Integrated priority decision index for risk assessment in chaos: cost overruns in transport projects

Abstract

Purpose Cost overrun is inherent to project chaos, which is one of the key drivers of project failure. The purpose of this paper is to explore the critical elements of complexity-risk interdependency for cost-chaos in the construction management domain by utilizing a multi-criteria decision model. Design/methodology/approach A total of 12 complexity and 60 risk attributes are initially identified from the literature and using expert’s judgements. For the development of a structured hierarchy of key complexity and risk drivers, a real-time Delphi process is adopted for recording and evaluating the responses from experts. Afterwards, a pair-wise comparison using analytical network processing is performed to measure complexity-risk interdependencies against cost alternatives. Findings The findings of the integrated priority decision index (IPDI) suggest that uncertainties related to contingency and escalation costs are the main sources of cost overrun in project drift, along with the key elements such as “the use of innovative technology,” “multiple contracts,” “low advance payment,” “change in design,” “unclear specifications” and “the lack of experience” appear to be more significant to chaos in complexity-risk interdependency network. Research limitations/implications This study did not address the uncertainty and vulnerability exit in the judgment process, therefore, this framework can be extended using fuzzy logic to better evaluate the significance of cost-chaos drivers. Practical implications These results may assist the management of cost overrun to avoid chaos in a project. The proposed model can be applied within project risk management practices to make better-informed technical decisions in the early phases of the project life cycle where uncertainty is high. Originality/value This research addresses the importance of cost overruns as a source of project chaos in dynamic systems where projects reach the edge of chaos and progress stops. A new IPDI index contributes toward evaluating the severity of complexity and risk and their interdependencies which create cost-chaos in infrastructure transport projects.

Risk perception and cost of capital in emerging market projects using dynamic conditional correlation model

“…As Pakistan is considered as a dynamic market in which risks and returns assessments from an investor’s point of view is a great and rapidly evolving challenge. Therefore, due to the consistent changes in markets, nothing is identical neither the stocks nor the future foretells (Afzal et al , 2019b). In such swapping conditions of dynamic markets where the returns have too much variations, traditional methods like averages and means do not provide a true picture of market (Afzal et al , 2021).…”

Modeling cost overrun in building construction projects using the interpretive structural modeling approach: a developing country perspective

“…Numerous studies have identified poor contract management as one of the critical causes of cost overrun (Alinaitwe et al. , 2013; Afzal et al. , 2020).…”

Systematic Review of Cost Overrun Research in the Developed and Developing Countries

“…The first stage of synthesizing the 152 literatures is dividing them according to 2 classifications, literatures from the developed countries and literatures from developing countries as presented in Table 2 & 3. (Afzal et al, 2019;Anish et al, 2019;Bhangale, 2016;Chandramohan et al, 2012;Cindrela Devi & Ananthanarayanan, 2017;Ghumare et al, 2019;Kant, 2018;Muthu Venkata Sekar & Mahalakshmi, 2018;Pai et al, 2018;Raju et al, 2017;Shaktawat & Vadhera, 2017;Shanmuganathan & Baskar, 2015;Sharma et al, 2020;Sharma & Goyal, 2019;Shrivastava et al, 2019;Subramani & Sivakumar, 2018;Velumani & Nampoothiri, 2019;Venkateswaran & Murugasan, 2017;Wanjari & Dobariya, 2016) Malaysia 20 (Abdullah et al, 2018;Afzal et al, 2019;Akram et al, 2017;Asmi et al, 2013;Azis et al, 2013;Hameed Memon et al, 2014;Haslinda et al, 2018;Ismail et al, 2013;Karunakaran et al, 2018;Liew et al, 2019;Memon et al, 2011Memon et al, , 2012Rahman et al, 2013;C. Ramanathan et al, 2012;C.…”

“…Ramanathan et al, 2012;C. T. Ramanathan et al, 2011;) Pakistan 9 (Afzal et al, 2019;Akram et al, 2017;Choudhry et al, 2014Choudhry et al, , 2018Choudhry & Rehman Nasir, 2012;Hanif et al, 2016;Maqsoom et al, 2018;Samiullah Sohu et al, 2017;Zafar et al, 2016) China 6 (Afzal et al, 2019;Lou & Yin, 2010;Ma, 2011;Mansur et al, 2019;Wang & Yuan, 2011;Yuanyue & Huimin, 2018) Ghana 5 (Asiedu et al, 2017;Asiedu & Adaku, 2019;Coffie et al, 2019) Nigeria 4 (Akinradewo et al, 2019;Akinsiku et al, 2014;Amadi & Higham, 2019;Amusan et al, 2018;Hingham, 2016) Saudi Arabia 4 (Alghonamy, 2015;Mahamid, 2013Mahamid, , 2018Seddeeq et al, 2019) South Africa 4 (Khabisi, 2012;Monyane et al, 2018;Mulalo et al, 2018 (Jung et al, 2016;Kavuma et al, 2019;Qiao et al, 2019) Vietnam 3 (S. Kim et al, 2017;S. Y. Kim et al, 2018;Pham et al, 2020) Others 21 (Afzal et al, 2019;Al-hazim et al, 2017;Alzebdeh et al, 2015;Apolot & Tindiwensi, 2013;…”