Nyqvist, R; Peltokorpi, A and Seppänen, O (2024) Can chatgpt exceed humans in construction project risk management? Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(13), pp. 223-243. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this research is to investigate the capabilities of the ChatGPT GPT-4 model, a form of artificial intelligence (AI), in comparison to human experts in the context of construction project risk management. Design/methodology/approach: Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study draws a qualitative and quantitative comparison between 16 human risk management experts from Finnish construction companies and the ChatGPT AI model utilizing anonymous peer reviews. It focuses primarily on the areas of risk identification, analysis, and control. Findings: ChatGPT has demonstrated a superior ability to generate comprehensive risk management plans, with its quantitative scores significantly surpassing the human average. Nonetheless, the AI model's strategies are found to lack practicality and specificity, areas where human expertise excels. Originality/value: This study marks a significant advancement in construction project risk management research by conducting a pioneering blind-review study that assesses the capabilities of the advanced AI model, GPT-4, against those of human experts. Emphasizing the evolution from earlier GPT models, this research not only underscores the innovative application of ChatGPT-4 but also the critical role of anonymized peer evaluations in enhancing the objectivity of findings. It illuminates the synergistic potential of AI and human expertise, advocating for a collaborative model where AI serves as an augmentative tool, thereby optimizing human performance in identifying and managing risks.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence; chatgpt; construction management; gpt-4; large language models; project management; risk analysis; risk management |
| Index terms: | strategy, large language model, construction company, risk identification, peer-review, risk analysis, construction project, evolution, methodology, project management, artificial intelligence, human-performance, risk management |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, management, research methods, production management, professional development, financial risk, project management theory and practice, data science, artificial intelligence, environmental science, risk assessment, organization, human factors and perception |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here