The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

JFM
11,4 Evaluation of quantitative risk
analysis techniques in selected
large construction companies
354
in Nigeria
O.A. Adedokun, O.T. Ibironke, D.O. Dairo,
I.O. Aje and O.A. Awodele
Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology,
Akure, Nigeria
A.D. Opawole
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife, Nigeria
O.F. Akinradewo
Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology,
Akure, Nigeria, and
J.O. Abiola-Falemu
Department of Building, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

Journal of Facilities Management
Vol. 11 No. 4, 2013
pp. 354-368
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1472-5967
DOI 10.1108/JFM-11-2012-0053
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the adoption of quantitative risk analysis
techniques (QRAT) on construction projects in Nigeria with a view to providing better understanding
on the state of these techniques.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire survey was employed in gathering data for the
study. The paper assessed the level of knowledge, awareness, utilization, success and the factors
influencing the adoption of QRAT. The primary data employed were obtained by using
multiple-choice questionnaire administered to the selected large construction companies in Nigeria.
Findings – The result of the study revealed a low level adoption of QRAT, and this inhibits Nigerian
construction industry from taking full advantage inherent in QRAT. Also, it prevents the analysis of
risks peculiar to construction projects. Furthermore, inadequate training and record keeping on risk
management were identified as significant factors affecting the adoption/utilization of QRAT on
construction projects.
Research limitations/implications – Multiple-choice questionnaires administered to the
respondents (architects, quantity surveyors, builders, structural engineers, civil engineers, and
mechanical and electrical engineers) were limited to the selected large construction companies in the
category D of the Nigerian Federal Tender Board.
Originality/value – This empirical inquiry provided strong evidence on the state of QRAT of
construction projects in Nigeria. The findings revealed insightful perspectives to understand
construction project QRAT in its entirety. For stakeholders, understanding and addressing the
complexity help to improve project planning and implementation.
Keywords Decision trees, Fuzzy logic, Nigeria, Probability sums, Risks, Sensitivity analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction Evaluation
The construction industry is almost as old as nature itself. Unlike manufacturing of QRAT
sectors, it is mostly concerned with one-off project (Oyewobi and Ogunsemi, 2010) and
very important in the economic development of any nation especially in an expanding
economy like Nigeria (Ibironke, 2003). The lingering problem being faced by the
Nigerian construction industry today can be broadly categorized as time overrun and
cost overrun (Ogunsemi, 2002; Aibinu and Jagboro, 2002; Garry, 2005) as well as lack of 355
good quality of its end product which do not meet client’s requirements (Oyegoke,
2006; Oyewobi and Ogunsemi, 2010).
The performance of construction industry in terms of meeting its objectives or goals
has been affected by risks. The problem of cost over-run especially in the construction
industry is a worldwide phenomenon (Garry, 2005) and its ripples are normally a
source of friction between clients (especially government clients), project managers and
contractors on the issue of project cost variation. Many efforts have been channeled
towards studies on the performance of construction projects in Nigeria and each author
attributed the causes of poor project performance, cost and time overruns, and quality
failures to various factors out of which risk is not an exception (Okpala and Aniekwu,
1988; Elinwa and Buba, 1993; Baloi and Price, 2003; Ogunsemi and Aje, 2005).
Despite these risk factors, the employer or the manager in the industry still have to
make decision whether to proceed with any construction or not by taking so many
factors into considerations, including some that their certainty cannot be predicted.
Some salient facts are true about risks. All choice in life involves risk, and is like a
death. Unlike death it can be avoided but not in totality and the riskier the activity is,
the costlier the consequences if the wrong decision is made (Osama and Salman, 2003;
Kenneth, 2005a, b). Therefore, there is need for the project owners or managers to make
an informed decision, one with minimal error which is only possible if risks are
adequately evaluated and assessed. It is then that the risk can be minimized and the
objectives or goals of the industry are achieved at the end of the day. Most of the times
when risk factors are not dealt with satisfactorily, the industry tend to suffer poor
performance (Osama and Salman, 2003).

Literature review
The impact of construction project risk with respect to cost and time overrun has in the
recent put risk assessment in the main focus of construction management studies.
Notwithstanding, limited literature are available on the risk assessment techniques in
the Nigerian construction industry. However, sizeable numbers of empirical studies are
available upon which theoretical foundation could be devised for assessment of
awareness and usage level of quantitative risk assessment in the Nigeria construction
industry. According to Fellows (1989) construction project risk is a measure of the
possibility of deviation from expected or the possibility of something bad happening at
some time in future, dangerous situation or a bad result. Ward and Chapman (2003)
presented the general belief that risk is better seen as a composition of opportunities,
the outcome of which could either be a loss or gain. The conclusion drawn from the
study pointed to difficulty in obtaining information about the variability of the risk
factors and changes in design and construction teams that often characterize
construction projects as the major problems militating against the use of quantitative
risk analysis techniques (QRAT).
JFM Abraham and Rafael (2004) concluded that records are seldom kept in a retrievable
11,4 manner, and when they are, the differences in project teams and the unique technical
make up of any new individual project make the application of historical data difficult.
Moreover, Tah and Carr (2000) reported that the techniques and packages designed to
provide risk analysis and management facilities have for most part failed to meet the
need of the project owners or managers largely for two reasons. One, that the systems
356 are founded primarily on principle and methodology derived from operational research
techniques, and two, intensive investment in efforts to establish the nature and scale of
the risk factors with any precision as is common in large or mega construction project
are typically beyond the financial means of the majority of commercial or residential
building construction project teams.
According to Alfredo del Cano and Pillar de la Cruz (2002), risk analysis could be by
qualitative or QRAT. Latest classification of QRAT by Tah and Carr (2000) and
Alfredo del Cano and Pillar de la Cruz (2002) are 11 major categories. These are
probability sums; process simulation; sensitivity analysis; Monte Carlo (MC) and LHC
simulation (MC, Latin hypercube simulation); system dynamics (SD); probabilistic
influence diagrams; multicriteria decision-making support methods (analytic hierarchy
process) (multicriteria DMSM (APH)); decision trees; event and fault trees (FTs);
expected value tables and fuzzy logic. According to Awodele et al. (2012), the choice of
each technique is made depending on the purpose, required degrees of details, and data
and resources available for analysis.
Probability analysis is a sophisticated form of risk analysis (Perry and Hayes, 1985).
It is carried out by specifying a probability distribution for each variable under
consideration and then considering situations where any or all these variables can
change their initial values at the same time. The range of variation under probability
analysis is a subjective judgment. Pouliquen (1970) and Perry and Hayes (1985)
suggested that ranges for many time and cost elements of a construction estimate
should be checked with greater probability of overrun. Palisade (2000) submitted that
risk simulation is an attempt to obtain directly a measure of the overall risk. The study
identified the concept as based on a random sample from a probability distribution and
also noteworthy that a sensitivity analysis should be carried out prior to a risk
simulation in order to determine the relative importance of different variables. Dada
and Jagboro (2007) suggested that a single subjective probability distribution should
be assessed for the dependent variable, each one being conditional on the independent
variable lying in a certain interval.
MC simulation is the next step in analysis complexity and comprehensiveness. It
uses probability distributions and primarily beta distributions to represent the
variable, in this case, activity duration. Random numbers are used to extract one
duration estimate from each activity duration distribution resulting in one completed
project run. The critical path calculations are performed for that run to determine the
project duration. Multiple runs are made, and the project duration from each run is
combined to define a probability distribution function for the project outcome. Output
from the MC analysis can be summarized as probability statements about the outcome
of the events. In MC simulation, there is no independent assumption. If MC is run
assuming independence between activities, then the mean and variance of the outcome
should be similar to that achieved through program evaluation review techniques
(PERT), though PERT is generally optimistic. Methods have been developed to Evaluation
evaluate joint distribution tables in the cases of correlated duration. of QRAT
Sensitivity analysis is still probably the most widely applied procedure for the
examination of risk in building construction projects, employing levels of input
information and of management resources. However, the major drawbacks are that it
examines the risk impact of each risk factor separately, while in reality they vary
simultaneously (with compound effect). Moreover, it considers risk factors to be 357
mutually independent, while in reality, risk factors are very often interdependent and
the change of each risk factor is assumed to be linear, that is, the value of the parameter
over all its range has the same probability of occurrence, while in most real life cases,
the values at mid-range have a higher probability of occurrence than those at the
margins.
Fuzzy set theory (FST) can be utilized to assess the risk impact of different project
features or combination of features. FST is particularly used where the boundaries
between different classes are not clear-cut (Omole, 2011). Sometimes “linguistic
variable” are utilized on fuzzy set application. Partial membership of class is possible,
and qualitative expression can be represented. However, expressions have to be
structured and well defined, and the correlation of terms between different users at
different times has to be ensured (Uher and Toakley, 1999).
Decision trees are tools that can be used by sponsors in analysing and accounting
for uncertainties in a project which is structured in such a way that major uncertainties
and the decisions contingent on those uncertainties are represented in a tree (El-Amm,
2003). This tree is a sequence of nodes. A node may represent a decision, an uncertain
event or an outcome.
Development of relative effectiveness values for use in the multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) selection process is dependent on the MCDA technique that will be
utilized in the quantitative selection process (Oyetunji and Anderson, 2006). In turn,
the appropriate MCDA technique to apply to a decision problem is dependent on
the type of decision problem being considered (Matsatsinis and Samaras, 2001).
Decision problems are classified either as decision problems under certainty or decision
problems under uncertainty. Decision problems could also be categorized as
multi-objective, or single objective decision problems. Analytical techniques for
decision making have evolved over the years (Xu and Yang, 2003). These techniques
attempt to decompose complex decision problems into smaller, more manageable,
quantitative problems.
Event and FTs are developed for technical systems to analyze if they permit a
hazard (top event (TE)) (Clemens, 1990; Schellhorn et al., 2002). This event is noted at
the root of the FT. Events which cause the hazard are given in the child nodes and
analyzed recursively, resulting in a tree of events. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is a very
popular and diffused technique for the dependability modeling and evaluation of large,
safety-critical systems, like the programmable electronic systems (PES) (Bobbio et al.,
2001). Each analyzed event (main event) is connected to its causes (sub-events) by a
gate in the FT. An AND-gate indicates that all sub-events are necessary to trigger the
main event, for an OR-gate only one sub-event is necessary. An inhibit gate states that
in addition to the cause stated in the sub-event the condition (noted in the oval) has to
be true to trigger the main event. The inhibit gate is more or less an AND-gate, where
the condition has not to be a fault. The leaves of the tree are the low level causes
JFM (basic events) for the TE, which have to occur in combination (corresponding to the
11,4 gates in the tree) to trigger the TE. Bobbio et al. (2001) opines that technique is based on
the identification of a particular undesired event to be analyzed (e.g. system failure),
called the TE. The construction of the FT proceeds in a top/down fashion, from the
events to their causes, until failures of basic components are reached.
SD is:
358 [. . .] the study of information-feedback characteristics of industrial activity to show how
organizational structure, amplification (in policies), and time delays (in decisions and actions)
interact to influence the success of the enterprise (Borshchev and Filippov, 2004).
The range of SD applications includes also urban, social, ecological types of systems.
In SD the real-world processes are represented in terms of stocks (e.g. of material,
knowledge, people, money), flows between these stocks, and information that
determines the values of the flows. SD abstracts from single events and entities and
takes an aggregate view concentrating on policies. The underlying mathematical
model of a dynamic system would consist of a number of state variables and algebraic
differential equations of various forms over these variables. In contrast with the SD,
integrated variables here have direct “physical” meaning: location, velocity,
acceleration, pressure, concentration, etc. they are inherently continuous, and are not
aggregates of any entities (Borshchev and Filippov, 2004). The mathematical diversity
and complexity in dynamic systems domain can be much higher than in SD, and the
tools used for dynamic system simulation could easily solve any SD problem with even
much better accuracy than SD tools.

Research methods
Primary source of data collection was through multiple choice structured
questionnaires administered on selected construction companies in the Federal
Capital Abuja, Nigeria. These are the 21 construction companies that were registered
under the category “D” of Federal Tender Board (FTB), Abuja. These companies are
working on the federal government projects. Moreover, they are construction firms
employing more than 500 employees (Press Release, 2009) with branches all over the
states in Nigeria. The design of the questionnaire is such that the first section dwelled
on the background information of the respondents while the other section focused on
matters relating to the work objectives which are to assess the level of awareness and
utilization of QRAT and factors responsible for the level of usage in Nigerian
construction industry. Questions inherent in structured questionnaire were asked on a
five-point Likert scale and it was chosen for ease and uniformity of response. Its
application implied that most part of the data analysis was based on a scoring system.
Structured questions prepared on QRAT and degree of occurrence of risk sources were
measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from most frequent or very important (5)
to frequent or not important, respectively, while level of knowledge, awareness,
utilization and success were also measured on the same scale but within the ranges of
very high to none and excellent to very poor, respectively. The questionnaire was
self-administered and conducted, respectively, to the selected respondents that are
directly involved in risk management of construction projects and those in planning
section of the 21 companies involved.
Methods of data presentation and analysis Evaluation
Tables were employed for data presentations. The analysis of the collected data was of QRAT
carried out using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods: percentile, mean
score (MS), and Spearman rank correlation.
Spearman correlation was employed in this work to examine the correlation for the
hypothesis stated. Mean item score was used in ranking the questions drawn up on a
five-point Likert scale such as level of awareness, knowledge, success and utilization of 359
the techniques.
Using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software, the Cronbach’s a
was computed to test the reliability of the five-point Likert scale used for the study.
The results obtained for the different measuring scales used are displayed in Table I.
It can be deduced that the Cronbach’s a value for scale of measures of the research
instruments ranges from 0.655 to 0.923. Since the degree of reliability of the instrument
is more perfect as the value tends towards 1.0 (Kothari, 2009), it can then be concluded
that the instruments used for this study are significantly reliable.

Data presentation, analysis and discussion

The results of the data collected through questionnaires were analyzed and presented
as follows.

Characteristics of respondents for the questionnaire

Out of the 21 questionnaires administered, 13 were filled and returned while 11 were
found fit for analysis. This represents 47.83 percent of the total questionnaire sent out
which is considered sufficient for the study based on the assertion that the result of a
survey could be considered as biased and of little significance if the return rate was
lower than 20-30 percent (Oke and Ogunsemi, 2009; Adedokun et al., 2013).
From Table II, it can be seen that majority of the respondents in this case are
quantity surveyors having 46 percent and was closely followed by the engineers
having 36 percent and least was builder with 18 percent. The breakdown of each of the
respondents shows that three out of the five quantity surveyors are corporate member
of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, while the remaining two are graduate
members. Also, three out of the four engineers are corporate member of Nigerian
Society of Engineers (NSE) while the remaining one is a graduate member.
Analysis of Table II reveals that majority of the respondents are BSc/BTech holder
with percentage of 45.5 and closely followed by respondents with additional higher
qualification of MSc representing 27.3 percent, while the third category has PGD
certificates as their highest qualification obtained with 18.2 percent.

Scale of measure Cronbach’s a value

Level of knowledge of QRAT 0.916

Level of awareness of QRAT 0.842
Level of utilization of QRAT 0.923
Level of success of QRAT 0.881 Table I.
Bases for choosing QRAT 0.655 Reliability coefficients for
Factors affecting the utilization of QRAT 0.667 the measuring scales
JFM
Category Classification Frequency %
11,4
Profession of respondents Quantity surveying 5 46
Architecture 0 0
Building 2 18
Engineering 4 36
360 Total 11 100.00
Year of working experience 0-5 0 0
6-10 3 27.30
11-15 4 36.40
16-20 4 36.40
Total 11 100.00
Mean 13.45
Professional body of affiliation NIQS 5 46
NIA 0 0
NIOB 2 18
NSE 4 36
Total 11 100.00
Professional membership type Graduate 4 36.36
Probationer 0 0
Corporate 7 63.64
Fellow 0 0
Total 11 100.00
Highest academic qualifications HND 1 9.10
Table II. obtained BSc/BTech 5 45.50
Summary of PGD 2 18.20
characteristics of MSc/MTech 3 27.30
respondents in the PhD 0 0
construction companies Total 11 100.00

As for the years of working experience possessed by the respondents, it can be seen
that most of the respondents are within 11-20 years of experience. On the average, none
of the respondents is having less than 14 years of working experience and the
information supplied by this category of professionals are considered adequate and
reliable for this analysis.
Table III shows that eight large construction companies which amounted to
72.7 percent have executed on the average 13 projects, 18.02 percent of the companies
as well recorded 38 projects executed and 9.10 percent accounted for 63 projects. On the
whole, average of 22 projects has been executed by the respondents which are
considered sufficient for them to have a say on the subject matter.

Project range Midpoint Frequency Percentage

1-25 13 8 72.70
26-50 38 2 18.20
Table III. 51-75 63 1 9.10
Number of projects Mean 22.09
executed Total – 11 100.00
From Table IV, it can be seen that 63.30 percent of respondents analyzed 13 projects, Evaluation
followed by 27.30 percent of the respondents that carried out risk analysis on of QRAT
38 construction projects. The remaining 9.10 percent only accounted for 63 construction
projects analyzed. Averagely on the whole construction projects carried out, the
respondents have analyzed 18 projects. Comparing this with mean of Table III, it
shows not all the projects executed were subsequently analyzed as out of every
22 projects, only 18 were eventually analyzed. 361
Table V reveals that only one of the respondents with 9.10 percent usually analyzed
risks on their project always while six respondents representing 54.50 percent are very
often and 36.40 percent which translated into four respondents are generally carrying
out risk analysis on their projects often.
Table VI shows that the level of knowledge accorded QRAT decreases down the
group with probabilistic sums (MS ¼ 3.00) ranked 1st and a tie was noticed of process
simulation (MS ¼ 2.70) and sensitivity analysis (MS ¼ 2.70) ranked as 2nd.
Multicriteria DMSM (AHP) (MS ¼ 1.50) is the least factor identified under level of
knowledge of QRAT ranked 11th.

Project range Midpoint Frequency Percentage

1-25 13 98 63.60
26-50 38 2 27.30
51-75 63 – 9.10 Table IV.
Mean 17.55 Number of construction
Total – 11 100.00 projects analyzed

Frequency No. of respondents Percentage

Always 1 9.10 Table V.

Very often 6 54.50 Frequency of risk
Often 4 36.40 analysis on construction
Total 11 100.00 projects

Knowledge Awareness
Techniques Mean Rank Mean Rank

Probability sums 3.00 1 2.63 2

Process simulation 2.70 2 2.70 1
Sensitivity analysis 2.70 2 2.44 4
MC and LHC simulation 2.60 4 2.50 3
System dynamics 2.20 5 1.90 8
Probabilistic influence diagrams 2.00 6 2.20 6
Event and FTs 1.90 7 2.11 7
Expected value tables 1.90 7 2.22 5
Fuzzy logic 1.75 9 1.63 11 Table VI.
Decision trees 1.70 10 1.80 9 Level of knowledge and
Multicriteria DMSM (AHP) 1.50 11 1.80 9 awareness of QRAT
JFM Also Table VI depicts the level of awareness of the QRAT with which the process
11,4 simulation, probability sums and MC and LHC simulation ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd with
mean scores of 2.7, 2.6, and 2.5, respectively. Probabilistic influence diagrams placed
average with mean 2.2 while multi-criteria DMSM, decision trees and fuzzy logic
ranked 9th (tied) and 11th, respectively, according to the table presentation.
The level of utilization as accounted for in Table VII shows that there was a low
362 level of utilization of QRAT as the mean score values fell well below 2.5 average
because the QRAT require a great deal of calculation (empirical data), high level of
sophistication and technicality that can be handled only by experienced personnel.
Despite this general pattern, probability sums (MS ¼ 1.80), ranked 1st while MC and
LHC simulation (MS ¼ 1.70) ranked 2nd on the list tied with process simulation
(MS ¼ 1.70) placing both in the 2nd category as against fuzzy logic; the least in the
group with mean score value of 1.30 and was ranked 11th position. It is worth
mentioning that the level of utilization decreases down the group.
From Table VII, the mean score generally was found to be below 2.5 average, yet
MC and LHC simulation (MS ¼ 2.00) ranked 1st, and was closely followed by expected
value (MS ¼ 1.90) 2nd while noting that probabilistic influence diagrams (MS ¼ 1.80)
tied with probabilistic sums (MS ¼ 1.80) and both ranked 3rd on the list. The low
turnout in the level of success achieved was as a result of non-utilization of the QRAT
as recorded in Table VII and the correlation coefficient as accounted for in Table VIII.
From Table IX, as for the level of awareness and utilization of QRAT, this
hypothesis was tested:
H 0. There is no significant correlation between the level of awareness of QRAT
and level of utilization of QRAT.
H 1. There is significant correlation between the level of awareness of QRAT and
level of utilization of QRAT.
Decision: t-critical , t-cal ( p-value , 0.05), hence the H0 is rejected and the H1 which
state that “there is significant correlation between the level of awareness of QRAT and
level of utilization of QRAT” is accepted as there is a positive correlation between them
(0.834 * *). This then means that the more the increase in the level of awareness of the
QRAT, the more the construction companies tend to utilize it.

Utilization Success
Techniques Mean Rank Mean Rank

Probability sums 1.80 1 1.80 3

MC and LHC simulation 1.70 2 2.00 1
Process simulation 1.70 2 1.60 6
System dynamics 1.60 4 1.70 5
Expected value tables 1.60 4 1.90 2
Probabilistic influence diagrams 1.60 4 1.80 3
Sensitivity analysis 1.50 7 2.11 7
Event and FTs 1.40 8 1.50 7
Table VII. Multicriteria DMSM (AHP) 1.40 8 1.50 7
Level of utilization and Decision trees 1.40 8 1.40 10
success of QRAT Fuzzy logic 1.30 11 1.30 11
 Evaluation
Variable 1 Variable 2
of QRAT
Mean 2.1755 1.5455
Variance 0.1319 0.0247
Observations 11 11
Pearson correlation 0.8339
Hypothesized mean difference 0 363
Df 10
t-stat. 8.4324 Table VIII.
P(T # t) one-tail 0.0000 Test of significance
t-critical one-tail 1.8125 between level of
P(T # t) two-tail 0.0000 awareness and utilization
t-critical two-tail 2.2281 of QRAT

Awareness Utilization
Techniques Mean Rank Mean Rank

Probability sums 2.63 2 1.80 1

Process simulation 2.70 1 1.70 2
Sensitivity analysis 2.44 4 1.50 7
MC and LHC simulation 2.50 3 1.70 2
System dynamics 1.90 8 1.60 4
Probabilistic influence diagrams 2.20 6 1.60 4
Event and FTs 2.11 7 1.40 8
Expected value tables 2.22 5 1.60 4
Fuzzy logic 1.63 11 1.30 11 Table IX.
Decision trees 1.80 9 1.40 8 Level of awareness and
Multicriteria DMSM (AHP) 1.80 9 1.40 8 utilization of QRAT

Table X generally showcases pedestal upon which risk analysis techniques were chosen
for any construction projects, and it was revealed that ease of usage and ease of
understanding tied and were ranked 1st with mean score of 4.36. Next to the two
aforementioned is flexibility for various projects and ease of interpretation of results
while cost of acquisition and installation ranked least on the table with mean value of 3.5.
Among the factors that are affecting the utilization of risk analysis techniques as
seen in Table XI, inadequate training and workshop on risk management ranked 1st,
inadequate record keeping placed 2nd while inconsistent government policies took 3rd
with mean 4.2, 4.0 and 3.7, respectively. Also least on the rank is divers (variation) in
local planning laws and varying and ever increasing interest rate.

Reasons Mean Rank

Ease of usage 4.36 1

Ease of understanding 4.36 1
Flexibility for various projects 4.09 3
Ease of interpretation of results 4.09 3 Table X.
Ease of data manipulation 3.80 5 Bases for choosing
Economy (cost of acquisition and installation) 3.50 6 QRAT
JFM Discussion of findings
11,4 Quantitative risk analysis techniques
Averagely, 22 construction projects have been executed by each of the firms under
study (Table III), but only 18 were quantitatively analyzed (Table IV), showing that
some construction projects were executed without risk analysis carried out on them.
The perception of the respondents towards QRAT as portrayed in Table VI is that
364 the level of knowledge possessed by them revolves round probability sums, process
simulation, sensitivity analysis and MC and LHC simulation: though the mean score
was just a bit higher than 2.5 average. There was also a high positive correlation in the
level of utilization and the corresponding level of success as there is significant
relationship between them. The low significant level of utilization (Table VII) was
responsible for low turnout of success recorded (Table VII). This as well is in
consonance with the assertion of Adam (2008) that construction companies have not
made significant use of the available techniques on their projects since 1980s simply
because of complex assessment involved (Alfredo del Cano and Pillar de la Cruz, 2002;
Laryea, 2008).
The techniques and packages designed to provide risk analysis and management
facilities have for most part failed to meet the need of the project owners or managers
(Tah and Carr, 2000). Statistically, there is high positive correlation between the level of
awareness and level of utilization because of the significant relationship between them.
The drastic low level of utilization also gave a backing to the reason why low
significant level of success was recorded.

Bases for choosing QRAT

The bases upon which the construction companies choose their QRAT included ease of
usage and understanding of the techniques. Also flexibility of the techniques for
various projects, ease of interpretation of results and the least ranked factors are ease
of data manipulation and economy. All the factors under consideration are well ranked
above the average which is an indication that the factors stated are good indicators of
QRAT to be chosen.

Factors affecting the utilization of QRAT

From the analysis carried out on the responses of the respondents with respect to the
factors affecting the utilization of risk analysis techniques, Table XI depicts that
inadequate training and workshop on risk management has contributed largely to the
factors affecting the utilization of the risk analysis techniques on construction projects.
Second to it on the ranking scale is inadequate record keeping and this supported the
assertion of Abraham and Rafael (2004) that the main problem in analysing risk is the

Factors Mean Rank

Inadequate training and workshop on risk management 4.20 1

Inadequate record keeping 4.00 2
Inconsistent government policies 3.70 3
Table XI. Political instability 3.60 4
Factors affecting the Divers (variation) in local planning laws 3.50 5
utilization of QRAT Varying and ever increasing interest rate 2.60 6
difficulty of obtaining information about the variability of the risk factors, changes of Evaluation
design and construction teams from project to project as construction projects are of QRAT
generally unique and records being seldom kept in a retrievable manner. In furtherance
to the aforementioned was that when they are, the differences in project teams and the
unique technical make up of any new individual project make the application of
historical data difficult. Other factors as well have high significant potentials in
affecting the utilization of the techniques. 365

Conclusions
This study has assessed the various areas of risk analysis techniques as applicable to
the selected large construction companies in Nigeria towards enhancing effective risk
management process. From the analysis carried out, one can summarily make
inferences concerning the QRAT in Nigeria that:
.
Project quantitative risk analyses are not frequently carried out on construction
projects thereby indicating that some projects were executed without proper risk
analysis done.
.
Level of success recorded on QRAT is significantly low because the level of
utilization is a function of the awareness by construction companies which was
found to be low and invariably speaks volume of the success.
.
Inadequate training and workshop on risk management is highly impeding the
utilization of the techniques culminated with inadequate record keeping in
retrievable manner on various construction projects executed in the past.
.
The choice for QRAT is based on ease of usage and understanding of the
techniques by firms using it.

Recommendations
On the basis of the conclusion drawn from the study, the following recommendations
are proposed for the stakeholders in the Nigerian construction industry so as to achieve
effective risk management process, which will offer better project output and value for
money:
.
Irrespective of the size or complexity of the projects, quantitative risk analysis
should be carried out frequently on all construction projects to be undertaken.
.
All stakeholders within the construction industry should raise the level of
awareness of QRAT so that it can be adequately utilized to the best advantage of
the industry.
.
Professional bodies should organize training in form of workshops and seminars
regularly for their members on construction projects risk management.
.
Risk records should be maintained, well-kept and documented for various
projects, regardless of the scope, magnitude or monetary value of such projects
by the contracting organizations.
.
Construction firms should not base their choice of QRAT on ease of usage and
understanding of the techniques alone but also due consideration should as well
be given to its flexibility and ease of interpretation of the results of analysis.
JFM References
11,4 Abraham, W. and Rafael, S. (2004), “Practical multifactor approach to evaluating risk of
investment in engineering projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 130 No. 3, pp. 357-367.
Adam, F.K. (2008), “Construction contract risk management: a study of practices in the United
Kingdom”, Journal of Cost Engineering, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 22-33.
366 Adedokun, O.A., Ibironke, O.T. and Babatunde, S.O. (2013), “Assessment of competitive
tendering methods of procuring educational building projects in Nigeria”, Journal of
Facilities Management, Vol. 11 No. 1.
Aibinu, A.A. and Jagboro, G.O. (2002), “The effects of construction delays on project delivery in
Nigerian construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20,
pp. 593-599.
Alfredo del Cano, P.E. and Pillar de la Cruz, P.E. (2002), “Integrated methodology for project risk
management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 6,
pp. 473-481.
Awodele, O.A., Ogunlana, S.O. and Bowles, G. (2012), “Risk management in planning for process
improvement”, in Akintoye, A., Goulding, J.S. and Zawdie, G. (Eds), Construction
Innovation and Process Improvement, Blackwell, London, pp. 181-208.
Baloi, D. and Price, A.D.F. (2003), “Modeling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 261-269.
Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M. and Ciancamerla, E. (2001), “Improving the analysis of
dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks”, Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 71, pp. 249-260.
Borshchev, A. and Filippov, A. (2004), “From system dynamics and discrete event to practical
agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools”, paper presented at the 22nd
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Oxford, 25-29 July.
Clemens, P.L. (1990), “Event trees analysis”, available at: www.fault-tree.net (accessed
25 January 2012).
Dada, J.O. and Jagboro, G.O. (2007), “An evaluation of the impact of risk on project cost overrun
in the Nigerian construction industry”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 12, pp. 37-44.
El-Amm, L.A. (2003), “Risk management in toll road concessions”, A published MSc
thesis Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Elinwa, A. and Buba, S. (1993), “Construction cost factors in Nigeria”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 119 No. 4, p. 69.
Fellows, R.F. (1989), “The management of risk”, Technical Information Service, Chartered
Institute of Building Journal, pp. 1-4.
Garry, C. (2005), “Risk factors leading to cost over-run in highway projects”, Conference
Proceedings of the Queensland University of Technology Research Week International
Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 4-8 July.
Ibironke, O.T. (2003), Construction Finance, Timlab Quanticost, Birnin-Kebbi.
Kenneth, K.H. (2005a), “Conducting project risk analysis, how to do it and how not to do it”,
International Roundup: The Electronic Journal of the International Cost Engineering
Council, Vol. 19 No. 2, p. 3.
Kenneth, K.H. (2005b), “Project risk management – advantages and Pitfalls”, International Evaluation
Roundup: The Electronic Journal of the International Cost Engineering Council, Vol. 18
No. 1, p. 5. of QRAT
Kothari, C.R. (2009), Research Methodology, 2nd revised ed., New Age International Publishers,
New Delhi.
Laryea, S. (2008), “Risk pricing practices in finance, insurance and construction”,
The Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chattered 367
Surveyors (COBRA 2008), Dublin, pp. 1-16.
Matsatsinis, N.F. and Samaras, A.P. (2001), “MCDA and preference dissagregation in group
decision support systems”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130 No. 2,
pp. 414-429.
Ogunsemi, D.R. (2002), “The cost and time performance of construction projects in Southwestern
Nigeria”, unpublished PhD thesis, submitted to the department of Quantity Surveying,
Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Ogunsemi, D.R. and Aje, I.O. (2005), “A model for contractor’s selection in Nigeria”, The Quantity
Surveyors, Vol. 50, pp. 3-7.
Oke, A.E. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2009), “Competences of quantity surveyors as value managers in
a developing economy”, The Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal
Institutions of Chattered Surveyor, 10-11 September, pp. 23-38.
Okpala, D. and Aniekwu, A. (1988), “Causes of high costs of construction in Nigeria”, Journal of
Construction and Engineering Management, Vol. 233, p. 245.
Omole, M.P. (2011), “Appraisal of risks involved in design and build procurement systems”,
An unpublished Postgraduate Diploma Dissertation Submitted to the Department of
Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Osama, A.J. and Salman, A. (2003), “Risk assessment in construction”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 5, pp. 492-500.
Oyegoke, S.A. (2006), “Managing clients expectations in project delivery: a comparative study
of delivery systems”, paper presented at 22nd Biennial Conference of the Nigerian Institute
of Quantity Surveyors, Calabar, Nigeria.
Oyetunji, A.A. and Anderson, S.D. (2006), “Relative effectiveness of project delivery and
contract strategies”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 1,
pp. 3-13.
Oyewobi, L.O. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2010), “Factors influencing reworks occurrence in
construction: a study of selected building projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Building
Performance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Palisade, P.D. (2000), The Industry Research and Information Association’s Report into Risk
Management in the Construction Industry, available at: www.riskdicisions.com/ciria.htm
(accessed 20 August 2010).
Perry, J.G. and Hayes, R.W. (1985), “Risk and its management in construction project”,
Proc. Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 1, Vol. 78, pp. 499-521.
Pouliquen, L.Y. (1970), “Risk analysis in project appraisal”, World Bank Staff Occasional Paper
No. 11, Haplains University Press, London.
Press Release (2009), “A profile of US importing and exporting companies”, available at:
www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/edb/2009/techdoc.doc (accessed 5 July 2011).
Schellhorn, G., Thums, A. and Reif, W. (2002), “Formal fault tree semantics”, Integrated Design
and Process Technology, June, pp. 1-8.
JFM Tah, J.H. and Carr, V. (2000), “A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy
logic”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18, pp. 491-500.
11,4 Uher, T.E. and Toakley, A.R. (1999), “Risk management in the conceptual phase of the project
development cycle”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 161-170.
Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (2003), “Transforming project risk management into project
368 uncertainty management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 97-105.
Xu, D. and Yang, J. (2003), “Intelligent decision system for self-assessment”, Journal of
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 43, p. 60.

Corresponding author
O.A. Adedokun can be contacted at: fisayoadedokun@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints