Reviewer Feedback Response to Reviewer
think about how you could write this paragraph to
be more concise, some ideas are repeated, and can
be removed or integrated together
clear objectives for the literature review
it seems like you are bringing in stuff here that may
be better fit in your body sections, I encourage you
to identify the core message in your introduction
and what is necessary to set up your reader to
understand your literature review
introduce these sections that follow here....what can
the reader expect in the next sections, why is this
important for your literature review? what is your
message for presenting these sections, can you
organize or summarize these sections in a synthesis
table?
acronym should be with first use
you have a strong and detailed analysis, but
remember that this is a literature review, not a
report. So you need to clarify and explain what all
of this means for your work, and how you are using
this literature to formulate your own claims and
conclusions.
I encourage you to check the structure of these
sections, check the relevance and meaning for what
you include in each section, check that each section
has a consistent flow, which means that you have to
revisit your objective for your paper to make sure
that you are addressing your objective in the
presentation of each of these methods
you've presented comprehensive background on
these different methods, need to be clear on what
this all means for your work, what is the takeaway
message from all these tools? helpful to include a
summary to connect to the next section
I encourage you to synthesize your writing to focus
on your core message and then look at the message
of each section - , it seems like you have a lot of
information here, but it needs to be connected and
coherent
sentence structure
check reference formatting
Reviewer Feedback Response to Reviewer
I have carefully revised the text to remove any
extraneous information that is not relevant to the
core message of the paper.
I have revised the introduction to include a clear
statement of the objectives of the literature review.
I’ve made revisions in some sections in the
introduction and described relatable part in the
body sections of the paper.
I have revised the paper to provide a clear
introduction for the next sections and explain how
they fit into the overall message of my literature
review. Specifically, I have provided an overview
of the next sections and explaining how they
relate to the research statement.
I’ve made sure that any abbreviations or acronyms
used in the text are defined when they first appear
I have revised the paper to provide a clearer
explanation of how the literature supports my
claims and conclusions, and how it is relevant to
my work. Specifically, I clarifying the link
between the literature and my claims and
conclusions.
I have carefully reviewed the structure of each
section and made changes to ensure that the
content is relevant and consistent with the
objective of the paper. I have also carefully
considered the flow of each section and made
changes to ensure that there is a consistent flow
throughout the paper.
I have revised the section to provide a clearer link
between the background on the methods and my
work. I hope it now more effectively conveys the
relevance of the methods to my work
I’ve updated each section with the focus on the
core message in mind, ensuring that each section
contributes to the overall coherence and message
of the paper. Specifically, I have kept only
required information.
I have carefully reviewed the paper and made
revisions to improve the grammatical structure of
marked sentences.
I made the necessary changes to ensure that they
are cited and formatted correctly.
 A Comprehensive Review of Risk Assessment Methods in Construction Practices

Oishwarjya FerdousiD
iD
MASc. student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada
(oferdsou@mail.ubc.ca)

Keywords: Risk assessment, Construction industry, Conventional approaches, Risk ranking.

1. Introduction

The construction industry is inherently complex and is exposed to various risks. Uncertain events

that may hinder the achievement of at least one construction project objective are considered risks

(Rezakhani, 2012)(Taroun, 2014). Although it is hard to eliminate risk from construction projects,

several methods are available to manage risks through different strategies, such as minimizing,

sharing, transferring, and accepting (Zou et al., 2007). Among the major steps of risk management

(identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and responding), risk assessment helps to manage uncertain

events(Lam et al., 2021). Conversely, inadequate risk assessments and a poor understanding of

how they affect project objectives can prevent projects from succeeding (Sohrabinejad & Rahimi,

2015).

The practical risk assessment relies heavily on accurate risk modeling. Several Multicriteria

Decision Making (MCDM) models employ to assess construction risks in a variety of situations.

These models basically involve determining the acceptable level of each risk(Alrababah et al.,

2017). However, researchers have questioned the effectiveness of the model in different situations

and have suggested potential improvements(Taroun, 2014).

Therefore, we aim to provide a literature review on three specific objectives in this study. First,

this paper exhibits the detailed MCDM methods to address choosing appropriate models out of

numerous models for risk ranking depending on risk criteria. (Mohammadi & Tavakolan,

2013)(Ahmadi et al., 2016). Then, we observe a tendency to use hybrid methods for risk

assessment. Ahmadi et al. (2016) demonstrated that fuzzy set theory is the most prevalent hybrid
method, as noted in 40.0% of the reviewed papers. Therefore emerging trend of

combining MCDM methods with fuzzy sets to show how it improves ranking separation. Lastly,

we investigate a recently developed MCDM model named combined compromise

solution(CoCoSo) and compare it with the previously discussed other MCDM methods to show

how new methods enhance the reliability of risk rankings. The conclusions of this research can

serve as a valuable resource to decision-making authorities while making informed decisions about

risk management, leading to better project outcomes and a safer, more sustainable industry.

We have divided it into several sections to provide a clear and organized presentation of our study.

Section 2 reviews the literature on using selected MCDM models in construction and discusses

their applicability in different contexts. Section 3 explores the development of hybrid fuzzy MCDM

risk priority models and their ability to improve risk separation. Section 4 introduces the CoCoSo

model and compares it to traditional MCDM models. Section 5 discusses the overall effectiveness

of the risk assessment models. Finally, in Section 6, we conclude with a summary of our analysis.

2. MCDM Risk Assessment Models

MCDM methods follow a standardized process that involves identifying and defining criteria,

evaluating alternatives based on the criteria to rank the alternatives, and iterating the process if

required(Sohrabinejad & Rahimi, 2015). The processing of criteria information is crucial in

MCDM methods to derive the most suitable solution (Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004). In the following

section, we will explore a variety of MCDM models such as Failure mode and effects analysis

(FMEA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytical Network Process (ANP), Vlse-

Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje(VIKOR), and Technique for Order

Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) that considered in this area of research.
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

Developed in the 1960s, Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) has become an indispensable

tool for assessing potential failures (Mohammadi & Tavakolan, 2013). It provides an advantage

over the classical risk assessment method with two parameters by incorporating three parameters,

probability of occurrence or likelihood (O), severity or impact (S), and detection (D), to conduct a

comprehensive risk analysis(Dağsuyu et al., 2016). The multiplication of three parameters

calculates the risk priority number (RPN)(Heidary Dahooie et al., 2020). The RPN scores

determine the ranking of risk modes and prioritize high-risk failure. However, this method has

limitations, including that each factor is given equal weight during multiplication, which is

unrealistic from an operational perspective(Liu et al., 2013). Additionally, the RPN result suffers

from producing many duplicate numbers with different underlying risk implications, which can

obscure the importance of individual risk. Finally, the FMEA method is vulnerable to personal

biases, which can limit its overall reliability(Dağsuyu et al., 2016).

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The construction management domain has increasingly adopted Saaty's (1990) Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) to analyze complex situations and make informed construction decisions over the

last two decades (Darko et al., 2019). A linear top-to-bottom hierarchy is used in the AHP method

to structure the problem and ensure that the elements at each level are independent. AHP can help

make decisions that involve criteria weights determined through pairwise comparisons. (Li & Zou,

2011). However, the AHP method necessitates comparing each criterion with one another and

comparing each alternative for each criterion. The greater the number of alternatives or criteria, the

more extensive and numerous the comparison matrices required (Taylan et al., 2014).
Analytic Network Process (ANP)

Interdependent risks can pose significant challenges to risk assessment and management in

complex projects. However, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) can help overcome these

challenges by capturing the interdependencies of various risk rankings (Darko et al., 2019)(Powers

et al., 2002). In contradistinction to AHP, ANP considers potential fundamental relations and links

among the cluster risks and subordinate risks rather than just pairwise comparisons (Taylan et al.,

2014). ANP method helps obtain more precise and effective results in complex decision-making

situations. It considers all interactions, interdependencies, and feedback in decision-making.

However, its pairwise comparison of risks is based on crisp values, which makes it challenging to

capture the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in risk analysis(Ahmadi et al., 2016).

Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

The goal of the TOPSIS method is to find the solution that has the shortest distance to the positive

ideal solution and the longest distance to the negative ideal solution. Despite incorporating the

distances from the two ideal points in its ranking index, the TOPSIS method does not weigh them

based on their relative significance(Alrababah et al., 2017). The ranking index of the TOPSIS

method may suggest that an alternative is the best, but it may not certainly be the closest to the

positive-ideal solution. Additionally, TOPSIS may be more suitable for decision-makers who

prioritize risk avoidance and aim to maximize profit while minimizing risk(Taylan et al., 2014).The

reference point used in decision-making is essential, as human decision-makers typically aim to

select solutions as close as possible to the ideal solution. However, distance from the ideal solution

may only be appropriate the specific circumstances.

VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)

VIKOR is short for “VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje” in Serbian, which

interprets as “Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution”(Alguliyev et al., 2015).

Opricovic & Tzeng (2004) conducted a relative analysis of TOPSIS and VIKOR and found that

VIKOR manages different normalization methods and aggregation functions. A significant

characteristic of VIKOR is that its aggregate function is always in close proximity to both optimal

solutions, making it more compatible with human choice rationale(Sayadi et al., 2009). Moreover,

it is most appropriate when the decision-maker emphasizes achieving maximum profits and risk

considerations are secondary. Besides the ranking, VIKOR offers a compromise solution

considering an advantage rate(Lam et al., 2021).

3. Fuzzy Hybrid Risk Assessment Models

Traditional problem-solving methods rely on precise and deterministic models, but the complexity

of real-world systems often defies such a description. Zadeh and Goguen’s (1965) developed the

fuzzy set theory, which represent and measure vague and uncertain concepts commonly expressed

in natural language. This theory offers a natural method to assign numerical values to qualitative

linguistic preferences made by experts with the fuzzy triangular set (Naghizadeh Vardin et al.,

2021).

Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have gained popularity for risk assessment by

combining fuzzy techniques(Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2011). Compared to conventional

methodologies, the integrated fuzzy system provides several benefits, including consistently

handling qualitative, ambiguous, or imprecise information(Rezakhani, 2012). Using this hybrid

system to incorporate the knowledge and expertise of engineers in risk management can lead to

substantial cost savings(Banihashemi & Khalilzadeh, 2023). The following subsets will overview

dominant fuzzy hybrid MCDM methods ( Fuzzy FMEA, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy ANP, Fuzzy VIKOR,

and Fuzzy TOPSIS) employed in construction practice.

Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (Fuzzy FMEA)

FMEA data is expressed linguistically, and determining the accurate chance of a failure outcome

can be challenging(Yeganeh et al., 2022). The fuzzy FMEA eliminates the limitation related to

evaluating the linguistic form of O, S, and D in FMEA(Ahmadi et al., 2016). It offers an appropriate

and efficient means of modeling project risk. When dealing with a construction project that has

uncertain and inadequate data, Cheng & Lu (2015) and Hayati et al. (2017) put forward the fuzzy

FMEA risk model in response to such limitations of traditional FMEA. Comparing traditional and

fuzzy methods to FMEA shows a reduction in the peak-risk priority failures. Moreover, it suggests

a sound shift from the RPN score to detect hazards(KarimiAzari et al. (2011).

Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP)

Most articles highlight the integration of fuzzy logic and AHP as an effective approach for

managing risks in construction projects (Rezakhani, 2012). For example, Li & Zou (2011)

combined fuzzy logic and an AHP model for an expressway project, Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila

(2011) for a building rehabilitation project, Zhang & Zou (2007) for JVC freeway construction

projects, and Zeng et al. (2007) use for a building project where fuzzy logic measures the risk

scores and AHP gives the risk weights. The employed FAHP shows better risks and uncertainties

analysis. According to Shin et al. (2016), when the decision-making process analyzed by both AHP

and FAHP methods, they recommended selecting the FAHP method To achieve a better risk

ranking.

Fuzzy Analytical Network Process (FANP)

While the ANP is a valuable tool for ranking risks in complex projects, it has limitations when

capturing ambiguity and uncertainty in risk analysis due to its use of crisp values in pairwise

comparisons(Powers et al., 2002). To overcome this limitation, introducing fuzzy concepts into

ANP represents a significant advancement. Fuzzy-ANP (FANP) is a more advanced version that
identifies potential risks and then interdependencies and makes pairwise comparisons with a fuzzy

linguistic scale(Zeng et al., 2007). The projects recognized for their high level of complexity,

involving many interrelated and uncertain risks, can analyze with FANP, and thus it has proficiency

in addressing these challenges effectively(Hu et al. 2015). Moreover, FANP also supports

preconstruction risk prioritization when project risks are detected through subjective

judgment(Valipour et al. 2015). This model allows professionals to choose the optimal strategy

based on criteria such as added value, cost, and feasibility(Shafiee, 2015).

Fuzzy TOPSIS
The fuzzy TOPSIS method, when combined with expert judgment, can manage both qualitative

and quantitative information and offer a quantitative result for risk estimation. Adopting fuzzy

logic to compute risk criteria expressed in natural language on a numerical scales enhanced the

TOPSIS weight analysis process, leading to better decision-making outcomes(Tamošaitienė et al.,

2013). Conventional risk evaluation models overlook vulnerability. Any vulnerability in the project

can transfer into an active risk. However, the fuzzy TOPSIS framework can evaluate the chances

of a project based on vulnerability, detectability, consequences, and reaction against an event(Ji et

al. 2015).

Fuzzy VIKOR
Researchers have extensively studied and applied the fuzzy VIKOR model for its ability to handle

decisions with non-commensurable and contradictory attributes. They are utilizing the fuzzy

VIKOR method to address issues in a fuzzy conditions where criteria and weights can be expressed

as fuzzy sets(Ebrahimnejad et al. 2012). The researchers mostly use Fuzzy VIKOR to tackle the

issue of dependency and response among conflicting measures(Alguliyev et al. 2015). Adopting

the fuzzy VIKOR model allows the determination of a compromise solution and ranking decision

alternatives (Lam et al. 2021.

4. Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Model:

Decision-makers need a compromise solution to reach a final decision when faced with conflicting

criteria. In decision-making, a compromise solution refers to a reasonable option closest to the

ideal, arrived at through mutual concessions(Yazdani et al., 2019). This multicriteria optimization

intends to determine the best feasible solution established on the preferences. Therefore, the experts

needs a combination of algorithms and processes to reach the best compromise solution. MCDM

models such as TOPSIS and VIKOR also provide compromise solutions as they have allowed for

solving problems with non-commensurable criteria(Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004). When solving

MCDM problems using these general compromise methods, the change in weight distributions of

criteria can significantly affect the ranking results. This limitation leads to a need for more

reliability and stability in the results.

An alternative compromise solution named Combined Compromise Solution(CoCoCo) aims to

improve final decisions than the MCDM results. (Lai et al., 2020) Yazdani et al. (2019) offered

this approach, a novel MCDM model that utilizes both sum and product-weighted values for each

option and applies 3 distinct schemes to determine their rankings. This approach calculates the final

compromise score using three different compromise aggregation functions(Banihashemi &

Khalilzadeh, 2023)(Lai et al., 2020). Compared to other MCDM methods, the CoCoSo approach

provides higher accuracy for credible risk prioritization and is better suited for situations with many

alternatives (Chen et al., 2022). When the impact of real-world data uncertainty in risk assessment

calculations requires, incorporating the COCOSO method produces the best results (Mousavi et

al., (2023). Furthermore, Banihashemi & Khalilzadeh (2023) and Yazdani et al. (2019)

demonstrated the versatility and effectiveness of the integrated CoCoSo method in explaining

complex decision problems.

5. Discussion

The assessment of construction risks is a problematic task. Historical data from previous projects

could not accurately reflect the risk profile of new projects. Even expert opinions can often be

unreliable due to uncertain characteristics of risks, which can be challenging to understand and

accurately predict fully. Therefore, it is essential to incorporate multiple sources of expertise and

data to increase the accuracy and reliability of risk assessments. Various alternative MCDM

methods is suggested in the study to assist researchers and risk predictors make informed risk-

ranking decisions.

FMEA differs from conventional risk assessment methods. A risk assessment team with moderate

experience can quickly implement the Failure mode's risk priority number (RPN). Although risk

judgments often result in biased results due to a lack of consideration for accurate weight value of

RPN variables. When complex projects deal with pairwise comparisons and interdependencies

between project risks, AHP and ANP can utilize, respectively, as risk assessment models. However,

ANP's pairwise approach to evaluating risks is less time-consuming and inefficient than AHP's.

However, as the number of variables and their dependencies increase, the complexity of the ANP

model rises exponentially. Both VIKOR and TOPSIS are suitable for prioritizing risk aspects and

providing excellent results close to the ideal solution. However, the TOPSIS method neglects the

significance of the distances from these points. In decision-making scenarios where risks are of

secondary importance, and the primary goal is to maximize profits, VIKOR is a particularly

suitable approach. Researchers often use a fuzzy version of these methods to explain MCDM

complications when criteria are non-commensurable and conflicting and when there is ambiguity

and a absence of precise information.

Afterward, the tendency of hybrid MCDM modeling, such as incorporating fuzzy set theory with

the MCDM models, allows decision-makers to model complex systems or situations where
information is uncertain or subjective, using linguistic terms instead of numerical values. Many

studies have focused on using risk assessment MCDM models based on FST to describe

uncertainties and offer flexibility with fuzzy triangular numbers.

The decision-makers preferences can observe the effectiveness of compromise solutions for

evaluating and ranking alternatives under conflicting criteria. However, the ranking outcome

produced can alter if the weight distributions of criteria change. When criteria conflict, a new

compromise solution named the CoCoSo model is preferred over other solutions for construction

risk assessment to deal with these shortcomings effectively. This model offers flexible decision-

making by considering attributes' interaction and minimizing anomalous data's impact.

The MCDM models are the foundation for cooperation in mutual communication, negotiation, and

conflict management and help decision-makers reach an agreement. Therefore, the performance

ratings of feasible alternatives in risk management will help decision-makers avoid making

inappropriate risk decisions in construction practices.

6. Conclusion

The primary focus of this research paper is to comprehensively review previous studies and propose

solutions to upgrade the efficiency of construction risk ranking. Out of numerous alternative

approaches, the most popular MCDM methods for prioritizing construction failure modes are

FMEA, AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR, followed by fuzzy rule-based system models. These

MCDM approaches can overcome several issues associated with the conventional risk ranking

method. Moreover, the primary objective of studying these methods is to differentiate between

alternatives based on their relative strengths and weaknesses, the recent trend in utilizing fuzzy-

MCDM models to increase the effectiveness and risk outcomes. The analysis also suggests

embracing integrated methods to maximize synergies. It offers the easy understanding, and the

convenience of ranking sets. Furthermore, the applications of compromise solution methods have
been presented in dealing with multiple conflicting criteria and changes in the weight distribution

of criteria, focusing on their relevance to the construction industry. Among these methods, the

COCOSO method was the most practical and effective compromise solution, which involves

settling risk rankings by making mutual concessions and possibly the close solution to the ideal.

Overall, it is worth noting that there is no universally accepted best model for solving risk-related

problems in the construction industry. Construction projects have various risks, and managing

specific situations or scenarios effectively requires different approaches or methods.

Our future research aims to extend these algorithms to handle linguistic decision-making terms

with different number theories. It would further improve the reliability of decision-making through

the enhancement of the ability to reason based on evidence for construction risk management.
References
Ahmadi, M., Behzadian, K., Ardeshir, A., & Kapelan, Z. (2016). Comprehensive risk management
using fuzzy FMEA and MCDM techniques in highway construction projects. Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, 23(2), 300–310.
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1068847
Alguliyev, R. M., Aliguliyev, R. M., & Mahmudova, R. S. (2015). Multicriteria personnel selection
by the modified fuzzy VIKOR method. The Scientific World Journal, 2015, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/612767
Alrababah, S. A. A., Gan, K. H., & Tan, T.-P. (2017). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods
for product aspect ranking: TOPSIS and VIKOR. 2017 8th International Conference on
Information and Communication Systems (ICICS), 76–81.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IACS.2017.7921949
Banihashemi, S. A., & Khalilzadeh, M. (2023). Application of fuzzy BWM-CoCoSo to time–cost–
environmental impact trade-off construction project scheduling problem. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(2), 1199–1214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04075-1
Chen, Q.-Y., Liu, H.-C., Wang, J.-H., & Shi, H. (2022). New model for occupational health and
safety risk assessment based on Fermatean fuzzy linguistic sets and CoCoSo approach.
Applied Soft Computing, 126, 109262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109262
Cheng, M., & Lu, Y. (2015). Developing a risk assessment method for complex pipe jacking
construction projects. Automation in Construction, 58, 48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.011
Dağsuyu, C., Göçmen, E., Narlı, M., & Kokangül, A. (2016). Classical and fuzzy FMEA risk
analysis in a sterilization unit. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 286–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.015
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Pärn, E., & Edwards, D. J. (2019).
Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International
Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436–452.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098
Ebrahimnejad, S., Mousavi, S. M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Hashemi, H., & Vahdani, B.
(2012). A novel two-phase group decision making approach for construction project
selection in a fuzzy environment. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(9), 4197–4217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.11.050
Fouladgar, M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2012). Risk evaluation of tunneling
projects. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 12(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.03.008
Hayati, M., Reza Abroshan, M.(2017). Risk assessment using Fuzzy FMEA (Case Study: Tehran
Subway Tunneling Operations). Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 10(9), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i9/110157
Heidary D. J., Vanaki, A. S., Firoozfar, H. R., Zavadskas, E. K., & Čereška, A. (2020). An
extension of the failure mode and effect analysis with hesitant fuzzy sets to assess the
 occupational hazards in the construction industry. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041442
Hu, Y., Wen, J., & Yan, Y. (2015). Measuring the performance of knowledge resources using a
value perspective: Integrating BSC and ANP. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6),
1250–1272. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0431
Ji, Y., Huang, G. H., & Sun, W. (2015). Risk assessment of hydropower stations through an
integrated fuzzy entropy-weight multiple criteria decision-making method: A case study of
the Xiangxi River. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(12), 5380–5389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.026
KarimiAzari, A., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S. F., & Hosseini, S. (2011). Risk assessment model
selection in construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9105–9111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.110
Lai, H., Liao, H., Wen, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Al-Barakati, A. (2020). An improved CoCoSo
method with a maximum variance optimization model for cloud service provider selection.
Engineering Economics, 31(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.31.4.24990
Lam, W. S., Lam, W. H., Jaaman, S. H., & Liew, K. F. (2021). Performance evaluation of
construction companies using integrated entropy–fuzzy VIKOR model. Entropy, 23(3),
320. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23030320
Li, J., & Zou, P. X. W. (2011). Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1205–1209.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000362
Liu, H.-C., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects
analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 828–838.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
Mohammadi, A., & Tavakolan, M. (2013). Construction project risk assessment using combined
fuzzy and FMEA. 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting
(IFSA/NAFIPS), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608405
Mousavi, S. A., Hafezalkotob, A., Ghezavati, V., Abdi, F., & Mobarra, R. (2023). Sustainable
construction project of electric vehicle charging stations: A risk-based hybrid decision-
making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136565
Naghizadeh, V., Ansari, R., Khalilzadeh, M., Antucheviciene, J., & Bausys, R. (2021). An
integrated decision support model based on BWM and fuzzy-VIKOR techniques for
contractor selection in construction projects. Sustainability, 13(12), 6933.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126933
Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment.
International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 220–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.002
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–
455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
Powers, G., Ruwanpura, J. Y., Dolhan, G., & Chu, M. (2002). Simulation based project selection
decision analysis tool. Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2, 1778–1785.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2002.1166465
Rezakhani, P. (2012). A review of fuzzy risk assessment models for construction projects. Slovak
Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(3), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10189-012-0016-5
Saaty, T. L. (n.d.). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Sayadi, M. K., Heydari, M., & Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for decision
making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(5), 2257–
2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002
Shafiee, M. (2015). A fuzzy analytic network process model to mitigate the risks associated with
offshore wind farms. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2143–2152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.019
Shin, D.-W., Shin, Y., & Kim, G.-H. (2016). Comparison of risk assessment for a nuclear power
plant construction project based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 04(03), 157–171.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jbcpr.2016.43010
Sohrabinejad, A., & Rahimi, M. (2015). Risk determination, prioritization, and classifying in
construction project case study: Gharb Tehran commercial-administrative complex.
Journal of Construction Engineering, 2015, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/203468
Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2013). Multicriteria risk assessment of a
construction project. Procedia Computer Science, 17, 129–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.018
Taroun, A. (2014). Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction risk: Insights from
a literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 101–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.004
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M. S., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects
selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied
Soft Computing, 17, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003
Valipour, A., Yahaya, N., Md Noor, N., Kildienė, S., Sarvari, H., & Mardani, A. (2015). A fuzzy
analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects: an Iranian
case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(7), 933–947.
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1051104
Yazdani, M., Wen, Z., Liao, H., Banaitis, A., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A grey combined compromise
solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier selection in construction management. Journal
Of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(8), 858–874.
https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.11309
Yeganeh, A., Younesi Heravi, M., Razavian, S. B., Behzadian, K., & Shariatmadar, H. (2022).
Applying a new systematic fuzzy FMEA technique for risk management in light steel frame
systems. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 21(6), 2481–2502.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1971994
Zadeh and Goguen’s (1965). (n.d.).
Zeng, J., An, M., & Smith, N. J. (2007). Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology
to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management,
25(6), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.006
Zhang, G., & Zou, P. X. (2007). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for
joint venture construction projects in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 133(10), 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2007)133:10(771)
Zou, P. X. W., & Li, J. (2010). Risk identification and assessment in subway projects: Case study
of Nanjing Subway Line 2. Construction Management and Economics, 28(12), 1219–1238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.519781
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects
in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601–614.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001