Analyzing and Controlling Construction Engineering Project Gray Rhino Risks with Innovative MCDM Methods: Interference Fuzzy Analytical Network Process and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
Source abstract
Abstract
Construction engineering projects are costly and require large amounts of labor, physical, and financial resources. The failure of a construction engineering project typically brings huge losses. Previous studies have focused on the identification of risks, but insufficient attention has been given to strategic resource allocation for risk management after risk identification. Statistics show that most construction engineering project failures are caused by common risks. Common risks are called gray rhino risks. This metaphor illustrates that many risks are obvious but dangerous. This study was motivated by the challenge of efficiently managing gray rhino risks with limited inputs. The literature suggests that gray rhino risks are abundant in construction engineering projects and that there are mutual eliciting relationships between them, which make it difficult for the manager to devote enough resources to the prevention of key risks. Considerable resources are wasted on unimportant risks, resulting in key risk occurrence and failure of construction engineering projects. Therefore, this study describes an innovative multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) technique for ranking risks based on the strength of the eliciting relationships between them. This study used the fuzzy technique and created an interference fuzzy analytical network process (IF-ANP) method. By employing the IF-ANP alongside a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach, the subjectivity can be effectively reduced and the accuracy improved during expert risk evaluation for construction engineering projects. IF-ANP was used to quantify eliciting relationships between risks and DEMATEL was used to rank risks based on the IF-ANP result. An empirical study was done to meticulously rank five risks that were selected from the gray rhino risks in the Chengdu–Chongqing Middle Line High-speed Railway construction engineering project. They are capital chain rupture, decision failure, policy and legal risk, economic downturn, and stakeholder conflict. The results showed that the policy and legal risk was the source of other risks, and that these other risks were symptoms rather than the disease.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Occupational Health and Safety Research · Construction Project Management and Performance · Multi-Criteria Decision Making
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, 83 Shabei Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing 400045, China
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Funding
General Project of Chongqing Natural Science Foundation · Graduate Research and Innovation Foundation of Chongqing
References (60)
Show source-provided references
1. Risk identification in megaprojects as a crucial phase of risk management, a literature review10.1177/875697281604700606 ↗
2. Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure projects, an international survey of industry experts10.1108/F-12-2013-0091 ↗
3. Risk identification and allocation in underground rail construction joint ventures, Contractors’ perspective10.3846/13923730.2014.914095 ↗
4. Effects of project governance structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects, a comparative analysis10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.001 ↗
5. Risk analysis in construction project-chosen methods10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.034 ↗
6. Risk management in construction projects10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.036 ↗
7. Risk identification and common risks in construction: Literature review and content analysis10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001685 ↗
8. Wucker, M., and Gilbert, T. (2021). You Are What You Risk, Pegasus Books.
9. Altshuler, A., and Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects, the Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment, Plano, Brookings Institution Press.
10. Research on system vulnerability of interregional large-scale construction projects
11. Making decision toward overseas construction projects: An application based on adaptive neuro fuzzy system10.1108/ECAM-01-2018-0016 ↗
12. Black swans or gray rhinos on the runway? The role of uncertainty in airport strategic planning
13. Goldratt, E.M. (1990). Theory of Constraints, North River.
14. Existential risks, exploring a robust risk reduction strategy10.1007/s11948-014-9559-3 ↗
15. Using analytic network process to assess business failure risks of construction firms10.1108/09699981011056574 ↗
16. Exploring urban risk reduction strategy based on spatial statistics and scenario planning10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121668 ↗
17. Data-driven safety enhancing strategies for risk networks in construction engineering10.1016/j.ress.2020.106806 ↗
18. Chatterjee, K., Zavadskas, E.K., Tamošaitienė, J., Adhikary, K., and Kar, S. (2018). A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in construction projects. Symmetry, 10.10.3390/sym10020046 ↗
19. E-learning website evaluation and selection using multi-attribute decision making matrix methodology10.1002/cae.21846 ↗
20. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162 ↗
21. Critical success factors of sustainable project management in construction, a fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.120 ↗
22. Mixed-integer nonlinear programming model for nonlinear discrete optimization of project schedules under restricted costs10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001074 ↗
23. AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.024 ↗
24. Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant operations, a model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.039 ↗
25. Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000362 ↗
26. A multi-criteria decision-making approach to help resource-exhausted areas choose suitable transformation templates—The example of Wansheng in Chongqing, China10.1016/j.asej.2022.101709 ↗
27. Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in multi-attribute decision making problems10.3233/JIFS-172009 ↗
28. A new preference scale mcdm method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the analytic hierarchy process10.1007/s00500-014-1519-y ↗
29. Fuzzy set theory-based comparative evaluation of cloud service offerings: An agro-food supply chain case study10.1080/09537325.2020.1850673 ↗
30. The preference order of fuzzy numbers10.1016/S0898-1221(02)00270-5 ↗
31. Importance-Assessing Method with Fuzzy Number-Valued Fuzzy Measures and Discussions on TFNs and TrFNs
32. Risk management framework for construction projects in developing countries10.1080/0144619032000124689 ↗
33. System Modeling and Risk Analysis of the Sichuan–Tibet Railway Project10.1061/JTEPBS.0000610 ↗
34. Marković, V., Stajić, L., Stević, Ž, Mitrović, G., Novarlić, B., and Radojičić, Z. (2020). A novel integrated subjective-objective mcdm model for alternative ranking in order to achieve business excellence and sustainability. Symmetry, 12.10.3390/sym12010164 ↗
35. An expert system for circular economy business modelling, Advising manufacturing companies in decoupling value creation from resource consumption10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.023 ↗
36. Risk assessment and management of excavation system based on fuzzy set theory and machine learning method10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103490 ↗
37. How experts screen ideas, the complex interplay of intuition, analysis and sensemaking10.1111/jpim.12559 ↗
38. Risk assessment for public-private partnership projects: Using a fuzzy analytic hierarchical process method and expert opinion in China
39. Developing an MCDM method for robot selection with interval type-2 fuzzy sets10.1016/j.rcim.2015.04.007 ↗
40. Identifying the critical risks in underground rail international construction joint ventures, Case study of Singapore10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.014 ↗
41. A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model for measurement of the sectoral competititon level (SCL)10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.074 ↗
42. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2 ↗
43. A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021 ↗
44. Reprioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique10.1016/j.ress.2005.09.005 ↗
45. The Delphi method for graduate research
46. Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning, Reference class forecasting in practice10.1080/09654310701747936 ↗
47. A hybrid MCDM approach for agile concept selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS10.1007/s00170-015-7718-6 ↗
48. A knowledge-based expert system to assess power plant project cost overrun risks10.1016/j.eswa.2019.06.030 ↗
49. Monitoring and environmental modeling of earthwork impacts, a road construction case study10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.007 ↗
50. Risk management in construction projects, a knowledge-based approach10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.073 ↗
51. The making and impacts of a classic text in megaproject management, the case of cost overrun research10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.07.003 ↗
52. Special studies in management of construction project risks, risk concept, plan building, risk quantitative and qualitative analysis, risk response strategies10.1016/j.aej.2017.12.003 ↗
53. A meta-network-based risk evaluation and control method for industrialized building construction projects10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.127 ↗
54. Project risk factors facing construction management firms10.1007/s40999-017-0262-z ↗
55. Risk assessment framework of PPP-megaprojects focusing on risk interaction and project success10.1016/j.tra.2019.03.011 ↗
56. A design change analysis model as a change impact analysis basis for semantic design change management10.1177/0954406216633035 ↗
57. He, X., and Hou, L. (2010, January 9). Research on behavioral risk of participants in construction project based on the theory of stakeholders. Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering, Changzhou, China.
58. Risk assessment for construction joint ventures in China10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:1(76) ↗
59. Stakeholder engagement in construction: Exploring corporate social responsibility, ethical behaviors, and practices10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001769 ↗
60. Education in construction engineering and management built on tradition: Blueprint for tomorrow10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:9(661) ↗