Kumar, R; Chandrashekhar, I K and Singh, S P (2017) Quantification of construction project risks by analysis of past dispute cases. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 33rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2017, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
Most of the existing risk assessment models identify the critical risks by analyzing expert opinions. Only a few research works have evaluated risks using hard data from previous projects. The aim of this research is to develop a risk assessment model that uses project data to facilitate quantification of risks assessed. From analysis of literature on 'risks' and 'claims' it was noted that the nature of claims are similar to impact of risks, claim amount indicates monetary estimates of impact, and the evidences for making claims indicate occurrence of risks. Hence, the potential of claim statements as basic source of data for risk assessment was recognized. To develop the model, 276 claims from 28 arbitration awards were analysed. Document analysis and grounded theory approach was adopted to code the statements of claims into risks and their impacts. The extracted data was compiled by mapping the claims with the risks in matrix form. In this research, frequency of risks denotes number of claims affected by each risk whereas impact of each risk is expressed as percentage of contract sum. Scope variation and schedule delays were identified as most frequent risks. Average impact due to scope variation along with unpaid work was seven percent of contract sum. The findings of the research converge with the critical risks identified though opinion survey and observations made in live projects. This research demonstrates an innovative approach to analyze past data on claims and disputes for project risk management. Significance of the research lies in the fact that it utilizes data already available with the industry and identifies risks which are most difficult to manage. However, a larger set of claims needs to be analyzed to obtain comprehensive list of risks.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claim; content analysis; dispute; risk assessment model. |
| Index terms: | risk assessment, construction project, variation, mapping, evidence, estimate, arbitration, quantification, schedule delay, grounded theory, dispute, project data, content analysis, document analysis, project risk management, survey |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, data science, financial and cost management, dispute resolution, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, project controls, measurement and scaling, contractual condition, production management, financial risk, theoretical framing, spatial and geospatial analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Legal Issues, Time Control, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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