Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Study of Risk Indices for Infrastructure Transportation Project Using Different Methods

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to develop and compare the risk indices developed by various methods of project risk analysis like modified expected value method, fuzzy expected value method and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for an elevated metro rail corridor construction project in Bangalore, India. Risk management is increasingly a critical success factor for major infrastructure projects. It helps to identify, analyse, mitigate and control the risks associated with project cost, schedule and scope. Infrastructure projects are usually faced by different types of risks associated with different types of activities which finally lead to cost and time overrun. The main purpose of this work was to identify the risks and uncertainties associated with major activities of an infrastructure project like elevated metro rail corridor project and then analyse for risk severity and risk index through three different methods. It has been observed that fuzzy expected value method is more sensitive than the other two methods, and the computed values of risk indices predict risk severities which can be ranked according to criticality for almost all the identified activities. Thus, project authorities can easily take necessary mitigation measures to reduce the risk severities. Also, fuzzy expected value method gives good results for both small and large number of activities, whilst modified expected value method works well for up to 25 activities and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process works well for up to 20 activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Askari, H. Hokrizadeh, N. Ghane, A fuzzy AHP model in risk ranking, European. J. Bus. Manag. 6(14), 194–203 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Sarkar, G. Dutta, A framework of project risk management for the underground corridor construction of metro rail. Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. 4(1), 21–38 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Choi, H. Cho, J.W. Seo, Risk assessment methodology for underground construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130(2), 258–272 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Y.C. Kuo, S.T. Lu, Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 602–614 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Sarkar, H.B. Raghavendra, M. Singh, P. Shah, Development of risk index through modified analytic hierarchy process (MAHP) tool for elevated corridor metro rail project. NICMAR J. Constr. Manag. 31(3), 5–18 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Sarkar, M. Singh, H.B. Raghavendra, Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for development of risk index for elevated corridor metro rail project in Western India. Int. J. Decis. Sci. Risk Manag. 7(4), 281–298 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. R.W. Saaty, The AHP—what it is and how it is used. Maths Model. 9(3–5), 161–176 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. M.A. Mustafa, J.F. Al-Bahar, Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 38(1), 46–52 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Shapira, M. Simcha, AHP—based weighing of factors affecting safety on construction sites with tower cranes. J. Manag. Eng. 135(4), 307–318 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.X.W. Zou, G. Zhang, J. Wang, Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25(6), 601–614 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. A.V.O. Oliveros, A.R. Fayek, Fuzzy logic approach for activity delay analysis and scheduling updating. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131(1), 42–51 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Li, P.X.W. Zou, Fuzzy AHP—based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128(6), 1205–1209 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. M.V.K. Rao, V.S.S. Kumar, P.R. Kumar, Optimal contractor selection in construction industry: the fuzzy way. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 99(1), 67–78 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A. Majumder, T. Hazra, A. Dutta, Landfill site selection by AHP based multi-criteria decision making tool: a case study in Kolkata, India. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 98(3), 277–283 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. V. Srinivas, S. Sasmal, R. Karusala, Fuzzy based decision support system for condition assessment and rating of bridges. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 97(3), 261–272 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. P.K. Roy, P. Adhikary, A. Mazumdar, Preventive maintenance prioritization by fuzzy logic for seamless hydropower generation. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 95(2), 97–104 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. C.S.J. Eom, J.H. Paek, Risk index model for minimizing environmental disputes in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 135(1), 34–41 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. T.N. Mhatre, J.J. Thakkar, J. Maiti, Modelling critical risk factors for Indian construction project using interpretive ranking process (IRP) and system dynamics (SD). Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 34(9), 1451–1473 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. J.M. Nicholas, Project Management for Business and Technology: Principles and Practice (Pearson Prentice Hall, New Delhi, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, India

    Manvinder Singh & Debasis Sarkar

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Infrastructure Engineering and Management, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, India

    Divyarajsinh Vara

Authors
  1. Manvinder Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debasis Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Divyarajsinh Vara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debasis Sarkar.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 6.

Table 6 Sample questionnaire for major activity risks for elevated corridor metro rail project
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 7.

Table 7 Risk index scale and classification
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, M., Sarkar, D. & Vara, D. Comparative Study of Risk Indices for Infrastructure Transportation Project Using Different Methods. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 100, 275–286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0353-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0353-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation