KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2023) 27(7):2733-2744 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-023-2886-7 www.springer.com/12205

Construction Management

Development of Knowledge Graph Based on Risk Register to Support Risk

Management of Construction Projects
a b
Muritala Adebayo Isah and Byung-Soo Kim
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
a

Member, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
b

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 13 October 2022 Risk management (RM) in construction projects is a knowledge-intensive process that requires
Revised 10 March 2023 an efficient mechanism for capturing, storing, exploiting, and managing risk-related knowledge.
Accepted 13 April 2023 Although some existing studies have proposed various knowledge-based risk management
Published Online 22 May 2023 (KBRM) tools. However, not all tools suit all projects, as every project is unique. Besides, each
tool is developed based on certain assumptions with methodological drawbacks. Hence, new
KEYWORDS tools are required in response to the continuous change in the project environment,
complexity, and dynamism by adopting new technologies to improve the RM processes. This
Construction project study proposes a knowledge graph technique to improve risk-related knowledge storage,
Risk management sharing, and reuse in managing construction project risks. This study constructed a risk
Knowledge base knowledge graph (RisKG) based on a project risk register. The proposed RisKG was then used
Knowledge graph to develop a construction risk dashboard (ConRisk Dashboard) that can be used for quick risk
Risk register
information retrieval to support the RM of construction projects. The effectiveness of the
proposed ConRisk Dashboard was verified through its use for the search and retrieval of risk
assessment details of a particular risk source associated with the case project used in RisKG.
The results indicate that the ConRisk Dashboard can improve the RM processes by saving time
spent on project documentation reviews and cost expended on expert workshops at the
beginning of every new project. Conclusively, the contribution of this study to the body of
knowledge is that it provides a framework for developing knowledge-based risk management
systems (KBRMS) and intelligent tools that can facilitate integrated risk management and digital
collaboration among project stakeholders to support informed decision-making in construction
projects. In addition, this work paves the way for research towards developing and adopting
digital tools that can facilitate the digital transformation of RM and CM practices to improve
project performance and productivity in the construction industry.

1. Introduction
Construction projects are prone to many risks due to uncertainties
emanating from project complexity and uniqueness, the involvement
of multiple stakeholders, huge capital investment, dynamic
environments, long completion period, and exposure to external
environments and weather conditions Siraj and Fayek (2019).
Project risks cannot be ignored but should be managed to prevent
detrimental impacts on project objectives, i.e., cost, time, and
quality Isah and Kim (2022). Project risk management (PRM) is
directly related to the project’s success because it focuses on
identifying and managing the potential risks that can cause the
project to deviate from the defined project objectives PMI (2017).
Consequently, it is crucial to integrate risk management (RM) in
the delivery processes of construction projects and throughout
the project lifecycle to facilitate informed decision-making that
will lead to project success.
RM in construction projects is a knowledge and experience-
based process that generates vast knowledge (data). The
knowledge acquired from past projects can be reused to
manage new projects Zoysa and Russell (2003). In essence, the
lessons learned, knowledge, and experience gained from
previous projects are essential for accurate risk identification,
probability of occurrence forecasts, impact prediction, and

CORRESPONDENCE Byung-Soo Kim bskim65@knu.ac.kr Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
ⓒ 2023 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
2734 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim
suggestion of risk consequences and mitigations Okudan et al.
(2021). Given that the practice of RM in construction projects
primarily relies upon tacit knowledge that is mainly stored in
the mind of humans (experts) rather than relying on a non-
human repository (i.e., structured risk database). Hence, there
is a need to develop mechanisms to capture, store, exploit, and
manage knowledge efficiently to prevent the loss of valuable
risk knowledge. Construction management researchers have
proposed using knowledge-based risk management methods
and developed several tools (Tah and Carr, 2001; Zoysa and
Russell, 2003; Serpella et al., 2014) to improve RM practices.
Knowledge-based risk management (KBRM) is focused on
the mechanisms that ensure the accurate capturing and sharing of
risk knowledge. Although some studies have proposed various
KBRM tools and techniques (Serpella et al., 2014; Okudan et al.,
2021), not all tools suit every project situation because every
project is unique. Besides, each tool is developed based on
certain assumptions with methodological drawbacks. In addition,
KBRM is still a developing research area more work needs to be
done (Eken et al., 2020; Okudan et al., 2021) in response to the
continuous increase in construction projects’ complexity and
dynamism. Moreso, the sudden covid-19 lockdowns experienced in
countries around the world have forced construction industry
experts’ hands-on alternative ways of risk communication
through digital collaborations to adhere to strict health and safety
criteria in the era of the new normal KPMG (2021). Nonetheless,
the effectiveness of KBRM tools depends on the type, efficiency,
and flexibility of the database adopted in developing the tool and
the data quality in the database.
Knowledge graph (KG) drives the new wave of knowledge
representation technologies. It is the cornerstone of several AI
applications ranging from generic to specific use cases facilitating
domain conceptualization and data management Abu-Salih (2021).
Therefore, this study proposes using the knowledge graph approach
in structuring risk knowledge in the risk register to support the
RM process of a construction project. This study developed a
risk knowledge graph (RisKG) based on the risk register that can
be used to manage construction project risks. Further, the
proposed RisKG was used to develop a web-based tool named
“ConRisk Dashboard,” which can be used to support all the
processes of RM in quick sharing and retrieval of risk knowledge
of the past project to facilitate the RM planning of a new project.
With the ConRisk Dashboard, the project team can have a shared
understanding of project risks, manage the project risks effectively,
save time and money, and reduce experts’ subjectivity so that
accurate decisions can be made for projects to succeed. The
remaining paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviewed the
existing literature on risk management (RM), knowledge-based
risk management (KBRM), and knowledge graph (KG). Section
3 explains the methodology used in the research, while Section 4
demonstrates the application of the tool developed and the
results. In section 5, the implication of the results was discussed
and conclusions were drawn in section 6.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Risk Management
A risk is any uncertainty that, if it occurs, would affect one or
more project objectives WSDOT (2018). “Risk Management
(RM) is a formal process for systematically identifying, analyzing,
and responding to risk events throughout the life of a project to
obtain an acceptable degree of risk elimination or control” Fidan
et al. (2011). According to ISO, RM is regarded as coordinated
activities to direct and control an organization concerning risk
events ISO (2018). Also, PMBOK defined RM as the process of
conducting RM planning, identification, analysis, response planning,
response implementation, and monitoring risk on a project PMI
(2019). The objective of RM in a construction project is to
identify and manage risks effectively to optimize/increase the
chances of project success. Further, effective RM adds value to a
project in that it 1) recognizes uncertainty and provides forecasts
of possible outcomes, 2) produces better business outcomes
through more informed decision-making, 3) has a positive influence
on creative thinking and innovation, 4) creates opportunities for
improved project monitoring and control, 5) can aid in addressing
issues concerning overhead costs and time, and 6) contributes to
project success WSDOT (2018). These benefits make RM an
important part of project management and an indispensable
knowledge area.
RM processes include planning risk management, identifying
risks, performing quantitative risk analysis, performing qualitative
risk analysis, planning risk responses, implementing risk responses,
and monitoring risk processes PMI (2019). Many existing studies
have demonstrated the implementation of each process on
different construction projects using various methods, tools, and
techniques. For instance, Zou and Li (2010) developed a systematic
and comprehensive risk checklist and assessment method to
facilitate risk identification and assessment for the subway project.
The study used a combination of past project documentation
reviews and interviews to develop the risk checklist. Also, the
same study used the Fuzzy AHP method as the risk assessment
tool to reduce the influence of the expert’s subjectivity. However,
the authors did not address risk response and monitoring strategies
for the project. Similarly, Mao and Zhang (2017) identified sixty
(60) risk factors associated with utility tunnel projects using
literature review and expert interviews and classified the risks
into three categories: macro level, meso level, and micro level
risks. This study also focused on only the risk identification
process.
In another study, Forcael et al. (2018) conducted an expert
survey to identify risk factors for Chilean tunnel projects. A total
of 36 risk factors were identified and evaluated. The author
ranked inaccurate cost estimation or lack of detail in budget
preparation, unexpected geological conditions, inaccurate deadline
estimation or insufficient breakdown of the project schedule,
frequent malfunction of construction equipment, excessive delays in
approval processes by government entities, and unexpected soil
conditions and water table as topmost significant risks in the

Chilean Tunneling Industry. Further, a systematic review of standard
risk identification tools and techniques, risk classification methods,
and shared risk understanding for construction projects was
presented by (Siraj and Fayek, 2019). The authors conducted a
detailed content analysis of 130 published articles on risk
identification for construction projects in Asia and Europe. The
content analysis revealed that the selected articles widely used a
combination of two or more risk identification tools and techniques
(i.e., checklist, brainstorming, documentation review, risk workshop,
questionnaire survey, literature review, etc.). Also, several available
studies have proposed different methods and tools focusing on
other processes of RM, such as risk assessment (Zavadskas et al.,
2010; Swaminathan and Sachithanandam, 2014; Muflihah Darwis
et al., 2021), risk analysis (de Marco and Jamaluddin Thaheem,
2014; Dziadosz and Rejment, 2015; Naveen and Deepan, 2020)
and risk response (Hashim Motaleb and Kishk, 2014; Naji and
Hussein, 2017; Motaleb, 2017, 2021).
Moreover, RM in construction projects leverages experts’
knowledge, stakeholders’ experience, and information from various
sources, including but not limited to historical project data, risk
breakdown structure, published articles on risk, checklists, and
risk registers. Since RM is an experience and knowledge-based
endeavor that generates enormous data (risk knowledge) helpful
in managing new projects, researchers (Tah and Carr, 2001; Zoysa
and Russell, 2003; Serpella et al., 2014; Okudan et al., 2021) have
proposed knowledge-based RM approach for construction project
risk management to ensure effective utilization of risk knowledge
for accurate decision-making.
2.2 Knowledge-Based Risk Management
Knowledge is the foundation of human intelligence Yuan et al.
(2019). Hence, knowledge is the information stored in an individual’s
mind about facts, experiences, concepts, interpretations, ideas,
observations, judgments, expert insights, etc., articulated and
presented in graphics, textual or symbolic forms (Serpella et al.,
2014). According to Okudan et al. (2021), knowledge is a “fluid
mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight.” Knowledge can be tacit or explicit. Tacit knowledge
refers to subjective knowledge that is difficult to articulate but
can be obtained through experience, while explicit knowledge is
objective knowledge that is accessible and shareable Maravilhas
and Martins (2019). The creation of new knowledge is facilitated
through the interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge.
RM in construction projects relies upon tacit knowledge that is
usually stored in the minds of individuals (experts, project
stakeholders, teams, etc.) rather than risk repositories, which may
be lost due to staff turnover Okudan et al. (2021). Consequently,
appropriate mechanisms are required to capture and share it, to
explore and exploit the benefits of knowledge.
Knowledge management (KM) focuses on the mechanisms
that ensure the accurate capturing and sharing of knowledge.
KM is the process of acquiring, storing, retrieving, applying,
generating, and reviewing an organization’s knowledge assets in
a controlled way Tan (2006). In other words, KM involves using
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2735
cautious steps to acquire, design, manage and share knowledge
within an organization to achieve improved performance, such as
reduced cost of rework, fast-track work, and use of best practices
Santoro et al. (2018). Therefore, risk-related knowledge acquired
from previous projects can be used to improve project performance
using the appropriate knowledge-based RM methods, tools, and
techniques.
Knowledge-based risk management (KBRM) involves using
a systematic approach to capture and organize the risk-related
knowledge acquired from past projects and reuse them in the
RM of new projects (Zoysa and Russell, 2003) to facilitate
informed decision-making that guarantees project success. Much
literature on construction project management has demonstrated
and documented the applications of KBRM. For instance, Tah
and Carr (2001) presented a generic process model and underlying
information model using a common language for risk descriptions
and remedial actions, a fuzzy knowledge representation model to
support quantitative risk analysis, and a user-friendly knowledge-
based system that controls the entire RM process. The authors
stated that the prototype system could facilitate effective RM and
allow a shared understanding of project risks among the project
participants. In construction safety management, Yuan et al. (2019)
combined prevention through design (PtD) knowledge base with
building information modeling (BIM) to develop a plug-in for
checking safety risks in a building. The authors analyzed and
utilized the safety regulations, documents, and best practices to
construct the PtD knowledge base. At the same time, Revit API
and Visual Studio were used to develop the automatic detection
plug-in. The PtD tool was verified using a case study and
questionnaire survey. The result confirmed the effectiveness and
efficiency of the developed PtD tool in automatically detecting
safety risks at the design stage, thereby saving the designer’s
effort and time.
Furthermore, Dadashi Haji et al. (2022) integrated a knowledge
base and BIM to develop an add-on to assess the impact of
safety-leading indicators on construction projects. The authors
developed safety-leading indicators knowledge based using
information extracted from experts, documents, and best practices.
The same study used Navisworks API and Visual studio framework
to create the add-on for determining the impact of safety leading
indicators based on the knowledge base. The tool’s efficacy was
validated through an expert survey, and the result indicates that
the application of the developed tool can reduce accidents on
construction sites by 38%. The study concluded that the add-on
supports the automatic assessment of safety leading indicators
impact. Further, Okudan et al. (2021) used the case-based reasoning
(CBR) approach to develop a KBRM tool, CBRisk, to support
effective RM in construction projects. The authors highlighted
that the developed CBRisk is a web-based tool that can facilitate
the cyclic RM process and uses effective case retrieval techniques.
Although efforts have been made in the construction management
literature to develop practical KBRM tools, however, this research
area is still in its infancy, and more research efforts are still
needed in the development of KBRM tools to improve RM
2736 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim
(Dikmen et al., 2012; Yildiz et al., 2014; Eken et al., 2015, 2020).
Consequently, emerging technologies such as knowledge graphs
(KG) can be leveraged to support the development of effective
and intelligent KBRM tools. An effective KBRM tool should be
equipped with efficient database technology to help capture,
store, and formalize tacit and explicit risk knowledge, quick retrieval,
and risk-sharing between projects for continuous improvement
of RM practices.
2.3 Knowledge Graph
Knowledge graph (KG) is a new knowledge representation technique
and the backbone of many AI-based applications and knowledge-
based systems Li et al. (2020). According to Maya Natarajan
(2021), a KG is an interconnected dataset enriched with semantics,
so we can reason about the underlying data and use it confidently
for complex decision-making. In order words, KG depicts the
collection of real-world entities (data) connected through semantic
relations, which supports advanced reasoning to discover unseen
conceptual connections facilitating informed decision-making.
The functional definition by Zdonik et al. (2019) is that KG is a
set of triples, i.e., a 3-tuple (h, r, t) where h represents a head
entity, t represents a tail entity, and r expresses a relationship
between the two entities. KG applications range from generic to
specific use cases facilitating domain conceptualization and data
management Abu-Salih (2021). In 2012, Google officially utilized
KG to aid intelligent search engines; since then, researchers in
different academia and industries have adopted it in semantic
search, intelligent question answering, personalized recommendation,
intelligence analysis, fraud detection, and other fields (Li et al.,
2020; Abu-Salih, 2021).
Many fields have adopted KG for the conceptualization of
their domain knowledge. For instance, in the medical field,
efforts have been made in academia to improve healthcare delivery
through the adoption of KG in the development of intelligent
systems used for inferring possible diseases and recommending
medical orders (Li et al., 2020), discovering associations between
risk factors and breast cancer Daowd et al. (2021), supporting,
enriching, and accelerating clinical decision-making Santos et al.
(2020), assessing and preventing the risks of prostate cancer
(PCa) associated with a particular lifestyle Chen et al. (2022).
Furthermore, in finance, KG has been used to support AI-based
systems to detect online fraud Wang et al. (2020) and predict
stock prices based on financial news Liu et al. (2019). Likewise,
the information communication technology (ICT) sector has used
KG to solve the communication gap between internet of things
(IoT) devices by developing a multilayer IoT middleware for IoT
devices based on IoT KG Xie et al. (2021). Also, researchers in the
field of tourism and travel have integrated KG with deep learning
models to develop question & answer (QA) systems Yang et al.
(2020), touristic recommender systems for personalized attractions
recommendation (Lu et al., 2016), and the best accommodation
prices Kärle et al. (2018).
Moreover, the application of KG in traffic and transportation
management has recently gained more attention due to the
negative impact of traffic congestion on cities around the globe.
Zhou and Chen (2019) constructed and used urban KG to develop
an urban traffic prediction model based on a deep Spatio-temporal
convolution neural networks (CNN) model. Similarly, in another
study, Liu et al. (2021) proposed a KG-based method to explore
and understand railway operational accidents to reveal the potential
accident rules and the knowledge contributing to preventing the
accidents.
Furthermore, KG and ontology are interwoven concepts used
in the KBRM literature, even though the latter is frequently used
in the construction management domain. An ontology formally
represents knowledge in a specific domain to aid shared
understanding among practitioners and computers (Zhang et al.,
2020). A KG represents knowledge in graph form derived from a
graph database (GDB). In other words, KG is the application of
ontology to a specific dataset or a graph of data intended to
accumulate and convey knowledge of the real world, consisting
of nodes (entities) and relationships (edges) Tamašauskait (2022).
Many ontology-based methodologies have been proposed and
utilized in BIM, safety risk identification, job hazard identification,
decision support systems, etc. For example, Ding et al. (2016)
integrated ontology and semantic web technology with building
information modeling (BIM) to establish an ontology-based
framework for construction risk management in a BIM environment.
Also, Xing et al. (2019) proposed an ontology for safety risk
identification (SRI-Onto) to support safety risk identification in
metro construction. The proposed SRI-Onto consisted of seven
unified classes evaluated theoretically and practically. Based on
the results, the authors concluded that the proposed SRI-Onto
possesses the required criteria for knowledge sharing and reuse
in safety risk identification for metro construction. Also, Zhang
et al. (2020) integrated computer vision and ontology to identify
risks in a construction process and prevent construction accidents.
Similarly, in detecting and mitigating safety hazards, Fang et al.
(2020) utilized computer vision and ontology to develop a
knowledge graph for the automatic detection of safety hazards
on construction sites. In another study (Zaouga et al., 2021)
proposed a decision-support framework based on an ontology
that predicts personalized recommendations for effective RM and
decision-making.
To the authors’ knowledge, no study has demonstrated how
risk knowledge in a risk register could be structured using a KG
approach to ease risk knowledge sharing, retrieval, and reuse for
effective RM of construction projects. Consequently, this study
used a real-world construction project to explain the development of
a risk knowledge graph (RisKG) based on the construction risk
register of the project.
3. Methodology
This section explains the detailed development of the risk knowledge
graph (RisKG) and construction risk dashboard (ConRisk
Dashboard). Since a risk register is a central repository for storing
project risk knowledge, it was used as the basis for developing

RisKG. Further, RisKG is a domain-specific KG; thus, a top-
down approach was adopted. The development process of the
RisKG is described in the following subsection (3.1). Next, the
developed RisKG was used to power the ConRisk Dashboard.
ConRisk Dashboard is a web application developed using the
Streamlit Python library. ConRisk Dashboard provides a user
interface to query the RisKG without requiring Cypher query
knowledge. Section 3.2 describes the steps for developing the
ConRisk Dashboard.
3.1 Development of RisKG
In this study, the development of the proposed RisKG for
construction projects is based on the risk register, as it is the
primary source for documenting details of project risks. The
steps for constructing the RisKG are depicted in Fig. 1, followed
by a detailed explanation.
3.1.1 Data Collection
The construction risk register of the Townsville Ocean Terminal
Project in Queensland, Australia, was used as a case project to
explain the process of developing the RisKG. The project scope
of the case project includes the development of approximately 80
hectares of land under the tidal water seaward of the existing
Townsville Casino and Entertainment Centre. The project’s key
features are a dedicated cruise terminal and wharf, residential
canal development (approximately 200 single- and 500 multi-
story dwellings), marina facilities for recreational vessels and
super yachts, and public open spaces on the foreshore.
Specifically, the construction risk register adopted contains the
risk reference, risk, potential consequences, original risk assessment
details (likelihood, consequence, and risk rating), proposed risk
treatment, residual risk assessment details (likelihood, consequence,
and risk rating), and construction phase action plans. The project
Fig. 1. Methodology for Constructing RisKG
Fig. 2. Ontology Model for RisKG
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2737
details can be seen in Townsville Ocean Terminal (2022). The
construction risk register contains sixteen risk sources and 116
risks. However, fifteen (15) risk sources and ninety-four (94)
risks were extracted from the construction risk register to
demonstrate the development of the RisKG. The original data
collected and extracted can be found in the Link 1 (Appendix).
3.1.2 Risk Knowledge Modeling
Risk knowledge modeling is essential in constructing RisKG
because it provides the model and methods for machine reasoning,
the data structure for efficient computing, and the interface
between machine-human understanding. This step involves
defining the ontology and data modeling. Ontology definition
entails identifying the graph entities, attributes, and relationships
between the entities. Therefore, through the analysis of data
collected in 3.1.1, the entities, attributes, and relationships of the
RisKG were defined. The entities defined include the project name,
risk source, risk, risk rating, risk consequence, and risk mitigation.
In contrast, the attributes corresponding to the entities are name,
location, number, description, impact, probability, and rating.
Also, the relationships defined include hasRiskSource, hasRisk,
hasRiskRating, hasRiskConsequence, and hasRiskMitigation. Then
based on the predefined ontology, the graph data was modeled.
Data modeling involves determining the data structure and
pattern of the graph database to ensure usability, scalability,
accurate performance, and expansion of the KG. The output of
risk knowledge modeling is the ontology model for the RisKG
shown in Fig. 2. The ontology model of the RisKG has six nodes
(entities), six unique attributes (properties), and five relationships
(edges) types between the nodes.
3.1.3 Risk Knowledge Extraction
Knowledge extraction is another critical stage in constructing
KG. It prevents data ambiguity and ensures data heterogeneity,
mainly if data is extracted from multiple sources before storing it
in the graph database. In developing the RisKG, extracting the
risk knowledge for construction project risks requires identifying
all RisKG elements from the data source. Since the data source is
semi-structured (the risk register), the risk knowledge extraction
was accomplished manually based on the entities, attributes, and
relations identified in 3.1.2 to ensure high-quality, rich, and
unique KG. The total number of entities and relationships extracted
for the construction of the RisKG are 392 and 391, respectively,
2738 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim

Table 1. Entities and Relationships for the RisKG due to its lightweight, practicability, high performance, and
Category Entity or relationship type Number Total ability to support intelligent application development and
advanced AI/ML pipelines. Finally, the RisKG was constructed
Entity Project 1
using the Cypher CREATE command in the Neo4j desktop
Risk source 15
application. The Cypher code used to construct RisKG can be
Risk 94
found in Link 1 (Appendix). The graphical overview of the
Risk rating 94
developed RisKG for the case project is shown in Fig. 3.
Risk consequence 94
Risk mitigation 94 392
3.2 Development of ConRisk Dashboard
Relationship hasRiskSource 15 KG is an effective tool for information retrieval, which has been
Has risk 94 applied in various domains (Qin et al., 2020; Baczkiewicz et al.,
hasRiskRating 94 2021; Lezhnina et al., 2022), enabling users to find, access,
hasRiskConsequence 94 interoperate and reuse knowledge related to the domain. However,
hasRiskMitigation 94 391 due to the query language knowledge required to access the
knowledge embedded in the KG, user-friendly interfaces for
KG are continuously developed (Vargas-Quesada et al., 2017; Ortiz
as shown in Table 1. Vivar et al., 2022) for ease of use and information visualization.
Dashboards help display the most relevant information the user
3.1.4 Risk Knowledge Storage requests on a single consolidated screen. The ConRisk Dashboard
The entities, attributes, and relationships extracted in section developed in this study comprises the RisKG developed in section
3.1.3 were organized in a triple structure and stored in the Neo4j 3.1, a user interface (UI), and an application programming
database. Neo4j is an open-source graph database that stores interface (API) that connects the database with UI. Fig. 4 shows
structured graph data using Cypher programming. Although an overview of the dashboard design. RisKG was developed
there are several graph databases, such as ArangoDB, Amazon using Cypher query language, and accessing RisKG may be
Neptune, Dgraph DataStax, etc., that can be used to store the difficult for non-Cypher query language users. Thus, a UI was
extracted risk knowledge. However, this study adopted Neo4j developed to make RiskG accessible for users who do not know

Fig. 3. Overview of RisKG


Fig. 4. ConRisK Dashboard Flow Chart
Cypher query language. The UI was designed in python using
the Streamlit python library. Streamlit is a faster way to build and
share data applications remotely and on the web. Streamlit is an
open-source and free python library that can turn data scripts into
shareable web applications in minutes with no front-end experience
required. The UI serves as a medium for users to interact with the
database with simple clicks.
Also, the UI communicates with the graph database through
an API developed with python programming. The python scripts
used for designing the UI and API can be found in Link 2
(Appendix). The ConRisk Dashboard has two menu options
Home and Main pages. The Homepage briefly explains the
ConRisk Dashboard and its limitations. The Main page shows
the risk information selection menus on the left sidebar, where
users can select and view the desired risk information (risk source
and rating). On the Main page, the user can view detailed project risk
identification, assessment, consequence, mitigations, and overall
Fig. 5. ConRisk Dashboard (Homepage)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2739
project risk rating plots displayed on the screen center. The
snapshots of the home and main pages are shown in Figs. 5 and
6, respectively.
4. Application of ConRisk Dashboard and Result
4.1 Application of ConRisk Dashboard
The accuracy of the proposed ConRisk Dashboard powered by
the RisKG was validated through its practical application for
intelligent search of risk information and by verifying the
consistency of the results with the data extracted manually. The
proposed RisKG processes users’ requests using the API script
consisting of Cypher queries matched to specific information
requests. At the same time, the ConRisk Dashboard helps the
users visualize the requested risk information dynamically.
Further, the ConRisk Dashboard was tested on risk information
retrieval. The retrieval of risk information on the “Climate Risk
Source” of the project was used to demonstrate the application of
the tool. The information retrieved is a list of risks identified in
the project and the risk assessment details of each risk in a simple
table shown in Fig. 7. Also, Fig. 8 shows the overall project risk
ratings visualization of the entire project in bar and pie charts.
The project risk ratings include “Extreme, High, Moderate, Low,
and Negligible.” As known to all, consequences and mitigation
strategies for each risk identified in a project differ depending on
the risk rating achieved after assessing and analyzing the risks.
Thus, the consequence and mitigation of risks rated ‘Extreme’ in
2740 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim
Fig. 6. ConRisk Dashboard (Main page)
Fig. 7. Retrieved Risk Information for Climate Risk Source
the project were requested by selecting the ‘Extreme’ option on
the sidebar. The result is depicted in Fig. 9. A short video clip
demonstrating the process and application of the ConRisk
Dashboard can be accessed via Link 2 (Appendix).
4.2 Results
This section explains the result of using the ConRisk Dashboard
for risk information retrieval to support decision-making in RM
of construction projects. Fig. 7 shows the output of risk information
retrieval for “climate risk source.” From Fig. 7, the risk information
retrieved includes the risk source, risk code, risk event, risk
probability, risk impact, and risk rating of the risk identified
under climate risk source in tabular form. It can be seen that four
risk events were identified, including “Extended wet weather
during construction, Flooding caused by heavy rainfall, Flooding
caused by storm surge, and Strong winds caused by tropical cyclones
or low-pressure systems.” Also, their corresponding probabilities,
impacts, and ratings were identified, as shown in Fig. 7. This
result indicates that with ConRisk Dashboard, the project
participants can quickly and seamlessly search and retrieve risk
information on the project risks identified and assessment details,
which can be reused when conducting risk management of
similar projects, consequently reducing the time and eliminating
the stress of reviewing voluminous past project documents.
Figure 8 depicts the visualization of the overall project risk
ratings. The bar chart shows the frequency (number) of each risk
rating, and the pie chart shows the distribution as a percentage of
the entire project’s risks. The “Extreme risks” has two (2) risks

Fig. 8. Visualization of Overall Project Risk Ratings
Fig. 9. Retrieved Risk Consequence and Mitigation
which are 2.13% of the overall projects. In other words, only two
risks were rated “Extreme” out of ninety-four (94) identified
project risks. The ‘High’ has a frequency of 27, equivalent to
28.7% of the overall project risks, while the ‘Moderate’ has a
frequency of 34, equal to 36.2% of the project risks. The
frequencies of ‘Low’ and ‘Negligible’ are 18 and 13, with a
percentage distribution of 19.1% and 13.8%. Summarily, the
project risks rated “Moderate” have the highest frequency (34),
followed by High (27), Low (18), Negligible (13), and Extreme
(2) risks. This information is helpful for high-level decision-
making on which risk to focus on when carrying out risk planning
for a new and similar project.
Figure 9 presents the results of querying the ConRisk Dashboard
for the consequence and mitigation strategies for a specific risk
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2741
rating (i.e., “Extreme”). It can be seen from Fig. 9 that only two
(2) risks were rated “Extreme” and belong to the “Natural
Conservation” risk source. The risk events are “Sediment
destabilization through changes in sediment transport regime
(e.g., dredging in adjacent areas) and Noise pollution (impact on
organisms relying on seagrass beds)” with risk codes NC01 and
NC06, respectively. The potential consequence of the two risks is
“Seagrass Impacts” with the corresponding risk mitigation
strategies, namely the “Use of silt curtains during dredging and
dredge protocols contained in project EMP and Visual survey of
the site to detect noise-sensitive species before construction
work. Dispersal of noise-sensitive species using a motorized
vessel.” The practical implication of the result is that project
participants can search and retrieve risk information using the
2742 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim
risk rating to identify the risks with similar ratings, the potential
consequences of the risks, and the appropriate risk mitigation
strategies to reuse them for planning a similar project. Ultimately,
the results obtained have demonstrated the potential capabilities
of KG to power and support the development of KBRM tools,
such as the ConRisk Dashboard, in facilitating digital collaboration
among project stakeholders for integrated RM and support data-
driven and reliable decision-making that can lead to the realization
of the project objectives.
5. Discussion
Effective risk management is directly related to the success of
construction projects. Nonetheless, the traditional RM processes
come with some problems that can be summarized as follows;
the unstructured storage format of risk knowledge (information)
across different project documents, inadequate sharing and
reusing of risk knowledge from past projects, and the time spent
retrieving the risk knowledge from the different project documents.
To overcome these setbacks, researchers have proposed different
knowledge-based risk management methods, tools, and techniques
to promote shared understanding and effective reuse of risk
knowledge to ensure the improved efficiency of RM in construction
projects. However, not all techniques suit every project situation
because every project is unique. Consequently, this study attempted
to explain the development of a risk knowledge graph (RiskKG)
used to power the ConRisk Dashboard. The dashboard is a KB
tool that can support the entire RM process in construction projects.
The dashboard can help in fast retrieval of risk information
(knowledge) with few clicks to support the RM, saving time and
cost expended in risk planning a new project. Also, this tool
provides a platform for digital collaboration among the project
stakeholders allowing a shared understanding of project risks on
a local network or web. Thus, enhancing accurate decision-making
in project planning. To the authors’ knowledge, this study differs
from the existing knowledge-based RM literature as it is the first
to demonstrate how risk knowledge in a risk register can be used
to construct a risk knowledge graph (graph database) to support
the KBRM tool, the ConRisk Dashboard for managing construction
project risks.
6. Conclusions
This study presented a risk knowledge graph (RisKG) approach for
structuring and organizing the risk information (knowledge) stored
in the risk register enriching knowledge-based research for risk
management in construction projects. The RisKG is an extendable
and expandable graph database that allows accurate retrieval of only
required risk knowledge from the abundant information in the graph
database based on a semantic retrieval approach. Also, the proposed
RisKG could be used to power the development of knowledge-
based and AI-based risk management systems such as Question and
Answering systems, risk mitigation recommendation systems, etc.
Consequently, enhancing risk knowledge sharing among RM
practitioners and computers for improved RM practice in
construction projects.
Further, a construction risk dashboard (ConRisk Dashboard)
was developed based on the RisKG using Streamlit Python library
to enable fast sharing of risk knowledge on the local network and
web among project participants for efficient risk management of
construction projects. The dashboard is a friendly user interface that
can assist the project managers without query language experience
in faster and more accurate retrieval and reuse of risk knowledge
(information) to support RM processes. Thus, saving time, and cost,
while eliminating the need for expert workshops at the beginning of
every new project. Ultimately, the contribution of this study to the
body of knowledge is that it provides a framework for developing
knowledge-based risk management systems (KBRMS) and
intelligent tools that can facilitate integrated risk management and
digital collaboration among project stakeholders for data-driven
decision-making in construction projects. In addition, this work
paves the way for research towards developing and adopting digital
tools that can facilitate the digital transformation of RM and CM
practices to improve project performance and productivity in the
construction industry.
Although, there are still limitations in the present work, especially
in the development and robustness of the risk knowledge graph
(database). In this research, extracting entities and relationships for
the developing knowledge graph relies on manual efforts, which can
become tedious for mega and complex projects. Thus, automation
of the entity and relationship extraction process using machine/deep
learning models can resolve this problem. Also, the present RisKG
consists of risk knowledge from the coastal project. A comprehensive
knowledge base for other construction projects, such as bridges,
tunnels, roads, etc., is required. Finally, the present ConRisk
Dashboard does not support Natural Language Understanding
(NLU), which can enable retrieval of risk information by inputting
requests in a question using natural language such as English,
Korean, French, etc. Thus, incorporating NLU models can help
improve user experience. Suggested future research includes 1)
adding the natural language processing model to the proposed
framework to facilitate the development of the question-answering
system (QAS) for risk management; 2) enriching the developed risk
knowledge with project features and integrating case-based reasoning
or machine learning model for automatic retrieval of the risk
information base on projects similarity; 3) expansion of the risk
knowledge graph and integration it with work breakdown structure
(WBS) to facilitate comprehensive risk identification and accurate
estimation of risk impact on cost and schedule using the work
package; 4) incorporating of an AI-based risk assessment model
with the developed framework to facilitate integrated risk
management for construction projects.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIT)
(NRF-2021R1A2C1014267).

ORCID
Isah Muritala Adebayo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3306-4548
Byung-Soo Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1155-4159
References
Abu-Salih B (2021) Domain-specific knowledge graphs: A survey.
Journal of Network and Computer Applications 185:103076, DOI:
10.1016/J.JNCA.2021.103076
Baczkiewicz A, Kaczynska A, Watróbski J (2021) Study on the objectivity
of mobile phone preferences: The MCDA analysis. Procedia Computer
Science 192:5067-5080, DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.285
Chen Y, Sinha B, Ye F, Tang T, Wu R, He M, Zheng X, Shen B (2022)
Prostate cancer management with lifestyle intervention: From
knowledge graph to Chatbot. Clinical and Translational Discovery
2(1), DOI: 10.1002/ctd2.29
Dadashi Haji M, Behnam B, Sebt MH, Ardeshir A, Katooziani A
(2022) BIM-based safety leading indicators measurement tool for
construction sites. International Journal of Civil Engineering, DOI:
10.1007/s40999-022-00754-9
Daowd A, Barrett M, Abidi S, Abidi SSR (2021) Building a knowledge
graph representing causal associations between risk factors and incidence
of breast cancer. Public Health and Informatics: Proceedings of
MIE 2021 724-728, IOS Press, DOI: 10.3233/SHTI210267
de Marco A, Jamaluddin Thaheem M (2014) Risk analysis in construction
projects: A practical selection methodology. American Journal of
Applied Sciences 11(1), DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.2014.74.84
Dikmen I, Birgonul MT, Tah JHM, Ozer AH (2012) Web-based risk
assessment tool using integrated duration–cost influence network
model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
138(9):1023-1034, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000547
Ding LY, Zhong BT, Wu S, Luo HB (2016) Construction risk knowledge
management in BIM using ontology and semantic web technology.
Safety Science 87:202-213, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.04.008
Dziadosz A, Rejment M (2015) Risk analysis in construction project -
chosen methods. Procedia Engineering 122, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.
2015.10.034
Eken G, Bilgin G, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT (2015) A lessons learned
database structure for construction companies. Procedia Engineering
123:135-144, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.070
Eken G, Bilgin G, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT (2020) A lessons-learned tool
for organizational learning in construction. Automation in Construction
110, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102977
Fang W, Ma L, Love PED, Luo H, Ding L, Zhou A (2020) Knowledge
graph for identifying hazards on construction sites: Integrating computer
vision with ontology. Automation in Construction 119:103310, DOI:
10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103310
Fidan G, Dikmen I, Tanyer AM, Birgonul MT (2011) Ontology for
relating risk and vulnerability to cost overrun in international
projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 25(4):302-315,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)cp.1943-5487.0000090
Forcael E, Morales H, Agdas D, Rodríguez C, León C (2018) Risk
identification in the chilean tunneling industry. EMJ - Engineering
Management Journal 30(3):203-215, DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2018.
1484266
Hashim Motaleb O, Kishk M (2014) Assessing risk response maturity:
A framework for construction projects success in the United Arab
Emirates. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2743
7(2), DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2013-0013
Isah MA, Kim BS (2022) Assessment of risk impact on road project
using deep neural network. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
26(3):1014-1023, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-021-1312-2
ISO (2018) ISO 31000:2018 Risk management — Guidelines. Risk
Management — Guidelines 2
Kärle E, Şimşek U, Panasiuk O, Fensel D (2018) Building an ecosystem for
the tyrolean tourism knowledge graph 260-267, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-
030-03056-8_25
KPMG (2021) No turning back, 2021 Global Construction Survey,
home.kpmg/gcs
Lezhnina O, Kismihók G, Prinz M, Stocker M, Auer S (2022) A
scholarly knowledge graph-powered dashboard: Implementation
and user evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 7,
DOI: 10.3389/frma.2022.934930
Li L, Wang P, Yan J, Wang Y, Li S, Jiang J, Sun Z, Tang B, Chang TH,
Wang S, Liu Y (2020) Real-world data medical knowledge graph:
Construction and applications. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
103, DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2020.101817
Liu Y, Zeng Q, Ordieres Mer J, Yang H (2019) Anticipating stock
market of the renowned companies: A knowledge graph approach.
Complexity 2019:1-15, DOI: 10.1155/2019/9202457
Liu J, Schmid F, Li K, Zheng W (2021) A knowledge graph-based
approach for exploring railway operational accidents. Reliability
Engineering & System Safety 207:107352, DOI: 10.1016/J.RESS.
2020.107352
Lu C, Laublet P, Stankovic M (2016) Travel attractions recommendation
with knowledge graphs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including
Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes
in Bioinformatics), 10024 LNAI 416-431, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-
49004-5_27
Mao Y, Zhang Y (2017) Risk identification and allocation of the utility
tunnel PPP project. Materials Science, Energy Technology, And
Power Engineering I: 1st International Conference on Materials
Science, Energy Technology, Power Engineering (MEP 2017),
020132, DOI: 10.1063/1.4982497
Maravilhas S, Martins J (2019) Strategic knowledge management in a
digital environment: Tacit and explicit knowledge in Fab Labs.
Journal of Business Research 94:353-359, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.
2018.01.061
Motaleb OH (2017) A model of risk response development for managing
delays in construction projects. International Journal of Project
Organisation and Management 9(2):133-153, DOI: 10.1504/IJPOM.
2017.085305
Motaleb O (2021) Risk response development in construction projects
delay: Multiple case studies from UAE. ASCE-ASME Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
7(3), DOI: 10.1061/ajrua6.0001151
Muflihah Darwis A, Furqaan Nai’em M, Thamrin Y, Noviponiharwani
Rahmadani S, Amin F (2021) Safety risk assessment in construction
projects at Hasanuddin University. Gaceta Sanitaria 35, DOI:
10.1016/j.gaceta.2021.10.057
Naji HI, Hussein R (2017) Risk response selection in construction
projects. Civil Engineering Journal 3(12):1208-1221, DOI: 10.28991/
cej-030950
Naveen C, Deepan P (2020) Risk analysis in construction project.
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development
4(4)
Natarajan M (2021) From graph to knowledge graph: A Short Journey
to Unlimited Insights. https://neo4j.com/whitepapers/knowledge-
2744 M. A. Isah and B.-S. Kim
graphs-unlimited-insights/
Okudan O, Budayan C, Dikmen I (2021) A knowledge-based risk
management tool for construction projects using case-based reasoning.
Expert Systems with Applications 173:114776, DOI: 10.1016/
j.eswa.2021.114776
Ortiz Vivar J, Segarra J, Villazón-Terrazas B, Saquicela V (2022) REDI:
Towards knowledge graph-powered scholarly information management
and research networking. Journal of Information Science 48(2):
167-181, DOI: 10.1177/0165551520944351
PMI (2017) A guide to the project management body of knowledge.
Project Management Journal 44(3), DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21345
PMI (2019) The Standard for Risk Management, https://www.pmi.org/
pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/risk-management
Qin Y, Cao H, Xue L (2020) Research and application of knowledge
graph in teaching: Take the database course as an example. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series 1607(1), DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/
1607/1/012127
Santoro G, Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Dezi L (2018) The internet of
things: Building a knowledge management system for open
innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 136:347-354, DOI: 10.1016/
j.techfore.2017.02.034
Santos A, Colaço AR, Nielsen AB, Niu L, Geyer PE, Coscia F, Wewer
Albrechtsen NJ, Mundt F, Juhl Jensen L, Mann M (2020) Clinical
knowledge graph integrates proteomics data into clinical decision-
making. Graphical Abstract, DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.09.084897
Serpella AF, Ferrada X, Howard R, Rubio L (2014) Risk management
in construction projects: A knowledge-based approach. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences 119:653-662, DOI: 10.1016/
J.SBSPRO.2014.03.073
Siraj NB, Fayek AR (2019) Risk identification and common risks in
construction: Literature review and content analysis. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 145(9):03119004, DOI:
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001685
Swaminathan N, Sachithanandam P (2014) Risk assessment in construction
project. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 9(22)
Tah JHM, Carr V (2001) Knowledge-based approach to construction
project risk management. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
15(3):170-177, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2001)15:3(170)
Tamašauskait E (2022) Defining a knowledge graph development process
through a systematic review. ACM Transactions on Software
Engineering and Methodology 32(1): 1-40, DOI: 10.1145/3522586
Tan Y (2006) A Case-based reasoning approach to improve risk
identification in construction projects
Townsville Ocean Terminal (2022) State Development Infrastructure,
Local Government and Planning, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved
August 15, 2022, https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-
general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-
projects/townsville-ocean-terminal
Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Rodriguez N (2017)
Identification and visualization of the intellectual structure in
graphene research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
2(7), DOI: 10.3389/frma.2017.00007
Wang J, Guo Y, Wen X, Wang Z, Li Z, Tang M (2020) Improving graph-
based label propagation algorithm with group partition for fraud
detection. Applied Intelligence 50(10):3291-3300, DOI: 10.1007/
s10489-020-01724-1
WSDOT (2018) Project risk management guide Part I: Guidance for
WSDOT projects part II: Guidelines for CRA-CEVP workshops
engineering and regional operations, www.wsdot.wa.gov/
publications/manuals
Xie C, Yu B, Zeng Z, Yang Y, Liu Q (2021) Multilayer internet-of-
things middleware based on knowledge graph. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal 8(4):2635-2648, DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3019707
Xing X, Zhong B, Luo H, Li H, Wu H (2019) Ontology for safety risk
identification in metro construction. Computers in Industry 109:14-
30, DOI: 10.1016/J.COMPIND.2019.04.001
Yang L, Cao H, Hao F, Zhang WZ, Ahmad M (2020) Research on tourism
question answering system based on Xi’an tourism knowledge graph.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1616(1), DOI: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1616/1/012090
Yildiz AE, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT, Ercoskun K, Alten S (2014) A
knowledge-based risk mapping tool for cost estimation of international
construction projects. Automation in Construction 43:144-155, DOI:
10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.010
Yuan J, Li X, Xiahou X, Tymvios N, Zhou Z, Li Q (2019) Accident
prevention through design (PtD): Integration of building information
modeling and PtD knowledge base. Automation in Construction
102:86-104, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.015
Zaouga W, Ben L, Rabai A (2021) A decision support system for project
risk management based on ontology learning. International Journal of
Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management
Applications
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Tamošaitiene J (2010) Risk assessment of
construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
16(1):33-46, DOI: 10.3846/jcem.2010.03
Zdonik S, Jain LC, Sherman Shen X, Subrahmanian VS, Siciliano B,
Lee N (2019) Domain-Specific Knowledge Graph Construction,
http://www.springer.com/series/10028
Zhang M, Zhu M, Zhao X (2020) Recognition of high-risk scenarios in
building construction based on image semantics. Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering 34(4), DOI: 10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000900
Zhou G, Chen F (2019) Urban congestion areas prediction by combining
knowledge graph and deep spatio-temporal convolutional neural
network. Proceedings - 2019 4th International Conference on
Electromechanical Control Technology and Transportation, ICECTT
2019, 105-108, DOI: 10.1109/ICECTT.2019.00031
Zou PXW, Li J (2010) Risk identification and assessment in subway
projects: Case study of nanjing subway Line 2. Construction
Management and Economics 28(12):1219-1238, DOI: 10.1080/
01446193.2010.519781
Zoysa DS, Russell AD (2003) Knowledge-based risk identification in
infrastructure projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
30(3):511-522
Appendix.
The entire data, models and results obtained from the research
can be found at author's GitHub repository.
- Link 1: https://github.com/Murry01/RisKG
- Link 2: https://github.com/Murry01/ConRisk_Dashboard