Tembo Silungwe, C K and Khatleli, N (2020) An analysis of the allocation of pertinent risks in the Zambian building sector using Pareto analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, 20(4), pp. 321-334. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
In most instances, the construction client allocates risk by selecting the methods for procurement, payment and the contract form. Nevertheless, how favourably the contractor views the risk allocation has a bearing on the project outcome. This research identifies the pertinent risks in the Zambian context and establishes how they are allocated in terms of types of contract clauses used and response mechanisms employed. A mixed-sequential approach was followed, comprising 15 semi-structured interviews, 198 questionnaire-survey respondents and document analysis (eight projects using various standard forms of contract). The respondents comprised of clients, consultants and contractors involved on medium- to- large-scale building projects. Findings show the pertinent risks in the industry were due to shortcomings of the design team and clients' shirking. Using a Pareto analysis, a pervasive propensity was found for passive risk acceptance and wanton risk transfer by the client. Modifications were found, aimed at negating the clients' responsibility for risk. The originality of this research lies in its methodological approach and its focus on how risks are allocated. Findings can help practitioners to better allocate risk and promote the achievement of desired project outcomes through careful selection and utilization of mechanisms, allocation of risk and use of contract clauses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building projects; pareto analysis; pertinent risks; zambia |
| Index terms: | design team, survey, interview, practitioner, questionnaire, document analysis, project outcome, standard form of contract, Zambia, construction client, pareto analysis, risk allocation |
| Subjects: | data science, professional practice, contractual arrangements, quality control, practitioner, data collection methods, project completion, Geography, financial risk |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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