Liu, W; Feng, Z and Luo, X (2026) Study of a risk-sharing mechanism in a prefabricated building project supply chain. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(6): 04026063, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
To explore and construct a scientific and effective mechanism of risk-sharing in the prefabricated building project supply chain (PBPSC), this study analyzed the main risks faced by each unit in the project supply chain (SC), established a risk-sharing model, and proposes corresponding countermeasures. This study systematically reviewed the relevant literature and combined the opinions of industry experts to establish a system of influencing factors in terms of environment, organization and management, design, technology, procurement, transportation, and recycling. Construction units, general contractors, design units, parts and components manufacturing units, and recycling units were taken as a coalition of participating enterprises for risk-sharing. The Shapley value method was used to establish a pre-risk-sharing model. The Nash negotiation method was used to establish a re-risk-sharing model, so that the results are fair and reasonable. A case study of a prefabricated building project (PBP) was used as an example for validation. The results show that the value of risk loss reduced by each participating enterprise after participating in cooperation is more than the risk loss reduced without cooperation. Through sensitivity analysis using the single-factor one factor at a time (OAT) method, construction risks need to be taken seriously by developers and contractors. For design unit and component manufacturing unit, organizational management risk factors need to be taken seriously. For recycling units, recycling risk factors need to be taken seriously. This study explores the issue of risk-sharing in PBPSCs, using the Shapley value and Nash negotiation methods to provide a reasonable risk-sharing model for multiparty cooperation. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the single-factor OAT method to explore the impact of changes in risk factors on the results, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the model in practical applications. The risk-sharing model proposed in this study can serve as a reference for policymakers, project managers, and industry professionals, helping them better mitigate risks, optimize resource allocation, and ultimately achieve successful project delivery, thereby providing practical guidance for the smooth implementation of PBPs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | nash negotiation; prefabricated building; risk-sharing; sensitivity analysis; shapley value; supply chain |
| Index terms: | project delivery, general contractor, validation, organizational management, project manager, sensitivity analysis, negotiation, influencing factor, prefabricated building, implementation, cooperation, case study, risk factor, resource allocation, recycling |
| Subjects: | resource management, conflict resolution, practitioner, environmental hazards, data collection methods, profession, business, building construction, contractual arrangements, risk assessment, psychology, project delivery, professional development, waste management |
| Topics: | Site Management, Organizational Design, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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