Sample 3

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322636583
Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar

Article information: For Authors Major construction risk factors considered by
general contractors in Qat...
Article · August 2015
CITATIONS READS
2 583
1 author:
Theo C Haupt
Mangosuthu University of Technology
180 PUBLICATIONS 843 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Influence of socio-cultural factors on the under-representation of women in the South African Construction Industry View project
Sustainable Infrastructure Design in Developing Countries View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Theo C Haupt on 22 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar
Abdulaziz M. Jarkas Theodore C. Haupt
Article information:
To cite this document:
Abdulaziz M. Jarkas Theodore C. Haupt , (2015),"Major construction risk factors considered by
general contractors in Qatar", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 165 -
194
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2014-0012
Downloaded by University of KwaZulu-Natal At 01:17 07 December 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 07 December 2015, At: 01:17 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 94 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 404 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Anthony Mills, (2001),"A systematic approach to risk management for construction", Structural
Survey, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 245-252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630800110412615
Ali Rostami, James Sommerville, Ing Liang Wong, Cynthia Lee, (2015),"Risk management
implementation in small and medium enterprises in the UK construction industry", Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 91-107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ECAM-04-2014-0057
Adwoa Boadua Yirenkyi-Fianko, Nicholas Chileshe, (2015),"An analysis of risk management in
practice: the case of Ghana’s construction industry", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,
Vol. 13 Iss 2 pp. 240-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2012-0021
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:497249 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
download.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm
Major construction risk factors Construction

risk factors
considered by general
contractors in Qatar
Abdulaziz M. Jarkas 165
Projects Department, Al Mazaya Holding Co., KSC (Holding), Kuwait City, Received 7 March 2014
State of Kuwait, and Revised 12 May 2014
Accepted 13 May 2014
Theodore C. Haupt
Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying,

University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify, explore, rank the relative importance and determine
the prevalent allocation response trends of the major construction risk factors considered by general
contractors operating in the State of Qatar.
Design/methodology/approach – A structured questionnaire survey comprising 37 potential risk
factors was distributed to a statistically representative sample of contractors. The influence ranks of the
factors explored were determined using the “Relative Importance Index (RII)” technique, whereas the
prevalent trend of contractors’ attitudes toward risk allocation of each factor investigated was
quantified and expressed as a percentage, based on the number of respondents who selected a specific
option, in relation to the total number of respondents.
Findings – The results obtained indicate that risks related to the “client” group are perceived as most
critical, followed by the “consultant”, “contractor” and “exogenous” group-related factors, respectively.
The outcomes further show that the “transfer” option is the contractors’ prevalent response to “client”
and “consultant”-related risks, while the “retention” decision is the principal pattern linked to
“contractor” and “exogenous” group-related risk factors.
Research limitations/implications – The dominant respondents’ perception that the crucial
construction risks are related to clients and consultants suggests that these two parties have an
essential role in controlling the negative ramifications of the associated factors.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that increasing designers’ awareness of the
significant effect of applying the constructability concept can considerably help reducing the risks
concomitant of the construction operation. Policy makers may contribute, moreover, in alleviating the
risk of incompetent technical staff and operatives’ employment by controlling the migration of
inexperienced and unskilled construction workforce into the State.
Originality/value – Given the knowledge gap for the major construction risk factors considered
by general contractors in Qatar, the results reported in this study can provide clients, industry
practitioners and policy makers with guidance to effectively manage the significant risks
determined, which can further assist in achieving a reasonable level of competitiveness and
cost-effective operation. Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology
Keywords Risk management, Construction project management, State of Qatar, Contractors, Vol. 13 No. 1, 2015
pp. 165-194
Risk factors © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1726-0531
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/JEDT-03-2014-0012
JEDT 1. Introduction
13,1 Risk management is widely recognized as one of the most important procedures and
capability areas in the field of project management (Artto, 1999; Tadayon et al., 2012).
Due to the fact that each construction project is unique and dynamic, the construction
operation involves numerous uncertainties, multiple intricacies, various techniques and
divergent environments. Therefore, identifying and managing the potential risk factors,
166 which can significantly vary from project to project depending on several conditions,
plays a crucial role in enhancing the performance and accomplishing the successful
delivery of the enterprise.
Hertz and Thomas (1983) defined risk as a “variety of situations involving many
unknown, unexpected, frequently undesirable and often unpredictable factors” Perry
and Hayes (1985) referred to risk as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has
a positive or negative effect on a project objective”. Jaafari (2001), in addition, expressed

risk as “the exposure to loss, gain, or the probability of occurrence of loss/gain
multiplied by its respective magnitude”, whereas Abbasi et al. (2005) characterized risk
by “the possibility of loss, injury, disadvantage or destruction”. On the other hand, Berk
and Kartal (2012) described risk as “the potential for unexpected consequences of an
activity”.
In view of the previous discussion, the authors further propose the following risk
definition: “the consequences – good or bad – of any unplanned, unaccounted for, or
ignored event, which can affect project objectives or performance”. Put simply, however,
effective risk management in projects involves proactively working with project
stakeholders to minimize the risks and maximize the opportunities associated with
project decisions and demands a clear, straightforward and sensible approach
(Loosemore et al., 2006).
While it is prudent to assess the potential positive risk factors to enhance the
profitability margins of construction contracts, it is crucially important to
systematically identify, categorize and assess the possible risk factors which can
adversely impact the performance of projects. Therefore, this study focuses on the
inimical aspects of risks encountered along the course of the construction process.
Although risk management is a systematic and comprehensive approach geared
toward “indentifying”, “analyzing” and “responding” to risk factors to achieve the
project objectives (PMBOK®, 2008), most construction risk management plans are still
based on intuition, personal experience and professional judgment, where formal
techniques are rarely used due to a lack of knowledge and doubts on the suitability of
these techniques for construction activities (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Cretu et al.,
2011). Nonetheless, in comparison with the “analysis” and “response” stages, the
“identification” process of the possible risk factors is regarded as the single most
important and challenging stage, upon which the whole risk management plan is
underpinned (Kansal and Sharma, 2012).
The State of Qatar, a peninsula projecting north into the Arabian Gulf, possesses the
world’s third-largest source of natural gas, and 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves,
and, hence, has benefited from a fourfold increase in energy prices over the past five
years (CIA, 2011). The construction sector has been among the major contributors to the
State’s economic growth, and is expected to continue to contribute significantly to the
gross domestic product (GDP) and labor force employment. In 2003, this sector
witnessed a growth of 3.6 per cent, contributing Qatari Riyal (QAR) 2,850 million (750
million USD) to the overall GDP (QER, 2004). Nevertheless, following the announcement Construction
of awarding the FIFA 2022 World Cup hosting rights to Qatar on 2 December 2010, the risk factors
country will be investing heavily into hundreds of new construction projects such as
stadiums, hotels, residences, hospitals, airports, seaports and railways, among other
infrastructure facilities (Construction Week, 2010).
The level of investment and construction spending is expected to lead to a major
boom in Qatar’s construction sector. Additionally, the magnitude and complexity of 167
planned projects, as is the case with most developing countries, will inevitably require
the participation of major international construction firms. It is most likely that many of
these international contractors do not possess any practical experience or knowledge of
the local construction industry, which may result in inflated bids to manage or mitigate
any risk associated with venturing into an unknown and culturally different
environment.
Notwithstanding that construction risk factors may be comparable across the globe,
several variables pertaining to a local industry, such as socioeconomic, environment and
cultural issues, can further contribute to unknown or unpredictable risks. Similar
projects, moreover, may have totally different risk characteristics in different regions
(Zhi, 1995). In view of this challenge, the aim is to create a scientific base given the
knowledge gap for the State of Qatar.
The primary objective of this investigation, therefore, is to identify, explore, rank the
relative importance and determine the prevalent allocation response trends of the major
construction risk factors considered by general contractors operating in Qatar. These
findings can be used by local and international contractors, in addition to clients,
consultants and policy makers, to develop a deeper and wider understanding of the
critical risk factors that are perceived to influence cost, time and quality of construction
projects. This understanding may lead to the development of reasonable control
measures of these factors, not only during the construction stages, but also along the
evolution of the design phases of projects, and further assist in achieving a reasonable
level of competitiveness and cost-effective operation.
The paper starts with a literature review of previous related research, presents the
research method and data analysis, provides a discussion of the results obtained and
concludes, based on the results emerged from this study, with practical
recommendations to alleviate the adverse effects of the preeminent risk factors
identified on the development process of construction projects in the State.
2. Literature review
Construction risk management has been the subject of numerous research studies. One
of the earliest attempts to structure construction risks and systematically identify their
root causes can be credited to Chapman and Cooper (1983), whose research presented the
“risk engineering” approach, which integrated different techniques and tools, such as
program evaluation and review technique (PERT), decision trees and probability
distributions. Franke (1987) highlighted the need to consider the influence of risks on
different project objectives utilizing the “monetary” value technique. On the other hand,
Mustafa and Al-Bahar (1991) introduced the “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)” to
apply the concept of value and weight to assess the risk probability and effect, which
was subsequently utilized by Zhi (1995) to appraise the risk levels of overseas
construction projects.
JEDT Edwards and Bowen (1998) conducted an extensive literature review of construction
13,1 risk management studies, which were published during the period from 1960 to 1997, to
identify gaps and inconsistencies in the knowledge and treatment of construction risks.
The findings suggested that political, economic, financial and cultural risk factors
deserved greater research attention, compared to factors associated with quality
assurance, and occupational health and safety. Uher and Toakley (1999), moreover,
168 investigated various structural and cultural factors related to the implementation of risk
management principles in the conceptual stage of a project life cycle. They concluded
that while most industry practitioners were familiar with risk management:
• its application in the conceptual phase is relatively low;
• qualitative rather than quantitative methods are generally used; and
• risk management implementation was impeded by the shallow knowledge of its

principles.
Baccarini and Archer (2001) emphasized the need to rank and prioritize risks in a project
to focus the management effort on the higher risks. Kartam and Kartam (2001) examined
the issue of construction risk management in Kuwait, and found that:
• local contractors were often responsible for most risk factors;
• the implementation of formal risk analysis techniques for managing and
controlling risks was limited; and
• contractors mainly relied on coordination with subcontractors, together with an
increase of manpower and equipment, to mitigate most of the risks encountered
during the construction process.
2.1 Previous findings

Santoso et al. (2003) conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the prevalent risk
factors in high-rise building construction in Jakarta, and identified site management,
design issues, client interference, good communication and team work between
contractors and consultants and construction equipment maintenance as most
significant.
Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004) investigated the construction risk factors in large
infrastructure projects in Thailand, and reported, as most important, the following:
• unavailability of funds;
• construction delay;
• financial failure of contractor;
• unclear scope of work;
• economic crisis;
• delay in solving contractual issues;
• delay in solving disputes;
• third-party delays;
• subcontractor failure; and
• subcontractor lack of adequate number of staff.
Wiguna and Scott (2005), moreover, surveyed the risk factors affecting the performance Construction
of building construction in Indonesia, and determined the following as most critical: risk factors
• high inflation of prices;
• defective design;
• design change by owner;
• delayed payments on contract; 169
• inclement weather;
• unforeseen site ground condition;
• poor cost control;
• defective construction work;
• delay in providing detail drawings; and

• problems with availability of labor, material and equipment.
Zou et al. (2007) studied the key risks in construction projects in China, and
recommended that clients, designers and government bodies should take the
responsibility to manage their relevant risks and work cooperatively from the feasibility
phase onwards to address potential risks in time, on the one hand, and that only
contractors and subcontractors with robust construction and management knowledge
and experience should be employed to minimize construction risks and carry out safe,
efficient and quality activities, on the other.
Enshassi et al. (2008) investigated the risk factors impacting the performance of
building construction in Palestine, and identified the following factors as most
influential:
• financial failure of the contractor;
• working in dangerous areas;
• frequent border closure;
• defective design;
• delayed payments on contract;
• segmentation of Gaza Strip;
• invasions;
• poor communications among project parties;
• unmanaged cash flow; and
• awarding the design to unqualified designers.
El-Sayegh (2008) further surveyed the risks in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
construction industry, and distinguished the following factors as most important:
• inflation and sudden changes in prices;
• shortage in materials and labor supply;
• unrealistic construction schedules;
• improper intervention of clients; and
• changes in design.
JEDT GohandAbdul-Rahman(2013)carriedoutasurveytodeterminetheriskfactorsintheMalaysian
13,1 construction industry, and reported, inter alia, the following as most significant:
• late payment by client;
• inflation and price fluctuation;
• variation orders;
170 • tight project schedule;
• insufficient time to prepare a bid;
• inclement weather;
• default of personnel;
• design errors and ambiguous contract provisions;
• unstable politics; and

• accidents.
In a study geared toward isolating the risk factors leading to cost overrun in Ethiopian
federal road construction projects, Turkey (2011) recognized, as most critical, the following:
• unexpected inflation;
• delays on completion time;
• scope changes;
• unstable cost of manufactured materials; and
• inadequate site investigation and right of way problems.
Tadayon et al. (2012), in addition, examined the risk factors in large construction
projects in Iran, and identified, as most crucial:
• project complexity;
• time constraint;
• experience of parties involved in the construction operation;
• frequent changes in statutory regulations; and
• novel construction methods required.
Hwang et al. (2013) explored the risk factors impacting the schedule performance of
public housing projects in Singapore, and found the following factors as most
influential:
• effective site management;
• coordination among various parties; and
• availability of laborers.
Mahamid (2013), on the other hand, surveyed the risk factors affecting road construction
projects in Palestine and reported the following as most critical:
• financial status of contractor;
• payment delay by owner;
• poor communication among the construction parties;
• low equipment efficiency; Construction
• high competitions in bids; and risk factors
• the political situation.
It can, therefore, be concluded that, although the relative importance and the underlying
causes of risks within construction projects, depending on the social, cultural,
economical, political and environmental conditions, may be different in different 171
countries and across geographical regions, and apart from the special circumstances,
such as the case in Palestine, where some of the risks identified are related to the chronic
political instability, which has been persisting for the past 60 years, an overall
reasonable consensus exists on the major factors highlighted in the literature.
Consequently, it may be concluded that, to effectively manage such risks, a
simultaneous assessment of a large number of inter-related different factors, which are

further classified under different taxonomies, is required.
2.2 Risk classifications

To categorize construction risk factors into global main groups, which can best
encompass and relate to the various corresponding factors, several approaches have
been adopted. However, an agreement among researchers on the classification schemes
of such groups is yet to be achieved.
Al-Bahar (1990) categorized construction risk factors into the following six major
groups:
(1) acts of God;
(2) physical;
(3) financial;
(4) political and environmental;
(5) design; and
(6) construction.
Abdou (1996), however, assigned construction risks into the following three major
subsets:
(1) financial;
(2) time; and
(3) design risks.
Shen (1997), in accordance with the nature of the risks, classified the risk factors into the
following six main groups: financial, legal, management, market, policy and political
risks, whereas Tah and Carr (2000) identified construction risks in relation to the
following two basic broad schemes: external and internal.
Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), however, categorized risks into nine major
classes:
(1) financial;
(2) contractual and legal;
(3) subcontractors;
JEDT (4) operational;
13,1 (5) safety;
(6) design;
(7) force majeure;
(8) physical; and
172 (9) delay.
Wiguna and Scott (2005), in addition, classified the construction risk factors into four
major partitions:
(1) external and site conditions;
(2) economic and financial risks;

(3) technical and contractual risks; and
(4) managerial risks.
While Assaf and Al-Hejj (2006) limited construction risk factors to “construction
delays”, Enshassi et al. (2008) were more elaborate and went on to categorize the risk
factors into the following nine main groups:
(1) physical;
(2) environmental;
(3) design;
(4) logistics;
(5) financial;
(6) legal;
(7) construction;
(8) political; and
(9) management risks.
Nevertheless, Rezakhani (2012) proposed the following five major risk classifications:
(1) external;
(2) operational;
(3) project management;
(4) engineering; and
(5) financial risks.
Zuofa and Ochieng (2011), furthermore, assigned risk factors into the following four major
subsets: operational, commercial, project size and execution and force majeure risks, while
Tadayon et al. (2012) classified construction risks into 11 main groups, namely, financial,
construction, demand/products, political, environmental, technological, geographical,
geotechnical, communications, legal and social.
Barlish et al. (2013), however, further expanded the classification of risks into the
following 12 main groups:
(1) political; Construction
(2) financial; risk factors
(3) socio-cultural;
(4) technological;
(5) legal;
(6) environmental; 173
(7) acts of God;
(8) client;
(9) design;
(10) site-related;
(11) subcontractors; and

(12) operation and management risks.
Although several group taxonomies have been proposed by different researchers, a

careful consideration of the various terminologies presented, the authors controvert,
reveals a considerable level of subdivisions, subordinate augmentations and
sub-settings. Despite the fact that construction risk factors can be different in different
countries and across sites, a global agreement on a classification scheme, in which such
factors can be allocated under, the authors argue, is possible, as the terms of such
classifications can hold tenable regardless of the geographical regions, environments or
jobsites, on which the specific factors partitioned vary in their importance level.
Therefore, the authors propose a classification scheme, which can include and
represent all of the previously discussed group-categories, by relating the specific risk
factor to its source. For instance, financial, decision-making process, design, inspection,
construction, safety, permits and government approvals, unforeseen circumstances or
force majeure risk factors can be either traced to the party responsible for, or simply
partitioned under an exogenous category. In view of this, the authors introduce the
following four major taxonomies, under which the various construction risk factors
explored in this research shall be allocated:
• client-related factors;
• consultant-related factors;
• contractor-related factors; and
• exogenous-related factors.
2.3 Risk analysis and response strategies

On the other hand, risk analysis techniques and response practices assist in estimating
potential impacts of the risk factors identified, and in making decisions pertaining to
which risks to “retain”, “mitigate” or “transfer”. Depending on the type and size of the
project, risk analysis involves both quantitative and qualitative techniques (Ward and
Chapman, 1997). The quantitative approach is mainly based on probability distribution
of risks, which can provide objective results, if sufficient data, however, are available.
The qualitative method, on the other hand, depends on personal experience, intuition
and judgment, and therefore, the outcomes can significantly vary from one analyst to
JEDT another. Consequently, the quantitative approach remains the preferred option by most
13,1 practitioners.
According to Carter and Doherty (1974), Thompson and Perry (1992) and Kelly
(1996), risk response practices comprise the following four distinct methods:
(1) risk acceptance or retention;
174 (2) risk mitigation or reduction;
(3) risk elimination or avoidance; and
(4) risk transfer.
Nonetheless, the selection of approach must be appropriate to the significance of the risk,
cost-effective and realistic with regard to the timing of the project (Goh and Abdul-Rahman,
2013). Risk retention involves accepting and managing risk in one of two ways, namely,
actively or passively. Active risk retention is a management strategic decision after careful
evaluation and consideration of the possible consequences of the risk retained, whereas
passive risk retention usually occurs as a result of negligence or ignorance.
Risk reduction is a technique used to alleviate the negative consequences of risks
through continuous improvement of the policies, procedures, educational and training
devices. For instance, developing and implementing a preventive and regular
construction equipment maintenance plan can substantially reduce accidents on sites
and obviate unnecessary delays and costly repairs due to malfunction or preventable
break-downs. Risk elimination involves the avoidance of risk, a technique that is usually
impractical in the construction industry. Such a practice can be best exemplified by a “no
bid” decision, placing an excessively high bid or imposing conditions on the bid
tendered by the contractor. Risk transfer, on the other hand, includes either transferring
the risks embedded in the entire activity to a third party through subcontracting, or
shifting the financial risk by way of insurance, such as “all risks and labor
compensation” coverage policies, which are most often contractual requirements and,
therefore, are widely used by contractors.
The attitudes of contractors toward risk management have been examined by
several previous studies (Perry and Hayes, 1985; Thompson and Perry, 1992; Kelly,
1996; Kartam and Kartam, 2001; Wiguna and Scott, 2005; Zou et al., 2007; El-Sayegh,
2008; Enshassi et al., 2008; Hlaing et al., 2008; Wang and Yuan, 2011; Hanna et al., 2013;
Hwang et al., 2013). The prevalent pattern indicates that while risk “retention” and
“mitigation” are the most common reactions related to construction issues, such as
planning, scheduling, resources, methods and techniques used on sites, equipment
suitability and labor productivity, defective workmanship and rework, the risk
“transfer” response is the customary approach to clients’ actions, or inactions, for
instance, delay in making decisions, delay in processing approved payments by
consultants, frequent changes and variations, appointment of unqualified
representatives and consultants’ technical related factors in the form of errors and
omissions in design drawings, outdated or unclear technical specifications, delay in
responding to requests for information, delay in approving material samples and shop
drawings, stringent inspections, in addition to external risks, which are beyond the
control of the parties involved in the construction operation. Examples of which include
inclement weather conditions, unforeseen or sudden escalation in prices, delay in
permitting and government approvals and changes in statutory regulations.
Although such external factors are beyond the control of contractors, and therefore, Construction
“theoretically” speaking, the associated risks should not even be borne by them, clients risk factors
tend to argue that they are beyond their control too, and therefore seek to apply the
“burden sharing” concept among the parties involved by endeavoring to allocate
portions of these risks to consultants as well as contractors. Such a practice, albeit, is
“independently” recognized by most contractors, and is commonly, yet unconnectedly,
provisioned for under the bid contingency funds. 175
Nevertheless, the risk response strategy remains the weakest part of the risk
management process, where the proper management requires a prudent identification of
risks in a well-defined manner, which can only be achieved when “all” parties involved
in the construction enterprise, namely, clients, consultants, contractors, authorities and
policy makers, comprehend their risk responsibilities, risk event conditions and risk
handling capabilities (Hillson, 2000; Perera et al., 2009).
3. Research method and data analysis

This research study is inherently quantitative and although it may be criticized on the
grounds of causal explanation (Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981), the results are mainly used
to underpin the qualitative interpretations and, therefore, are not in conflict with the
phenomenological paradigm.
The related data to this investigation were collected by a structured – close-ended –
questionnaire survey. The logic underlying the selection of such a data collection
method is fourfold:
(1) it is less intrusive and cost-effective when compared to telephone or face-to-face
interviews, which is especially advantageous for collecting large sample sizes;
(2) the familiarity of the questionnaire survey concept to most potential
respondents;
(3) the practicality and relative simplicity with which the sets returned can be
analyzed; and
(4) in comparison with telephone and face-to-face interviews, it assists in reducing
the bias that may be introduced by researchers’ verbal and visual clues,
respectively (Fowler, 1993; Finn and Jacobson, 2008; Gillham, 2008).
Based on relevant previous research on construction risk management, and the input of
local industry experts, practitioners and professionals, 37 risk factors, categorized under
the previously indicated four major groups, were identified and shortlisted as being
influential on construction projects in the State of Qatar. Table I presents the risk factors
investigated, and related groups under which they were categorized.
The target population included classified civil engineering and building construction
firms by the “Central Tenders Committee” (CTC) of the State. The classification criteria
for Qatari construction contractors are based on:
• the credentials of the technical and administrative staff employed;
• equipment and tools available;
• the financial position and strength; and
• previous experience.
JEDT No. Risk factor Related group
13,1
1 Client’s financial stability Client
2 Delay in payment process by the client Client
3 Frequent change orders by client Client
4 Frequent changes in client’s decision-making authority Client
176 5 Slow decision-making process by client Client
6 Unrealistic contract duration of the project Client
7 Clarity of drawings and technical specifications Consultant
8 Delay in consultant’s approval of materials submission Consultant
9 Delay in consultant’s approval of shop drawings Consultant
10 Delay in consultant’s response to requests for information (RFI) Consultant
11 Delay in contractor’s payment certification by the consultant Consultant
12 Design complexity Consultant

13 Errors and omissions in design drawings Consultant
14 Lack of coordination among design disciplines Consultant
15 Stringent inspection by the engineer Consultant
16 Contractor’s financial difficulties Contractor
17 Contractor’s previous experience with client Contractor
18 Contractor’s previous experience with consultant Contractor
19 Contractor’s underestimate of construction cost Contractor
20 Defective workmanship and rework Contractor
21 Lack of experience in similar projects Contractor
22 Late delivery of materials Contractor
23 Major accidents on site Contractor
24 Poor labor productivity Contractor
25 Poor performance of subcontractors Contractor
26 Delay in statutory approvals and permits Exogenous
27 Escalation in material prices Exogenous
28 Frequent changes in statutory regulations Exogenous
29 Inclement weather Exogenous
30 Project location Exogenous
31 Projections of economic conditions Exogenous
Table I. 32 Shortage in technical staff and skilled labor Exogenous
Construction risk 33 Site orientation and restricted access Exogenous
factors considered by 34 Unavailability of equipment required Exogenous
general contractors 35 Unavailability of sufficient storage space around or on site Exogenous
in Qatar and related 36 Unavailability or shortage in specified materials Exogenous
groups 37 Unforeseen ground conditions Exogenous
Consequently, a total number of 126 organizations, classified under the first, second and
third categories, were identified (CTC, 2011).
To obtain a statistically representative sample of the population, the formula shown
in equation (1) was used (Hogg and Tannis, 2009):
m
n⫽ (1)
m⫺1
1⫹
N( )
Where n, m and N represent the sample size of the limited, unlimited and available Construction
population, respectively. On the other hand, m is estimated by equation (2): risk factors
z 2 * p * (1 ⫺ p)
m ⫽ (2)
␧2
Where z is the statistic value for the confidence level used, i.e. 2.575, 1.96 and 1.645, for 177
99, 95 and 90 per cent confidence levels, respectively; p is the value of the population
proportion which is being estimated; and ␧ is the sampling error of the point estimate.
As the value of p is unknown, Sincich et al. (2002) suggest a conservative value of 0.50
be used so that a sample size that is at least as large as required be obtained. Using a 95
per cent confidence level, i.e. 5 per cent significance level, the unlimited sample size of the
population, m, is quantified by equation (2), as follows:
(1.96)2 * 0.50 * (1 ⫺ 0.50)

m⫽ ⫽ 385
(0.05)2
Therefore, for the total number of 126 classified contractors, i.e. N, the representative
sample size of the population required is determined by equation (1), as shown below:
385
n⫽ ⫽ 95
385 ⫺ 1
1⫹ (
126 )
The questionnaire comprised an ordinal measurement scale ranking the importance level of
each factor surveyed. To ensure a reasonable credibility of the outcomes, an ascending scale
order ranging from 1 to 5 was deemed most suitable for the research data collection
instrument. The logic underlying the range selected is twofold. On the one hand, a narrower
range will, most probably, undermine the validity and reliability of the results obtained, and
on the other, a broader range may increase the subjectivity level in the respondents’ output,
which can further impair the robustness of the findings. However, it is important to note that
the numbers assigned to the scale do not indicate equal intervals or absolute quantities,
rather, the importance level of each factor, from the respondents’ perception.
Furthermore, to determine the prevalent contractors’ risk allocation response trend
for each factor investigated, the respondents were asked to choose one of the three risk
allocation alternatives, that is “accept”, “mitigate” or “transfer”.
To further establish a reasonable validity of the results obtained, and assess the
reliability of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted on a sample of prospective
respondents, where the questionnaire was distributed to 15 contractors for assessment
and feedback. The aim of this test was fourfold:
(1) to assess the clarity, comprehensibility, interpretation and appropriateness of
the questions provided in capturing the major risk factors considered by general
contractors in Qatar;
(2) to test the range adequacy of response choices;
(3) to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire; and
(4) to determine the efficiency with which the respondents complete the questionnaires.
JEDT Apart from minor comments, which were related to some contextual interpretations of few
13,1 questions, the respondents’ feedback was positive. The authors rearticulated such questions
using simpler expressions and incontrovertible background to avoid any future
confounding of the framework, within which the response of the participants was sought.
The internal consistency of the questionnaire was tested by computing the
“Cronbach’s alpha” of the sets returned. The alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to
178 1, and is used to describe the reliability of factors extracted from dichotomous,
multi-point formatted or ordinal rating scale questionnaires. Cronbach’s alpha (␣) is
calculated by equation (3) (Howitt and Cramer, 2008):
␣⫽
n
1⫺ 共 Vi 兺
兲
(3)
n⫺1 Vtest
Where n is the number of questions; Vi is the variance of scores on each question; and
Vtest is the total variance of the overall scores. The higher the alpha coefficient score, the
more reliable the generated scale is. Nunnaly (1978) indicated that a value of 0.700 is an
acceptable reliability coefficient; nonetheless, lower thresholds are commonly
encountered in the literature.
Cronbach’s alpha for the sample group of contractors was computed by the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS V18) software, where a coefficient value of 0.761 was
obtained, which indicates an acceptable measure of questionnaire reliability by all
respondents. Therefore, a total of 110 randomly chosen firms from the CTC list of classified
contractors were approached to participate in the survey, and followed up by phone calls,
direct contacts and frequent reminders. Nevertheless, due to the extensive involvement of
respondents with numerous projects underway, the data collection phase spanned
approximately nine months, after which, a total of 77 completed questionnaires were
received, representing approximately 81 per cent of the required sample size. However, such
a relatively high response rate suggests reasonable validity and reliability of the findings,
which can further provide a robust framework for other area-focused and comparative
studies of construction risk management. The respondents are considered senior ranking
officials within their organizations, mainly comprising technical directors, commercial
managers, contracts administrators and project managers, with a minimum practical
experience of 15 years in the local construction industry.
Due to the ease with which the comparative ranks of the factors surveyed can be
cognized (Jarkas, 2013), the “Relative Importance Index” (RII) technique, which value
ranges from 0 (not inclusive) to 1, was used in lieu of “mean ranking” to analyze the data
collected (Kometa et al., 1994; Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah, 2010; Jarkas et al., 2012). The
RII for each risk factor explored was quantified by the formula shown in equation (4):
5(n5) ⫹ 4(n4) ⫹ 3(n3) ⫹ 2(n2) ⫹ n1

RII ⫽ (4)
5(n1 ⫹ n2 ⫹ n3 ⫹ n4 ⫹ n5)
Where n1; n2; n3; n4; and n5, are the number of respondents who selected: 1, for no
importance; 2, for little importance; 3, for moderate importance; 4, for strong importance;
and 5, for very strong importance, respectively.
The RII, which value ranges from 0 (not inclusive) to 1, was used to determine the Construction
rank of each factor surveyed; the higher the RII value, the higher the importance of the risk factors
risk factor explored, as discerned by general contractors operating in the State.
Moreover, the risk allocation response associated with each factor investigated,
namely, “accept”, “mitigate” or “transfer”, was quantified and expressed as a
percentage, based on the number of respondents who selected a specific option, in
relation to the total number of respondents, and therefore, it became possible to 179
determine the overall prevailing pattern of contractors’ attitudes toward risk allocation,
relative to each factor in the survey.
On the other hand, the rank for each of the four main groups, as perceived by
contractors, was established by quantifying the average value of the relative importance
indices for all risk factors classified under. The higher the average value, the higher the
importance of the related group (Enshassi et al., 2007; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007).
It is important to clarify at this stage that the current study was not intended to
investigate the effects of the risk factors on the specific key performance indicators of
projects, that is “time”, “cost” or “quality”, nor to explore the relationship or interaction
between or among these factors. Rather, the main purpose was to determine the
“holistic” perception of the relative importance of the explored risk factors on the overall
project performance, and to establish the prevalent risk allocation trend, as discerned by
a statistically representative sample of contractors operating in Qatar.
4. Results and discussion

The perceived importance and allocation response of the 37 construction risk factors
considered by general contractors in Qatar were determined. The relative importance
indices, ranks and allocation response of the factors surveyed are presented, discussed
and, where possible, compared to previous related findings. In addition, the average
relative importance indices of the main groups were quantified, and a comparison
among their influence levels was carried out.
Table II depicts the relative importance indices, ranks achieved and allocation
response rates, for each risk factor.
According to the overall perceived importance of factors investigated, the outcomes
show that the major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in the
State are the following:
• slow decision-making process by client;
• delay in payment process by client;
• frequent change orders by client;
• errors and omissions in design drawings;
• unavailability or shortage in specified materials;
• contractor’s financial difficulties;
• clarity of drawings and technical specifications;
• shortage in technical staff and skilled labor;
• late delivery of materials; and
• delay in consultant’s response to requests for information (RFI).
JEDT Risk allocation response rates
13,1 Retain Mitigate Transfer Related
Risk factor RII Rank (%) (%) (%) group
Slow decision-making process

by client 0.867 1 7 2 91 Client
180 Delay in payment process by
client 0.854 2 3 4 93 Client
Frequent change orders by
client 0.833 3 2 3 95 Client
Errors and omissions in design
drawings 0.827 4 4 8 88 Consultant
Unavailability or shortage in
specified materials 0.816 5 5 36 59 Exogenous

Contractor’s financial
difficulties 0.784 6 47 12 41 Contractor
Clarity of drawings and
technical specifications 0.773 7 6 11 83 Consultant
Shortage in technical staff and
skilled labor 0.758 8 82 8 10 Exogenous
Late delivery of materials 0.751 9 45 7 48 Contractor
Delay in consultant’s response
to requests for information
(RFI) 0.742 10 6 9 85 Consultant
Client’s financial stability 0.738 11 2 4 94 Client
Contractor’s previous
experience with client 0.729 12 34 29 37 Contractor
Poor performance of
subcontractors 0.712 13 40 14 46 Contractor
Projections of economic
conditions 0.685 14 83 7 10 Exogenous
Stringent inspection by the
engineer 0.679 15 78 25 7 Consultant
Frequent changes in statutory
regulations 0.667 16 2 6 92 Exogenous
Escalation in material prices 0.653 17 51 39 10 Exogenous
Delay in statutory approvals
and permits 0.638 18 1 4 95 Exogenous
Lack of coordination among
design disciplines 0.624 19 14 15 71 Consultant
Unrealistic contract duration of
Table II. the project 0.619 20 77 15 8 Client
Relative importance Poor labor productivity 0.608 21 35 21 44 Contractor
indices, ranks Inclement weather 0.602 22 44 41 15 Exogenous
achieved and Design complexity 0.585 23 50 42 8 Consultant
allocation response Unforeseen ground conditions 0.556 24 5 8 87 Exogenous
rates of construction Defective workmanship and
risk factors rework 0.542 25 43 17 40 Contractor
considered by Lack of experience in similar
general contractors projects 0.533 26 47 51 2 Contractor
in Qatar (continued)
Risk allocation response rates
Construction
Retain Mitigate Transfer Related risk factors
Risk factor RII Rank (%) (%) (%) group
Contractor’s previous
experience with consultant 0.527 27 67 20 13 Contractor
Contractor’s underestimate of
construction cost 0.511 28 72 20 8 Contractor
181
Project location 0.479 29 84 4 12 Exogenous
Delay in consultant’s approval
of shop drawings 0.468 30 7 17 76 Consultant
Delay in contractor’s payment
certification by the consultant 0.446 31 10 26 64 Consultant
Unavailability of sufficient
storage space around or on site 0.437 32 61 33 6 Exogenous
Delay in consultant’s approval
of materials submission 0.403 33 5 22 73 Consultant
Frequent changes in client’s
decision-making authority 0.381 34 3 12 85 Client
Site orientation and restricted
access 0.354 35 81 14 5 Exogenous
Major accidents on site 0.338 36 1 3 96 Contractor
Unavailability of equipment
required 0.302 37 68 26 6 Exogenous Table II.
“Slow decision-making process by client”, with an RII of 0.867, is perceived as the most
dominant construction risk factor considered by contractors practicing in Qatar. The
results obtained are in agreement with the findings of Assaf et al. (1995), Odeh and
Battaineh (2002), Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) and Tumi et al. (2009), whose research
studies have determined this factor among the critical factors leading to construction
time and cost overruns in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE and Libya, respectively.
Important decisions are most often required by clients or clients’ representatives
before physical developments can commence or progress on construction sites. For
instance, the formal approval of shortlisted subcontractors, suppliers, mechanical,
electrical and plumbing (MEP) equipment and fixtures models, including trademarks,
architectural facades, finishes and color samples of materials, hard and soft landscape
features, revised plans, technical specifications and substitutions, must, in accordance with
standard industry practices in Qatar, be obtained from clients prior to materials
procurement and commencement of related construction activities. Consequently, the slow
decision-making process by clients can be detrimental to project’s progress, which justifies
the common risk “transfer” response of contractors – as the results further confirm – where
91 per cent of the respondents transfer the ramifications of this factor to clients.
The inefficiency in clients’ decision-making process can be ascribed, in whole or in
part, to the following reasons:
• the clients’ hierarchical chain of approvals;
• the limited authority vested in clients’ staff, especially those at the supervisory
levels, to approve samples of proposed materials, alternatives or substitutions;
and
JEDT • the cultural perception, as is the case with most developing countries, of possible
13,1 contractors’ favoritism in the case of prompt evaluation and acceptance of
submissions (Al-Tabtabai, 2002), encourages clients’ representatives to either
prolong the decision-making process, or simply shift such a responsibility toward
the higher or top clients’ administrative staff, where the decision could be delayed
significantly.
182
With an RII of 0.854, “delay in payment process by client” ranks second among the
factors explored, which further corroborates the outcomes of Mansfield et al. (1994),
Assaf et al. (1995), Sambasivan and Soon (2007), Enshassi et al. (2008), Le-Hoai et al.
(2008), Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah (2010) and Goh and
Abdul-Rahman (2013), whose investigations have identified this factor among the
significant disruptive causes to construction performance in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,

Indonesia, Palestine, Vietnam, Egypt, Ghana and Malaysia, respectively.
Although this issue is closely associated with the clients’ decision-making inefficacy,
it may be further attributed to the existing trend in the local construction industry,
where the public sector remains the largest client. Unlike the private sector, the process
of payments has to undergo through a cycle of several authoritative approvals which
may impede the progress of construction, especially on large projects, where the
financial resources required may be even beyond the ability of consortiums, let alone
single contractors. Justifiably, the vast majority (93 per cent) of the contractors surveyed
opted for “transferring” the consequences of such a bureaucratic procedure back to the
“process owner”, that is the client.
In further corroboration to the results obtained by Arditi et al. (1985), Chan and
Kumaraswamy (1997), Kaming et al. (1997), Koushki et al. (2005), Assaf and Al-Hejji
(2006), Sweis et al. (2008), Mutaleb and Kishk (2010) and Goh and Abdul-Rahman (2013),
whose studies asserted the adverse effects of “frequent change orders by client” on the
efficiency of the construction operation in Turkey, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, UAE and Malaysia, respectively, with an RII of 0.833, the importance of
this risk factor, as perceived by respondents, comes in third in rank.
According to Parker (2002), a change order is defined as “works, processes, or
methods that deviate from original plans and specifications”. Frequent disruptions and
redirection of works associated with change orders can, not only result in prolongation
in construction schedules, but also in labor productivity degradation, demolition and
rework, additional procurement activities and, possibly, disputes and litigations, all of
which necessitate “transferring” such corollaries to clients, as discerned by 95 per cent of
respondents.
The significance of this risk factor can be related to the country’s social, cultural and
environmental influence. The wealth created by the oil and gas industry has resulted in
an expeditious growth and expansion, most of which has taken place in the past 10
years. Such a rush in developments, especially of large and complex projects, has been
attracting numerous international designers and construction firms; a large number of
them, however, lack the sufficient experience in the social, cultural and physical
environment of the State, and hence, resulting in frequent changes to plans, materials
specified and contractual terms and conditions. It may be reasoned, in addition, that
some clients, especially those belonging to the private sector, do not directly get
involved in the various design stages of projects. Consequently, changes are requested Construction
after physical developments have taken place. risk factors
Supporting the results obtained by Jarkas and Bitar (2012), whose research has
identified “constructability” as the most significant concept influencing construction
productivity, and therefore, the performance of projects in Kuwait, “errors and
omissions in design drawings”, “clarity of drawings and technical specifications” and
“delay in consultant’s response to requests for information (RFI)”, with relative 183
importance indices of 0.827, 0.773 and 0.742, rank fourth, seventh and tenth,
respectively, among the 37 risk factors explored.
Constructability, commonly referred to as “Buildability” in Europe, as defined by the
Construction Industry Institute (CII), is “the optimum use of construction knowledge
and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall
project objectives” (CII, 1986). An early attempt to address this concept, however, can be
credited to Emmerson (1962), when he suggested a new form of relationship between
designers and contractors. The point of concern was the lack of cohesion between the
two parties and their inability to see the whole construction process through each other’s
eyes.
Errors and omissions in design drawings; unclear and incomplete drawings and
technical specifications; uncoordinated design disciplines, i.e. architectural, structural
and MEP; or complex design schemes require continuous requests for information and
clarifications, and, hence, are consecutive disruptions to work progress. Furthermore,
possible revisions or substantial alterations may be required to design documents,
which can further lead to excessive delay in responding to contractors’ requests for
information, and, possibly, complete halt of related activities, reworks and, ultimately,
slippage in construction schedules. All of such residuals, based on the vast majority of
contractors’ discretion, further warrant a risk “transfer” approach to their source.
The recognized risks of such constructability factors on the construction
performance can be linked, in whole or in part, to the following reasons:
• the insufficient durations and tight schedules typically imposed on designers in
the State, to develop and review design alternatives, related details, specifications
and contract documents, and thus, tender documents are often incomplete,
unclear or contain serious conflicts among the various disciplines involved;
• the designers’ shortfall in applying constructability principles, which may further
suggest a lack of awareness on their part of the importance of this concept to the
successful progress of the construction operation; and
• the deficiency of some designers in providing quality work and efficient
professional services.
With an RII of 0.816, “unavailability or shortage in specified materials” ranks fifth

among the construction risk factors investigated. This finding resonates with the
outcomes of Mansfield et al. (1994), Wiguna and Scott (2005), Sambasivan and Soon
(2007), El-Sayegh (2008), Tumi et al. (2009) and Jarkas et al. (2012), whose works have
indentified this factor among the critical causes influencing projects progress in Nigeria,
Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Libya and Qatar, respectively.
Although it may be reasonably argued that this finding is associated with designers’
lack of knowledge of the local availability of the specified construction materials, the
JEDT outcome can be further attributed to the current “supply– demand” curve of
13,1 construction materials, where, due to the rapid pace of developments in Qatar, the
demand for such materials, in relation to its local availability, is much higher, thus
creating a major shortage of supply to current projects. The outcome is conceivable as
materials are essential to the construction process, and therefore, work cannot be
accomplished without them. Consequently, unavailability, shortage or interrupted
184 supply of materials to jobsites leads to disruption of the workforce momentum and
progress of activities, which may further necessitate substitutions and alternatives
considerations and, therefore, can adversely affect the performance of projects.
The respondents, nevertheless, share “somewhat” different views on the allocation of
this risk factor. Whereas the majority of contractors (59 per cent) selected the “transfer”
route, a little over one-third of practitioners (36 per cent) decided on “mitigating” the risk
impact through various approaches, for instance, considering similar quality

alternatives; resorting to direct and expedited shipment of materials from the
manufacturing sources, of course, at additional costs to be shared with clients; or in
extreme cases, try to negotiate inferior quality substitutes, if equivalent materials to
those specified, cannot be procured within reasonable time frames. However, a meager
5 per cent of contractors chose to retain this risk factor for other reasons, such as having
or aiming to have a strategic relationship with clients, retaining adequate profit margins
that allow absorption of such risks or enjoying special connections with certain
suppliers or vendors to grant them exclusive treatment or preference over others.
Corroborating the outcomes of Assaf et al. (1995), Mezher and Tawil (1998), Ghosh
and Jintanapakanont (2004), Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), Hlaing et al. (2008), Le-Hoai et al.
(2008), Sweis et al. (2008), Abdullah et al. (2010), Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah (2010) and
Mahamid (2013), whose investigations have found “contractor’s financial difficulties”
among the major determinants affecting projects progress in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon,
Thailand, Egypt, Singapore, Vietnam, Jordan, Malaysia, Ghana and Palestine,
respectively, with an RII of 0.784, this factor ranks sixth, among the risk factors
examined in Qatar.
While this finding may be ascribable to contractors’ own financial mismanagement
or underestimates of construction cost, the risk allocation response rates determined
suggest that the issue can be further related to the delay in contractors’ payments
process. As was previously indicated, delaying the process of contractors’ payment
applications can create financial overburdens on contractors to meet their obligations
toward their subcontractors, suppliers, technical staff and direct laborers, and hence,
this may lead to a serious “knock-on” cash flow problem, where the financial stability of
the whole chain is impacted. As a result, subcontractors may stop works on sites,
suppliers can restrict future deliveries and technical staff and operatives may consider
leaving their current employers to take up employment with other competitors. These,
obviously, have negative effects on construction performance.
Accordingly, the quantified risk allocation response reveals that the marginal
majority (47 per cent) of respondents resorted to “retain” this risk, whereas 12 and 41 per
cent of contractors chose to “mitigate” and “transfer” its impacts, respectively. However,
the “retention” and “mitigation” responses may further entail, respectively, the
following two aspects:
(1) the willingness of contractors to bear the consequences of their own financial
mismanagement; and
(2) the contractors’ recognition of the prevalent local trend in payments process, Construction
especially those engaged in public contracts, and thus, allowing for sufficient risk factors
provisions to alleviate the financial hurdle during the lag periods between
payments.
On the other hand, it can be reasonably inferred that respondents opting for the
“transfer” course of action may be related to a class of contractors who possess financial
management track-records in construction that are too robust to decide on retaining the
185
risk ramifications of such types of financial difficulties. It may be further deduced that
these contractors are of the view that effective “competitiveness” in bidding practices
not only requires a reasonable accuracy in cost estimates, but also a “lean” approach,
where contingencies and provisions should be kept as minimum as practically possible.
They, therefore, tend to select the “transfer” response to possible risks that could arise as
a result of clients’ actions or decisions.
“Shortage in technical staff and skilled labor”, with an RII of 0.758, comes in eighth in
rank. This outcome further confirms the results obtained by Assaf et al. (1995) and
Jarkas et al. (2012), whose research studies have identified “inadequate labor skills” and
“shortage of experienced labor” among the principal factors hindering the performance
of construction projects in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, respectively.
The employment of unskilled labor and poorly trained technical staff can be
detrimental to projects’ performance and progress. Unskilled operatives are commonly
characterized with low and faulty outputs coupled with unjustifiably high inputs. Their
outputs, in addition, are almost always rejected, either in whole or in part, by the
inspection engineer, resulting in extensive and expensive rectifications, repairs or
reworks. On the other hand, poorly trained technical staff lack the skills required to
effectively manage the construction operation, which may result in unrealistic
scheduling of activities, inefficient materials procurement strategy and storage,
inadequate application of construction methods, delay in subcontracting work packages
and improper labor supervision.
The workforce of most contractors in Qatar comprises foreign operatives, where Qatari
nationals are mainly employed by the various technical and managerial sectors of the
government. Therefore, the Ministry of Labour, in an effort to organize, balance and regulate
foreign workers influx, imposes predetermined quotas in terms of numbers and nationalities
assigned to each contractor, which are based on the current workload and the number of
projects undertaken. Therefore, the shortage in skilled labor and technical staff can be
attributed to the following two reasons:
(1) the limited flexibility in foreign recruitment available to contractors due to the
restrictions imposed on granting work visa permits; and
(2) the accelerated developments, especially in the public construction sector, where
the demand is exceeding the supply of technical staff available (Jarkas et al.,
2012).
This finding can be further linked to the possibility that contractors, whether local or
international, tend to take a short-term view of labor training and career developments
of technical staff, especially those at the site supervisory level. This situation may be
largely due to the current workload and its fluctuation, depending on the economic
conditions and demand for construction, on the one hand, and the provisional objectives
JEDT of foreign operatives and staff of such an interim and transient employment, on the
13,1 other.
The limitation in the availability of skilled construction workforce in Qatar is
recognized by the majority of respondents, where 82 per cent of the contractors surveyed
“accept” this risk factor, whereas only few, that is 8 and 10 per cent, endeavor to either
“mitigate” or “transfer” the consequences, respectively.
186 With an RII of 0.751, “late delivery of materials” ranks ninth among the construction
risk factors investigated. This finding is in agreement with the outcomes reported by
Al-Momani (2000) and Frimpong et al. (2003), whose studies have asserted the adverse
influence of this factor on the progress of the construction operation in Jordan and
Ghana, respectively.
Although the result obtained can be further associated with the impacts of the
previously discussed factors, namely, the unavailability or shortage in construction

materials, and the knock-on cash flow problem resulting from the delay in processing
contractors’ payments by clients, the prevalent risk allocation rates discerned by
contractors – a nearly equal split response between a “risk-retention” (45 per cent) and
“risk transfer” (48 per cent) feedback – suggest that the outcome may be, moreover,
related to the following causes:
• poor planning and procurement management on contractors’ part;
• suppliers’ delinquency or deficiency in providing the services required; or
• the fluctuation of prices associated with the prevailing “supply– demand” cycle,
where contractors choose, as a trade-off, to postpone materials procurement,
especially large-quantity orders, until the lowest possible price is secured, and
therefore, risk incurring delays in material delivery to sites, and possible slippage
in construction schedules.
Table III presents the quantified average RII and risk allocation response rate for each of
the four major groups, under which the risk factors explored are classified.
Based on the results obtained, and consistent with the patterns reported by Al-Dubaisi
(2000), Zou et al. (2007), Jawad et al. (2009), Alnuaimi et al. (2010) and Haseeb et al. (2011), the
contractors surveyed perceived the risk factors related to the “client” group as most
significant, followed by the “consultant”, “contractor” and “exogenous” group-related
factors, respectively. The findings, moreover, show that the “transfer” option is the
contractors’ dominant response to risk factors belonging to “client” and “consultant” groups,
whereas the “retention” discretion is the prevalent trend associated with “contractor” and
“exogenous” group-related factors. Interestingly, however, the depicted pattern further
Risk allocation average response

Table III. rates
Risk-related group No. of risk Average Retain Mitigate Transfer Group
average relative Related group factors surveyed RII (%) (%) (%) rank
importance indices,
risk allocation Client 6 0.697 15 7 78 1
average response Consultant 9 0.616 20 19 61 2
rates and group Contractor 10 0.604 43 19 38 3
ranks achieved Exogenous 12 0.579 47 19 34 4
reveals that, with the exception of the risks classified under the “client” group, on average, Construction
the respondents share tantamount views pertaining to the “mitigation” response to factors risk factors
classified under the consultant, contractor and exogenous group-related factors.
5. Conclusions and recommendations

Construction is a risky operation and risk identification is a challenging task, as
evidenced by projects exceeding budget, going beyond schedule and having 187
compromised specifications (Hillson, 2002; Baloi and Price, 2003; Barlish et al., 2013).
This study, therefore, has identified, ranked the relative importance and determined the
prevalent allocation response trends for the major construction risk factors considered
by general contractors operating in the State of Qatar.
Based on the overall perceived importance of factors surveyed, the findings show
that the prominent construction risk factors, in a descending order, are the following:
• slow decision-making process by client;
• delay in payment process by client;
• frequent change orders by client;
• errors and omissions in design drawings;
• unavailability or shortage in specified materials;
• contractor’s financial difficulties;
• clarity of drawings and technical specifications;
• shortage in technical staff and skilled labor;
• late delivery of materials; and
• delay in consultant’s response to requests for information (RFI).
The outcomes, in addition, suggest that the risks related to the “client” group are
perceived as most important, followed by the “consultant”, “contractor” and
“exogenous” group-related factors, respectively. The results obtained further indicate
that the “transfer” option is the contractors’ prevalent response to “client” and
“consultant” related-risks, while the “retention” decision is the principal pattern linked
to “contractor” and “exogenous” group-related risk factors.
It is a common objective among clients, consultants, contractors and policy makers to
improve the performance level of the construction industry in the State. The findings of
this study can assist in achieving this goal by focusing and acting on the significant risk
factors perceived to adversely affect the progress of projects.
The dominant respondents’ perception that the most critical construction risks are
related to the client-group suggests that clients have an essential role in controlling the
negative ramifications of the associated factors, which may be reasonably attained by
devising a “modus operandi” for an efficient decision-making process, processing
contractors’ approved payments within a reasonable time frame and minimizing change
and variation orders, especially during the construction stage of projects.
Such controlling measures can be further augmented by avoiding the bureaucracy in
the decision-making process through empowering qualified clients’ representatives
with adequate authorities to make the technical and financial decisions required, which
may not only assist in expediting payments applications, and hence alleviate the
pressure endured by contractors to finance the construction operations and permits
JEDT head-starts in materials procurement, especially “long-lead” items, but can also prove
13,1 useful in improving the efficiency with which other technical and financial decisions are
made by clients. It may further be prudent for clients to secure, in advance, the finance
required for projects development, which is particularly relevant to private sector
developers, in accordance with predetermined cash flow schemes, therefore obviating
cost and time overruns, in addition to possible quality degradation.
188 This may only be efficacious if contractors reciprocate on such measures by
successfully managing the cash flow of projects undertaken, and plan, early enough in
the process, an efficient and effective materials procurement strategy to preclude
potential late deliveries, especially in an environment that is undergoing expeditious
developments and, therefore, facing shortages in the availability of construction
materials, as the outcomes indicate.
The extent of change orders, especially during the construction stage, on the other
hand, can be minimized by the direct involvement of clients in the design phase of
projects through authorized representatives, as previously suggested, who can
effectively review, evaluate, scrutinize and render timely feedback on the compatibility
level of the various options and specifications proposed by consultants with local
traditions and environmental conditions for implementation prior to commencement of
construction activities on sites. This cause may be further promoted by appointing, in
the first instance, consultants who possess sufficient expertise in the State’s social,
cultural and physical environment, and thus, with limited intervention from clients, can
largely achieve projects’ objectives. As a result, minor changes to drawings or
specifications, should they become necessary along the course of construction, can be
implemented with minimum disruptions to projects’ progress.
Increasing the designers’ awareness of the significant effect of applying the
constructability concept to the construction operation is another subject which can
considerably help improving the performance of projects, the results suggest. Such an
approach may be supported by encouraging contract procurement or project delivery
methods which allow the involvement of contractors during the design stage of projects,
such as the Design-Build; Design-Build-Operate-Transfer; or Turnkey/Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (EPC), and, therefore, facilitate incorporating the
construction experience at the early stage of the projects development process, so that
the associated benefits can be realized during the execution phase (Iyer and Sagheer,
2012).
Perhaps, in view of the outcomes, relevant “Statutory Authorities” may further
consider instigating a formal constructability assessment application as a pre-condition
for granting construction permits, where minimum requirements of constructability
principles, as suggested by Jarkas et al. (2012), must be satisfied before a permit can be
issued.
Policy makers in the State can, additionally, contribute in enhancing the performance
of projects by controlling the recruitment of inexperienced and unskilled construction
workforce by developing an effective screening process, especially for labor visa
applications, and imposing minimum prerequisite conditions on the qualifications of
applicants, such as authenticated proofs of credentials, professional certification,
sufficient construction experience, field or trade expertise and communication skills in
either the English or Arabic language, which must be submitted along, and be a required
part of the application process.
Such a regulation, in addition to labor orientation with the local standard practices, Construction
policies and procedures, on the one hand, and periodic training programs offered by risk factors
construction firms to technical personnel to keep them abreast of the latest technology
available, on the other, can prove effective in improving the quality level of the
workforce, and may yield considerable savings in time, efforts and costs associated with
the extensive training and development, which may otherwise be required for unskilled
operatives and poorly trained technical staff. 189
Notwithstanding that several findings have been drawn from this study, which may
be further applicable to other countries comprising the “Gulf Cooperation Council”, that
is in addition to Qatar; Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE, mainly due to
the sheer resemblance among these nations with respect to cultural, economical,
political and environmental characteristics, it is equally important to conclude that risks
can be effectively managed when their “causes and effects” are determined.
Subsequently, it is recommended to explore and quantify the “effects” of the risk factors
explored, especially those perceived as most significant, which can, in addition, assist in
corroborating the outcomes of this investigation.
The ramifications of construction risk “mismanagement” should be further
researched through an integrated approach geared toward assessing the relationship
and correlation among the risks investigated, on the one hand, and quantifying their
tangible impacts on “time and cost overruns”, “compromised quality”, “claims and
disputes”, in addition to “arbitration and/or litigation”, on the other. The objective is that
all parties involved in the construction operation, namely, clients, consultants,
contractors and policy makers, can be in a better position to reasonably evaluate the
possible corollaries of these factors on the enterprise performance, financial investments
and relationships. They would be, as a result, equipped with practical guidance to
mitigate, control or effectively manage such consequences, in a climate on the verge of
witnessing a boom in demand for expeditious delivery, restrained cost and acceptable
quality of constructed projects.
References
Abbasi, G., Abdel-Jaber, M. and Abu-Khadejeh, A. (2005), “Risk analysis for the major factors
affecting the construction industry in Jordan”, Emirates Journal for Engineering Research,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Abd El-Razek, M., Bassioni, H. and Mobarak, A. (2008), “Causes of delays in building construction
projects in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 11,
pp. 831-841.
Abdou, O. (1996), “Managing construction risks”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Abdullah, M., Rahman, I. and Abdul Aziz, A. (2010), “Causes of delay in MARA management
procurement construction projects”, Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 123-138.
Ackroyd, S. and Hughes, J. (1981), Data Collection in Context, Longman, London.
Akintoye, A. and MacLeod, M. (1997), “Risk analysis and management in construction”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Al-Bahar, J. (1990), “Systematic risk management aproach for construction projects”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 49-55.
JEDT Al-Dubaisi, A. (2000), “Change orders in construction projects in Saudi Arabia”, M. S. thesis, King
Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
13,1
Al-Momani, A. (2000), “Construction delay: a quantitative analysis”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Alnuaimi, A., Taha, R. and Al Mohsin, M. (2010), “Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of change
orders on public construction projects in Oman”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
190 Management, Vol. 136 No. 5, pp. 615-622.
Al-Tabtabai, H. (2002), “Causes for delays in construction projects in Kuwait”, Engineering
Journal of Qatar University, Vol. 15, pp. 19-37.
Arditi, D., Akan, G. and Gurdamar, S. (1985), “Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
Artto, K. (1999), “Development of world-class practices in project companies”, in The Future of

Project Management, Project Management Institute Research Series, 127-137, Project
Management Institute (PMI), Newtown Square, PA.
Assaf, S. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006), “Causes of delay in large construction projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-357.
Assaf, S., Al-Khalil, M. and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995), “Causes of delays in large building construction
projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45-50.
Baccarini, D. and Archer, R. (2001), “The risk ranking of projects: a methodology”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 139-145.
Baloi, D. and Price, A. (2003), “Modeling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 261-269.
Barlish, K., De Marco, A. and Thaheem, M. (2013), “Construction risk taxonomy: an international
convergence of academic and industry perspectives”, American Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 706-713.
Berk, C. and Kartal, C. (2012), “Determining major risk factors in construction projects from the
view point of life cycle and stakeholder”, International Journal of Business and
Management Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 11-20.
Carter, R. and Doherty, N. (1974), Handbook of Risk Management, Kluwer-Harrap Handbooks,
London.
Chan, D. and Kumaraswamy, M. (1997), “A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong
Kong construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 55-63.
Chapman, C. and Cooper, D. (1983), “Risk engineering: basic controlled interval and memory
models”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
CIA (2011), “The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC”, available at:
www.cia.gov./library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html (accessed 17 November
2011).
CII (1986), Constructability: A Primer, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Publication 3-1,
University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Construction Week (2010), “Qatar 2022 world cup facts for contractors”, 9 December 2010,
available at: www.constructionweekonline.com/article-10407-22-qatar-2022-world-cup-
facts-for-contractors (accessed 7 March 2011).
Cretu, O., Stewart, R. and Berends, T. (2011), Risk Management for Design and Construction, John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
CTC (2011), Classified Companies, Central Tenders Committee (CTC), State of Qatar, available at: Construction
www.ctc.gov.qa/class-en.aspx (accessed 3 January 2011).
risk factors
Edwards, P. and Bowen, P. (1998), “Risk and risk management in construction: a review and future
directions for research”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 339-349.
El-Sayegh, S. (2008), “Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 431-438. 191
Emmerson, H. (1962), Survey of Problems before the Construction Industries, Ministry of Works,
HMSO, London.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abu Mosa, J. (2008), “Risk management in building projects in
Palestine: contractors’ perspectives”, Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Abu Mustafa, Z. and Mayer, P. (2007), “Factors affecting labour
productivity in building projects in the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-254.
Faridi, A. and El-Sayegh, S. (2006), “Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction
industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1167-1176.
Finn, J. and Jacobson, M. (2008), Just Practice: A Social Justice Approach to Social Work, Eddie
Bowers Publishing, Peosta, IL.
Fowler, F. (1993), Survey Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Franke, A. (1987), “Risk analysis in project management”, International Journal of Project
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing country: Ghana as a case study”,
Fugar, F. and Agyakwah-Baah, A. (2010), “Delays in Building Construction Projects in
Ghana”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2,
pp. 103-116.
Ghosh, S. and Jintanapakanont, J. (2004), “Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an
underground rail project in Thailand: a factor analysis approach”, International Journal of
Gillham, B. (2008), Developing a Questionnaire, 2nd ed., Continuum International Publishing
Group, London.
Goh, C. and Abdul-Rahman, H. (2013), “The identification and management of major risks in the
Malaysian construction industry”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Hanna, A., Thomas, G. and Swanson, J. (2013), “Construction risk identification and allocation:
cooperative approach”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139
No. 9, pp. 1098-1107.
Haseeb, M., Xinhai, L., Aneesa, B. and Maloof-ud-Dyian, R. (2011), “Causes and effects of delays in
large construction projects in Pakistan”, Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business
and Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 18-42.
Hertz, D. and Thomas, H. (1983), Risk Analysis and its Application. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Hillson, D. (2000), “Developing effective risk response”, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project
Management Institute Seminars and Symposium, 10-16 October 1999, Project Management
Institute, Sylva, NC.
JEDT Hillson, D. (2002), “Extending the risk process to manage opportunities”, International Journal of
13,1
Hlaing, N., Singh, D., Tiong, R. and Ehrlich, M. (2008), “Perceptions of Singapore construction
contractors on construction risk identification”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 85-95.
Hogg, R. and Tannis, E. (2009), Probability and Statistical Inferences, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, NJ.
192 Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (2008), Introduction to Statistics in Psychology, 4th ed., Pearson, Essex.
Hwang, B., Zhao, X. and Ng, S. (2013), “Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule
performance of public housing projects”, Habitat International, Vol. 38, pp. 214-221.
Iyer, K. and Sagheer, M. (2012), “Optimization of bid-winning potential and capital structure for
build-operate-transfer road projects in India”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 104-113.

Jaafari, A. (2001), “Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a
fundamental shift”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 89-101.
Jarkas, A. (2013), “Primary factors influencing bid mark-up size decisions of general contractors in
Kuwait”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 53-75.
Jarkas, A. and Bitar, C. (2012), “Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138 No. 7, pp. 811-820.
Jarkas, A., Kadri, C. and Younes, J. (2012), “A survey of factors influencing the productivity of
construction operatives in the state of Qatar”, International Journal of Construction
Jawad, R., Abdulkader, M. and Ali, A. (2009), “Variation orders in construction projects”, Journal
of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 170-176.
Kaming, P., Olomolaiye, P., Holt, G. and Harris, F. (1997), “Factors influencing craftsmen’s
productivity in Indonesia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 21-30.
Kansal, R. and Sharma, M. (2012), “Risk assessment methods and application in the construction
projects”, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 1081-1085.
Kartam, N. and Kartam, S. (2001), “Risk and its management in the Kuwaiti construction industry:
a contractors’ perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 325-335.
Kelly, P. (1996), Team Decision-Making Technique, Richard Chang Associates, Mission Viego,
California.
Kometa, S., Olomolaiye, P. and Harris, F. (1994), “Attributes of UK construction clients influencing
project consultants’ performance”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 12 No. 5,
pp. 433-443.
Koushki, P., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), “Delays and cost increases in the construction of
private residential projects in Kuwait”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 285-294.
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y. and Lee, J. (2008), “Delays and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction
projects: a comparison with other selected countries”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 367-377.
Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C. and Higgon, D. (2006), Risk Management in Projects, 2nd ed.,
Taylor and Francis, Oxon.
Mahamid, I. (2013), “Common risks affecting time overrun in road construction projects in Construction
Palestine: contractors’ perspective”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-53.
risk factors
Mansfield, N., Ugwu, O. and Doran, T. (1994), “Causes of Delay and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 254-260.
Mezher, T. and Tawil, W. (1998), “Causes of delays in the construction industry in Lebanon”, 193
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 252-260.
Mustafa, M. and Al-Bahar, J. (1991), “project risk analytic assessment using hierarchy process”,
IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 46-52.
Mutaleb, O. and Kishk, M. (2010), “An Investigation into Causes and Effects of Construction
Delays in UAE”, in Egbu, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8
September 2010, Leeds, pp. 1149-1157.
Nunnaly, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Odeh, A. and Battaineh, H. (2002), “Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts”,
Parker, M. (2002), “Dynamics change for fast-tracking construction Project”, Proceedings of the
19th ISARC, International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction,
Washington, DC, pp. 81-89.
Perera, B., Dhanasinghe, I. and Rameezdeen, R. (2009), “Risk management in road construction:
the case of Sri Lanka”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 87-102.
Perry, J. and Hayes, R. (1985), “Risk and its Management in Construction Projects”, Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 78, pp. 499-521.
PMBOK® (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®), 4th ed.,
Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA.
QER (2004), “Gross Domestic Product, Qatar Economic Review (QER)”, Qatar National Bank,
Economic Information Presented by the Permanent Mission of the State of Qatar to the
United Nations Office in Geneva, available at: www.qatarmission.ch/gross_domestic_
product.html (accessed 6 February 2011).
Rezakhani, P. (2012), “Fuzzy MCDM model for risk factor selection in construction projects”,
International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 11-24.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y. (2007), “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction
industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 517-526.
Santoso, D., Ogunlana, S. and Minato, T. (2003), “Assessment of risks in high rise building
construction in Jakarta”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Shen, L. (1997), “Project risk management in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Project
Sincich, T., Levine, D. and Stephan, D. (2002), Practical Statistics by Example using Microsoft®
Excel and Minitab®, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008), “Delays in construction projects:
the case of Jordan”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 665-674.
JEDT Tadayon, M., Jaafar, M. and Nasri, E. (2012), “An assessment of risk identification in large
construction projects in Iran”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 17
13,1 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Tah, J. and Carr, V. (2000), “A Proposal for Construction Project Risk Assessment using Fuzzy
Logic”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Thompson, P. and Perry, J. (1992), Engineering Construction Risk Management: A Guide to
194 Project Risk Analysis and Risk Management, Thomas Telford, London.
Tumi, S., Omran, A. and Pakir, A. (2009), “Causes of delay in construction industry in Libya”, The
International Conference on Economics and Administration, 14-15 November 2009, Faculty
of Administration and Business, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, pp. 265-272.
Turkey, W. (2011), “Risk factors leading to cost overrun in Ethiopian federal road construction
projects and its consequences”, M.S. thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Uher, T. and Toakley, A. (1999), “Risk management in the conceptual phase of a project”,
Wang, J. and Yuan, H. (2011), “Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction
projects: case study from China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 209-219.
Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (1997), Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights,
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Wiguna, I. and Scott, S. (2005), “Nature of the critical risk factors affecting project performance in
Indonesian building contracts”, in Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual
ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, SOAS, University of London, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 225-235.
Zhi, H. (1995), “Risk management for overseas construction projects”, International Journal of
Zou, P., Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007), “Understanding the key risks in construction projects in
China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 601-614.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2011), “Project managers perception of risk factors in heavy
engineering construction projects: case of offshore projects”, in Egbu, C. and Lou, E. (Eds),
Proceedings of the 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, Bristol, 5-7 September, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 985-993.
Corresponding author
Abdulaziz M. Jarkas can be contacted at: jarkas@mazayarealestate.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats

Sample 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sample 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar

Article · August 2015

Sustainable Infrastructure Design in Developing Countries View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded on: 07 December 2015, At: 01:17 (PT)

Major construction risk factors Construction

Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying,

a positive or negative effect on a project objective”. Jaafari (2001), in addition, expressed

• risk management implementation was impeded by the shallow knowledge of its

2.1 Previous findings

• delay in providing detail drawings; and

• unstable politics; and

simultaneous assessment of a large number of inter-related different factors, which are

2.2 Risk classifications

(2) economic and financial risks;

(11) subcontractors; and

Although several group taxonomies have been proposed by different researchers, a

2.3 Risk analysis and response strategies

handling capabilities (Hillson, 2000; Perera et al., 2009).

3. Research method and data analysis

12 Design complexity Consultant

population, m, is quantified by equation (2), as follows:

(1.96)2 * 0.50 * (1 ⫺ 0.50)

5(n5) ⫹ 4(n4) ⫹ 3(n3) ⫹ 2(n2) ⫹ n1

4. Results and discussion

Slow decision-making process

specified materials 0.816 5 5 36 59 Exogenous

significant disruptive causes to construction performance in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,

With an RII of 0.816, “unavailability or shortage in specified materials” ranks fifth

impact through various approaches, for instance, considering similar quality

previously discussed factors, namely, the unavailability or shortage in construction

Risk allocation average response

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Artto, K. (1999), “Development of world-class practices in project companies”, in The Future of

Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 104-113.

View publication stats

You might also like