Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Analysis of risk factors affecting the main execution activities of

roadways construction projects
Usama H. Issa a, Khaled Gamal Marouf b,c,⇑, Hamdy Faheem b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
c
Civil Project Engineer, Amana Contracting and Steel Buildings, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the main execution activities associated with global roadways construction projects (RCPs)
Received 15 January 2021 were identified and categorized into five main activities of RCPs as follows: (A) Preliminary Preparations;
Accepted 5 May 2021 (B) Earth works (cut/fill); (C) Implementing of sub-base and base layers; (D) Implementing of bituminous
Available online xxxx
layers and (E) Traffic safety and road furniture. A field survey was conducted, and a comprehensive prac-
tical risk checklist consists of crucial 39 risk factors affecting RCPs activities in Egypt was introduced as a
Keywords: case study. The probability of occurrence and the impacts on RCPs objectives (time, cost, and quality) and
Egypt
the risk severity were determined while the key risk factors were highlighted. The correlations between
Risk analysis
Roads
the risk factors indices were measured and the strongest relationship was found between time and cost
Execution activities severities. The weights of time and cost percentages of each activity were identified as well as the
Time expected percentages of time and cost overruns. Activity (B) had the highest percentages of execution
Cost time and associated cost among the whole activities i.e. 31% for time and 29% for cost. While the average
Quality overall time and cost overruns were found (15–20) % and (10–15) % respectively. The effect on the quality
of each activity and the overall effect on the project’s final quality were also evaluated. The results indi-
cated high effect on the quality of activities (A), (B) and (D) and moderate effect on activities (C) and (E).
Furthermore, the influence on the overall quality of the entire project was found with high effect.
Ó 2021 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction roads have been significantly increased by 19% (33,959 KM)

Egypt adopted a national plan for the welfare and development
of the country during the past few years and still going on. The plan
incorporated the establishment of a huge and interconnected
transport network. According to the Egyptian central agency for
public mobilization and statistics, the length of the paved roads
reached 179,906 KM for the years 2017/2018 compared to
145,947 KM in the years 2012/2013 as shown in Fig. 1. The read-
ings in Fig. 1 indicate an incrementally increase in the lengths of
the paved roads, it’s also indicating that the lengths of the paved
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineer-
ing, Minia University, Minia, Egypt.
E-mail addresses: usama.issa@mu.edu.eg (U.H. Issa), khaledg1991@gmail.com
(K.G. Marouf), hamdyfaheem@mu.edu.eg (H. Faheem).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
between years 2013 and 2018. Such huge projects represent a
promising and profitable investment that is growing year by year
(Statistics, 2019). The main three constraints of a certain project
are the effective time, cost, and quality of the project’s final prod-
uct. One of the most influencing factors which affect the achieve-
ment of project objectives is risks and uncertainties analysis and
management. Risk analysis and management is a key project man-
agement practice to assure that the least number of unexpected
events occur while the project is in progress (Lavanya and
Malarvizhi, 2008).
The organizations wasted on Y-2017 an average of US$ 97 mil-
lion for every US$ 1 billion invested, that’s a significant 20% decline
from the previous year’s findings (i.e. 2016 investments) (PMI,
2017). This is an indicator that many organizations have realized
that projects are more successful in case of implementing proven
project, program, and portfolio management practices. The find-
ings are showing that 27% of the project failure causes for Y-
2017 are related to undefined opportunities and risks. Therefore,
maturing value delivery capabilities allow for swift adaptation to
the changing market conditions by balancing efficiency and cre-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2021.05.004
1018-3639/Ó 2021 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem, Analysis of risk factors affecting the main execution activities of roadways con-
struction projects, Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2021.05.004
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem
2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2017/2018
Fig. 1. Paved roads length in KM in Egypt till Y2017/Y2018.
ativity and endorsing continuous improvement, that enables
establishments to have the ability to mitigate risks, control costs,
and increase value (PMI, 2017, 2019). Roads Construction Projects
(RCPs) are subjected to plenty of risks during the different phases
of the project life cycle, especially in the execution phase due to
the long duration of roads projects in addition to high cost, com-
plexity, and interaction between implementation activities. More-
over, RCPs require the availability of massive and different types of
resources including human, material, organizational, plant, and
equipment resources which increases the chance of risks and
uncertainties (Mohamed et al., 2015). The implementation of RCPs
is considered one of the most expensive, long-term, and vital pro-
jects which may encounter several diverse risks. Egypt is facing
another challenge of fighting the bureaucracy and old regime
legacy that could duplicate the effect of risk factors of roadways
projects as faced by other African countries (Khodeir and
Mohamed, 2015; Zafar et al., 2019). Overlooking such risks and
uncertainties and their effects will eventually lead to time and cost
overruns as well as low quality, i.e., the risks associated with RCPs
are certainly affecting the project objectives either positively or
negatively. Therefore, one of this study objectives was to highlight
the importance of risk analysis and management. Consequently,
the project managers of roads projects need to be more meticulous
when addressing and identifying the risks affecting the implemen-
tation of roads activities, as well as adopting a scientific manage-
ment plan and recent techniques should be considered. In
general, management of the available resources is the greatest
challenge that faces the Egyptian construction industry during exe-
cution phases, once getting rid of randomness, and rely on modern
planning techniques and management sciences, that will be the
right start on the way to progress and development. In particular,
the management of roadway construction projects is the greatest
challenge that faces roads projects contractors. Therefore, this
study adopted a new strategy to combine the identification of
the RCPs activities and the identification of associated risks as well
as the assessment of these risk factors likelihood and impact, to
ensure the successful delivery of the project objectives. Moreover,
this study aimed to highlight the importance of studying the risk
analysis and management of roadways construction projects by
evaluating the effect of risk factors on time and cost overruns as
well as the RCPs’ quality. In addition to providing short-listed risk
register incorporating the most important risk factors from the
roadways experts’ point of view. A clear vision was provided for
the roadways’ implementation activities, identification of their
associated risk factors and evaluation of their effect on the project’s
objectives as well as the overall effect of these risk factors on the
time, cost, and quality.
2. Overview of risks
Risk analysis and management is a vital project management
practice to assure that a minimal number of surprises occur while
2
Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
the project is ongoing. Individual risk is ‘‘an uncertain event or con-
dition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or
more project objectives” while, the definition of overall project risk
is ‘‘the effect of uncertainty on the project as a whole or as ‘‘the
exposure of stakeholders to the consequences of variations in the
outcome” (Hillson, 2014). Despite this definition which makes it
difficult to forecast the occurrence of these unforeseen events
and conditions, the organizations have to adopt a proper technique
of project risk management to obtain an appropriate and valid
approach to minimize and eliminate the negative impact of these
risks and to increase the benefit of the opportunities which will
lead to a successful project. This approach should start from the
tendering stage since the contractor is responsible for bidding
and execution as well. The overall business planning of the con-
struction firm is significantly depending on the applied bidding
strategy. Inappropriate bidding of the construction project may
result in large losses, consume time and waste the project
resources or it may lead to an unsuccessful project (Bertalero
et al., 2021). Issa et al. (2020) introduced a new strategy to help
contractors in the evaluation and selection of suitable construction
projects in view of risk analysis of 70 risk factors, taking into con-
sideration the market conditions, financial resources, project con-
ditions, time delays, and cost overruns to control the selection.
Besides, a successful project is assessed by completing the project
on estimated time, budget, and quality. Though, more commonly
time and cost are utilized as fundamental measuring criteria for
assessing the project’s success because of their simplicity and
mutual relations between each other (Iyer and Jha, 2006; Ismail
et al., 2013a). In line with the previously illustrated difference
between the individual risk and overall project risk, the weight
of each risk magnitude has to be determined by multiplying the
probability of occurrence with the impact for each risk factor
defined in the project risk register, and by adding them up to esti-
mate an overall risk level of a project (Dikmen and Birgonul, 2006).
Niazai and Gidado (2012) identified 83 delay factors affecting the
construction industry in Afghanistan categorized them into nine
groups. Alsuliman (2019) listed 50 delay causes affecting construc-
tion projects in Saudi Arabia. Aziz (2013) identified 99 delay factors
in construction projects and were categorized into nine groups
then were ranked based on their importance. Many other studies
attempted to identify the risk factors affecting the construction
projects (Hwang et al., 2013; Marzouk and El-Rasas, 2014).
The magnitude of the risk factor might vary from very weak or
insignificant to very strong or has a severe impact on the project
objectives. RCPs are voracious of energy and material which out-
comes numerous losses, e.g. (7TJ) of energy consumed to construct
a 1-km length of typical two-lane road with flexible pavement
(Ibrahim and Shaker, 2019). Aziz and Abdel-Hakam (2016a) listed
293 delay causes of roads construction projects in Egypt gathered
from the literature review of previous studies. Hosseininasab
et al. (2018) introduced an integrated model for selecting, schedul-
ing, and budgeting urban road construction projects as a multi-
objective time-dependent bi-level network design problem.
Choudhury (2016) used data related to 235 roads and highways
construction projects to study the time–cost relationship in roads
projects, the study proved that actual execution cost and contract
type have got a statistically significant relationship with execution
time for highway construction. Mohamed et al. (2015) identified
73 risk factors affecting roads construction projects in Egypt and
were categorized into 12 risk groups, the study results indicated
that the overall risk evaluation of highway construction projects
in Egypt can be deemed at a medium level.
Therefore, the assessment of project risk factors has to be pro-
cessed at the early stages and thereby identifies potential conflicts
as well as savings. The early identification of potential losses and
savings i.e. risk factors identification could help to use the
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

approach of value engineering (VE) for RCP which will significantly
affect the objectives of the project. The VE approach can reduce the
cost by 20% to 30%, enhance the operational performance by 40% to
50%, and the product quality can be upgraded by 30% to 50%. Mahdi
et al. (2020). Unegbu et al. (2020) investigated the relationship
between project performance measures and project management
practices of construction projects for the construction industry in
Nigeria. This paper attempted to cover the gap between the listed
risks in previous studies and their associated effect via gathering a
practical concentrated risk check list without redundancy nor
brevity and to divide the risks into groups with respect to the RCPs
execution activities. Therefore, a list of 39 risk factors divided into
5 groups were identified. In addition to identifying the weights of
each risk factor ant its effect on the project’s time, cost, and quality.
The paper also attempted to measure the impacts on quality due to
the fact that satisfying the quality conditions of a contract is as
important as satisfying time and cost constraints and this part
wasn’t covered much in the previous studies.
cost, and quality as well as the risk factors severity and magnitude.
Fig. 2 indicates a summary of the research methodology.
5. Data collection
The data collection process was planned and accomplished
based on the research methodology to assure a high level of relia-
bility in the collected data. A survey questionnaire was used to col-
lect the required information for this study. The questionnaire
form was designed and built in a simple and clear format to assure
that participants can autonomously understand and effectively
respond to the questions. The Data was carefully collected and
gathered to be ready for the next step of the research i.e. the data
analysis.

Figure (2) Flow chart showing the research

3. Research objectives
methodology
The main objective of this study is to identify and assess the
weights and influence of risks associated with RCPs in terms of
time, cost, and quality. To achieve this main objective, some rele-
vant objectives have to be achieved as well, which can be consoli-
dated into Seven objectives as follows: 1) identifying the main
execution activities of RCPs in Egypt. 2) creating a practical risk
checklist associated with RCPs in Egypt, 3) evaluating the impact
of these risk factors on the time, cost and relevant quality of the
RCPs activities, 4) introducing a summary of the substantial risks
i.e. key risk factors of high severity index that can significantly
influence the implementation and delivery of RCPs in Egypt, 5)
determining the time, cost and quality weights for each main activ-
ity 6) evaluating the time and cost overrun and finally, 7) exploring
the expected percentage of influence on quality deviations i.e.
quality anomalies for each activity and the average deviation per-
centage for the entire project as well.

4. Research methodology

In order to identify the main activities and risk factors affecting

each activity, the methodology concept of (Issa and Ahmed, 2014;
Ahmed and Nassar, 2016; Issa et al., 2015) was implemented in
this study through applying a series of step started by an intensive
Percentage of probability of occurrence of each
review for the past researches concerning risk management. Semi-
risk factor.
structured interviews were conducted with experts in the RCPs
field then brainstorming sessions were held. The outcome of these percentage of impact on time of each risk factor.
sessions was interpreted into a pre-questionnaire form which was Percentage of impact on cost of each risk factor.
built based on initial information collected from the professionals
and experts in the roads’ execution field. At this stage, an initial Percentage of impact on quality of each risk
risk checklist was identified in addition to identifying the main factor.
activities of RCPs implementation. This stage was followed by Key risk factors affecting the RCPs execution.
brainstorming sessions to amend, consolidate, and finalize the
main execution activities and the final risks checklist to make it The time and cost percentage for RCPs
an intensive and practical list without unnecessary redundancy. execution activities.
The list will constitute the majority of the structure of the final The expected delay in time and cost overrun for
questionnaire survey form. The questionnaire was filled by road- RCPs.
ways professionals working in governmental sectors such as the
Egyptian general authority of roads and bridges, academic profes- The expected effect on the quality of each
sors in addition to contractors, consultants, owners, and owners’ activity.
representatives associated with roadways projects. In order to The overall effect on project quality.
cover the planning, management and implementing parties to col-
lect appropriate diverse data that will be analyzed to produce the
percentage of probability of occurrence and the impact on time, Fig. 2. Flow chart showing the research methodology.

3
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem
5.1. Structure of questionnaire form
At the initial stage of the brainstorming session to identify the
risk factors affecting RCPs, fifty-four risk factors were identified
then it was revised and consolidated into thirty-nine risk factors
affecting five main activities that represent the main activities of
RCPs execution. Experts participated in many brainstorming ses-
sions and semi-structured interviews to identify the main execu-
tion activities and the associated risks which form the structure
of the questionnaire as well as identification of the probability of
occurrence and the impact of each risk on time, cost, and quality
of the project. The questionnaire form was prepared in two formats
to facilitate the distribution and collection of data. The first format
was printed in hard copies which were handed over to some of the
participants where applicable, another online e-form was prepared
and distributed.
Three divisions formed the structure of the questionnaire form.
The main portion of the questionnaire was concentrated in the sec-
ond division, where the risk factors were described according to
the relevant execution activity. In this part of the questionnaire,
the respondents were demanded to identify the probability of
occurrence of each risk factor and its impact on time, cost, and
quality in line with their experience in the field of RCPs execution.
In order to standardize the opinions of participants in identifying
the percentage of occurrence probability as well as the weight of
risk impact and severity, pre-defined percentages were introduced
based on linguistic variables used in similar studies as shown in
Table 1 (Issa and Ahmed, 2014; Ahmad et al., 2013). However,
the first division of the questionnaire form incorporates the partic-
ipant personal details such as name, place of work, and phone no.
which is optional fields and another mandatory field to be filled
such as the number of years of experience in the field of RCPs as
well as the category of work whether it’s contractor, consultant,
or owner’s representative. While the third division of the question-
naire was related to the main activities of the RCPs to identify the
overall percentage of time and cost of each activity compared to
the whole project to identify the weight of each activity. Also,
the participants were asked about the percentage of projects com-
pleted on time and within the budget without time and cost over-
runs according to their experience and they were asked to identify
the expected overall cost and time overruns during the project due
to the occurrence of the identified risks. The overall impact of risk
factors on the quality of each activity was also identified in the
third division of the questionnaire.
5.2. RCPSs activities and relevant risk factors
Many researchers attempted to study risks in Egyptian con-
struction projects in the past few years (Osman et al., 2020). A
recent study assessed the role of value management in controlling
budget overrun, with special reference to residential projects in
Egypt (Khodeir and Nabawy, 2019). In this study, in order to iden-
tify the RCPs associated risks, the execution activities had to be
identified and well described as explained earlier. As a result of
the brainstorming sessions and semi-structured interviews five
main execution activities were identified, each main activity repre-
sents a segment or a milestone of the project life cycle incorporat-
ing subsidiary activities during the execution phase.
Table 1
linguistic variables and relevant percentage range.
Linguistic variables Very Low Low
Percentage range 0% to 10% Up to 30%
Assigned weight 0.10 0.30
4
Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
The main activities of RCPs implementation as identified were:
(A) preliminary preparations prior to commencement of the pro-
ject including the preliminary studies, design review, soil investi-
gation, Hydrogeological studies along the roadway path, and
preliminary preparation such as the required logistics, project’s
access, and egress. . .etc. (B) earthworks (cut/fill) to achieve the
design levels of the roadway including all the relevant activities
of survey works, quality control, materials tests, and availability
and management of project equipment and resources. (C) imple-
mentation of sub-base and base layers including all the relevant
works which required a high level of quality at this segment of
the project. (D) implementation of surface layers (bituminous lay-
ers) which could be considered the actual final segment of the pro-
ject life cycle, since at this stage the project would be substantially
completed excluding some complimentary works which repre-
sents the fifth activity (E) traffic safety & road furniture including
the construction of toll gates, roadway marking, traffic barriers,
installation of lights and other roadways safety measures where
applicable according to international standards and local authori-
ties regulations (Li et al., 2019). Moreover, (Sinz et al., 2013) stud-
ied the safety measures for avoiding or mitigating the occupant
exposure in collisions with large animals which is relevant to activ-
ity (E). While (Sani et al., 2020) obtained an optimum blend of soils
that is recommended for used as sub-based material for lightly
trafficked roads which is relevant to activity (C).
Table 2 shows the main implementation activities of RCPs and a
detailed description of the associated risk factors as selected from
previous studies (Ahmad et al., 2013; Issa, 2010; Issa et al., 2015;
Issa and Ahmed, 2014; Jannadi and Almishari, 2003; Mosaad
et al., 2018; Renuka et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2001; Aziz, 2013;
Aziz and Abdel-Hakam, 2016; Eskander, 2018). The total number
of risk factors is 39 risk factors allocated into five groups. Group
(A) includes 9 factors, group (B) includes 15 factors, group (C)
includes 7 factors, group (D) includes 4 factors, and group (E)
includes 4 factors. It was noticed that activity (B) pertaining to
earthworks has the largest number of associated risk factors
among all the other activities.
5.3. Questionnaire circulation and response rates
In order to assure adverse and comprehensive results of the sur-
vey, the questionnaire was distributed among different categories
of engineers in terms of years of experience and kind of represen-
tation in the project whether a contractor, consultant, or owner
(Mosaad et al., 2018). The total number of questionnaires
responded by participants was eighty-four while the circulated
questionnaires were one hundred-ten. In some cases, the desired
output can be obtained by 33 questionnaires only (Galvin, 2015;
Townsend, 2013). The questionnaire was distributed among engi-
neers working on projects covers different regions in Egypt. The
number of respondents according to the category of representation
in the project and the response rate of the circulated question-
naires is shown in Table 3. Regarding years of experience (YOE),
it was grouped into four categories and the respondents were clas-
sified accordingly. There’s no doubt that experts who have more
years of experience in the field of RCPs will have more reputation
and strength in their replies and participation more than those
who have fewer years of experience. Fig. 3 illustrates the percent-
Moderate High Very High
Up to 50% Up to 70% Up to 90%
0.50 0.70 0.90
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Risks associated with main activities of RCPs execution.

Group A- Factors affecting: Preliminary Preparations prior to commencement of

the project
RF1 Poor review of design drawings and study diff. Sections of the
roadway.
RF2 Existence of Hal or Val obstacles in the route of the roadway.
RF3 Lack of pre-studies & shortage of project data/documents/details
during design stage.
RF4 Poor soil investigation.
RF5 Existence of weak soils at the roadway route.
RF6 Mismatching of the actual NGL and the NGL mentioned in the bid Fig. 3. respondents’ years of experience.
package drawings.
RF7 Lack of water sources along the roadway route.
RF8 Change in project scope during the preparations stage.
RF9 Inaccurate setting out of the main control points of the project.
5.4. Agreement analysis
Group B- Factors affecting: Earthworks (cut/fill) to achieve the design levels of the
roadway
The questionnaire participants were grouped into three cate-
RF10 Lack of competent /experienced surveyors.
RF11 Usage of old version surveying instruments. gories based on their representation in the project (whether con-
RF12 Shortage of experienced/ competent equipment operators. tractor, consultant, or the owner), therefore it was essential to
RF13 Delay of Laboratory results pertaining to materials/samples assure that the different types of respondents’ backgrounds won’t
approvals& tests. affect the ranking of the risk factors i.e. the data collected from
RF14 Lack of experience of the QA/QC team.
all respondents can be used in the analysis of risk factors and risk
RF15 Shortage of diesel stock in the site due to unavailability or oil crisis.
RF16 Poor management of the available resources and equipment. groups as well. Hence a correlation test was done in order to
RF17 Non-compliance with code of practice and standards. ensure a high level of agreement in the ranking of the risk factors
RF18 Poor arrangements of the site preparations, access, and egress. done by two pairs of respondents groups (Mosaad et al., 2018).
RF19 Lack of water sources along the roadway route.
The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is a non-parametric
RF20 Lack of experience of the in-charge engineers and other staff
members. measure of correlation and is used to measure the strength of the
RF21 Bad weather conditions. relationship between two sets of data. The assumptions of normal-
RF22 Unavailability of a nearby source of appropriate filling soils. ity or homogeneity of variance aren’t required in this test since it
RF23 Lack of local authority control on the local resources of the water and compares medians instead of means, consequently if the data have
soil stocks especially in desert roadways.
few outliers, their influence is nullified (Batyrshin, 2019). There-
RF24 Poor coordination between the different parties involved in the
project including the different infrastructure works. fore, the Spearman test was applied to the responses of the three
groups of respondents to guarantee a high level of agreement on
Group C- Factors affecting: Implementing of sub-base and base layers.
RF25 Unavailability of nearby source to supply the granular soil ‘‘ crushed the rankings for the probability of occurrence and the impacts of
stone”. the risk factors on the time, cost, and the quality of the execution
RF26 Shortage of stored and supplied diesel fuel to the site. of RCPs. The range of R values extends from
1 to + 1, this linear
RF27 Lack of experienced and competent laborers.
representation of Spearman’s coefficient is an indicator of the
RF28 Poor grading of the granular soil.
RF29 Discontinuity or delay in crushed stones supply.
strength of the relationship between the variables. if R =
1, then
RF30 Delay in applying the next layer of the road leads to erosion of the it means a complete agreement on the ranks, but the ranks are in
existing layer. the opposite direction i.e. perfect negative correlation. If R= +1, that
RF31 Usage of suitable compaction equipment with the adequate capacity can be interpreted into a perfect agreement on the ranks and indi-
to achieve the required compaction ratio.
cates that the ranks are in the same direction i.e. perfect positive
Group D- Factors affecting: Implementing of surface layers (Bituminous layers) correlation. whereas, If R = 0, then there is no correlation(Issa,
RF32 Unavailability of oil products/ Bitumen.
2010; Hauke and Kossowski, 2011).
RF33 Poor quality control at the batch plant.
RF34 Lack of competent laborers/technicians. Table 4 shows that there is a high degree of agreement among
RF35 Usage of low-quality raw materials. the three groups on the level of probability of occurrence and the
Group E- - Factors affecting: Traffic safety & road furniture impact on time and cost. Except for the correlation between con-
RF36 Non-compliance with the code principles and international standards sultant and owner pertaining to the probability of occurrence
of road marking. (R = 0.665) and the correlation between contractor and owner
RF37 Delay in finishing and handing over the complementary works of the
(R = 0.688) for the impact on time, R values for these two relation-
road such as curbstones and barricading.
RF38 Lack of coordination with the concerned authority parties to get the
ships weren’t high but still representing a fair and adequate corre-
necessary approvals to finalize the implementation of road services. lation between the pairs of respondents. Hence, the analysis will be
RF39 Non-compliance with international safety measures standards. based on data for all respondents and an additional attempt to ana-
lyze the problems encountered by the different categories of
age of each participant category according to their YOE. The aver- respondents isn’t mandatory. All the results are positive which
age relevant experience of all respondents was found 15.3 years. indicates good agreements among the different respondents’
Therefore, the respondents’ points of view are presumed to repre- categories.
sent the real situation in this field.

Table 3
Questionnaire return-rate and frequency of participation.

Participants Contractor Consultant Owner Total

Questionnaires distributed 50 35 25 110
Responses received 39 27 18 84
Response rate 78% 77.1% 72% 76.3%
Frequency of participation 46.5% 32.1% 21.4% 100%

5
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 4 PI = the probability index for a certain risk factor.

Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Pi = the probability weight assigned to option (i) according to
pairs of Respondents Probability Impact on time Impact on cost the assigned five levels of severity.
groups PI IIT IIC Ni = the number of participants who responded to option (i).
Consultant and Owner R = 0.665 R = 0.827 R = 0.784 EF = the experience factor: (EF1 = 1 for 5–10 years, EF2 = 1.6 for
Consultant and contractor R = 0.791 R = 0.732 R = 0.775 10–15 years, EF3 = 2.3 for 15–20 years and EF4 = 3 for above
Contractor and owner R = 0.767 R = 0.688 R = 0.703 20 years).
Y = the total number of respondents after adding the EF
weights.
IIT = the impact index for time for a certain risk factor; Iti = the
6. Data analysis and discussion
impact time weight assigned to option (i).
IIC = the impact index for cost for a certain risk factor; Ici = the
The analysis of the collected data is considered one of the most
impact time weight assigned to option (i).
important procedures in the risk assessment process (Eskander,
IIQ = the impact index for quality for a certain risk factor;
2018). Data analysis can be defined as the methods by which
Iqi = the impact quality weight assigned to option (i).
answers are found through interpreting the gathered data
(Infrastructure, 2018). The appropriate and precise analysis will
The findings of the previous equations were sorted in descend-
lead to accurate results, proper assessment, and eventually effec-
ing order of values in order to obtain a comprehensive perception
tive risk management plan. Therefore, more attention and efforts
of the risk factors that have the most and least impact on the pro-
were paid towards this phase of the study.
ject objectives. In line with the pre-described criteria of sorting the
impact indices findings the top five most likely probable risk fac-
6.1. RISK factors analysis
tors according to PI values were RF1 (PI = 0.630), RF2
(PI = 0.613), RF30 (PI = 0.600), RF25 (PI = 0.587), and RF21
It’s well known that the risk significance can be obtained
(PI = 0.585). The least likelihood risk factor was RF19
through applying a simple formula considering the risk signifi-
(PI = 0.240). The top five risk factors that had the highest impact
cance as a function of the Risk probability index (PI) and the impact
on time according to IIT values were RF33 (IIT = 0.718), RF3
index for time, cost, and quality which will be referred to as IIT, IIC
(IIT = 0.711), RF19 (IIT = 0.709), RF15 (IIT = 0.684), and RF27
and IIQ respectively (Shen et al., 2001). The values of risk signifi-
(IIT = 0.683). The risk factor that had the least impact on time
cance parameters (PI, IIT, IIC, and IIQ) were obtained through the
was RF36 (IIT = 0.390). While the top five Risk factors that had
questionnaire filled by experts and the average results were used
the highest impact on cost according to IIC values were RF28
in the analysis to represent the value of experts’ evaluation for
(IIC = 0.728), RF33 (IIC = 0.718), RF3 (IIC = 0.698), RF16
each risk factor in terms of probability of occurrence or the
(IIC = 0.678), and RF19 (IIC = 0.668). The risk factor that had the
expected impact on time, cost, and quality. Hence, the output of
least impact on cost was RF14 (IIC = 0.358). The top five Risk fac-
the questionnaire analysis was four values for each risk factor rep-
tors that had the highest impact on quality according to IIQ values
resenting the average weight of PI, IIT, IIC, and IIQ which were used
were RF29 (IIQ = 0.713), RF17 (IIQ = 0.681), RF25 (IIQ = 0.678), RF27
in the risk significance formulas. In order to evaluate the weight of
(IIQ = 0.675) and RF35 (IIQ = 0.673). The risk factor that had the
the probability of occurrence of each risk factor (Pi, I=1:39), five
least impact on quality was RF16- poor management of the avail-
grades of probability significance were nominated as a very low,
able resources and equipment (IIQ = 0.313).
low, moderate, high, and very high probability (Ahmad et al.,
It’s well known that the likelihood of the risk factors isn’t linked
2013). The same procedure was followed by asking the partici-
to their impact weights which means, a certain risk factor might
pants to evaluate the weight of risk factor impact on time (It,
have a high probability index due to its recurring feature but its
i=1:39), cost (Ici, a=1:39), and quality (Iqi, a=1:39). The assigned weights
impact on the project’s objectives might be low or null and vice
and the numerical values for each level of the five linguistic vari-
versa. In order to combine the impact of risks probability and its
ables are shown in Table 1 (Issa, 2011, 2012).
impact on project’s objectives (time, cost, and quality), the severity
BY using the above parameters associated with each risk factor
of risks has to be determined which is a function of the risk factor
(Pi, its, Ici and Iqi) the probability index (PI), the impact index for
probability and its impact, i.e. The severity of a certain risk factor
time (IIT), the impact index for cost (IIC) and the impact index
on the project’s time, cost and quality can be obtained through
for quality (IIQ) were calculated by Eq.(1), Eq. (2), Eq. (3), and Eq.
Eq. (6), Eq. (7) and Eq. (8) respectively (Mosaad et al., 2018). The
(4) respectively (Mosaad et al., 2018). In order to represent a better
severity of risks will be denoted as the risk factors indices for time,
approach, the relevant years of experience were posed in the for-
cost, and quality i.e. RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ respectively. Table 5 is
mulas as a factor of experience (EF) which was determined by
showing the values of the risk factors indices obtained through
Eq. (5).
applying the severity equations. The project managers should take
X5
PI ¼ ð Pi  Ni  EFÞ=Y ð1Þ into consideration while assessing the project risks that the values
i¼1
of RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ are representing the risks that had a high
X5 impact on project objectives as well as a high probability of occur-
IIT ¼ ð i¼1
Iti  Ni  EFÞ=Y ð2Þ rence. Hence the risks that had a high impact on project objectives
should be taken into consideration even if their probability of
X5
IIC ¼ ð i¼1 Ici  Ni  EFÞ=Y ð3Þ occurrence were low.
RFIT ¼ PI  IIT ; where RFIT is the risk factor index for time: ð6Þ
X5
IIQ ¼ ð i¼1 Iqi  Ni  EFÞ=Y ð4Þ
RFIC ¼ PI  IIC; where RFIC is the risk factor index for cost: ð7Þ
Y ¼ N ið5
10Þ  EF 1 þ N ið10
15Þ EF 2 þ Nið15
20Þ EF 3
RFIQ ¼ PI  IIQ ; where RFIQ is the risk factor index for quality:
þ N iðabov e 20Þ EF 4 ð5Þ ð8Þ
where,
6
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Risk factors indices for time, cost, and quality (RFIT, RFIC, RFIQ).

Risk Factor RFIT RFIC RFIQ Risk Factor RFIT RFIC RFIQ
RF1 0.306 0.323 0.378 RF21 0.310 0.329 0.283
RF2 0.264 0.337 0.289 RF22 0.235 0.241 0.197
RF3 0.322 0.316 0.294 RF23 0.305 0.247 0.310
RF4 0.163 0.184 0.133 RF24 0.305 0.249 0.246
RF5 0.257 0.250 0.179 RF25 0.297 0.262 0.398
RF6 0.191 0.184 0.146 RF26 0.233 0.232 0.172
RF7 0.193 0.163 0.191 RF27 0.209 0.197 0.207
RF8 0.243 0.261 0.293 RF28 0.210 0.243 0.121
RF9 0.318 0.284 0.261 RF29 0.213 0.217 0.276
RF10 0.138 0.206 0.133 RF30 0.378 0.384 0.236
RF11 0.233 0.211 0.196 RF31 0.228 0.216 0.229
RF12 0.227 0.192 0.193 RF32 0.302 0.307 0.305
RF13 0.129 0.153 0.159 RF33 0.268 0.268 0.210
RF14 0.285 0.162 0.180 RF34 0.224 0.249 0.245
RF15 0.346 0.326 0.240 RF35 0.152 0.187 0.197
RF16 0.205 0.253 0.117 RF36 0.195 0.199 0.217
RF17 0.173 0.178 0.233 RF37 0.160 0.165 0.134
RF18 0.190 0.170 0.131 RF38 0.171 0.205 0.190
RF19 0.170 0.160 0.123 RF39 0.175 0.150 0.121
RF20 0.222 0.210 0.252

6.2. Correlation between risk factors indices
The strength of the relationship between every two sets of
indices values (PI, IIT, IIC, IIQ, RFIT, RFIC, RFIQ) can be measured
by obtaining the correlation coefficient value for each pair of
indices. The correlation matrix shown in Table 6 indicates the
determined values of the correlation coefficient (R).
The readings in the correlation matrix refer to: (1) The highest
R-value (R = 0.832) was found at the relationship between (RFIT/
RFIC) which refers to the strong relationship between these two
indices. (2) The R-value was found high as well in the relationship
between (RFIT/RFIQ) i.e. R = 0.665 and (RFIC/RFIQ) i.e. R = 0.628.
Generally, the results refer to the strong relationship among the
severity indices for time, cost, and quality. (3) The R-value was
noticed relatively high in the relationships between the probability
of occurrence and the severity indices as follows: (RFIT/PI), (RFIC/
PI), (RFIQ/PI) where R values were R = 0.786, R = 0.745, and
R = 0.750, respectively. (4) Whereas the R values were moderate
in the relationship between the impact indices and the severity
indices for time and cost i.e. (IIT/RFIT) and (IIC/RFIC) where R val-
ues were R = 0.488 and R = 0.420 for time and cost, respectively.
However, the relationship between the impact index and severity
index for quality was observed to be high since R = 0.662, which
indicates a strong relationship among (IIQ/RFIQ).
6.3. Boxplot analysis of RCPs activities
Tukey J.W. introduced a graphically-based method of identify-
ing outliers and considered the boxplot analysis as an effective
method for data representation (Mosteller and Tukey, 1977). It
can provide a rapid graphical brief that easily shows center, spread,
range, and any outliers. The box covers 50% of the data, and the box
upper edge is representing the 75th percentile, whereas the 25th
percentile is represented at the box lower edge, and the median
is represented by a line drawn in the middle of the box. The ends
of the lines (named whiskers) denote the maximum and minimum
values of the data set unless there are outliers. In order to compare
the sets of data for the values of RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ for risk factors
that affect RCPs activities. In order to simplify the comparison
between the RFI values for the five main activities (the Five imple-
mentation Segments), the boxplot was established for each main
activity using the values of RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ respectively as
shown in Fig. 4a.
Generally, it can be noticed that all the activities didn’t have
outlier risk factors, except for Activity (C) which had one outlier
for cost only, the outlier was RF30- (Delay in applying the next
layer of the road leads to erosion of the existing layer). It’s notice-
able also that the box range of activity (C) RFI values is compara-
tively short, which indicates that the RFIs values are close to
each other. Also, the box range of RFIC values at the activity (C)
is the shortest range among the other activities. Unlike activity
(A), activity (B), and activity (D) which had a large range of boxplot
values.
The wide range refers to the high differences between the RFIs
values for factors affecting this activity also the RFI value at activity
(D) are higher than the other activities. Activity(E) has a compara-
tively short range of boxplot values for RFIT and RFIC despite the
large range of RFIQ. While Fig. 4b was drawn for the five activities
side-by-side according to the values of RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ to facil-
itate and simplify the comparison task according to the risk factors
indices. large range of RFIQ.
Regarding RFIT comparison, it can be noticed that the box
ranges of activities (A), (B), and (D) had a large range of boxplot
values more than activity (C), and the least range was represented

Table 6
Correlation matrix between risk factors indices.

PI IIT IIC IIQ RFIT RFIC RFIQ

PI 1
0.13
0.27 0.021 0.786 0.745 0.750
IIT
0.13 1 0.598 0.232 0.488 0.281 0.039
IIC
0.27 0.598 1 0.185 0.124 0.420
0.08
IIQ 0.021 0.232 0.185 1 0.145 0.131 0.662
RFIT 0.786 0.488 0.124 0.145 1 0.832 0.665
RFIC 0.745 0.281 0.420 0.131 0.832 1 0.628
RFIQ 0.750 0.039
0.08 0.662 0.665 0.628 1

7
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem
Fig 4a. Boxplot analysis for the five execution activities.
by activity (E), but there are no outliers in this group. While RFIC
comparison, only activity (C) had an outlier, which is RF30, while
activities (A) and (B) had the widest ranges. Whereas activity (E)
had the least range. Whereas RFIQ comparison, activity (C) fol-
lowed by activity (A) had the largest ranges among all other activ-
ities respectively, while the box range of the five activities is
comparatively close to each other and no outliers were detected
in this group as well.
6.4. Key risk factors affecting RCPs activities
One of the main objectives of this study was to identify and
classify the key risk factors affecting the project objectives. Provid-
ing such an approach will help the project managers to prioritize
and concentrate on the risk factors which have the highest effect
on the success of the project scope within the limit of the assigned
budget and assuring a high level of quality control i.e. the success
of achieving the project objectives. Therefore, the top ten ranked
risk factors according to their indices (RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ) were
introduced as shown in Table 7.
It has been noticed that some key risk factors are affecting more
than one objective. It’s worthy to mention that RF3 (lack of pre-
studies & shortage of project data, documents, or details during
the design stage) which lies in activity (A), is affecting the three
objectives of the project i.e. it’s considered a key risk factor for
RFIT, RFIC and RFIQ with different ranks among the top ten ranks
of the three indices, it’s ranked third in the key risk factors for time
and cost and occupied the sixth rank for quality. While RF30 and
RF15 are considered key risk factors for RFIT and RFIC. On the other
hand, RF1, RF25, and RF32 are considered key risk factors for RFIT
and RFIQ. While only one key risk factor is affecting both RFIC and
RFIQ which is RF27. Table 8 is showing the risk factors affecting
more than one objective as a key risk factor i.e. ranked one of the
top ten risks.
Fig 4b. Boxplot analysis for the five execution activities side – by - side.
8
Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
6.5. Time, cost and quality analysis
One of the main and crucial objectives of this study was to iden-
tify the weights of time and cost of the five main activities during
the execution phase. The relationship between the execution time
of the activities and the relevant cost will be analyzed as well. In
addition to evaluating the overall time and cost overruns of the
RCPs. The delivery of a successful project must be subjected to a
high level of quality control during the execution activities which
will affect the quality of the final product. Several studies were
concerned about the quality of roadways projects. A recent study
utilized an android application to record smartphone sensor read-
ings while driving over the road to measure the road anomalies i.e.
road surface quality (El-Kady et al., 2019). Despite these efforts
still, it’s necessary to study the effect of risk factors on the quality
of each execution activity not only the road surface. This paper
studied and evaluated the effect of the risk factors on each main
execution activity of the RCPs as well as the effect on the entire
project’s quality.
6.5.1. Analysis of time, cost, and influence of risk factors on RCPs
quality
The experts were asked in the questionnaire to provide the
expected percentage for each execution activity in terms of time
and cost. Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b are showing the main five execution
activities and the associated percentage of time and cost during
the execution of the roadway project. The findings of activities per-
centages representation indicate that activity-B (earthworks ‘‘cut/-
fill” to achieve the design levels of the roadway), had the highest
representation in terms of time and cost, i.e. 31% for time and
29% for cost. While activity-E (traffic safety & road furniture),
had the lowest representation of time and cost percentages among
the entire execution activities, i.e. 10% for time and 11% for cost.
The percentages of time and cost representations are proportional
to the number of risks affecting the activity i.e. the more risks the
activity has the more percentages of time and relevant cost are
there.
Since project’s quality is one of the project objectives in this
study the questionnaire respondents were asked to evaluate the
influence of the pre-described risk factors on the quality of each
activity of the five main activities as well as the overall expected
quality deviation of the whole project. In order to identify the
influence of the risk factors on the quality of each activity, the
respondents were asked to select a level of effect range from very
low or null till very high as shown in Table 9. The results of the
respondent’s evaluation for the risk factors’ effect on project qual-
ity are shown in Table 10. The identification of the quality devia-
tion percentage is very difficult to be measured and is subjected
to experts’ points of view in line with their experience and accord-
ing to the project specifications. Therefore, the average percentage
of the risk factors’ effect on the quality of each activity was intro-
duced as shown in Fig. 6. The findings of the average percentages of
quality deviations showed that the risk factors had a high effect on
the quality of activities A, B, and D and a moderate effect on the
quality of activities C and E.
6.5.2. Analysis OF overall time and cost overruns and influence of risk
factors on overall quality of RCPS
The expert respondents were also asked to identify the percent-
age of the projects that encountered time and cost overruns and
the average percentage was 61% and 69% for projects that faced
time overrun and projects completed with a budget overrun,
respectively. It’s worth mentioning that the pre-described percent-
ages of the projects completed with time or budget overruns in
Egypt are very close to the international percentages (PMI, 2019).
The percentage for cost overrun of RCPs was found close to the per-
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7
Top Ten risk factors according to RFIT, RFIC and RFIQ.

Rank RFIT Risk number Activity Rank RFIC Risk number Activity Rank RFIQ Risk number Activity
1 0.378 RF30 C 1 0.728 RF28 C 1 0.713 RF29 C
2 0.346 RF15 B 2 0.718 RF33 D 2 0.681 RF17 B
3 0.322 RF3 A 3 0.698 RF3 A 3 0.678 RF25 D
4 0.318 RF9 A 4 0.678 RF16 B 4 0.675 RF27 C
5 0.310 RF21 B 5 0.668 RF19 B 5 0.673 RF35 D
6 0.306 RF1 A 6 0.648 RF5 A 6 0.648 RF3 A
7 0.305 RF24 B 7 0.645 RF10 B 7 0.636 RF32 D
8 0.305 RF23 B 8 0.644 RF15 B 8 0.6 RF1 A
9 0.302 RF32 D 9 0.642 RF27 C 9 0.597 RF7 A
10 0.297 RF25 D 10 0.640 RF30 C 10 0.594 RF8 A

Table 8
Recurring key risk factors affecting more than one objective.

Risk number Activity RFIT Rank RFIC Rank RFIQ Rank

RF3 A 0.322 3 0.316 3 0.294 6
RF30 C 0.378 1 0.384 10 0.236 32
RF15 B 0.346 2 0.326 8 0.240 22
RF1 A 0.306 6 0.323 26 0.378 8
RF32 D 0.302 9 0.307 11 0.305 7
RF25 D 0.297 10 0.262 33 0.398 3
RF27 C 0.209 25 0.642 9 0.675 4

20) % and (10–15) % respectively. The correlation among com-

Fig 5a. Time percentages for the five activities.
Fig 5b. Cost percentages for the five activities.
pleted construction cost and the time taken to complete a highway
project in Florida, USA was studied, and the results of the statistical
analysis indicate that for a road construction project, an increase in
a certain construction phase results in an increase in total execu-
tion time and the more human resources have to be involved in
the task, resulting in a higher project cost (Choudhury, 2016),
The results strengthen the findings of this research. In a Malaysian
study, the effect of 35 risk factors on the time and cost overruns of
construction projects was identified and evaluated, the findings are
far close and matching with the results of this study (Ismail et al.,
2013b).
The overall effect on the project quality was taken into consid-
eration during the data collection stage and was analyzed as well.
The average effect of the risk factors’ influence on the overall qual-
ity of the entire project was identified by the experts and evaluated
as well and was found 18% i.e. high effect as shown in Fig. 6.
Whereas Fig. 8 indicates the experts’ selections of the overall influ-
ence on project quality, a considerable percentage of the experts
tended to identify the influence level as moderate and high repre-
senting a percentage of 35% and 42% respectively, i.e. 77% of the
respondents admitted the significant effect of the risk factors on
project quality. Hence the project managers have to pay more
effort while assessing and managing the project’s potential risks
to attain a high level of work quality.

centage of the cost overrun represented in other study conducted
on the construction projects in Egypt i.e. 69% compared to 65.6%
respectively, while the delay in execution time was 78.5% which
is more than the delay in execution time of RCPs i.e. 69% (Osman
et al., 2020). Fig. 7 is showing the expected overrun percentages
and the average overall time and cost overruns were found (15–
7. Conclusion
The implementation of RCPs is subjected to multiple risks
owing to the nature and the complexity of roadways projects. By
adopting a questionnaire survey methodology, the main activities
of implementing the RCPs were identified. Moreover, the risk fac-
tors associated with the main execution activities were identified

Table 9
Percentage range of the linguistic variables of time and cost overrun.

Linguistic variable Very low or null Low effect Moderate effect High effect Very high effect
Percentage range ~0% 5%–10% 10%–15% 15%–20% More than 20%

9
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 10
The respondents’ percentage for each influence level on the quality of the five main activity.

Very low or null Low effect Moderate effect High effect Very high effect Total respondent %
Activity A 4% 19% 42% 23% 12% 100%
Activity B 4% 12% 23% 35% 23% 100%
Activity C 15% 15% 27% 31% 12% 100%
Activity D 15% 4% 31% 23% 27% 100%
Activity E 15% 35% 19% 19% 12% 100%

it’s considered a good step towards further concentrated studies

about the effect of the risk factors on the project’s quality as this
part wasn’t adequately covered in the previous studies. The out-
puts of the study can be summarized as follows:

1. Identifying the RCPs main activities; Five main activities were

Fig. 6. The average percentage of risk influence on project activities quality.
Fig. 7. Percentages of expected time and cost overruns.
Fig. 8. Percentage of respondents for overall influence on quality deviation.
and classified in order to specify the key risk factors affecting the
success of RCPs. The spearman’s correlation formula was utilized
to measure the ranking agreement among the respondents’ cate-
gories. The agreement among the risk factors indices was also
determined. A precise qualitative analysis of those risk factors
was conducted and produced a considerable set of outputs that
can be utilized to prepare a risk management plan for the forth-
coming projects as well as helping the project managers to form
a clear vision in advance for the critical implementation activities
and the most critical risks that might affect the successful delivery
of the project which will help to mitigate the risk losses and to
increase the risk opportunities. The outputs are useful to the
researchers as well to use it in the future research concerning to
risk management and their effect on the projects’ objectives. Also,
identified to represent the RCPs execution phases: (A) prelimi-
nary Preparations prior to commencement of the project; (B)
earthworks (cut/fill) to achieve the design levels of the road-
way; (C) implementing of sub-base and base layers; (D) imple-
menting of surface layers (bituminous layers) and (E) traffic
safety & road furniture. A checklist of thirty-nine risk factors
associated with the five main execution activities was pre-
sented. In addition to evaluating the probability of occurrence
(PI) and impact on time, cost, and quality percentages for each
risk factor i.e. (IIT, IIC, and IIQ). Linking the RCPs implementa-
tion activities with the risk factors indices (PI, IIT, IIC and IIQ)
is considered a starting point for further studies to identify
more relevant risks or to produce more concentrated studies
focusing on specific activity and its related risks.
2. Identifying the key risk factors affecting the execution of RCPs
according to the risk severity i.e. the combined effect of the
probability of occurrence and the risk impact index, in other
words, according to the risk factors indices (RFIT, RFIC, and
RFIQ); Top Ten risk factors were sorted and ranked on descend-
ing order based on their influence on the project objectives. The
first ranked key risk factor for time was found RF30 and for cost
was found RF28. While RF29 was the first ranked key risk factor
for quality. That could be helpful for the project managers to
pay more attention to these key risk factors.
3. It was noticed that the first ranked risk factors for time, cost,
and quality i.e. RF30, RF28, and RF29 are located in activity
(C). Whereas, RF3 had a unique feature since it’s considered a
key risk factor for RFIT, RFIC, and RFIQ. It’s ranked third key risk
factors for time and cost and occupied the sixth rank for quality.
4. The agreement among the risk factors indices (RFIT, RFIC, and
RFIQ) was measured and the relationship among the three
indices was found strong. However, the strongest relationship
was found between (RFIT/RFIC).
5. The time and cost percentages for each main activity were eval-
uated and identified. Activity (B) had the highest representation
in terms of time and cost i.e. 31% and 29% respectively. While
activity (E) had the lowest percentages of execution time and
cost i.e. 10% for time and 11% for cost. The average overall time
and cost overruns were found (15–20) % and (10–15) %
respectively.
6. The expected influence of the risk factors on the quality of each
activity as well as the influence on the entire project’s quality
was evaluated. The risk factors were found to have a high influ-
ence on the quality deviation of Activities (A), (B), and (D) and a
moderate effect on the quality of activities (C) and (E). while
activity (B) had the highest percentage of quality deviations
due to the influence of the risk factors i.e. 18%. The average
effect of the risk factors’ influence on the overall quality of
the entire project was evaluated accordingly and was found
18% i.e. high effect.

10
U.H. Issa, Khaled Gamal Marouf and H. Faheem
7. The proposed study followed a generic methodology, and the
findings can be used and applied in all countries with slightly
modifications to comply with the RCPs implementation condi-
tions and it’s not restricted to Egypt.
8. The proposed study determined the qualitative effect of the risk
factors So further studies are recommended to cover the quan-
titative risk analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Ahmad, S.A., Issa, U.H., Farag, M.A., Abdelhafez, L.M., 2013. Evaluation of risk factors
affecting time and cost of construction projects in Yemen. Int. J. Manage. 4, 168–
178.
Alsuliman, J.A., 2019. Causes of delay in Saudi public construction projects.
Alexandria Eng. J. 58 (2), 801–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.07.002.
Aziz, R.F., 2013. Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian
revolution. Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2013.03.002.
Aziz, R.F., Abdel-Hakam, A.A., 2016. Exploring delay causes of road construction
projects in Egypt. Alexandria Eng. J. 55 (2), 1515–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aej.2016.03.006.
Batyrshin, I.Z., 2019. Constructing Correlation Coefficients from Similarity and
Dissimilarity Functions. Acta Polytech. Hungarica 16, 191–204 https://doi.org/
10.12700/aph.16.10.2019.10.12.
Bertalero, G., Addebito, P., Bancario, C.C., Cliente, C.A.L., 2021. Co Co Co, 1–2.
Choudhury, I., 2016. Time-cost relationship in road and highway construction. In:
ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc.. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27044.
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., 2006. An analytic hierarchy process based model for risk
and opportunity assessment of international construction projects. Can. J. Civ.
Eng. 33, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1139/l05-087.
El-Kady, A., Emara, K., Eleliemy, M.H., Shaaban, E., 2019. Road Surface Quality
Detection using Smartphone Sensors: Egyptian Roads Case Study, in:
Proceedings - 2019 IEEE 9th International Conference on Intelligent
Computing and Information Systems, ICICIS 2019. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICICIS46948.2019.9014721.
Eskander, R.F.A., 2018. Risk assessment influencing factors for Arabian construction
projects using analytic hierarchy process. Alexandria Eng. J. 57 (4), 4207–4218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.018.
Galvin, R., 2015. How many interviews are enough? Do qualitative interviews in
building energy consumption research produce reliable knowledge? J. Build.
Eng. 1, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2014.12.001.
Hauke, J., Kossowski, T., 2011. Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s
correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest. Geogr. 30 (2), 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1.
Hillson, D., 2014. Managing Overall Project Risk.
Hosseininasab, S.M., Shetab-Boushehri, S.N., Hejazi, S.R., Karimi, H., 2018. A multi-
objective integrated model for selecting, scheduling, and budgeting road
construction projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 271, 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ejor.2018.04.051.
Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X., Ng, S.Y., 2013. Identifying the critical factors affecting
schedule performance of public housing projects. Habitat Int. 38, 214–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.008.
Ibrahim, A.H., Shaker, M.A., 2019. Sustainability index for highway construction
projects. Alexandria Eng. J. 58 (4), 1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2019.11.011.
Infrastructure, R., 2018. Road and Rail Infrastructure V. https://doi.org/10.5592/CO/
CETRA.2018.
Ismail, I., Memon, A.H., Rahman, I.A., 2013a. Expert opinion on risk level for factors
affecting time and cost overrun along the project lifecycle in Malaysian
construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Technol. Manage. 1, 2289.
Ismail, I., Memon, A.H., Rahman, I.A., 2013b. Expert opinion on risk level for factors
affecting time and cost overrun along the project lifecycle in Malaysian
Construction Projects. Int. J. Constr. Technoogy Manage. 1, 10–15.
Issa, U.H., 2012. Developing an assessment model for factors affecting the quality in
the construction industry. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 6 (3). https://doi.org/10.17265/
1934-735910.17265/1934-7359/2012.0310.17265/1934-7359/2012.03.010.
11
Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Issa, U.H., 2011. Developing an assessment model for factors affecting the quality in
Egyptian roads construction. In: The Proceeding of the International Conference
on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI)‘‘Construction Challenges in the
New Decade, pp. 504–512.
Issa, U.H., 2010. Factors affecting quality in the Egyptian construction industry case
study: infrastructure projects. Al-Azhar Univ. Eng. J. 5, 530–541.
Issa, U.H., Ahmed, A., 2014. On the quality of driven piles construction based on risk
analysis. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 12, 121–129.
Issa, U.H., Farag, M.A., Abdelhafez, L.M., Ahmed, S.A., 2015. A risk allocation model
for construction projects in Yemen. Civ. Environ. Res. 7, 78–89.
Issa, U.H., Mosaad, S.A.A., Salah Hassan, M., 2020. Evaluation and selection of
construction projects based on risk analysis. Structures 27, 361–370. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.049.
Iyer, K.C., Jha, K.N., 2006. Critical factors affecting schedule performance: Evidence
from indian construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (8), 871–881.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(871).
Jannadi, O.A., Almishari, S., 2003. Risk assessment in construction. J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 129 (5), 492–500.
Khodeir, L.M., Mohamed, A.H.M., 2015. Identifying the latest risk probabilities
affecting construction projects in Egypt according to political and economic
variables. From January 2011 to January 2013. HBRC J. 11, 129–135. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.03.007.
Khodeir, L.M., Nabawy, M., 2019. Identifying key risks in infrastructure projects–
Case study of Cairo Festival City project in Egypt. Ain Shams Eng. J. 10, 613–621.
Lavanya, N., Malarvizhi, T., 2008. Risk analysis and management: a vital key to
effective project management.
Li, F., Lehtomäki, M., Oude Elberink, S., Vosselman, G., Kukko, A., Puttonen, E., Chen,
Y., Hyyppä, J., 2019. Semantic segmentation of road furniture in mobile laser
scanning data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 154, 98–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.06.001.
Mahdi, I.M., Ebid, A.M., Khallaf, R., 2020. Decision support system for optimum soft
clay improvement technique for highway construction projects. Ain Shams Eng.
J. 11 (1), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.08.007.
Marzouk, M.M., El-Rasas, T.I., 2014. Analyzing delay causes in egyptian construction
projects. J. Adv. Res. 5 (1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2012.11.005.
Mohamed, M., Sharaf, M., Abdelwahab, H.T., 2015. Analysis of Risk Factors for
Highway Construction Projects in Egypt. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 9, 526–533
https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2015.05.004.
Mosaad, S.A.A., Issa, U.H., Hassan, M.S., 2018. Risks affecting the delivery of HVAC
systems: Identifying and analysis. J. Build. Eng. 16, 20–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2017.12.004.
Mosteller, F., Tukey, J.W., 1977. Data analysis and regression: a second course in
statistics.
Niazai, G.A., Gidado, K., 2012. Causes of Project Delay in the Construction Industry in
Afghanistan. pp. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.32738/ceppm.201209.0007
Osman, M.M., Issa, H., U., Zakaria Eraqi, A.M.,, 2020. Identifying the Risk Impact on
Cost and Time of the Egyptian Non-Residential Buildings Projects. Int. J. Sci. Res.
Sci. Eng. Technol. 7, 01–12 https://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrset196659.
PMI, 2019. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession - The future of work: Leading the way with
PMTQ. PMI’s Pulse Prof.
PMI, 2017. Pulse of the Profession – Success Rates Rise.
Ahmed, Reem Y., Nassar, Ayman H., 2016. The Effect of Risk Allocation on
Minimizing Disputes in Construction Projects in Egypt. Int. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. 5, 523–528.
Renuka, S.M., Umarani, C., Kamal, S., 2014. A review on critical risk factors in the life
cycle of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Res.
Sani, J.E., Yohanna, P., Chukwujama, I.A., 2020. Effect of rice husk ash admixed with
treated sisal fibre on properties of lateritic soil as a road construction material. J.
King Saud Univ. Sci. 32 (1), 11–18.
Shen, L.Y., Wu, G.W.C., Ng, C.S.K., 2001. Risk assessment for construction joint
ventures in China. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 127, 76–81.
Sinz, W., Hoschopf, H., Gstrein, G., Ellersdorfer, C., Tomasch, E., Feist, F.,
Kirschbichler, S., Steffan, H., Darwish, S.M.H., 2013. Safety Measures for
Avoiding or Mitigating the Occupant Exposure in Collisions with Large
Animals. In: Advances in Bio-Mechanical Systems and Materials. Springer, pp.
59–79.
Statistics, E., 2019. the Egyptian central agency for public mobilization and statistics
[WWW Document]. URL https://capmas.gov.eg/Pages/IndicatorsPage.aspx?Ind_
id=5709, (accessed 6.13.20).
Townsend, K., 2013. Saturation and run off: How many interviews are required in
qualitative research. Hum. Resour. Manag. ANZAM. Retrieved from http//www.
anzam. org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-manager/5_ANZAM-2013-002. PDF.
Unegbu, H.C.O., Yawas, D.S., Dan-asabe, B., 2020. An investigation of the
relationship between project performance measures and project management
practices of construction projects for the construction industry in Nigeria. J.
King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2020.10.001.
Zafar, I., Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q.P., Ahmed, S., Yousaf, T., 2019. A fuzzy synthetic
evaluation analysis of time overrun risk factors in highway projects of
terrorism-affected countries: the case of Pakistan. Int. J. Constr. Manage.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1647634.