Risk mapping in construction projects

ACELYA ECEM YILDIZ1, IREM DIKMEN1, M.TALAT BIRGONUL1, KEREM ERCOSKUN2 and
SELCUK ALTEN3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
2
Department of Architecture, Yeditepe University, Turkey
3
INNOCENT- Innovation Centre for Design and Technology, Turkey

Several risk identification and assessment methods have been proposed in the literature to facilitate
project risk management. In majority of the proposed methods, risk-related parameters are assessed
independently. On the other hand, several authors highlighted the importance of interdependence of
risk-related factors and argued that rather than individual risk factors, to achieve better simulation of
project conditions, risks should be assessed considering their interdependencies. Some authors
suggested using cause-effect diagrams, risk paths and risk maps with the aim of visualization of risks.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a new risk mapping methodology and a tool for international
construction projects.

This paper presents the preliminary findings of a two-year on-going research project entitled as
“Development of a Knowledge-Based Risk Mapping Tool for International Construction Projects”
which was sponsored by the Turkish government and carried out in collaboration with a partner
construction company. An ontology that relates risk and vulnerability factors to cost overrun was
developed and a risk map structure that patterns interrelated risk factors was designed in the initial
stages of the project. Using the data of Turkish contractors doing business abroad, risk-related
parameters were indentified and classified as “vulnerability”, “risk source”, “risk event” and “risk
consequence” with respect to their hierarchical order and 36 different risk paths were identified.
Currently, using the ontology and the risk path structure, a risk mapping tool is being created in
collaboration with the partner firm. How the tool may help the users to learn from previous risk
events, assess risk and vulnerability in a forthcoming project and visualize potential risk paths are
currently being tested. In this paper, the risk mapping methodology will be explained and experience
gained during the tool development stage will be presented.

Introduction
Within the literature, several risk identification and assessment methods have been proposed to
facilitate project risk management. In majority of the proposed methods, risk checklists and risk
breakdown structures are introduced to identify potential risks of a project, which in turn lead to risks
to be assessed individually. On the other hand, “generally risks affect, magnify or diminish each other
and have mutual influence on a project” Ren (1994). Several researchers such as Kim et al. (2009),
Ashley and Bonner (1987), Dikmen et al. (2007) emphasized the vital role of consideration of
independency among risk-related factors and claimed that rather than individual risk factors, risks
should be assessed with the consideration of their interdependencies, to achieve better simulation of
project conditions. Within this context, authors have made some encouraging efforts for demonstration
of risk interdependencies using influence diagrams, flow charts, cause-effect diagrams, risk paths and
risk maps.

Although, in recent literature, there is a consensus regarding the importance of consideration of risk
interdependencies, these attempts do not provide interactions among risk paths and demonstrate an
overall risk map structure that covers risk paths generated from cause-effect relationships of risk
factors. This study attempts to suggest a risk mapping methodology and a tool from which 36
interrelated risk paths, which were generated from interrelations among risk-related parameters,
associated with project cost overrun can be visualized. First, a literature review was undertaken to
comprehend previous approaches regarding with the risk interdependencies and risk paths. Second, a
risk mapping methodology and a tool was proposed which has been currently developing based on the
previous studies of this research. To revise the proposed methodology and the risk map and present
how the risk paths emerge in real construction projects, 37 different risk events in real project cases
were identified and stored in the lessons learned database with the collaboration of a construction
partner firm. Also, in the further steps of the research, lessons learned database will be used during the
risk assessment process of the tool.

Research Background

Overview of risk-related concepts

Risk
In literature, the word “risk” is used in different meanings with different words such as hazard or
uncertainty (Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990). Jannadi and Almishari (2003) defined risk as a
combination of the probability, the severity, and the exposure of all hazards of an activity. Chapman
(2001) accepted risk as the “likelihood of occurrence and the degree of impact of a negative event
adversely affecting an activity”. Barber (2005) defined risk as “a threat to project success, where the
final impact upon project success is not certain”. As will be introduced in further sections of the paper,
in this study risk-related factors are categorized into vulnerability factors, risk sources, risk events and
risk consequences, according to their places within the risk paths.

Risk Sources
Risk source is defined as any factor that has a potential to cause harm to a project either owing to an
adverse change from initial project conditions or an unexpected situation (Fidan et al., 2011).

Risk Event
A risk event is the occurrence of a negative happening (Standards Australia, 2004). Risk factors lead
to risk consequences through the occurrence of risk events. Risk events can be described as variations
(increases or decreases) in quality and quantity work, productivity, performance, and schedule such as
delays, interruptions or progress payments.

Risk Consequence
“Risk consequence describes the outcome of a risk event that causes deviation in project objectives”.
(Fidan et al., 2011). Consequences of risk factors can be determined with respect to project objectives
such as cost, time, quality and safety (Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990; Zhang 2007).

Vulnerability
A system’s vulnerability represents the extent or the capacity of this system to respond to or cope with
a hazard or a risk event (Zhang, 2007). “A system’s vulnerability can be described from multiple
aspects, such as its exposure to a hazard, its capacity to resist hazard impacts, and the possibility of
slow recovery from hazard impacts” (Watts, 1993). Vulnerability can be confused with risk (Ezell,
2007).

Literature survey on risk identification considering cause and effect relations

Risk identification is the first step of risk management process, in which potential risks associated with
a construction projects are identified (Zou et al., 2007; Akinci and Fischer, 1998). Within literature,
several checklists and risk breakdown structures were suggested to identify and classify potential risks
which have probability to have adverse effect on project objectives. Azhar et al. (2008) identified 42
cost overrun factors and arranged them into three categories: macro economic factors, management
factors, business and regulatory environment. Assaf and Al-Heiji (2006) investigated 73 causes of
delays construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), proposed 32 causes of delays
of construction project in Egypt. Enhassi et al. (2009) suggested 110 delay factors/causes, which were
classified into 12 groups, resulting into time overruns and cost overruns in construction projects in the
Gaza Strip. Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006) identified 44 delay factors related with the client, quantity
surveyor, architect, structural engineer, services engineer, contractor, subcontractor, supplier and
external factors. Perry and Hayes (1985) identified 29 primary sources of risks in a construction
project associated into 9 risk groups: physical, environmental, design, logistics, financial, legal,
political, construction and operation. Chan and Kumaraswamy (1996) identified 83 factors that may
cause time delays in Hong Kong construction projects and classified them into eight categories;
project-related, client-related, design team-related, contractor-related, materials, labor, plant and
equipment and external factors. Long et al. (2004) presented 62 risk factors in large construction
projects in Vietnam related with the financier, owner, contractor, consultant, project attributes,
coordination and environment problems. Mustafa and Al-Bahar (1991) identified 32 risks in
construction projects and classified them into six groups: acts of god, physical, financial and
economical, design and job site-related risks.

Although these checklists, help decision-makers to identify potential risk factors; they “stay at a
simple level of details, such as just listing the risks to limit the quantification and prioritization of
interrelated risks” (Han et al., 2008) and underemphasize the importance of interdependencies among
them (Ward, 1999). On the other hand, identifying risks as individual factors and neglecting the
sequences of their occurrence and cause-effect relations will not be a realistic approach. (Eybpoosh et
al., 2011). Within this context, authors such as Chapman (2001), Kim et al. (2009), Ashley and
Bonner (1987), Dikmen et al. (2007) have discussed the necessity of consideration of risk
interdependencies among risk factors and attempted to facilitate demonstration of cause-effect
relations among them.

Chapman (2001) proposed studying risk relationships by classifying them as, dependent risks in
series and independent risks in parallel and suggested precedence, influence diagrams, knowledge
maps or flow charts to represent these relationships. The study of Chapman (2001) is one of the
important contributions examining cause-effect relations among risks, risk paths generated from these
relationships and graphical representation of these paths. Additionally, Han et al. (2008) analyzed the
causality between risk variables, sorted them as risk sources (causes) and events with respect to their
hierarchical order and constructed series of risk paths from its source to event, to corporate a scenario-
based risk checklist. Ashley and Bonner (1987) utilized influence diagrams to represent
interrelationships between macro risks (political source variables) and micro risks (project
consequence variables) and their either direct or indirect affect on project cash flow variables (cost of
labor, material, overhead costs and project revenues). Akinci and Fischer (1998) used knowledge maps
for demonstration of relationships among uncontrollable risk factors (i.e. economic factors, political
risk factors, client related factors and subcontractor related factors) and cost overrun variables (i.e. unit
cost, estimated quantity, and final unit cost). To assess the cost overrun risk rating of an international
construction project, Dikmen et al. (2007) incorporated influence diagramming and fuzzy risk rating
approach for risk identification and risk assessment purposes. Authors used influence diagrams for
representation of hierarchical order and interactions of major sources of country and project risks that
relates cost overrun.

Carr and Tah (2001), represented the relationships between risk factors (causes of risks), risks (risk
events) and their consequences on project performance measures with the use of cause and effect
diagrams. Authors demonstrated risk inter-dependencies among risk-related concepts via risk
dependency chains, and included in the risk analysis system to “allow for the fact that in practice, risks
are not always independent of each other”. Kim et al. (2009) proposed a “path diagram” for
demonstration of relationships and interactions among 64 “performance influencing variables”
(observed variables), 14 “major variables directly affecting project performance without hierarchical
structure” (latent variables) and project performance.

Problem Determination

Although those aforementioned studies have highlighted the importance of consideration of risk
interdependencies and contributed to the structuring cause-effect relations among risk-related factors
with using knowledge maps, influence diagrams and risk paths, mostly they failed to cover
interactions among risk paths and demonstrate an overall risk map structure of the generated risk
paths. In practice, cause-effect relationships among risk factors lead to “a network form rather than a
one-way hierarchical structure” (Fidan et al., 2011). In this study, it is claimed that, risk paths should
be structured in a network form, such as a risk map, to enable the demonstration of interactions among
them.

Research Objective

In this on-going study, it is argued that in practice there are interdependencies among risk factors, and
their cause-effect relationships generate interrelated risk paths. The main objectives of this study can
be summarized as follows;

1) To propose a risk mapping methodology for international construction projects,

2) To develop a risk mapping tool that uses the proposed methodology and incorporates “a lessons
learned database” to help decision-makers to assign risk ratings.

Research Methodology

This paper presents the preliminary findings of a two-year on-going research project entitled as
“Development of a Knowledge-Based Risk Mapping Tool for International Construction Projects”.
The project was sponsored by the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology and carried out in
collaboration with a partner construction company. The risk-vulnerability ontology proposed in Fidan
et al. (2011) and a risk map structure presented in Eybpoosh et al. (2011) constitute the foundation of
the risk mapping tool. Fidan et al. (2011) identified potential risk-related factors of international
construction projects using the data of Turkish contractors doing business abroad and classified them
as vulnerability”, “risk source”, “risk event” and “risk consequence” with respect to their hierarchical
order. Additionally, authors defined “risk consequence” as project cost overrun and constructed an
ontology that relates risk and vulnerability factors to cost overrun. Based on the conducted risk-
vulnerability ontology, Eybpoosh et al. (2011) identified 36 interrelated risk paths using the data of
166 projects carried out by Turkish contractors in international market and developed a risk map
structure which comprehends and demonstrates the interactions of risk paths. Interdependency
coefficients of vulnerability, risk sources, risk event and risk consequence on the related risk paths and
total effects of each vulnerability factor and risk path on cost overrun were assessed using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM).

In this study, using the ontology and the risk path structure, a risk mapping tool is being created in
collaboration with the partner firm. Additionally, it was aimed to incorporate a lessons learned
database to enable users learn from previous projects, assess risk and vulnerability factors and
investigate potential risk paths that may generate in a forthcoming project.

Prior to the development of the risk mapping tool, validity of the ontology reported in Fidan et al.
(2011) and the risk map structure demonstrated in Eybpoosh et al. (2011) were justified in
collaboration of the partner firm. The partner firm was established in August 2001 with the aim of
incorporating project management and IT sector to develop project management models and tools. The
firm facilitates project management consultancy for both Turkish and international construction
projects with the experience of firm staff that had carried out international projects with leading
Turkish construction firms.

This on-going study adopts case study approach to investigate interdependencies among risk
factors and demonstrate how the risk paths emerge in real projects with using experience of the partner
firm Within this context, to identify real risk event histories, the experts in the partner firm were
requested to give some information about the risk events they faced in previous projects and triggering
factors that affected the occurrence of these events. Consequently, 37 different risk events in real
project cases were identified and stored in the lessons learned database within the tool. Through the
case reviews, risk-related parameters were classified as risk sources, risk events etc. with respect to
their sequence of occurrence and hierarchical order in the ontology.
Development of the risk mapping methodology and the tool

Structure of the risk map

Figure 1 demonstrates the risk map that constitutes the foundation of the risk mapping tool. The risk
map is composed of 36 interrelated risk paths that were generated from 28 risk-related parameters.
(Eypoosh et al., 2011).

Figure 1 Risk Map of the Tool

Risk paths

Table1 demonstrates the 36 interrelated risk paths which were structured based on the cause-effect
relationships among risk factors in the study of Eypoosh et al. (2011). The categorizations of risk
factors, such as vulnerability, risk source, risk events or risk consequence, are also represented in
Table 1.
Table 1 Risk paths
ID Vulnerability Risk Source Risk Event Risk Consequence
1 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Econ. Cond. » AC in Availability of Local Resource » » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
2 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Econ. Cond » AC in Laws and Regulations » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
3 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Econ. Cond » AC in Laws and Regulations » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
4 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Econ. Cond » AC in Performance of Client » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
5 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Econ. Cond » AC in Performance of Client » Changes in Project Specifications » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
6 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Country Economic Conditions » AC in Performance of Client » Changes in Project Specifications » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
7 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Laws and Regulations » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
8 Adverse Country Related Cond. » AC in Laws and Regulations » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
9 Project Complexity » Design Problems » » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
11 Uncertainity of Geological Cond. » AC in Site Condition » Changes in Project Specifications » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
12 Uncertainity of Geological Cond. » AC in Site Condition » Changes in Project Specifications » » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
13 Uncertainity of Geological Cond. » AC in Site Condition » AC in Performance of Contractor » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
14 Uncertainity of Geological Cond. » AC in Site Condition » AC in Performance of Contractor » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
15 Strict Requirements » AC in Performance of Contractor » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
16 Strict Requirements » AC in Performance of Contractor » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
17 Contractor Specific Problems » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
18 Engineer’s Incompetency » AC in Performance of Client » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
19 Engineer’s Incompetency » AC in Performance of Client » Changes in Project Specifications » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
20 Engineer’s Incompetency AC in Performance of Client » Changes in Project Specifications » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
21 Client’s Incompetency » » » » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
22 Client’s Incompetency » Design Problems » » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
23 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Site Condition » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
24 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Site Condition » Changes in Project Specifications » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
25 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Site Condition » Changes in Project Specifications » » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
26 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Site Condition » AC in Performance of Contractor » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
27 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Site Condition » AC in Performance of Contractor » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
28 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Performance of Contractor » Conflicts with Project Stakeholders » » Delays and Interruptions » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
29 Adverse Site Conditions » AC in Performance of Contractor » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
30 Contractor’s Lack of Experience » » » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
31 Contractor’s Lack of Experience » » » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
32 Contractor’s Lack of Resources » » » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
33 Contractor’s Lack of Resources » » » » Decrease in Quality of Work » Increase in Amount of Work » Cost Overrun
34 Contractor’s Lack of Mngr. Skills » » » » Decrease in Productivity » Increase in Unit Cost of Work » Cost Overrun
35 Contractor’s Lack of Mngr. Skills » » » » Lags in Cash Flow » Cost Overrun
36 Unexpected Events » Cost Overrun
An Illustrative Case Study

37 different risk events in real project cases were identified by the partner firm and reviewed to
investigate validity of risk paths. The statements of the expert about the risk events, extracted risk-
related factors (Table 2) and risk paths (Figure 2) are presented below.

Statement of the construction expert

“In an international construction project, there were strict requirements for hiring local labor. In order
to provide work permits for foreign laborers, governmental regulations of the host country require
having a local partner. This requirement resulted in temporarily unavailability of labor at site. To
comply with this requirement, company signed a contract with a local partner and hired local workers.
However, the productivity rates of local workers were lower than expected leading to significant
delays in the schedule. The complexity of the construction process was high (due to the construction
method) and the local partner was not experienced in these kinds of construction projects. Lack of
experience and qualifications of the local workers and partner resulted delays and quality problems.
During the inspection of the site quality manager, several defects were found leading to extensive
rework. Problems with quality, rework and low productivity rates caused time delays and additional
costs to the construction company”.

Extracted risk factors

Table 2 Extracted risk factors

Statement Extracted risk factor Type
“governmental regulations of the host country require
Strict Requirements Vulnerability
having a local partner”
“This requirement resulted in temporarily Contractor’s Lack of
Vulnerability
unavailability of labor at site” Resources
“Lack of experience and qualifications of the local
AC in Performance of
workers and partner resulted delays and quality Risk Source
Contractor
problems”
“several defects were found leading to extensive Decrease in Quality of
Risk Event
rework” Work
Increase in Amount of
“lead to rework of some of the constructed items ” Risk Event
Work
“labor productivity rates were lower than expected” Decrease in Productivity Risk Event
“Problems with quality, rework and low productivity
Risk
rates caused time delays and additional costs to the Cost Overrun
Consequence
construction company”

Risk path(s) generated from the case

 [V5-Strict Requirements] – [F18- AC in Performance of Contractor] -- [F25- Decrease in

Quality of Work] -- [F24- Increase in Amount of Work] --[F28- Cost Overrun]

 [V11-Contractors' Lack of Resources] -- [F23- Decrease in Productivity] -- [F26- Increase in

Unit Cost of Work] --[F28- Cost Overrun]
Figure 2 Risk map of the case

The risk mapping tool

As it is mentioned previously, the major aim of the tool is to facilitate a risk assessment methodology
that takes into interdependencies between risk and vulnerability parameters, and predicts the cost
overrun rating of an international construction project. The process of the risk assessment initials with
the determination of the vulnerability ratings by the tool user. It is argued that, if the vulnerability
ratings are determined based on experiences of the decision-makers solely, the outcome of the risk
assessment can entail a high degree of subjectivity. In this effort, it was decided to corporate a lessons
learned database, with the aim of enabling tool users benefit from the past projects records while
defining vulnerability ratings of a forthcoming project. During the assessment process, user should
select each vulnerability factor and define a rating considering the retrieved similar cases which were
occurred due to same selected vulnerability factors. After all the vulnerability ratings are assessed, the
magnitudes of the risk sources, risk events and consequence will be estimated by using the coefficients
found by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Finally, it is aimed to enable the user to monitor
potential risk paths and examine magnitudes of each risk path.

The progresses have been made in so far, cover justification of the risk map and risk path structure
methodology and incorporation of “a lessons learned database” that entails risk event histories of past
projects. How the tool may help the users to learn from previous risk events, assess risk and
vulnerability in a forthcoming project and visualize potential risk paths are currently being tested.

Benefits and Shortcomings of the Tool

The features and expected benefits of the tool, as mentioned by the experts in the partner firm can be
summarized as follows:

 Risk maps provide an effective way to visualize risk-related parameters and risk paths that may
emerge in real projects.
 The “lessons learned database” in which risk-related information can be codified, stored, updated,
retrieved, and transferred enables storing risk information, which otherwise would be lost.
 To increase organizational learning and develop a common organizational behavior regarding risk
management by,
 - Facilitating systematic risk identification and classification by providing a common language
about risk-related information,
- Developing an “organizational memory” in which all members of an organization can store
knowledge and experience gained in previous projects via lessons learned database,
- Providing a documentation and report mechanism which enables the user to transfer and share
the risk mapping results among organizations.
The major shortcomings of the tool are;
 It still depends on subjective judgments.
 If the number of cases in the lessons learned database is low, then similar cases cannot be retrieved.
 Lessons learned database, should be improved to take into account of complex conditions resulting
in risk consequences and in number of cases to retrieve similar cases.

Conclusion

This study proposes a risk mapping process that considers the interdependencies of risk-related
parameters and represents risk paths that are generated from the cause-effect relationships among
parameters. With the collaboration of the partner firm, the validity of the proposed risk path and risk
map structure was justified as well as risk paths that emerge in real projects were represented with the
case studies. To enhance case studies, real risk events were identified with using the experience of the
partner firm and “a lessons learned database” was developed to store these risk event histories. Case
study results show that, rather than individual factors, in practice risks emerge with cause-effect
relations that generate risk paths based on the sequence of occurrence of them. It should also be noted
that, the aim of this study also covers proposing a risk mapping tool which facilitates assessment of
risk-vulnerability parameters considering their interdependencies. Preliminary findings of the research
show that although the proposed risk path and risk map methodology are reliable, the major problem is
assigning vulnerability ratings as inputs to the tool. Lessons learned database will further be used with
the aim of enabling decision-maker to decide on the vulnerability ratings by using the retrieved past
project ratings. Thus, in order to improve predictions of the decision maker, as a further aim of this
study, the structure of the lessons learned database about risk events will be improved to take into
account of complex conditions resulting in risk consequences.

Acknowledgments

This paper presents the preliminary findings of a two-year on-going research project entitled
“Development of Knowledge-Based Risk Mapping Tool for International Construction Projects”
sponsored by Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

References
Abd El-Razek M.E., Bassioni, H.A. and Mobarak A.M. (2008) Causes of delay in building construction project in Egypt.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(11), 831-841.
Akıncı B. and Fischer M. (1998) Factors affecting contractors’ risk of cost overburden. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 14(1), 67-76.
Aibinu A. and Odeyinka H.A. (2006) Construction delays and their causative factors in Nigeria. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 132(7), 667-677.
Al-Bahar J.F. and Crandall K.C. (1990) Systematic risk management approach for construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 116(3), 533-546.
Ashley D.B. and Bonner J.J. (1987) Political risks in international construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management , 113(3), 447-467.
Assaf S.A. and Al-Hejji. S. (2006) Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 349-357.
Azhar N., Farooqui R.U. and Ahmed S.M. (2008) Cost overrun factors in construction industry of Pakistan. In: First
International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, 2008, Karachi, Pakistan.
Barber R.B. (2005) Understanding internally generated risks in projects. International Journal of Project Management. 23,
584-590.
Carr V. and Tah J.H.M. (2001) A fuzzy approach to construction risk assessment and analysis: construction project risk
management system. Advances in Engineering Software, 32(10), 847-857.
Chan D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy M. (1996) A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 55-63.
Chapman R.J. (2001) The controlling influences of effective risk identification and assessment for construction design
management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(3), 147-160.
Dikmen I., Birgonul M.T. and Han S. (2007) Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 497-505.
Enshassi A., Al-Najjar J. and Kumaraswamy M. (2009) Delays and cost overruns in the construction projects in the Gaza
Strip. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 14 (2), 126-151.
Eybpoosh M., Dikmen I. and Birgonul M.T. (2011) Identification of risk paths in international construction projects using
structural equation modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137 (12), 1164-1175.
Ezell B.N. (2007) Infrastructure vulnerability assessment model I-VAM. Risk Analysis, 273, 571-583.
Fidan G., Dikmen I., Tanyer M.A. and Birgonul M.T. (2011) Ontology for relating risk and vulnerability to cost overrun in
international projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 25(4), 302-315.
Han S.H., Kim D.Y., Kim H. and Jang W. (2008) A web-based integrated system for international project risk management.
Automation in Construction, 17 (3), 342-356.
Jannadi O. and Almishari S. (2003) Risk assessment in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
129(5), 492-500.
Kim D.Y., Han S.H., Kim H. and Park H. (2009) Structuring the prediction model of project performance for international
construction projects: a comparative analysis. Expert System with Applications, 36 (2), 1961-1971.
Long N.D., Ogunlana S., Quang T. and Lam K.C. (2004) Large construction projects in developing countries: a case study
from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (7), 553-561.
Mustafa M.A. and Al-Bahar J.F. (1991) Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 38(1), 46-52.
Perry J.G. and Hayes R.W. (1985) Risk and its management in construction projects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 78(3), 499-521.
Ren H. (1994) Risk analysis and risk relationships on construction projects. International Journal of Project Management,
12(2), 68-74.
Standards Australia. (2004) Risk management. AS 4360, Homebush, Australia.
Ward S.C. (1999) Assessing and managing important risks. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 331-336.
Watts M.J. and Bohle H.G. (1993) The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress Human
Geogr. 17(1), 43-67.
Zhang H. (2007) A redefinition of the project risk process: using vulnerability to open up the event-consequence link.
International Journal of Project Management. 25, 694-701.
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(6), 601-614.