Identifying and prioritizing risk management indicators in dam-building projects using combination of AHP-ARAS in fuzzy environment based on PMBOK

Document Type : Applied Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering Department, Islamic Azad University Semnan Branch, Semnan, Iran

2 MBA-Operation Management, Industrial Engineering Department, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

3 PhD Student, Management Department, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In addition to the engineering principles of construction projects, optimizing indicators of project management such as financial management, scheduling, quality, and stakeholders’ satisfaction are also important. One of the main reasons for the failure of construction projects can be considered the inefficiency and inability of contractors to analyze and assess the unpredictable risks of the project. Numerous risks, on the one hand, can lead to significant time delays in the implementation and completion of these projects, which impose huge direct and indirect costs on the economy.  On the other hand, it can have a negative impact on the quality of the outputs, which can be a factor in increasing systems’ risks [1,2]. Therefore, identifying and prioritizing risks is one of the most important parts of risk management [2,3]. There has been a lot of research on risk management, but little research has been done on risk management in the discussion of barrier management from a managerial point of view, which can indicate the necessity and importance of risk management. Therefore, this study identified and prioritized the risks of construction projects with a focus on dams, according to PMBOK standard. Beside method of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and its risks, using multi-criteria decision-making techniques namely Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS), and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a fuzzy environment are applied to try to provide practical solutions.
Materials and Method
This research tries to rank the risks in construction projects in seven steps by focusing on the dams. 51 risk items were identified in the dam-building projects, which categorized risk segregation into four groups: external risks, internal risks, technical-operational risks, and managerial risks. In the following, the screened risks for RPN determination are presented to the experts using a questionnaire distribution and a table of linguistic variables. An arithmetic mean method has been used to combine the opinions of 31 experts. After completing the questionnaires related to pairwise comparison, the criteria are formed by the experts of the comparison matrix using triangular fuzzy numbers for each questionnaire. The range used in this questionnaire is the spectrum of nine succulents. In the next step, combining the opinions of experts, using the geometric mean of calculations with fuzzy AHP method and pairwise comparisons have been done. In the next step, considering that all the values obtained from the incompatibility rate calculations are smaller than 0.1, the questionnaire is approved. In the final stage, the risks are ranked according to the techniques used in this study and the degree of risk desirability is determined.
Results and Discussion
Based on experts’ opinions, the risks’ filtering was done and 15 potential risks were designated for being used in this study. The RPNs were calculated in a range of 80.7 for lack of experience project’s engineers to 274.5 for the delay in paying contractors. Then, the experts’ opinions were combined with the use of triangular fuzzy numbers and Sis were calculated for Si1 to Si4 as well as their normalized weights. Next, the AHP matrix’s inconsistencies were calculated and the values of objective function were extracted from 0.072to 0.118. Finally, the risks were ranked based on their acceptance rate from0.607 to 1.000 for 10 prominent risks. To elucidate, delay in providing equipment with the rate of 1.000 was ranked as 1, financial issues with the rate of 0.980 was ranked as 2, delay in notifying the plans with the rate of0.909 was ranked as 3, delay in paying contractors with the rate of 0.902 was ranked as 4, workplace shot down because of environmental obstacles with the rate of 0.887 was ranked as 5, high inflation rate with the rate of 0.861 was ranked as 6, changing currency equity rate with the rate of 0.861 was ranked as7, unscheduled time for passing changes and plans by consultants or employer with the rate of 0.793 was ranked as 8, fundamental inconsistency between executive plans and technical framework of contracts with the rate of 0.633 was ranked as9, and instability in governments policies with the rate of 0.607 was ranked as10 were indicated as the most important potential risks in dam-building projects.
Conclusion
In this study, after identifying the risks according to PMBOK standard and risk screening by experts, using risk intensity indicators, risk probability and pre-risk detection capability, which are indicators of FMEA technique, priority score of the risks were taken. The use of FMEA technique is one of the advantages of this research due to the possibility of occurrence before diagnosis, which makes the risks from the perspective of this index also be evaluated.  In the following, higher risk priorities were ranked based on the impact on the desired goals of the project. Time, cost, quality, and safety were the criteria for ranking risks. Using fuzzy AHP method, the weights of the criteria were calculated and also the risks were ranked using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Using fuzzy ARAS method, the performance rate and degree of desirability of different options were obtained.
In this study, all the steps of prioritization and ranking of risks have been implemented based on the method designed in the case of a project. Due to the variety of activities carried out in dam projects, the method can be used as a comprehensive model among construction projects, by changing its failure structure. Also, the method of risk analysis in this research can be considered for other development projects. In order to solve the problems and obstacles of using risk management in the country's development projects, the following solutions are recommended:
1. Identify project risks during the project life cycle.
2. Combining project risk management with project financing strategies and choosing the best method.
Due to the fact that one of the risk factors in the design and implementation of construction projects is timely injection and instead of financial resources for the project, it seems that by combining project risk management according to PMBOK methodology and different types of financing strategies and choosing the appropriate method, one of the most important risk factors for construction projects will be reduced.

Keywords

References

[1]. Antonio, G.; & Froeseb, T. (2012). The Application of Project Management Standards and Success Factors to the Development of a Project Management Assessment Tool. (26th IPMA World Congress, Crete, Greece).
[2]. Bassiony, M.S.; El-Karim, M.; El Nawawy, O.; & Abdel-Alim, M.A.  (2019). Identification and assessment of risk factors affecting construction projects. HBRC Journal, 13(2), 202-216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2015.05.001.
[3]. Beheshtinia, M.A.; & Moghimi, M. (2010). Analyzing the Impact of Multi-site Manufacturing on Increasing the Organization Capabilities in Reducing Hazards and Vulnerability of Supply Chain. Environmental Hazards Management, 2(2), pp: 141-156.
[4]. Beheshtinia, M. A.; & Moghimi, M. (2017). Injured transportation quality enhancement during natural disaster from the various geographical zones. Human Geography Research Quarterly, 49(3), pp: 539-551.
[5]. Chang, D.Y. (1992). Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization Techniques and Applications. World Scientific, Singapore.
[6]. Dziadosz, A.; Rejment, M. (2016). Risk Analysis in Construction Project - Chosen Methods. Procedia Engineering, 122, pp: 258-265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.034.
[7].  Ebrahimnejad, S.; Mousavi, S. M.; & Seyrafianpour, H. (2010). Risk identification and assessment for build–operate–transfer projects: A fuzzy multi attribute decision making model. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 575-586. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.037.
[8]. EcemYildiz, A.; Dikmen, I.; & Birgonul, M.T. (2014). Using Expert Opinion for Risk Assessment: A Case Study of a Construction Project Utilizing a Risk Mapping Tool. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 519-528. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.058.
[9]. Gogus, O.; & Boucher, T. O. (1998). Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 94(1), 133-144. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00184-4.
[10].            Khatibi, S.A.M.; Moghimi, M.; & Abdolshah, M. (2018). Scheduling production and transportation in multi-site supply chain simultaneously regarding to exclusive suppliers. Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 11(4), pp: 170-189.
[11].            Klein, J. H.; & Cork, R. B. (1998). An approach to technical risk assessment1. International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), pp: 345-351. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00006-4.
[12].            Lyons, T.; & Skitmore, M. (2004). Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: a survey. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 51-61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00005-X.
[13].            McDermott, R.; Mikulak, R.; & Beauregard, M. (1996). The Basics of FMEA. Quality Resources: Productivity Press, New York, New York, USA.
[14].            McDermott, R.; Mikulak, R. J.; & Beauregard, M. (2009). The basics of FMEA (2 ed.): CRC Press.
[15].            Moghimi, E. (2013). Why hazards science? Environmental Hazards Management. 1(1), pp: 1-3. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jhsci.2014.52605.
[16].            Moghimi, M.; Khatibi, S.A.M.; & Abdolshah, M. (2016). Implementation of Total Quality Management Systems Reducing Vulnerability in Banking Industry. Environmental Hazards Management, 3(1), pp: 33-46. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jhsci.2016.59273.
[17].            Mojtahedi, S. M. H.; Mousavi, S. M.; & Makui, A. (2010). Project risk identification and assessment simultaneously using multi-attribute group decision making technique. Safety Science, 48(4), pp: 499-507. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.016.
[18].            PMBOK. (2008). A Guide Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® GUIDE). Paper presented at the Project Management Institute.
[19].            PMBOK. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition. Project Management Journal, 44(3).
[20].            Renier, J.; Domingo, T.; Theresa, M.; DePano, S.; Dominic Aily G.; EcatNicole Ann D.; Sanchez, G.; & Custodio, B.P. (2015). Risk Assessment on Filipino Construction Workers, procedia Manufacturing, 3, pp: 1854-1860. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.226.
[21].            Satty, T.L. (1996). The Analytic network process - Decision making with Dependence and Feedback. RWS publications.
[22].            Salehi sedgheyani, J. (2010). Provide a method for ranking risks of project activities based on CPM networks using fuzzy and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Journal of Industrial Management, 1, pp: 69-82.
[23].            Samantra, C.; Datta, S.; & Mahapatra, S.S. (2017). Fuzzy based risk assessment module for metropolitan construction project: An empirical study, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 65, pp: 449-464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.04.019.
[24].            Taylan, O.; O.Bafail, A.; M.S.Abdulaal, R.; & R.Kabli, M. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies, Applied Soft Computing, 17, pp: 105-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003.
[25].            Turskis, Z.; & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS‐F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location. Transport, 25(4), pp: 423-432. doi:10.3846/transport.2010.52.
[26].            Wang Z.; & Chen, C. (2017). Fuzzy comprehensive Bayesian network-based safety risk assessment for metro construction projects. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 70 ,pp: 330-342.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.09.012.
[27].            Yao-Chen, Kuo; & Shih-Tong, Lu (2013).Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 31(4), 602-614.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.003.
[28].            Yaqiong, L.; Man, L. K.; & Zhang, W. (2011). Fuzzy theory applied in quality management of distributed manufacturing system: A literature review and classification. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24(2), pp: 266-277. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2010.10.008.
[29].            Zayed, T.; Amer, M.; & Pan, J. (2008). Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), pp: 408-419. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012.
Environmental Management Hazards
Volume 7, Issue 2
July 2020
Pages 129-150

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics