Rahi, K; Abu Baker, F; Preece, C and Abu Jadayil, W (2025) Scale to measure project resilience for the construction sector to cope with hazards. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 16(2), pp. 242-259. ISSN 1759-5908
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to test and validate a scale for measuring project resilience in the construction sector within the built environment. By identifying relevant indicators and items, the study aims to enhance the resilience of construction projects and minimize losses and failures resulting from disruptive events such as societal, technological, biological and environmental hazards (e.g. Covid-19, war in Ukraine, shortage of resources, etc.). Design/methodology/approach: The study uses a quantitative approach, specifically exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, to evaluate the suitability, dimensionality and reliability of the proposed indicators and items for measuring project resilience in the construction sector. Findings: The study found that 9 indicators and 34 items were suitable for measuring project resilience in the construction sector, and the proposed model showed good fit for the two dimensions of project resilience, which may have practical implications for project managers in the construction sector within the built environment. Originality/value: The study proposes a new scale for measuring project resilience in the construction sector, which is a novel contribution to the field of project management. The study identifies specific indicators and items that are relevant to this industry, which may have practical implications for project managers in this sector. The study also highlights the need for further research to make the project resilience scale more robust and reliable.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; construction management; construction performance; project management; resilience; risk management |
| Index terms: | project manager, construction performance, war, built environment, risk management, dimension, project management, environmental hazard, COVID-19, exploratory factor analysis, Ukraine, confirmatory factor analysis, methodology, construction project, construction sector, suitability |
| Subjects: | research methods, conflict and crisis studies, production management, Geography, infrastructure and transport systems, design criteria, industry analysis, environmental health, statistical analysis, health risk and incident analysis, project management theory and practice, performance assessment, health monitoring assessment and metrics, profession, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Site Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| 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