Monzer, N; Fayek, A R; Lourenzutti, R and Siraj, N B (2019) Aggregation-based framework for construction risk assessment with heterogeneous groups of experts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(3): 04019003, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction companies continuously seek to improve risk analysis techniques to determine the contingency of projects. Construction risk assessment relies on a group decision-making (GDM) process, in which a heterogeneous group of experts provides their opinions to determine the probabilities and impacts of project risks. In this paper, risk probabilities and impacts are expressed as linguistic terms, which are then represented by fuzzy sets to account for the uncertainty in these assessments. Current GDM processes help experts to obtain collective agreement through the use of a consensus-reaching process, which has several limitations, such as being a time-consuming procedure. The main contributions of this paper are to introduce a list of criteria and a set of metrics to evaluate risk-assessment expertise. Additionally, this paper discusses the development of a method for weighting the importance of experts' opinions according to their expertise levels. This research will also serve to improve GDM processes in construction risk assessment by introducing a structured framework that combines assessments from a heterogeneous group of experts through aggregation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; decision making; fuzzy sets; heterogeneity; risk management |
| Index terms: | decision-making, risk assessment, risk management, risk analysis, fuzzy set, construction company |
| Subjects: | financial risk, organization, decision analysis, environmental hazards, risk assessment, decision-making and optimization |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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