Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 9 results ...

Faridi, A S and El-Sayegh, S M (2006) Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167-76.

Li, X, Ogier, J and Cullen, J (2006) An economic modelling approach for public sector construction workload planning. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1137-47.

Low, S P and Hongbin, J (2006) Analysing ownership, locational and internalization advantages of Chinese construction MNCs using rough sets analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1149-65.

Polat, G, Arditi, D, Ballard, G and Mungen, U (2006) Economics of on-site vs. off-site fabrication of rebar. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1185-98.

Shiers, D, Rapson, D, Roberts, C and Keeping, M (2006) Sustainable construction: the development and evaluation of an environmental profiling system for construction products. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1177-84.

Song, Y, Liu, C and Langston, C (2006) Extending construction linkage measures by the consideration of the impact of capital. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1207-16.

Tam, C M, Tong, T K L and Chan, K K (2006) Rough set theory for distilling construction safety measures. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1199-206.

Tam, V W Y, Tam, C M, Yiu, K T W and Cheung, S O (2006) Critical factors for environmental performance assessment (EPA) in the Hong Kong construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1113-23.

Wiguna, I P A and Scott, S (2006) Relating risk to project performance in Indonesian building contracts. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1125-35.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Building project; path analysis; project delay; project performance; risk management
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600799760
  • Abstract:

    A construction project is unique, specific and dynamic, and therefore projects have different levels and combinations of risks, different responses are taken to minimise those risks and different consequences affect project performance. The primary aim of this study was to analyse the impacts of perceived project risk on project performance. A path model was developed and path analysis was used to determine the relationships between risk and performance. The main survey was predominantly based on a series of interviews with project managers. A total of 22 building projects under construction were surveyed; however, only 13 projects used an ‘S’ curve to monitor their project performance. The study focused on these 13 projects and found that perceived project risk had a direct negative effect on monthly progress achievement, while monthly progress had a direct positive impact on schedule performance. Although project risk had no direct effect on schedule performance, this was influenced indirectly with monthly progress as the mediator between them. These findings indicate that the higher the project risk in a project, the greater the negative impact on monthly progress, and consequently the worse the schedule performance will be.