owners should save digital
record of finished projects. It will be a source of
information for upcoming projects
 Contractors must provide the professional staff
i.e., risk manager to manage the risk in projects,
that in turn causes significant reduction in the
price and time of completion.
References
Abas, M., Khattak, S., Akhtar, R., Ahmad, I., Ullah, M., & Haq,
I. (2016). Identification of Factors Affecting Cost
Performance of Construction Projects. University of
Engineering and Technology Taxila. Technical
Journal, 21(1), 72.
Abdelgawad, M., & Fayek, A. R. (2010). Fuzzy reliability
analyzer: Quantitative assessment of risk events in
the construction industry using fuzzy fault-tree
analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 137(4), 294–302.
Adeleke, A., Bahaudin, A., Kamaruddeen, A., Bamgbade, J.,
Salimon, M. G., Khan, M. W. A., & Sorooshian, S.
(2018). The influence of organizational external
factors on construction risk management among
Nigerian construction companies. Safety and health
at work, 9(1), 115–124.
Ahmed, S. M., Ahmad, R., & Darshi De Saram, 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.
Alaghbari, W., Razali A. Kadir, M., Salim, A., & Ernawati.
(2007). The significant factors causing delay of
building construction projects in Malaysia.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 14(2), 192–206.
Breslow, N. (1970). A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for
comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of
censorship. Biometrika, 57(3), 579–594.
Chang, T., Hwang, B.-G., Deng, X., & Zhao, X. (2018).
Identifying political risk management strategies in
international construction projects. Advances in Civil
Engineering, 2018.
Cho, H.-N., Choi, H.-H., & Kim, Y.-B. (2002). A risk
assessment methodology for incorporating
uncertainties using fuzzy concepts. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 78(2), 173–183.
Choudhry, R. M., Aslam, M. A., Hinze, J. W., & Arain, F. M.
(2014). Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge
construction in Pakistan: Establishing risk guidelines.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 140(7), 04014020.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques-3.
Dawood, N. (1998). Estimating project and activity
duration: A risk management approach using
network analysis. Construction Management &
Economics, 16(1), 41–48.
De Lemos, T., Eaton, D., Betts, M., & de Almeida, L. T.
(2004). Risk management in the Lusoponte
concession—a case study of the two bridges in
88
Lisbon, Portugal. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(1), 63–73.
Dey, P. K. (2002). Project risk management: A combined
analytic hierarchy process and decision tree
approach. Cost Engineering, 44(3), 13–27.
Dey, P. K. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and
selection using multiple-attribute decision-making
technique. International Journal of Production
Economics, 103(1), 90–103.
Dey, P. K. (2010). Managing project risk using combined
analytic hierarchy process and risk map. Applied Soft
Computing, 10(4), 990–1000.
El, M. S. B. A. A., El Nawawy, O. A. M., & Abdel-Alim, A. M.
(2017). Identification and assessment of risk factors
affecting construction projects. HBRC journal, 13(2),
202–216.
El-Sayegh, S. M. (2008). Risk assessment and allocation in
the UAE construction industry. International journal
of project management, 26(4), 431–438.
Enshassi, A., & Abu Mosa, J. (2008). Risk management in
building projects: Owners’ perspective. Risk
management in building projects: Owners’
perspective, 16(1).
Hallaq, A., & Raouf, K. A. (2003). Causes of contractor’s
failure in Gaza Strip. Causes of contractor’s failure in
gaza strip.
Hopkinson, M. (2017). The project risk maturity model:
Measuring and improving risk management
capability. Routledge.
Hwang, B.-G., Zhao, X., & Toh, L. P. (2014). Risk
management in small construction projects in
Singapore: Status, barriers and impact. International
journal of project management, 32(1), 116–124.
Ibn-Homaid, N. T., Eldosouky, A. I., & Al-Ghamdi, M. A.
(2011). Change orders in Saudi linear construction
projects. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research,
16(1), 33–42.
Iqbal, S., Choudhry, R. M., Holschemacher, K., Ali, A., &
Tamošaitienė, J. (2015). Risk management in
construction projects. Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, 21(1), 65–78.
Kangari, R., & Riggs, L. S. (1989). Construction risk
assessment by linguistics. IEEE transactions on
engineering management, 36(2), 126–131.
Kartam, N. A., & Kartam, S. A. (2001). Risk and its
management in the Kuwaiti construction industry: A
contractors’ perspective. International journal of
project management, 19(6), 325–335.
Khan, A. H. (2013). The Contractors Perception of Risk
Management in Pakistan. Pakistan Acedmy of
Sciences, 50, 189–200.
Khattak, S., Abas, M., Maqsood, S., Omair, M., Nawaz, R., &
Haq, I. U. (2015). Identification and Evaluation of
Risk Factors Affecting the Supply Chain Environment
of Construction Industry of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa
(KPK). University of Engineering and Technology
(UET) Taxila, Pakistan, 20(6).
Koushki, P., Al‐Rashid, K., & Kartam, N. (2005). Delays and
cost increases in the construction of private
residential projects in Kuwait. Construction
Management and Economics, 23(3), 285–294.
 Khattak et al / WALIA, 35(1) 2019, Pages: 77-89

Le-Hoai, L., Dai Lee, Y., & Lee, J. Y. (2008). Delay and cost Sharma, S. K., & Swain, N. (2011). Risk management in
overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: A construction projects. Asia Pacific Business Review,
comparison with other selected countries. KSCE 7(3), 107–120.
journal of civil engineering, 12(6), 367–377.
Shen, L. Y. (1997). Project risk management in Hong Kong.
Liu, J., Zhao, X., & Yan, P. (2016). Risk paths in international International journal of project management, 15(2),
construction projects: Case study from Chinese 101–105.
contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Šukys, R., Čyras, P., & Šakėnaitė, J. (2011). Economical loss
Management, 142(6), 05016002.
due to non-compliance with requirements for
Mhatre, T. N., Thakkar, J., & Maiti, J. (2017). Modelling personnel safety and health in Lithuanian
critical risk factors for Indian construction project construction sector. Journal of Civil Engineering and
using interpretive ranking process (IRP) and system Management, 17(2), 168–176.
dynamics (SD). International Journal of Quality &
Szymański, P. (2017). Risk management in construction
Reliability Management, 34(9), 1451–1473.
projects. Procedia engineering, 208, 174–182.
Mubin, S., & Mubin, G. (2016). Risk analysis for
Tüysüz, F., & Kahraman, C. (2006). Project risk evaluation
construction and operation of gas pipeline projects in
using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: An
Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Engineering and
application to information technology projects.
Applied Sciences.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21(6),
Nasir, D., McCabe, B., & Hartono, L. (2003). Evaluating risk 559–584.
in construction–schedule model (ERIC–S):
Wang, W.-C., Liu, J.-J., & Chou, S.-C. (2006). Simulation-
Construction schedule risk model. Journal of
based safety evaluation model integrated with
construction engineering and management, 129(5),
network schedule. Automation in construction,
518–527.
15(3), 341–354.
Nawaz, A., Waqar, A., Shah, S. A. R., Sajid, M., & Khalid, M. I.
White, D. (1995). Application of systems thinking to risk
(2019). An Innovative Framework for Risk
management: A review of the literature. Management
Management in Construction Projects in Developing
Decision, 33(10), 35–45.
Countries: Evidence from Pakistan. Risks, 7(1), 24.
Wu, Z., Nisar, T., Kapletia, D., & Prabhakar, G. (2017). Risk
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003).
factors for project success in the Chinese
Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage
construction industry. Journal of manufacturing
Publications.
technology management, 28(7), 850–866.
Paslawski, J. (2008). Flexibility approach in construction
Yang, R. J., Zou, P. X., & Wang, J. (2016). Modelling
process engineering. Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, 14(4), 518–530. stakeholder-associated risk networks in green
building projects. International journal of project
Paslawski, J. (2013). Hybrid flexible approach for Six Sigma management, 34(1), 66–81.
implementation in constructional SME. Journal of
Zafar, I., Yousaf, T., & Ahmed, S. (2016). Evaluation of risk
Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), 718–727.
factors causing cost overrun in road projects in
Perry, J., & Hayes, R. (1985). Risk and its management in terrorism affected areas Pakistan–a case study. KSCE
construction projects. Proceedings of the Institution Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(5), 1613–1620.
of Civil Engineers, 78(3), 499–521.
Zeng, J., An, M., & Smith, N. J. (2007). Application of a fuzzy
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A., & Kirytopoulos, K. (2016). based decision making methodology to construction
Project Complexity and Risk Management project risk assessment. International journal of
(ProCRiM): Towards modelling project complexity project management, 25(6), 589–600.
driven risk paths in construction projects.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G., & Low, S. P. (2013). Developing
International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
fuzzy enterprise risk management maturity model
1183–1198.
for construction firms. Journal of Construction
Rooshdi, R. R. R. M., Ab Rahman, N., Baki, N. Z. U., Majid, M. Engineering and Management, 139(9), 1179–1189.
Z. A., & Ismail, F. (2014). An evaluation of sustainable
Zhi, H. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction
design and construction criteria for green highway.
projects. International journal of project
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 180–186.
management, 13(4), 231–237.
Royston, J. (1983). Some techniques for assessing
Zolfagharian, S., Nourbakhsh, M., Irizarry, J., Ressang, A., &
multivarate normality based on the Shapiro‐Wilk W.
Gheisari, M. (2012). Environmental impacts
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C
assessment on construction sites (Vol. 2012, pp. 1750–
(Applied Statistics), 32(2), 121–133.
1759). Presented at the Construction Research
Schieg, M. (2007). Post‐mortem analysis on the analysis Congress.
and evaluation of risks in construction project
management. Journal of business Economics and
management, 8(2), 145–153.

89