Jiang, X; Wang, S; Liu, Y; Xia, B; Skitmore, M; Nepal, M and Ghanbaripour, A N (2023) A method for the ontology-based risk management of PPP construction projects. Construction Innovation, 23(5), pp. 1095-1129. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: With the increasing complexity of public–private partnership (PPP) projects, the amount of data generated during the construction process is massive. This paper aims to develop a new information management method to cope with the risk problems involved in dealing with such data, based on domain ontologies of the construction industry, to help manage PPP risks, share and reuse risk knowledge. Design/methodology/approach: Risk knowledge concepts are acquired and summarized through PPP failure cases and an extensive literature review to establish a domain framework for risk knowledge using ontology technology to help manage PPP risks. Findings: The results indicate that the risk ontology is capable of capturing key concepts and relationships involved in managing PPP risks and can be used to facilitate knowledge reuse and storage beneficial to risk management. Research limitations/implications: The classes in the risk knowledge ontology model constructed in this research do not yet cover all the information in PPP project risks and need to be further extended. Moreover, only the framework and basic methods needed are developed, while the construction of a working ontology model and the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge is a complicated process that requires repeated modifications and evaluations before it can be implemented. Practical implications: The ontology provides a basis for turning PPP risk information into risk knowledge to allow the effective sharing and communication of project risks between different project stakeholders. It can also have the potential to help reduce the dependence on subjectivity by mining, using and storing tacit knowledge in the risk management process. Originality/value: The apparent suitability of the nine classes of PPP risk knowledge (project model, risk type, risk occurrence stage, risk source, risk consequence, risk likelihood, risk carrier, risk management measures and risk case) is identified, and the proposed construction method and steps for a complete domain ontology for PPP risk management are unique. A combination of criteria- and task-based evaluations is also developed for assessing the PPP risk ontology for the first time.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | domain ontology; project management; public–private partnership; risk knowledge; risk management; rule-based reasoning |
| Index terms: | construction project, methodology, construction process, management method, project stakeholder, suitability, tacit knowledge, complexity, reasoning, explicit knowledge, literature review, subjectivity, ontology, construction method, mining, risk management, construction industry, project management, partnership |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, risk assessment, human factors and perception, partnership management, geotechnical engineering, sociology, cognitive psychology, building construction, industry analysis, design criteria, systems engineering, education and knowledge transfer, management, research methods, production management, project management theory and practice, professional development |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Site Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management |
| 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