Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Risk assessment model for international construction projects considering risk interdependence using the DEMATEL method

  • Fengfeng Zhu,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering and State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Hao Hu ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    hhu@sjtu.edu.cn

    Affiliation School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering and State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Feng Xu

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision

    Affiliation School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering and State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Given the complexity of international construction projects (ICP), risk management difficulties commonly cause cost overruns. This paper analyzes the problems of risk interdependence and subjective ratings in the application of the traditional risk assessment model in ICP. To solve the above problems, this paper proposes a risk assessment model for ICP that considers risk interdependence and obtains references from similar projects. The model applies the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to determine the risk interdependence and its contribution to the overall project risk. Moreover, this model recalls the risks, probabilities, impacts, and risk events records of similar historical projects as the necessary inputs, thereby addressing the issue of subjectivity. An integrated framework is provided to identify, analyze, and prioritize ICP risks to incorporate risk interdependence into the risk management process. Finally, this paper demonstrates and validates the proposed model through a real project. The proposed model is useful for international construction companies to support project selection and bidding decisions in the early stage of ICP.

Citation: Zhu F, Hu H, Xu F (2022) Risk assessment model for international construction projects considering risk interdependence using the DEMATEL method. PLoS ONE 17(5): e0265972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972

Editor: Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, Gonbad Kavous University, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Received: December 27, 2021; Accepted: March 10, 2022; Published: May 20, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

International construction projects (ICP) are more complex than domestic construction projects because of the transnational participants, diverse currencies, different cultures, unfamiliar standards, and unpredictable nature of disputes in different language versions of the contract. The complexity of ICP leads to risk management difficulties [1] that may cause delays [2] and cost overruns [3]. Identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing risks in the early proposal stage of ICP can construct appropriate risk assessment and conduct project in its acceptable way [4], thereby deserving scholarly focus.

Previous studies have proposed a comprehensive checklist of risk factors, quantified the probability and impact of the risks using fuzzy set theory, weighed the importance of each risk by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and finally completed the prioritization of individual project risks or rating of overall project risk. However, these methods or techniques focus on assigning subjective ratings to individual project risks, resulting in two challenges.

The first challenge is the ignorance of risk interdependence. Previous studies mostly modeled project risk as a group of parallel risk factors [5–7] under the assumption that the risks were independent of each other. Hence, these studies concentrated on improving the quantification of risk probability and impact. Although some studies have analyzed risk manageability or predictability, they have also failed to reveal the interdependence between risks and the impact of risk interdependence on projects [8]. If risk interdependence can be considered during risk assessment, the effectiveness of risk management can be promoted to a great extent, which is very important for ICP because ICP has more risk interactions than domestic construction projects due to country-related risks.

The second challenge is subjectiveness. In practice, decision-makers inevitably rely on personal experience, intuitive judgment, and risk preference to judge the risk probability and impact. It is practicable in domestic construction projects because of the similar project environment. However, the international construction market is diverse and changeable, which increases the difficulty of identifying comparable projects based on personal experience. Occasionally, this leads to vagueness and inconsistencies during risk assessments for ICP. If the decision-maker can recall historical projects in an extensive organizational repository and conduct risk assessments based on this documented information, such a problem can be avoided.

Therefore, this paper proposes a risk assessment model for ICP that considers risk interdependence and obtains references from similar projects. This model applies the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to determine the risk interdependence and its contribution to the overall project risk. Among a great variety of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, DEMATEL is able to visualize the complex interdependence among criteria [9]. Hence, it shows the potential to identify the critical risk of a project [10]. Moreover, the model recalls the risks, probabilities, impacts, and risk events records of similar historical projects as the necessary inputs, thereby addressing the issue of subjectivity.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The “Literature review” section reviews the literature on ICP risk management, risk interdependence, and DEMATEL. The “Risk assessment model” section describes the proposed model considering risk interdependence. The “Case study” section presents a case study to demonstrate the model application and validate the effectiveness of the proposed model. Finally, the “Conclusions” section concludes the paper by summarizing the contributions and limitations of this research and providing suggestions for future research.

Literature review

The application of MCDM methods for risk assessment in construction projects has abounded in literature, as shown in Table 1. However, most methods assume that the criteria are independent and fail to consider their interactions. Although ANP, an advanced version of the AHP, can deal with the interdependence between criteria, the assumption of equal weight for each cluster to obtain a weighted supermatrix is not reasonable in practical situations [11].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Application of MCDM methods for risk assessment in construction projects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t001

On the other hand, recent studies have indicated that risks in ICP are interdependent and such interdependence has an influence on project outcomes. They identified the major risk interdependence (also called risk paths, risk causal relations, or risk chains) by statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling [56–60], factor analysis [61, 62], and network analysis [63]. In this case, the aforementioned MCDM methods cannot consider the risk interdependence in ICP. As a result, decision-makers still ignore risk interdependence and use subjective judgment in practice due to the lack of an integrated framework that can assign risk ratings based on historical information and assess risks considering risk interdependence.

Only a few studies have made efforts to analyze the influence of risk interdependence on project outcomes. Several authors have applied the Bayesian belief network (BBN) to assess project risk [64–66]. For example, Guan et al. [64] developed a risk assessment model for international construction projects by integrating fault tree analysis and fuzzy set theory with a Bayesian belief network; and Islam et al. [65, 66] integrated a modified Bayesian belief network model and the fuzzy group decision-making approach (FGDMA) for cost overrun risk assessment in a complex and uncertain project environment. Nevertheless, BBN is inherently acyclic and hence cannot model the loop phenomenon, namely, a causal path that leads from the initial occurrence of an event to the triggering of subsequent consequences until the initial event occurs once more. The ignorance of the loop phenomenon may lead to disasters in practice [67]. In addition, network theory and matrix tools (such as interpretive structural models and design structure matrices) are frequently used to conduct topological analyses of risk interdependence and determine the key risks [67–71]. Fang and Marle [68] applied the design structure matrix to model the risk network for decision support in project risk management. Furthermore, Fang et al. [67] conducted a topological analysis to identify key elements in the structure of interrelated risks that could potentially affect a large engineering project. However, such tools adopt "0" and "1" to indicate whether the two risks are interdependent, which may lead to the underestimation of relatively weak interdependence and overestimation of relatively strong interdependence. Moreover, some historical information from past projects is required to be input into the model for objective analysis, which is not mentioned in these studies.

Given the limitations of previous studies, this paper adopts the technique of DEMATEL to address the challenges associated with risk interdependence. DEMATEL, first developed by Gabus and Fontela [72], is a system analysis technique that uses graph theory and matrix tools to examine and solve complicated problems. Through the direct dependence matrix of the elements in the system, DEMATEL calculates the depending degree and the depended degree of each element to determine the position of each element in the system [73]. Some researchers [9, 10, 22, 74] have utilized DEMATEL to consider the interdependence between criteria. For example, Hatefi and Tamosaitiene [9] used DEMATEL to determine the interrelationships and interdependencies among risk factors, thereby extracting the network structure for implementing the fuzzy ANP method. Dehghani et al. [10] determined the critical risks associated with the process of construction using DEMATEL. Compared with previously proposed methods, DEMATEL can model the loop phenomenon and allows the description of the strength of risk interdependence. Hence, DEMATEL shows great potential in analyzing risk interdependence during a risk assessment.

Furthermore, this paper adopts the idea of case-based reasoning (CBR) to avoid subjectivity. CBR solves new problems by referring to the proven outcomes of similar situations rather than explicit formulas or predefined rules. Several researchers [1, 75–77] have demonstrated the effectiveness of CBR in recalling similar historical projects to provide a starting point for managing risk in a new project. Decision-makers can refer to the historical risk events and outcomes of similar projects to increase the reliability of decisions on current projects. However, the aforementioned studies focused on the retrieval algorithm to find the most similar project and failed to describe how to reuse the retrieved similar projects (the starting point) in the risk management process of the current project.

In summary, this paper tries to propose a risk assessment model for ICP that considers risk interdependence by DEMATEL and uses references from similar historical projects, thereby filling the previously mentioned research gap.

Risk assessment model

The risk assessment model for ICP that considers risk interdependence is shown in the solid line in Fig 1. The model reuses the proven outcomes of similar historical projects as the input and incorporates the result of risk interdependence analysis into risk assessment. In addition, this section proposes an integrated framework to identify, analyze, prioritize, and respond to risks in ICP, as shown by the dotted line. It is worth noting that the case base and the retrieval algorithm are not within the scope of this paper. Detailed descriptions of the case base and retrieval algorithm are provided in a previous study by the authors [1]. In brief, the previous study has constructed a case base including 102 overseas rail projects with an even distribution of data. All the projects and their risks (and risk events) were collected through post-project reviews with project managers. Besides, it proposed a retrieval algorithm based on the critical features of the project. Hence, it can deduce the most similar and relevant cases from a wide variety of historical projects.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Risk assessment model for international construction projects that considers risk interdependence.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.g001

Identify and analyze individual project risks

As defined by PMBoK [78], each project contains individual project risks that can affect the achievement of project objectives as well as the overall project risk that arises from the combination of individual project risks and other sources of uncertainty. The identification of individual project risks requires a risk checklist first. Previous studies have proposed several classical risk breakdown structures that have been widely cited in the field of construction management. For example, Zhi [7] divided risks into four levels: nation/region, industry, company, and project. Hastak and Shaked [79] divided risks into three levels: macro (country), market, and project. Han and Diekmann [80] divided risks into political risk, economic risk, cultural/legal risk, construction risk, and other risks. El-Sayegh [81] divided risks into external risks and internal risks. Fidan et al. [82] divided risks into countries, participants, companies, and projects. In addition to the above literature, this paper extensively reviews the latest research on overseas risks to propose the risk checklist of this paper.

This paper classifies individual project risks into four levels: nation/region, trans-nation, organization, and construction, as shown in Table 2. A useful characteristic of the proposed checklist is that it clearly distinguishes the risks related to nation and trans-nation. The nation/region level risks come from nation-related factors and will have impacts on the project whether it is contracted by a foreign company or a local company. Trans-nation level risks are risks specific to foreign companies that contract construction projects across the border, such as the deterioration of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Another merit is that the proposed checklist emphasizes the health, safety, and environment (HSE) risk at the construction level, which has rarely been mentioned in previous studies. Xia et al. [83] has criticized the construction industry for not paying enough attention to environmental protection and calls on construction companies to pay more attention to HSE risk to prevent adverse public opinion regarding the project. Some countries or regions have strict penalties for environmental pollution caused by construction.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Risk checklist for international construction projects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t002

The model assumes that the risks that occurred in similar historical projects are likely to reoccur in the current project, which is also the core idea of CBR. Therefore, the risks of the current project can be identified as the union of the risks of all similar projects. Suppose there are E similar projects that are sorted as {SP1, SP2,⋯,SPE} according to the Global Similarity Score (GSS). Suppose that SPi(IR) refers to the set of risks of the ith similar project; then, CP(IR), which refers to the set of risks of the current project, can be identified as shown in Eq (1).

(1)

Next, the model analyzes the occurrence probability and the direct impact of the identified risks. In this step, the indirect impact of an individual project risk on the project outcomes by causing changes in other risks is not considered. The occurrence probability and direct impact of the risks that occurred in historical projects were collected from their risk registers. The direct impact is expressed as the ratio of cost loss and budget at completion. This paper adopts a five-point logarithmic scale to convert qualitative scales to quantitative measures, as shown in Eqs (2) and (3). In practice, the risks that cause huge losses to ICP are often small probability events. Similarly, the direct impacts of most risks are often small compared with the project scale. In this case, a logarithmic scale allows uneven distribution of probability and impact and devotes more space to small values, thereby expending the difference in risk ratings. In Eqs (2) and (3), PSij and ISij refer to the qualitative scale of probability and impact of the jth risk in the ith similar project, respectively, Pij and Iij refer to their quantitative values, respectively, and α and β are constants to adjust the range of logarithmic scales. In this paper, α1 = 2, β1 = 3, α2 = 1, β2 = 6. For ease of use, Table 3 clarifies the logarithmic value and range.

(2)(3)
thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Five-point logarithmic value and range.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t003

To apply historical projects, Okudan et al. [75] suggested determining the risk probability by counting its occurrence within the retrieved similar projects. However, this paper suggests weighing the importance of the retrieved similar projects according to their GSS. In addition, the challenge of unreporting and underreporting risks in construction industries needs to be considered. Otherwise, the unreported risks may lead to an underestimation of the risk probability and impact. Hence, this paper tries to propose a new weighting method to solve the problems. Suppose that Pij and Iij refer to the probability and impact of the jth risk in the ith similar project, respectively; then, P(IRj) and I(IRj) that refer to the probability and impact of the jth risk in the current project can be defined as shown in Eqs (4), (5) and (6).

(4)(5)(6)

Finally, the expected loss (EL) of the jth risk can be defined as the product of occurrence probability and direct impact, as shown in Eq (7).

(7)

Identify and analyze risk interdependence

The index of expected loss only analyzes the direct impact of an individual project risk on the project outcome. It is also necessary to analyze its indirect impact by causing changes in other risks. Compared with previous DEMATEL studies that focused on analyzing the relations between various elements, this paper introduces the cost overrun as the overall project risk into the direct risk dependence matrix to analyze the impact of a risk on the final result of the project by causing changes in other risks. The main steps are as follows.

The first step is to establish the direct risk dependence matrix (R). Suppose that there are T-1 identified risks. If we consider the overall project risk as another separate element in the system, we can build a matrix of risk dependence with T rows and T columns. The element rmn in the mth row and the nth column is determined by counting the occurrence of nth risk caused by mth risk in similar projects, as shown in Eq (8). The last column represents the occurrence that the corresponding risk directly led to cost overrun in similar projects. For example, if there are two records that one particular risk (or risk event) has caused another risk (or risk event) in the retrieved similar projects, the element in the corresponding row and column can be determined as “2”. Such records in similar projects were collected in advance and retained in the case base. The values in the last row that represents the impact of cost overrun on the corresponding risk are all 0 because cost overrun is considered the project outcome.

(8)

The second step is to calculate the normalized matrix (N). Suppose Rmn is the normalized value of rmn; then, it can be calculated by Eq (9).

(9)

Next, develop the risk interdependence matrix (D), as shown in Eq (10), where I is the identity matrix. Element Dmn refers to the summation of the interdependence of all paths from the mth risk to the nth risk.

(10)

Finally, this paper refers to the last column to assign the value of interdependence contribution (IC), which is defined as the impact of a risk on the cost overrun through its risk interdependence, and it can be understood as the added impact of a risk on cost overrun through risk interdependence under the same expected loss. Moreover, DEMATEL further calculates the depending degree, the depended degree, the centrality degree, and the cause degree. The depending degree (D) indicates the impact of corresponding individual project risk on other individual project risks, and it corresponds to the sum of each row except the last column. The depended degree () indicates the impact of other individual project risks on the corresponding individual project risk, and it corresponds to the sum of each column except the last row. The centrality degree indicates the importance of the corresponding risk in the risk network, and it corresponds to the sum of its depending and depended degrees. The cause degree indicates the position of the corresponding risk in the risk network, and it corresponds to the difference between the depending and depended degrees. If the cause degree is greater than 0, then it is called a cause risk; otherwise, it is a result risk.

Prioritize individual project risks and analyze overall project risk

The key risks are determined based on both the risk interdependence and expected loss. This paper defines the significance index (SI) by Eq (11). Suppose that SIj, ELj, and ICj refer to the significance index, expected loss, and interdependence contribution of the jth risk, respectively; then, (11)

The overall project risk can be described as the variation range of some project performance, such as cost and duration. As it increases, the probability of achieving the overall project objectives decreases. For each OCP, this paper adds the value of the significance index to quantify the overall project risk exposure (RE), as shown in Eq (12). RE is an indicator of the relative risk magnitude of a project when compared with others.

(12)

Identify and determine the response measures

Risk response refers to implementing a set of response measures (or actions) to reduce the adverse impact of the identified risks on project objectives. This paper attempts to formulate the response measures for the current project by citing and improving the response measures from similar historical projects.

Consistent with risk identification, the response measures are also identified as the combination of response measures of similar historical projects. These measures would usually be practical and effective since they have been previously implemented before. In this way, decision-makers need not develop response measures from scratch. Moreover, if necessary, decision-makers should improve the identified measures to better adapt to any unique situation of the current project according to their knowledge and experience.

Finally, decision-makers should monitor the occurrence of risks during the life cycle of the OCP and report all the information on the risk management activities and project outcomes for future use.

Case study

This section conducts a case study to demonstrate the application of the proposed model and validate its effectiveness in considering risk interdependence.

The Kumasi-Bechem railway is a railway construction project located in the Republic of Ghana that has been contracted by a leading Chinese construction company. The contract amount of the project is 500 million dollars, the construction period is 24 months, the payment type is a lump sum contract, and the delivery system is engineering procurement construction (EPC). Although the company has not implemented construction projects in Ghana before, it has extensive construction experience in other countries and regions. Therefore, this company has constructed a case base including 102 international railway construction projects.

Based on the above conditions, this paper retrieves similar historical projects in the case base by selecting input variables and collecting relevant data, as described in a previous study [1]. Four historical projects have GSSs higher than 85%. Table 4 shows these projects according to the GSS in descending order, as well as the probability (P) and impact (I) of the risks that occurred. According to Eq (1), the individual project risks of the current project can be identified as political risk, economic risk, legal risk, labor risk, market risk, social risk, public health risk, multilateral policy risk, capital liquidity risk, expatriate risk, standard difference risk, cultural difference risk, owner risk, contract risk, internal risk, HSE risk, natural risk, technical risk, human risk, and material risk.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Probability and impact of the risks that occurred in similar projects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t004

Eqs (2)–(6) are applied to calculate the occurrence probability and direct impact of the identified risks. Taking political risk as an example, the qualitative scale of its probability is (5, 0, 3, 3) in similar projects. Hence, its quantitative probabilities are 50.23%, 0, 20%, and 20% and the corresponding weights are 53.33%, 0, 13.33%, and 6.67%, respectively. Then, we can calculate the probability of political risk according to Eq (5) and finally obtain a value of 41.99% and a scale of 4. The second similar project (Project 2) was excluded through the weighting method to avoid underestimation of the probability because Project 2 did not report political risk. Finally, the analysis results of individual project risks are shown in Table 5.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Analysis results of individual project risks for the target project.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t005

Then, this paper counts the occurrence of risk dependence in the four similar projects. For each project, the case base retains the occurred risk events and the risk network that reflects the causal relations among these risk events. Such data was collected through post-project reviews with project managers. The risk networks of the four similar projects can be seen in S1–S4 Figs. This paper obtains the risk network for the target project by adding the risk networks of the four similar projects together, as shown in Fig 2. The arrows in the figure refer to the risk propagation directions. The numbers on the arrows refer to the number of occurrences. For example, “political risk → capital liquidity risk” indicates that the changes in political risk led to the changes in capital liquidity risk, thereby causing cost loss of the project. The number “2” indicates that 2 relevant records are obtained in these four projects.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Diagram of the initial risk network for the target case.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.g002

Based on the initial risk network, this paper establishes the direct risk dependence matrix (R). and then calculated the normalized matrix (N) and the risk interdependence matrix (D) according to Eqs (9) and (10). The calculation process can be seen in S1 File. Hence, this paper obtains the interdependence contribution (IC), depending degree, depended degree, centrality degree, and cause degree of each risk, as shown in Table 6. According to the cause degree presented in Table 6, political risk, social risk, public health risk, and natural risk are the cause risks that generally have a significant impact on other risks. Multilateral policy risk, capital liquidity risk, owner risk, HSE risk, technical risk, human risk, and material risk are the resulting risks that are vulnerable to changes in other risks. According to the centrality degree presented in Table 5, political risk, social risk, capital liquidity risk, owner risk, HSE risk, and human risk are node risks located in the center of the risk network, and such risks interact frequently with other risks. However, expatriate risk, standard difference risk, and contract risk are relatively isolated from the other risks.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Result of the risk interdependence analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t006

After analyzing the individual project risks and their interdependence, this paper calculates the significance index of each risk according to Eq (11). Table 7 presents the expected loss, significance index of each risk, and its corresponding ranks.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 7. Results for the expected loss, significance index, and corresponding ranks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t007

As shown in Table 7, after considering the contribution of risk interdependence, the risk ranking has changed. Some risks have become much less significant, such as economic risk, expatriate risk, contract risk, and technical risk. In contrast, some other risks have become much more significant, such as political risk, capital liquidity risk, owner risk, and human risk. A variety of confounding factors may underlie these results. First, the occurrence probability and direct impact were collected from the risk registers of historical projects, which are often analyzed pre-project. The risk relations of historical projects were collected from post-project reviews with project managers. Therefore, the risks that were ignored in the early stage but occurred during the project tend to become more significant, such as political risk, owner risk, and human risk. Furthermore, all the projects (including similar projects and the target project) are contracted by the same Chinese construction company. Since contract risk and economic risks have occurred and caused serious losses in a completed project (Project 2), the company inevitably would give high ratings to such risks in the risk registers of the other three similar projects under construction. Benefitting from attention and prevention, such risks have not occurred in other projects. As a result, the significance of contract risk and economic risk is decreased for the target project. In summary, according to the significance degree, the risks for the target project are ranked as follows: capital liquidity risk, political risk, owner risk, technical risk, internal risk, economic risk, contract risk, multilateral policy risk, public health risk, natural risk, legal risk, cultural difference risk, human risk, standard difference risk, social risk, HSE risk, market risk, expatriate risk, material risk, and labor risk. Notably, the above results are limited to the target projects discussed in this section.

The overall project risk exposure (RE) for the target project is 0.03907 according to Eq (12). Given that RE is a relative indicator, this paper also applied the proposed model to Project 2 for comparison. The RE for Project 2 is 0.03648. Hence, the risk level of the target project is slightly higher than that of Project 2. RE might be useful in selecting candidate projects, making bidding decisions, and formulating contingency reserves.

This paper develops a list of response measures for the target project, as shown in Table 8. These measures consist of the measures adopted in similar projects, the suggestions obtained during post-project reviews of similar projects, and the opinions from company management.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 8. List of response measures for the target project.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.t008

Conclusions

This paper analyzes the problems of risk interdependence and subjective ratings in the traditional risk assessment model for international construction projects. To solve the above problems, this paper proposes a risk assessment model for ICP that analyzes the risk interdependence through DEMATEL and obtains references from the retrieved similar projects. In addition, this paper incorporates the analyzed risk interdependence into the risk management process, thereby constructing an integrated framework to assess risks for ICP considering risk interdependence. Finally, this paper demonstrates and validates the proposed model through a real project. The contributions of this paper are as follows.

  1. This paper proposes a risk checklist for ICP that classifies individual project risks into four levels: nation/region, trans-nation, organization, and construction. The clear distinction between nation level risk and trans-nation level risk is used to provide a complete description of the risks of ICP. In addition, HSE risk is listed to highlight that additional attention should be focused on environmental protection.
  2. This paper provides a method of assigning weights that considers the global similarity score of historical projects and the unreporting of risks. The weighting method is helpful for updating the probability and impact of potential risks for the current project.
  3. This paper describes a model for assessing project risk that considers risk interdependence. The model applies DEMATEL to analyze the interdependence contribution of risks to the project outcome and determines the significance of risks through the joint value of expected loss (direct impact) and interdependence contribution (indirect impact). Hence, it can prioritize the individual project risks and evaluate the overall project risks with consideration to risk interdependence. This step is very important for ICP because these projects tend to have more complex risk interdependence. Although some risks events did not cause cost loss directly, they may lead to the occurrence of other risk events and cause cost loss indirectly. In summary, the proposed model can support decisions related to risks in the early proposal stage of ICP.

Despite the advantages of the proposed method, there are still limitations to the conclusions. First, the proposed model relies on the support of an extensive case base that contains a wide variety of historical projects with risk events. The case base used in this paper is collected from a Chinese construction company, hence should not be directly generalized to other contractors. Instead, the contractors should construct different case bases individually following the proposed process. If there lacks such a case base, the subjective ratings from experts are required as the input to the model. Second, this paper applies the causal relations among the occurred risk events in similar projects as the input of DEMATEL. Given that such data were collected from post-project reviews with project managers, certain data deviations remained due to various reasons, such as the loss of documents, unwillingness to disclose mistakes, and risk preference of different managers. Finally, this paper emphasizes the identification and analysis of risks specific to international construction. Hence, the proposed model is useful for international construction companies to support project selection and bidding decisions in the early stage of ICP. However, it should not be directly generalized to the middle and late stages due to the differences in key points of risk management. The future work of this paper is to develop a computer-based tool to realize the proposed models. In this way, this paper could provide better decision support for international construction companies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Risk networks of Project 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Risk networks of Project 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Risk networks of Project 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.s003

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Risk networks of Project 4.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.s004

(TIF)

S1 File. Calculation process for DEMATEL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265972.s005

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the project managers for valuable and useful data and information. The authors are grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

References

  1. 1. Zhu F, Hu H, Xu F, Tang N. Predicting the impact of country-related risks on cost overrun for overseas infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2021;147(2):04020166.
  2. 2. Rauzana A, Dharma W. Causes of delays in construction projects in the province of Aceh, Indonesia. PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0263337. pmid:35089971
  3. 3. Zhao L, Mbachu J, Liu Z, Zhao X, Wang B. Investigating the causal relationships between project complexities and project cost: an empirical study from New Zealand. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2021;2021:6624647.
  4. 4. Hashemi R, Kamranrad R, Bagheri F, Emami I. A fuzzy DEMATEL—fuzzy binary logistic regression approach to evaluate and prioritize risks and simulated annealing optimization algorithm (an empirical study in energy projects). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2020;13(5):1025–50.
  5. 5. Han SH, Kim DY, Kim H, Jang WS. A web-based integrated system for international project risk management. Automation in Construction. 2008;17(3):342–56.
  6. 6. Wang SQ, Dulaimi MF, Aguria MY. Risk management framework for construction projects in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics. 2004;22(3):237–52.
  7. 7. Zhi H. Risk management for overseas construction projects. International Journal of Project Management. 1995;13(4):231–7.
  8. 8. Han SH, Kim DY, Kim H. Predicting profit performance for selecting candidate international construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2007;133(6):425–36.
  9. 9. Hatefi SM, Tamosaitiene J. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy ANP model for evaluating construction projects by considering interrelationships among risk factors. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2019;25(2):114–31.
  10. 10. Dehghani H, Hormozi A, Nikpour M. Systematic risks assessment of precast concrete canal in irrigation projects using DEMATEL method. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management. 2022;13(1):123–30.
  11. 11. Si SL, You XY, Liu HC, Zhang P. DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2018;2018:3696457.
  12. 12. Mustafa MA, Al-Bahar JF. Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 1991;38(1):46–52.
  13. 13. Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. An analytic hierarchy process based model for risk and opportunity assessment of international construction projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2006;33(1):58–68.
  14. 14. Okudan O, Budayan C. Assessment of project characteristics affecting risk occurrences in construction projects using fuzzy AHP. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences-Sigma Muhendislik Ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;38(3):1447–62.
  15. 15. Koulinas GK, Xanthopoulos AS, Sidas KA, Koulouriotis DE. Risks ranking in a desalination plant construction project with a hybrid AHP, risk matrix, and simulation-based approach. Water Resources Management. 2021;35(10):3221–33.
  16. 16. Liu J, Du Z, Ma L, Liu C. Identification and assessment of subway construction risk: an integration of AHP and experts grading method. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2021;2021:6661099.
  17. 17. Maceika A, Bugajev A, Sostak OR, Vilutiene T. Decision tree and AHP methods application for projects assessment: a case study. Sustainability. 2021;13(10):5502.
  18. 18. Zhong Y, Li H, Chen L. Construction project risk prediction model based on EW-FAHP and one dimensional convolution neural network. PloS one. 2021;16(2):e0246539. pmid:33561173
  19. 19. Serrano-Gomez L, Ignacio Munoz-Hernandez J. Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable energy construction projects. PloS one. 2019;14(6):e0215943. pmid:31194751
  20. 20. Bu-Qammaz AS, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. Risk assessment of international construction projects using the analytic network process. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2009;36(7):1170–81.
  21. 21. Valipour A, Yahaya N, Md Noor N, Kildiene S, Sarvari H, Mardani A. A fuzzy analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects: An Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2015;21(7):933–47.
  22. 22. Karamoozian A, Wu D, Chen CLP, Luo C. An approach for risk prioritization in construction projects using analytic network process and decision making trial and evaluation laboratory. IEEE Access. 2019;7:159842–54.
  23. 23. Almeida MV, Oreta AWC. A risk assessment model for high-rise school building project in Metro Manila, Philippines. International Journal of Geomate. 2020;18(69):30–7.
  24. 24. Gashaw T, Jilcha K. Risk prioritisation using fuzzy analytic network process: a case of Addis-Djibouti railway construction project. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2021:1–12.
  25. 25. Erol H, Dikmen I, Atasoy G, Birgonul MT. An analytic network process model for risk quantification of mega construction projects. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022;191:116215.
  26. 26. Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega. 2016;64:126–30.
  27. 27. Luo C, Ju Y, Gonzalez EDRS, Dong P, Wang A. The waste-to-energy incineration plant site selection based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic best-worst method ANP and double parameters TOPSIS approach: a case study in China. Energy. 2020;211:118564.
  28. 28. Wang Y, Jin X. Structural risk of diversified project financing of city investment company in China based on the best worst method. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. 2021;28(1):196–215.
  29. 29. Mahmoudi A, Abbasi M, Deng X, Ikram M, Yeganeh S. A novel model for risk management of outsourced construction projects using decision-making methods: a case study. Grey Systems-Theory and Application. 2020;10(2):97–123.
  30. 30. Celik E, Gul M. Hazard identification, risk assessment and control for dam construction safety using an integrated BWM and MARCOS approach under interval type-2 fuzzy sets environment. Automation in Construction. 2021;127:103699.
  31. 31. Faraji A, Rashidi M, Khadir P, Perera S. A risk analysis-best worst method based model for selection of the most appropriate contract strategy for onshore drilling projects in the Iranian petroleum industry. Buildings. 2021;11(3):97.
  32. 32. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika. 2012;122(6):3–6.
  33. 33. Dejus T, Antucheviciene J. Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2013;19(5):728–37.
  34. 34. Vafaeipour M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Varzandeh MHM, Derakhti A, Eshkalag MK. Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: new application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy Conversion and Management. 2014;86:653–63.
  35. 35. Alvand A, Mirhosseini SM, Ehsanifar M, Zeighami E, Mohammadi A. Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated FMEA-SWARA-WASPAS model under fuzzy environment: a case study of a construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management. 2021.
  36. 36. Badalpur M, Nurbakhsh E. An application of WASPAS method in risk qualitative analysis: a case study of a road construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management. 2021;21(9):910–8.
  37. 37. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Tamosaitiene J. Risk assessment of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2010;16(1):33–46.
  38. 38. Valipour A, Yahaya N, Md Noor N, Antucheviciene J, Tamosaitiene J. Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: an Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2017;23(4):524–32.
  39. 39. Valipour A, Sarvari H, Tamosaitiene J. Risk assessment in PPP projects by applying different MCDM methods and comparative results analysis. Administrative Sciences. 2018;8(4):80.
  40. 40. Valipour A, Yahaya N, Md Noor N, Valipour I, Tamosaitiene J. A SWARA-COPRAS approach to the allocation of risk in water and sewerage public-private partnership projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Strategic Property Management. 2019;23(4):269–83.
  41. 41. Ehsanifar M, Hemesy M. A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model to prioritize risks in the construction process under fuzzy environment (case study: the Valiasr Street underpass project). International Journal of Construction Management. 2021;21(5):508–23.
  42. 42. KarimiAzari A, Mousavi N, Mousavi SF, Hosseini S. Risk assessment model selection in construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38(8):9105–11.
  43. 43. Taylan O, Bafail AO, Abdulaal RMS, Kabli MR. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing. 2014;17:105–16.
  44. 44. Koulinas GK, Demesouka OE, Marhavilas PK, Vavatsikos AP, Koulouriotis DE. Risk assessment using fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for sustainable engineering projects. Sustainability. 2019;11(3).
  45. 45. Wu H, Liu S, Wang J, Yang T. Construction safety risk assessment of bridges in the marine environment based on CRITIC and TOPSIS models. Journal of Coastal Research. 2020;108(sp1):206–10.
  46. 46. Koulinas GK, Demesouka OE, Sidas KA, Koulouriotis DE. A TOPSIS-risk matrix and Monte Carlo expert system for risk assessment in engineering projects. Sustainability. 2021;13(20):11277.
  47. 47. Tamosaitiene J, Khosravi M, Cristofaro M, Chan DWM, Sarvari H. Identification and prioritization of critical risk factors of commercial and recreational complex building projects: a Delphi study using the TOPSIS method. Applied Sciences-Basel. 2021;11(17):7906.
  48. 48. Zolfaghari S, Mousavi SM. Construction-project risk assessment by a new decision model based on De-Novo multi-approaches analysis and hesitant fuzzy sets under uncertainty. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2018;35(1):639–49.
  49. 49. Gul M, Ak MF, Guneri AF. Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR-based approach for safety risk assessment in mine industry. Journal of Safety Research. 2019;69:135–53. pmid:31235225
  50. 50. Mete S, Serin F, Oz NE, Gul M. A decision-support system based on pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR for occupational risk assessment of a natural gas pipeline construction. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 2019;71:102979.
  51. 51. Koc K, Gurgun AP. Assessment of readability risks in contracts causing conflicts in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2021;147(6):04021041.
  52. 52. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica. 2015;26(3):435–51.
  53. 53. Yazdani M, Abdi MR, Kumar N, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Chan FTS. Improved decision model for evaluating risks in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2019;145(5):04019024.
  54. 54. Hou W, Wang X, Zhang H, Wang J, Li L. Safety risk assessment of metro construction under epistemic uncertainty: an integrated framework using credal networks and the EDAS method. Applied Soft Computing. 2021;108:107436.
  55. 55. Li P, Liu J, Wei C, Liu J. A new EDAS method based on prospect theory for pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in selecting investment projects for highway. Kybernetes. 2021.
  56. 56. Viswanathan SK, Tripathi KK, Jha KN. Influence of risk mitigation measures on international construction project success criteria—a survey of Indian experiences. Construction Management and Economics. 2020;38(3):207–22.
  57. 57. Zaman U. Examining the effect of xenophobia on “transnational” mega construction project (MCP) success. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2020;27(5):1119–43.
  58. 58. Liu JY, Zhao XB, Yan P. Risk paths in international construction projects: Case study from Chinese contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2016;142(6):05016002.
  59. 59. Eybpoosh M, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. Identification of risk paths in international construction projects using structural equation modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2011;137(12):1164–75.
  60. 60. Kim DY, Han SH, Kim H, Park H. Structuring the prediction model of project performance for international construction projects: a comparative analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009;36(2):1961–71.
  61. 61. Chang T, Deng X, Hwang B-G, Zhao X. Political risk paths in international construction projects: case study from Chinese construction enterprises. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2018;2018:6939828.
  62. 62. Li GH, Chen C, Zhang GM, Martek I. Bid/no-bid decision factors for Chinese international contractors in international construction projects. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. 2020;27(7):1619–43.
  63. 63. Chen L, Lu QC, Zhao XJ. Rethinking the construction schedule risk of infrastructure projects based on dialectical systems and network theory. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2020;36(5):18.
  64. 64. Guan L, Liu Q, Abbasi A, Ryan MJ. Developing a comprehensive risk assessment model based on fuzzy Bayesian belief network (FBBN). Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2020;26(7):614–34.
  65. 65. Islam MS, Nepal MP, Skitmore M, Kabir G. A knowledge-based expert system to assess power plant project cost overrun risks. Expert Systems with Applications. 2019;136:12–32.
  66. 66. Islam Muhammad S, Nepal Madhav P, Skitmore M. Modified fuzzy group decision-making approach to cost overrun risk assessment of power plant projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2019;145(2):04018126.
  67. 67. Fang C, Marle F, Zio E, Bocquet J-C. Network theory-based analysis of risk interactions in large engineering projects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2012;106:1–10.
  68. 68. Fang C, Marle F. A simulation-based risk network model for decision support in project risk management. Decision Support Systems. 2012;52(3):635–44.
  69. 69. Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ, Li CZ. Investigating key challenges in major public engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns: a case study. International Journal of Project Management. 2017;35(1):78–94.
  70. 70. Wu WS, Yang CF, Chang JC, Chateau PA, Chang YC. Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2015;142:515–24.
  71. 71. Zhang Y. Selecting risk response strategies considering project risk interdependence. International Journal of Project Management. 2016;34(5):819–30.
  72. 72. Gabus A, Fontela E. World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva, Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Centre; 1972.
    • 73. Heravi G, Charkhakan MH. Predicting and tracing change-formation scenarios in construction projects using the DEMATEL technique. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2014;30(6):04014028.
    • 74. Dehdasht G, Zin RM, Ferwati MS, Abdullahi MaM, Keyvanfar A, McCaffer R. DEMATEL-ANP risk assessment in oil and gas construction projects. Sustainability. 2017;9(8):1420.
    • 75. Okudan O, Budayan C, Dikmen I. A knowledge-based risk management tool for construction projects using case-based reasoning. Expert Systems with Applications. 2021;173:114776.
    • 76. Su YK, Yang SJ, Liu KN, Hua KC, Yao Q. Developing a case-based reasoning model for safety accident pre-control and decision making in the construction industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(9):20. pmid:31035655
    • 77. Zhu F, Hu H, Xu F, Tang N. Predicting profit performance of international construction projects. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM); Macao, China: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2019. p. 445–9.
      • 78. Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management body of knowledge. 6th ed. Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute, Inc.; 2017.
        • 79. Hastak M, Shaked A. ICRAM-1: Model for international construction risk assessment. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2000;16(1):59–69.
        • 80. Han SH, Diekmann JE. Approaches for making risk-based go/no-go decision for international projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2001;127(4):300–8.
        • 81. El-Sayegh SM. Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. International Journal of Project Management. 2008;26(4):431–8.
        • 82. Fidan G, Dikmen I, Tanyer AM, Birgonul MT. Ontology for relating risk and vulnerability to cost overrun in international projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 2011;25(4):302–15.
        • 83. Xia N, Wang X, Wang Y, Yang Q, Liu X. Lifecycle cost risk analysis for infrastructure projects with modified Bayesian networks. Journal of Engineering Design and Technology. 2017;15(1):79–103.