Kululanga, G and Kuotcha, W (2010) Measuring project risk management process for construction contractors with statement indicators linked to numerical scores. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(4), pp. 336-351. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – There is relatively low implementation of formal project risk management methods in practice, leading to the construction industry consistently suffering from poor project performance. This study aims to ascertain the extent to which current project risk management practices are used by construction contractors in one of the countries of the subSaharan region – Malawi. Design/methodology/approach – A management process tool with statement indicators linked to numerical scores was conceived that characterised a series of steps of project risk management process. To ascertain the degree to which project risk management processes were used, a questionnaire survey was employed. Data were elicited from registered Malawian construction contractors on the elements underlining a series of steps of project risk management process as espoused by the literature. Out of 84 sampled construction contractors, 51 completed questionnaires were received. Findings – Apart from largesized and more experienced construction contractors, all the small and mediumsized construction contractors – which constitute the largest proportion of the construction industry – were characterised by a low implementation of the various required steps for the project risk management process. The application of project risk management processes was significantly influenced by the various categories of size and experience of the surveyed construction contractors at p<0.01. Furthermore, contingence planning within the series of steps of project risk management process featured highly among the surveyed construction contractors. The majority of the variables under the series of steps of project risk management process were positively and significantly linked to progression in size and experience of construction contractors at p<0.01. Research limitations/implications – The study forms the basis for further research; replication of this study to other parts of world about how the actual implementation of the series of steps of project risk management process is undertaken could yield rich lessons for the construction industry. Practical implications – The intentional move by industry towards measuring management processes as a precursor to uncovering the root causes that underlie project success or failure to provide quick feedback for remedial action is supported by an approach such as this. Originality/value – The originality of this paper lies in its uniqueness for a systematic approach to quantifying the project risk management processes with the view to understanding the implementation behaviours of construction contractors in one country in the subSaharan region.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; Malawi; measurement; risk management; sub saharan Africa |
| Index terms: | construction contractor, methodology, implementation, questionnaire, Sub-Saharan Africa, construction industry, Malawi, project performance, project risk management, project success, survey, risk management |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, research methods, financial risk, industry analysis, practitioner, risk assessment, Geography, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, physical geography and landforms |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Risk Management, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Procurement, Cost Management |
| 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