Tokede, O and Wamuziri, S (2012) Perceptions of fuzzy set theory in construction risk analysis. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Over the last three decades, organizations have increasingly been taking account of risk and uncertainty in their decision-making processes. The traditional methodology for risk management involves risk identification, risk analysis and management response to risk. Common risk analysis techniques in the construction industry include sensitivity analysis, probability analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, beta analysis etc. In this regard, Monte-Carlo simulation has been a touchstone of simulation efficiency across contemporary literature on risk analysis. However, a number of concerns have been raised about the intractability and construct validity of Monte Carlo representations for construction risks. The use of Monte Carlo simulation is based on the premise that the uncertain or risk event can be defined by a known probability distribution function. Unfortunately, this is not the case as far as risk is concerned in construction projects. It is in situations such as these where precise probability density functions cannot be ascribed to uncertain events that fuzzy set analysis becomes helpful. This research investigates the perceptions of fuzzy set theory and its influence on the practice of construction risk analysis. This work is part of a larger study that aims to investigate the specific insights that fuzzy set theory could bring into the construction risk analysis discipline. Purposive sampling was employed in selection of participants for the investigation. Structured interviews were conducted with highly experienced construction professionals in the United Kingdom. The results of these studies reveal that fuzzy set theory can enhance reasoning in analysing construction risks. However, fuzzy set theory as a stand-alone mathematical tool is not sufficient to complete the risk analysis process. Furthermore, the study indicates the vulnerability, volatility and computational intensiveness of fuzzy set theory may discourage construction practitioners from embracing the principles and applications of fuzzy set theory
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision analysis; fuzzy set theory; risk analysis; risk modelling |
| Index terms: | sensitivity analysis, probability analysis, reasoning, density, efficiency, interview, probability distribution, risk identification, validity, construction practitioner, fuzzy set, fuzzy set theory, United Kingdom, decision-making process, decision analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, investigation, vulnerability, risk management, methodology, construction professional, construction project, construction industry, purposive sampling, modelling, risk analysis |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, modelling and simulation, analytical methods, performance management, research methods, Geography, production management, financial risk, professional development, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, statistical analysis, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Cost Management, Sustainability, Risk Management, Quality Management, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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