Deng, B; Lv, X; Du, Y; Li, X and Yin, Y (2025) Critical risk factors for construction supply chain in China: A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(1), pp. 483-506. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Inefficiency dilemmas in project governance are caused by various risks arising from the characteristic of construction supply chain projects, such as poor project performance, conflicts between stakeholders and cost overrun. This research aims to establish a fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) model to analyze construction supply chain risk factors. Corresponding risk mitigation strategies are provided to facilitate the improvement performance of ongoing construction supply chain projects. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review is utilized to reveal the deficiencies of construction supply chain risk management. Thus, a total of five hundred (500) questionnaires are distributed to construction professionals, and four hundred and thirty-five (435) questionnaires are recovered to obtain the evaluation data of construction professionals on critical risk factors. Additionally, the FSE is used to analyze and rank the significance of critical risk factors. Finally, this research discusses nine critical risk factors with high weight in the model, and explains the reason for the significance of critical risk factors in the construction supply chain. Findings: The questionnaire results show that the thirty-one (31) identified critical risk factors are verified by related practitioners (government departments, universities and research institutions, owners, construction units, financial institutions, design units, consulting firms). Thirty-one (31) identified critical risk factors are divided into common risks, risks from contractors and risks from owners. The most significant factors in the three categories, respectively, are "political risks," "owner's unprofessional" approach and "cash flow." Managing these risks can facilitate the development of the construction supply chain. Originality/value: This paper expands the research perspective of construction supply chain risk management and complements the risks in the construction supply chain. For practitioners, the research result provides some corresponding measures to deal with these risks. For researchers, the research result provides the direction of construction supply chain risk treatment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction supply chain; fuzzy synthetic evaluation; risk management |
| Index terms: | fuzzy synthetic evaluation, questionnaire, cost overrun, research institution, risk factor, construction professional, governance, construction supply chain, risk management, strategy, risk mitigation, project performance, China, owner, literature review, methodology, practitioner, cash flow |
| Subjects: | business, financial and cost management, decision-making and optimization, financial management, sociology, practitioner, environmental hazards, construction logistics, risk assessment, project management theory and practice, management, financial risk, professional development, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, Geography, research methods, research management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Supply Chain Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management, Governance, Geographical Context, Information Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions |
| 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