The Implementation of ISO-9000 Standards to Construction

92 Pages·2009·1.96 MB·English

PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

RISK ALLOCATION AND MITIGATION IN THE EGYPTIAN BARRAGE PROJECTS
MNG-001
Mohammmad AboulFtouh Ammar, Adel Aboelyazeed Elsamadony, and Ashraf Abdshaheed Rabie
OPTIMIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION CASH FLOWS WITH NONLINEAR COST
MNG-002 DISTRIBUTIONS
Emad Elsaed Elbeltagi, Mohammad Abo Elfetouh Ammar, and Haytham Mohammad Sanad
TIME-COST-QUALITY-POLLUTION TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION
MNG-003 PROJECTS
Magdy Madany, Mohamed Marzouk, Azza Abou-Zied, and Moheeb El-Said
THE PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS IN CONSTRUCTION SME
MNG-004
Hesham Ahmed Bassioni, Waёl Kamel, Ahmed Hossam El-Din, and Nawar Abdelrahman
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISO-9000 STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCTION
MNG-005
Mohammad ABU-TALEB, Mohammad Ammar, and Tarek Zayed
ASSESSMENT OF ISO BENEFITS VERSUS COSTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
MNG-006
Mohammad Ammar and Tarek Zayed
DEVELOPING EXPERT SYSTEM USING DATA MINING TECHNIQUE IN THE
MNG-007 CONSTRUCTION RISK RESPONSES IN EGYPT
PROF. DR. I A. NOSSIR, ASSOCIATE. PROF. M. EL MIKAWI, and ENG A. M. IBRAHIM
SCHEDULING OF TYPICAL REPETITIVE PROJECTS CONSIDERING LEARNING
MNG-008 DEVELOPMENT EFFECT
Mohammad A. Ammar and Amena F. Abdel-Maged

ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-180-

13th ICSGE Ain Shams University
27-29 De c. 2009 Faculty of Engineering
Cairo - Egypt Department of Structural Engineering

Thirteenth International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

RISK ALLOCATION AND MITIGATION IN THE EGYPTIAN
BARRAGE PROJECTS

M. A. AMMAR
Department of Structural Engineering, Tanta University
Tanta 31521, Egypt, E-mail: [email protected]
A. A. ELSAMDONY
Department of Civil Engineering, Helwan University
Matareya, Cairo, Egypt, E-mail: [email protected]
A. A. RABIE
Department of Structural Engineering, Tanta University
Tanta 31521, Egypt

ABSTRACT
There is a continuous need to improve the irrigation and navigation system in the Nile
River, which requires replacing old barrage and lock projects or build new ones.
Barrage and lock projects are large size infrastructure projects which usually face
problems and risks during various project stages. Consequently, project objectives
(time, cost, and quality) are often affected. Also, risks are usually leading to claims,
disputes, and adversarial contract relationships. The objectives of this research are to:
identify the most critical risks usually faced in the construction of barrage and lock
projects in Egypt, provide a strategy for proper allocation of risks, and suggest a risk
mitigation framework. To attain these objectives, a questionnaire survey has been done
covering representative of different parties usually engaged in barrage and lock projects.
Based on questionnaire survey results, significant risks were identified according to
their criticality. The contracting parties capable of analyzing and dealing with critical
risks are identified for which these risks have to be allocated. Also, suggestions to
mitigate or minimize the impacts of risks on these projects are discussed. Six real-life
case studies are analyzed to show actual risks associated with these projects. The results
indicate that a large number of risks were allocated to contractors compared with those
allocated to clients. A considerable number of risks have disagreement allocation.
Recommendations to mitigate critical risks and to improve the overall performance of
barrage and lock projects are then summarized.
KEYWORDS
Barrage and Lock Projects, Risk Management, Risk Allocation, Risk Mitigation, Claims
and Disputes.
MNG-001-1
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-181-
1 INTRODUCTION
The irrigation and agriculture sector represents a major part in the national economy of
Egypt. Recently, an increase need for developing barrage and lock projects is recorded
to replace old ones, to improve irrigation and navigation system in the Nile River, and
to generate electrical power. As for most infrastructure projects, barrage and lock
projects are usually faced with different types of risks which may lead to cost and/or
time overruns. Construction risks are, also, leading to claims, disputes, and adversarial
contract relationship. The size and complexity of these projects add to the likelihood of
risks occurrence.
Barrage and lock projects are irrigation structures constructed mainly in order to raise
the water level at stated stations across rivers stream. In Egypt, there are 16 main
barrage intakes directly from the Nile River and 32 small regulators (barrages) across
the rayhs and main canals. There is always a need to improve the performance of these
projects and provide strategies for effective management.
There are many factors leading to problems and risks during the construction of barrage
and lock projects Examples are big size, long period of execution, water flow condition,
construction of diversion canal, cofferdams condition, limited area available, safety and
security of existing structures, and dewatering system for construction pit. Moreover,
many contractual parties are participating such as owner representatives, designers,
consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, etc. Other factors include financial
difficulties, contractual procurement systems, technological complexity, and legal
conditions generate other risks [1].
It is, therefore, important to develop strategies to manage construction risks effectively.
It is crucial to correctly identify critical risks, to properly allocate them, and to present
suggestions to mitigate or minimize their impact. Trying to eliminate all risks in a
construction project is impossible. Thus, there is a need for a formal risk management
process to manage all types of risks. Risk management is a formal and orderly process
of systematically identifying, analyzing and responding to risks throughout the life
cycle of a project to obtain the optimum degree of risk elimination, mitigation and/or
control [2].
Barrage and lock projects are usually associated with high construction costs. For the
successful implementation of these projects, it is important to study and analyze the
risks which may face barrage and lock projects. The primary objectives of this research
are: (1) Identifying major critical risks associated with the construction of barrage and
lock projects in Egypt and (2) Providing a risk allocation and mitigation framework that
can be used for barrage and lock projects in Egypt.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Project risk can be defined as an uncertain event or condition that, if occurs, has a
positive or negative effect on at least one project objective [3]. Managing risks in
construction projects has been recognized as a very important process in order to
achieve project objectives in terms of time, cost, quality, safety and environmental
sustainability.
Construction risks differ from country to another whereas the economic, political, social
and cultural conditions are different. Risk management is greatly influenced by the
MNG-001-2
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-182-
uniqueness of the construction industry in a specific country [4]. Risks have been
identified, and analyzed for different types of projects. Causes and effects of delays in
construction industry have been extensively studied.
Hartman and Snelgrove [5] performed an investigation for construction contracts in
Canada, in which the effectiveness of written contract language to communicate risk
apportionment between contracting parties is evaluated. The study indicated that
contracting parties consistently interpret risk apportionment in contract clauses
differently. Tiong et al. [6] identified risk factors associated with international
construction joint ventures (JV). Risk factors are classified into three main groups:
internal, project specific, and external.
Askar and Gab-Allah [7] analyzed risk factors for BOT projects in Egypt. They
classified risks as political risks, construction risks, operation risks, and market and
revenue risks. Nora [8] studied the causes of construction delays of high investment
projects in Egypt in order to identify and quantify time overruns in these projects.
Seventy nine percent of the surveyed projects encountered time overruns. The
frequency, extent and causes of delays are independent of project type, sector, location,
original contract amount and original contract duration.
Shen et al. [9] established a risk significance index to show the relative significance of
risks associated with JV contracts in the Chinese constriction. Wang et al. [10]
identified critical risks associated infrastructure projects in China. Wang and Chou [11]
used a systematic analytical procedure to identify risks in highway projects in Taiwan.
Tommy et al. [12] ranked significant causes of delay and corresponding mitigation
measures in Hong Kong construction projects. Fang et al. [13] adopted an evaluation
index for various risks encountered by Chinese contractors.
Abdul-Rahman et al. [14] identified the main factors that lead to project delays and
suggested recommendations on how to mitigate their effects in Malaysian construction
industry. Delay incidents occur mainly during the construction phase and one or more
parties usually contribute to delay. Frimpong et al. [15] identified and evaluated the
relative importance of significant factors contributing to delay and cost overruns in
Ghana groundwater projects. Patrick et al. [16] prioritized risks according to their
influence on project objectives.
Sweis et al. [17] evaluated the most common causes of delays in construction projects in
Jordan. Monir [18] identified and assessed the significant risks in the UAE construction
industry. Kartam and kartam [19] studied the assessment, allocation, and management
of construction risks of the largest Kuwaiti contractors. Contractors show more
willingness to accept risks that are contractual and legal-related rather than other types
of risks.
In the present study, an integrated approach to manage risks in barrage and lock projects
in Egypt is developed. The proposed approach includes identification of risks,
investigation of most critical ones, and suggestion of a framework for allocation and
mitigation of these risks.
3 CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION RISKS
Shen et al. [9] categorized construction risks into six groups in accordance with the
nature of risks (financial, legal, management, market, policy, political, and technical
MNG-001-3
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-183-
risks). Smith [1] classified risks in the same way. Flanagan and Norman [20] suggested
three ways of classifying risks: consequence, type, and impact of risk. Perry and Hayes
[21] classified risks in terms of risks retainable by contractors, consultants, and clients.
Fang et al. [13] grouped risks into two subsets: external and internal risks.
In this study, risks are classified into five categories: construction, managerial, natural
(physical), political and financial. It is believed that the 40 risks used in the survey
represent almost all risks that might occur in barrage and lock projects (Table 1). These
risks are used in a questionnaire survey to specify most critical risks in barrage and lock
projects in Egypt.
4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey, which has been designed
based on both literature review and feedbacks of interviews with project managers. To
ensure meaningful responses, an interview was conducted with each respondent to
explain the objectives of the study and to get feedbacks towards questionnaire design.
Respondents were asked to rank risks on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 stands for not
critical and 5 stands for fully critical). The respondents were also asked to give
suggestions to mitigate or minimize impacts of risks. The respondents are given the
opportunity to add other risks not listed in the questionnaire.
A total of 50 questionnaires were distributed during the study period (From March 2007
to February 2008). Professionals in the field of barrage and lock projects including
consultants, owner's representatives, and contractors were surveyed. They were selected
from different working positions and their working experience ranges from 3 to 30
years, with an average experience of 16 years. A total number of 39 questionnaires were
received, 37 of which are complete (ratio of 74%) while only two are incomplete.
4.1 Sample Size
The sample size necessary to produce accurate results for a specified confidence level
and margin of error can be calculated using central limit theorem [22]. The margin of
error (E) is the maximum difference between observed sample mean (X) and true value
of the population mean (µ). The sample size can be calculated using Eq.1 [23].
Z σ
n =[ α/2 ]2 (1)
E
in which n is the sample size, σ is the population standard deviation, Z is the positive
α/2
Z value corresponding to the vertical boundary for the area of α/2 in the right tail of the
standard normal probability distribution curve, with a confidence level of 1-α, as shown
in Fig.1.

α/2 α/2

Z=0 Z
α/2
Fig.1: Standard Normal Probability Distribution Curve
MNG-001-4
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-184-
Table 1: Risk Categories, Responses and Evaluation of Surveyed Risks
Risk Frequency Rank
n
Category CRoisdke Risk Name Not critical (1) Fairly critical (2) Critical (3) Very critical (4) Fully critical (5) Criticality Index Standard Deviatio Category Overall
C1 Delay in possession of site 2 5 14 6 10 0.70 1.19 5 17
C2 Existing structures 2 4 12 12 7 0.70 1.10 4 16
C3 Lack of resources 1 2 10 20 4 0.73 0.86 2 9
C4 Delay of subcontractors 0 4 19 12 2 0.67 0.75 10 25
C5 Design changes 0 7 17 11 2 0.64 0.82 13 30
C6 Design defects 1 1 7 11 17 0.83 1.00 1 1
C7 Construction method 0 3 16 16 2 0.69 0.73 6 18
Construction C8 Client variations 3 12 14 6 2 0.56 1.00 14 38
C9 variations impossibility 4 12 16 5 0 0.52 0.87 15 40
C10 Water flow effects 4 7 5 15 6 0.67 1.27 11 27
C11 Delay in approvals 0 4 18 11 4 0.68 0.83 9 23
C12 Poor workmanship 0 8 10 14 5 0.69 0.99 8 22
C13 Inefficiency of suppliers 1 3 13 17 3 0.70 0.87 3 15
C14 Equipment breakdown 1 1 18 14 3 0.69 0.80 7 20
C15 Shortage in providing utilities 1 4 17 14 1 0.65 0.80 12 28
M1 Improper feasibility study 0 3 10 16 8 0.76 0.89 2 4
M2 Bad site layout 3 7 21 6 0 0.56 0.81 11 37
M3 Improper management 1 3 12 20 1 0.69 0.80 6 19
M4 Low productivity 1 1 16 16 3 0.70 0.80 5 13
M5 Change work orders 0 9 16 10 2 0.63 0.86 9 33
M6 Safety and security problems 1 7 16 8 5 0.65 1.01 7 29
Managerial
M7 Disputes, arbitration and law 2 9 11 13 2 0.62 1.02 10 34
M8 Poor coordination 1 1 7 21 7 0.77 0.86 1 2
M9 Delayed decision making 1 2 15 12 7 0.72 0.96 4 11
M10 Deficiencies in planning 0 1 13 17 6 0.75 0.76 3 5
M11 Environmental restrictions 1 17 15 4 0 0.52 0.73 12 39
M12 Labor strike in site 1 8 11 14 3 0.64 0.97 8 31
N1 Subsurface conditions 0 4 14 11 8 0.72 0.95 2 10
Natural N2 Dewatering problems 0 4 10 15 8 0.75 0.93 1 7
(Physical) N3 Force major 2 8 10 10 7 0.67 1.18 3 26
N4 Inclement weather 1 15 9 9 3 0.59 1.05 4 36
P1 Changes in law & regulations 3 5 12 6 11 0.69 1.28 1 21
Political
P2 Import restrictions 1 5 14 14 3 0.67 0.92 2 24
F1 Delay of payment 1 0 14 15 7 0.75 0.87 2 6
F2 Inflation 0 3 16 15 3 0.70 0.77 5 14
F3 Exchange rate 1 3 13 15 5 0.71 0.93 4 12
Financial F4 Interest rate fluctuation 2 7 17 9 2 0.61 0.94 7 35
F5 Increase of materials price 2 2 7 19 7 0.75 1.02 3 8
F6 Taxation risks 2 5 17 11 2 0.63 0.93 6 32
F7 Contractor financial difficulties 0 3 8 19 7 0.76 0.85 1 3
MNG-001-5
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-185-
For a confidence level of 85% and a margin of error of 20%, the minimum sample size
needed for the questionnaire is calculated using Eq.1 which is 33. The number of
complete questionnaires received is 37, which can be considered sufficient for the
assumed values of confidence level, margin of error, and standard deviation.
4.2 Risk Evaluation
To evaluate risks according to their criticality and impact on performance of barrage
and lock projects, data obtained from the questionnaire survey were analyzed using
criticality index and standard deviation. Criticality index (CI) measures the criticality of
each risk, which has a value ranges from 0 to 1 (CI=0 means being NOT critical while
CI=1 being FULLY critical). CI can be calculated for a risk using Eq.2 [10].

5n +4n +3n +2n +n
CI= 1 2 3 4 5 (2)
5(n +n +n +n +n )
1 2 3 4 5
in which n is the frequency of a risk being fully critical, n is the frequency the risk is
1 2
being very critical, n is the frequency the risk is being critical, n is the frequency the
3 4
risk is being fairly critical, and n is the frequency the risk is being not critical. Risks are
5
ranked according to their criticality index value. In case of a tie, risks are then ranked
according to lower standard deviation. Responses, criticality index, and standard
deviation for the 40 risks used in the present study are given in Table 1.
5 RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH
5.1 Risk Evaluation and Significance
According to the results listed in Table 1, the surveyed risks are ranked according to
criticality index and standard deviation values within each category, as shown in Table
2. Overall ranking of the 40 risks are also given. Also, the most ten critical risks in
barrage and lock projects in Egypt are marked with + sign in Table 2.
Table 2: Significant (Critical) Risks within Each Category
Rank Rank Rank
Risk y Risk y Risk y
Category Code gor all Category Code gor all Category Code gor all
e er e er e er
at v at v at v
C O C O C O
C1 5 17 M1+ 2 4 P1 1 21
Political
C2 4 16 M3 6 19 P2 2 24
C3+ 2 9 M4 5 13 F1+ 2 6
Managerial
C6+ 1 1 M8+ 1 2 F2 5 14
Construction C7 6 18 M9 4 11 Financial F3 4 12
C11 9 23 M10+ 3 5 F5+ 3 8
C12 8 22 Natural N1+ 2 10 F7+ 1 3
C13 3 15 (Physical) N2+ 1 7
C14 7 20
+ Most ten critical risks
MNG-001-6
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-186-
Ranking of risk categories with respect to participating parties (owners, consultants, and
contractors) and overall criticality index are given in Table 3. The results indicate that
financial risks have the first rank for all parties in barrage and lock projects.
Table 3: Ranking for Risk Categories According to Criticality Index
Group Owners Consultants Contractors Overall
Category CI Rank CI Rank CI Rank CI Rank
Financial 0.708 1 0.686 1 0.700 1 0.701 1
Natural 0.700 2 0.644 3 0.675 3 0.681 2
Political 0.695 3 0.638 5 0.690 2 0.679 3
Construction 0.686 5 0.652 2 0.667 4 0.673 4
Managerial 0.688 4 0.640 4 0.657 5 0.668 5
Spearman coefficient (R) has been widely used for determining correlation of data.
High correlation coefficient indicates high degree of agreement between respondents
[18]. Spearman correlation coefficient (R) can be calculated using Eq.3 [24].
6∑D2
R = 1- (3)
N3 -N
in which D is the difference between ranking and N is the number of variables (risks).
Spearman correlation coefficient between owners and consultants is 0.913, between
contractors and consultants is 0.873, and between owners and contractors is 0.907.
These values indicate, generally, high correlation between the three parties. It can be
noted that correlation between consultants and contractors has the lowest value, which
indicates some disagreement between them in evaluating significance of risks.
5.2 Risk Allocation
To allocate risks for a contracting party, the risk allocation scale suggested by Hartman
and Snelgrove [5] is used. It indicates the tendency for allocating certain risk to a
contracting party. Fig.2 shows risk allocation scale for two cases of risk allocation:
agreement and disagreement.

Owner Contractor Owner Contractor
40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40

a. Allocation Agreement b. Allocation Disagreement
Fig.2: Risk Allocation Scale (Hartman and Snelgrove 1996)
In allocation agreement case, the respondents allocate risk for one contracting party
(i.e., same side on allocation scale as shown in Fig.2.a). On the other hand, respondents
allocate risk a differently in allocation disagreement case (Fig.2.b). Risks with
disagreement allocation have higher probability of resulting disputes and claims
MNG-001-7
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-187-
between contracting parties. It is, therefore, important that contract clauses regarding
risks with allocation disagreement be clear and unambiguous.
In the present study, risks are allocated using risk allocation scale based on the
questionnaire survey results. Summary of results for those risks with allocation
agreement to either party are given in Table 4, as well as risks with allocation
disagreement. From Table 4, it can be noted that more risks are allocated to contractors
compared to those allocated to owners. Also, conflict in interpretation of risk
responsibility for many risks is noticeable in the form of disagreement allocation of
risks.
Table 4: Risks with Allocation Agreement and Disagreement
Allocation Agreement Allocation Disagreement
Allocated Party
Risk Code Risk Code
Owner C1, C8, C11, M1, M5, F1 C2, C5, C6, C9, M7, M8,
C3, C4, C7, C10, C12, C13, M9, M10, M11, N1, N3,
Contractor C14, C15, M2, M3, M4, M6, N4, P1, P2, F2, F3, F4,
M12, N2, F7 F5, F6
5.3 Risk Mitigation
Based on the feedbacks of respondents and analysis of results obtained from the
questionnaire survey, recommendations and suggestions to mitigate risk effects can be
summarized as follows.
For risks allocated to owner: (1) Owners should adopt a prequalification system and
make sure that contractors are not selected based on the lowest bid only, (2) Owners
should have sufficient budget to pay contractors timely after completion of a work item,
(3) Owners must review and check design and documents carefully to
minimize/eliminate work changes during construction stage, and (4) Owners must make
quick decisions to solve any problems that arise during construction.
For risks allocated to contractor: (1) Contractors should adequately prepare for site
investigation and mobilization, (2) Contractors must choose suitable methods for
construction and owner must review and approve these methods, (3) Contractors should
have qualified site managers for smooth execution of work, and (4) Contractors must
select qualified subcontractors and owners must check and approve such selection.
For risks with disagreement allocation: (1) Risks with disagreement allocation must be
allocated clearly in contract clauses and conditions, (2) Owner and contractor
representatives must work as a team and have to solve timely any problem, and (3) Both
owners and contractors should carefully select and train contract administration staff
within their organization.
6 CASE STUDIES
Barrage and lock projects that have been constructed or under construction in Egypt
during the study period have been studied in order to validate the proposed risk
management approach. These projects include: (1) New Menoufi barrage, (2) New
Tawfiki barrage, (3) Abbasi barrage, (4) New Naga-Hammadi barrage, (5) Zefta lock,
and (6) Delta lock. Comparison between questionnaire results and actual risks
MNG-001-8
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-188-
associated with these projects are presented. The data of case studies are obtained from
Reservoirs and Grand Barrages Sector [25].
Actual risks associated with case studies are given in Table 5. It is obvious that the
critical risks (based on the results of the questionnaire survey) occurred actually during
the construction of the case studies on hand. The frequency of occurrence along the six
case studies differs for one critical risk to another. Some of them occurred in all case
studies (C6 and F5), while others occurred once (M7, M11, and P2).
Table 5: Risks Associated with Case Studies
Risk Case Study # Risk Case Study #
Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Code 1 2 3 4 5 6
C1 √ √ √ √ F7 √ √ √
C2 √ √ √ √ M1 √ √ √
C3 √ √ √ √ M7 √
C6 √ √ √ √ √ √ M8 √ √ √ √
C7 √ √ √ M9 √ √
C8 √ √ √ M10 √ √ √ √
C11 √ √ M11 √
C13 √ √ N1 √ √ √
F1 √ √ √ √ N2 √ √ √
F2 √ √ √ √ P1 √ √ √
F3 √ √ √ √ P2 √
F5 √ √ √ √ √ √
Actual risks of the case studies on hand are compared with the most critical risks
obtained form the questionnaire survey. For space limitations, only comparison with the
most 10 critical risks are given in Table 6. It is apparent that the most 10 critical risks
were actually faced in at least three case studies out of six. It is important to note that
the “design defects” and “sudden increase in raw materials price” are common risks.
Table 6: Comparison between Most 10 Critical and Actual Risks
Case Study #
Code Risk Name
1 2 3 4 5 6
C6 Design defects (structure - hydraulic) x x x x x x
C3 Lack of resources (equipment - material - labor) x x x x
M8 Poor coordination x x x x
M1 Improper feasibility study and cost estimate x x x
M10 Deficiencies in planning and scheduling x x x x
N2 Ground water and dewatering problems x x x
N1 Uncertain subsurface conditions x x x
F7 Contractor financial difficulties x x x
F1 Delay of payment x x x x
F5 Sudden increase of raw materials price x x x x x x
MNG-001-9
ICSGE-13 December 27-29, 2009