Untitled

Construction Risk Management Decision Making
Construction Risk Management Decision Making
Understanding Current Practices
Alex C. Arthur
This edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available
at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Alex C. Arthur to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance
with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products
visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the
constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the
reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for
each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the
instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and
author have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with
respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties,
including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness fora particular purpose.
No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional
statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a
citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and author
endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations
it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation.
You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites
listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is
read. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial
damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Name: Arthur, Alex C., author.

Title: Construction risk management decision making : understanding current
practices / Alex C. Arthur.
Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2022. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021039340 (print) | LCCN 2021039341 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119693000 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119692997 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781119693024 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Construction industry–Risk management. | Decision making.
Classification: LCC HD9715.A2 A78 2022 (print) | LCC HD9715.A2 (ebook) |
DDC 624.068/1–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021039340
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021039341
Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Images: © Stitchik/Getty Images
Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my dearest mum, Mama Alice Felicia Arthur, and my beloved son,
Alex Collins Arthur Jnr (aka Xander)
Mum, the inspirational words that you said to me at the tender age of 10 have stayed with me
and given me the confidence to pursue excellence. I will always treasure those words.
Xander, you have given me a sense of accomplishment since you came into my life.
vii
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgement xiii
About the Author xv
1 Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction Project

Delivery 1
1.1 Risk Perception Categorisation 3
1.1.1 Differences in Personality Traits 3
1.1.2 Prospect Theory 3
1.1.3 Differences Between External Stakeholders and Project Team Members 4
1.1.4 Culture Theory 4
1.2 Construction Risk Data Presentation Formats 4
Part 1 Concepts 5
Overview of the Concept Chapters 7
2 Systems Analysis of the Construction Industry and Project

Delivery 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 The Construction Industry 10
2.3 The Construction Industry System 10
2.3.1 Open and Closed Systems 11
2.3.2 Construction System Objective 12
2.3.3 Construction System’s Components and Decomposition 13
2.4 Construction Delivery System 14
2.5 The Construction Project Management System; Differentiation and Risk 17
2.5.1 Systems Differentiation 17
2.5.1.1 Evolution of Specialist Construction Disciplines 21
2.5.1.2 Isolated Training Programmes for the Different Specialist Disciplines 22
2.5.1.3 Project Team Members from Different Organisations and Internal
Subgroups 22
viii Contents
2.5.1.4 Differences in Personal Objectives of Project Team Members 23

2.5.1.5 Environmental Changes 23
2.5.2 The Link Between Differentiation and Risk 24
2.5.2.1 Consolidated Differentiated Specialist Groupings 24
2.5.2.2 Failure to Integrate Objectives of Additional Differentiated Specialist Roles 24
2.5.2.3 Sudden and Prolonged Environmental Changes 24
2.6 Construction System’s Environment and Risk 25
2.6.1 Political Functional Subsystem 26
2.6.2 Economic Functional Subsystem 26
2.6.3 Socio-cultural Functional Subsystem 27
2.6.4 Technological Functional Subsystem 27
2.6.5 Ecological Functional Subsystem 27
2.6.6 Legal Functional Subsystem 28
2.7 Summary 28
3 The Concept of Risk 31

3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Risk Conceptualisation 31
3.3 Risk Etymology 32
3.4 Risk Conceptual Interpretations 33
3.4.1 Realist Interpretation 33
3.4.2 Psychometric Viewpoint 34
3.4.3 Sociological Interpretation 35
3.4.4 Real and Socially Constructed Viewpoint 36
3.4.5 Edgework Viewpoint 36
3.5 Psychometric and Sociological Risk Perspective Application in This Book 36
3.6 Summary 38
4 Construction Risk Management 41

4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Changing Perspectives on Organisational Risk Management Strategies 42
4.3 The Construction Risk Management Process 43
4.3.1 Risk Identification Subsystem 44
4.3.2 Risk Analysis Sub-system 44
4.3.3 Risk Response Sub-system 45
4.3.4 Risk Review Sub-system 45
4.4 Construction Risk Management Approaches 46
4.5 Summary 49
5 Construction Risk Management Decision-Making 51

5.1 Introduction 51
5.2 The Two Systems of Thinking and Decision-Making 52
5.2.1 Quick Decision-Making 53
5.2.2 Gradual Decision-Making 54
5.3 The Psychology of Perception 55
5.3.1 Risk Perception 56
5.3.2 Formation of Risk Perceptions 57
Contents ix
5.3.3 Impact of Affective Heuristics on Cognitive Reasoning 59

5.3.4 Construction Risk Data Presentation Formats and Affective Heuristics 60
5.4 Risk Management Decision Making Under Intuition 61
5.5 Differentiated Risk Perceptions and Intuitive Construction Risk Management
Practices 64
5.6 Summary 68
Summary of the Part 1 71
Part 2 Case Studies 75
Overview of the Part 2 77
6 Research Proposal, Methodology, and Design 81

6.1 Introduction 81
6.2 Research Proposal 81
6.2.1 Research Propositions 84
6.2.1.1 Proposition 1 84
6.3 Research Philosophical Traditions, Axioms, and Methodology 85
6.3.1 Phase 1: The Researcher’s Philosophical Stance 86
6.3.2 Phase 2: Research Theoretical Perspectives 86
6.3.3 Phase 3: Research Investigative Strategies 86
6.3.4 Phase 4: Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 87
6.3.5 Phase 5: Demonstrating Quality of the Empirical Evidence 88
6.4 Summary 88
7 Data Presentation 89
7.1 Introduction 89
7.2 Case Study Project 1 89
7.2.1 Case Study 1 Participants 90
7.2.2 Case Study 1 Findings 91
7.2.2.1 Case 1 – Research Proposition 1: Findings 91
7.2.2.4 Summary of Case 1 Findings 146
7.6 Summary 158
x Contents
8 Application 161
8.1 Introduction 161
8.2 Research Proposition 1: Discussions 161
8.2.1 Risk Perception Categorisation on the Typical Construction Project Risk Events
at the Different Project Delivery Phases 162
8.2.1.1 Pre-construction Phase 162
8.2.1.2 Construction Phase 163
8.2.2 Risk Perception Categorisation on the Typical Construction Project Risk Events
Under Different Project Settings 164
8.3.1 Intuitive Risk Management Decision Processing from ‘Grounded’
Heuristics 169
8.3.2 Susceptibility of Intuitive Decision Processing to Manipulation 173
8.3.3 Psychological Difficulties in Intuitive Risk Identification of Events Outside the
Scope of a Specialist Role 173
8.4 Research Proposition 3: Findings 179
8.4.1 Two Strands of Intuitive Construction Risk Management Systems 180
8.4.2 Theoretically Incompatible Risk Management Practices 184
8.4.3 Intuitive Processing of Statistics and Probability Data 186
8.4.4 Comparative Analysis of Intuitive Processing of Quantitative Risk Assessment
Versus Qualitative Risk Assessment 189
8.4.5 Intuitive Processing of Probability Predictions of Emotive Events 192
8.5 Summary 196
8.5.1 Research Proposition 1 196
9 Conclusions 201
9.1 Summary 201
9.2 Rethinking Construction Risk Management Practices 205
Appendix A Research Design – Theory, Methodology, and Field Questions 207

Appendix B Case 2 Data Presentation 225
Appendix C Case 3 Data Presentation 279
Appendix D Case 4 Data Presentation 335
References 391
Index 401
xi
Preface
There are extensive psychometric research and publications that confirm the influence of
behavioural stimulus in intuitive risk management decision-making systems (Kahneman
and Tversky 1982a; Tversky and Kahneman 2002; Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic 2010;
Kahneman 2011). The existing construction management publications however appear
limited in exploring the behavioural patterns underpinning the high incidence of intuitive
construction risk management practices. The purpose of this book therefore is to address
the data gap, by extending current empirical and analytical evidence from systems thinking
and behavioural sciences into construction risk management research, to strengthen their
theoretical basis and further illuminate emerging theoretical extensions.
The empirical findings from four case qualitative research methodology have revealed
substantial evidence in support of three theoretical propositions: risk perception categorisa-
tion within the construction project delivery system reflecting the structure of the differen-
tiated specialist roles, psychological difficulties associated with intuitive risk identification
of events outside the scope of our heuristics, and incompatibilities of mixing decision pro-
cessing approaches and data presentation formats from different systems of thinking and
decision-making.
The subsequent analytical discussions have highlighted the need to rethink construction
risk management practices, by introducing behavioural science training to construction
project management students and professionals. This will equip them with the requisite
competencies to identify and harmonise the different affective heuristics, as well as the
technical variations of the specialist roles involved in project delivery. There is also the
need to consider revising construction risk data presentation from statistics and probability
to qualitative formats to complement the current intuitive construction risk management
decision-making practices.
xiii
Acknowledgement
I am thankful to God for granting me wisdom and insight throughout the book project.
I would also like to pay tribute to my former doctoral supervisor, the late Professor
Emeritus Stephen D. Pryke, for his tremendous influence on the development of my initial
research ideas. I must also mention the support received from the lecturers and staff of
the Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management, University College London,
especially Professor Hedley Smyth.
Furthermore, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my dear parents, Mr and Mrs
Arthur, my wife, Mrs Rubina F. Arthur, my beloved son, Alex Collins Arthur Jr, and all my
siblings for their love and support.
Lastly, I would like to thank the directors and staff of the organisations that participated
in the data collection processes, for the Part 2 case studies.
xv
About the Author
Dr Alex C. Arthur, BSc MSc PhD FRICS MAPM is a chartered project management
surveyor with more than 14 years’ experience working in multidisciplinary practices. He is
a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and an examiner of their
Assessment of Professional Competency (APC) programme. He is also a member of the
Association of Project Managers.
Dr Arthur is a certified professional teacher and postdoctoral researcher who possesses
extensive research and industrial expertise within the United Kingdom and other interna-
tional construction industries. He has published a number of articles, journals, and con-
tributions to books on systems thinking and analysis, intuitive decision-making, intuitive
construction risk management systems, construction risk management decision-making
systems, partnering procurement, development control, and planning systems.
1
Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction

Project Delivery
Hazard and uncertainty have always been a part of human condition (Lock 2003; Beck
2007). The early humans at pre-civilization faced the daily challenge of protecting them-
selves against attacks from wild animals and hostile tribes. The modern society may have
developed remedies against those threats, but there are equally other factors that threaten
our persistence, like the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The emergence of vaccines has pro-
vided glimmers of hope that we may be heading towards the end of the pandemic. The fact
however remains that there will always be other natural and social menace that challenges
human survival.
Social hazards and uncertainties were conventionally defined and managed by the reli-
gious and political leaders occupying the top of the vertical social structure. This was done
through the reliance on guided morality, superstition, taboos, and rituals (Japp and Kusche
2008). The contemporary transition of multiple differentiated functional subsystems replac-
ing the stratified vertical system has expanded social risk communication into the public
realm (Japp and Kusche 2008). According to Loosemore et al. (2006), the increased public
awareness on the risk variables associated with both personal and corporate activities and
increased media reportage on the impact of risk events have accounted for the heighten
discussions on risk and influenced public attitude to risk management. A failed suicide
bomb attack in which the perpetuators planned to detonate liquid explosives on several
aircrafts traveling from Heathrow Airport to the United States of America in 2006 led to
public discussions on the risk posed by liquids on aircrafts, resulting in a European Union
imposition of restrictions on carrying liquids on aircrafts, which subsequently has become
a world-wide ban. The use of Blackberry Instant Messenger system to elude police intelli-
gence by the perpetuators of the August 2011 British riots triggered public discussions on
the security risk associated with smart phones (The Economic Times 2011).
In the context of construction delivery, the catastrophic demise of a 6-year-old girl at Car-
nival Place, Moss Side, Manchester, United Kingdom on 28 June 2010, and a 5-year-old girl
at Brook Court, Bridgend, South Wales, United Kingdom on 3 July 2010, after they became
trapped in electric gates, coupled with two other near misses in July and September 2010,
ignited public debates on the safety of electric door entry systems. The result was the for-
mation of the Gate Safe charity in 2010, to promote safety guidance for the construction
of automatic and manual gates (Gate Safe 2020). The 2017 Grenfell Tower fire incidence
in the United Kingdom has also stimulated public discussion on the fire safety risks asso-
ciated with high rise buildings (Arthur 2017). The immediate impact has been a public
Construction Risk Management Decision Making: Understanding Current Practices, First Edition. Alex C. Arthur.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2 1 Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction Project Delivery
inquiry and enactment of changes to the statutory building regulations. The heightened
public risk communications have cumulatively increased construction clients’ awareness
of the typical industry risk events, with the expectation of their management through the
project delivery processes. The control of project risk is now seen as being synonymous with
the control of the project itself (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Abderisak and Lindahl 2015), which
in effect establishes a direct relationship between effective risk management systems and
project success (Cagno et al. 2007).
Risk as explained by Loosemore et al. (2006) is an uncertain event that might occur in the
future, to potentially affect an interest or objective (usually adversely), although the precise
likelihood or impact may be indeterminate. The theoretical emphasis is the relationship
between risk and uncertainty and probability judgement. It also emphases risk as a future
potential occurrence with the propensity to impact on an objective or interest.
Loosemore (2006) has also described risk management as a field of competing ideologies
between the homeostatic and callibrationist perspectives (Hood and Jones 1996). The home-
ostatic perspective proposes scientific approach to risk management through structured risk
identification and rational decision-making, whilst the callibrationist viewpoint believes
in human subjectivity in risk interpretation, identification, and treatment (Loosemore
2006). Another significant ideology of the callibrationist view is the subjectivity and biases
of the personal perceptions responsible for guiding the risk identification and treatment
processes (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Slovic 2010;
Kahneman 2011). Japp and Kusche (2008) theorisation of social construction of risk
through the communicative and decision-making processes of multiple differentiated
functional subsystems and the ensuing analytical variability in social risk interpretations
give the callibrationist approach an edge over the homeostatic method in the management
of risk within the contemporary era.
This book has therefore adopted theories and concepts from systems thinking and
behaviour sciences in demonstrating the social construction of risk (Zinn 2008) and the
subjectivity of risk perceptions (Slovic 2010; Kahneman 2011). The principles of general
systems theory (Bertalanffy 1968, 2015) have enabled conceptual analysis of the risk
management subsystem within the construction project delivery system. The concept
of systems differentiation (Walker 2015) and the existing empirical evidence on the
psychology of perception (Slovic 2010; Kahneman 2011) have been applied in analysing
the pattern of risk perceptions emanating from the different specialist roles responsible
for design development and risk management decision-making, including the project
manager, contracts manager, technical manager, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor,
and client. The emphasis on design development is due to the close relationship between
design concepts and the generation of project risk events (Latham 1994; Egan 1998; Lock
2003; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003). According to Bea (1994), the bulk of the initial project design
errors later results in risk events, with approximately 42% and 50% actualising during the
construction and operational phases, respectively.
The ensuing analytical review has resulted in the discovery of a new theoretical interpre-
tation for risk perception categorisation based on the differences in affective heuristics of
the different specialist roles within the construction project delivery system. The theoreti-
cal evidence has been further confirmed through a four case qualitative empirical research
investigation covered in the Part 2. There has been further theoretical discussion on the risk
1.1 Risk Perception Categorisation 3
management decision-making subsystem within the construction project delivery system,

to examine the impact of mixing tools and techniques from different systems of thinking
and decision-making (Walker 2015; Kahneman 2011). The resulting analytical review and
subsequent empirical findings have also confirmed the psychological difficulties in mixing
risk management approaches and data presentation formats, from the rational and intuitive
decision-making subsystems.
1.1 Risk Perception Categorisation

The need for a robust explanation for the differences in risk perceptions becomes imperative
when we consider the contemporary construction management research findings which
reveals high incidence of intuitive risk management practices (Akintoye and Macleod 1997;
Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010), fuelled by perceptions (Slovic et al.
2010). The inherent subjectivities of perceptions (Bateman et al. 2010) suggests that a failure
to adequately identify the sources and structure of the risk perception components within
a construction project delivery system may affect the effectiveness of the risk identification
and treatment processes, and ultimately, project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno
et al. 2007).
The quest for a novel theoretical explanation for risk perception categorisation also stems
from the fact that the present theories and concepts which discusses the subject, includ-
ing differences in personality traits (Weber and Milliman 1997; Smith et al. 2006; Chauvin
et al. 2007), prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011), differences
between project team members and external stakeholders (Loosemore et al. 2006), and cul-
ture theory (Thompson et al. 1990) have been criticised for lacking adequate explanation for
the complex risk perception categorisations within the internal structure of the construc-
tion project delivery system.
1.1.1 Differences in Personality Traits

Weber and Milliman (1997), Smith et al. (2006), and Chauvin et al. (2007) argue that differ-
ences in risk perceptions arises from the differences in individual personality traits. Other
research findings have, however, identified inconsistencies in risk perception categorisa-
tion for the same individual for studies where different methods were used (Slovic 1964;
MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990), and also studies where the same method was applied
under different circumstances (Schoemaker 1990; MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990).
1.1.2 Prospect Theory

Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011) proposes that people gen-
erally are risk averse with a preference for prospects that offer certainty in gain, and a dislike
for mixed prospects composed of probabilities for gains and losses. Prospect theory has been
criticised for failing to explain the factors which influences preference reversals (Slovic and
Lichtenstein 1983, p. 582) and the discrepancies in an individual’s risk preference under
domains of certainty, and probability, experienced in similar risky scenarios (Schoemaker
1990).
4 1 Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction Project Delivery
1.1.3 Differences Between External Stakeholders and Project Team Members

Loosemore et al. (2006) identifies differences in risk perceptions at the construction project
delivery system between the external stakeholders and the project team members. The
broad categorisation appears too simplistic and falls short of an explanation for the dif-
ferences in perceptions within the project team and external stakeholder subsystems. The
fact that in practice, final risk management analysis and decision-making are executed
by project team members and not external stakeholders (Lyons and Skitmore 2004) may
explain the differences in exposure and perceptions.
1.1.4 Culture Theory

Culture theory proposes that people form groups based on common objectives, values, and
perceptions (Thompson et al. 1990). The differences in risk perceptions therefore exist along
the institutions and associations within the social setup. Kamper (2000) has, however, criti-
cised culture theory for failing to explain the complex internal structures of the institutions
and subgroups within the larger society.
1.2 Construction Risk Data Presentation Formats
The theoretical evidence on systems differentiation (Walker 2015) and systems decom-
position processes (Carmichael 2006) confirms the presence of micro differences in
objectives within systems components. This in turn suggests differences in how the
internal parts experience and respond to the impact from their environmental forces
(Loosemore et al. 2006). The implications being that mixing tools and techniques from
different decision-making systems, as evident in the present construction risk management
practice of intuitive processing of statistical and probability data (Akintoye and Macleod
1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010; Bowden et al. 2001; Lock
2003) may introduce conflicting responses which may impede the required collaborative
transformational processes, thereby producing systemic errors (Kahneman 2011). The
ensuing theoretical issues and psychological concerns have been analysed in the Part 1 and
further validated through the case study empirical investigations presented in the Part 2.
5
Part 1
Concepts
7
Overview of the Concept Chapters
Figure 1 provides an overview of the Part 1 (Chapters 2–5), which discusses the key concepts
and theories covered in the book.
Chapter 2
Takes a social construction risk approach through the application of systems thinking
and analysis to model the construction industry: structure, internal project delivery
and management processes, and interactions with the wider environment, leading to
risk generation.
Chapter 3
Discusses the concept of risk, including risk etymology, and the different conceptual
interpretations of risk. Concludes with an extensive review of the sociological and
psychological risk perspectives applied in the book.
Chapter 4
Discusses the changing perspectives on organisational risk management strategies,

the construction risk management process and subsystems, and the construction risk
management approaches
Chapter 5
Applies the psychometric risk conception to discuss the different systems of thinking
and decision making, the psychology of perceptions including risk perception
formation; impact of affect heuristics on cognitive reasoning; construction risk data
presentation formats and affective heuristics. Further discussions on intuitive
decision processing including the theoretical issues associated with the intuitive
processing of statistical and probability data. Concludes with a review of the
prevailing theories on risk perception categorisation, leading to the proposition of a
novel theory, the differentiated risk perceptions
Figure 1 Overview of the Part 1 (concept chapters).
9
Systems Analysis of the Construction Industry

and Project Delivery
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 begins the conceptual review. Taking a social construction approach to risk inter-
pretation, the principles of systems thinking and analysis are applied in discussing the con-
struction industry; internal structure, transformational processes, and the interactions with
the wider environment, leading to risk generation. The chapter starts with an exposition of
the UK construction industry, its contribution to the national economy and government’s
aspiration to reduce project capital cost, whole life costing, and construction period. The
government has also set targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emission in the built envi-
ronment, and the trade gap between export and importation of construction products and
materials. The high standard industry aspirations call for efficiencies in the project man-
agement and operational systems, including risk management practices.
The chapter then proceeds to review some key principles of general system theory includ-
ing open systems whose operations involve interactions with the other systems and subsys-
tems within the wider industry environment, and closed systems which are self-containing
entities, able to function independent of external influences. The constant interactions of
the human and material resources within the construction industry accordingly confirms
its classification as an open system. There is also theoretical review of systems objectives
which defines the required inputs, transformational processes, and outputs. The subse-
quent analytical review of the internal structure of the construction system, using the con-
cept of systems decomposition, reveals the core components comprising of different special-
ist roles, department, organisations, and sectors providing the human resources; different
operational phases and stages for the product delivery; and different tools and techniques
applied in the conversion of construction materials and resources into the final products.
The theoretical review continues with the examination of the construction delivery sys-
tem through the RIBA Plan of Work 2020 stages. The input of a stage is generated from the
output of the preceding stage and the wider construction industry environment. The trans-
formational processes apply construction industry tools and techniques to convert received
inputs into expected outputs, for the subsequent delivery stages and the wider construction
industry environment.
The construction delivery system involves constant interactions of different specialist
roles with different functionalities. The failure to carefully coordinate the multifaceted
10 2 Systems Analysis of the Construction Industry and Project Delivery
communications often leads to cross-purpose working, and subsequently, inhibition

to the achievement of systems’ objectives. The concepts of systems differentiation and
decomposition have been utilised in a theoretical review of the ramifications, which also
establishes the relevance of the project management role. The subsequent discussions
analyse how the factors responsible for systems differentiation also introduces variability
into the construction management and operational structures. The failure to manage these
differences often results in the creation of risk events.
The chapter ends with an evaluation of the construction system’s environmental
forces comprising the political functional subsystem, economic functional subsystem,
socio-cultural functional subsystem, technological functional subsystem, ecological
functional subsystem, and legal functional subsystem. The bilateral interactions between
the differentiated functional environmental forces and the construction system, which is
also made up of differentiated specialist roles, often result in the social construction of
risk. This manifests in the form of differences in risk interpretations and responses of the
construction project coalition.
2.2 The Construction Industry

The construction industry forms the bedrock of most national economies. The industry is
responsible for the construction, repair, and management of building stocks and associated
activities including civil engineering constructions and specialist installations.
The United Kingdom’s Office of National Statistics publication released on 18 October
2019 reported 325 736 registered firms in the construction industry (Allcoat 2018). The
Industrial activities excluding the professional services firms contributed £117 billion and
2.4 million jobs to the national economy in 2019, which represented 6% of the national
gross domestic product (GDP) and 6.6% of all employment, respectively (Rhodes 2019).
The industry received £61.7 billion new orders in 2018 comprising of £21.6 billion (35%)
for housing projects, £15.2 billion (25%) for commercial projects, £11.5 billion (19%) for
infrastructure projects, £8.2 billion (13%) for public projects excluding housing and infras-
tructure, and £5.1 billion (8%) for industrial projects (Rhodes 2019).
The UK governments’ policy aspirations for the construction industry as expressed in
the Construction 2025 policy document includes 33% reduction in project capital cost and
whole life cost; 50% reduction in construction period for both new build and refurbish-
ment of the existing building stock; 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emission in the built
environment; and 50% reduction in the trade gap between the export and importation of
construction products and materials (Rhodes 2019). It is obvious that achievement of the
policy aspirations will require project management and operational efficiencies including
robust risk management systems.
2.3 The Construction Industry System

Construction delivery involves the management of human and material resources to pro-
duce houses, schools, industries, hospitals, public buildings, roads, and bridges to serve
human needs. There are also statutory and operational policies that regulate construction
activities. The construction delivery process goes through different stages where human
and material resources are transformed into finished construction products. This has led to
some construction management researchers such as Walker (2007, 2015) arguing similari-
ties between the construction delivery process and the principles of systems thinking and
analysis.
A system is a set of related variables which function together as a group, and in the
process, displays the prime attributes of the collective group instead of the individual com-
ponents (Checkland 1999). Systems thinking and analysis on the other hand is an inves-
tigative approach to studying a subject by adopting the principles of classical natural sci-
ences (Checkland 1999). The underlining principles originated from the biological sciences,
through the discovery of the general systems theory in the 1960s (Walker 2007, 2015; Berta-
lanffy 1968, 2015). This occurred at a time when Ludwig Von Bertalanffy was investigating
the linkages between the different science disciplines, which hitherto were studied as dis-
tinct subjects. Bertalanffy has suggested that the application of the principles of systems
thinking pre-dates the discovery of the general systems theory, and may have been applied
in earlier studies including Paracelsus’ research in medicine, and Leibniz’s studies in philos-
ophy, although the term ‘system’ may not have been specifically mentioned. Arthur (2020)
has also argued the application of systems analysis in the Christian Holy Bible narratives,
as seen in Apostle Paul’s comparison of the Christian mission to the corporate functioning
of the different human body parts (Romans 12:4–8; 1 Corinthians 12:12–31). The ideolo-
gies of systems thinking and analysis are not only limited to the classical natural sciences
but could also be applied in other disciplines to investigate the networks and interactions
between the sub-modules. Checkland (1999) has therefore suggested that systems thinking
and analysis should be interpreted as a methodology for studying a subject, rather than as
a distinct discipline.
2.3.1 Open and Closed Systems

Systems are categorised as ‘closed’ or ‘opened’ depending on how they relate to their sur-
rounding (Bertalanffy 1968, 2015). Closed systems analytically are self-containing, as they
do not respond to forces within their surrounding (Cole 2004; Cole and Kelly 2020). The
implication being, they are unable to accommodate environmental changes which conflicts
with their design and internal processes. Walker (2015) argues that machines are closed
systems in that they are designed with specific components and prescribed functionalities
independent of the changes in their environment. Contemporary technological innova-
tions, however, have enabled some machines with in-built regulatory mechanisms to adjust
their operations in line with the changing conditions in their environment. An example
is the thermostatic controls in fridges which are programmed to regulate the machines’
internal temperature based on their external heat condition. In practice, living subjects do
interact with their environment (Walker 2015) implying that, the concept of a closed sys-
tem exists more in the rhetoric rather than in reality. A closed system’s analytical approach
to studying a subject focuses mainly on the network of interactions within the internal
structure without exploring the linkages and communications between the subject and its
environment (Walker 2015; Bertalanffy 2015).
System environment
Input from the Open system’s Output

environment transformational
processes
Figure 2.1 Open system model. Sources: Adapted from Cole (2004), Cole and Kelly (2020), and
Walker (2015).
An open system on the other hand is active and adaptive to changes within its environ-
ment (Cole 2004; Cole and Kelly 2020; Wetherbe and Vitalari 1994). Cole and Kelly (2020)
has suggested the key characteristics of an open system as receiving inputs or energy from its
surrounding, converting the inputs into outputs, and subsequently discharging the output
back into its environment.
An open system’s analytical approach to studying a subject incorporates both the inter-
actions within the system’s internal structure and processes and the networks and link-
ages within the wider environment (Walker 2015). The networks and interactions result in
the conversion of inputs from the environment through the system’s internal transforma-
tion processes into outputs to serve the other systems within the wider environment (see
Figure 2.1).
In practice, living subjects exhibit open system characteristics by taking their energy from
their environment and using their internal transformational processes to convert into out-
puts to serve the other systems within their environment (Mullins 2005). An example of an
open system is automobile vehicles that receive inputs in the form of fuel, lubricants, and
coolant from the petroleum and vehicle consumable industries, and then converts through
their internal mechanisms into energy to propel the vehicles in transporting human and
other resources from the other systems within its environment. Likewise, the construc-
tion industry as an open system receives inputs in the form of specialist skills and material
resources from its environment, and then converts through the application of industry man-
agerial and operational principles, into construction outputs such as residential dwellings,
offices, industries, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, commercial outlets, and airports, for
the benefit of the other systems within the wider environment. Wetherbe and Vitalari (1994)
have argued that few systems in reality behave exclusively as opened or closed. Most systems
function in a continuum between the two extremes.
2.3.2 Construction System Objective

According to Walker (2015), every system has an objective which describes what it exists
to achieve. A system’s objective therefore can be likened to a ship compass responsible for
navigating the ship’s nautical charts from the departure port to the destination. And as a
navigator, any new information which cause changes in the nautical positioning will result
in a corresponding change in direction. This suggests that objectives rather than being static
are dynamic and responsive to changes in system’s environmental forces (Winch 2010).
Construction systems’ objectives similarly are responsible for directing the integrated
human and material resources from project inception, through the different transforma-
tional phases, to the desired outputs. Cole (2004) has suggested differences in construction
systems objectives at the strategic and operational levels. The strategic objectives define
the broad overall organisational mission statements and long-term business strategic aims,
whilst the operational objectives outline the individual project expected output (Carmichael
2006).
Construction systems’ objectives also function as parameters for monitoring and
appraising performance at both the strategic and operational levels (Lock 2003). Appraisal
at the operational level occurs at the interim delivery phases and overall completion
stage. Project execution outputs are constantly evaluated against the contemporaneous
project objectives at the different delivery phases, before progressing to the next phase.
When a project achieves completion, the final product is assessed against the project
brief to establish success or failure. The effectiveness of a construction system’s objective
in assessing project performance largely depend on it being clearly defined, to avoid
ambiguity in interpretation and application.
Walker (2015) has argued that, construction project objectives are generated as a
response to demands from client organisational stakeholders, comprising customers,
employees, shareholders, suppliers, communities, and related statutory authorities. Cova
and Salle (2006) have also classified organisational stakeholder groups into business
actors and non-business actors. The business actors consist of consultants, agents, project
financers, sub-consultants, and sub-contractors. The non-business actors are also made up
of government organisations regulating construction activities, construction trade unions
and pressure groups, syndicates, lobbies, and activists.
The analysis of stakeholder demands within the framework of client organisational busi-
ness objectives usually results in responses ranging from construction of a new project,
refurbishment or extension of an existing construction asset, outsourcing additional build-
ing space through direct purchase, leasing, or renting (Winch 2010). This applies to both
clients whose core business activities involves the provision of construction products and
also clients who require construction products to support their core business activities. As
an illustration, a residential property developer will most likely commence a new develop-
ment when there is evidence of demand for housing within its areas of business activities,
either in the form of increased applicants on its waiting list or improved economic activities
which draw in additional potential customers. In the same way, a supermarket will extend
or build a bigger shop when there is increase in its customer base.
2.3.3 Construction System’s Components and Decomposition

An open system comprises individual interdependent parts which are referred to as subsys-
tems. It is possible to analyse construction system components from the broader industry
organisational level, where the parts comprise of contributors from client, contractor, and
consultant organisations. Similarly, we can analyse the construction systems components at
the project organisational level in the context of the tasks and processes involved in project
delivery (Walker 2015).
According to Carmichael (2006), open systems exist within their wider environment as
subsystems interacting with allied subsystems to define the boundaries of their superior
main system. The multiple related open systems subsequently become the components
of the superior main system. Applying the principles of systems thinking correspondingly
enables analysis of the components of the subsystems, as sub-subsystems with parts inter-
acting to define the boundaries of the respective subsystems. The micro parts can be further
analysed as sub-sub-subsystems also exhibiting general systems properties. The process
could be continued in a linear progression to give an analysis of systems decomposition.
The application of systems decomposition at the construction industry organisational
level as depicted in Figure 2.2 identifies the different client, contractor, and consultant
organisations, which collectively forms the construction industry’s system. Within the three
broad classifications are subsystems which could be categorised based on their geographical
locations, scope of core business activities, type of business ownership, level of experience,
and type of services and products. Narrowing it down to the individual companies and firms
are devolved organisational structures in the form of departments and teams which could be
analysed as sub-subsystems. The departments and teams further devolve into lower organ-
isational structures of programmes and projects. The multiplicity of categorisations within
the client, professional consultancy, and building contractor organisations and the ensuing
lower tier micro systems, coupled with the varied interactions existing between the compo-
nents, suggest the construction systems decomposition analysis could be complex than the
simplistic model depicted in Figure 2.2.
Systems decomposition at the construction project organisational level can also be anal-
ysed through the categorisation of project objectives as subsystems. The various transfor-
mational processes and tasks responsible for the achievement of the different objectives
become sub-subsystems. The required activities within the various transformational pro-
cesses and tasks subsequently become the sub-sub-subsystem.
2.4 Construction Delivery System

The construction system goes through various processes, in converting inputs received from
the environment into outputs which are released back to the wider environment, to be
used as inputs by other systems (Walker 2007). The RIBA Plan of Work 2020 identifies
eight stages of construction delivery including strategic definition, preparation and briefing,
concept design, special coordination, technical design, manufacturing and construction,
handover, and use (RIBA 2020).
The first stage of the RIBA Plan of Works is strategic definition, which involves the
preparation of outline client requirements. The key inputs at this stage are the client organ-
isation’s mission and vision statements responsible for defining their business activities.
The development of a project business case serves as a guide in evaluating alternative
development proposals, to ascertain viability in the context of the defined outline client
requirements. The options appraisal may also include site appraisals and desk analysis of
the project benefits and constraints, potential risk events, and project budget, leading to
the establishment of a favourable development proposal.
2.4 Construction Delivery System 15
Construction industry system
Professional Building
consultancy contractors’
firms subsystem
subsystem
Client’s organisations subsystem
Residential sub-subsystem Commercial/
retail sub-
Firm A Firm B subsystem
Firm C
Road and
bridges sub-
Leisure sub- subsystem
subsystem
Firm A
Department
B
Department A
P2
P1
PP2
PP1
P3 Department
C
P = Programmes
PP = Projects
Figure 2.2 Systems decomposition. Source: Adapted from Carmichael (2006).

The second stage of the RIBA Plan of Works centres on the preparation of project brief.
This involves feasibility studies of the favourable development proposal established in
the preceding stage, using site survey results and existing documentation. The client may
appoint a design team comprising of architectural and engineering firms to develop design
proposals. The stage output in the form of a project brief outlines the key project outputs
including design quality aspirations, agreed budget, project delivery programme, and
project execution plan.
The next stage is the development of architectural design concepts based on the project
brief developed at the second stage. The project design team comprising of architects and
engineers produces architectural design concepts integrating strategic engineering and
statutory design requirements. The design concepts must also align with the project budget
and the strategic quality and spatial aspirations established as part of the project brief.
Subsequently, the design concepts are reviewed with the client and project stakeholders
to establish and agree the design elements that deviates from the project brief. The stage
outputs include agreed architectural design concepts and schedule of derogations, agreed
revised project delivery programme and budget.
The fourth stage involves the development of architectural and engineering informa-
tion including spatial coordination. The key activities at this stage are design development
and reviews including engineering analysis, with corresponding project cost evaluations to
result in spatially coordinated designs which meets the project budget, quality standards,
and delivery programme. Planning application for the delivery of the project is usually sub-
mitted at this stage. Also depending on the chosen procurement route, the client may enter
into a pre-construction services agreement with a building contractor, where a two-stage
procurement approach is applied.
The fifth stage termed technical design, involves further development of the spatial coor-
dinated designs for the construction of the project. The design development at this stage
comprises architectural and engineering technical designs and integration of specialist
building services design information. Project procurement in the form of preparation and
issue of invitation for tender to appoint a building contractor is undertaken at this stage.
There is also submission of design information for building regulations application, dis-
charge of reserved pre-commencement planning conditions, preparation of construction
phase plan, and submission of F-10 to the Health and Safety Executive, in line with the
requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
The next stage termed manufacturing and construction is where the actual site construc-
tion activities take place. The core tasks at this stage include finalisation of site logistics
arrangement, manufacturing and construction of the building system, monitoring of the
site works against the project quality standards and programme, installation and commis-
sion of specialist building systems, compliance and discharge of reserved building regu-
lations and planning conditions, compliance of the Construction (Design and Manage-
ment) Regulations 2015 including the maintenance of appropriate construction health and
safety plan, collation of operational and maintenance manual for submission at the project
handover.
The seventh stage is when the site construction works are completed, and the project is
handed over to the client. The handover activities include inspection and rectification of
any defect, submission of project operational and maintenance manual, establishment of

aftercare defect management system, and review of project performance.
The last stage of the RIBA Plan of Works is the use of the completed project, which com-
mences after the handover stage. This involves the implementation of facilities and asset
management systems. There is also post-occupation review of the building performance
against the project quality standards.
Table 2.1 is a systems’ analysis of the construction delivery process using the RIBA Plan
of Work 2020 stages, as outlined above. Each stage receives input in the form of the output
of the preceding stage and the superior main system’s environment. This is then processed
through the interactions of the human and material resources within the stage, to produce
output for the succeeding stage.
2.5 The Construction Project Management System;

Differentiation and Risk
The construction project management system is responsible for integrating the different
specialist roles involved in project delivery. It derives input from theoretical concepts
developed through empirical and analytical studies of the industry performance, plus
best practice operational principles. The transformational phase entails the application
of management processes including planning, organisation, production, marketing, risk
management, and control of the tasks and processes at the different RIBA work plan stages.
Figure 2.3 presents a hypothetical illustration of the construction project management
system involved in the delivery of a residential development.
2.5.1 Systems Differentiation

The conceptualisation of the construction project management system is linked to the
impact of systems decomposition and differentiation (see Figure 2.4). Drawing from the
previous theoretical review on systems decomposition (see Section 2.3.3), we can analyse
the construction delivery phases and processes as subsystems with different objectives.
The principles of general system theory suggest that the different parts of a subsystem
will display shared identity in functionality and purpose, which will be different from
the micro-objectives of the internal components of the other subsystems within the main
system (Bertalanffy 1968, 2015; Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998). Therefore, the more sub-
systems a system has, the greater the number of different interconnected micro identities
will be exhibited, leading to systems differentiation.
According to Walker (2015), differentiation in the construction industry manifests along
the lines of the differences in intellectual and emotional orientation among the specialist
contributors to a project. It arises from the impact of complex environmental uncertainties,
which causes systems components to subdivide into additional specialist groups, to ensure
their survival against emerging environmental threats, or take advantage of new potentials
created by environmental forces.
The micro-differences within the various construction specialist roles result in differ-
ences in how they interpret and respond to changes within the construction environment.
Table 2.1 Construction delivery system.
RIBA Plan
of Work 2020 Input Transformation Output
0 – Strategic Client Preparation of business case to guide Preparation of

definition organisation’s the appraisal of alternative outline client
mission and development options requirements
vision
statements
1 – Preparation Outline client Feasibility studies of the favourable Project brief
and briefing requirements delivery option
2 – Concept Project brief Production of architectural design Architectural
design concepts integrating strategic design concepts
engineering, and statutory design
requirements
3 – Spatial Architectural Design development and reviews Architectural
coordination design concepts including engineering analysis, with and engineering
corresponding project cost information
evaluations to result in spatially including spatial
coordinated designs which meets coordination
the project budget, quality standards
and delivery programme; planning
application
4 – Technical Architectural Architectural and engineering Detailed
design and engineering technical designs and integration of construction
information specialist building services design drawings,
including spatial information; project procurement; building
coordination building regulations application, contract
discharged of pre-commencement
planning conditions, Construction
(Design and Management)
Regulations 2015 (CDM) compliance
5 – Manufacturing Detailed Site construction of the project, Completed
and construction construction finalisation of site logistics construction
drawings, arrangement, manufacturing and product
building construction of building systems,
contract monitoring of site works, installation
and commission of specialist
building services, compliance and
discharge of building control and
planning reserved conditions, CDM
compliance
6 – Handover Completed Inspection and rectification of Handover of
construction defects, submission of project completed
product operational and maintenance construction
manual, establishment of aftercare product
management system, review of
project performance
7 – Use Occupied Implementation of facilities and Completed
construction asset management systems, post construction
product occupation review of the building product in use
performance
Source: Adapted from RIBA (2020).

Input Transformation Output
Project management Planning: What tasks are involved and in what Residential
tools and techniques order? What materials and labour inputs are
accommodation
required?
Organisation: How do we organise the tasks and

resources to perform
Production: Execution of the tasks

Procurement: Design and Build
Construction Method
Foundation: Pilling
Structure: Concrete frame
Roof structure: Flat roof with biodiversity covering
Landscaping: Planting, turf, paving
Services: Air source heat pumps
Marketing: Customer feedback, sales, and

advertising
Risk management: Identify events that can cause

project failure and design appropriate mitigation
Control: Design audit, quality control inspections,

project evaluation
Feedback
Figure 2.3 The construction project management systems. Sources: Adapted from Cole (2004),
Carmichael (2006), Cole and Kelly (2020), and Walker (2015).
The ensuing multiple divergent responses if left unresolved, usually leads to cross-purpose
working practices and conflicts, which subsequently affects the project delivery process
(Arthur and Pryke 2013). The construction project management system therefore exists to
identify and integrate these micro-differences to facilitate collaborative working practices.
Figure 2.5 is an illustration of systems differentiation within the construction consul-
tant system. The internal parts are linked by a common identity of professionals offering
advice and management services in the construction industry. Within the main system
are multiple subsystems of professional groups including quantity surveyors, sustainabil-
ity consultants, building surveyors, building engineers, architects, fire engineers, building
information modelling (BIM) managers, and project managers. The members within the
quantity surveying subsystem are connected by a common identity of offering professional
services on cost consultancy (RICS 2018a), the members of the sustainability consultant’s
subsystem are linked by a common identity of offering professional advice on sustainable
energy construction (Gov.UK 2021c), the building surveying subsystem is made up of mem-
bers connected by a common purpose of offering professional advice on building pathology
(RICS 2018b), the members within the building engineering subsystem offers professional
advice on construction design and technology (CABE 2021), and the architect subsystem
are made up of professionals who offer architectural design services (RIBA 2021). The fire
engineering subsystem is also composed of members who offer professional advice on the
specification, design, and installation of fire protection solutions in construction projects
1. Systems decomposition enables analysis of the phases and

processes of the construction delivery system as subsystems with
different objectives and functionalities.
2. The findings reveal internal structure of multiple interconnected

functionalities based on the differences in intellectual and
emotional orientation of the specialist roles associated with the
different phases and processes–termed systems differentiation.
3. The observed differences if left unaddressed, may lead to cross

purpose working and conflicts, and consequently, affects the
construction delivery processes.
4. The project management system therefore exists to identify and

integrate these differences, to facilitate collaborative working
practices.
Figure 2.4 Conceptualisation of the construction project management system. Sources: Adapted
from Arthur (2018) and Walker (2015).
The construction consultant’s system: composed of subsystems connected by common identity

of being construction professionals offering advice and management services
Building surveyors Fire engineers

BS FE
Quantity surveyors Building engineers

QS
BE
Project managers BIM managers

PM
BM
Planning architects
Sustainability consultants SC
PA
Interactions
Figure 2.5 Systems differentiation. Sources: Adapted from Carmichael (2006), Cole and Kelly
(2020), and Walker (2015).
(IFE 2020). The members within the BIM management subsystem are connected by a com-
mon purpose of integrating building information (Sawhney et al. 2017). Lastly, the project
management subsystem membership comprises of professionals connected by a common
drive to integrate the different specialist roles involved in the construction delivery pro-
cesses, to mitigate conflicts, and cross-purpose working practices (RICS 2018c).
It must be emphasised that despite all the above subsystems being components of the con-
struction consultancy system, and inferably being linked by the common purpose of provid-
ing professional advice and management services, the differences in their micro-objectives
nevertheless, defines the variations in their specific roles and services. The plurality of func-
tions emanating in the network of different professional groups is the result of systems
differentiation.
According to Walker (2007), differentiation within the UK construction industry has been
influenced by the impact of the evolution of the construction disciplines and the nature
of training of the professionals. The other factors which account for differentiation at the
project organisational level includes differences in objectives of parent companies forming
the project team, difference in personal objectives of project team members, and the impact
of prolong environmental changes.
2.5.1.1 Evolution of Specialist Construction Disciplines

The evolution of the UK construction professional disciplines can be traced from the activ-
ities of master masons at the Middle Ages. Being the sole professional group at that time,
their services centred on administrative functions including the procurement of materials
and labour for the delivery of construction projects, for their wealthy clients (Walker 2007).
The exceptionally skilled masons were appointed by the Kings to build their castles, and
were given the designation of ‘King’s masons’. Overtime, environmental forces have influ-
enced the emergence of multiple professional roles specialising in the different construction
tasks, stages, organisational groups, and market sectors (Arthur 2020).
The architect role became prominent during the early industrial revolution era in the six-
teenth century. This was at the time of increased transnational explorations, with the British
voyagers becoming exposed to the architectural novelties in the contemporaneous major
cities like Rome and Athens (Bowley 1966). The architect professional role was formally
structured in 1791 (Allinson 2008).
The great London fire incident in 1666 also created demand for professional measurers
to value the cost of the damaged construction properties to establish insurance settlements
(Robinson 2011). The members later consolidated themselves into the Surveyors Club in
1792 (RICS 2021a), and subsequently, the current quantity surveyor professional role.
The rebuilding of London following the 1666 fire incidence created demand for construc-
tion professionals, for the design and construction of specialist building components. This
intensified the engineering profession with subdivision into specialist civil, mechanical,
and electrical roles. The engineering specialist role was formally organised in 1771 (Derry
and Williams 1960).
The nineteenth century era witnessed the consolidation of the professional roles through
the institution of charters to restrict membership. This was further entrenched between
the First and Second World Wars with the introduction of professional qualification assess-
ments and code of ethics and conduct for their respective members.
The impact of environmental forces has continued to influence the mutation of the spe-
cialist roles into multiple subgroups. We have also seen the emergence of new specialist
roles to address demands created by new environmental changes. The Royal Institution
of Chartered Surveyors website lists 22 specialist surveying pathways (RICS 2021b). Simi-
larly, a search on the Internet, and academic curriculum of the professional training centres
and universities, confirms the presence of several architectural and engineering disciplines.
There are different specialist architects and engineers for the different construction sec-
tors including residential, restoration, commercial, health, education, and leisure. There
are also specialist architects and engineers for the different construction delivery phases
and stages. Recent promotion of sustainable construction solutions, building information
modelling, and fire safety practices, have also resulted in the appearance of additional spe-
cialist roles including sustainability consultants and energy assessors (Gov.UK 2021c), BIM
managers (RICS 2021c), and fire safety engineers (IFE 2020).
The cumulative impact of the construction environmental changes has been fragmenta-
tion in structure, as seen in the many niche organisations operating within the UK construc-
tion industry (Arthur 2020). The Office for National Statistics recorded 325 736 registered
construction companies in Britain, in 2019 (Allcoat 2018). According to Edkins (2009), the
transition in organisational structure has resulted in a management approach, where many
firms now specialise in aspects of the construction delivery process and rely on input from
the other organisations, to complement their project delivery. And with the variations in
micro-objectives of the different organisations, there has been distinctions in the impact of
the environmental changes and consequently the perception and interpretation of the asso-
ciated risks and opportunities (Japp and Kusche 2008; Arthur and Pryke 2013; Arthur 2018,
2020). The failure to recognise the dissimilarities in the risk communications and designing
appropriate strategies for harmonisation run the risk of introducing conflicting strategies
to impede the construction system’s integration and transformational processes.
2.5.1.2 Isolated Training Programmes for the Different Specialist Disciplines

Historically, the training programmes for the various construction disciplines have been
done in isolation of each other. The differences in training structures were recognised in Sir
Michael Latham’s report of 1994, in which there was a recommendation to include inter-
disciplinary workshops and joint courses at the final years of the training programmes,
to foster integration of the construction professionals. The impact of the isolated training
systems has been limited knowledge and understanding of contributions from the other
disciplines, which sometimes creates tension at project organisational levels and leads to
differentiation in risk communication and response.
2.5.1.3 Project Team Members from Different Organisations and Internal Subgroups
Construction project teams are usually created with professionals drawn from different
organisations of different structures and procedures (Pryke 2006; Winch 2010). Even where
the members come from the same organisation, there may still be differences in culture
between their internal parent subgroupings (Mullins 2005). The assembling together of the
different structures and procedures inherent in the project team members’ parent compa-
nies and subgroups, consequently, creates differentiation.
The stages at which project team members are introduced to the project delivery process
could also influence differentiation (Walker 2007). Where the design and construction func-
tions are separated, an early introduction of the constructor to the project fosters integra-
tion with the designers, thereby reducing differentiation. Additionally, during the project
delivery stage, there are instances where additional specialists are introduced to offer an
identified support. If this occurs at a time when the project coalition is well integrated,
then unless the new member is immediately assimilated, there could be potential differen-
tiation. Even where project team members have a previous working experience with each
other, complacency could lead to differentiation, where they fail to realise that the differ-
ences in project environment may demand different transformational approaches (Walker
2007). Chapman (1999) have further suggested that changes in project team membership,
especially the loss of a key member, could lead to differentiation, where the replacement is
not well assimilated into the team.
2.5.1.4 Differences in Personal Objectives of Project Team Members

The previous discussions on systems decomposition (see Section 2.3.3) identified vari-
ations in the structure and functionality of subsystems, based on the dissimilarities in
their micro-objectives (Carmichael 2006; Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998). Likewise, the
construction coalition involved in project delivery will exhibit differences in interpreta-
tion and responses to project transformational tasks, relative to the differences in their
organisational culture, as well as personal objectives (Mullins 2005). Where the differing
personal objectives go contrary to the project objectives, there is bound to be differentiation
(Walker 2007, 2015). Even when there is broad agreement between the individual and
project objectives, the absence of integration of the minor variations have the potential to
create differentiation.
2.5.1.5 Environmental Changes

Environmental changes are major sources of differentiation at the project organisational
level. The bilateral relationship existing between project transformational processes and
construction environmental forces suggests the need for constant monitoring and harmon-
isation of changes (Wetherbe and Vitalari 1994; Cole 2004; Cole and Kelly 2020). The failure
of the project transformational system to recognise emerging environmental changes to
make the necessary corresponding adjustments may expose the system to new inputs which
may not conform to the prevailing internal structures and procedures, thereby leading to
differentiation (Walker 2007, 2015).
According to Edkins (2009), the impact of environmental uncertainties has influenced the
progression of the construction industry from a period of self-sufficient firms to a contem-
porary organisational structure where most firms specialise in aspects of the construction
process and rely on contributions from other firms for project delivery. This has accounted
for differentiation within the construction industry (Ive and Gruneberg 2000). A review of
the UK Construction industry in 2019, identified 325 736 registered construction companies
(Allcoat 2018). Ive and Gruneberg (2000) have attributed the cause of the fragmentation to
be the attractions of the economies of specialisation and the need for firms to be flexible
in their business activities, so they can address their customers’ present and future inter-
ests and demands. Egan (1998), however believed that collaborative arrangements rather
than specialisation promotes performance enhancement. In a UK research study of four

construction projects developed under different procurement systems, Pryke (2012) identi-
fied that collaborative arrangements, including partnering and supply chain management
which encourages integration of firms, enhance the achievement of client’s satisfaction
through improved risk management practices, systems innovation, and cost savings.
2.5.2 The Link Between Differentiation and Risk

The RIBA Plan of Works 2020 discussed in Section 2.4 confirmed series of project delivery
activities between the ‘strategic definition’ stage, where project objectives are established,
and the ‘use’ stage, where project outputs are evaluated. Failure to effectively manage the
project delivery activities, by ensuring efficient harmonisation of processes, could intro-
duce uncertain events, to alter the designed progression of the project transformation, and
subsequently, prevent achievement of the desired output. The uncertain events are termed
risks.
The following sub-subsections discuss the link between differentiation and risk.
2.5.2.1 Consolidated Differentiated Specialist Groupings

The link between systems differentiation and the generation of project risk events becomes
striking, when the disparities in functionalities are so intense that they influence the differ-
ent specialist roles and subgroups to exhibit higher commitment to their micro-objectives,
to the detriment of the advancement of the project prime objectives. In such a situation, the
boundaries of the subgroups may become entrenched, thereby further deepening the dif-
ferentiation within the project transformational system. The resulting fragmentation often
leads to variances in interpretation and responses to environmental forces, and ultimately
cross-purpose working practices, which could be injurious to the project delivery processes.
2.5.2.2 Failure to Integrate Objectives of Additional Differentiated Specialist Roles

Systems differentiation results in the creation of additional internal subgroups with differ-
ent micro-objectives. It is therefore important that the project management system robustly
identifies emerging subgroups and immediately assimilate them into the project delivery
processes. Where this does not happen, and new subgroups are allowed to function on
their own, outside the collective objectives of the main system, there could be detrimen-
tal effects (Mullins 2005). This is more elaborate where there are significant differences
between the micro-objectives of the emerging subgroups and the collective objectives of the
main system. An illustration at the project level is where the need to incorporate sustainabil-
ity agenda leads to the addition of a specialist role, with the specific objective to implement a
renewable energy solution. If this objective is not recognised right from the onset, reviewed,
and integrated into the main project objectives, and further communicated to the entire
project team, then a later acceptance may require altering completed works and processes.
The resulting impact may include increased project cost, delayed completion, and impaired
project quality.
2.5.2.3 Sudden and Prolonged Environmental Changes

Differentiation resulting from a sudden environmental change may influence certain
internal changes, which may not be appropriate, or helpful to a system’s transformational
processes. In such a situation, the project delivery system may be forced to either revise
the original objectives or alter the processes to align. The degree to which a system
can accommodate a sudden environmental change depends on the nature, magnitude,
and frequency of the change and the responsiveness of the internal structure (Walker
2007). Where a system lacks the capacity to adequately respond to an abrupt change, the
ramifications on the internal processes may affect the achievement of the defined project
output (Cagno et al. 2007).
An illustration is the impact of the United Kingdom Coalition Government’s October
2010 spending reviews, which resulted in the sudden suspension and cancellation of public
funded projects. Most public sector clients had to immediately re-structure their business
activities to reduce their expenditure, which consequentially affected their project delivery
programmes, and caused an overall fall in the national construction output (BCIS 2011).
The cumulative effects were escalation in competition among contractors in sourcing out
the few new contracts (Garratt 2010), with most contractors accepting contracts at lower
margins, or even at a loss just to sustain their cash flow (Hammond 2011). The correspond-
ing effects at the project level included protracted client-contractor disputes over contract
details, projects running over budget and programme, and contractors adopting cost reduc-
tion strategies which often compromises the product quality (CBI 2010).
The rapid spread of the coronavirus pandemic has likewise resulted in significant imme-
diate changes to the management and operation of construction activities. The UK govern-
ment’s directives at controlling the rate of infection have included the publication of site
operating procedures for construction activities. This has led to some constructor organ-
isations temporarily suspecting or reducing the capacity of their site activities, with cor-
responding increases in extension of time claims and associated project expenditure. The
promotion of working from home policies have also resulted in virtual project meetings
replacing the typical site meetings. Construction organisations without established infor-
mation technology systems have struggled to respond to the sudden changes, which now
threatens their survival.
2.6 Construction System’s Environment and Risk

According to Japp and Kusche (2008), systems interactions within the wider environment
results in the social construction of risk. The displacement of the former traditional ver-
tical stratified system responsible for maintaining social order, by contemporary multiple
differentiated functional subsystems, has introduced variability in the evaluation of social
actions, and consequently, differentiation in risk communications (Japp and Kusche 2008).
A social action is therefore seen as either a threat or opportunity, depending on the context
of environmental analysis.
The construction system likewise interacts with the wider environment through a
two-sided process (Cole 2004; Cole and Kelly 2020). This suggests that the construction
system is not only influenced by environmental forces but it equally influences the
activities within the larger environment. Scott (1998), cited in Walker (2015) classifies
environmental forces into technical and non-technical elements. The technical elements
consist of forces directly related to the task, whilst the non-technical elements relate to
the institutional forces which governs the execution of the task. Mullins (2005) adopts the
PESTEL model to expand the environmental forces into multiple differentiated functional
subsystems comprising political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, ecological, and
legal.
The following theoretical discussions review how the bilateral interactions between the
construction system and the multiple social differentiated functional subsystems influence
social construction of risk within the construction system, in the context of risk interpreta-
tion and responses.
2.6.1 Political Functional Subsystem

Political environmental forces exist in the form of policy directives (Walker 2015) origi-
nating from political parties, institutions, and organisations at the international, national,
regional, and local levels (Mullins 2005). There are numerous instances where representa-
tions and petitions from construction organisations, pressure groups, and institutions have
influenced changes in political policies. The UK government’s economic policies, includ-
ing giving value added tax (VAT) refund on new building (Gov.UK 2021d) and exempting
first time property buyers from paying stamp duty tax (Gov.UK 2021e), may be in effect
a risk response for stimulating the construction industry, based on the feedback from the
performance of the construction system.
The bilateral relationship between the construction industry and the wider environment
suggests that policy changes within the differentiated political functional subsystem like-
wise could affect the activities within the construction industry. Political policies including
economic and fiscal controls, labour regulations, sustainability, and educational systems
influence the activities within the construction system, in the context of risk profiling and
classification. According to Walker (2015), international projects in countries with unstable
political systems and sporadic policy changes are more prone to project uncertainties.
2.6.2 Economic Functional Subsystem

Construction delivery and professional services have an impact on the national economic
performance. The United Kingdom’s Office of National Statistics publication released on 18
October 2019 reported 325 736 registered construction firms (Allcoat 2018). Construction
activities excluding the professional services contributed £117 billion and 2.4 million jobs
in 2019 (Rhodes 2019). This in effect establishes the construction industry as a significant
force within the economic functional subsystem.
Economic factors including the national gross domestic product, per capita income, inter-
est rates, level of inflation, level of business competition, availability of labour, material, and
finance (Mullins 2005) also affect the construction system. A major significant impact of
the 2008–2013 global economic downturn on the United Kingdom’s construction industry
was the cancellation of nearly £2 billion worth of construction projects in June 2010 by the
then Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government (HM Treasury 2010). The
reduction in project financing consequently led to the abandonment and rescheduling of
the affected projects.
2.6.3 Socio-cultural Functional Subsystem

The cultural factors operating within the wider construction environment including social
values, beliefs, and norms (Winch 2010) often influence the organisational culture at the
construction project levels (Thompson et al. 1990). Similarly, the different socio-cultural
conditions, codes of conduct, and traditional risk management techniques such as super-
stitions, taboos, customs, and guided morality practiced within the different regions (Adams
2008) may have partly been influenced by the local institutions including the construction
systems.
An example of socio-cultural influence on the construction system can be witnessed in
the Rupluse Bay in Hong Kong. Local Feng Shui experts believe of a dragon living in the
mountains behind a construction site, influenced the building designers to leave a gap in
the middle of the structure, to grant the dragon an open view and direct access to the
bay (HK Magazine 2016). The design alteration was implemented to manage the risk of
socio-cultural forces sabotaging the project delivery.
2.6.4 Technological Functional Subsystem

Technological demands from social institutions including the construction system have
been a significant driving force behind most of the recent innovations. Client organisa-
tions are increasingly becoming more demanding, in their request for smart products, with
shorter construction duration, high energy performance, and low construction and main-
tenance cost. The result has been the introduction of improved technological construction
solutions (Davies 2018).
Technological forces within the construction environment on the other hand continues
to exert influences on the construction transformational processes (Walker 2015). Techno-
logical innovations in the form of modern methods of construction are changing the way
construction products are being transformed (Davies 2018). Buildings are now being con-
structed using environmentally sustainable energy solutions to address energy performance
risk (JCT News 2012) and modular methods which reduce the site construction duration,
and subsequently increase the rate of productivity (Rendall 2011). Construction firms which
resist technological changes soon find themselves breaching industry regulations, not meet-
ing the demands of their customers, and ultimately being edged out of business.
2.6.5 Ecological Functional Subsystem

International and local political policies, media reporting, and activities of environmen-
talist pressure groups are constantly influencing the adoption of sustainable construction
practices. International conferences organised by the United Nations Environmental Pro-
gramme and the publication of documents including the ‘Stockholm Spirit of Compromise’
in 1972, ‘Cocoyoc Declaration’ in 1974, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
in 1992, and the recent United Nations Environment Programme and the 2030 Agenda doc-
ument (UNEP 2021) have served as catalysts for promoting sustainability agenda within
the construction system. On the flip side, the international conferences and publications
on environmental sustainability have partly been a response to feedback from the activities
of individuals, pressure groups, local and national organisations, and institutions such as
the Greenpeace UK; Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development;
Friends of the earth UK; Extinction rebellion; and the Greta Thunberg activists. All these
groups are consumers of construction products.
It is interesting to note that in recent times, most construction firms are striving to attain
sustainability credentials such as ISO 14001 Environmental Management System and
reduction in carbon footprints. This may partly be due to the increased media awareness
and the need to demonstrate sustainability commitment on most tender selection question-
naires. Government directives also require that public and private buildings become energy
efficient, by being assessed and issued with Displayed Energy Certificates, and Energy
Performance Certificates, respectively (Gov.UK 2021a,b). At the project level, sustainability
has become a mandate for most public funded projects. There is a statutory building
regulation requirement for new build residential developments to achieve minimum 35%
carbon reduction. This has inspired the adoption of energy efficient technologies including
air and ground source heat pumps, photovoltaics (PV) panels, and positive heat ventilation
systems to address the risk of meeting public funding requirements.
2.6.6 Legal Functional Subsystem

Mullins (2005) has suggested the legal environmental forces to include business competi-
tion, employment, and safety laws. Walker (2015) also categorises the legal environmental
forces into statutory regulations governing construction processes, market stimulation, and
professional conducts and non-statutory laws such as the application of Islamic laws in
building contract dispute resolutions in Islamic nations. Legal legislations on taxation, trad-
ing, and statutory regulations affect the performance of the construction system. Within
the United Kingdom’s construction industry, where building regulations are statutory and
therefore mandatory (HM Government 2020), any building regulation applicable at the
commencement of a project can be enforced even if it had initially been overlooked at the
time of compiling contract documents. Late application of a building regulation originally
not considered at the project brief and design stage may present a risk to the construction
system’s transformational processes.
The two-sided interactions between the construction system and the wider environmen-
tal forces suggest that the activities within the construction industry will likewise influence
the enactment and revision of legislations and regulations. The periodic changes within
the United Kingdom’s statutory building regulations are usually inspired by feedback from
stakeholder consultations within the construction system (HM Government 2020).
2.7 Summary
Chapter 2 has employed systems thinking and analysis in evaluating the construction
industry. The discussions have centred on the structure of the industry, the management
and operational processes, and the interactions with environmental forces, leading to the
social construction of risk.
2.7 Summary 29
The deliberations started with an exposition of the UK construction industry. The Office
of National Statistics publications released on 18 October 2019 confirmed 325 736 registered
construction firms. Construction industry activities excluding the professional services con-
tributed £117 billion and 2.4 million employments to the national economy in 2019. The UK
government’s policy ambitions for the construction industry by 2025 include 33% reduction
in project capital cost and whole life costing, 50% reduction in construction period, 50%
reduction in greenhouse gas emission in the built environment, and 50% reduction in the
trade gap between the exports and importation of construction products and materials. It is
an undeniable fact that the achievement of the policy ambitions will require fundamental
improvements to the construction delivery operational and managerial systems, including
risk management practices.
Taking a systems thinking and analysis approach, the construction industry has been
evaluated as a system receiving human and material resources from its environment and
using industry tools and techniques to convert the materials into construction products
including houses, schools, industries, hospitals, public buildings, and bridges to serve its
environment. Systems thinking is an investigative approach to studying a subject based on
the collective properties of the entirety, rather than the qualities of the individual parts.
The foundational principles and concepts originated from the biological sciences, through
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy’s discovery of general systems theory in the 1960s. Bertalanffy
(1968, 2015) and Arthur (2020) have however argued the pre-existence of systems thinking
application, prior to the formal discovery of general systems theory.
The systems analysis of the construction industry also involved evaluation of key con-
cepts including open and closed systems, systems objectives, systems decomposition, and
systems differentiation. Closed systems operate without the influence of their environmen-
tal forces, whilst opened systems receive inputs from their surroundings to convert into
outputs, which are released back into the environment. The construction industry being an
open system similarly receives inputs in the form of specialist skills acquired from the con-
struction educational institutions and training programmes, plus building and construc-
tion materials produced by the various manufacturers. The inputs are transformed through
the application of industry operational and managerial tools and techniques into houses,
schools, offices, industries, airports, and bridges to serve the construction environment.
The construction system’s objectives are what defines the inputs and transformational
processes required for achieving a desired output. They emanate from the analysis of stake-
holder demands and aspirations, within the framework of clients’ organisational business
cases. Construction system objectives at the strategic level defines broad overall mission
statements and long-term business goals, whereas the operational level objectives express
the required project delivery standards (Carmichael 2006).
Chapter 2 has further analysed the internal structure of the construction industry using
the concepts of systems decomposition and differentiation. The system’s decomposition
analysis has enabled the evaluation of the components within the construction organisa-
tional structure, as lower hierarchy subsystems, comprising of the client organisations, pro-
fessional consultancy firms, and building contractors. The client organisations’ subsystem
has been further analysed into lower order hierarchical structures based on the differences
in market sectors, followed by the differences in firms, departments, programmes, and
projects. The system’s decomposition analysis at the project organisational level centred on
the different transformational processes applied at the project delivery phases, which was
illustrated using the eight stages of the RIBA Plan of Work 2020. Each stage receives inputs
from the preceding stage and the wider construction industry environment to convert into
outputs for the succeeding stages. The conceptualisation of lower order hierarchical struc-
tures exhibiting systems characteristics, implied variations in their micro-objectives, and
consequently, differences in the impact and interpretation of environmental forces.
The theoretical evidence of varied micro-objectives of the different project delivery phases
has also revealed multiple interconnected functionalities, based on the variances in intel-
lectual and emotional orientation of the specialist roles relating to the different phases and
processes, which is termed, systems differentiation. The factors responsible for differentia-
tion within the UK construction industry include the impact of the evolutionary processes
of the different specialist construction disciplines, the application of isolated training pro-
grammes for the various specialist disciplines, the formation of project teams with mem-
bers drawn from different organisations, and internal subgroups, the differences in per-
sonal objectives of project team members, and lastly, the impact of environmental changes
(Walker 2015). The failure to harmonise the variabilities in orientation could potentially
lead to cross-purpose working and conflicts, and if further left unattended, could become
injurious to the achievement of the project main objectives. The project management sys-
tem therefore exists to identify and integrate these differences, to facilitate collaborative
working practices.
Chapter 2 ends with an evaluation of the bilateral interactions between the construction
system and its environmental forces, and how it results in the creation of risk events. The
construction system’s environmental forces have been analysed based on the contempo-
rary structure of differentiated functional political, economic, socio-cultural, technological,
ecological, and legal subsystems. The differences in the differentiated environmental forces
result in differences in impact on the different specialist roles involved in the various project
delivery phases and processes, and subsequently, differences in risk communication.
The next Chapter 3 discusses the concept of risk, including the historical progression of
the risk terminology and the different conceptual interpretations.
31
The Concept of Risk
3.1 Introduction
Chapter 3 discusses risk epistemology using social science theories. It begins with an expo-
sition of the concept of risk from the perspective of the traditional society’s approach to
risk identification and treatment to contemporary thinking of multiple risk communica-
tion. The realisation of inherent risk factors in every human endeavour suggests the need
for careful consideration of the likely benefits and effects of potential future events before
establishing acceptable risk levels. This has been expounded through a review of the risk
management decision-making processes of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and the 2017
Grenfell Tower fire incidence in the United Kingdom.
There have been further discussions on risk etymology. The historical review expands
from the playing of games of chance using animal bones in the antiquity world through to
the establishment of insurance facilities in the fourteenth century for shared risk manage-
ment, and finally, contemporary application of the risk terminology in multiples disciplines.
The theoretical review also involves the evaluation of different risk conceptual interpre-
tations. The variances in philosophical basics of the diverse disciplines where risk is applied
have given rise to corresponding variations in conceptual perspectives comprising, real
and objectives, subjectively biased, psychometric, socially mediated, socially constructed,
real and socially constructed, and edgework (Zinn 2008). The psychometric viewpoint as
applied in this book interprets risk in three keyways including risk as a feeling, risk as anal-
ysis, and risk as politics (Slovic et al. 2010). The sociological conceptual perspective also as
expressed in this book proposes risk creation through socio-cultural interactions and impact
from social institutions (Zinn 2008).
3.2 Risk Conceptualisation

Risk has always been a part of human existence. Social threats and uncertainties were tradi-
tionally defined and managed by the stratified vertical social system, headed by the religious
and political leaders, through reliance on guided morality, superstitions, taboos, and rituals
(Japp and Kusche 2008). The contemporary transition of multiple differentiated functional
sub-systems displacing the stratified vertical system has extended the social discourse on
risk into the public realm (Japp and Kusche 2008). The realisation of the ability of human
32 3 The Concept of Risk
agency to change the outcome of a future event is what has theoretically introduced risk
communication into our daily activities. The modern society in effect functions on risk
decision-making.
It has been said that life without risk would be boring. Risk however comes at a price, and
therefore, it is important to evaluate the likely benefits and implications of potential future
events to establish acceptable levels of risks (Zinn 2008). For example, most governments’
approach to the management of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has been continuous eval-
uation of the potential benefits and effects of possible interventions to determine appropri-
ate responses. The decision-making processes have involved quantification of the economic,
social, and psychological benefits of relaxing lockdown restrictions against the social cost
of increased infection rates and fatalities. Before arriving at appropriate decisions, gov-
ernments must consider multiple variables including the acceptable rate of infection and
fatality predictions that will justify the relaxation of lockdown and social distancing rules, to
encourage workers to return to their businesses, and to increase economic productivity. For
most western nations including the United Kingdom, the emphasis has been interventions
that contain the rate of infection below R1.
In the context of construction delivery, the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire incident resulted in
the U.K. government evaluating the acceptable level of high-rise building fire risk events
and enacting appropriate changes to the statutory building regulations. The catastrophic
incident presented the government with multiple decision spectrum including the imme-
diate prohibition of combustible building materials in high-rise developments with the
associated immediate expenditure to refurbish the existing housing stock, plus the temporal
stress on accommodation during the decanting process, and the likely increase in devel-
opment cost for new high-rise buildings. The alternatives included accepting the risk and
permitting the status-quo with no changes to the existing housing stock or minimising the
risk through regulation of the use of combustible building materials in defined high-rise
buildings, with associated minimised cost implications. The government after extensive
consultation and risk analysis decided to regulate the remedial process by first stipulating
the use of non-combustible building materials in high-rise buildings over 18 m and subse-
quently, revising to a lower building height.
The risk concept is associated with future events and with the possibility of occurrence.
Events that are certain to occur/not occur fall outside the epistemology of risk. We all go
through life with some level of expectation for the repetition of past events, nevertheless,
until they occur, there will always be a degree of uncertainty associated with our expec-
tations (Zinn 2008). The degree of expectation of repetition of past occurrences can be
presented through a formalised structured approach using statistics and probability or
informally using qualitative statements (Smith et al. 2006; Arthur 2018, 2020).
The application of risk in multiple disciplines has been associated with undesirable nega-
tive events such as hazard, loss, damage, or threat (Zinn 2008). It must however be empha-
sised that risk is not always negative, as the uncertainties associated with future events, can
also result in benefits (Dallas 2006).
3.3 Risk Etymology

Social science theorists including Luhmann (2005) and Zinn (2008) have argued about
the vaguely of risk etymology. The Risk Net (2020), however, traces the history of the risk
conceptualisation to the playing of games of chance. Archaeological discoveries confirm

that the oldest form of games of chance using an antique dice made from a six-sided animal
bone called ‘astragalus’ was common in ancient cultures (Holmgren 2002). The Germanic
societies were noted for using their houses, farms, and even personal freedom as bets in
games of chance (Risk Net 2020).
The limitations in knowledge and understanding of global phenomenon during the early
phase of the medieval period influenced most societies to rely on religion and mythical rit-
uals and practices, in addressing uncertainties and threats (Japp and Kusche 2008). The
realisation of shared threats coupled with the mindfulness to seek supernatural responses,
emphasised the presence of risk awareness then though not formally conceptualised. The
risk terminology at that time was associated with three words: fear, adventure, and risk
(Romeike and Hager 2009). Fear was understood in the context of physical or psychological
suffering and difficulty whilst adventure was perceived in relation to undertaking a voyage
with the possibility of facing antagonistic and hazardous conditions. The colloquial risk def-
inition was associated with the Italian word risco meaning ‘cliff’, the French word ‘risqué’,
and the Greek word ‘rhiza’ meaning ‘root’.
Theoretical evidence suggests that the modern risk terminology was first applied in
the Northern Italian city states, in the fourteenth century, to refer to the possibility
of a ship sinking as a result of hitting a cliff, or being seized by pirates (Romeike and
Muller-Reichart 2008). The risk response then centred on the traders coming together
to establish insurance systems for the collective management of the potential losses
(Luhmann 2005). This period also witnessed the introduction of probability techniques
for risk calculation (Risk Net 2020). Subsequently, the terminology became a common
vocabulary in other European commercial industries (Zinn 2008). According to Smith
et al. (2006), risk first appeared in England around the 1830s when it was applied in the
insurance industry.
3.4 Risk Conceptual Interpretations

The use of the risk terminology has been expanding across multiple disciplines with var-
ied conceptual interpretations, which sometimes appear unrelated. Risk conceptualisation
as applied in the various disciplines is interpreted based on the underlying epistemologi-
cal footing (Zinn 2008). Thus, the systems of knowledge claim applied within a discipline
influences the way risk is understood, interpreted, and communicated. Zinn (2008) has
described different risk conceptual interpretations categorised into real and objective, sub-
jectively biased, psychometric, socially mediated, socially constructed, real and socially con-
structed, and edgework (see Table 3.1).
3.4.1 Realist Interpretation

The realist interpretation conceptualise risk as a real and concrete event capable of being
analysed objectively using quantitative tools (Zinn 2008). The approach comprises the real
and objective and subjectively biased viewpoints.
Real and objective viewpoint: Real and objective viewpoint interprets risk as a tangible
event that can be analysed objectively without any subjective influence. The proposers of
the viewpoint believe in the ability to achieve accurate risk analysis of a potential future
Table 3.1 Different risk conceptual interpretations.
Viewpoint Description Related discipline
Real and objective Risk as a tangible event capable of being Actuarial science,
analysed objectively toxicology, epidemiology,
engineering, probability
analysis, economies
Subjectively biased Risk perceived to be objective but Economies, subjective
subjective judgement could introduce analysis
distortions
Psychometric Risk perception defined by psycho- Psychometric analysis,
physical scaling and multivariate cultural studies
statistics
Socially mediated Risk perception definition, analysis, Cultural studies, sociology
and responses are determined by
socio-cultural institutions
Socially constructed Risk communication constructed by Systems theory,
socio-cultural interactions governmentality
Real and socially Risk as a real event that can also be Risk society, cultural
constructed altered through the influence of studies
socio-cultural institutions
Edgework Appreciates the reality of risk impact Sociology
and associated emotional stimulus
Source: Zinn (2008).
event through the calculation of the probability of occurrence and impact (Zinn 2008).
And where there are difficulties in the calculation, it is interpreted as a requirement for
further cognitive investigations to identify appropriate structured programme to facili-
tate the analysis, rather than an appreciation of the limitations of the risk quantification.
The viewpoint is typically applied in actuarial science, toxicology, epidemiology research,
engineering, probability analysis, and economies disciplines.
Subjectively biased viewpoint: The proponents of this viewpoint not only subscribe to
the principles of objective risk analysis but also believe that the subjective judgements of
risk analysts introduce systematic distortions to their objective calculations (Zinn 2008).
The findings from objective risk analysis are interpreted as ideal responses to pursue,
whilst the risk analyst’s subjective judgements and biases are understood as unreasonable
responses. The perspective is typically applied in economies, where risk is interpreted as
utility to be maximised through rational judgement and that the influence of subjective
preference misrepresents the ideal outcome.
3.4.2 Psychometric Viewpoint

The psychometric viewpoint as applied in this book uses structured empirical investigation,
psychophysical scaling, and multivariate statistics to construct cognitive mapping of risk
perceptions including the patterns, analysis, and responses (Zinn 2008). The main areas
of application have been the behavioural science disciplines with extensive studies on the
influence of affect emotions, mood, heuristics, on perception formation, and risk judgement
(Slovic 2010; Kahneman 2011). There have also been other research studies analysing the
impact of culture and emotion on risk communication (Tulloch 2008; Slovic 2010; Bateman
et al. 2010).
3.4.3 Sociological Interpretation

The sociological risk conceptual interpretations describe risk as a product of socio-cultural
interactions, rather than being real and objective. Risk is seen as an abstract event which
is socially constructed, or socially mediated, through the interactions of socio-cultural vari-
ables. The approach comprises of the socially mediated and socially constructed viewpoints.
Socially mediated viewpoint: Socially mediated viewpoint advocates that risk perception
definition, analysis, and response are determined by socio-cultural institutions. The
social science theorists supporting this viewpoint agrees with the principles of the
real and objective risk conceptualisation, in addition to the belief of the influence of
socio-cultural institutions altering the way we perceive, analyse, and respond to risk
(Zinn 2008). The classification of a potential future occurrence as a risk event within a
society, therefore, is defined by the socio-cultural institutions. Where a society considers
a potential future event as risk, it would be classified as such, and where the society
does not recognise the potential future event as a threat, it is unlikely to be considered
for further assessment and response. As an illustration, there are certain undiscovered
societies within the Amazon forest who do not appreciate most of the contemporary
risk factors experienced within the industrialised world, and therefore do not realise
the need to analyse and formulate responses. The lack of formal educational systems
in most of the tribal communities suggest the likelihood of insensitivity to the impact
of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic on school curriculum, and subsequently, failure to
classify as a risk event. The socially mediated viewpoint is typically applied in sociology
and cultural studies.
Social construction viewpoint: The social construction viewpoint also as applied in
this book believes risk communication is construction by socio-cultural interactions.
In other words, the socio-cultural processes within the modern society create risk
communication. The viewpoint adopts principles from social science disciplines includ-
ing governmentality and systems theory to model social and political structures to
analyse the interactions which results in risk creation (Zinn 2008). The governmentality
approach interprets risk as a methodology for analysing and solving problems. The
emphasis is on the abstract probability calculation of governmental issue to identify the
factors that give rise to risk. An example is the use of monetisation in the insurance
industry to identify the demographic factors susceptible to the different risk levels
(Malley 2008).
The systems theory approach to risk conceptualisation adopts the structure of the modern
society in modelling risk communication. It evaluates the transition of the social structure
from the traditional stratified hierarchical order headed by the nobles and spiritual leaders
to the contemporary multiple differentiated horizontal sub-systems performing the differ-
ent social functions including political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, and envi-
ronmental. The multiplicity of differentiated functional sub-systems with varied objectives
and interest amid the constant changes in the social setup is what creates the risk communi-
cation (Japp and Kusche 2008). The systems thinking approach makes it possible to engage
in abstract social risk dialogue, without reference to the real world. This has been praised for
enabling governments to pre-evaluate the likely implications of intended policies to ascer-
tain acceptable impact levels before their implementation. Notwithstanding, it has equally
been criticised for enabling rhetoric analysis that sometimes bear no relationship to reality.
3.4.4 Real and Socially Constructed Viewpoint

This viewpoint combines the principles of the reality of risk, with the influence of
socio-cultural institutions and interactions defining risk communication (Zinn 2008;
Tulloch 2008). A major advocate of this approach is Ulrich Beck through his analysis of
risk society (Becks 1999, 2002, 2007). Becks contrasts the reality of the risk factors at the
pre-modern era differentiated along visible social class boundaries with emergent global
scientific, technological, and environmental threats, which often are intangible, and can
only be examined using scientific procedures and socio-cultural defines. The scientific and
technological advancements previously seen as a catalyst for economic development have
now become the risk factors of the modern society (Tulloch 2008).
3.4.5 Edgework Viewpoint

The edgework risk conceptual interpretation as expounded by Zinn (2008) emphasises the
adverse impact of high risk taking as well as the reality of the associated emotional induce-
ment. Lyng (2008) believes most problems are human engineered, with the impact often
experienced communally, rather than being restricted to individuals. The experience of
shared events such as the depletion of the ozone layer with ecological consequence, pro-
duction of weapons of mass destruction used in civil and international conflicts, social
interactions that fuels global pandemics such as the ongoing Covid-19, poor governance
and decision-making leading to breakdown in social values, and bad economic policies and
interventions resulting in global market meltdown, have collectively highlighted the role
of humans in the creation of social problems. The realisation of human engineered prob-
lems has subsequently influenced a paradigm shift in the approach to problem-solving,
from the traditional reliance on stratified religious protection, to contemporary practices
using human agencies to identify and treat threats. Most of the contemporary social prob-
lems have resulted from the unexpected consequences of human development. There are
however some threats associated with high adrenaline careers and leisure activities that are
accepted due to their perceived emotional benefits. The voluntary pursuit of these high-risk
emotive activities is what has been termed edgework (Lyng 2008).
3.5 Psychometric and Sociological Risk Perspective

Application in This Book
Taking a psychometric perspective, risk has been analysed in three principal ways, risk as a
feeling, which influences spontaneous reaction to threats; risk as analysis, where structured
and scientific approaches are adopted in the management of hazards; and risk as politics,
3.5 Psychometric and Sociological Risk Perspective Application in This Book 37
which is the mediation of the conflicts observed in the clashing of the traditional subjective
methodology, and the modern scientific approach (Slovic et al. 2010). The sociological risk
analysis, on the other hand, has employed systems thinking and analysing in modelling the
construction industry, its internal structures, and the processes of the project delivery, and
management systems.
Loosemore et al. (2006) in taking a sociological conceptual approach has described risk as
an uncertain event that might occur in the future to potentially affect an interest or objective
(usually adversely), although the precise likelihood and impact may be indeterminate. The
key theoretical implications are the relationship between risk and uncertainty, risk as a
future event, and the potential for risk to affect the interests/objectives of the related subject.
Loosemore et al. (2006) have argued that the absence of information makes it difficult to
analyse potential future events, thereby creating uncertainties about the likely impact and
required remedial actions. Edkins (2009), on the other hand, has argued theoretical differ-
entiation between ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’. Taking the real and objective viewpoint, Edkins
has described risk as a potential future event which is tangible and able to be analysed,
whilst uncertainty exists in the peripheral and not concrete enough to warrant objective
analysis. A careful evaluation of the different expositions offered by Loosemore et al. (2006)
and Edkins (2009) confirms the influence of the epistemology of their different approaches
to risk conceptualisation.
The second theoretical implication is the description of risk as a future event. Loosemore
et al. (2006) have postulated that risk analysis must be based on the events that give rise to
risk outcomes, rather than the potential impacts or consequences. Accepting this exposition
in effect makes it wrong to categorise risk based on the probable implications on project
objectives, which is seen as reactive, and therefore, more in line with ‘crisis management’
rather than ‘risk management’.
Risk is also associated with potential future events, rather than past and present
events. Aven (2010) has however argued against the conceptualisation of risk as an event
on account of such approach limiting the ability to analyse risk. He has subsequently
suggested risk evaluation and quantification based on the antecedent uncertainties which
result in the occurrence of risk events.
The last theoretical implication is the need to establish the potential for a future occur-
rence to affect the interests or objectives of a subject before classifying it as an associated
risk event. This suggests that not all future events can be classified as risk to all subjects.
There must first be an establishment of potential impact (Loosemore et al. 2006). It is pos-
sible for a future event to be perceived as risk by the organisations and individuals likely to
be affected by its occurrence and at the same time become unnoticeable to the remaining
population. The differences in personal and corporate interests and objectives also suggest
differences in impact of potential future events, and subsequently, differences in appre-
ciation of potential risk events (Arthur and Pryke 2013; Arthur 2018, 2020). When the
Covid-19 issue started in the late 2019, the public discourse then was limited to the few
Asian countries that were then experiencing the impact. And as the infestations and fatali-
ties degenerated into a global pandemic, with the extension of socio-economic impact into
other countries and industries, there has been corresponding extension of the public risk
discussions with multiple nations and industries developing comprehensive Covid-19 risk
management plans.
3.6 Summary
Chapter 3 has taken a theoretical review of the risk concept using social science theories.
Risk is seen as being part of human existence. The events that threaten human survival were
traditionally identified and addressed through the guidance and protection of hierarchical
social religious systems. These were in the form of guided morality, superstitions, taboos,
and rituals. Contemporary social structures, however, shows the displacement of the hier-
archical religious systems by several functional specialist systems operating on identical
horizontal levels. There is now the belief in human ability to alter the negative effects of
social events, rather than simply waiting for supernatural interventions. This has subse-
quently extended risk communication into the public realm (Japp and Kusche 2008).
Risk management decision-making involves prior evaluation of the likely benefits and
effects of potential future events to determine the acceptable risk levels. This has been evi-
dent in the management of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, where the decision processing
of many governments has involved prior evaluation of the economic, social, and psycholog-
ical benefits of easing restrictions, against the likely impact on infection rates and fatalities.
Similarly, the UK government’s policy and regulatory changes after the 2017 Grenfell Tower
fire incident followed public consultations and examination of the likely benefits and set-
backs of different remedial interventions.
The origin of the concept of risk has been associated with the emergence of games of
chance in the antiquity world, using a six-sided animal bone called ‘astragalus’. The risk
conceptualisation during the early medieval period centred around the awareness of com-
munal threats, which were identified and managed through the guidance and protection of
the hierarchical religious establishments. The risk terminology then was related to the fear
of suffering physical or psychological injuries from pirate attacks or hazardous conditions
during voyages (Romeike and Hager 2009). The fourteenth century saw the introduction
of insurance policies in the northern Italian city states for the shared management of the
risk associated with shipwreck. There was also the application of probability techniques for
risk quantification (Risk Net 2020). The risk terminology subsequently became a common
vocabulary in other European commercial industries (Zinn 2008), appearing in England in
the 1830s when it was used in the insurance industry (Smith et al. 2006).
The differences in epistemology of the varied disciplines where risk terminology is
applied is what has given rise to the differences in conceptual interpretations. The real
and objective perspective as practised in the actuarial sciences, toxicology, epidemiology,
engineering, probability analysis, and economies disciplines, understand risk to be a
tangible event capable of being analysed objectively. The subjectively biased perspective as
applied in economies and subjective analysis disciplines, perceives risk to be objective and
at the same time, susceptible to distortions from the influence of subjective judgements.
The psychometric perspective utilised in psychometric analysis, cultural studies, and this
book defines risk perceptions through psychophysical scaling and multivariate statistics.
The socially mediated perspective as practised in sociology and cultural studies believe risk
perceptions, analysis, and responses are defined by socio-cultural institutions. The social
construction perspective as applied in systems theory, governmentality studies, and in this
book understands risk communication to be a construct of socio-cultural interactions. The
real and socially constructed perspective utilised in Ulrich Beck’s analysis of risk society
3.6 Summary 39
and in cultural studies believes risk to be a real event that can be altered through the
influence of socio-cultural institutions. Lastly, the edgework perspective, as explained by
Stephen Lyng, appreciates the reality of risk impact and the emotional stimulus associated
with high-risk activities (Lyng 2008).
The psychometric risk perspective application in this book has centred on the interpreta-
tion of risk as a feeling generated through heuristics-inspired personal perceptions to guide
impulsive responses to threats; risk as analysis taking into consideration the sensitivity of
subjective variances; and risk as politics mediating the systematic conflicts between the sub-
jective and rational approaches. The sociological risk perspective also utilised in this book
has applied systems thinking and analysis in modelling the construction industry, the inter-
nal structure, project delivery, and project management processes. Theoretical evaluation
of the risk concept as explained by Loosemore et al. (2006) has revealed conceptual rela-
tionship between risk and uncertainty; risk as a future event; and the need to first establish
potential impact of a future event on the interest/objectives of a subject before classifying
as a risk event.
The next Chapter 4 extends the sociological risk conceptualisation by using systems
thinking and analysis to model the construction risk management process and sub-stages.
There is also theoretical review of the construction risk management approaches.
41
Construction Risk Management
4.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 discusses the construction risk management process. The review adopts a socially
constructed risk perspective in modelling the construction risk management stages and
processes using systems thinking and analysis. There is also theoretical review of the dif-
ferent risk management approaches comprising the traditional approach of intuition and
contemporary application of systematic and scientific techniques.
The chapter begins by reviewing the changing perspectives of organisational risk man-
agement strategies. The traditional approach of transferring risk management responsibili-
ties to third parties using insurance and contracts seems to be fading away. The impact from
the latest global economic recessions and associated market instabilities coupled with natu-
ral catastrophic events, terrorist incidence, global pandemics have collectively exacerbated
the social risk barometer. The volatility of socio-economic order has subsequently increased
insurance premium thereby making the reliance on insurance as a corporate strategy for
managing risk non-viable.
The modelling of the construction risk management process has involved systems inter-
pretation of the key interconnecting stages comprising of risk identification, risk analysis,
risk response, and risk review. The concept of systems decomposition has subsequently
been applied in analysing the different risk management stages as subsystems displaying
general systems properties of input, transformation, and output. The subsequent evalua-
tion of the bilateral interactions between the internal processes at the different stages and
the wider construction project and industry environment results in the modelling of the
construction risk management system.
There has been further analytical review on the different risk management approaches:
intuition versus rational techniques. The theoretical discussion centres on the benefits
and downsides of the different methodologies and subsequently, the analytical argument
for incorporating both approaches to facilitate effective risk management systems. The
behavioural sciences explanations for the different decision settings inspiring the selection
of an appropriate risk management approach have also been discussed. The chapter
ends with a review of the construction management publications, which reveals high
incidence of intuitive construction risk management practices, by professionals with
limited knowledge and understanding in the rational decision-making techniques.
42 4 Construction Risk Management
4.2 Changing Perspectives on Organisational Risk

Management Strategies
Research suggests that most managers prefer to avoid managing risk and given the choice
will rather transfer their risks to third-party organisations using uncertainty absorbing con-
tracts and insurance policies (Akintoye and Macleod 1997). According to Latham (1994),
the form of contractual arrangement is what determines the type and form of risk events
that a client can transfer to a contractor. Contractual arrangements, including design and
build, and package deals enable clients to transfer the bulk of project risks, whereas other
contractual arrangements such as lump sum enable the transfer of just speculative risks
and some of the particular project risk events. The downside of managing risk through
contracts and insurance policies is that sometimes risk is passed on to lower tier supply
chain organisations which may not have the capacity to manage it (Edkins 2009). Accord-
ing to HM Treasury (2018), the UK government’s approach to risk management has been
to allocate risk to those best placed to manage. When firms are forced through contracts to
take on risk events over and above their capacity, it may pose a risk to the project success
(Ng and Loosemore 2007). Cagno et al. (2007) have suggested a direct relationship between
effective risk management and project success, which in effect makes the control of project
risks synonymous with the control of the project itself (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al.
2007).
The impact from the latest global economic recessions with the resulting collapse of
high-profile companies including ENRON in the United States of America (in 2001), HIH
insurance in Australia (in 2001); the UK government bailouts for financial institutions
including Northern Rock, and HBOS (in 2008); coupled with terrorist attacks in India (in
2008), Spain (in 2004; 2017), United Kingdom (in 2005; 2017; 2019), France (in 2014; 2015;
2016; 2020); hurricanes in New Orleans (in 2005), Florida (in 2017), Bahamas (in 2019);
BP oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico (in 2010); carbon emission and depletion of the ozone
layer (ongoing); global pandemics including SARS in 2002; Ebola in 2014, and the ongoing
Covid-19; miners traps in Chile (in 2010), Russia (in 2016), Turkey (in 2014); perennial
wild bush fire outbreaks and property destructions in Australia, California, in the USA;
domestic fire incidence and fatalities in tower blocks including a 25-storey tower block
in Krasnoyarsk, Russia (in 2014), 28-storey tower block in Shanghai, China (in 2011),
24-storey tower block in Kensington, United Kingdom (in 2017), 79-storey skyscraper in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (in 2015), 17-storey retail building in Tehran, Iran (in 2017),
have cumulatively contributed to soaring increases in insurance premiums.
Within the United Kingdom, the situation has been further exacerbated by the uncer-
tainties associated with the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union and the
economic and social impact of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The Telegraph online pub-
lished an article on 4 October 2020, reporting 20–30% increase in professional indemnity
insurance premium for legal firms, directly attributed to the impact of the recent economic
decline, and expected increase in insurance claims (O’Dwyer 2020). This in effect makes
the continual reliance on insurance policies as a risk management strategy commercially
non-viable.
The limitations in the use of an insurance policy as a risk management approach coupled
with the public procurement requirement for companies to demonstrate risk management
competencies on tender selection questionnaires; the prospect of boosting a company’s pub-

lic reputation through effective risk management practices; and government’s regulatory
activities in checking companies risk management practices with the administration of
severe penalties for non-compliance have cumulatively accounted for changing perspec-
tives and placing emphases on effective internal risk management systems (Loosemore
et al. 2006; Abderisak and Lindahl 2015). An empirical investigation involving four con-
struction projects in the United Kingdom, conducted by Pryke (2012), identified evidence
of internal risk management practices. A private developer who adopted internal risk man-
agement practices on a project using collaborative procurement arrangement, experienced
improved risk management output, and efficient cost control.
4.3 The Construction Risk Management Process
There are multiple models that have been developed for describing the risk management
process. The association of project managers have proposed a five-stage process involving
initiation, identification, assessment, planning responses, and implementation. Smith et al.
(2006) have also suggested a four-part process comprising of risk identification, risk anal-
ysis, risk response, and risk review. Dallas (2006) believes the different stages operate as a
cycle of interconnected parts, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Using the principles of systems thinking and analysis which were discussed in Chapter
2, we can analyse the different stages of the risk management process as sub-systems pos-
sessing input, transformation, and output phases. The concept of systems decomposition
suggests the different internal phases will function as sub subsystems of the different risk
management stages, and will require interaction of the parts to facilitate achievement of
their micro-objectives (see Figure 4.2).
The previous discussions on the construction industry being an open system implies
the operation of the risk management stages will also involve interactions with the other
systems and subsystems within the construction project management framework and the
wider construction industry environment. This has been depicted in Figure 4.3.
The multiplicity of tools, techniques, and approaches applied within the different stages
and phases coupled with the intricacies of interactions within project internal structures
and the variability of the construction industry environmental factors confirms the con-
struction risk management process to be complex and dynamic. There is therefore the need
Risk identification Risk analysis
Risk review Risk response
Figure 4.1 Risk management cycle. Sources: Adapted from Smith et al. (2006) and Dallas (2006).
Risk identification subsystem Risk analysis subsystem
Input Transformation Output Input Transformation Output
Risk review subsystem Risk response subsystem
Transformation Output Input Output

Input Transformation
Figure 4.2 Risk management subsystem. Sources: Adapted from Walker (2007, 2015), Smith et al.
(2006), Dallas (2006), and Arthur (2020).
for constant monitoring and adaptations in response to the continuous internal and envi-
ronmental changes (Arthur 2020).
4.3.1 Risk Identification Subsystem

The risk identification sub-system receives inputs from both the internal project structure
and the wider construction industry environment to determine the potential events that
could affect the project success. The procedure involves the application of risk management
tools and techniques including risk register, brainstorming, Monte Carlos simulation, per-
sonal perceptions, and gut feelings to analysis project data comprising the client brief and
the completed site surveys and reports. The ensuing findings are then evaluated against
the wider construction industry environmental factors and the specific project objectives to
establish the events that could potentially affect their realisation.
4.3.2 Risk Analysis Sub-system

The risk analysis subsystem then examines the discovered risk events to test reliability. The
evaluation involves assessment of the likelihood of occurrence and potential impact. This
is typically expressed in the form of quantitative probability and statistics or as qualita-
tive statements, narratives, and scenarios. Recent research findings have also identified the
presentation of risk analysis using fuzzy linguistics variables (Byrne 1995; Cox 1999; Zeng
et al. 2007; Khazaeni et al. 2012a,b; Kuo and Lu 2013). The risk analysis stage further cate-
gorises the discovered risk events based on their severity being high, medium, or low, and
the risk sources including force majeure related, ground condition related, design and qual-
ity related, logistics and communication related, financial and commercial related, legal and
statutory approval related, political related, construction related, and operational related
(see Table 7.3 for detailed description of the typical construction risk sources).
Construction risk
management
environment
Risk identification subsystem Risk analysis subsystem
I T O I T O
Risk review subsystem Risk response subsystem
I T O I T O
I: Input
T: Transformation
O: Output
: Sequences
: Interactions
Figure 4.3 Construction risk management system. Sources: Adapted from Walker (2007, 2015),
Smith et al. (2006), Dallas (2006), and Arthur (2020).
4.3.3 Risk Response Sub-system

The next stage is the risk response sub-system which evaluates the appropriate responses for
addressing the identified risk events. This could be in the form of accepting a risk event and
planning suitable contingencies to control their impact, rejecting a risk event by altering
the project designs or specifications to remove the related project element, implementing
strategies to mitigate the impact of a risk event, outsourcing a risk event using contracts
and insurance policies, and finally, delaying decisions and processes associated with a risk
event until further information become available.
4.3.4 Risk Review Sub-system

The last stage is the risk review sub-system which evaluates functionality and efficacy of the
applied risk management process. The benefit of this stage is realised through critical reflec-
tive analysis of the approaches and methodologies applied in the different stages, leading to
the establishment of strengths and opportunities to enhance and maintain, and weakness
and threats to control or avoid in the future application of the model. The robustness of
the risk review stage is enhanced through the wide involvement of the specialist roles and
organisations contributing to the risk management process.
4.4 Construction Risk Management Approaches

The approach to risk management could be purely based on intuition in the form of per-
ceptions generated by positive and negative feelings (Slovic et al. 2002; Slovic and Peters
2006), or rational analysis using past data, and scientific techniques including probabil-
ity matrix (Winch 2010), fault trees and fish bones, failure mode and effect analysis (Lock
2003), and risk breakdown matrix (Hillson et al. 2006). Other studies have also discovered
construction risk management decision processing using fuzzy logic and linguistics vari-
ables (Byrne 1995; Cox 1999; Zeng et al. 2007; Khazaeni et al. 2012a,b; Kuo and Lu 2013).
This approach involves an initial subjective quantification of risk assessment variables into
linguistic words for quantitative analysis using fuzzy logic controller (Byrne 1995; Jain and
Martin 1998). The analytical decision processes, in effect, make the fuzzy logic technique
another rational approach with the difference being linguistic data presentation formats,
instead of the typical statistics and probability (Arthur and Pryke 2014). Slovic et al. (2010)
have suggested a third risk management approach which combines perception and ratio-
nality called ‘politics’. This is where the findings from a rational risk analysis may suggest
the need for a corresponding rational response, but the actual implementation will reflect
the decision-maker’s perception of what will satisfy the project stakeholders’ expectations.
The downside of perceptions is they are subjective and based on an individual’s per-
sonal value and judgement (Bateman et al. 2010). Perception formation is usually limited
to events that can be connected to similar previous experiences (Kahneman 2011), which
make it manipulative, because previous experience may contain only one-sided informa-
tion (Slovic et al. 2002, 2010). On the other hand, a risk management approach which relies
solely on past empirical data and rational tools may be less effective, judging from the fact
that risk is mainly concerned with uncertainty which implies that a future risk event may
be the first occurrence without an empirical record of any past occurrence. Moreover, the
fact that a risk event had occurred on a previous project does not guarantee its occurrence
on a future project. Another criticism of the rational approach is that analysis carried out
in scientific laboratories under controlled simulations often fail to reflect reality (Wynne,
1996 was cited in Zinn 2008).
Table 4.1 is a comparison between the intuitive and rational approaches (Slovic et al. 2010,
p. 24). The intuitive approach fuelled by perceptions has been referenced as ‘Experiential
system’, whilst the rational approach has also been referenced as ‘Analytical system’.
The inherent lapses within intuition and rationality suggest that any effective risk man-
agement system should incorporate both approaches. According to Finucane et al. (2003),
as well as Isen and Labroo (2003), research findings confirm that both intuition and rational
approaches are important in guiding humans through risk analysis and decisions. Damasio
(2006) explains that whilst perception alone can effectively guide humans in responding to
reflex actions, scientific analysis is also required to enable rational decision making. Slovic
4.4 Construction Risk Management Approaches 47
Table 4.1 Differences between intuition and rationality.
Experiential system Analytical system
1. Holistic 1. Analytic
2. Affective: pleasure-pain oriented 2. Logical: reason oriented (what is sensible)
3. Associationist connections 3. Logical connections
4. Behaviour mediated by ‘vibes’ from past 4. Behaviour mediated by conscious appraisal
experiences of events
5. Encodes reality in concrete images, 5. Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words,
metaphors, and narratives and numbers
6. More rapid processing: oriented towards 6. Slower processing: oriented towards delayed
immediate action action
7. Self-evidently valid: ‘experiencing is believing’ 7. Requires justification via logic and evidence
Source: Slovic et al. (2010).
et al. (2010) have suggested that while events which evoke strong affect reactions such as
terrorism, infatuation, faith, requires cognitive analysis to inject some reality into the risk
judgement and decision-making, probability predictions of events involving fatalities may
fall short of conveying the potential danger and hence requires affect descriptions to ensure
rational risk judgement.
According to Inbar et al. (2010), the characteristics of a decision task and its envi-
ronment are the key factors that influences the choice of a decision-making approach.
Thus, where the decision task and environment exhibit characteristics associated with
reasoning, rationality will be applied, and likewise, in a situation where the key exhibits
of the decision task and environment relates to ‘feeling’, then intuition will be applied.
Traditionally, the rational approach has been widely agreed by scholars as the appropriate
model for decision-making (Inbar et al. 2010). Other research findings, however, suggest
that not everyone follows the norm of rationality when it comes to judgement and
decision-making (Finucane et al. 2003). Zajonc (1980) and Slovic et al. (1981) have argued
that decision-making in real-life situations is guided by both perception and rationality.
Even when we think we are making decisions purely based on rationality, we are in effect
using rational adjustments to refine an initial anchored position which is defined by
background perceptions (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a; Kahneman 2011).
Research findings in construction risk management reveals high reliance on perceptions.
A questionnaire survey of 100 contractors and consultants in the UK construction indus-
try, revealed the risk management practices being dominated by people without formal
training in risk management systems who relies on intuition and heuristics for their anal-
ysis and decision making (Akintoye and Macleod 1997). Lyons and Skitmore (2004) after
analysing 44 received responses out of a sample of 200 engineering companies in Queens-
land, Australia, identified similar findings of high incidence of intuitive risk management
practices, carried out by people with minimal formal training in risk management tech-
niques. Another questionnaire survey of 84 sampled construction contractors in Malawi
also revealed that apart from the small proportion of large and experienced companies
Table 4.2 Reasons for low application of rational construction risk management techniques.
Year of research
publication Reasons for low application of rational risk management techniques
Akintoye and ● Not being familiar with rational techniques

Macleod (1997) ● Rational techniques are too complex for application in construction projects
● Programme constraints, lack of appropriate data, and low competency in
rational techniques
● Uncertainty about the suitability of rational techniques for construction
projects
● Most construction projects are not large enough to justify the investment
and application of rational techniques
● Rational techniques require good available data to validate quality of the
analysis
● Most construction project risks are contractual, or construction related, and
also subjective, which makes them better analysed based on previous project
experience
● Difficulty in justifying the benefits of rational techniques
● Clients rarely request formal risk analysis of construction projects, as they
expect project management practices to set up projects risk-free
● Difficulty in justifying the commercial viability of project risk analysis
● Lack of competency in rational techniques,
Lyons and ● Difficulty in justifying the benefits of application of rational techniques in

Skitmore construction projects
(2004) ● Absence of appropriate resources for the application of rational techniques
● Lack of competency in rational techniques
● Not being familiar with rational techniques
● Programme constraints does not allow the application of rational techniques
Kululanga and ● The findings of the study identified low application of rational techniques to
Kuotcha (2010) be most typical of the small-sized and less-experienced construction firms
(There was no specific survey question to solicit the reasons for the low
application of rational techniques)
Sources: Adapted from Akintoye and Macleod (1997), Lyons and Skitmore (2004), and Kululanga and
Kuotcha (2010).
majority of the small and medium companies did not apply formal risk management tech-
niques (Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010).
Among the reasons that have been given for the low application of rational risk manage-
ment practices in the construction industry are the unavailability of data to enable ratio-
nal analysis, lack of competency in rational risk management systems, size and scope of
most construction projects do not justify the cost and time required for applying rational
techniques, and non-appreciation of the need for scientific tools in construction risk man-
agement (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha
2010 – see Table 4.2). A major limitation on the validity and conclusiveness of the above lists
is that they are merely a compilation of survey responses and do not include an adequate
evaluation of the psychological factors which leads to intuitive decision-making.
From the psychological point of view, Slovic and Peters (2006), Bateman et al. (2010),
and Kahneman (2011) have suggested that perceptions tend to occur spontaneously and
4.5 Summary 49
is rapidly available making it easier and faster to employ in decision-making than relying
on rational analysis, especially where complex decisions are required, and scientific data is
limited. Other studies also suggest that in practice, people do not trust, understand, or use
probability estimates in their risk management decisions (March and Shapira 1987; Akin-
toye and Macleod 1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skitmore 2004). It should
however be noted that the psychological findings have been research from mainly the gam-
bling industry, which although similar in some ways to the construction industry in that
each project is bespoke yet exhibits differences in the nature and time scale of required
decision-making.
4.5 Summary
Chapter 4 has reviewed the construction risk management process. Theoretical evidence
confirms the preference of most managers to transfer their risk events to third-party organ-
isations, using insurance and contract provisions, rather than managing themselves. The
shortcoming of this approach is that sometimes risk is passed on to lower-tier organisa-
tions, without the capacity to manage, and thereby introducing additional risk to the project
delivery. The recent global events including economic recessions with high market volatil-
ity, and liquidation of established international organisations, terrorist incidence, natural
upheavals including hurricanes, earthquakes, wild bush fires outbreaks, domestic fires and
fatalities in high rise buildings, greenhouse gas emission and depletion of the ozone layer,
have cumulatively increased insurance premiums, thereby making the reliance on insur-
ance policies as a risk management strategy non-viable. In addition, government’s reg-
ulatory activities in checking corporate risk management systems and the requirement
to demonstrate risk management competencies in public procurement have resulted in
a changing perspective on corporate risk management, with more emphasis now being
placed on internal management strategies.
Taking a socially constructed risk conceptualisation, the construction risk management
process has been modelled using systems language. The different interconnecting stages
comprising risk identification, risk analysis, risk response, and risk review have been anal-
ysed as sub-systems using the concept of systems decomposition. The risk identification
sub-system being the first stage of the process receives input from the internal project
structure and the wider construction industry environment to determine the potential
events that could affect the project success. The risk analysis sub-system then evaluates
reliability of the identified risk events and further categorises based on their likelihood of
occurrence and impact. The risk response sub-system evaluates the appropriate manage-
ment response. The risk review sub-system completes the risk management process. It is
responsible for auditing the functionality and effectiveness of the applied methodology.
The internal structure of the construction risk management process subsystems has
revealed micro-objectives guiding their input, transformation, and output phases. The
construction industry being an open system, also suggests bilateral interactions between
the internal structure and the wider environment. The assortment of tools and techniques
utilised within the different phases and stages, in addition to the fluidity of environmental
forces makes the construction risk management model very dynamic and responsive to
the continuous project and industry changes.
The chapter concluded with a theoretical review on risk management approaches com-
prising of intuition and rationality. The intuitive vehicle relies on personal perceptions gen-
erated through heuristics. The rational methodology however involves scientific analysis
of structured data. Other recent studies have discovered the use of fuzzy logic in process-
ing risk data expressed in the form of linguistics variables. Fuzzy logic has been argued as
another form of the rational risk management approach with the differences being the data
presentation format (Arthur and Pryke 2014). The selection of a risk management approach
is influenced by the decision-making setting. Decision tasks associated with feeling thrives
under the intuitive approach, whilst decision tasks relating to reasoning are effectively anal-
ysed using the rational approach. The inherent limitations of the approaches suggest the
benefit of combining principles from intuition and rationality to facilitate effective risk
management system. The prevailing construction management research publications have
however revealed dominant intuitive risk management practices by professionals with lim-
ited competency in rational decision-making techniques. A questionnaire survey of 100
contractors and professional firms in the UK construction industry discovered high inci-
dence of instinctive risk management practices, by professionals without formal training in
risk management systems (Akintoye and Macleod 1997). Another research of 200 engineer-
ing companies in Queensland, Australia, also returned similar finding of dominant intuitive
risk management practices carried out by professional with minimal training in scientific
decision processing techniques (Lyons and Skitmore 2004). Further questionnaire survey
of 84 sampled construction contractors in Malawi also revealed limited application of struc-
tured risk management techniques by the few large and experienced companies, with the
remaining small and medium companies resorting to informal practices (Kululanga and
Kuotcha 2010).
The empirical reasons expounded for the low application of rational risk management
techniques include the unavailability of structured data to compliment the scientific anal-
ysis, low competency in rational decision processing programmes, the value and duration
of construction projects being too low to justify the required financial investment in struc-
tured risk management systems. A major limitation to the accuracy and decisiveness of the
empirical reasons has been the fact that, they appear to be a record of the research findings
without adequate analytical evaluation. The next Chapter 5 will therefore apply the psycho-
metric risk conception to analysis the behavioural reasons underlying the current intuitive
construction risk management practices, and the wider implications.
51
Construction Risk Management Decision-Making
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 5 employs a psychometric risk perspective to evaluate the prevailing intuitive risk
management practices and the wider theoretical and practical issues. The discussion begins
with a review of the different systems of thinking and decision-making. The quick approach
applied in intuitive risk management is always active and constantly generating percep-
tions to guide decision-making. The gradual approach associated with rational risk man-
agement, on the other hand, requires deliberate activation and application of appropriate
cognitive programme to systematically process a decision setting. Behavioural science the-
ories confirm constant interactions between the two systems. Decision processing usually
commences within the quick approach using heuristics to evaluate the prime attributes of
the decision task, for evidence of similar previous experiences to influence the modelling of
the projected outcome in similar patterns. Where there are no comparable previous records
the decision task is transferred to the gradual approach to process using a suitable cognitive
programme (Kahneman 2011).
The chapter then proceeds to undertake deeper theoretical review of the quick
decision-making approach associated with the current intuitive risk management prac-
tices. This has involved analytical review of the psychology of personal perceptions
responsible for intuitive decision processing. The theoretical review has centred on the
key determinants and processes for generating personal perceptions and intuitive decision
processing. The impact of personal perceptions on cognitive reasoning has also been
evaluated. There has been further review of the different risk data presentation formats of
quantitative and qualitative, and how the historical development of the risk terminology
has influenced risk data presentation in statistical and probability formats even within
the construction industry with the dominant intuitive practices. The theoretical issues
involved in the intuitive processing of statistics and probability risk data formats within
the construction industry have been examined.
There has been further discussion on risk management decision-making under intu-
ition. The findings from behavioural science research confirm the susceptibility of intuitive
decision-making to biases and systematic errors. Intuitive decision processing using the
representative heuristics become prone to biases resulting from misconception of the law
of chance, insensitivity to prior probability, sample size, reliability, and validity of base
information. The errors of intuitive decision processing under the availability heuristics
52 5 Construction Risk Management Decision-Making
results from how easily past events and searches comparable to current decision tasks can
be retrieved. Intuitive decision-making under the ‘anchor and adjustment’ heuristics also
produces errors, when an assessor misinterprets an anchored value to be close to the final
estimate, leading to pre-matured abrogation of the adjustment process.
The chapter concludes with an evaluation of the sources of risk perception categorisation.
This is on the basis that a correct understanding of the sources of the different personal
perceptions influencing the intuitive construction risk management practices will assist the
project management process to identify and harmonise towards the achievement of project
objectives, and mitigation of cross purpose working practices. There has therefore been a
review of the present theoretical explanations for risk perception categorisation including
personality traits, prospect theory, differences between external stakeholders and project
team members, and cultural theory. The criticisms and limitations of the existing theories
lead to the proposition of a novel theory based on the processes of systems decomposition
and differentiated discussed in Chapter 2, and the conceptual relationship between a ‘risk
event’ and its ‘impact on an objective’ previously discussed in Chapter 3.
5.2 The Two Systems of Thinking and Decision-Making
Behavioural scientists believe there are two systems of thinking and decision-making.
Various psychologist over the years have assigned different labels for the classification
including, Kahneman (2011) description of ‘fast system’ and ‘slow system’ (Kahneman
2011), and Stanovich et al. (2016) use of ‘system 1’ and ‘system 2’. This book on the other
hand, has adopted ‘Quick approach’ and ‘Gradual approach’ to delineate the two systems
(see Figure 5.1). The primary differences between the systems are the quick approach is
always active and operates spontaneously without effort. The gradual approach however
requires a conscious deliberate effort to activate and sustained attention for the decision
processing.
Decision processing usually commences within the quick approach through involuntary
activation by comparing the decision task against records of previous experiences to
see if there are similarities to guide in the modelling of the decision outcome to reflect
patterns of previous occurrence (Benthin et al. 1993; Damasio 2006). Where there are no
similarities the gradual approach is recalled through voluntary activation of an appropriate
cognitive programme to process the decision task. Thus, the gradual approach becomes
fully activated whenever a person encounters a decision task which exhibit properties
outside the operational world of the quick approach.
Quick approach Gradual approach
Figure 5.1 The two systems of thinking and decision-making. Source: Adapted from Kahneman
(2011).
5.2 The Two Systems of Thinking and Decision-Making 53
5.2.1 Quick Decision-Making

The quick approach adopts natural inborn stimulus to automatically generate thought
(Damasio 2006; Bateman et al. 2010). The decision flow occurs in the form of complex
patterns inspired by personal perceptions. The perceptions are also generated based on the
modelling of the outcome of the decision task in patterns that reflect previous occurrences.
The quality of the quick decision outcome depends on the decision-making setting and
the level of spontaneity of the decision processing (Kahneman 2011 – see Figure 5.2). The
decision-making setting is also a function of the quality of applied data as reflected in the
available record of previous experiences, the quality of the applied qualitative approach,
and the competency of the decision-maker in terms of physiological ability to instinctively
generate perceptions. The theoretical evidence of the constant activation of the quick
decision approach, suggest a direct relationship between the rate of perception generation
and the quality of the decision processing system. Prolongation in the generation of
perceptions will risk activation of the gradual decision-making approach to interfere with
the decision processing principles.
The following are some examples of quick decision processing:
● blinking when an object comes closer to your eyes

● natural metabolism including breathing, and sleeping
● reacting to different emotional stimulus such as danger, expression of love, aggression,
fear, sadness
● reciting a familiar poem
● an experienced project manager recounting the RIBA Plan of Work stages
● answering simple questions about your professional role
● recounting lessons learnt from a recently completed project
Decision-making
setting:
a. Data: Availability of
appropriate data –
record of similar
previous experiences.
b. Approach:
Application of
appropriate qualitative Quality of decision
Spontaneity
approach to analyse outcome
patterns between the
decision task and the
record of previous
experiences.
c. Competency:
Decision maker being
physiologically capable
of instinctive
perception generation.
Figure 5.2 Quick decision-making approach. Source: Adapted from Kahneman (2011).
The spontaneity of the quick approach enables swift and accurate simple decision-making
in the face of an emergency. Notwithstanding, the difficulty in taming the thought gen-
eration process sometimes results in impulsive and nuisance judgements and project
actions. A major criticism of the quick approach has been the inherent biases which makes
it susceptibility to systematic errors (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and
Tversky 1982b; Kahneman 2011). It often associates correct responses with events that
bear resemblance with past occurrence and those easy to construct into patterns. It has
also been criticised for lacking understanding in logic and statistics.
5.2.2 Gradual Decision-Making

The gradual approach involves deliberate recollection of appropriate cognitive programme
to synthesis a given decision task through logical and orderly sequencing. The procedure
requires alertness and attention on the decision task as diversions disrupts the process. The
decision processing often results in physiological changes including tensing of the mus-
cles, increase in blood pressure, and heartbeat rate and dilation of the pupils in the eye
(Kahneman 2011).
The quality of the gradual decision approach depends on the decision-making setting
and the level of attention provided during the processing phase (see Figure 5.3). The
decision-making setting also comprises of the quality of available data, the appropriateness
of the selected cognitive programme, and the competency of the decision-maker being able
to understand and apply analytical programme to process quantitative data.
The following are some examples of gradual decision processing:
● remembering the name of an old acquittance
● undertaking project appraisal
● reviewing an extension of time application
Decision-making
setting:
a. Data: Availability of
appropriate
quantitative data.
b. Approach:
Application of
appropriate rational
approach to Quality of decision
Attention
decompose the outcome
decision task into
structured logical
sequence.
c. Competency: Ability
of the decision maker
to understand and
apply the rational tool
in analysing
quantitative data.
Figure 5.3 Gradual decision-making approach. Source: Adapted from Kahneman (2011).
● undertaking pre-handover inspections

● undertaking budget estimate
The above activities require deliberate activation of suitable rational programmes and
sustained attention for the decision processing. Kahneman (2011) and Bikart (2019) have
suggested that manoeuvring through daily life activities involve allocation of attention to
different rational tasks. In a situation where an activity requires more attention than what
has been deposited, the deficit often results in disruption, and subsequent minimisation of
the quality of the decision output or outright abrogation of the process. This explains why
it is often difficult to undertake multiple reasoning activities at the same time. Kahneman
(2011), believe we all have some level of awareness of the limited capacity of attention. As an
illustration, most adults living with other professionals who work from home often would
become quiet and less disruptive whenever there is a work-related telephone call to allow
the professional the necessary tranquillity to concentrate on the deliberations. Chabris and
Simons (2010) have explained the theoretical basis to be the temporary blindness to sec-
ondary interactions whenever a person become intensely absorbed in a task.
The theoretical evidence of the gradual approach requiring attention for decision process-
ing confirms a direct relationship between the level of provided attention and the quality
of the decision outcome. Being alert during a gradual decision processing will invariably
result in corresponding value to the decision output. The other evidence on the difficulties
in achieving maximum concurrent attention for multiple tasks also suggest that reduc-
ing decision-making to few variables will result in corresponding increase in efficiency.
According to Bikart (2019), Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once explained the reason for
adopting his trademark fashion of grey T-shirt and hoodie was to remove fashion variables
from his daily decision-making, and focus his attention on his core business tasks.
Research findings suggest there are constant interactions between the quick and grad-
ual approaches. The quick approach with its hyperactive properties routinely scans the
constructs within the environment to produce suggestions in the form of insights, convic-
tions, intuitions, feelings, opinions, and impressions for the gradual approach to analyse
and where validated convert them into credence and voluntary actions (Kahneman 2011).
Other research findings also suggest that prolonged practice of cognitive activities asso-
ciated with the gradual approach often become assimilated into practices under the quick
approach (Kahneman 2011). The theoretical explanation is; repeated practice of a mental
activity creates perceptual images and stimulus within the human mental library to influ-
ence intuitive decision processing (Damasio 2006; Benthin et al. 1993).
5.3 The Psychology of Perception
Research findings within the Affect theoretical framework have identified a direct rela-
tionship between affect and behaviour patterns including perceptions (Zajonc 1980; Forgas
2001; Dohle et al. 2010). Affect as explained by Bateman et al. (2010) expresses an experi-
enced feeling state triggered by a positive or negative inducement.
Affect heuristics, on the other hand, is the experiential process through which positive
and negative affective feelings generate perceptions to guide decision-making (Finucane
et al. 2003). Slovic et al. (2010) have also suggested a relationship between affect heuristics
and the representative and availability heuristics. The representative heuristic, as explained
by Kahneman and Tversky (1982a), Tversky and Kahneman (2002), and Kahneman (2011),
judges the likelihood of association between an event and its parent population by the
degree to which the event exhibits the prime characteristics of the parent population.
Kahneman and Tversky (1982b) have also suggested that representation exist in situations
where the composition of a sample reflect the majority–minority composition of its parent
population and where the sample composition reflects a possible outcome from the
composition of the parent population. Availability heuristic, on the other hand, predicts
the frequency of an event by how easily a similar past occurrence can be recollected or a
possible outcome scenario can be constructed from the event (Kahneman 2011).
There are different theoretical interpretations for the relationship between affect and the
other physiological feeling states such as ‘emotion’ and ‘mood’. Finucane et al. (2003) refer
to ‘emotion’ as specific intense feeling based on an antecedent cause and normally short
lived. ‘Mood’ on the other hand is explained as a salient feeling state, which may not have
an antecedent cause and may last from a short period to a long period. Isen (1993) cited in
Finucane et al. (2003) refer to affect as the ‘background mood’. Finucane et al. (2003) also
postulates that affect lies between ‘emotion’ and ‘mood’ having an antecedent cause and
normally expressed in a non-elaborate form. Forgas (1995), on the other hand, sees affect
to comprise of both ‘emotion’ and ‘mood’.
Larsen and Diener (1987) and Patrick (1994) have contended that affect experiences
depend on an individual’s psychological composition which influences the ability to rec-
ollect and process past events. Peters and Slovic (2000) argues that optimistic individuals
are better at processing information likely to lead to positive outcomes, while anxious
individuals tend to be better at processing information likely to assist in avoiding a negative
outcome.
5.3.1 Risk Perception

The empirical findings from over 50 years of psychometric research predominantly in the
gambling industry have revealed the determinants of risk perception to include psychologi-
cal, social, institutional, and cultural factors (Slovic et al. 2010). Maytorena et al. (2007) have
also argued that risk perceptions develop from the level and type of education and previous
experiences. Risk perceptions within the construction project delivery system evolve from
the project stakeholders, which comprises the immediate project team members, and the
external stakeholders in the client system’s environment (Loosemore 2006; Walker 2007,
2015).
Benthin et al. (1993) have argued that perceived risk and perceived benefits are closely
related to feelings induced by our mental image of previous similar events. This suggests
that an individual’s risk perception on a subject is influenced by the extent of exposure
to that subject. Exposure here includes all experiences with previous similar events and
information provided at the time of the risk perception judgement. Where an individual has
no previous exposure to a subject, it becomes difficult to appreciate the potential risk events
associated with it. The implication being that different individuals will express different
perceptions on the same subject based on their degree of familiarity and past experiences
with the subject. This can be illustrated by examining Sir Ian Blair’s report in 2008 that the
UK police between 2000 and 2008 identified and foiled 15 terrorist plots in Britain (Slack
2008). The Heritage Foundation also reported that from 11 September 2001 to 11 September
2011 there were 40 terror plots against the United States of America that were identified and
foiled (Carafano and Zuckerman 2011). The identification and foiling of all these terror plots
were barely noticed by the regular public due to their limited knowledge and exposure to
techniques in identifying terrorist plots.
5.3.2 Formation of Risk Perceptions

The human mind stores pictorial images of past experiences (Bateman et al. 2010) in the
form of sound, smell, real or imagined visual impressions, ideas, and words (Finucane et al.
2003), which are marked with affective feelings (Slovic and Peters 2006). Neurologist Dama-
sio has also suggested that the brain’s image library of past experiences modelled in the
form of perceptual images influences decision-making (Damasio 2006). During the process
of judgement and decision-making, the mental image library is consulted for records of
similar past events which influences the modelling of a pictorial image of the present event
(Benthin et al. 1993).
Where the records of a previous similar event are available, then depending on the nature
of the stored images being positive or negative, a corresponding feeling is induced which
in turn determines the assessor’s perception on that future event (Benthin et al. 1993).
According to Finucane et al. (2003), most research findings suggest a spontaneous gen-
eration of perceptions from an affect stimulus. However, researchers including Insko and
Oakes (1966) and Zinbarg and Mohlman (1998) cited in Finucane et al. (2003) argue that
perceptions evolve from deliberate processing of affect information.
If the image from our mental library is a positive memory which induces a happy feel-
ing, we are likely to model the future event as a good image, form a positive perception,
and assess the event as a positive risk. On the other hand, if the image from our mental
library is a negative memory which induces feelings of pain, sorrow, or danger, then we
are likely to model the event as a bad image, form a negative perception, and assess it as a
negative risk with potential negative impact. Finucane et al. (2003) in explaining the rela-
tionship between affect and decision-making have suggested that positive affect with its
corresponding ‘feel good’ inducement produces stimulus which motivates decision accep-
tance to ensure occurrence of the perceived future positive risk. On the other hand, negative
affect with its corresponding negative feeling influences decision rejection to ensure miti-
gation of the perceived negative future risk. See Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 can be likened to a hypothetical model of a construction specialist’s risk judge-
ment on timber frame construction solution. After consulting the mental image library,
there are three possible outcomes labelled ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. Outcome ‘A’ is where the previ-
ous experience with timber frame construction had occurred on a project which recorded
positive gains such as, reduction in construction programme with corresponding savings
on preliminary costs. The positive stored pictorial image evokes a positive feeling which in
turn leads to the formation of a positive image of the future event, development of a positive
perception, and assessment of timber frame construction solution as a positive risk to the
future project.
Risk judgement Consultation of

on future event mental image library
C
A B
Positive image No previous image
Negative image
Positive risk Negative No risk perception

feeling risk feeling formation. Decision
task rolled to the
gradual system for
structured analysis
Positive image of Negative image of

future event- future event-
positive personal negative personal
perception perception
Figure 5.4 How perceptions are formed. Sources: Adapted from Bateman et al. (2010), Benthin
et al. (1993), and Finucane et al. (2003).
Outcome ‘B’ is where the previous experience with timber frame construction had
occurred on a project where there was a tragic incident with catastrophic consequences,
like fire destructions. The stored negative image induces a negative feeling which leads
to the formation of a negative image on the future event. This ultimately leads to the
development of a negative perception and assessment of timber frame construction
solution as a negative risk to the future project.
Outcome C on the other hand is a situation where there is no previous academic or
working experience with timber frame construction. The assessor does not have any stored
mental image of a previous timber frame project and therefore unable to form risk percep-
tion on timber frame construction.
According to Zajonc (2001), repeated exposure to an event evokes positive affect about the
event. This suggests that where an individual’s previous exposures to an event had occurred
in a neutral context, the mere repeat exposure to the same event could influence the mod-
elling of a positive perception on a similar future event.
Finucane et al. (2003) have also indicated that in a situation where the mental image
library produces multiple positive and negative images as a result of multiple previous
exposures to similar experiences then factors such as the dominant properties of the previ-
ous exposures, and the physiological state of the decision-maker being either ‘extrovert’ or
‘introvert’ will cumulatively influence the modelling of the future event as either a positive
or negative image.
According to Fischhoff et al. (1978) and Alhakami and Slovic (1994), there is an inverse
relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Finucane et al. (2003) further
suggest that reduction in the time allowed for decision-making increases the inverse rela-
tionship. This can be seen to be contrary to real life where high-risk events are often asso-
ciated with high benefit results (Slovic and Peters 2006).
In addition, Alhakami and Slovic (1994) note that exposure to additional contrary infor-
mation of an event at the time of a risk judgment may alter previous perceptions even
where the base situation has not changed. This may be due to the impact of perceiving the
additional information as a case of suggestion (Kahneman 2011, p. 122) and generating asso-
ciated evidence to confirm the essential characteristics of the additional information. The
consequences often are wrong decisions which affect project success. Flyvbjerg et al. (2003)
in examining the causes of failure of mega projects in Europe identified that on projects
including the Channel Tunnel between France and United Kingdom, the Great Belt Link at
Denmark, and the Oresund Link between Sweden and Denmark, unrealistic best-case sce-
nario predictions presented at the feasibility stages influenced the perception of the project
sponsors into judging the project to be financially viable and approving their implementa-
tion only for the actual project cost to exceed the initial estimates. Likewise, the National
Audit Office (2000) official review of the Millennium Dome project in the United Kingdom
also identified that unrealistic fee-paying visitor projections used at the initial project stages
to justify the project financial viability was not achieved after completion and consequently,
contributed to the project failure.
5.3.3 Impact of Affective Heuristics on Cognitive Reasoning

The establishment of a link between affective heuristics and perception formation calls for
deeper analysis on the impact of affect on cognitive reasoning to ascertain whether the cur-
rent intuitive construction risk management practices may have been influenced by affect.
There are different theoretical explanations for the relationship between affect and cog-
nitive reasoning. According to Isen and Labroo (2003), the traditional belief has been that
affect feelings suppresses cognitive reasoning. Other research findings however suggest that
positive affect enhances flexibility in cognitive reasoning, initiative, creativity, and adoption
of a problem-solving approach (Isen and Labroo 2003).
The researchers who support the traditional view include Mackie and Worth (1989) and
Bless et al. (1990). Their argument is that positive affect evokes a feeling of false security
which influences the mind into believing that the situation is under control and hence
not requiring careful processing of information or adoption of problem-solving approach.
Mackie and Worth (1989) have also argued that positive affect takes up the cognitive capac-
ity in the brain leaving no room for cognitive analysis.
Other researchers including Isen and Daubman (1984), Isen et al. (1987, 1992), and
Rowe et al. (2007) however support the contemporary view of a positive correlation
between positive affect and cognitive reasoning. The findings supporting their hypothesis
have been found to be consistent within different contexts using different subjects ranging
from pre-school, adolescents, college students, to professionals (Isen and Labroo 2003).
According to Carnevale and Isen (1986) and Staw and Barsade (1993), research findings
within the organisational disciplines also suggest that the happy feeling evoked by positive
affect influences flexibility in negotiation and a willingness to adopt a constructive problem

solving approach, rather than a defensive or antagonistic approach.
The above arguments offer support for both the traditional and contemporary views.
Schwartz and Bless (1991) and Forgas (2002) after analysing the existing research literature
on this subject concluded that the impact of affect on cognitive reasoning could be positive
or negative depending on the situation in which affect is experienced, and how affective
information is processed. This suggests that affect influence may not automatically pre-
vent rationality, and therefore, may not be responsible for the high incidence of intuitive
construction risk management practices.
5.3.4 Construction Risk Data Presentation Formats and Affective Heuristics

According to Slovic et al. (2010), the presentation format of a risk analysis data influences
the evaluation and subsequent decision-making. Risk management data are usually
expressed qualitatively and/or quantitatively using statistical tools (Bowers 1994). Bowden
et al. (2001) have argued that quantitative risk data presentation enhances comprehen-
sive risk evaluation and comparison of different risk events using a common adjusted
denominator. Qualitative risk data are, nonetheless, relatively easy to process. Other
studies involving fuzzy systems have also discovered construction risk data presentation
in the form of linguistics variables (Byrne 1995; Cox 1999; Zeng et al. 2007; Khazaeni et al.
2012a,b; Kuo and Lu 2013).
The previous review on risk conceptualisation (discussed in Section 3.3) confirmed that
the traditional risk management systems centred on informal practices including super-
stition, taboos, and rituals utilised qualitative data presentation expressed in the form of
narratives, scenarios, and qualitative statements. The coming together of the early mer-
chants in the northern Italian city states, in the fourteenth century to establish insurance
systems to manage the risk events associated with shipwreck and pirate attacks, introduced
quantitative data presentation formats, and probability techniques to the risk epistemology.
This has subsequently been extended to the other disciplines applying risk. Research find-
ings however suggest that most people do not understand statistical information (Tversky
and Kahneman 1982a; Akintoye and MacLeod 1997; Arthur 2018) and will rather prefer
narratives, models, illustrations, and anecdotal simulations (Slovic 2010).
Denes-Raj and Epstein (1994) have suggested that affect heuristics may hinder the pro-
cessing of statistical data. Findings from two studies involving undergraduate psychology
students who were asked to draw jelly beans from different sized transparent bowls con-
taining different sample sizes, discovered a preference for the bowl which contained the
bigger sample size, despite the fact that the smaller sample sized option offered a higher
probability of success. Denes-Raj and Epstein in the same work attributed their findings to
the fact that most people perceive probability predictions offering ‘more options’ to be of a
better chance, compared to probability predictions offering ‘less options’. Thus, given two
probability predictions of ‘8’ in ‘100’ and ‘1’ in ‘10’, most people will perceive the probability
of ‘8’ in ‘100’ to present a better chance than the ‘1’ in ‘10’ prediction.
Slovic et al. (2010) have argued that where the potential outcome of a future event evokes a
strong affective memory the assessor may be insensitive to the probability predictions on the
event. This is more evident where the event is associated with previous similar experiences
of addiction, faith, love, or hate. As an illustration, construction operatives with terrible

previous experience of an asbestos-related illness or death are likely to display strong neg-
ative affect towards construction solutions involving asbestos materials. The presentation
of different probability predictions of asbestos contamination such as 1/100 or 1/1000 are
unlikely to alter their aversion to asbestos construction materials.
According to Bateman et al. (2010), when an individual is asked to make a judgement of
alternative options, the alternative expressed in a format that enables evaluation is likely to
be perceived as better and attractive, compared to the other alternatives. As an illustration, a
health and safety strategy predicted to have a probability of saving 10 lives in a year is likely
to be perceived as less attractive to an alternative strategy with a probability prediction to
save 10 people out of a population of 100 people even where the total population is less than
100 people.
Slovic et al. (2010) has further suggested that most people relate better to whole numbers,
than fractions and decimals. Where comparable probability predictions are expressed as
whole numbers, and fractions, most people will perceive a probability expressed in whole
numbers to be of a higher value than a probability expressed in fraction.
The above theoretical review suggest that intuitive risk analysis of quantitative data as
evident in the prevailing construction risk management practices of intuitive processing of
quantitative statistical and probability data (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skit-
more 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010; Bowden et al. 2001; Lock 2003) is likely to result
in system errors.
5.4 Risk Management Decision Making Under Intuition

Against the background of the current theoretical evidence of dominated intuitive
construction risk management practices (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skit-
more 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010), it is important to evaluate risk management
decision-making under intuition. According to Tversky and Kahneman (1982a), intuitive
predictions under uncertainty utilises the representative and availability heuristics. Other
research findings, on the other hand, suggest that in certain situations experts can rely
on their professional experiences rather than heuristics to achieve accurate intuitive
predictions (Kahneman 2011). The high proportion of construction industry risk analysts
and decision-makers without formal training in risk management systems (Akintoye
and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004) however suggest that the current intuitive
construction risk management practices are guided mainly by heuristics, rather than
skilled experiential knowledge.
Loosemore (2006) and Slovic and Peters (2006) have suggested that prior to the emergence
of scientific risk management tools, perceptions, and intuition were the key navigators for
public and individual risk management decision-making. Research findings by Finucane
et al. (2003) and Isen and Labroo (2003) also confirms the relevance of intuition in effective
decision making. Kahneman and Tversky (1982b) have however suggested that the prin-
ciples of probability predictions under the representative and availability heuristics defies
the laws of chance and statistics and are likely to result in errors in predictions. Likewise,
the principles and theories of systems thinking and analysis (Bertalanffy 1968, 2015; Walker
2015) suggest that mixing approaches and data formats from different decision-making sys-
tems may introduce conflicting variables which may be detrimental to the risk management
process.
According to Tversky and Kahneman (1982a), the factors which cause biases in judge-
ment under the representative heuristics include prior probability, sample size, misconcep-
tion of the law of chance, predictability, and validity. Tversky and Kahneman (1982a) have
further suggested that judgement under the availability heuristics may produce errors as a
result of biases resulting from the ease of retrieving past instances, and the ability to search
past occurrences.
Prior probability is the predicted probability of an event based on its evaluable subjects
within a given population. Thus, given the statistical data of the causes of cost overrun
observed in 100 projects as 40 incidence of design changes; 32 incidence of wrong initial
estimates; and 28 incidence of fiscal changes, the ‘prior probability’ for cost overrun result-
ing from design changes in a similar project become 40%. Kahneman and Tversky (1973)
discovered in an occupation classification experiment that when personality information
on the subjects were provided the assessors became insensitive to the prior probabilities
and rather concentrated on making their predictions by evaluating the similarities between
the provided personality information, and their pre-convinced stereotypical characterises
of the various occupation, which may not be correct.
Tversky and Kahneman (1982a) have also suggested that probability predictions under
the representative heuristics may become insensitive to sample size leading to false expec-
tation of similarities in composition and arrangement between the sample population and
the parent population. This is inconsistent with the tenets of sample theory which does not
guarantee fairness in drawing samples out of their parent population. Tversky and Kah-
neman (1982b) have suggested that unlike the law of equilibrium which corrects errors of
deviation with corresponding counter deviations, the law of chance corrects errors of devi-
ation through dilution. This means that the larger the sample size, the more likely it will
reflect the prime characteristics of its parent population (Kahneman 2011). Intuitive risk
management practices which identifies and treats potential risk events based on few previ-
ous similar observations therefore run the risk of producing errors.
Another potential error that may result from risk management analysis utilising the rep-
resentative heuristics is the misconception of chance. Tversky and Kahneman (1982a) have
explained that most people who make risk management decisions based on the represen-
tative heuristics expect balanced systematic repetition of past occurrence, but this may be
contrary to real-life experiences where chance occurs in no systematic order.
The error of predictability occurs where assessors become insensitive to the reliability of
the base information upon which predictions are made (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a). In
situations where predictions are made based on information which do not relate directly
to an event, then the potential future outcome may exhibit no resemblance to the base
information. Within the construction industry, intuitive risk management decisions which
attempts to predict project success using base information generated under different success
indicators may result in errors.
According to Slovic et al. (1982), the source and presentation format of data can alter
understanding and validity. Therefore, in a situation where an assessor makes intuitive risk
management decisions based on propaganda data, rather than facts, there is bound to be
errors.
The principles of the availability heuristics restrict intuitive prediction of potential future
events to past occurrences that can be easily retrieved. Future predictions therefore become
possible only where related past occurrence can be easily recalled. According to Tversky
and Kahneman (1982c), past events associated with famous subjects and celebrities are
usually assigned high probability predictions of association with similar potential future
events compared to the regular occurrences. The inherent limitations in effect make the
availability heuristics ineffective in addressing emergent and peripheral risk events.
Furthermore, the degree of involvement in a past event may influence the ability to eas-
ily recall the outcome. A person’s recollection of an event where there had been a direct
involvement will likely be higher than where there had been an indirect involvement, such
as merely reading about the event. Slovic et al. (1982) have also suggested that events that
stay in the media limelight for a prolonged period are easily recollected compared to the
events kept in obscurity. The differences in ability to easily recall past events within dif-
ferent experiential context diminishes the reliability of risk management decision-making
under the availability heuristics.
The ease by which an assessor can search for real-life occurrence of similar past events
could also be a potential source of bias in intuitive risk management decision-making under
the availability heuristics. According to Tversky and Kahneman (1982a), most people find it
easy to imagine abstract occurrences in comparison to concrete events. Additionally, most
people find it easy to search for words by starting from the first letter, compared to the
middle or last letters. The implication is that the structure and composition of an event
may enhance or hinder the ability to easily recall a similar past occurrence which will in
effect reduce the reliability of predictions under the availability heuristics.
Another potential source of bias in intuitive prediction is the effect of anchor and adjust-
ment (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a). According to Chapman and Johnson (2002), esti-
mates are usually made from a starting ‘anchored’ value and adjusted to arrive at the final
estimate. The initial value may be given at the start of the estimate or deduced from com-
putations from the base information. Epley and Gilovich (2002) have suggested that adjust-
ments are normally insufficient, leading to errors in the final estimate. Kahneman (2011)
traces the cause of insufficient adjustment to the premature abrogation in the adjustment
process at the time when an assessor becomes unsure whether to continue adjusting. Kah-
neman (2011, p. 122) has further suggested that there are instances where the error in
estimation may not result from insufficient adjustment but rather the effect of perceiv-
ing the anchored value to be a case of suggestion, and thus stimulating associated evidence
which leads to the final estimate reflecting the prime characteristics of the anchored value.
The implication of the inherent biases of anchor and adjustment for judgements where the
validity of the base information, and reliability of the adjustment formulae are not verified
is that different individuals may likely achieve different judgements for the same event.
Research findings have also revealed that intuitive evaluation of compound events is
likely to result in biases and systematic errors (Cohen et al. 1972; Bar-Hillel 1973; Kahne-
man 2011; Appendix A). Bar-Hillel (1973) argues that probability estimation of conjunctive
events is usually overestimated whilst probability estimation of disjunctive events is usually
underestimated. In a study involving high school seniors and college students, participants
were asked to bet on three classifications of simple, conjunctive, and disjunctive events,
involving the picking of coloured marbles from a parent population composed of coloured
and white marbles. The findings revealed a high preference for the simple and conjunc-
tive events compared to the preference for disjunctive event even though statistically the
disjunctive event presented the highest probability. Tversky and Kahneman (1982a) and
Kahneman (2011) attributed the lack of sensitivity between the probability values and pref-
erence to the error of anchor and adjustment associated with estimates of compound events.
The sum of probability estimates for compound conjunctive events are less than the proba-
bility estimates of each of the individual component events, whereas the sum of probability
estimates for compound disjunctive occurrences, is higher than the probability estimates
of the individual component events. In the process of estimating the probability value of a
compound event, the assessor normally starts with an initial value which is anchored on
the probability estimate of the individual component events and adjust them to achieve the
final estimate, which as revealed from the research findings, is normally closer to the initial
‘anchored’ value (Epley and Gilovich 2002).
The above analysis on the inherent biases in judgement and decision-making under intu-
ition in the light of the prevailing theoretical findings, which underline the over reliance
on intuition in construction risk management practices, probably explains why probabil-
ity predictions and quantification of construction risk events sometimes turn out different
from the actual (National Audit Office 2000; CBI 2010; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003).
5.5 Differentiated Risk Perceptions and Intuitive Construction

Risk Management Practices
Against the background of the foregoing theoretical review on the behavioural issues
involved in the social construction of risk within the construction risk management
decision-making subsystem, a further evaluation of the generating processes of risk
perception categorisations and the ensuring analytical implications are undertaken.
The existing literature on the factors which account for differences in risk perceptions
includes categorisation based on the differences in personality traits which give rise to
groups of ‘risk takers’, ‘risk averse’, and risk makers (Weber and Milliman 1997; Smith et al.
2006; Chauvin et al. 2007). According to Weber and Milliman (1997), the emphasis that an
individual places on the probability of a risk event occurring, and the likely impact if the
risk event actualises, depend on both demographic factors and the individual’s assessment
scale.
The problem with risk perception categorisation based on personality traits is that stud-
ies using different methods have produced different classifications for the same individual
(Slovic 1964; MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990). Even where the same methodology was
applied some individuals exhibited characteristics of different classification at different cir-
cumstances (Schoemaker 1990; MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990).
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) have also explained risk perception categorisations by
employing the principles of prospect theory. According to them, most people exhibit traits of
risk aversion with a preference for choices that offer certainty in gain, rather than choices
that offer mixed prospects composed of probabilities for gains and losses. The degree of
5.5 Differentiated Risk Perceptions and Intuitive Construction Risk Management Practices 65
risk aversion increases with an increase in the prospect of a loss. Kahneman (2011) further
suggests that in the process of making a choice, an individual evaluates the psychologi-
cal impact of the likely benefits and/or losses associated with the available options before
making a final choice. Most people are likely to become ‘risk takers’ and accept a negative
gambling offering a probability to lose, against an alternative option which offers certainty
of loss. Again, most people will likely become ‘risk averse’ and reject a mixed gambling
scenario offering the prospect for both gains and losses, against an alternative which offer
certainty of a gain.
A major limitation of prospect theory is that it mainly evaluates risk attitudes under
different risky scenarios without offering an explanation for the causes of differences in
risk attitude between different subjects under the same scenario. Slovic and Lichtenstein
(1983) have criticised prospect theory for failing to explain preference reversal, which is the
inconsistencies in an individual’s monetary evaluation of different preference options and
demonstration of risk preference. Slovic and Lichtenstein (1983) further explains that when
people are asked to choose between a prospect which offer a high probability of winning
a moderate monetary reward and an alternative prospect which offers a low probability of
winning a high monetary reward, most people will exhibit preferences which are inconsis-
tent with the tenets of the economic theories of preference by choosing the former prospect
whilst at the same time assigning a high monetary value to the latter prospect. Schoemaker
(1990) has also criticised prospect theory for not explaining the discrepancies in an indi-
vidual’s risk preference under domains of certainty and probability experienced in similar
risky scenarios.
Loosemore et al. (2006) also categorises risk perceptions within the construction project
delivery system into external stakeholders and project team members. This approach how-
ever appears simplistic. In as much as some theoretical contemporary approaches to risk
management advocates for inclusion of input from all project stakeholders (Slovic 2010),
research findings in risk management practices shows that final risk management analysis
and decision-making are made by project team members (Lyons and Skitmore 2004) and
not external stakeholders, which explains the variances in exposure, and resulting differ-
ences in risk perceptions between the two groups.
Analysis of the conceptual relationship between a ‘risk event’ and the potential ‘impact
on an objective’ (Loosemore et al. 2006), as discussed in Chapter 3, sheds light on a possible
source of risk perception categorisation, which addresses the deficiencies of the current
theories.
Drawing from the concept of systems decomposition (Carmichael 2006) which
was reviewed in Chapter 2, the perception component within the risk management
decision-making sub-system can be analysed as a lower hierarchy sub-subsystem as shown
in Figure 5.5.
The components within the perception sub-subsystem are what are defined as the differ-
ences in risk perceptions. The factors which causes the construction delivery system’s com-
ponents to differentiate and sub divide into additional groups (Walker 2007) as reviewed in
Chapter 2, also exposes the individuals within the subgroups to different kinds and degrees
of experiences. These experiences generate affective heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010) which
influences perception formation (Damasio 2006; Bateman et al. 2010; Slovic et al. 2010).
The differences in the objectives of the differentiated sub-systems (Carmichael 2006; Walker
Environmental forces
Risk management perception

sub-subsystem Perception B
Perception A
Perception C
Perception D
Interactions
Figure 5.5 Risk management perception sub-subsystems. Sources: Adapted from Carmichael
(2006) and Slovic (2010).
2015) of the construction delivery system also suggest that the impact of environmental
forces will result in differences in availability heuristics and therefore differences in per-
ceptions within the various sub-systems (Loosemore et al. 2006; Slovic et al. 2010). This
establishes a connection between the generating processes of systems differentiation and
the differences in perceptions. The differences in risk perceptions within the construction
project delivery system will therefore manifest along the pattern of the groupings of the
internal components: companies, specialist roles, and personal objectives (see Figure 5.6).
The analytical proposition has been described as differentiated risk perceptions.
The analytical proposition of differentiated risk perceptions appears consistent with the
tenets of culture theory which argues that social institutions and groupings are formed
based on common objectives, values, and perceptions (Thompson et al. 1990). It must how-
ever be emphasised that unlike culture theory which has been criticised for focusing just on
the differences between social institutions and groupings without offering explanation for
the complex differences in perceptions within their internal structures (Kamper 2000), the
underlying logic of differentiated risk perceptions, on the other hand, addresses this limita-
tion and further offers theoretical explanation for the generating processes of differentiation
in functionalities and perceptions of the internal components within social groupings.
Considering the previous discussions on biases and errors in judgment and decision-
making under intuition (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky 1982b;
Kahneman 2011), which establishes the inherent systematic inefficiencies in intuitive
risk management systems coupled with the analytical implications of differentiated risk
perceptions and the theoretical evidence of high proportion of construction risk analysts
and decision-makers without formal training in risk management systems (Akintoye and
Macleod 1997; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010), then the current intuitive construction risk
management decision-making systems (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore
2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010) can be likened to a faulty vehicle being driven by an
untrained person who relies on instincts rather than structured procedure, the obvious
result will be a catastrophic accident. It is therefore not surprising that construction risk
management practices usually exhibit errors in the analysis and estimates (National Audit
Office 2000; CBI 2010) with minimal reliability in the risk responses (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003).
Construction delivery
system
Risk perception
subsystem
Differentiated subsystem A – based on Differentiated specialist subsystem B – based

differences in company/specialist role/ on differences in company/specialist role/
personal objectives personal objectives
Risk perception of Risk perception of

differentiated specialist differentiated specialist
subsystem A subsystem B
Figure 5.6 Systems differentiation generating differentiated risk perceptions. Sources: Adapted from Carmichael (2006), Loosemore et al. (2006), Walker
(2007, 2015), Slovic et al. (2010), and Kahneman (2011).
5.6 Summary
Chapter 5 has applied the psychometric risk conceptual interpretation to examine the theo-
retical and practical issues of the current intuitive construction risk management practices.
The review has involved an evaluation of the two systems of thinking and decision-making
underpinning risk management systems. The quick approach is constantly active, utilis-
ing natural stimulus and reflexes to automatically process decision tasks. The effective-
ness of decision outcome under this approach depends on the rate of spontaneity. The
quicker the decision processing, the higher the quality of the decision outcome. The gradual
approach, on the other hand, requires deliberate activation through recollection of suitable
cognitive programme to analyse structured data. The decision-making requires alertness
as interferences disrupt the process. The quality of the decision outcome depends on the
decision-making setting and the level of attention received. Decision processing usually
commences in the quick approach by examining if there are previous experiences that com-
pares to the key attributes of the decision task and modelling the decision outcome in a
similar pattern. Where there are no similar previous experiences, the decision task is rolled
on to the gradual approach for rational analysis using an appropriate cognitive programme
(Kahneman 2011).
The remaining discussions focused on an in-depth analytical review of the quick
decision-making system utilised in the existing intuitive construction risk management
practices. Behavioural science theories confirm reliance on heuristics inspired personal
perceptions in quick decision processing. The key determinants of perceptions include
psychological, sociological, institutional, and cultural factors. The human brain stores
records of our everyday experiences and exposures in the form of perceptual images.
Attached to the records are stimulus relating to the type of emotion experienced at the time
of the exposure, termed affect. The perceptual images and associated feeling state are the
factors that guide the quick decision-making system. The presence of a mental record with
similar attributes to a given decision task will induce a feeling state like that experienced
at the time of the previous exposure, leading to the modelling of the decision outcome
in a similar pattern. A positive image of the likely impact of a future occurrence will be
classified as a positive risk to be enhanced, whilst a negative image will be interpreted as a
negative risk to be avoided, or managed.
There has been further analytical review of the impact of affect on the gradual
decision-making approach to ascertain if the low application of rationality in the existing
construction risk management systems is because of the influence of affective felling. The
theoretical evidence suggests both positive and negative impacts of affect on cognitive
reasoning. The established belief is affective feeling suppresses cognitive reasoning through
the inducement of physiological stimulus to take up the cognitive capacity in the human
brain, thereby giving a false sense of the quick decision-making approach being in control
of the situation, and therefore no need for considered cognitive analysis. There have also
been recent research investigations with consistent findings within different assessment
settings and demography, confirming a positive correlation between positive affective feel-
ing and cognitive reasoning. A comparative analysis of the established theory against the
contemporary empirical findings suggests indifference in the impact of affect on cognitive
5.6 Summary 69
reasoning. It is therefore possible that the low application of rational construction risk
management techniques and processes may not be related to the impact of affect.
The psychometric risk conceptual analysis extended into a review of construction
risk data presentation formats. The prevailing theory confirms application of qualitative
data including narratives, subjective statements, anecdotal scenarios, and quantitative data
expressed in the form of statistics and probability. Other studies have revealed risk data
presentation in the form of fuzzy linguistics variables. The historical development of the
risk terminology discussed in Chapter 3 confirmed the introduction of quantitative risk
data in the fourteenth century, starting from the northern Italian city states, then extending
to the other European nations, and subsequently to the multiple disciplines applying the
risk concept, including construction. The other theoretical evidence on the high incidence
of intuitive construction risk management practices in effect confirms intuitive processing
of quantitative risk data. The psychometric research findings however suggest that most
people do not understand statistical information and would rather prefer qualitative data
presentation formats. The theory also confirms that intuitive evaluation of statistics and
probability may be subject to biases and systematic errors. Other studies on the other hand
have revealed instances where experts have relied on their professional experiences to
achieve accurate intuitive evaluation. The low competency in scientific decision processing
techniques within the construction industry, however, suggests the prevailing intuitive
processing of quantitative risk data are being guided by heuristics, rather than expert
experiential knowledge.
The psychometric risk conceptual analysis has subsequently evaluated the systematic
biases and errors of intuitive decision-making under the representative, availability, and
anchor and adjustment heuristics. Intuitive decision processing under the representative
heuristics become susceptible to biases resulting from the misapprehension of the concept
of chance, and insensitivity to the impact of prior probability, sample size, reliability, and
validity of provided base information, on intuitive evaluation. Intuitive decision process-
ing under the availability heuristics also become susceptible to biases relating to how easily
past events and searches comparable to a given decision task can be retrieved. The errors of
intuitive decision-making under the anchor and adjustment heuristics emanates from the
misunderstanding of an anchored value to be identical to a final estimate, leading to the
premature abrogation of an adjustment process.
The establishment of the role of personal perceptions in intuitive risk management deci-
sion processing confirms the relevance of a robust risk perception categorisation. This will
facilitate the effective identification and harmonisation of the personal perceptions of the
project team members into the risk management process. The present theoretical explana-
tion for risk perception categorisation includes the differences in personality traits which
gives rise to ‘risk takers’, ‘risk averse’, and ‘risk makers’. The problem with this approach is
different studies using different research methodologies and settings have produced differ-
ent classifications for the same individual. Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory also
provides explanation for the differences in risk perceptions under different risky scenarios
(Kahneman and Tversky 1979). A major limitation of this approach is the lack of explana-
tion for the differences in risk attitude between different subjects under the same scenario.
Loosemore et al. (2006) in analysing construction stakeholders have also categorised the
sources of construction risk perceptions based on the external stakeholders and the project
team members. This approach has been criticised for being too simplistic. Culture theory on
the other hand categorises risk perceptions based on the differences in common objectives
between social institutions and groups. This approach has also been criticised for failing to
explain the sources of the complex risk perception patterns within the internal structures
of social institutions. Analysis of the processes of systems decomposition and differentia-
tion discussed in Chapter 2, and the conceptual relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its
‘impact on an objective’ discussed in Chapter 3, has however revealed a novel theoretical
explanation termed, the differentiated risk perceptions. The empirical evaluation and valida-
tion of the novel theory and the wider implications for construction management research
and practice will be discussed in the case study chapters forming the Part 2 of the book.
71
Summary of the Part 1
The Part 1 chapters have employed sociological and psychometric risk concepts, to dis-
cuss the current construction risk management practices. Chapter 2 began the theoretical
review with an exposition of the UK construction industry, its contribution to the national
economy, and the policy aspirations aimed at operational and managerial efficiencies.
The construction industry was then examined using the principles of general system
theory. The operational and managerial processes at the corporate and project levels are
defined by their respective system’s objectives. The concept of systems decomposition has
enabled analytical review of the internal parts of the construction industry and processes, as
subsystems with different micro-objectives. The analysis of the project delivery processes
using the RIBA Plan of Works 2020 has revealed different stages aimed at the different
aspects of project delivery, with the output of a stage feeding into the input of the succeed-
ing stage. The analysis of the project management processes has also identified interactions
between different specialist roles possessing different micro-objectives and functionalities.
The construction industry being an open system suggests bilateral interactions between the
internal processes and the wider environment. The interactions with the multiple differen-
tiated functional environmental subsystems comprising political, economic, socio-cultural,
technological, ecological, and legal, influences the social construction of risk, in the context
of how risk is interpreted and treated.
Chapter 3 then provided a theoretical exposition on risk conceptualisation. Social threats
and uncertainties were conventionally defined and managed by the local stratified struc-
tures, with the religious and political setups at the top. The risk management strategy then
relied on morality, superstitions, taboos, and rituals. The replacement of the traditional
social order with contemporary multiple differentiated functional subsystems has expanded
the social discussion on risk into the public realm. The realisation of the ability of human
agency to alter the outcome of future events, rather than relying solely on the intervention
of religion and guided morality, has subsequently introduced risk communication into our
everyday activities.
The historical development of the risk concept confirms association with the emergence
of games of chance. Risk conceptualisation during the medieval period focused on
the physical and psychological threats associated with pirate attacks and other voyage
related calamities. Insurance policies and probability techniques were introduced in the
fourteenth century by merchants operating within the Italian city states, for shared risk
management. This was mainly in relation to the management of potential losses associated
72 Summary of the Part 1
with shipwreck, being the main risk of their trade. The risk terminology subsequently
expanded into the other European commercial industries, appearing in England in the
1830s, when it was applied in the insurance industry.
There has been further theoretical review of the different conceptual interpretations of
risk, including the realist, psychometric, sociological, edgework, and real and socially con-
structed perspectives. The psychometric risk viewpoint as applied in this book appreciates
the influence of perceptions and heuristics in risk analysis and the mediation of the struc-
tural discrepancies between the subjective and rational risk management approaches. The
sociological risk concept also as utilised in this book emphasises the influence of social
interactions and institutions in risk communication. The chapter concluded with an evalu-
ation of the risk concept as explained by Loosemore et al. (2006), which confirms theoretical
pre-requisition to establish the potential for a future occurrence to affect the objective or
interest of a subject, before assigning it as an associated risk event.
Chapter 4 expanded the risk discourse by examining the changing perspectives on
organisational strategies to risk management; from the traditional approach of relying on
insurances and contracts to transfer risk management responsibilities to third parties, to
contemporary practices of internal risk management systems. Taking a socially constructed
risk perspective, the principles of general system theory have been applied in modelling the
construction risk management process and the subsystems comprising, risk identification,
risk analysis, risk response, and risk review.
There has been further review of the construction risk management approaches com-
prising intuition and rationality. The intuitive approach utilises subjective methodologies
to process qualitative risk data. The rational approach on the other hand uses scientific
techniques to systematically process quantitative risk data. There have been other recent
research investigations involving the application of fuzzy logic in the processing of linguis-
tic variables, which has been argued as another form of the rational approach, with the
difference being the data presentation format (Arthur and Pryke 2014). The choice of a suit-
able risk management approach depends on the prime attributes of the risk management
decision setting. Decision settings associated with feelings are compatible with the intu-
itive approach, whereas decision tasks requiring structured cognitive analysis work well
with the rational approach. Behavioural science evidence confirms inherent limitations of
both approaches, which in effect suggest the benefit of combining principles of intuition
and rationality to achieve effective risk management systems. The current construction
management publications however confirm, high incidence of intuitive risk management
practices, by professionals with limited knowledge in scientific techniques. This has been
attributed to the lack of quantitative data to complement the structured decision process-
ing of the rational approach, low competency in scientific decision processing techniques,
and the comparatively low value of construction projects making it difficult to justify the
required financial investment in rational risk management systems. A major criticism of the
aforementioned empirical explanations has been the lack of adequate analytical evaluation
of the underlying behavioural influences. This has been addressed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 has applied psychometric risk conceptualisation in analysing the practical
and theoretical issues of the current intuitive construction risk management practices.
The discussion began with analytical review of the different systems of thinking and
decision-making. The quick system is always active and voluntarily producing perceptions,
Summary of the Part 1 73
impressions, insights, intentions, and feelings. The quality of the decision output is directly
related to the rate of spontaneity of the decision processing. The gradual decision-making
system however requires thoughtful activation of appropriate cognitive programme to
process structured quantitative data. The effectiveness of the gradual decision-making
system depends on the level of attention provided during the processing. The prevailing
behavioural science theories confirm constant interactions between the two systems.
Decision processing usually starts within the quick system, using heuristics to model
the potential outcome of a given decision task, in patterns that reflect a similar previous
occurrence. The absence of a related previous record results in the transfer of the decision
processing to the gradual system for analytical evaluation.
There has been further in-depth theoretical review of the quick decision-making systems
associated with the prevailing intuitive construction risk management practices. The psy-
chometric analysis of personal perceptions has revealed the key determinants to comprise
of psychological, sociological, institutional, and cultural factors. The empirical behavioural
science findings confirm that the human mind stores records of life experiences, in the form
of perceptual images and affective stimulus, which are recalled during intuitive risk man-
agement decision processing. The presence of a record comparable to the prime attributes
of the given decision task influences the structuring of the future event in an identical pat-
tern, and subsequent classification as either a positive or negative risk event. The theoretical
evidence also confirms indifference in the impact of affective heuristics on rational decision
processing. This in effect suggests a lack of association between the current low application
of rational techniques and the psychological impact of affect heuristics.
There has been further review of construction risk management data presentation
formats. Qualitative risk data include narratives, subjective statements, and anecdotal sce-
narios. Quantitative risk data are usually expressed in the form of statistics and probability.
Other studies have also identified the use of fuzzy logic in processing risk data defined
in linguistic variables. The previous discussions on the different systems of thinking and
decision-making confirm the relevance of facilitating complementarity between an applied
decision processing vehicle and the data presentation format. Qualitative data thrives with
quick decision processing, whereas quantitative data formats align with gradual decision
processing. The empirical evidence from construction management research however has
identified theoretically incompatible practices of intuitive processing of statistical and
probability data. This may partly have resulted from the historical development of the risk
terminology, as discussed in Chapter 3. The introduction of probability risk management
techniques in the fourteenth century, first within the Italian city states and then the
other European commercial industries have subsequently been extended to the wider
disciplines applying the risk terminology, including construction. The behavioural science
evidence notwithstanding confirms intuitive processing of statistics, and probability may
be susceptible to biases and systematic errors. There are some empirical studies that
have revealed the possibility to achieve accurate intuitive evaluation using professional
experiences. The minimal proficiency in scientific techniques within the construction
industry, nevertheless, confirms reliance of heuristics rather than expert knowledge in the
intuitive processing of statistical and probability risk data. The resulting systematic issue
has been the variances between most construction risk management estimates and the
actuals (National Audit Office 2000; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; CBI 2010).
74 Summary of the Part 1
The realisation of personal perceptions influencing intuitive risk management systems

has emphasised the relevance of a correct understanding of the sources and structure of
the risk perceptions within the construction project delivery and management systems.
This will facilitate the robust identification and harmonisation to mitigate cross purpose
working practices. The current theoretical explanations for risk perception categorisations
including the differences in personality traits resulting in ‘risk takers’, ‘risk averse’, and ‘risk
makers’, Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory; Loosemore et al. (2006)’s classification
into external stakeholder and immediate project team members; and cultural theory clas-
sification based on the differences in identical interest between social institutions have all
been criticised for failing to provide adequate explanation for the multiplicity of personal
perceptions within the internal structure of the construction project system. The analysis of
the processes of systems decomposition and differentiation discussed in Chapter 2 and the
theoretical relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its ‘impact on an objective’ also discussed
in Chapter 3 has resulted in a novel theoretical explanation, termed the differentiated risk
perceptions, which address the limitations of the other theories. The empirical validation of
the novel theory has been evaluated in the Part 2.
75
Part 2
Case Studies
77
Overview of the Part 2
The Part 2 chapters present findings from a case study empirical investigation, which anal-
yses the psychological and practical issues involved in the prevailing intuitive construction
risk management practices. The research theoretical propositions were developed from ana-
lytical review of the social construction of risk within the construction transformational
processes and the subjectivity of risk perceptions. The underlying theoretical themes, as dis-
cussed in the Part 1, includes general systems principles and processes (Checkland 1999;
Bertalanffy 1968, 2015; Cole 2004; Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015; Cole and Kelly
2020 – discussed in Chapter 2); the generation of construction project risk events from sys-
tems differentiation processes (Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998; Walker 2007, 2015; Slovic
et al. 2010 – discussed in Chapter 2); the different conceptual interpretations of risk (Zinn
2008 – discussed in Chapter 3); the construction risk management system (Smith et al.
2006; Dallas 2006; Walker 2007, 2015 – discussed in Chapter 4); decision-making systems
(Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5); risk perception formation from affect heuris-
tics (Benthin et al. 1993; Slovic et al. 2010 – discussed in Chapter 5); subjectivity of risk
perceptions, and the inherent biases of intuitive decision making (Tversky and Kahneman
1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5); and
the generating processes of differentiated risk perceptions (Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007,
2015; Slovic et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5).
The Part 2 begins with Chapter 6 which describes the research methodology. The
research process has followed the five phases described by Denzin and Lincoln (2011).
The first phase defined the researcher’s philosophical tradition of constructivism ontology
and post-positivism epistemology. The next phase was the development of theoretical
paradigms and perspectives, compatible to the research philosophical stance. This involved
the conceptualisation of the research themes, using systems thinking and behavioural
science theories, and the application of a post-positivist research approach. The third
phase was the selection of the case study investigative strategy, to ensure methodological
compatibility. The fourth phase involved the selection of multiple data collection methods
in the form of interview, direct observation, and review of documentation and the applica-
tion of pattern matching and cross-case synthesis analytical methods to explore theoretical
replication. The last phase was the application of the four tests commonly used in social
science investigations including construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and
reliability, to confirm the quality of the empirical findings.
78 Overview of the Part 2
The research methodology is followed by the presentation of the case study empirical
data in Chapter 7. The presentation includes an outline of the key facts about the case study
projects, justification for the selection of the cases, criteria for the selection of the partici-
pants from each case, the applied data collection approaches, and an examination of the
case study findings based on the three research propositions and the 10 underling theo-
retical issues. Chapter 7 presents the full empirical data from the case study project 1 plus
summary of findings from the case study projects 2–4. The full empirical data from case
study projects 2–4 has been presented in Appendices B–D.
The Part 2 concludes with Chapter 8 which discusses the cross-case empirical findings.
The presentation has followed the 3 research propositions and 10 underlying theoretical
issues. The data analysis has applied the matching pattern and cross-case synthesis tech-
niques, to explore theoretical replication. The findings from research propositions 1 and
2 have been analysed using a novel matching pattern analytical tool termed differentiated
risk matrix. The findings from research proposition 3 on the other hand have been anal-
ysed using quantitative statistical tools. The data analysis has also involved an evaluation
of the wider analytical implications of the case study empirical data including emerging
theoretical insights and areas requiring further investigations.
The study’s limitations have been discussed in the context of the applied research
methodology and the scope of empirical investigations. The choice of the case study
research strategy exposes the empirical findings to the common criticisms associated with
methodological rigour and concerns on generalisation (Yin 2003, 2014). To address the
methodological concern, the study has followed the recommendations of Yin (2014), by
making use of multiple data collection approaches including interview, direct observation,
and review of documentation, to obtain empirical evidence from multiple sources, to
facilitate data triangulation and demonstration of construct validity. A case study protocol
defining the data gathering procedures, rules, and questions was designed prior to the
field data collection, to ensure standardisation of the empirical investigative process and
demonstration of reliability for the study findings. Lastly, the empirical evidence was
recorded in a case study data base, to ensure accurate transcription of the field observations
into the final case study report.
The generalisation concern has also been addressed by focusing the research discus-
sions on examining logical replication (Rowley 2002), to establish analytical generalisation,
rather than statistical generalisation, which is usually associated with quantitative research
strategies (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2014). It is therefore the intention of the researcher that the
study’s empirical findings are interpreted as analytical generalisations with the potential of
an identical future intuitive construction risk management study which applies the same
case study protocol, discovering findings consistent with the research theoretical proposi-
tions, rather than the statistical observations.
Another limitation of the study’s empirical investigative process is the difficulty in
demonstrating absolute intuitive decision processing for the interview settings. The diffi-
culty stems from the theoretical evidence of constant interactions between the intuitive
and rational approaches, to thinking and decision-making (Kahneman 2011), which makes
it difficult to logically tame the rational system in an interview setting. To address this
concern, the research protocol was deliberately designed to stimulate intuitive decision
processing, by allowing the study participants’ limited time to respond to the questions.
Overview of the Part 2 79
The time restriction was meant to impede activation of the rational system, and thereby,
limit the decision processing to the intuitive system which operates spontaneously and
effortlessly (Kahneman 2011). The collection of data from multiple sources using different
approaches has also facilitated data triangulation to demonstrate intuitive decision pro-
cessing, as evident in the similarities between the study participants’ risk identification on
hypothetical project settings and their availability and representative heuristics (theoretical
issue 3) and the direct observation of spontaneous responses for research propositions
1 and 2 and evidence of emotional discomfort during the deliberations for research
proposition 3. Again, it is the intention of the researcher that the study’s empirical findings
are interpreted as data obtained within a stimulated intuitive decision-making setting,
rather than an absolute intuitive decision-making environment devoid of rationality.
Lastly, it must be emphasised that the research empirical context is intuitive construction
risk management decision-making systems. It is therefore the intention of the researcher
that the study’s findings and conclusions are interpreted and applied within the framework
of the empirical context, rather than the general decision-making systems.
81
Research Proposal, Methodology, and Design
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 6 describes the research methodology utilised for the empirical investigation on
the practical and theoretical issues of the current intuitive construction risk management
practices. The research proposals have been developed from the analytical review of the
generating processes of the study’s novel differentiated risk perception model, expounded in
the Part 1. The research processes have also followed the five stages suggested by Denzin
and Lincoln (2011). The first stage defines the study’s philosophical position of construc-
tivism ontology and post-positivism epistemology. The subsequent stages centre on the
logical transition from the research study’s philosophical stance to theoretically compat-
ible research paradigm and perspective (Stage 2), research investigative strategy (Stage 3),
data gathering and analytical methods (Stage 4), and approach for evaluating the quality of
the research process and empirical findings.
6.2 Research Proposal

The case study research proposals have been developed from the theoretical review on dif-
ferentiated risk perceptions expounded in the Part 1. According to Yin (2014), theoretical
propositions provide guidance for the design of data collection and analytical strategies.
Rowley (2002) has also advocated the development of theoretical propositions in the form
of predictions about a study’s likely findings, from its research question and the present
body of knowledge.
The previous theoretical discussions have reviewed the social construction of risk
within the construction delivery process (see Chapters 2 and 3), systems analysis of the
construction risk management process and sources of construction project risk events (see
Chapter 4), and the psychology of construction risk management decision-making systems
(see Chapter 5).
Theoretical findings from the construction industry have identified high incidence
of intuitive risk management practices, carried out by people with limited knowledge
and training in formal risk management systems (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons
and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010). Among the reasons expounded for
the prevailing practices are the unavailability of appropriate data to enable rational risk
82 6 Research Proposal, Methodology, and Design
analysis, lack of training in rational risk management techniques, the size and scope of
construction projects make it difficult to justify investment in rational risk techniques, and
the non-appreciation of the relevance of rational tools in construction risk management
practices (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha
2010). A major criticism on the validity and decisiveness of the above reasons identified
within the construction literature is that they appear to be merely documentation of
research responses, without an adequate psychological evaluation (see Table 4.2), despite
the fact that intuitive decision-making forms part of human behaviour pattern (Zajonc
1980; Forgas 2001).
Theoretical findings from the behavioural sciences, however, suggest that the sponta-
neous occurrence of perceptions is the prime driver behind intuitive risk management
practices, especially when we are confronted with complex decision scenario in the face
of limited scientific data (Slovic and Peters 2006; Bateman et al. 2010). Research findings by
March and Shapira (1987), Edwards and Bowen (1998), and Slovic et al. (2010) also suggest
that the limited application of rational risk management practices is influenced by the lack
of understanding and trust in rational tools and techniques.
Research findings within both the construction industry and psychology disciplines con-
firm the relevance of intuition in effective decision-making (Loosemore 2006; Slovic and
Peters 2006; Finucane et al. 2003). Kahneman and Tversky (1982b) have however suggested
that the principles of intuitive probability judgement utilising the representative and avail-
ability heuristics are not consistent with the laws of chance and statistics and are likely to
produce systematic errors.
Tversky and Kahneman (1982a) have suggested that the error in judgement under the
representative heuristics results from judging probability predictions by evaluating the
similarities between the provided sample information and pre-conceived stereotypical
characteristics of the parent population, without consideration to the prior probability
statistics (Kahneman and Tversky 1973) and insensitivity to sample size, which lead to
a false expectation of similarities in composition and characteristics, between sample
population and their parent population (Tversky and Kahneman 1982b; Kahneman 2011).
The other sources of error are misconception of the law of chance fuelled by an expectation
of balanced systematic repetition of past occurrences in future predictions (Tversky and
Kahneman 1982a); and insensitivity to the reliability and validity of the base information
for probability predictions (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a; Slovic et al. 1982). Tversky and
Kahneman (1982a) have further suggested the sources of error in judgement under the
availability heuristics to include the ease of retrieving past instances, which influence the
assignment of high probability predictions for events associated with past famous occur-
rences and where the assessor had a direct involvement, compared to regular occurrences
(Tversky and Kahneman 1982c; Slovic 1982); and the ability to search past occurrences
based on the structure and composition of the event (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a).
Another potential source of error in intuitive judgement is the effect of ‘anchor and adjust-
ment’ (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a; Kahneman 2011), where estimates are made from an
initial given or deduced ‘anchored’ value and adjusted to achieve the final value (Chapman
and Johnson 2002). According to Epley and Gilovich (2002), adjustments are normally
insufficient, resulting in errors in final estimates. Kahneman (2011) argues that insufficient
6.2 Research Proposal 83
adjustment results from premature abrogation in the adjustment process, and assessors per-
ceiving an ‘anchored value’ to be a case of suggestion. Other research findings suggest that
the effect of ‘anchor and adjustment’ accounts for errors in the probability evaluation of
compound events, in terms of, overestimation of conjunctive events, and underestimation
of disjunctive events (Cohen et al. 1972; Bar-Hillel 1973; Tversky and Kahneman 1982a;
Kahneman 2011; Appendix A).
Project failures within the construction industry may be partly attributed to the error of
anchoring and adjustments of compound events (Arthur and Pryke 2014). In the process of
estimating project cost and duration, the probability of achieving target completion dates
within budget for activities on the critical path are normally overestimated, giving false
hope that the project will achieve the target completion date and budget (National Audit
Office 2000; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003). The error arises when estimates are started from an ini-
tial value, anchored on the probability values of the individual component events, without
considering the fact that project success depends on the achievement of the target indica-
tors for all the activities on the critical path, not just a few. Thus, the impact of failure in
achieving the target indicators for a critical path activity on project success comprises the
direct impact from the specific activity, plus the indirect impact from the other critical path
activities, as triggered by externalities.
The error of ‘anchor and adjustment’ of compound events also leads to underestimation of
disjunctive floating risk events, giving an illusion of a low probability of occurring. Flyvbjerg
et al. (2003) in evaluating the causes of mega project failure in Europe, identified that some
of the risk events which accounted for the project failures were known at the project incep-
tion, but were never treated during the execution phase. A possible reason may be that the
risk evaluation was influenced by an initial low anchored probability value based on the
individual floating events, rather than a collective evaluation of the compound disjunctive
events.
Now concerning the implications of differentiated risk perceptions, the previous theoreti-
cal review on systems decomposition (Carmichael 2006 – carried out in Chapter 2) suggests
differences in functionalities of the specialist roles within the construction project delivery
system. The subsequent analytical review on the generating processes of systems differ-
entiation, and the sources of differentiation within the UK construction industry (Walker
2007, 2015 – reviewed in Chapter 2), coupled with the theoretical evidence on perception
formation from affect heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010 – reviewed in Chapter 5), and the concep-
tual relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its ‘impact on an objective’ (Loosemore et al.
2006 – reviewed in Chapter 3), suggest differences in impact and perceptions on poten-
tial risk events among the different specialist roles forming the construction project team
(Loosemore 2006). In a situation where the different specialist roles adopt different risk
management systems, there could be cross purpose strategies, which could be detrimental
to project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al. 2007; Arthur and Pryke 2013). Even
in a situation where a joint risk management system is adopted, failure to recognise and
integrate the differing risk perceptions between the project team members could lead to
conflicts (Mullins 2005).
Again, defining risk perception categorisations along the lines of the differences in func-
tionalities of a system’s components suggests that the effectiveness of an intuitive construc-
tion risk management practice will depend on the scope of experiences and specialisation of
the assembled project team; individuals, specialist roles, and companies. Where the project
team lacks resources in a specific specialist role, the absence of an associated availability
heuristic (Kahneman 2011) will potentially affect the identification and management of
risk events within that specialist role (Benthin et al. 1993). Even within a multi-disciplined
project coalition, the exclusion of a specialist role at the project organisational level from
the risk management process is likely to diminish the effectiveness of the risk management
system, in identifying potential risk events associated with the specific past exposures of the
excluded specialist role (Bateman et al. 2010).
Lastly, the differences in micro-objectives of the components within differentiated
systems (Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015) suggest that the different decision-making
systems, reviewed in Chapter 5 will likewise exhibit differences in impact from systems
environmental forces. The implications being that, mixing tools and techniques from
different decision-making systems, as evident in the present construction risk manage-
ment practices of intuitive processing of statistical and probability data (Akintoye and
Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010; Bowden et al.
2001, Lock 2003), may introduce conflicting responses which may impede the required
collaborative transformational processes of the construction delivery system (Walker 2007,
2015; Kahneman 2011).
The above analytical review on the implications of differentiated risk perceptions makes it
necessary to research into the following research question, and subsequently, three research
propositions:
Main Research Question

How does systems differentiation and affect heuristics impact on intuitive construction risk
management decision-making systems?
6.2.1 Research Propositions

6.2.1.1 Proposition 1
Differentiation in risk perceptions within the construction project delivery system occur
along the lines of the internal subgroupings – i.e. different specialist roles.
Underlining Theories
1. Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions among the system
components – different specialist roles (Walker 2007, 2015; Kahneman 2011; Slovic
et al. 2010).
2. The differences in micro-objectives and functionalities of differentiated subsystems
(Carmichael 2006; Loosemore et al. 2006) suggest that, the impact of environmental
forces will result in differences in affective heuristics, and therefore differences in
perceptions within the system components – different specialist roles.
Intuitive risk management practices under the representative and availability heuristics,
which exclude some of the project subgroupings, run the risk of failing to adequately iden-
tify potential risk events.
3. Perceptions are formed from the representative and availability heuristics (Kahneman
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
4. The inherent subjectivity of perceptions make it manipulative and less rational.
Additional information could change risk perception even when the base situation
has not changed – best case scenarios which lead to gaps between pre-commencement
estimates and actual values at completion stage (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Alhakami and
Slovic 1994; Slovic and Peters 2006).
5. An uncertainty becomes a risk event to a subject if its occurrence can potentially affect
the objective(s) of the subject (Loosemore et al. 2006), suggesting that where there is no
possibility of impact, the subject may fail to recognise the uncertainty as a risk event.
Statistical and probability risk data presentation and analysis are less likely to be understood
and applied in intuitive risk management systems compared to the use of qualitative data
presentation formats and subjective assessment techniques.
6. Research findings have identified construction risk management to be dominated by
people without formal training in risk management systems using intuition and heuris-
tics (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha
2010).
7. Psychometric research findings suggest that most people relate better to narratives,
models, illustrations, and anecdotal simulations better than statistical data (Slovic et al.
2010).
8. Most people do not trust, understand, or use statistics and probability estimates in their
risk management decision-making (March and Shapira 1987; Akintoye and Macleod
1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skitmore 2004).
9. Most people relate better to qualitative assessments than quantitative assessments
(Slovic et al. 2010).
10. Where a potential outcome of a future event evokes a strong affective memory, the asses-
sor may be insensitive to the probability predictions on the event (Slovic et al. 2010).
6.3 Research Philosophical Traditions, Axioms,

and Methodology
Research within the built environment spans across diverse subjects, with some studies
even adopting methods from multiple disciples (Knight and Turnbull 2008). And in other
to provide guidance on how the quality of the research findings are to be evaluated,
it is imperative to define the research design elements including problem definition,
hypothesis or proposition formation and testing, within the framework of the chosen
philosophical traditions (Fellows and Liu 2008; Huff 2009 cited in Creswell 2013). Philos-
ophy as explained by Creswell (2013), describes the abstract ideas and beliefs employed
in interpreting a study, in the form of the researcher’s inherent beliefs and ideological
assumptions acquired through heuristics, and exposures from existing literature, and the
scholarly community. Creswell (2013) further outlines the philosophical assumptions to

include, ontology, concerned with how we perceive existence (Knight and Turnbull 2008);
epistemology, which describes the theories of knowledge within a perceived existence
(Sutrisna 2009); axiology, which describes the premises upon which a study’s evidence is
interpreted; and methodology, which is the research process (Creswell 2013). The case
study research process has followed an adaptation of the five phases suggested by Denzin
and Lincoln (2007, 2011).
6.3.1 Phase 1: The Researcher’s Philosophical Stance

At the heart of this study’s research process is the author’s philosophical tradition of
constructivism ontology, and post-positivism epistemology. This stems from the belief
that whilst it may be difficult to discount the existence of some absolute reality, due to
the limitations in interpreting the origins of certain philosophical variables, the ability of
environmental forces to alter the patterns and processes of the elements within reality,
nevertheless, suggests some degree of socially constructed realities (Berger and Luckmann
1991). And these constructs are best understood by observing the interactions among
social actors, and their environmental forces, using logical lenses.
6.3.2 Phase 2: Research Theoretical Perspectives

The author’s philosophical stance discussed above, has subsequently influenced the adop-
tion of corresponding constructivist approach to the interpretation of the research phe-
nomenon, as seen in the conceptualisation of risk as socially constructed (Zinn 2008) and
psychometric (Slovic 2010; Kahneman 2011). The research strategies, and methods of data
collection and analysis have also adopted a post-positivist approach, by applying multi-
ple data gathering and analytical approaches within a qualitative investigative approach to
explore the variables responsible for risk perception categorisations, and the implications
for mixing tools and techniques from different systems of thinking and decision-making.
6.3.3 Phase 3: Research Investigative Strategies

The third phase of the research process was the selection of an appropriate strategy, for
studying the research issues described above. The case study research strategy was iden-
tified as the most suitable approach, based on the adopted constructivism philosophical
tradition (Fellows and Liu 2008), and the explanatory positioning of the research question
(Yin 2014). The research question was discovered through extensive literature review from
construction project risk management, systems thinking, and behavioural science disci-
plines. The refinement process followed the three stages suggested by Yin (2014).
The initial readings from systems thinking and analysis revealed interesting con-
cepts, including systems differentiation (Walker 2007, 2015) and systems decomposition
(Carmichael 2006), which facilitated the modelling of the construction risk management
system, and also evaluation of the analytical link between the processes of systems differen-
tiation and risk generation. The literature search from the construction risk management
publications also revealed theoretical evidence of intuitive dominated construction risk
management practices fuelled by perceptions (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and
Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010). This led to the development of an initial
research question aimed at investigating the implications of the existing construction risk
management systems.
The subsequent literature review explored the psychological explanation for risk percep-
tion formation, the differences between the intuitive and rational decision-making systems,
and the theoretical explanation on the sources and structure of risk perceptions (Slovic et al.
2010; Bateman et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011). The criticisms against the prevailing theories
and concepts on risk perception categorisation, including differences in personality traits
(Weber and Milliman 1997; Smith et al. 2006; Chauvin et al. 2007), prospect theory (Kahne-
man and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011), differences between project team members and
external stakeholders (Loosemore et al. 2006), and culture theory (Thompson et al. 1990),
revealed the need for a novel theoretical explanation. Again, the psychological explana-
tion on the generation of risk perceptions from affect heuristics (Benthin et al. 1993; Slovic
et al. 2010) and the incompatibilities between the principles of intuitive decision process-
ing and rational analytical techniques (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a), in the light of the
theoretical evidence of intuitive processing of statistical and probability construction data
(Bowden et al. 2001; Lock 2003) and the quantitative processing of fuzzy linguistic vari-
ables (Byrne 1995; Cox 1999; Zeng et al. 2007; Khazaeni et al. 2012a,b) also revealed the
need for empirical investigations into the psychological concerns, and inherent systemic
errors of the present intuitive construction risk management practices, and subsequently,
the appropriate construction risk management data presentation format.
The final phase was the refinement of the initial broad question into the research question
described in Section 6.2; how does systems differentiation and affect heuristics impact on intu-
itive construction risk management decision-making systems. And in order to demonstrate
theoretical substantiation for the research question, the underlining analytical propositions
and theoretical issues were also defined.
Four cases comprising of two public sector and two private sector construction project
teams were selected, based on the following case study boundaries:
● Criteria 1: Construction sector boundary (housing project)
● Criteria 2: Procurement route boundary (design and build procurement)
● Criteria 3: Cultural and geographical boundary (project team members with working
experience in the UK construction industry)
● Criteria 4: Professional role boundary (project team members involved in design devel-
opment and risk management decision-making)
6.3.4 Phase 4: Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

The fourth research phase was the selection of appropriate data collection and analytical
methods to obtain empirical evidence for testing the research question and propositions
developed in the phase 3. Multiple methods of data collection involving interviews, direct
observations, and review of documentation were applied in obtaining empirical evidence
from multiple sources, for data triangulation and demonstration of construct validity (Yin
2014). The interview and direct observation approaches were seen as most suited for the
research emphasis on, perceptions and behaviour patterns in construction risk manage-
ment decision-making systems (Fellows and Liu 2008), whilst the review of project docu-
mentation was to obtain additional information for verifying and augmenting the evidence
from the interviews and direct observations (Yin 2003, 2014).
The research analytical strategy was aimed at exploring theoretical replication (Yin
2014), through examination of the empirical evidence against the three research propo-
sitions and ten underlining theoretical issues, for evidence of consistency. And to ensure
logical compatibility, the pattern matching, and cross-case synthesis analytical approaches
were applied (Yin 2014).
6.3.5 Phase 5: Demonstrating Quality of the Empirical Evidence

The final phase of the research process was the demonstration of the quality of the
empirical data and presentation of the findings and conclusions. The confirmation of
research quality was done through the application of the four tests commonly applied
in social science research, including construct validity, internal validity, external validity,
and reliability (Rowley 2002; Yin 2003, 2014). The empirical findings have been presented
in a single chapter, organised into separate sections relating to the different cases. The
cross-case empirical evaluation including wider theoretical implications has also been
presented in a separate chapter. The deliberations adopted the question and answer
approach (Yin 2014) and have been organised under separate sections and headings
relating to the different research propositions and theoretical issues, respectively. The
analytical discussions are centred on the testing of theoretical replication (Rowley 2002)
to establish analytical generalisations rather than statistical generalisations (Eisenhardt
1989; Yin 2014).
The detailed research methodology has been summarised in Appendix A.
6.4 Summary
This chapter has developed the research design and methodology. The research proposals
were established through analytical review of the sources of risk perception categorisations,
resulting in the discovery of the novel differentiated risk perception model.
The research processes followed the five stages suggested by Denzin and Lincoln (2007,
2011). The first stage involved the definition of the study’s philosophical stance comprising,
constructivism ontology, and post-positivism epistemology. This was followed by the sec-
ond stage describing the use of comparable philosophical posture, in the interpretation of
the research phenomenon and strategies for data collection and analysis. This has been
reflected in the conceptualisation of risk as socially constructed and psychometric. The
third stage discussed the selection of the case study investigative method to promote theoret-
ical complementarity. The fourth stage further described the selection of multiple parallel
data gathering methods comprising interview, direct observation, and review of documen-
tation. The pattern matching and cross-case analytical approaches have also been utilised
to explore theoretical replications of the case study findings. The final stage employed the
four tests usually applied in social science research, including construct validity, internal
validity, external validity, and reliability to demonstrate the quality of the research design
processes and empirical findings.
The next Chapter 7 presents the empirical findings from the four case study projects.
89
Data Presentation
7.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the empirical evidence from the Cases. The chapter has been organ-
ised into six sections. Section 7.1 presents an overview of the chapter. Sections 7.2–7.5
present the empirical evidence from the cases 1–4. The presentation includes an outline
of the key facts about the respective case study projects and the rationale for their selec-
tion; a description of the case study participants and criteria for selection; the applied data
collection approaches; and finally, an examination of the case study findings based on the
3 research propositions and 10 underlining theoretical issues. The chapter concludes with
a summary of the data presentation chapter.
The empirical evidence was collected within four cases comprising two private sector
housing projects located in London, and two public sector housing projects located in
London and Chatham, Medway. Data collection was done mainly using semi-structured
interviews, with additional evidence collected through direct observations and review of
project documentation.
To ensure theoretical sampling, the case study participants were selected from the project
team members whose core duties involved design development and risk management
decision-making, including the project managers, contracts managers, technical managers,
architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and clients. The emphasis on design development
is due to the close link between design failure and the other typical construction project
risk events. A failure to get the design principles right at the project inception as a result of
inadequate client brief, incorrect project specifications, or errors in design concepts often
results in later project changes with serious implications on project execution (Latham
1994; Egan 1998; Lock 2003; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003).
Analysis of the research findings have demonstrated substantial support for the 3 research
propositions and 10 underlying theoretical issues discussed in Section 6.2.
7.2 Case Study Project 1

Case study project 1 was a 200-unit private residential development located in London. The
project formed part of a 36-storey high-rise development comprising 307 residential apart-
ments, 785 m2 of mixed commercial space, 52 car parking spaces, a private residential spa,
90 7 Data Presentation
Table 7.1 Key facts about case study project 1.
Description 200 residential scheme forming part of a mixed development

Approximate scheme value Over £50 million
Risk management strategy Internal – using in-house contractor
Case study boundary criteria Private sector housing project
1 – Construction sector
Case study boundary criteria Design and build
2 – Contract/Procurement route
Case study boundary criteria London
3a – Location
Case study boundary criteria 19 yr
3b – Average years of UK
construction industry
experience of project team
members
Case study boundary criteria The following specialist roles participated in the research:
4 – Project team members
specialism – Contracts manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
– Technical manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
– Project manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
– Quantity surveyor (from the principal contractor
organisation)
– Engineer (sub-consultant of the principal contractor)
– Architect (sub-consultant of the principal contractor)
pool, gym, and sauna. The residential accommodation was split between 200 private for
sale units and 107 affordable housing. Table 7.1 provides key facts about the project.
The contracts manager who described himself as the project risk manager confirmed the
applied risk management protocol to be; individual trade subcontractors preparing their
separate risk registers which were passed on to the principal contractor to amalgamate into
the project risk register. The principal contractor’s core project team members then held
brainstorming meetings at the initial project delivery stages to review and update the project
risk register. The project risk events and management strategies predominantly from finan-
cial and health and safety perspectives were subsequently reported to the developer’s board
of directors as part of the project manager’s monthly report.
Case study project 1 was selected due to its project setting satisfying all the case study
boundary criteria.
7.2.1 Case Study 1 Participants

Data collection for case study 1 involved six project team members comprising the contracts
manager, technical manager, project manager, quantity surveyor, structural engineer, and
project architect. The evidence was collected through semi-structured interviews and
direct observations lasting approximately one hour per session. The participants were
allowed limited time in responding to the questions to facilitate restriction of their decision
processing within the intuitive system (Kahneman 2011). There have also been documen-
tary reviews from the project website for the key scheme details. Table 7.2 provides the key
facts about the case study participants.
7.2.2 Case Study 1 Findings

This section presents the empirical evidence from case study 1. The findings have been pre-
sented under three subsections corresponding to the three research propositions developed
in Section 6.2. The findings for the propositions have been further organised under separate
headings, relating to the underlining theoretical issues. The presentation has adopted the
question and answer approach. The interview questions relating to each theoretical issue
have been described in Appendix A.
7.2.2.1 Case 1 – Research Proposition 1: Findings

The first research proposition advocates that differentiation in risk perceptions within
the construction project delivery system occur along the lines of the internal sub
groupings – different specialist roles. The underlining theoretical issues are
– 1. Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions among the system
components – different specialist roles (Walker 2007, 2015; Kahneman 2011; Slovic et al.
2010).
– 2. The differences in micro-objectives and functionalities of differentiated sub-systems
(Carmichael 2006; Loosemore et al. 2006) suggest that the impact of environmental forces
will result in differences in affective heuristics, and therefore differences in perceptions
within the system components – different specialist roles.
The presentation of findings has been organised under two headings corresponding to
the above theoretical issues. The findings have been analysed to test the extent to which the
empirical evidence from the interviews and direct observations of the six research partici-
pants supported the study theoretical predictions of risk perception categorisations defined
by the differences in specialist roles.
Theoretical Issue 1
– Theoretical issue 1: Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk percep-
tions among the system components – different specialist roles (Walker 2007, 2015;
Kahneman 2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
The theoretical issue is to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals similarities in
the respondents’ risk perceptions on common construction project risk events and the risk
perception categories from Table 7.3 associated with their specialist background.
The related Interview Questions are 22 and 23 (see Appendix A). The rationale behind
these questions was to solicit the participants’ ranking of the typical construction project
risk events at the pre- and post-construction phases. The interview protocol was designed
to facilitate the generation of risk perceptions from the participants’ inherent heuristics,
at a time when they have not been introduced to any immediate project information. The
responses from these questions have therefore been termed grounded heuristics denoting
that they have been generated based on the research participants’ store of previous experi-
ences which over time have become grounded within their knowledge base.
Table 7.2 Key facts about case study 1 participants.
Contracts Technical Project Quantity
Specialist role manager manager manager surveyor Engineer Architect
Reference CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Years of involvement Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr
in role
Years of involvement 37 yr 20 yr 20 yr 10 yr 14 yr 15 yr
in the UK
Organisational Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Consultant Consultant
background
Years at current 3–5 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 3–5 yr
organisation
Length of 1–3 yr 1–3 yr Less than 6 mo 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr
involvement in case
study project
Level of involvement Sometimes Sparsely Always Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes
in risk management
decision making
Level of training in On the job Continuing On the job CPDs, short duration CPDs and on the CPDs and on the
risk management informal professional informal formal course (less job information job information
systems experience developments (CPDs) experience than 6 mo) and on the experience experience
and on the job job information
information experience experience
Table 7.3 Construction project risk events.
Category Sources of risk

Force majeure Weather condition, fire, earthquake, structural collapse, flood disruption
related (FMR)
Ground condition Contamination of site, excavation of site, pollution from adjoining sites,
related (GCR) previous land use to establish ground conditions site constraints,
e.g. congested site, ecological issues, asbestos, site excavation/service
diversion, ground investigations, existing structures and foundations,
buried services, unexpected ground conditions, unexpected
archaeological findings
Design and Getting the design right at the concept stage, structural integrity/
quality related considerations of building, availability and feasibility of service
(DQR) connections, impact of existing service layouts on design, poor quality
control, managing client design expectations, coordination of design
team, achieving scheme design standards, civil infrastructure and
connections, availability of special contractors to build to design,
achieving Highways Approval in Principle, new untested technology,
right of light, achieving lifetime home standards within site constraints,
parking provisions, client design changes, sustainability – renewable
systems, proximity to transport network, accuracy and appropriateness of
design specifications, design constraints and opportunities arising from
surveys, site investigations
Logistics and Site access, planning and programming of project delivery,
communication communication and information flow, site setup and organisation of
related (LCR) construction plant, site setup, welfare and deliveries, delivery of material
to the site, availability of specialist labour, site parking facilities
Financial and Procurement of labour and material, completing within budget,
commercial availability of funds, marketing of completed properties, insolvency of
related (FCR) suppliers, supply chain management, subcontract procurement, incorrect
project pricing at pre-contract stage, exchange rate fluctuations,
fluctuations in market demand
Legal and Achieving planning permission and discharge of conditions, ownership of
statutory land, third-party issue (e.g. partywall), statutory approval including
approval related building regulations, achieving third-party approvals, land titles and
(LSAR) boundaries, differences between regional and national laws and
regulations
Political related Community engagement, objection from local residence, differences in
(PR) stakeholder expectations, and changes in laws and regulations
Construction Safety, planning and programming of the construction works, managing
related (CR) the project team, achieving project completion within programme,
appropriate subcontractor method statement, site security, construction
technique, working at height, foundation solution, quality of
subcontractors, construction phasing and sequencing, availability and
quality of management and supervision, and suitability of construction
method
Operational Getting residents to occupy completed properties, building to meet the
related (OR) needs of prospective tenants (fitness for purpose), insufficient social
facilities, and property maintenance
Interview Question 22 Drawing from your professional experiences what will you say are
the factors likely to affect project success (risk events) at the pre-construction phase (before
the start of actual construction on site)?
Findings: The responses have been presented in rankings corresponding to the order in
which the participants provided the risk events. A score of 5 has been assigned to the first
generated risk event, 3 for the second generated risk event, and 1 for the third generated risk
event. The risk events have also been categorised using the table of construction project risk
events (Table 7.3) developed from the cumulative responses of interview questions 22–24,
and structured along the lines of a similar previous classification by Perry and Hayes (1985).
The empirical findings have been summarised in Table 7.4.
The differentiated builder specialist sub-group comprising the contracts manager, tech-
nical manager, and project manager-generated risk perceptions in the following order of
ranking: ground condition related (first); construction related (second); logistics and com-
munication related (third). The designers comprising the engineer and architect also gen-
erated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: ground condition related (first);
design and quality related (second); and construction related (third). The quantity sur-
veyor’s generated risk perceptions, on the other hand, were in the following order of rank-
ing: ground condition related (first); logistics and communication related (second); and
design and quality related (third).
In summary, the empirical findings have revealed evidence of differentiation within
the study participants’ risk perceptions on the typical pre-construction phase project risk
events. Apart from ground condition related risk events which appeared common in most
of the responses, the remaining generated risk perceptions exhibited reasonable correlation
with the study participants’ specialist background. The universality of ‘ground condition
related’ risk perceptions may have resulted from the dominant influence of an associated
construction industry affective heuristics component (Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic et al.
2010) within the study participants’ risk identification transformational systems (Walker
2015), leading to the generation of associated ‘ground condition related’ risk perceptions
(Benthin et al. 1993; Damasio 2006).
Interview Question 23 Drawing from your professional experiences, what will you say are
the factors likely to affect project success (risk events) at the construction phase (during
actual construction work on site)?
Findings: The responses have been presented in Table 7.5 using the same format as the
previous question Interview Question 22.
The differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising the contracts manager, tech-
nical manager, and project manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of
ranking: ground condition related (first); construction related (second); legal and statutory
approval related (third). The risk perceptions generated by the designers comprising engi-
neer and architect were all design and quality related. The quantity surveyor’s generated
risk perceptions, on the other hand, were in the following order of ranking: construction
related (first); financial and commercial related (second).
Table 7.4 Risk events at the pre-construction phase.

Specialist Category Category Category
Reference role 1st risk event and score 2nd risk event and score 3rd risk event and score
Builders
CM-1 Contracts Contamination GCR (5) Excavation of site GCR (3) Pollution from GCR (1)
manager of site adjoining sites
TM-1 Technical Contamination GCR (5) Previous land use GCR (3) Site access LCR (1)
manager of site to establish
ground
conditions
PM-1 Project Safety CR (5) Managing the CR (3) Achieving CR (1)
manager project team project
completion
within
programme
Scores:
1st: GCR (17)
2nd: CR (9)
3rd: LCR (1)
Designers
E-1 Engineer Previous land GCR (5) Site constraints, GCR (3) Planning and CR (1)
use to establish e.g. congested site programming
ground of the
conditions construction
works
A-1 Architect Contamination GCR (5) Structural DQR (3)
of site integrity/
consideration
of building
Scores:
1st: GCR (13)
2nd: DQR (3)
3rd: CR (1)
Quantity surveyor
QS-1 Quantity Contamination GCR (5) Planning and LCR (3) Getting the DQR (1)
surveyor of site programming of design right at
project delivery the concept
state
Scores:
1st: GCR (5)
2nd: LCR (3)
3rd: DQR (1)
GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR, logistics and communication related;
CR, construction related.
Table 7.5 Risk events at the construction phase.

Builders
CM-2 Contracts Adjoining LSAR (5) Site excava- GCR (3) Working at CR (1)
manager properties – tions/service height
partywall issues diversion
TM-2 Technical Appropriate GCR (5) Project CR (3) Poor quality DQR (1)
manager subcontractor planning control
method
statement
PM-2 Project Ground GCR (5) Construction CR (3) Safety on site CR (1)
manager investigations phasing and
sequencing
Scores:
1st: GCR (13)
2nd: CR (8)
3rd: LSAR (5)
Designers
E-2 Engineer Design team DQR (5) Availability of DQR (3) Residual risk DQR (1)
coordination specialist from design
contractors to concept stage
build to design
A-2 Architect Availability of DQR (5) New untested DQR (3)
specialist technology
contractors to
build to design
Scores:
1st: DQR (17)
2nd: –
3rd: –
Quantity surveyor
QS-2 Quantity Safety on site CR Procurement of FCR
surveyor labour and
material
Scores:
1st: CR (5)
2nd: FCR (3)
3rd: –
GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related;
FCR, financial and communication related; CR, construction related.
The empirical findings have once again revealed evidence of differentiation within the
study participants’ perceptions on the typical construction phase project risk events. The
correlation in patterns of the generated risk perceptions and the study participants’ special-
ist background, appears consistent with the research theoretical prediction of risk percep-
tion categorisation along the lines of the differences in specialist roles.
Theoretical Issue 2
– Theoretical issue 2: The differences in objectives of differentiated subsystems
(Carmichael 2006; Loosemore et al. 2006) suggest that the impact of environmen-
tal forces will result in differences in affective heuristics, and therefore differences in
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals similarities in the
respondents’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project settings and their specialist back-
ground.
The related Interview Question is 24 (see Appendix A). The rationale behind this question
was to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on two hypothetical construction project
settings.
Interview Question 24 The pictures below depict hypothetical sites (edged in bold front)
being considered for residential development. The project is at the inception stage with the
following key project objectives:
– Design: 50 units to meet minimum building regulation requirements, lifetime homes,
secured by design, minimum 40% carbon reduction.
– Budget: Construction cost not to exceed £15 million.
– Programme: To be completed within two years.
Hypothetical site A: Brown field development within high-density urban area
Source: Alamy Images

Hypothetical site B: Green field development within low-density rural area
Source: Getty Images

Please list the factors that are likely to affect the success of the projects (risk events) during
the pre-construction and actual construction phases.
Findings: The responses outline the participants’ risk perceptions on the hypothetical
projects. The risk events have been categorised using the table of construction project risk
events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Tables 7.6–7.8.
Table 7.8 compares the findings from the two hypothetical projects for evidence of con-
sistency in the responses. It also examines the pattern of the generated risk perceptions for
evidence of differentiation along the lines of the research participants’ respective specialist
background. The consistency analysis has further enabled filtration of the other extraneous
risk formation variables unrelated to specialist role affective heuristics.
The empirical findings have revealed evidence of differentiation within the generated risk
perceptions from the two hypothetical projects:
– Ground condition risk perception was common within the case.

– Design and quality-related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor, engineer,
and architect.
– Logistics and communication-related risk events were perceived by the technical man-
ager, and project manager.
– The quantity surveyor was the only participant to have mentioned consistent risk events
from the financial and commercial-related risks.
– Legal and statutory approval-related risk events were perceived by the technical manager,
and project manager.
– Construction-related risk events were also perceived by the contracts manager, and
project manager.
Table 7.6 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project A.
Case study 1
Cumulative Cumulative
Risk perception CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 for builders E-1 A-1 for designers QS-1
Force majeure related
Ground condition related

Demolition and Yes Yes Yes
excavation
Site contaminations Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site Yes Yes
constraints – congested
Existing structures and Yes Yes
foundations
Buried services Yes Yes
Design and quality

related
Achievement of scheme Yes
design standards
Achieving Highways Yes Yes
Approval in Principle
(AIP) for civil works
Availability and Yes Yes
feasibility of services
connections
Logistics and
communication related
Access and egress into Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
the site
Site setup and Yes Yes Yes
organisation
Financial and
commercial related
Completing within Yes Yes Yes
budget
(Continued)
Table 7.6 (Continued)
Case study 1
Legal and statutory
approval related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
permission and
discharging conditions
Partywall issues Yes Yes Yes Yes
resulting from adjoining
properties
Political related
Construction related
Programming of Yes Yes Yes
construction works to
achieve completion date
Working at height Yes
Safety on site Yes Yes
Operational related
Evaluation of the evidence from the consistency analysis from the perspective of the
different specialist roles has also revealed patterns of categorisation consistent with the
differences in specialist background:
– The builders comprising the contracts manager, technical manager, and project manager
have exhibited risk perceptions associated with ground condition, design and quality,
legal and statutory approval, and construction related events. Ground condition-related
risk events were consistent in all the responses.
– The designers comprising the engineer and architect also displayed risk perceptions relat-
ing to ground condition, design and quality, and legal and statutory approval events.
Design and quality risk events were consistent in all the responses.
– The quantity surveyor, on the other hand, has exhibited risk perceptions relating to finan-
cial and commercial, and design and quality events.
Table 7.7 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project B.
Case study 1

Ground contamination Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contamination from Yes Yes
adjoining water bodies
Contamination resulting Yes Yes
from previous land use
Site investigations Yes Yes
Design and quality

related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
connections
Civil infrastructure and Yes
connections
Logistics and
Access to the site Yes Yes Yes
Financial and
commercial related
Procuring subcontractors Yes
and labour
Marketing of completed Yes Yes
properties
Legal and statutory

approval related
Difficulty in achieving Yes Yes Yes
statutory design
standards
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
permission and
(Continued)
Case study 1
Political related
Objection from local Yes
residence
Programming Yes Yes Yes
achieve project
completion date
Operational related
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 1 and 2 have supported
research proposition 1. The realisation of patterns of risk perceptions correlating to the
differentiated specialist background of the study participants have confirmed the study’s
novel theoretical prediction of systems differentiation influencing risk perception categori-
sation within the construction project delivery system, with the structure reflecting the
differences in affective heuristics of the differentiated specialist roles. The consistent evi-
dence from the different construction delivery phases and hypothetical project settings has
further enhanced theoretical validity.

The second research proposition advances that intuitive risk management practices
under the representative and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project
sub-groupings, run the risk of failing to adequately identify potential risk events. The
underlining theoretical issues are
– 3. Perceptions are formed from the representative and availability heuristics (Kahneman
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
– 4. The inherent subjectivity of perception makes it manipulative and less rational. Addi-
tional information could change risk perception even when the base situation has not
changed – best-case scenarios which lead to gaps between pre-commencement estimates
and actual values at completion stage (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Alhakami and Slovic 1994;
Slovic and Peters 2006).
– 5. An uncertainty becomes a risk event to a subject if its occurrence can potentially affect
possibility of impact the subject may fail to recognise the uncertainty as a risk event.
Table 7.8 Consistency analysis of the risk perceptions from hypothetical project A and B (Case 1).
Case Study 1
Cummulative for Cummulative for

CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 Builders E-1 A-1 Designers QS-1
Questions &
Responses 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
Contamination of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
site
Excavation of site Yes Yes Yes
Polution from Yes Yes

adjoining sites
Site constraints, Yes Yes

eg congested site
Ground Yes Yes

investigations
Existing Yes Yes

structures and
foundations
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Design & Quality

Related
Structural
integrity/
considerations of
building
(Continued)
Case Study 1

Questions &
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
feasibility of
service
connections
Achieving Yes
scheme design
standards
Civil Yes
infrastructure &
connections
Achieving Yes Yes

Highways
Approval in
Principle (AIP)
for civil works
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site setup, Yes Yes Yes Yes

welfare and
deliveries
Yes Yes Yes

Financial &
Commercial
Related
Procurement of Yes
labour and
materials
Completing with Yes Yes Yes

budget
Marketing of Yes Yes

completed
properties
Yes
Legal and
Statutory
Approval Related
Achieving Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permissions &
discharge of
conditions
Third party Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

issues- partywall,
etc
Statutory Yes
approvals
including
building
regulations
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case Study 1

Questions &
Political Related
Objection from Yes Yes

local residence
Construction
Related
Safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Planning and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
programming of
the construction
works
Yes Yes Yes
Operational
Related
The presentation of findings has been organised under three headings corresponding to
pants, supported the study’s theoretical predictions.
Theoretical Issue 3
– Theoretical issue 3: Perceptions are formed from the representative and availability
heuristics (Kahneman 2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the participants’ risk identification on the hypothet-
ical projects correspond to their availability heuristics (evident from their responses on the
common construction project risk events).
The related interview questions are 22–24 (see Appendix A). The study data has been
examined for the evidence of the influence of grounded heuristics in the risk identifica-
tion processes, using hypothetical construction project settings. The interview protocol was
designed to first collect data on the participants’ grounded heuristics before asking them to
identify risk events from hypothetical project settings. The rational was to ascertain whether
the risk identification on the hypothetical project settings was done intuitively through
reliance on heuristics.
Findings: The responses have been presented in matching patterns of the respondents’
grounded heuristics against their risk identification on hypothetical project settings. The
risk events have also been categorised using the table of construction project risk events
(Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table 7.9.
The evidence from the empirical findings suggests substantial risk identification based
on the participants’ grounded heuristics, which confirms reliance on the representative and
availability heuristics:
– CM-1: Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Two out of the three risk identification from hypothetical
project B have corresponding grounded heuristics.
– TM-1: Two out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Three out of the five risk identification from hypothetical
– PM-1: Two out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Two out of the five risk identification from hypothetical
– QS-1: Four out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
– E-1: Two out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A have correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. Two out of the two risk identification from hypothetical project
B have corresponding grounded heuristics.
– A-1: One out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A has corresponding
grounded heuristics. Two out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project B
have corresponding grounded heuristics.
Table 7.9 Analysis of perception being formed from availability and representative heuristics (Case 1).
Case Study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Questions & Responses 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B
Force Majeure Related
Ground Condition Related

Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Excavation of site Yes Yes Yes
Polution from adjoining Yes Yes
sites
Previous landuse to Yes Yes
establish ground
conditions
Site constraints, Yes Yes
Site excavation/ service Yes

diversion
Ground investigations Yes Yes
Existing structures and Yes
foundations
Buried services Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Design & Quality Related
Getting the design right at Yes Yes
the concept stage
Structural integrity/ Yes
considerations of building
Availability and feasibility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
of service connections
Poor quality control Yes
Co ordination of design Yes
team
Achieving scheme design Yes
standards
Civil infrastructure & Yes
connections
Availability of specialist Yes Yes
contractors to build to
design
Achieving Highways Yes
New untested technology Yes
Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case Study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Logistics &
Communication Related
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Planning and programming Yes
of project delivery
Communication and Yes
information flow
Site setup, welfare and Yes Yes Yes
deliveries
No Yes Yes No No Yes No
Financial & Commercial
Related
Procurement of labour Yes Yes
and materials
Completing with budget Yes Yes
Marketing of completed Yes
properties
No Yes Yes No
Legal and Statutory
Approval Related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
permissions & discharge
of conditions
Third party issues- Yes Yes Yes Yes
partywall, etc
Statutory approvals Yes
including building
regulations
Yes No No No No No No
Political Related
residence
No No No
Construction Related
Planning and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
programming of the
construction works
Managing the project team Yes
Appropriate subcontractor Yes
method statement
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Operational Related
3 of 4 2 of 3 2 of 3 3 of 5 2 of 4 2 of 5 4 of 4 2 of 3 2 of 2 2 of 2 1 of 4 2 of 3
Theoretical Issue 4
– Theoretical issue 4: The inherent subjectivity of perception makes it manipulative

and less rational. Additional information could change risk perception even when
the base situation has not changed – best-case scenarios which lead to gaps between
pre-commencement estimates and actual values at completion stage (Flyvbjerg et al.
2003; Alhakami and Slovic 1994; Slovic and Peters 2006).
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if exposure to additional information (a schedule of

construction risk sources) changes the participants’ risk perception/analysis.
The related Interview Questions are 24 and 25 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined to see if exposure to additional information (a schedule of construction
risk sources) can influence the risk identification process. The interview protocol was
designed to first solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical projects using
their grounded heuristics. The participants were later given a schedule of construction
risk sources to study and re-identify risk events from the same hypothetical projects. The
rational was to ascertain whether the introduction of additional information will alter their
previous risk evaluation. The risk identifications after the participants were provided with
additional information have been termed exposed heuristics, denoting that they have been
generated based on exposure to additional information which has become assimilated
within the pool of heuristics applied in their intuitive evaluations.
initial risk identification on the hypothetical projects, against their subsequent risk iden-
tification on the same hypothetical projects following exposure to additional assessment
information. The risk events have also been categorised using the table of construction
project risk events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table 7.10.
The empirical evidence has revealed changes in the initial risk identification profiles after
the participants were exposed to additional assessment information confirming the sus-
ceptibility of perception to manipulation. The changes occurred even though the project
settings have not been altered. The changes in risk identification profiles were observed
in the responses from all the participants apart from the project engineer who declined to
re-assess the hypothetical project settings after receiving the additional assessment infor-
mation and simply responded that his answers to interview question 25 are the same as
those offered in the initial risk identification.
– CM-1: Two out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Three out of the four risk assessment categories on
hypothetical project B were different from the initial assessment.
– TM-1: Three out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
different from the initial assessment. One out of the four risk assessment categories on
hypothetical project B was different from the initial assessment.
– PM-1: One out of the three risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was
Table 7.10 Analysis of the influence of additional information (exposed heuristics) on perception formation (Case 1).
Case Study 1
CM- 1 TM- 1 PM- 1 QS- 1 E-1 A-1
Questions & Responses 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B
Fire destruction Yes
Flood destruction Yes
Landslips Yes
Yes Yes
Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Excavation of site Yes Yes
Polution from adjoining Yes Yes Yes
sites
Site constraints, eg Yes Yes
congested site
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ground investigations Yes
foundations
Site Investigations Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No Yes No No Yes No

Availability and feasibility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Achieving scheme design Yes
standards
(Continued)
Case Study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Civil infrastructure & Yes
connections
Achieving Highways Yes Yes
Design constraints/ Yes Yes Yes Yes
opportunities resulting
from surveys
Coordinating design with Yes Yes
construction method
Accuracy and Yes
appropriateness of design
specifications
Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No
Logistics &
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site setup, welfare and Yes Yes Yes Yes
deliveries
Organising work into Yes
phases
Transportation of Yes Yes Yes
materials and construction
plants
labour
No No No No No Yes Yes
Related
Procurement of labour and Yes
materials
Completing with budget Yes Yes
Availability of funds Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marketing of completed Yes
properties
Project cash flow Yes Yes Yes Yes
Adequacy of insurance Yes Yes
Constructors and Yes Yes
supplier’s default
Exchange rate fluctuation Yes Yes
Inflation rate Yes Yes
Taxation rates Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
Legal and Statutory
Approval Related
permissions & discharge of
conditions
Third party issues- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
partywall, etc
including building
regulations
Personal liabilities Yes
No No No
(Continued)
Case Study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Political Related
residence
Changes in laws and Yes
regulations
Yes
Safety Yes Yes Yes Yes
Planning and Yes Yes Yes Yes
programming of the
construction works
Managing the project team Yes
Suitability of construction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
method
Inclement weather Yes
No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Operational Related
Fluctuations in market Yes
demand
Ensuring fitness for Yes
purpose
Yes Yes
– QS-1: One out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Four out of the five risk assessment categories on
– E-1: Zero out of the three risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Zero out of the two risk assessment categories on
– A-1: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
Theoretical Issue 5
– Theoretical issue 5: An uncertainty becomes a risk event to a subject if its occurrence can
potentially affect the objective(s) of the subject (Loosemore et al. 2006), suggesting that
where there is no possibility of impact the subject may fail to recognise the uncertainty
as a risk event.
Theoretical issue is to be confirmed if the participants fail to identify risk events outside
their specialist background (associated with lack of related grounded heuristics).
The related Interview Question is 24 (see Appendix A). The study data have been exam-
ined to see if the participants’ failure in identifying certain risk events can be attributed to
their lack of related grounded heuristics outside their specialist background. The interview
protocol was designed to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical projects
using their grounded heuristics.
risk identification on the hypothetical project settings against the project cumulative risk
identification profiles to reveal the items missed by each participant. The risk events have
also been categorised using the table of construction project risk events (Table 7.3). The
findings have been summarised in Tables 7.11–7.13.
The data from the two hypothetical projects has been further analysed for consistency in
the participants’ missed risk events.
The empirical evidence and consistency examination have revealed that exclusion of a
specialist role from the risk identification exercise would have resulted in some of the risk
events being missed, with consequential impact on the robustness of the risk management
process and project performance. As an illustration, the responses from the hypothetical
project setting ‘A’ revealed that it was only the project engineer with his structural engi-
neering background who perceived ‘Agreement in Principle’ for structural works around
the existing roads to be a potential project risk. This implies that if the project engineer had
been excluded from the risk identification process, it would have affected the robustness
of the risk management processes, assuming the risk associated with the ‘Agreement in
Principle’ to be real.
Empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed that the research partic-
ipants were generally calm and relaxed during the interrogations relating to Theoretical
Issues 3–5. Their responses were spontaneous and effortless suggesting intuitive decision
processing (Kahneman 2011).
Table 7.11 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical Project A.
Case study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
Risk Project Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed
Perceptions risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk
of 24A events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Force Majeure
Related
Ground Condition
Related
Demolition & Yes Yes Yes
excavation
Site contaminations Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site Yes Yes
constraints-
congested
Existing structures Yes Yes
and foundations
Missed
Design & Quality
Related
Achievement of Yes Yes
scheme design
standards
Achieving Yes Yes
Highways Approval
in Principle (AIP)
for civil works
Availability and Yes Yes
feasibility of
services
connections
Missed Missed Missed
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and egress Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
into the site
organisation
Missed
(Continued)
Construction
Related
construction works
to achieve
completion date
Working at height Yes Yes
Missed Missed Missed Missed
Operational
Related
Source: Developed for this research study

Key
Project commulative risk events
Risk events missed by participant
Table 7.12 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical Project B.
Case study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
of 24B events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Force Majeure
Related
Ground Condition
Related
Ground Yes Yes Yes Yes
contamination
Contamination Yes Yes
from adjoining
water bodies
resulting from
previous landuse
Missed
(Continued)
Case study 1
CM-1 TM-1 PM-1 QS-1 E-1 A-1
of 24B events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Design & Quality
Related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
feasibility of
services
connections
Civil infrastructure Yes Yes
and connections
Missed
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access to the site Yes Yes Yes
Financial &
Commercial Related
Procuring Yes Yes
subcontractors and
labour
Marketing of Yes Yes
completed properties
Legal & Statutory
Approval Related
Difficulty in Yes Yes Yes
achieving statutory
design standards
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes
permission &
discharging
conditions
Missed Missed
Political Related
Objection from Yes Yes
local residence
Missed Missed Missed Missed Missed
Construction
Related
Programming Yes Yes Yes
construction works
to achieve project
completion date
Operational
Related

Key
Table 7.13 Consistency analysis of missed risk events.
Consistent
Missed risk missed
Reference Specialist role events – 24A Missed risk events – 24B risk event
CM-1 Contracts manager DQR, FCR DQR, LCR, FCR, LSAR FCR
TM-1 Technical manager DQR, FCR, CR PR, CR CR
PM-1 Project manager DQR, FCR FCR, PR FCR
QS-1 Quantity surveyor LSAR, CR GCR, LCR, PR, CR CR
E-1 Engineer LCR, FCR, CR LCR, FCR, LSAR, PR, CR LCR, FCR, CR
A-1 Architect GCR, CR LCR, FCR, PR, CR CR
GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR, logistics and communication
related; FCR, financial and communication related; PR, political related; LSAR, legal and statutory
approval related; CR, construction and site related.
In summary, the empirical evidence from the Theoretical Issues 3–5 has provided sub-
stantial support for research proposition 2. Analysis of the study participants’ risk eval-
uation on hypothetical construction projects against their grounded heuristics on typical
construction project risk events have confirmed intuitive risk management decision pro-
cessing guided by the representative and availability heuristics. All the study participants
apart from the project engineer who refused to re-assess his responses altered their risk
evaluation when they were exposed to additional information in the form of a schedule of
construction risk sources, which also confirms the susceptibility of perception to manip-
ulation. Further evaluation of the individual specialist roles’ risk identifications against
the cumulative risk events generated within the case have identified missed risk events
in the categories outside the participants’ respective specialist backgrounds. The impli-
cation being excluding a specialist role from the risk management decision-making sub-
system may affect robust risk identification, and subsequently, weaken the risk response
strategy.

The third research proposition advances that statistical and probability risk data presenta-
tion and analysis are less likely to be understood and applied in intuitive risk management
systems compared to the use of qualitative data presentation formats and subjective assess-
ment techniques. The underlining theoretical issues are
– 6. Research findings have identified construction risk management to be dominated by
2010).
– 7. Psychometric research findings suggest that most people relate better to narratives,
2010).
– 8. Most people do not trust, understand, or use statistics and probability estimates in their
– 9. Most people relate better to qualitative assessments than quantitative assessments
– 10. Where a potential outcome of a future event evokes a strong affective memory, the
assessor may be insensitive to the probability predictions on the event (Slovic et al. 2010).
The presentation of findings has been organised under five headings corresponding to
pants have supported the study’s theoretical predictions on decision processing within the
construction risk management decision-making subsystem.
Theoretical Issue 6
– Theoretical issue 6: Research findings have identified construction risk management to
be dominated by people without formal training in risk management systems using intu-
ition and heuristics (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga
and Kuotcha 2010).
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals preference for intuitive
risk management approaches over rational tools and techniques.
The related Interview Questions are 7–11 (see Appendix A). The study data has been
examined for evidence on the level of knowledge and application of rational techniques
within the construction risk management decision-making subsystems. The interview pro-
tocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and decision processing by allowing the
participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 1 have been summarised in Figures 7.1–7.9 and
Table 7.14.
Interview Question 7 Please indicate your level of education/training in project risk man-
agement tools and practices?
a. No formal education or training in project risk management (………)
b. On the job informal experience (………)
c. CPDs and seminars on project risk management (………)
d. Short duration formal course (less than six months) (………)
e. University diploma/degree in Project Risk Management – e.g. BSc Construction Risk
Management, MSc Risk Management (………)
Please specify title of degree/diploma…………………………………………………………
Findings: The responses have been presented in Figure 7.1.
University diploma/degree 0%
Short duration courses 9.09%
CPDs and seminars 36.36%
On the job informal experience 54.55%
No formal education or training 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 7.1 Level of education/training in risk management systems.
Interview Question 8 Which of the following risk management techniques have you heard
of? (Please indicate with a tick)
Risk register ………… . . . .. Probability matrix ……………
Fault tree ...………… Personal feelings and values……………
Personal experiences (heuristics) …………… Risk breakdown analysis ………… . . . ..
Worse/best-case scenario ……………… Monte Carlo simulation/analysis ………… . . . .
Brainstorming………… . . . .. Failure mode and effect analysis ……………
Fish bone …………… Cultural beliefs ……………
Gut feeling ……… . . . .. Other (please specify) …………………………
Findings: The responses against the risk management techniques have been presented in
Figure 7.2. Figure 7.3 also categorises the responses into intuitive and rational techniques.
Interview Question 9 Which of the following risk management techniques have you
applied on this project? (Please indicate with a tick)

Gut feeling ……… . . . . Other (please specify) ……………………………
Others 0%
Cultural beliefs – Intuitive 6.98%
Failure mode and effect analysis – Rational 0%
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis – Rational 4.65%
Risk breakdown analysis – Rational 4.65%
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive 14%
Probability matrix – Rational 6.98%
Gut feeling – Intuitive 11.63%
Fish bone – Rational 0%
Brainstorming – Intuitive 11.63%
Worse/best case scenario – Intuitive 11.63%
Personal experiences (heuristics) – Intuitive 13.95%
Fault tree – Rational 0%
Risk register – Intuitive 13.95%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00%
Figure 7.2 Risk management techniques known by the participants (all responses).
Rational,
16.28%
Intuitive,
83.72%
Figure 7.3 Risk management techniques known by the participants (categorisation into intuitive
and rational).
Findings: The responses against the applied risk management techniques have been pre-
sented in Figure 7.4. Figure 7.5 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational tech-
niques.
Interview Question 10 On a scale of 1–3 please rank the top three (3) techniques which
you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select from the
following list: Risk register, Probability matrix, Fault tree, Personal feelings and values, Per-
sonal experiences (heuristics), Risk breakdown analysis, Worse/best case scenario, Monte Carlo
Others 0%
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis – Rational 0%
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive 14.81%
Probability matrix – Rational 0%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%
Figure 7.4 Risk management techniques applied (all responses).
Rational, 3.70%
Intuitive,
96.30%
Figure 7.5 Risk management techniques applied (categorisation into intuitive and rational).
simulation/analysis, Brainstorming, Failure mode and effect analysis, Fish bone, Cultural
believes, and Gut feeling (please note: A scale of 1 represents the highest preference, and a scale
of 3 represents the lowest preference).
1st ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………
2nd ranked technique ……………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ……….………………………………………………………………
Findings: The responses against the preferred risk management techniques have been
presented in Figure 7.6. Figure 7.7 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational tech-
niques.
Others 0%
Monte Carlo simulation/ analysis – Rational 0%
Worse/ best case scenario – Intuitive 0.00%


0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
Figure 7.6 Risk management techniques preferred (all responses).
Rational,
11.11%
Intuitive,
88.89%
Figure 7.7 Risk management techniques preferred (categorisation into intuitive and rational).
A trend analysis of the responses on the risk management techniques known, applied,
and preferred has been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the responses that could
shed light on the rationale behind the present risk management practices. The evidence has
been presented in Figures 7.8 and 7.9.
The evidence from the trend analysis has revealed high responses for intuitive techniques
across the three assessment variables. The dominance of the intuitive decision processing
system in the existing construction risk management practices was very elaborate in the
responses, with all the specialist roles apart from the quantity surveyor confirming sole
0
Others 0
0
Cultural beliefs – Intuitive 1 2
3
Failure mode and effect analysis – Rational 0
0
0
0
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis – Rational 0 2
5
Risk breakdown analysis – Rational 1
2
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive 3
4
6
0 Preferred
Probability matrix – Rational 0
3
0 Applied
Gut feeling – Intuitive 4
5
Fish bone – Rational 0 Known
0
0
Brainstorming – Intuitive 5 9
5
0
Worse/best case scenario – Intuitive 1 5
Personal experiences (heuristics) – Intuitive 5 13
6
Fault tree – Rational 0
0
0
Risk register – Intuitive 5 14
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 7.8 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred.
120.00%
100.00%
96.30%
88.89%
80.00% 83.72%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
16.28%
11.11%
3.70%
0.00%
Known Applied Preferred
Intuitive 83.72% 96.30% 88.89%
Rational 16.28% 3.70% 11.11%
Figure 7.9 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred
(categorisation into intuitive and rational).
reliance on intuitive practices. The project engineer with 14 years industry experience sug-
gested that the intuitive approach is the only option available to the construction industry.
A significant discovery from the trend analysis however is the variance between the per-
centages of rational techniques known, applied, and preferred. Out of the 16.28% ‘rational’
segment of the ‘known’ risk management techniques, only 22.7% are being applied on the
case study project, representing 3.7% of the responses on ‘applied’ risk management tech-
niques. There is however a 68.24% preference to apply the ‘known’ rational techniques
on a future project, representing 11.11% of the responses on ‘preferred’ risk management

techniques. The empirical evidence therefore has revealed that though there appears to be
limited knowledge of rational risk management techniques among the case study partic-
ipants, the comparatively higher preference for applying the ‘known’ rational techniques
on future projects suggests the cause of the dominated-intuitive practices within the case
to be other extraneous factors besides disfavour of rational techniques. The evidence of low
level of training and education in project risk management tools and techniques presented
in Figure 7.1 could be one of the extraneous factors.
Notwithstanding the above, the comparatively lower preference for future application of
rational risk management techniques implies that the risk management practices of the
research participants within the short term will continue to utilise intuitive thinking and
decision-making.
The empirical evidence on the factors influencing the participants’ preference for the
various risk management techniques have been addressed in Interview Question 11.
Interview Question 11 What are the factors influencing your preference of the above risk
management technique?
2nd ranked technique ……………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique …….…………………………………………………………………
Findings: The findings have been presented in Table 7.14.
Table 7.14 Factors influencing risk management technique preference.
Case study 1
Technique Factory Responses
Risk register Good for risk allocation and as an audit trail for checking risk 2
management responses
Enable all project risk to be documented in a single document 1
for monitoring and treatment
Simple way of recording and presenting project risk from 1
project inception
Personal Believe that is the only available medium for identifying and 1
experience treating project risk
Opportunity to draw from lessons learnt on previous projects 1
Brainstorming Effective in using your previous experience in risk identification 1
Opportunity to utilise knowledge from all the project team 2
rather than just one person
Personal feeling Opportunity to utilise the wealth of professional experiences in 2
and values project risk management
Risk breakdown Enable risk to be broken down for better clarity 1
analysis
Cultural belief An opportunity to transfer build-up experience into project risk 1
identification and treatment
Theoretical Issue 7
– Theoretical issue 7: Psychometric research findings suggest that most people relate better
to narratives, models, illustrations, and anecdotal simulations better than statistical data
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals preference for quali-
tative data presentation formats, over statistical data, and quantitative models.
examined for evidence on preference for construction risk management data presentation
format. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and decision
processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 1 have been summarised in Figures 7.10–7.17.
Interview Question 12 Which of the following forms of risk data presentations do you
know? (Please tick all the applicable)
Narrative …… . . . .. Probabilities ……………… . . . .
Qualitative statements ………… Whole numbers ………… . . . .
Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Fractions ……… . . . . Scenarios …… . . . .
Simulations ……… . . . .. Other (please specify) ……………
Findings: The responses against the risk management data presentation formats have
been presented in Figure 7.10. Figure 7.11 also categorises the responses into qualitative
and quantitative presentation formats.
Sketches and mark-ups on drawings – Qualitative 0.00%
Using different colours to rank severity of risk –

Qualitative 0.00%
Scenarios – Qualitative 17.39%
Ratios – Quantitative 4.35%
Whole numbers – Qualitative 0.00%
Probabilities – Quantitative 26.09%
Simulations – Qualitative 4.35%
Fractions – Quantitative 4.35%
Graphs – Quantitative 8.70%
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 8.70%
Narrative – Qualitative 26.09%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%
Figure 7.10 Risk management data presentation formats known.

43.48%
56.52%
Qualitative Quantitative
Figure 7.11 Risk management data presentation formats known (categorisation into qualitative
and quantitative formats).
Interview Question 13 Which of the following forms of risk data presentations have you
applied on this project? (Please tick all the applicable)

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Interview Question 14 On a scale of 1–3 please rank the top three (3) risk data presentation
formats which you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may
select from the following list: Narratives, Probabilities, Qualitative statements, Whole numbers,
Graphs, Ratios, Fractions, Scenarios, and Simulations (please note: A scale of 1 represents the
highest preference, and a scale of 3 represents the lowest preference).

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………

0.00%
Qualitative
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%
Figure 7.12 Risk management data presentation formats applied.
Figure 7.13 Risk management

data presentation formats applied
18.18% (categorised into qualitative and
quantitative formats).
81.82%
A trend analysis of the responses on the risk management data presentation formats
known, applied, and preferred have been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the
responses that could shed light on the rationale behind the present risk management prac-
tices. The evidence has been presented in Figures 7.16 and 7.17.
The evidence from the trend analysis has revealed high responses for qualitative data pre-
sentation formats across the three assessment variables, which suggest prolonged existence
for the research participants’ present risk management practice of qualitative data process-
ing. This was strongly echoed by the technical manager who advised simplicity in construc-
tion risk data presentation to enhance application. A major concern from the empirical
evidence, however, is the disparity between the proportions of applied systems of risk man-
agement techniques presented under Theoretical Issue 6 versus the systems of applied data

11.11%
Qualitative
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%
Figure 7.14 Risk management data presentation formats preferred.
Figure 7.15 Risk management

data presentation formats 15.56%
preferred (categorised into
qualitative and quantitative).
84.44%
presentation formats. The empirical evidence under Theoretical Issue 6 has revealed exces-
sively higher dominance of intuitive risk management techniques (96.3%) suggesting the
need for corresponding higher application of qualitative data formats to ensure theoret-
ical complementarity in the decision processing system. The empirical evidence on the
applied data presentation formats, however, has exhibited comparatively lower dominance
for qualitative data presentation formats (81.82%), suggesting that some of the intuitive
decision processing techniques are being applied with theoretically incompatible quantita-
tive data presentation formats. The project manager’s admission of quantitative probability
data processing in the light of his other responses of sole reliance on intuitive techniques
(see Appendix D) is a clear confirmation of the theoretically incompatible decision process-
ing practice.
Others
Sketches and mark-ups on drawings – Qualitative 1

5
Using different colours to rank severity of risk – ...
6
Scenarios – Qualitative 2
4
Ratios – Quantitative
1
3
Whole numbers – Qualitative 1
7
Probabilities – Quantitative 2
6
Simulations – Qualitative
1
Fractions – Quantitative
1
Graphs – Quantitative
2
8
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 2
2
16
Narrative – Qualitative 3
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Preferred Applied Known
Figure 7.16 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known; applied, and
preferred.
90.00%
80.00%
77.55%
70.00% 70.59%
60.00% 60.71%
50.00%
40.00% 39.29%
30.00% 29.41%
20.00% 22.45%
10.00%
0.00%
Qualitative 60.71% 70.59% 77.55%
Quantitative 39.29% 29.41% 22.45%
Figure 7.17 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied, and
preferred (categorisation into qualitative and quantitative).
Theoretical Issue 8
– Theoretical issue 8: Most people do not trust, understand, or use statistics and probability
estimates in their risk management decision-making (March and Shapira 1987; Akintoye
and Macleod 1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skitmore 2004).
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals low level of knowledge
and application of statistics and probability.
examined for evidence on the participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of statis-
tics and probability assessment. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive
thinking and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to
the questions intuitively without consulting any reference source.
Findings: The findings from case study 1 have been summarised in Table 7.15 and
Figures 7.18–7.21.
Interview Question 15 Which of the following statistical symbols are you familiar with?
Please indicate by selecting from the following list: summation, probability density
function, probability function, sample mean, population mean, median, variance, standard
deviation, sample standard deviation, and don’t know.
Symbol Name
P(A)
S
∑
Findings: The responses have been summarised in Table 7.15.

Interview Questions 16–18: Please use the hypothetical risk evaluations represented in
the table to answer questions 16–18.
Risk event Probability of occurrence Probability of impact
A 1/7 30/35
B 97.9% 84%
C 1 : 9743 4:5
Table 7.15 Level of knowledge and understanding of statistical symbols.
Case study 1
Statistical symbol No of correct responses Percentages (%)
P(A) 4 out of 6 66.67

s 0 out of 6 0.00
∑
3 out of 6 50.00
𝜇 0 out of 6 0.00
Total 7 out of 24 29.17
Interview Question 16 Which of the above risk events is certain to occur?

Risk event A ……………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
All (risk events A, B, and C) ………………………
None of the risk events …………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Findings: The percentage of correct responses have been presented in Figure 7.18.
Figure 7.18 Risk events certain to

occur.
33.33%
66.67%
Correct response Wrong response
Interview Question 17 Which of the above risk events is certain not to occur?
Risk event A ……………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Findings: The percentage of correct responses has been presented in Figure 7.19.
Figure 7.19 Risk event certain not to

occur.
33.33%
66.67%

Interview Question 18 Which of the above risk events is certain to have the highest impact?
Risk event A ……………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Figure 7.20 Risk event certain to 0.00%
have the highest impact.
100.00%
Wrong response
The empirical evidence has revealed significant low level of understanding of statistical
symbols and probability assessments among the case study participants:
– 7 out of 24 correct identification of statistical symbols which represents 29.17% (see
Table 7.15).
– 4 out of 18 correct responses for the probability assessments which represents 22.2%.
The four correct responses were provided by the quantity surveyor and engineer whose
specialist background tends to be mathematically oriented. The remaining participants
all gave wrong responses. Another significant empirical evidence is the erroneous linkage
of higher probability predictions to certainty of occurrence of an event, which may be due
to a general lack of understanding of the probability concept.
Theoretical Issue 9
– Theoretical issue 9: Most people relate better to qualitative assessments than quantitative
assessments (Slovic et al. 2010).
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals high accuracy for risk
analysis expressed in whole numbers, qualitative statements, and scenarios, compared to
risk analysis expressed in percentages, decimals, and ratios.
The related Interview Questions are 19 and 20 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined for evidence on the participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of
qualitative and quantitative assessments. The interview protocol was designed to stimu-
late intuitive thinking and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to
respond to the questions intuitively without using calculators.
Findings: The findings from case study 1 have been summarised in Figures 7.21 and 7.22
and Table 7.16.
Interview Question 19 Which of the following hypothetical project settings offer the high-
est probability estimate? (Indicate with a tick)
A. There is a 75.2% probability of half of the site being contaminated (………)
B. There is a 1 : 321 probability of the site being contaminated (………)
C. There is a 0.381 probability of the site being contaminated (………)
Figure 7.21 Assessment of

participants’ understanding of
16.67% quantitative probability equations.
83.33%
A. The probability of projects over running their initial budget is 3 out of 10 (………)
B. out of every projects overrun their initial budget (………)
C. After reviewing the financial records of the four completed construction projects, only
project A recorded a final cost higher than the initial budget estimate (………)
0.00% Figure 7.22 Assessment of

qualitative probability equations.
100.00%
Correct response
The empirical evidence has revealed higher percentage of accuracy for the qualitative
probability equations compared to the quantitative probability equations:
– Qualitative probability equation: Six out of six correct responses.
– Quantitative probability equation: One out of six correct response representing 16.67%.
Another significant evidence is the composition of the wrong responses. Four out of the
five wrong respondents selected the probability equation expressed in percentages, rep-
resenting 80% of the wrong responses. Further questioning on the rationale behind the
preference for the ‘percentage equation’ format revealed the following responses:
a. Percentages are what we are familiar with from our primary and secondary educa-
tion – three responses.
b. Percentages are what we use in our everyday working life – one response.
The above responses suggest that the participants who selected the percentage equation
were simply relying on their availability heuristics to intuitively generate the answers.
There were two further supplementary questions to solicit empirical evidence on the
participants’ experience with answering the two forms of probability equations. The find-
ings have been presented in Table 7.16. The empirical evidence has revealed the qualitative
equation format to be comparatively straightforward and easy to understand.
Table 7.16 Participants’ experience with answering the quantitative and qualitative probability
equations.
Supplementary question Assessment format Response Percentage (%)
1. Which of the questions was easy to Quantitative 2 out of 6 33.33

understand and answer? Qualitative 4 out of 6 66.67
2. Which of the question formats do they Quantitative 3 out of 6 50
think would be understood and
appreciated by most construction
professionals? Qualitative 3 out of 6 50
Theoretical Issue 10
– Theoretical issue 10: Where a potential outcome of a future event evokes a strong affec-
tive memory, the assessor may be insensitive to the probability predictions on the event
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals insensitivity to differ-
ent range of hypothetical probability predictions of asbestos contamination risk.
The related Interview Questions are 21i–21iii (see Appendix A). The study data has been
examined for evidence on the participants’ responses to the different range of hypothetical
asbestos contamination risk. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive
the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 1 have been summarised in Table 7.17.
Table 7.17 The impact of probability predictions on events which evokes strong affective memories.
Hypothetical Probability of occurrence Probability of impact Responses/

setting based on initial survey based on initial survey Appropriate risk response percentages
21i 95% probability of 99% probability of death Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 6 out of 6 (100%)
mesothelioma causing resulting from exposure out further surveys to identify and remove
asbestos fibre conta- the asbestos before the commencement of
mination on 100% of the site construction works
21ii 10% probability of 50% probability of asbestos Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 5 out of 6 (83.33%)
non-malignant asbestos infection out further surveys to identify and remove
contamination on 10% of the asbestos before the commencement of
the site construction works
Carry on construction works at the 1 out of 6 (16.67%)
non-contaminated area whilst carrying
out further investigations at the
remaining areas to identify and remove
any asbestos residue
21iii 1% probability of 1% probability of Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 5 out of 6 (83.33%)
non-malignant asbestos non-malignant pleural out further surveys to identify and remove
contamination within a infection the asbestos before the commencement of
specific 1% area of the site construction works
Interview Questions 21 Asbestos related illness has been a major cause of construction
occupational death. According to the Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom,
there has been a recent surge in asbestos related illness and deaths (see the table and pic-
tures below).
Asbestos related deaths
Asbestos-related cancer Asbestosis

Year mesothelioma deaths death
1968 153
2009 2321 411
2010 2347 412
2011 2291 429
2012 2535 464
Source: Adapted from HSE 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
Picture 1: Asbestos cancer affecting the lungs
Source: Shutterstock.com
Picture 2: Asbestos removal by licenced contractors
Source: Adobe Stock
21i Please kindly review the information above and complete the ‘Appropriate risk
response’ column of the ‘Hypothetical project risk evaluation matrix’ below. Please select
your response from any of the following options:
i. Appoint a licenced contractor to carry out further surveys to identify and remove the
asbestos before the commencement of construction works.
ii. Carry on construction works at the non-contaminated area whilst carrying out further
investigations at the remaining areas to identify and remove any asbestos residue.
iii. Supply protective masks to all operatives and carry on with the construction works.
iv. Carry on with the construction works and forget about any asbestos.
Hypothetical project risk evaluations matrix
Appropriate risk
Probability of occurrence Probability of impact response (please select
Project based on initial survey based on initial survey from i, ii, iii, iv above)
A 95% probability of 99% probability of …………………………

mesothelioma causing death resulting from …………………………
asbestos fibre contamination exposure
on 100% of the site
21ii What will be your risk response if the risk evaluation results were to change to
Appropriate risk
A 10% probability of non- 50% probability of …………………………

malignant asbestos asbestos infection …………………………
contamination on 10% of the site
(Please select your response from any of the options given under 21i.)
21iii What will be your risk response if the risk evaluation results were to change to
Appropriate risk
A 1% probability of non-malignant 1% probability of …………………………

asbestos contamination within a non-malignant pleural …………………………
specific 1% area of the site infection
Findings: The participants’ risk responses under the different probability predictions have
been presented in Table 7.17.
The empirical evidence has revealed significant insensitivity to the different range of
hypothetical probability predictions on asbestos contamination. A total of 83.33% of the par-
ticipants consistently responded that they would appoint a licensed contractor to carry out
further asbestos surveys to identify and remove asbestos contaminated materials before they
commence site construction works. The different levels of probability risk predictions could
not alter their responses not even for the very low probability prediction of non-malignant
contamination within a small specified area. The project manager in particular responded
that he will take no chances with the lives of his workforce irrespective of the level of prob-
ability of asbestos risk.
The empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed some level of emotional
discomfort for some of the participants during the interrogations especially the statistical
and probability assessments (Theoretical Issue 8) and the quantitative equations (Theo-
retical Issue 9). Some of the participants even inquired if they could search the statistical
symbols on the Internet and also process the quantitative equations with calculators. When
these were denied, the frustration became evident in their body language, confirming the
psychological conflict they were facing in attempting intuitive processing of quantitative
data formats.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 6–10 has provided support
for research proposition 3. The findings have reviewed massive reliance on intuitive con-
struction risk management techniques. There has been further evidence of intuitive pro-
cessing of theoretically incompatible quantitative data formats especially quantitative prob-
ability by the study participants who have demonstrated low proficiency in statistical sym-
bols and probability judgement. The ensuing systematic issues evident from the empirical
findings are comparatively higher accuracy for the intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk
data formats over quantitative risk data formats and insensitivity to probability predictions
of emotive events.
7.2.2.4 Summary of Case 1 Findings

The findings from case study 1 have been presented:
– Research proposition 1: The empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 1 and 2 have sup-
ported research proposition 1. Apart from ground condition-related risk events which
appeared common in the responses on the typical pre-construction phase project risk
events, the remaining generated risk perceptions correlated with the study participants’
specialist background. The universality of ‘ground condition related’ risk perceptions
may have resulted from the dominant influence of an associated construction indus-
try affective heuristics component (Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic et al. 2010) within the
study participants’ risk identification transformational systems (Walker 2015), leading to
the generation of associated ‘ground condition related’ risk perceptions (Benthin et al.
1993). Nevertheless, the realisation of patterns of risk perceptions correlating to the spe-
cialist background of the study participants have confirmed the study’s novel theoretical
explanation of systems differentiation influencing risk perception categorisation within
the construction project delivery system, with the structure reflecting the differences
in affective heuristics of the differentiated specialist roles. The consistent evidence from
the different construction delivery phases and hypothetical project settings have further
enhanced theoretical validity.
– Research proposition 2: The empirical evidence from the Theoretical Issues 3–5 has pro-
vided substantial support for research proposition 2. Analysis of the study participants’
risk evaluation on hypothetical construction projects against their grounded heuristics
on typical construction project risk events have confirmed intuitive risk management
decision processing, guided by the representative and availability heuristics (Theoretical
Issue 3). All the study participants apart from the project engineer who refused to
re-assess his responses altered their risk evaluation after they were exposed to additional
information in the form of a schedule of construction risk sources. This in effect confirms
the susceptibility of perceptions to manipulation (Theoretical Issue 4). Further evalu-
ation of the individual specialist roles risk identifications against the cumulative risk
events generated within the case have identified missed risk events in the categories out-
side the participants’ respective specialist backgrounds. The implication being excluding
a specialist role from the risk management decision-making subsystem may affect robust
risk identification and subsequently weaken the risk response strategy (Theoretical
Issue 5).
– Research proposition 3: The empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 6–10 have pro-
vided substantial support for research proposition 3. The findings have revealed massive
reliance on intuitive construction risk management techniques (Theoretical Issue 6) con-

sistent with the prevailing theoretical evidence. There has been further evidence of intu-
itive processing of theoretically incompatible quantitative data formats, especially quan-
titative probability (Theoretical Issue 7) by the study participants who have demonstrated
low proficiency in statistical symbols and probability assessment (Theoretical Issue 8).
The ensuing systematic issues as evident from the empirical findings are comparatively
higher accuracy for intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk data formats over quantita-
tive risk data formats (Theoretical Issue 9), and insensitivity to probability predictions
of emotive events (Theoretical Issue 10), which cumulatively confirms the incompatibil-
ity of mixing approaches and data presentation formats from the intuitive and rational
decision-making systems.

Case study project 2 is a 206-unit private residential development located in London. The
project formed part of a 26-storey mixed development comprising 276 residential apart-
ments, 6312 m2 of mixed commercial space, and 36 car parking spaces. The residential
accommodation was split between 206 private for sale units, and 70 affordable housing.
Table 7.18 provides key facts about the project.
There was no structured risk management protocol on this case. The principal contrac-
tor’s core project team members held regular brainstorming meetings, where the project
manager recorded and monitored identified project risk events. The project risk events
and management strategies were included in the project manager’s monthly project report
issued to the developer’s board of directors.
boundary criteria. The selection was also meant to provide a second private sector residen-
tial project to enable triangulation of the empirical evidence from case studies 1 and 2 and
also the examination of theoretical replication of the research propositions.

The data collection participants for case study 2 included six project team members
comprising the quantity surveyor, project manager, technical manager, architect, engineer,
and contracts manager. The evidence was collected through semi-structured interviews
and direct observations lasting approximately one hour per session. The participants
were allowed limited time in responding to the questions to facilitate restriction of their
decision processing within the intuitive system (Kahneman 2011). There have also been
documentary reviews from the project website for the key scheme details. Table 7.19
provides the key facts about the case study participants.

The empirical data from case study 2 was analysed using the same methodology applied for
the case study 1. The summary of empirical evidence has been presented below, with the
complete case study findings found in Appendix B:
206 residential scheme forming

Description part of a mixed development
Approximate scheme value Over £50 million

Risk management strategy Internal – using in-house contractor
Case study boundary criteria Private sector housing project
3a – Location
3b – Average years of UK construction
industry experience of project team
members
Case study boundary criteria The following specialist roles participated in the
4 – Project team members specialism research:
– Contracts manager (from the principal
contractor organisation)
– Technical manager (from the principal
organisation)
– Quantity surveyor (from the principal
– Engineer (sub-consultant of the principal
contractor)
– Architect (sub-consultant of the principal
contractor)
– Research proposition 1: The empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 1 and 2 have
supported research proposition 1. The findings on differentiation within the study par-
ticipants’ risk perceptions on the typical project risk events at the different construction
delivery phases, and different hypothetical project settings, have been very consistent
with the study’s theoretical predictions. The realisation of patterns of risk perceptions
correlating to the specialist background of the study participants, have subsequently
provided empirical support for the research novel proposition of, systems differentiation
influencing risk perception categorisation within the construction project delivery
system.
vided substantial support for research proposition 2. The findings have revealed sub-
stantial correlation between the research participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical
project settings, and their initial grounded heuristics on hypothetical construction project
risk events, which suggest intuitive decision processing based on the representative and
availability heuristics (Theoretical Issue 3). All the study participants altered their risk
evaluation, after they were exposed to additional assessment information, in the form of
Quantity Project Technical Contractors

Specialist role surveyor manager manager Architect Engineer manager
Reference QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2

Years of involvement in role Over 5 yr Over 5 yr 3–5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr
Years of involvement in the UK 36 yr 16 yr 15 yr 6 yr 7 yr 36 yr
Organisational background Contractor Contractor Contractor Consultant Consultant Contractor
Years at current organisation 6 mo–1 yr 1–3 yr 3–5 yr 6 mo–1 yr 1–3 yr 3–5 yr
Length of involvement in case 6 mo–1 yr 1–3 yr 6 mo–1 yr Less than 6 mo 6 mo–1 yr Less than 6 mo
study project
Level of involvement in risk Always Always Always Sparsely Always Sparsely
management decision making
Level of training in risk On the job informal CPDs On the job informal On the job On the job On the job
management systems experience, CPDs experience, CPDs information information information
experience experience, CPDs experience
a schedule of construction risk sources. As an illustration, the technical manager whose

initial risk appraisal concentrated on health and safety events, subsequently expanded
his responses to include other risk categories after being exposed to the schedule of con-
struction risk sources. The changes occurred even though the project settings remained
un-altered, which in effect confirms the ease by which perception can be manipulated
(Theoretical Issue 4). Analysis of the individual participants’ responses against the cumu-
lative case responses, have also revealed individual missed risk events outside the respec-
tive specialist backgrounds. The contracts manager with 36 years extensive industrial
experience, was the only participant who perceived right of light as a possible risk to
hypothetical project A. The project architect with six years architectural experiences, in
roles including coordination of planning validation site surveys, similarly, was the only
participant who perceived ecological constraints, as possible risk to hypothetical project
B. The empirical findings therefore suggest that, exclusion of the contract manager and
architect from the risk identification exercise may have resulted in the missing of the asso-
ciated risk events, with consequential impact on the ensuing risk management response
and project performance, assuming the hypothetical projects and risk events to be real.
The empirical findings have subsequently validated the research proposition of restricted
risk management practices impairing robust risk identification and decision making,
especially the risk categories relating to the specialist background of the excluded roles
(Theoretical Issue 5).
vided substantial support for research proposition 3. The findings have revealed intuitive
dominated risk management practices, and limited training and education in formal
risk management systems. The individual participants’ responses have confirmed sole
reliance on intuitive techniques for all the specialist roles, apart from the project man-
ager, and technical manager (Theoretical Issue 6). There is also evidence of disparities
between the systems of applied and preferred risk management techniques, versus the
applied and preferred risk data presentation formats, with evidence of intuitive process-
ing of theoretically incompatible quantitative probability data (Theoretical Issue 7). The
study participants have demonstrated low proficiency in statistical symbols and prob-
ability judgement. The project manager asserted that most construction professionals
do not use statistics in their regular activities (Theoretical Issue 8). The study partici-
pants have also exhibited reasonable accuracy for intuitive evaluation of qualitative data;
a complete failure for intuitive evaluation of quantitative data (Theoretical Issues 9); and
insensitivity to probability predictions of emotive events (Theoretical Issue 10), which
cumulatively confirms the incompatibility of mixing techniques and data presentation
formats from the intuitive and rational decision making systems.

Case study project 3 is a 38-unit public sector residential development, located in Chatham,
Medway. The scheme comprised of 10 houses with private on-plot garages, and 2 blocks of
flats containing 28 apartments, and 28 undercroft car parking spaces. Table 7.20 provides
key facts about the project.
Description 38 residential unit scheme
Approximate scheme value Between £5 and £10 million

Risk management strategy External – using contract to transfer the project risk
management responsibility to a third-party building
contractor
Case study boundary criteria Public sector housing project
Case study boundary criteria Chatham, Medway
3a – Location
members
organisation)
– Contracts manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
organisation)
– Client development manager (client)
The project risk management protocol involved the preparation of a project risk register
by the principal contractor’s contracts manager, at the project inception. The principal con-
tractor, sub-consultants, and client then held periodic project team meetings at which point
the risk register was reviewed and updated.
boundary criteria.

The Case 3 data collection involved six project team members comprising, the project man-
ager, contracts manager, quantity surveyor, architect, client development manager, and
project engineer. The evidence was collected through semi-structured interviews and direct
observations lasting approximately one hour per session. The participants were allowed
limited time in responding to the questions to facilitate restriction of their decision pro-
cessing within the intuitive system (Kahneman 2011). There have also been documentary
reviews from the project website for the key scheme details. Table 7.21 provides the key
facts about the case study participants.
Project Contracts Quantity Client development

Specialist role manager manager surveyor Architect manager Engineer
Reference PM-3 CM-3 QS-3 A-3 CDM-3 E-3

Years of involvement in role Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr
Years of involvement in the UK 20 yr 16 yr 25 yr 12 yr 16 yr 19 yr
Organisational background Contractor Contractor Contractor Consultant Client Consultant
Years at current organisation 3–5 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 3–5 yr
Length of involvement in case 6 mo–1 yr 1–3 yr Less than 6 mo 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr
study project
Level of involvement in risk Sometimes Always Always Always Always Always
management decision-making
Level of training in risk On the job informal CPDs CPDs On the job On the job On the job
management systems experience and information information information
CPDs experience experience experience

The empirical data from case study 3 was analysed using the same methodology applied for
the case studies 1 and 2. The summary of empirical evidence has been presented, with the
complete case study findings found in Appendix C:
– Research proposition 1: The empirical findings have revealed differentiation in risk
perception categorisations on the typical construction project risk events at the
pre-construction and actual construction delivery phases, and also for risk assessment
under different project settings. Apart from ground condition-related events which
appeared common in the responses on the typical pre-construction phase project risk
events, the remaining generated risk perceptions exhibited correlation with the study
participants’ specialist background. The universality of ‘ground condition related’
risk perceptions may have resulted from the dominant influence of an associated
(Benthin et al. 1993). Notwithstanding the above, the realisation of consistent findings
under the different project delivery phases and settings has invariably confirmed
the research novel theoretical proposition of systems differentiation influencing risk
perception categorisation within the construction project delivery system along the lines
of the differences in affective heuristics of the assembled specialist roles.
– Research proposition 2: The empirical findings have revealed risk perception generation
on hypothetical project settings consistent with the grounded heuristics of the study par-
ticipants, which confirms intuitive decision processing fuelled by the representative and
availability heuristics (Theoretical Issue 3). The empirical findings have also revealed
variations in the study participants’ risk assessment of hypothetical project settings after
being exposed to additional information in the form of a schedule of construction risk
sources. The project engineer who struggled with his initial risk assessment of the hypo-
thetical projects later generated extensive risk perceptions after he was exposed to the
schedule of construction risk sources. The changes occurred even though the project set-
tings remained un-altered, thereby validating the susceptibility of perception to manipu-
lation (Theoretical Issue 4). In addition, a review of the study participants’ individual risk
assessments against the cumulative case risk identification profile revealed missed risk
events outside their respective specialist backgrounds. The client development manager,
for instance, was the only specialist role to have perceived operational-related risk events
for both hypothetical project settings. This suggests that exclusion of the client develop-
ment manager from the risk identification exercise may have resulted in total miss of
the operational-related risk events with consequential impact on the ensuing risk man-
agement response and project performance assuming the hypothetical projects and risk
events to be real (Theoretical Issue 5). The empirical findings subsequently have vali-
dated the research proposition of risk management impairment whenever a specialist
role is excluded from the risk management decision-making subsystem.
– Research proposition 3: There has been an evidence of intuitive-dominated construc-
tion risk management practices and limited risk management training comprising of the
job informal training and participation in continuous professional development sessions.
The individual responses confirmed sole reliance on intuitive risk management practices
for the project manager and contracts manager with the remaining differentiated special-
ist roles exhibiting comparative superior reliance on intuitive techniques (Theoretical
Issue 6). The findings have also revealed massive qualitative data application and pref-
erence. The application and preference of qualitative data formats was elaborate in all
the study participants’ responses. The project manager attributed the cause of his attrac-
tion to qualitative data to be the ease of recalling previous experiences to guide spon-
taneous risk assessments. Analysis of the empirical evidence has also revealed intuitive
processing of theoretically incompatible quantitative data formats especially quantitative
probability (Theoretical Issue 7). In addition, the study participants have demonstrated
low proficiency in statistical symbols and probability judgement. Apart from the project
manager, contracts manager, and quantity surveyor, the remaining differentiated spe-
cialist roles demonstrated a general lack of understanding of the probability concept
(Theoretical Issue 8). The ensuing systematic issues evident from the empirical find-
ings are: comparatively higher accuracy for the intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk
data formats over quantitative risk data formats (Theoretical Issue 9) and insensitivity to
probability predictions of emotive events (Theoretical Issue 10). In summary, the empir-
ical evidence has validated the psychological difficulties involved in mixing intuitive and
rational approaches and data presentation formats.

Case study project 4 is a 50-unit public sector residential dwelling consisting of 46 apart-
ments and 4 houses. The scheme formed part of a landmark mixed development of 124
residential units (74 private for sale units and 50 affordable homes), 9 cinema screens, and
5 commercial units located in London. The case study participants were drawn from the
50-dwelling affordable scheme. Table 7.22 provides key facts about the project.
The project risk management protocol involved the initial preparation of the project risk
register by the project manager. The document was subsequently reviewed and updated at
the regular project review meetings.
boundary criteria. The selection was also meant to provide a comparable public sector res-
idential project to enable collection of empirical evidence from multiple projects within
the same residential sector, for data triangulation, and assessment of internal and external
theoretical consistency.

The data collection participants for case study 4 comprised of seven project team mem-
bers: the quantity surveyor, technical manager, architect, client development manager, con-
tracts manager, project manager, and project electrical engineer. The evidence was collected
through semi-structured interviews and direct observations lasting approximately one hour
per session. The participants were allowed limited time in responding to the questions to
facilitate restriction of their decision processing within the intuitive system (Kahneman
Description 50 residential unit scheme
Approximate scheme value Between £5 and £10 million

Risk management strategy External – using contract to transfer the project risk
management responsibility to a third-party contractor
Case study boundary criteria Public sector housing project
3a – Location
members
organisation)
– Technical manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
– Client development manager (client)
– Contracts manager (from the principal contractor
organisation)
organisation)
2011). There have also been documentary reviews from the project website for the key
scheme details. Table 7.23 provides the key facts about the case study participants.

The empirical data from case study 4 was analysed using the same methodology applied
in the other case study projects. The summary of empirical evidence has been presented
below, with the complete case study findings found in Appendix D:
– Research proposition 1: There has been evidence of differentiation within the

study participants’ responses on the typical project risk events. Apart from ground
condition-related risk events which appeared common in the responses on the typical
pre-construction project risk events, the remaining answers exhibited correlation with
the study participants’ specialist backgrounds. The empirical evidence on the risk
identification under different hypothetical project settings also generated a broad range
Quantity Technical Client developmentContracts Project

Specialist role surveyor manager Architect manager manager manager Engineer
Reference QS-4 TM-4 A-4 CDM-4 CM-4 PM-4 E-4

Years of involvement in role Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr 1–3 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr
Years of involvement in the UK 30 yr 19 yr 18 yr 46 yr 10 yr 21 yr 20 yr
Organisational background Contractor Contractor Consultant Client Developer Contractor Consultant
Years at current organisation 1–3 yr 3–5 yr 3–5 yr Over 5 yr Over 5 yr 6 mo–1 yr 1–3 yr
Length of involvement in case 1–3 yr 3–5 yr 1–3 yr 1–3 yr 6 mo–1 yr 6 mo–1 yr Less than 6 mo
study project
Level of involvement in risk Always Always Always Sometimes Always Always Sparsely
management decision-making
Level of training in risk On the job On the job On the job On the job On the job On the job On the job
management systems informal informal informal information information information information
experience experience; experience; experience experience; CPDs experience experience
CPDs; short CPDs
duration courses
of risk perceptions with a pattern reflecting the differences in specialist background.

The realisation of consistent patterns of differentiation at the different project delivery
phases and under different project settings have inferably provided reasonable validation
for the study’s novel theoretical prediction of risk perception categorisation within the
construction project delivery system reflecting the differences in specialist role affective
heuristics.
– Research proposition 2: The study participants’ risk assessment on hypothetical project
settings have produced findings correlating with their grounded heuristics, which
confirms intuitive decision processing inspired by the representative and availability
heuristics (Theoretical Issue 3). All the study participants, except the client development
manager who declined to reappraise the hypothetical project settings, changed their
initial risk assessment profiles after being exposed to additional information in the form
of a schedule of construction risk sources. The variations occurred even though the
project settings remain un-altered, which validates the susceptibility of perception to
manipulation (Theoretical Issue 4). A review of the study participants’ individual risk
assessments against the cumulative case risk identification profile have revealed missed
risk events outside their respective specialist backgrounds. As an illustration, the client
development manager was the only specialist role to have perceived operational related
risk events for the two hypothetical project settings. The quantity surveyor also was the
only specialist role to have perceived procurement of materials to be a risk event to the
hypothetical project setting A. This suggest that exclusion of the client development man-
ager and the quantity surveyor from the risk identification exercise may have resulted in
the missing of the associated risk events with consequential impact on the ensuing risk
management responses and project performance, assuming the hypothetical projects
and risk events to be real. The empirical findings have inferably provided support for
the research proposition of risk management impairment whenever a specialist role is
excluded from the risk management decision-making subsystem (Theoretical Issue 5).
– Research proposition 3: The empirical findings have revealed low-level training in for-
mal risk management techniques and intuitive-dominated risk management practices
among the study participants. All the study participants except the technical manager
and project engineer confirmed sole reliance on intuitive risk management techniques
(Theoretical Issue 6). There has also been evidence of immense qualitative data applica-
tion and preference. The empirical findings have further revealed disparities between the
proportions of applied systems of risk management approaches versus the applied data
processing formats with evidence of intuitive processing of quantitative probability by the
project manager and contracts manager (Theoretical Issue 7). All the differentiated spe-
cialist roles exhibited low proficiency in statistical symbols and probability judgement
(Theoretical Issue 8). A review of the study participants’ risk assessment has further
revealed comparatively higher accuracy for the intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk
data formats over quantitative risk data formats (Theoretical Issue 9) and insensitivity
to probability predictions of emotive events (Theoretical Issue 10). Bringing all the above
together confirms the incompatibility of mixing decision processing approaches and data
presentation formats, from the intuitive and rational decision-making systems.
7.6 Summary
This chapter has examined the extent to which the empirical evidence from the research
case studies reflected the three research theoretical propositions expounded in Section 6.2.
The empirical evidence was collected within four cases comprising two private sector
housing projects and two public sector housing projects using interview as the main data
gathering approach with additional evidence collected through direct observations and
review of project documentation.
The case study participants were selected from the project team members whose core
duties involved design development and risk management decision-making including the
project managers, contracts managers, technical managers, architects, engineers, quantity
surveyors, and clients.
The empirical evidence has revealed substantial support for the three research theoretical
propositions:
– Research proposition 1: The empirical findings from Theoretical Issues 1 and 2 have
revealed patterns of risk perceptions correlating with the specialist background of the
study participants. Apart from the ground condition-related risk events which appeared
common in the responses on the typical pre-construction project risk events, the remain-
ing generated risk perceptions under the different project delivery phases and hypothet-
ical project settings exhibited correlation with the study participants’ specialist back-
grounds.
– Research proposition 2: The empirical findings from Theoretical Issues 3–5 have also
provided substantial support for research proposition 2. The study participants’ risk
assessment on hypothetical project settings have produced findings correlating with
their grounded heuristics, which confirms intuitive decision processing inspired by the
representative and availability heuristics (Theoretical Issue 3). All the study participants,
except the project engineer from case 1, and the client development manager from
case 4 who declined to reappraise the hypothetical project settings, altered their initial
risk assessment profiles after being exposed to additional information in the form
of a schedule of construction risk sources. The variations occurred even though the
project settings remain the same, thereby validating the susceptibility of perceptions
to manipulation (Theoretical Issue 4). Further evaluation of the individual specialist
roles risk identifications against the cumulative risk events generated within the cases
have identified missed risk events in the categories outside the participants’ respective
specialist backgrounds. The implication being excluding a specialist role from the risk
management decision-making subsystem may affect robust risk identification and
subsequently weaken the risk response strategy (Theoretical Issue 5).
– Research proposition 3: The empirical findings from Theoretical Issues 6–10 have
similarly provided substantial support for research proposition 3. The empirical evi-
dence has revealed low-level training in formal risk management techniques and
intuitive-dominated risk management practices among the study participants (Theo-
retical Issue 6). There is also an evidence of disparities between the systems of applied
and preferred risk management techniques versus the applied and preferred risk data
presentation formats with evidence of intuitive processing of theoretically incompatible
7.6 Summary 159
quantitative probability data (Theoretical Issue 7). Most of the study participants have
exhibited low proficiency in statistical symbols and probability judgement (Theoretical
Issue 8). A review of the study participants’ risk assessment has further revealed com-
paratively higher accuracy for the intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk data formats
over quantitative risk data formats (Theoretical Issue 9) and insensitivity to probability
predictions of emotive events (Theoretical Issue 10).
The empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed that the research par-
ticipants were generally calm and relaxed during the interrogations. Most of the responses
were spontaneous and effortless suggesting intuitive decision processing (Kahneman 2011).
Even when the participants were denied access to reference materials and calculators in
the course of responding to research proposition 3, the resultant physiological discomfort
exhibited by some of the participants could be argued as the psychological conflict they were
experiencing in attempting intuitive processing of quantitative data (Kahneman 2011).
The next Chapter 8 discusses the cross case empirical findings and their wider implica-
tions for construction risk management decision-making.
161
Application
8.1 Introduction
Chapter 8 discusses the cross-case research empirical evidence based on the three research
propositions developed in Section 6.2. The findings from the four case study projects and
their wider implications for construction risk management research and practice have been
analysed. The deliberations have involved comparative review of the behaviour patterns of
the different specialist roles, and the different risk management strategies, in the form of
internal risk management by the private sector cases and external risk management by the
public sector cases.
Before the discussions, it is important to emphasise the inherent limitation of the adopted
qualitative research approach. The empirical evidence has been collected from just four
case study projects, thereby restricting the analytical discussions to the testing of theoreti-
cal replications (Rowley 2002) to establish analytical generalisations rather than statistical
generalisations (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2014).
8.2 Research Proposition 1: Discussions

The first research proposition advocates that differentiation in risk perceptions
within the construction project delivery system occurs along the lines of the internal
subgroupings – different specialist roles. The rationale underlining the selection of the
proposition was to test the validity of a novel theoretical explanation for risk perception
categorisation, which addresses the deficiencies of the existing theories and concepts
on the subject. The previous theoretical review on intuitive dominated risk manage-
ment practices (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and
Kuotcha 2010) suggests the need for robust definition for the sources and pattern of the
perceptions guiding the decision processing. The present theories and concepts which
discuss the subject nevertheless have been criticised for lacking consistency and precision.
Risk perception categorisation based on the differences in personality traits (Weber and
Milliman 1997; Smith et al. 2006; Chauvin et al. 2007) has been criticised for inconsistent
categorisation for the same subject, under different assessment settings (Schoemaker
1990; MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990) and methodology (Slovic 1964; MacCrimmon
and Wehrung 1990). Risk perception categorisation based on personal preference as
162 8 Application
proposed by prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011) has also been
criticised for failing to explain the factors which influence preference reversals (Slovic and
Lichtenstein 1983, p. 582) and the discrepancies in an individual’s risk preference under
domains of certainty and probability, experienced in similar risky scenarios (Schoemaker
1990). Loosemore et al. (2006) risk categorisation based on the differences between project
team members and external stakeholders also appears too simplistic, and falls short of
offering an explanation for the differences in perceptions within the project team and
external stakeholder subsystems. Lastly, risk perception categorisation along the lines of
the differences in objectives and values of social institutions as suggested by culture theory
(Thompson et al. 1990) has also been criticised for failing to explain the complex internal
structures of the institutions and subgroups, within the larger society (Kamper 2000).
The empirical investigation of research proposition 1 was centred on two underlining
theoretical issues:
● 1. Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions among the system
2010).
● 2. The differences in micro-objectives and functionalities of differentiated subsystems
8.2.1 Risk Perception Categorisation on the Typical Construction Project Risk

Events at the Different Project Delivery Phases
Theoretical issue 1 evaluated the pattern of risk perception categorisation on the typical con-
struction project risk events, at the different project delivery phases. The interview protocol
was designed to facilitate the generation of risk perceptions from the participants’ inherent
heuristics, at a time when they have not been introduced to any immediate project informa-
tion. The responses from these questions have therefore been labelled grounded heuristics,
denoting that they have been generated based on the research participants’ store of previous
experiences, which over time have become grounded within their knowledge base.
8.2.1.1 Pre-construction Phase

The empirical findings on the typical construction project risk events at the pre-construction
phase have revealed evidence of differentiation across all the four case study projects.
Apart from ground condition related risk events which appeared common in most of
the responses, the remaining generated risk perceptions exhibited reasonable correlation
with the study participants’ specialist background. The universality of ground condition
related risk perceptions may have resulted from the dominant influence of an associated
(Benthin et al. 1993).
The builder’s specialist role comprising the project managers, contracts managers, and
technical managers, exhibited varied risk perceptions relating to site construction works
and compliance with statutory construction regulations, which appears consistent with
their specialist background.
The risk perceptions generated by the designer specialist role, made up of the archi-
tects and engineers from the four case study projects, centred on design and quality related
events, which also is consistent with their specialist background.
The quantity surveyor’s specialist role likewise generated risk perceptions consistent with
their financial, commercial, and logistical specialist services, on all the research cases except
case study 4, where the findings rather reflected the common project risk profile of design
and construction related risk events. The deviation on case study 4 may have arisen from the
interactions of the affective heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010) components within the quantity
surveyor’s risk perception formation system (Walker 2015). The previous theoretical discus-
sion on systems differentiation (Chapter 2 – Walker 2015) and the psychology of perception
formation (Chapter 5 – Slovic et al. 2010; Bateman et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011) confirms
that the components within the quantity surveyor’s risk perception formation system will
comprise heuristics acquired through multiple sources including personal, group, project,
organisational, and industrial background. The construction industry being an open sys-
tem (Cole 2004; Cole and Kelly 2020) also suggests both intra and inter interactions during
the processes of systems transformation. And according to Finucane et al. (2003), in a situ-
ation where there are multiple sources of stimuli feeding into a behaviour pattern, then the
dominant properties of the sources and the physiological state of the decision maker may
influence the ultimate behaviour pattern. In the light of the above, it can be hypothesised
that the dominant properties of the case study project 4 generated risks profile, coupled
with the physiological state of the quantity surveyor at the time of the interview may have
accounted for the suppression of the other affective heuristics components within the risk
perception formation system, leading to the generation of risk events reflecting the general
project risk profile, rather than the decision maker’s specialist background.
The clients’ dominant risk perceptions also reflected the common cross-case identified
ground condition related risk events. This may also have resulted from the dominant influ-
ence of an associated construction industry affective heuristics component within their risk
perception formation systems (Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic et al. 2010).
There appears to be no significant differences between the pattern of responses from the
private sector cases (case study projects 1 and 2) with their emphasis on internal risk man-
agement strategies and the public sector cases (case study projects 3 and 4), which practised
external risk management.
8.2.1.2 Construction Phase

The empirical findings on the typical construction project risk events at the construction
phase have also revealed evidence of differentiation across all the four case study projects.
The generated risk perceptions have exhibited substantial correlation with the study par-
ticipants’ specialist background, thereby confirming the research theoretical prediction.
The builder’s specialist role made up of the project manager, contracts manager, and
technical manager has once again exhibited varied risk perceptions consistent with their
specialist background, with ground condition, construction, and legal and statutory related
risk events dominating in their responses.
164 8 Application
The design specialist role comprising the architects and engineers from the four case
study projects have also generated dominant design and quality related risk events, which
similarly is consistent with their specialist background.
The quantity surveyor specialist role also generated risk perceptions consistent with
their specialist services, with the dominant risk perceptions from financial and commercial
related events.
The risk perceptions generated by the clients centred mainly on construction related
events. This may have been influenced by the affective heuristics acquired from their pre-
vious working experiences as site manager (case study 3 client) and roofer (case study 4
client).
Once again, there appears to be no significant differences between the pattern of
responses from the private sector cases (case study projects 1 and 2) with their application
of internal risk management strategy and the public sector cases (case study projects 3 and
4) where the project risk management activities are outsourced.
8.2.2 Risk Perception Categorisation on the Typical Construction Project Risk

Events Under Different Project Settings
The second theoretical issue examined the pattern of risk perception categorisation
under different project settings. The study participants’ risk perceptions on different
hypothetical project settings were analysed for evidence of consistency in responses within
identical specialist groups. The realisation of consistent responses within the differentiated
specialist roles was seen as substantiation of risk perception generation from the related
specialist – affective heuristics, outside the influence of other extraneous risk perception
formation variables.
The empirical findings have revealed evidence of differentiation within the generated risk
perceptions from the hypothetical project settings, across all the four case study projects.
The generated risk perceptions have displayed substantial correlation with the study par-
ticipants’ specialist background, thereby reinforcing the validity of the research theoretical
predictions.
The realisation of differentiation has however been more elaborate in case studies 1–3.
The consistency analysis from case study 4 has revealed comparatively broader categori-
sation in most of the study participants’ risk identification profile. This may have resulted
from their long years of involvement in the construction industry as evident in Table 7.23,
and the consequential propensity for multi-specialist exposures. The project manager’s ini-
tial involvement in the construction industry was in quantity surveying, whilst the client
development manager also previously worked as a roofer. The extensive construction indus-
try experience may have resulted in the availability of wide-ranging grounded heuristics,
influencing the generation of comparably broader categorisation of risk events (Benthin
et al. 1993; Kahneman 2011; Arthur and Pryke 2014). Notwithstanding this, all the case
study 4 participants were successful in identifying risk events from their related specialist
categories, which appears consistent with the research theoretical prediction.
In order to identify the correlation between the risk perception categorisations and the
different specialist roles, there has been further cross-case evaluation of the empirical find-
ings from the hypothetical project settings, using a bespoke matching pattern analytical tool
developed for this research, called the differentiated matrix. The analysis involved the initial
scoring of the risk perceptions generated within the different specialist groups based on the
percentages of consistent responses realised within each risk category. This was followed by
a second consistency test of the risk perception category scores from the two hypothetical
project settings. The categories displaying consistency scores equal and above ‘partial’ were
further analysed for differentiation. The following assessment scales have been applied:
● Consistency: 0 (total consistency); 1–34% (substantial consistency); 35–65% (partial con-

sistency); 66–99% (minimal consistency); and 100% (no consistency) based on the vari-
ance between the scores from the two hypothetical project settings.
● Differentiation: 100% (total differentiation); 66–99% (substantial differentiation); 35–65%
(partial differentiation); 1–34% (minimal differentiation); 0% (no differentiation) based
on the averages between the scores from the two hypothetical project settings.
The assessment criteria were carefully selected after taking into consideration the range
in frequency of study participants within the individual specialist roles. The emphasis was
on achieving a balance between filtration of extraneous risk formation factors, and the
need to make allowance for incidental variability in affective heuristics. This was to ensure
correlation between the assessment scales and the proportion of participants offering the
responses, and ultimately restrict the differentiations to the risk perception categories dis-
playing consistent specialist role dominant responses across the two hypothetical project
settings. The classification of specialist role differentiated risk perceptions have therefore
been limited to the categories displaying differentiation scores above ‘substantial’. The final
assessment matrix has been detailed in Table 8.1.
The differentiated risk perception analysis has revealed the following pattern of
correlation:
● Force majeure related risk events: No significant correlation.

● Ground condition related risk events: Evidence of substantial correlation with the
builders; and the designers’ roles.
● Design and quality related risk events: Evidence of total correlation with the designers
and client roles.
● Logistics and communication related risk events: Evidence of substantial correlation with
the quantity surveyor and client roles.
● Financial and commercial related risk events: Evidence of substantial correlation
with the quantity surveyor’s role.
● Legal and statutory approval related risk events: Evidence of substantial correlation with
the builders, designers, and client roles.
● Political related risk events: No significant correlation.
● Construction related risk events: No significant correlation (there was however evidence
of consistent significant correlation with the project management role).
● Operational: Evidence of total correlation with the client role.
The following are the pattern of correlation from the perspective of the specialist roles:
● Builders: Evidence of substantial correlation with ground condition and legal and statu-
tory approval related risk events. The initial examination of the empirical findings from
Table 8.1 Differentiated risk perception analysis (Cross case discussion).
Builders Designers Quantity Surveyor Client
Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation
Risk Category 24A 24B Variance Scale Average Scale 24A 24B Variance Scale Average Scale 24A 24B Variance Scale Average Scale 24A 24B Variance Scale Average Scale
Force Majeuire 0.00% 9.00% -9% Substantial 4.50% Minimal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal
Related
Ground 54.55% 90.90% -36.35% Partial 72.73% Substantial 37.50% 50.00% -12.50% Substantial 43.75% Partial 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal
Condition
Related
Design & 45.45% 54.55% -9.10% Substantial 50.00% Partial 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total 50.00% 75.00% -25.00% Substantial 62.50% Partial 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total
Quality Related
Logistics & 72.73% 54.55% 18.18% Substantial 63.64% Partial 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% Substantial 37.50% Partial 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial
Communication
Related
Financial & 36.36% 45.45% -9.09% Substantial 40.91% Partial 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% Substantial 37.50% Partial 100.00% 75.00% 25.00% Substantial 87.50% Substantial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% None 0.00% None
Commercial
Related
Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation Consistency Differentiation
Legal & 100.00% 54.55% 45.45% Substantial 77.28% Substantial 75.00% 50.00% 25.00% Substantial 62.50% Substantial 50.00% 75.00% -25.00% Substantial 62.50% Partial 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial
Statutory
Approval
Related
Political 0.00% 9.00% -9.00% Substantial 4.50% Minimal 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% Substantial 6.25% Minimal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None
Related
Construction 54.55% 54.55% 0.00% Total 54.55% Partial 37.50% 25.00% 12.50% Substantial 31.25% Partial 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% Total 25.00% Minimal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None
Related
Operational 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% None 0.00% None 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total
Related
Consistency Analysis Differentiation Analysis

Scale Variance Average
Fully 0% 100%
Substantial 1% – 34% 66% – 99%
Partial 35% – 65% 35% – 65%
Minimal 66% – 99% 1% – 34%
None 100% 0%
168 8 Application
the two hypothetical project settings also revealed consistent correlation between the
project management role and construction related risk events.
● Designers: Evidence of total correlation with design and quality related risk events and
substantial correlation with legal and statutory approval related risk events.
● Quantity surveyor: Evidence of substantial correlation with financial and commercial,
logistics and communication, and ground condition related risk events.
● Client: Evidence of total correlation with operational and design and quality related risk
events; and substantial correlation with legal and statutory approval, and logistics and
communication related risk events.
In summary, the empirical evidence from theoretical issues 1 and 2 has revealed
substantial support for research proposition 1. Apart from ground condition related risk
being common in the responses on the typical pre-construction phase risk events, which
may have been precipitated by a corresponding dominant industrial experience affective
heuristics (Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic et al. 2010) and the incidental evidence of dominant
project experience affective heuristics in the case 4 quantity surveyor’s responses on typical
pre-construction phase risk events, the remaining empirical findings have demonstrated
correlation between the study participants’ specialist backgrounds and their generated risk
perceptions. The coagulation of identical risk perceptions within related specialist roles has
provided empirical substantiation for the research theoretical prediction of construction
risk perception categorisation reflecting the structure of the differentiated specialist roles.
The realisation of consistent empirical support across the different assessment settings
and cases have subsequently demonstrated theoretical replication for theoretical issues
1 and 2 and analytical generalisation for research proposition 1. Notwithstanding, the
incidental empirical observation of dominant affective heuristics from sources other than
specialist role experiences has also confirmed the ability of the other components within
the perception formation subsystem to influence risk perception categorisation within the
construction project delivery system. There is, however, the need for further empirical
investigations to test the sensitivity of affective heuristics acquired through the other
sources including personal, project, organisational, and industrial experiences.
The validation of research proposition 1 with consistent empirical observations under
different assessment methods, and cases where different risk management strategies were
applied, has inferably provided a novel robust theoretical philosophy for risk perception
categorisation which addresses the criticisms against the existing theories and concepts
on the subject including, differences in personality trait (Weber and Milliman 1997;
Smith et al. 2006), prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011),
categorisation between the project team members and external stakeholders (Loosemore
et al. 2006), and culture theory (Thompson et al. 1990). The intuitive investigative context
of the empirical evidence, in the light of the previous theoretical review on the operational
variations between the different systems of thinking and decision-making (Kahneman
2011 – discussed in Chapter 5), however suggest that the validity of the research novel
philosophy may be limited to applications under intuitive decision-making.
The study’s novel philosophy of risk perception categorisation emanating from the
differences in specialist roles suggests the need for involving wide-range specialists in
intuitive construction risk management practices, to ensure robust risk identification
and treatment. The research theoretical review on the differences in micro-objectives
and functionalities of the differentiated specialist roles (Bertalanffy 1968; Blanchard and
Fabrycky 1998; Carmichael 2006 – reviewed in Chapter 2) coupled with the conceptual
relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its ‘impact on an objective’ (Loosemore et al.
2006 – reviewed in Chapter 3) suggests that there will be differences in risk interpretations
and actions from the different actors operating within the construction project delivery
system. In a situation where the different specialist roles decide to adopt different risk
management systems, there could be cross purpose strategies which could be damaging to
project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al. 2007; Arthur and Pryke 2013). Even in
a situation where a joint risk management system is practised, the failure to recognise and
integrate the differences in affective heuristics of the assembled specialist roles could lead
to conflict (Mullins 2005). The validation of the research novel theoretical philosophy for
risk perception categorisation therefore suggests the need for expansion of the integrative
role of construction project management (Winch 2010; Walker 2015) to encompass both
the technical and affective heuristics differences of the different specialist roles, to foster
efficient risk management systems, and ultimately project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006;
Cagno et al. 2007).
8.3 Research Proposition 2: Discussions

The second research proposition advances that intuitive risk management practices under
the representative and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project subgroup-
ings, run the risk of failing to adequately identify potential risk events. The basis of the
proposition was to investigate the theoretical and operational implications of the study’s
novel theoretical explanation for risk perception categorisation along the line of the dif-
ferences in affective heuristics of the different specialist roles. The following underlining
theoretical issues were investigated:
● 3. Perceptions are formed from the representative and availability heuristics (Kahneman
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
● 4. The inherent subjectivity of perception make it manipulative and less rational. Addi-
tional information could change risk perception even when the base situation has not
● 5. An uncertainty becomes a risk event to a subject if its occurrence can potentially affect
the objective(s) of the subject (Loosemore et al. 2006) suggesting that where there is no
8.3.1 Intuitive Risk Management Decision Processing from ‘Grounded’

Heuristics
The third theoretical issue was to test the applicability of the existing behaviour science
theory of perception formation from heuristics (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c;
Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011). The empirical evidence has been
examined to ascertain the decision processing system of the study participants, by
comparing their risk identification on hypothetical project settings to their grounded
170 8 Application
heuristics, evident in their initial responses on the typical construction project risk events.
The theoretical issue was to be confirmed if the study participants risk identification on
hypothetical project settings exhibited similarities with their initial grounded heuristics.
The cross-case empirical findings have been presented in Table 8.2.
The empirical findings have revealed approximately 65% correlation between the study
participants’ risk perceptions on the hypothetical project settings and their previous
responses on the common construction industry risk events, generated through grounded
heuristics (theoretical issue 1). The strong association between the generated risk events
and the grounded heuristics suggests intuitive decision processing (Kahneman 2011).
The empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed that the study partic-
ipants were generally calm and relaxed during the interrogations. Their responses were
spontaneous and effortless, further confirming intuitive decision processing of affective
heuristics (Benthin et al. 1993; Kahneman 2011).
The analysis of the cross-case empirical findings against the study participants’ years
of experience in the construction industry has revealed considerable correlation in rank-
ing between the average percentages of grounded heuristics inspired risk perceptions and
the average years of industrial experience within the cases. Case study 4 ranks the highest
in both the average years of industrial experience (23 years) and the average percentage
of grounded heuristics inspired risk perceptions (73.70%). Case study 3 likewise ranks the
lowest in both the average years of industrial experience (18 years) and the average per-
centage of grounded heuristics inspired risk perceptions (56.94%). The empirical evidence
appears consistent with the findings from a previous study which identified a positive corre-
lation between the extent of intuitive risk management practices, and the level of industrial
experience, for project managers (Maytorena et al. 2007). The correlation between years
of industrial experience and the degree of grounded heuristics influence in risk perception
formation may be attributed to the fact that progression in years of industry experience also
expands industrial exposure and storage of related affective stimuli (Slovic and Peters 2006),
which can easily be recalled during risk perception formation (Benthin et al. 1993). Anal-
ysis of the ranking based on the different construction sectors risk strategies did not reveal
any significant differences. The highest and lowest ranked cases were from the public sec-
tor with their external risk management strategy, whilst the middle ranks were occupied by
the private sector cases which practise internal risk management strategy. The absence of
significant pattern may be due to the triviality of management strategy affective stimuli in
determining the degree of influence of heuristics in risk perception formation. Further anal-
ysis of the rankings from the perspective of the different specialist roles also did not reveal
any significant correlation. This also suggests that the processes of risk perception forma-
tion from grounded heuristics may be indifferent to the nature of specialist role affective
stimuli.
Analysis of the cross-case empirical findings against the study participants’ level of train-
ing in construction risk management tools also did not reveal any significant pattern, even
for those with some form of rational risk management training. The absence of an inverse
relationship between the level of rational risk management training and the degree of influ-
ence of grounded heuristics in the risk perception formation suggests the suppression of the
rational decision-making system, and therefore restriction of the risk management process
within the intuitive decision-making system (Kahneman 2011).
Table 8.2 The influence of grounded heuristics on the risk identification process.
Specialist role
Specialist role Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 average score
Project manager A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) 69.59%
B: 2 out of 5 (40%) B: 4 out of 4 (100%) B: 3 out of 4 (75%) B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%)
Average: 45% Average: 87.5% Average: 75% Average: 70.85
Experience: 20 yr Experience: 16 yr Experience: 20 yr Experience: 21 yr 19.25
Training: 2 Training: 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2
Contracts manager A: 3 out of 4 (75%) A: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) A: 1 out of 2 (50%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) 68.78%
B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) B: 1 out of 2 (50%) B: 4 out of 4 (100%)
Average: 70.85% Average: 66.7% Average: 50% Average: 87.5%
Training: 2 Training: 2 Training: 3 Training: 2, 3
Technical manager A: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) A: 2 out of 5 (40%) A: 3 out of 3 (100%) 69.45%
B: 3 out of 5 (60%) B: 1 out of 2 (50%) B: 4 out of 4 (100%)
Average: 63.3% Average: 45% Average: 100%
Experience: 20 yr Experience: 15 yr Experience: 19 yr 18
Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3, 4
Architect A: 1 out of 4 (25%) A: 1 out of 4 (25%) A: 1 out of 3 (33.3%) A: 4 out of 5 (80%) 45.41%
B: 2 out of 3 (66.7) B: 1 out of 3 (33.3%) B: 1 out of 2 (50%) B: 3 out of 6 (50%)
Average: 45.85% Average: 29.15% Average: 41.65% Average: 65%
Training: 2, 3 Training: 2 Training: 2 Training: 2, 3
(Continued)
Specialist role
Engineer A: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) A: 1 out of 3 (33.3%) A: 3 out of 3 (100%) 84.38%
B: 2 out of 2 (100%) B: 2 out of 2 (100%) B: 1 out of 1 (100%) B: 2 out of 2 (100%)
Average: 83.35% Average: 87.5% Average: 66.65% Average: 100%
Experience: 14 yr Experience: 7 yr Experience: 19 yr Experience: 20 yr 15
Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2 Training: 2
Quantity surveyor A: 4 out of 4 (100%) A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 3 out of 4 (75%) A: 3 out of 5 (60%) 67.93%
B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) B: 2 out of 4 (50%) B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) B: 3 out of 4 (75%)
Average: 83.35% Average: 50% Average: 70.85% Average: 67.5%
Training: 2, 3, 4 Training: 2, 3 Training: 3 Training: 2
Client A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 1 out of 4 (25%) 31.25%
B: 1 out of 4 (25%) B: 1 out of 4 (25%)
Average: 37.5% Average: 25%
Experience: 16 yr Experience: 46 yr 31
Training: 2 Training: 2
Case average score 65.28% 60.98% 56.94% 73.70% 65%
19 19 18 23 20
Legend for training: 1) No formal education or training in project risk management

2) On the job informal experience
3) Continuing professional developments (CPDs) and seminars on project risk management
4) Short duration formal courses (less than six months)
5) University diploma/degree in Project Risk Management.
8.3.2 Susceptibility of Intuitive Decision Processing to Manipulation

The fourth theoretical issue examined the susceptibility of intuitive decision processing to
manipulation. The study participants re-assessment of hypothetical project settings after
they were presented with a schedule of construction risk sources were evaluated to ascer-
tain if the exposure to additional information has altered their previous assessments. The
risk identifications after the study participants were provided with additional information
have been termed exposed heuristics, denoting that they have been generated based on expo-
sure to additional information which have become assimilated within the pool of heuristics
applied in their intuitive evaluations. The cross-case empirical findings have been presented
in Table 8.3.
The empirical findings have revealed approximately 50% changes in the study partici-
pants’ risk perceptions on the hypothetical project settings after being exposed to the addi-
tional information (a schedule of construction risk sources). The changes occurred even
though the project settings remained unaltered. The changes in risk identification pro-
files were observed in the responses from all the study participants apart from the project
engineer from case study 1, and the client development manager from case study 4, who
declined to re-assess the hypothetical project settings after receiving the additional assess-
ment information and simply responded that their answers were the same as those offered
in the initial risk assessments.
There was no significant difference between the observations from the private sector
projects with their internal risk management strategy, and the public sector projects which
practise external risk management strategy.
The realisation of different risk perceptions at the two assessments phases of the same
hypothetical project settings, across all the four case study projects, confirms the inherent
subjectivity of perception, and the ease by which it could be manipulated through exposure
to additional information (Slovic and Peters 2006).
8.3.3 Psychological Difficulties in Intuitive Risk Identification of Events

Outside the Scope of a Specialist Role
The last theoretical issue under research proposition 2 examined the psychological difficul-
ties of intuitive risk identification of events outside the scope of a specialist role. The analysis
has been carried out against the background of the previous discussions establishing intu-
itive decision processing by the study participants (theoretical issue 3) and the susceptibility
of perceptions (theoretical issue 4). The empirical findings have been examined to see if the
study participants’ failure in identifying certain risk events can be attributed to their lack
of related grounded heuristics outside their specialist background. The cross-case empirical
findings have been presented in Table 8.4.
The empirical findings have revealed evidence of missed risk perceptions across all the
different specialist roles and cases, thereby validating the research theoretical prediction.
The cross-case findings have been further analysed, using the reversed methodology of the
differentiated matrix developed under research proposition 1 to ascertain if the research par-
ticipants’ missed risk perceptions could be attributed to their lack of related heuristics. The
analysis has involved the initial scoring of the risk perceptions missed within the different
Table 8.3 The inherent subjectivity of perceptions.
Specialist role
Specialist role Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 average score (%)
Project manager A: 1 out of 3 (33.3%) A: 2 out of 5 (40%) A: 3 out of 5 (60%) A: 3 out of 5 (60%) 45.41
Average: 29.15% Average: 40% Average: 42.5% Average: 70
Contracts manager A: 2 out of 5 (40%) A: 2 out of 5 (40%) A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 1 out of 4 (25%) 48.75
Average: 57.5% Average: 50% Average: 62.5% Average: 25%
Technical manager A: 3 out of 5 (60%) A: 1 out of 4 (25%) A: 2 out of 4 (50%) 59.43
B: 1 out of 4 (25%) B: 4 out of 5 (80%) B: 3 out of 4 (75%)
Average: 63.3% Average: 52.5% Average: 62.5%
Architect A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 1 out of (33.3%) A: 3 out of 5 (60%) A: 1 out of 5 (20%) 51.25
B: 4 out of 5 (80) B: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) B: 3 out of 5 (60%) B: 2 out of 5 (40%)
Average: 65% Average: 50% Average: 60% Average: 30%
Engineer A: 0 out of 3 (0%) A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) A: 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 63.9a)
Average: 0% Average: 50% Average: 70.85% Average: 70.85%
Quantity surveyor A: 1 out of 4 (25%) A: 1 out of 4 (25%) A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 1 out of 5 (20%) 40
Average: 52.5% Average: 32.5% Average: 45% Average: 30%
Client A: 2 out of 4 (50%) A: 0 out of 4 (0%) 45a)
B: 2 out of 5 (40%) B: 0 out of 4 (0%)
Average: 45% Average: 0%
Case average score 53.49%a) 45.83% 54.31% 48.06%a) 50a)
a) Non-response participants have been excluded from the average score.

Table 8.4 Missed risk perceptions.
Specialist role Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Project manager A: 2 A: 2 A: 3 A: 4
B: 2 B: 2 B: 4 B: 4
Missed: FCR Missed: LCR Missed: Missed: CR
FCR, OR
Contracts manager A: 2 A: 3 A: 5 A: 4
B: 4 B: 2 B: 5 B: 3
Missed: FCR Missed: None Missed: GCR, Missed: CR, OR
DQR, CR, OR
Technical manager A: 3 A: 2 A: 5
B: 2 B: 4 B: 3
Missed: CR Missed: DQR Missed: LCR,
FCR, OR
Architect A: 2 A: 3 A: 4 A: 3
B: 4 B: 3 B: 6 B: 1
Missed: CR Missed: Missed: GCR, Missed: OR
FCR, CR LCR, FCR, OR
Engineer A: 3 A: 2 A: 5 A: 5
B: 5 B: 4 B: 7 B: 5
Missed: LCR, Missed: Missed: GCR, Missed: GCR,
FCR, CR LCR, CR LSAR, CR, OR FCR, OR
Quantity surveyor A: 2 A: 2 A: 3 A: 3
B: 4 B: 2 B: 5 B: 3
Missed: CR Missed: CR Missed: DQR, Missed: CR, OR
LSAR, OR
Client A: 3 A: 4
B: 4 B: 3
Missed: Missed: GCR,
FCR, CR FCR, CR
related; FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; CR,
construction related; OR, operational related.
specialist groups based on the percentages of consistent missed events realised within each
risk category. This was followed by a second consistency test of the missed risk percep-
tion category scores from the two hypothetical project settings. The categories displaying
consistency scores equal and above ‘partial’ were further analysed for differentiation. The
following assessment scales have been applied:
● Consistency: 0 (total consistency), 1–34% (substantially consistency), 35–65% (partial

consistency), 66–99% (minimal consistency), and 100% (no consistency) based on the
variance between the scores from the two hypothetical project settings.
● Differentiation: 100% (total differentiation), 66–99% (substantial differentiation), 35–65%
(partial differentiation), 1–34% (minimal differentiation), and 0% (no differentiation)
based on the averages between the scores from the two hypothetical project settings.
176 8 Application
The assessment criteria as previously explained were carefully selected after taking into
consideration the range in frequency of the study participants within the individual special-
ist roles. The emphasis was on achieving a balance between filtration of extraneous vari-
ables and the need to make allowance for incidental variability in affective heuristics. This
was to ensure correlation between the assessment scales and the proportion of participants
who missed the risk events, and ultimately restrict the differentiations to the missed risk
perception categories displaying consistent specialist role dominance across the two hypo-
thetical project settings. The classification of specialist role differentiated missed risk per-
ceptions that have therefore been limited to the categories displaying differentiation scores
above ‘substantial’. The final assessment matrix has been detailed in Table 8.5. Table 8.6 is a
comparison of the missed risk assessment against the evidence from the differentiated risk
perceptions carried out under theoretical issue 2.
The differentiated missed risk perception analysis has revealed missed specialist-role
events outside their related specialist backgrounds. The inverse correlation between the
specialist-role missed events and their related differentiated risk perceptions evident from
Table 8.6, further provides substantiation on the psychological difficulties in intuitive risk
identification of events outside our sphere of heuristics (Loosemore et al. 2006; Slovic 2010;
Kahneman 2011).
In summary, the empirical findings from theoretical issues 3–5 have revealed substantial
support for research proposition 2. The research participants’ failure in identifying risk
events outside their specialist backgrounds has provided empirical substantiation for the
research theoretical prediction that intuitive risk management practices which exclude
some of the project team members, run the risk of failing to adequately identify project
risk events, especially those associated with the specialist background of the excluded
members. The realisation of consistent empirical support across the different specialist
roles and risk management strategies from the four cases has confirmed theoretical
replication of the study theoretical predictions, and subsequently analytical generalisation
for research proposition 2.
The empirical evidence on the psychological difficulties involved in the intuitive risk
identification of events outside the scope of a specialist background, coupled with the other
empirical evidence validating the research’s novel theoretical explanation of risk perception
categorisation along the lines of the differences in specialist affective heuristics suggests
that the effectiveness of an intuitive risk management system will depend on the scope
of professional expertise and experiences of the assembled project team within the con-
struction delivery system. Where the project team lacks resources in a specific specialist
role affective heuristics, the absence of an associated availability and representative heuris-
tics (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011)
may potentially constrain the identification and management of related risk events (Ben-
thin et al. 1993; Damasio 2006). Even within a multi-disciplined project team, the exclusion
of a specialist role from the risk management process may likewise weaken the robustness
of the risk identification and treatment processes, especially for the risk events relating to
the excluded specialist role affective heuristics. The empirical findings therefore suggest the
need for careful selection of project team members with the appropriate grounded heuris-
tics to ensure effective risk management systems (Arthur 2018). The formation of project
Table 8.5 Differentiated missed risk perception analysis (Cross-case discussions).
Consistency Missed Consistency Missed Consistency Missed Consistency Missed
Force Majeure 100.00% 90.90% 9% Substantial 95.45% Substantial 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% None 100.00% Total 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial
Related
Ground 45.45% 9.00% 36.45% Partial 27.23% Minimal 62.50% 50.00% 12.50% Substantial 56.25% Partial 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% Partial 75.00% Substantial
Condition
Related
Design & 54.54% 45.45% 9.09% Substantial 50.00% Partial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% Substantial 37.50% Partial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None
Quality Related
Logistics & 27.27% 45.45% -18.18% Substantial 36.36% Partial 50.00% 75.00% -25.00% Substantial 62.50% Partial 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal
Communication
Related
Financial & 63.63% 54.55% 9.08% Substantial 59.09% Partial 50.00% 75.00% -25.00% Substantial 62.50% Partial 0.00% 25.00% -25.00% Substantial 12.50% Minimal 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total
Commercial
Related
(Continued)
Consistency Missed Consistency Missed Consistency Missed Consistency Missed
Legal & 0.00% 45.45% -45.45% Partial 22.73% Minimal 25.00% 50.00% -25.00% Substantial 37.50% Partial 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% Substantial 37.50% Partial 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% Partial 25.00% Minimal
Statutory
Approval
Related
Political 100.00% 90.90% 9.10% Substantial 95.45% Substantial 87.50% 100.00% -12.50% Substantial 93.75% Substantial 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% None 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total
Related
Construction 45.45% 45.45% 0.00% Total 45.45% Partial 62.50% 75.00% -12.50% Substantial 68.75% Substantial 75.00% 75.00% 0.00% None 75.00% Substantial 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total
Related
Operational 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 100.00% Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 0.00% None
Related
Consistency Analysis Missed Event Analysis

Scale Variance Average
Total 0% 100%
Substantial 1% – 34% 66% – 99%
Partial 35% – 65% 35% – 65%
Minimal 66% – 99% 1% – 34%
None 100% 0%
Table 8.6 Comparison of missed risk events and differentiated risk perceptions.
Specialist role Missed risk events Differentiated risk perceptions
Builder (including ● Totally missed operational ● Substantial differentiation for

project manager, related risk events ground condition and design
contracts manager, ● Substantially missed force and quality related risk events
technical manager) majeure and political related
risk events
Designers (including ● Totally missed force majeure ● Total differentiation for design
architect, engineer) and operational related risk and quality related risk events
events ● Substantial differentiation for
● Substantially missed political legal and statutory approval
and construction related risk related risk events
events
Quantity surveyor ● Totally missed force majeure, ● Substantial differentiation for
political, and operational ground condition, logistics and
related risk events communication, and financial
● Substantially missed and commercial related risk
construction related risk events
events
Clients ● Totally missed financial and ● Total differentiation for design
commercial related, political, and quality and operational
and construction related risk related risk events
events ● Substantial differentiation for
● Substantially missed force logistics and communication,
majeure and ground condition and legal and statutory
related risk events approval related risk events
teams should therefore incorporate specialist roles with relevant heuristics in contract pro-
curement and execution, similar to the particular project setting. And in order to achieve
this, there is the need for further empirical investigations to critically map out the heuris-
tics boundaries of the different specialist roles and also to develop a model for identifying
the heuristics indicators for different construction projects settings, to ensure compatibility
in the affective specialist-role stimulus of project team members and their specific project
setting. The intuitive investigative context of the empirical evidence, in the light of the
previous theoretical review on the operational variations between the different systems of
thinking and decision-making (Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5), suggests that the
validity of the research empirical findings and potential benefits may be limited to intuitive
decision-making settings.
8.4 Research Proposition 3: Findings

systems, compared to the use of qualitative data presentation formats and subjective assess-
ment techniques. The rationale underlining the selection of research proposition 3 was to
evaluate the psychological issues of the current construction risk management practice of,
180 8 Application
intuitive processing of quantity data formats (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skit-
more 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010; Bowden et al. 2001; Lock 2003). This is in the light
of the prevailing behaviour science theory on the differences in structure and processes of
the intuitive and rational systems of thinking and decision-making (Kahneman 2011), and
the need for complementarity in system transformational processes (Walker 2015).
The following underlining theoretical issues were investigated:
● 6. Research findings have identified construction risk management to be dominated by

2010).
● 7. Psychometric research findings suggest that most people relate better to narratives,
2010).
● 8. Most people do not trust, understand, or use statistics and probability estimates
in their risk management decision-making (March and Shapira 1987; Akintoye and
Macleod 1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skitmore 2004).
● 9. Most people relate better to qualitative assessments than quantitative assessments
● 10. Where a potential outcome of a future event evokes a strong affective memory, the
8.4.1 Two Strands of Intuitive Construction Risk Management Systems

The sixth theoretical issue was to test the validity of the prevailing theoretical evidence of
intuitive dominated construction risk management practices, by people with limited train-
ing in formal risk management systems (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore
2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010). The research empirical findings have been analysed
for evidence on the level of training in formal risk management systems, and the knowl-
edge; application; and preference for rational and intuitive risk management techniques.
The cross-case empirical findings have been presented in Table 8.7 and Figure 8.1.
The cross-case empirical findings on the study participants’ level of education and train-
ing in project risk management systems have revealed substantial evidence of limited for-
mal training. Apart from the quantity surveyor from case 1 and the technical manager from
case 4 (representing 8%) who said they have attended short duration formal risk manage-
ment courses, the rest of the responses reflected intuitive learning, with as many as 44% (11
out of 25) of the participants relying solely on informal job experiences.
The findings did not reveal any significant differences between the different specialist
roles or the different construction sectors with their different risk management strategies of
internal (private sector projects – cases 1 and 2) and external (public sector projects – cases
3 and 4). The analysis of the cross-case empirical findings against the study participants’
years of experience in the construction industry however has revealed marginal inverse
correlation between the level of formal risk management training and the years of indus-
trial experience. Apart from the quantity surveyors from case study projects 2 and 3, the risk
management training of the remaining study participants with industrial experience over
Table 8.7 Level of education and training in project risk management tools and techniques.
Specialist role
Project manager Training: 2 Training: 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2

(intuitive only) (both intuitive and (intuitive only) (intuitive only)
rational)
Contracts manager Training: 2 Training: 2 Training: 3 Training: 2, 3
(intuitive only) (intuitive only) (intuitive only) (intuitive only)
Technical manager Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3, 4
(intuitive only) (both intuitive and (both intuitive and
rational) rational)
Architect Training: 2, 3 Training: 2 Training: 2 Training: 2, 3
(intuitive only) (intuitive only) (both intuitive and rational) (intuitive only)
Engineer Training: 2, 3 Training: 2, 3 Training: 2 Training: 2
(intuitive only) (intuitive only) (both intuitive and rational) (intuitive and rational)
Quantity surveyor Training: 2, 3, 4 Training: 2, 3 Training: 3 Training: 2
(both intuitive and rational) (intuitive only) (both intuitive and rational) (intuitive only)
Client Training: 2 Training: 2
(both intuitive and rational) (intuitive only)
Case average score 19 19 18 23 20
Legend for training:

2) CPDs and seminars on project risk management
3) Short duration formal courses (less than six months).
182 8 Application
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Cross-case
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Known- Known- Applied- Applied- Preferred- Preferred-
intuitive rational intuitive rational intuitive rational
Case 1 83.72 16.28 96.3 3.7 88.89 11.11
Case 2 74.51 25.49 91.43 8.57 92.59 7.41
Case 3 73.33 26.67 81.08 18.92 79.25 20.75
Case 4 85.71 14.29 87.5 12.5 93.65 6.35
Cross-case 79.3 20.7 89.1 10.9 88.6 11.4
Figure 8.1 Cross-case trend analysis of the known, applied, and preferred risk management
techniques.
20 years have been solely intuitive learning. The deviation of the two quantity surveyors
may be partly due to the mathematical orientation of the specialist – role risk management
practices (Edwards and Bowen 1998). The marginal inverse relationship between the study
participants’ years of industrial experience and their level of formal risk management train-
ing may have resulted from the contemporary changing perspectives in organisational risk
management strategies, with emphasis on formal risk management competencies (Loose-
more et al. 2006; Abderisak and Lindahl 2015).
The cross-case empirical findings on the risk management techniques have also revealed
high incidence of intuitive practices consistent with the current theoretical evidence
(Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010).
The dominance of the intuitive decision processing system was very elaborate in the
responses from all the specialist roles and cases. The case 1 project engineer even suggested
that the intuitive approach is the only option available to the construction industry. As
many as 16 out of the 25 study participants (representing 64% – nine participants with
industrial experience equal or over 20 years; seven participants with industrial experience
under 20 years) confirmed sole reliance on intuitive risk management techniques. The
comparatively higher incidence of experienced study participants relying solely on intu-
itive techniques also appears consistent with the findings from a previous empirical study
which identified experienced non-graduate project managers relying solely on intuition
for their risk identifications (Maytorena et al. 2007).
The research findings have also discovered strategic differences in the risk management
practices of the private and public sectors cases. The private sector cases (case study
projects 1 and 2) practised internal risk management using subsidiary contractor com-
panies, whilst the public sector cases (case study projects 3 and 4) on the other hand
applied external risk management through outsourcing to external contractors. The
empirical observation appears consistent with the wider industry practices of public
sector clients’ immense reliance on the design and build procurement route to transfer
project risk management responsibilities to third-party contractors, using contractual tools
(Latham 1994; Akintoye and Macleod 1997). An empirical investigation on the contractual
networks on four construction developments in 2012 also discovered evidence of internal
risk management on the private sector developments, using internal subsidiary companies
acting as principal contractors (Pryke 2012). The contracts manager from case 2 who was
also the project director similarly confirmed that most private developers do not follow
structured risk management systems. His observation over 36 years of industry experience
has been the use of internal subsidiary contractors to complete a risk register at project
commencement to satisfy corporate due diligence with subsequent reliance on personal
experiences and gut feelings to manage day to day project risk events. The strategic
differences between the private and public sector risk management approaches could be
described as two strands of intuitive construction risk management systems.
The trend analysis of the known, applied, and preferred risk management techniques has
been presented in Figure 8.1. The empirical evidence has revealed consistent high responses
for intuitive risk management techniques across the three assessment variables, which sug-
gests prolonged existence for the current intuitive risk management practices.
A significant discovery is the variance between the percentages of rational techniques
known, applied and preferred. The cross-case average scores have demonstrated that out of
the 20.7% ‘rational’ segment of the ‘known’ risk management techniques, only 52.66% are
being applied on the case study projects, representing 10.9% of the responses on ‘applied’
risk management techniques. There is however, a marginal increase of 55.1% preference
to apply the ‘known’ rational techniques on a future project, representing 11.4% of the
responses on ‘preferred’ risk management techniques. The marginal increase in preference
for future application of rational techniques also appears consistent with the previous the-
oretical discussions in Chapter 4, concerning the changing perspectives of organisational
risk management strategies with increasing emphasis on formal competencies to manage
project risk internally (Loosemore et al. 2006; Abderisak and Lindahl 2015). The empirical
evidence from case studies 1 and 3 exhibited the cross-case average trend. The findings from
case studies 2 and 4 on the other hand revealed marginal decreases in the preference for
future application of the ‘known’ rational techniques, compared to the percentages which
are currently being applied. The deviation in case study 2 may have been caused by the com-
bined influence of the low level of training in rational risk management techniques, and
the group’s extensive years of industrial experience observed in Table 7.19. The deviation
in case study 4 likewise may have been caused by the group’s extensive years of industrial
experiences (average of 23 years), which as previously discussed, tends to exhibit marginal
inverse correlation to rational decision-making systems.
Notwithstanding the above, the comparatively higher preference for future application
of the known ‘rational’ techniques over the current level of ‘rational’ application observed
in case studies 1 and 3, and the cross-case average, suggests the possibility of other extra-
neous causes for the high incidence of intuitive risk management practices, beside the
184 8 Application
prevailing theoretical explanation of non-appreciation of the need for rational techniques

(Akintoye and Macleod 1997). This study’s empirical evidence of a marginal inverse correla-
tion between the years of industrial experience and the appreciation of rational techniques,
presented in Table 8.7, could be one of the extraneous factors.
8.4.2 Theoretically Incompatible Risk Management Practices

The seventh theoretical issue was to test the reliability of the current behaviour science
evidence of dominant application of qualitative data formats (Slovic et al. 2010). The dis-
cussions have centred on a trend analysis of the study participants’ knowledge, application,
and preference of risk management data presentation formats. The cross-case findings have
been presented in Figure 8.2.
The cross-case empirical findings from the trend analysis have revealed consistently
higher responses for qualitative risk management data presentation formats across the
three assessment variables, for all the specialist roles and cases. This suggest that the study
participants’ risk management practices within the short term may continue to utilise
qualitative data presentation formats. A close look at the variance between the assessment
variables have demonstrated that out of the 37.4% ‘quantitative’ segment of the ‘known’
risk management data presentation formats, only 73.9% are being applied on the case
study projects, representing 27.63% of the responses on ‘applied’ risk management data
presentation formats. There is however a marginal increase of 74.55% preference to apply
the ‘known’ quantitative data presentation formats on a future project, representing 27.88%
of the responses on ‘preferred’ risk management techniques. The marginal increase in
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Known- Known- Applied- Applied- Preferred- Preferred-
qualitative quantitative qualitative quantitative qualitative quantitative
Case 1 56.52 43.48 81.82 18.18 84.44 15.56

Case 2 63.16 36.84 60.87 39.13 56.6 43.4
Case 3 60.71 39.29 70.59 29.41 77.55 22.45
Case 4 66.67 33.33 80 20 72.13 27.87
Cross-case 62.6 37.4 72.37 27.63 72.12 27.88
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Cross-case
Figure 8.2 Cross-case trend analysis of the known, applied, and preferred risk management data
presentation formats.
preference for future application of quantitative data presentation formats also appears
consistent with the previous theoretical discussion in Chapter 4 concerning the changing
perspective of organisational risk management strategies, with increasing emphasis on
formal risk management competencies (Loosemore et al. 2006; Abderisak and Lindahl
2015).
The empirical evidence from case studies 2 and 4 exhibited the cross-case average trend.
The findings from case studies 1 and 3 on the other hand revealed marginal decrease in
the preference for future application of the ‘known’ rational techniques, compared to the
percentages which are currently being applied. The deviation in case studies 1 and 3 may
have been caused by the combined influence of the low level of training in rational risk
management techniques, and the groups’ extensive years of industry experience observed
in Table 8.7.
The empirical evidence of high reliance and preference for qualitative data presentation
formats across the four cases, at first glance may appear fully complimentary to the other
empirical evidence of intuitive dominated risk management techniques observed under
theoretical issue 6; as they both relate to the fast system of thinking and decision-making
(Kahneman 2011). Nevertheless, analysis of the variance between the proportions of
applied systems of risk management techniques presented under theoretical issue 6 (89.1%
intuitive versus 10.9% rational), against the applied systems of risk data formats (72.37%
qualitative versus 27.63% quantitative), suggests theoretically incompatible practices of
intuitive processing of approximately 60% of the applied quantitative data formats. This
was validated in the responses of the project manager from case 1; the contracts manager
from case 3; and the contracts manager and project manager from case 4, who after
confirming sole reliance on intuitive techniques under theoretical issue 6, also admitted
quantitative probability data application under theoretical issue 7. The empirical obser-
vation appears consistent with the existing theoretical evidence of intuitive processing of
quantitative statistical and probability risk data (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and
Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha 2010; Bowden et al. 2001; Lock 2003). The research
theoretical review on the evolution of the UK construction industry’s risk management
systems from the initial risk conceptualisation within the insurance industry (Luhmann
2005; Smith et al. 2006 – discussed in Chapter 3) may hold some clue to how we got
into the current twist. Risk management practices within the insurance industry is very
structured and mathematically oriented (Everis 2009). The transition of risk management
systems from the UK insurance industry into the allied construction industry (Smith et al.
2006) therefore may have involved corresponding transmission of quantitative insurance
risk data presentation formats, whilst maintaining the traditional intuitive construction
decision processing approach.
The above empirical observations, coupled with the previous theoretical review on the
variance between the rational and intuitive decision-making systems (Slovic et al. 2010;
Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5) and the need for complementarity between a
decision processing system and its data presentation format (Kahneman 2011; Walker 2015)
suggest the likelihood of systematic errors in the risk evaluations of some of the study par-
ticipants. The empirical evidence of low accuracy in intuitive processing of quantitative
statistical and probability data formats observed under theoretical issues 8 and 9 provides
the substantiation.
186 8 Application
8.4.3 Intuitive Processing of Statistics and Probability Data

The eighth theoretical issue was to test the reliability of the current behaviour science evi-
dence of low understanding and application of statistics and probability estimates (March
and Shapira 1987; Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skit-
more 2004). The empirical findings have been examined for evidence on the study partici-
pants’ level of knowledge and understanding of statistics and probability assessments. The
cross-case empirical findings on the level of knowledge and understanding of statistical
symbols have been presented in Table 8.8.
The empirical findings have revealed low-level accuracy in the study participants’ iden-
tification of statistical symbols, across all the four cases, which appears consistent with the
other empirical evidence of low level of training and education in rational risk management
systems, observed under theoretical issue 6. The cross-case average scores have revealed
just 17% accuracy in the total responses, with the private sector cases (1 and 2) with their
internal risk management strategy performing slightly better than the public sector cases
(3 and 4) which outsources project risk management responsibilities to third-party contrac-
tors. The cross-case analysis of the average scores from the different specialist roles has also
revealed a marginal superior performance by the contracts managers, engineers, and quan-
tity surveyors, which may be due to the comparative mathematical orientation of the risk
management practices of those specialist roles (Edwards and Bowen 1998) and the resultant
impact on their store of affective heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010).
Analysis of the cross-case empirical findings against the study participants’ years of
industrial experience and level of training in construction risk management techniques
did not reveal any significant pattern, not even for those with some form of rational risk
management training and minimal industrial experience. In the light of the other empirical
evidence of intuitive dominated risk management practices observed under theoretical
issue 6, coupled with the research theoretical discussions on the inherent psychological
difficulties in intuitive processing of quantitative data (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c;
Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5), the absence
of significant relational pattern between the study participants’ level of rational risk man-
agement training and their level of accuracy in the identification of the statistical symbols
may be attributed to the emotional effects from the intuitive decision-making system. This
was also evident in the empirical findings from the direct observations where some of the
study participants exhibited signs of emotional discomfort during the interrogations. Some
of them even inquired if they could search the statistical symbols on the internet. When
this was denied, the frustration became evident in their body language.
The cross-case empirical findings on the study participants’ level of knowledge and
understanding of probability assessment have also been presented in Table 8.9.
The findings have similarly revealed low-level accuracy in risk analysis of probability data
across all the four cases, which appear consistent with the previous empirical evidence of
low level of training and education in rational risk management systems, observed under
theoretical issue 6. Another significant observation during the data gathering was the erro-
neous linkage of higher probability predictions to certainty of occurrence of an event, which
may be due to a general lack of understanding of the probability concept.
Table 8.8 Level of knowledge and understanding of statistical symbols.
Specialist role
Specialist role Case 1 (correct responses) Case 2 (correct responses) Case 3 (correct responses) Case 4 (correct responses) average score
Project manager 1 out of 4 (25%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 12.5%
Contracts manager 1 out of 4 (25%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 25%
Technical manager 1 out of 4 (25%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 16.67%
Architect 0 out of 4 (0%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 6.25%
Engineer 2 out of 4 (50%) 2 out of 4 (50%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 25%
Quantity surveyor 2 out of 4 (50%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 1 out of 4 (25%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 25%
Client 0 out of 4 (0%) 0 out of 4 (0%) 0%
19 19 18 23 20
Legend for training:

Short duration formal courses (less than six months).
Table 8.9 Level of knowledge and understanding of probability.
Specialist role
Specialist role Case 1 (correct responses) Case 2 (correct responses) Case 3 (correct responses) Case 4 (correct responses) average score
Project manager 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 16.67%
Contracts manager 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 3 out of 3 (100%) 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 41.67%
Technical manager 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 0%
Architect 0 out of 3 (0%) 1 out of 3 (33.3%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 25%
Engineer 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 16.67%
Quantity surveyor 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 2 out of 3 (66.7%) 3 out of 3 (100%) 58.33%
Client 0 out of 3 (0%) 0 out of 3 (0%) 0%
19 19 18 23 20
Legend for experience: 1) On the job informal experience

The cross-case average scores have revealed just 24% accuracy in the total responses, with
the public sector cases (3 and 4) with their external risk management strategy performing
slightly better than the private sector cases (1 and 2) with their internal risk management
strategy, which appears contrary to the previous empirical findings presented in Table 8.8.
The inconsistences in market sector performance realised from the two assessment settings
suggest that the observed patterns of superior performances may have been influenced
by other extraneous factors unrelated to construction risk management strategy affective
heuristics.
The cross-case analysis of the average scores from the different specialist roles have also
revealed superior performance by the contracts managers and quantity surveyors, which
may be due to the comparatively mathematical orientation of the risk management prac-
tices of those specialist roles (Edwards and Bowen 1998) and the consequential impact on
their store of affective heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010). The empirical observation also appears
consistent with the present behaviour science evidence on the ability of experts to rely on
their professional experiences to achieve accurate intuitive judgement (Kahneman 2011).
also did not reveal any significant pattern, not even for those with some form of rational
risk management training and minimal industrial experience. In the light of the other
empirical evidence of intuitive dominated risk management practices observed under the-
oretical issue 6, coupled with the research theoretical review on the inherent psychological
difficulties in intuitive processing of quantitative data (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c;
Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011), the absence of significant relational
pattern between the study participants’ level of rational risk management training and
their level of accuracy in the risk assessment of probability data may have been influenced
by the applied intuitive decision-making system. This was also evident in the empirical
findings from the direct observations, where some of the study participants displayed signs
of emotional discomfort during the interrogations.
8.4.4 Comparative Analysis of Intuitive Processing of Quantitative Risk

Assessment Versus Qualitative Risk Assessment
The ninth theoretical issue evaluated the comparative effectiveness of intuitive processing
of quantitative risk assessment versus qualitative risk assessment. The cross-case empirical
findings have been presented in Table 8.10.
The empirical findings have discovered superior level of accuracy for the qualitative
assessments over the quantitative assessments, across all the four cases. The cross-case
average scores have revealed 76% accuracy for the qualitative assessments, against 20%
accuracy for the quantitative assessments. Beside the observation of extreme percentages
in the private sector cases with case study 1 recording 100% accuracy for the qualitative
assessments and case study 2 also scoring 0% accuracy for the quantitative assessments,
there has been no significant pattern of sector differentiation between the levels of accuracy
of the two assessment classifications. The cross-case analysis of the average scores from
the different specialist roles have also revealed similar overall superior level of accuracy for
Table 8.10 Quantitative versus qualitative risk assessments.
Case 1 (correct Case 2 (correct Case 3 (correct Case 4 (correct Specialist role average
Specialist role responses) responses) responses) responses) score
Project manager Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Correct Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: 25%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: 25%
Contracts manager Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: 0%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: 75%
Technical manager Quantitative: Correct Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: 33.3%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: 66.7%
Architect Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Correct Quantitative: Correct Quantitative: 50%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: 100%
Engineer Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: 0%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: 75%
Quantity surveyor Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Correct Quantitative: 25%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Wrong Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: 75%
Client Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: Wrong Quantitative: 0%
Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: Correct Qualitative: 100%
Case average score Quantitative: 16.7% Quantitative: 0% Quantitative: 33.3% Quantitative: 28.6% Quantitative: 20%
Qualitative: 100% Qualitative: 66.7% Qualitative: 66.7% Qualitative: 71.4% Qualitative: 76%
19 19 18 23 20
Legend for experience: 1) On the job informal experience

192 8 Application
the qualitative assessments across all the specialist roles. The evidence of lower accu-
racy in the intuitive processing of quantitative assessment appears consistent with the
other empirical evidence of low-level accuracy in statistics and probability assessment
observed under Theoretical Issue 8, and the previous theoretical review on the prevailing
behavioural science evidence discussed in Chapter 5 (Slovic et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011).
Another significant empirical discovery has been the composition of the wrong responses
selected under the quantitative assessments. 18 out of the 20 wrong respondents selected
the probability equation expressed in percentages, representing 90% of the wrong responses.
Further questioning on the rationale behind the preference for the ‘percentage equation’
format revealed the following responses:
1) Percentages are what we are familiar with from our primary and secondary educa-
tion – eight responses.
2) Percentages are what we use in our everyday working life – seven responses.
3) Percentages are easy to understand – three responses.
were simply relying on their availability heuristics to intuitively generate the answers (Kah-
neman 2011). The observed behavioural pattern therefore supplements the other empirical
evidence discussed under theoretical issue 3.
again did not reveal any significant pattern, not even for those with some form of formal
risk management training and minimal industrial experience. Against the background of
the previous evidence of intuitive dominated risk management practices (theoretical issue
6) and the theoretical evidence on the psychological difficulties in intuitive processing
of quantitative data (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky 1982a,b,
Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5), the absence of significant relational pattern
between the study participants’ level of rational risk management training and their level
of accuracy in the quantitative assessments may likewise be attributed to the emotive
effect of the applied intuitive investigative approach. The direct observation of emotional
uneasiness during the interrogations provides the substation.
8.4.5 Intuitive Processing of Probability Predictions of Emotive Events

The last theoretical issue under research proposition 3 was to test the reliability of the cur-
rent behaviour science evidence of insensitivity of probability predictions in intuitive risk
analysis of emotive events (Slovic et al. 2010). The empirical findings have been examined
for evidence on the study participants’ responses to different range of hypothetical asbestos
contamination risk. The cross-case empirical findings have been presented in Table 8.11.
The empirical evidence has revealed significant insensitivity to the different range of
hypothetical probability predictions on asbestos contamination across all the four cases.
68% of the study participants consistently responded that they would appoint a licensed con-
tractor to carry out further asbestos surveys to identify and remove asbestos contaminated
materials, before they commence site construction works. The different levels of probabil-
ity risk predictions could not alter their responses, not even for the very low probability
prediction of non-malignant contamination within a small specified area.
Table 8.11 Level of indifference to events that evokes strong affective feelings.
Specialist role
Case 1 (correct Case 2 (correct Case 3 (correct Case 4 (correct average score –
Specialist role responses) responses) responses) responses) insensitivity
Project manager 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 50%

21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i
21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – ii 21iii – ii
Contracts manager 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 25%
21ii – ii 21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i
21iii – ii 21iii – i 21iii – ii 21iii – ii
Technical manager 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 100%
21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i
21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – i
Architect 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 75%
21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – ii 21ii – i
21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – ii 21iii – i
Engineer 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 100%
21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i 21ii – i
21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – i
(Continued)
Specialist role
Case 1 (correct Case 2 (correct Case 3 (correct Case 4 (correct average score –
Specialist role responses) responses) responses) responses) insensitivity
Quantity surveyor 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 21i – i 50%

21ii – i 21ii – ii 21ii – i 21ii – ii
21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – i 21iii – ii
Client 21i – i 21i – i 100%
21ii – i 21ii – i
21iii – i 21iii – i
Case average score – insensitivity 83.33% 83.33% 50% 57.14% 68%
Experience: 19 Experience: 19 Experience: 18 Experience: 23 20
Legend for main responses:

i) Appoint a licenced contractor to carry out further surveys to identify and remove the asbestos before the
commencement of construction works
ii) Carry on construction works at the non-contaminated area whilst carrying out further investigations at
the remaining areas to identify and remove any asbestos residue.
Legend for experience:
3) Short duration formal courses (less than six months).
The empirical findings, though generally consistent across all the four cases, have been
more elaborate in the private sector cases, with their application of internal risk manage-
ment strategy. The level of insensitivity among the study participants from the private sector
cases (1 and 2) is 83.33%, against the public sector cases (3 and 4) insensitivity scores of
50% and 57.14%, respectively. The cross-case analysis of the average scores from the differ-
ent specialist roles have also revealed an inverse correlation with the pattern of empirical
evidence on the level of understanding of probability discussed under theoretical issue 8.
The contracts manager and quantity surveying specialist roles which exhibited compara-
tive superior understanding of probability data under theoretical issue 8, have also exhib-
ited comparative lower insensitivity to the varied hypothetical probability predictions of
asbestos contamination. On the other hand, the remaining specialist roles which demon-
strated lower understanding of the probability principle under theoretical issue 8 have like-
wise demonstrated higher insensitivity to the diverse hypothetical asbestos contamination
predictions. The inference being that the extent of insensitivity may inversely correlate to
the level of understanding of the probability concept.
once again did not reveal any significant pattern, not even for those with some form of
rational risk management training and minimal industrial experience. In the light of the
previous empirical evidence of intuitive dominated risk management practices, coupled
with the theoretical discussions on the inherent psychological difficulties in intuitive
processing of quantitative data (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and Tversky
1982a,b, Kahneman 2011), the absence of significant relational pattern between the study
participants’ level of rational risk management training, and their level of insensitivity
to the hypothetical probability risk estimates, may also be attributed to the emotional
effects from the intuitive decision-making system. This was also evident in the empirical
findings from the direct observations where some of the study participants became very
poignant during the interrogations. The project manager from case 1 and the client
development manager from case 3 responded that they will take no chances with the lives
of their workforce irrespective of the level of probability of asbestos risk. The contracts
manager from case 2 in particular descended into intense emotions after listening to the
theoretical settings of the interview question and responded that his risk response to
asbestos contamination will always be avoidance, irrespective of the probability estimate.
Upon probing, he explained that he had lost his father a year ago from mesothelioma. His
zero tolerance to asbestos risk most likely was precipitated by an inducement of a strong
affective feeling associated with his previous bitter experience of observing his father dying
from asbestos cancer (Bateman et al. 2010; Slovic et al. 2010).
In summary, the empirical evidence from theoretical issues 6–10 have supported research
proposition 3. The observation of systematic errors arising from the theoretical imbalances
in the construction risk management decision-making systems, coupled with the direct
observations of emotional discomfort from some of the study participants during the statis-
tics and probability risk assessments, has collectively confirmed the complications in intu-
itive processing of quantitative data. The realisation of consistent empirical support across
the different specialist roles and different assessment settings applied on the four cases have
also confirmed theoretical replication for the study’s theoretical predictions, and subse-
quently analytical generalisation for research proposition 3.
196 8 Application
8.5 Summary
Chapter 8 has examined the extent to which the empirical evidence from the cross-case
analysis reflected the three research theoretical propositions. The findings are presented
below:
8.5.1 Research Proposition 1

The empirical evidence from theoretical issues 1 and 2 have revealed substantial support
for research proposition 1. Apart from ground condition related risk being common in the
responses on the typical pre-construction phase risk events, which may have been precipi-
tated by a corresponding dominant industrial experience affective heuristics (Finucane et al.
2003; Slovic et al. 2010), and the incidental evidence of dominant project experience affec-
tive heuristics in the case 4 quantity surveyor’s responses on typical pre-construction phase
risk events, the remaining empirical findings have demonstrated correlation between the
study participants’ specialist backgrounds and their generated risk perceptions. The coag-
ulation of identical risk perceptions within related specialist roles has provided empirical
substantiation for the research theoretical prediction of construction risk perception cat-
egorisation reflecting the structure of the differentiated specialist roles. The realisation of
consistent empirical support across the different assessment settings and cases has subse-
quently demonstrated theoretical replication for theoretical issues 1 and 2, and analytical
generalisation for research proposition 1. Notwithstanding, the incidental empirical obser-
vation of dominant affective heuristics from sources other than specialist role experiences
has also confirmed the ability of the other components within the perception formation sub-
system to influence risk perception categorisation within the construction project delivery
system. There is however the need for further empirical investigations to test the sensitiv-
ity of affective heuristics acquired through the other sources including personal, project,
organisational, and industrial experiences.
The validation of research proposition 1 with consistent empirical observations under
different assessment methods, and cases where different risk management strategies were
applied, has inferably provided a novel robust theoretical philosophy for risk perception
categorisation which addresses the criticisms against the existing theories and concepts
on the subject including differences in personality trait (Weber and Milliman 1997; Smith
et al. 2006), prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011), categorisa-
tion between the project team members and external stakeholders (Loosemore et al. 2006),
and culture theory (Thompson et al. 1990).
The study’s novel philosophy of risk perception categorisation emanating from the
differences in specialist roles suggests the need for involving wide-range specialists in
intuitive construction risk management practices to ensure robust risk identification
and treatment. The research theoretical review on the differences in micro-objectives
and functionalities of the differentiated specialist roles (Bertalanffy 1968; Blanchard and
Fabrycky 1998; Carmichael 2006 – reviewed in Chapter 2), coupled with the conceptual
relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its ‘impact on an objective’ (Loosemore et al.
2006 – reviewed in Chapter 3) suggests that there will be differences in risk interpretations
and actions from the different actors operating within the construction project delivery
8.5 Summary 197
system. In a situation where the different specialist roles decide to adopt different risk
management systems, there could be cross-purpose strategies which could be damaging to
project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al. 2007; Arthur and Pryke 2013). Even in
a situation where a joint risk management system is practised, the failure to recognise and
integrate the differences in affective heuristics of the assembled specialist roles could lead
to conflict (Mullins 2005). The validation of the research novel theoretical philosophy for
risk perception categorisation therefore suggests the need for expansion of the integrative
role of construction project management (Walker 2007, 2015) to encompass both the
technical and affective heuristics variances of the different specialist roles to foster efficient
risk management systems, and ultimately, project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno
et al. 2007).

The empirical findings from theoretical issues 3–5 have revealed substantial support for
research proposition 2. The findings from theoretical issue 3 have established intuitive risk
management decision-making practices which rely on heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010; Kah-
neman 2011). The empirical evidence from the direct observations also discovered spon-
taneous and effortless generation of responses from the participants, confirming intuitive
decision processing (Kahneman 2011). Analysis of the cross-case empirical findings has
further identified a positive correlation between the length of industrial experience and the
degree of grounded heuristics inspired risk perception formation.
The empirical findings from theoretical issue 4 have demonstrated substantial evidence
of the inherent subjectivities of perception, as observed in the changes in the research par-
ticipants’ risk identification re-assessment of hypothetical project settings. The realisation
of different risk events after exposure to additional information confirms the ease by which
perceptions could be manipulated in risk management decision-making (Slovic and Peters
2006).
The empirical findings from theoretical issue 5 have also revealed substantial evidence on
the impracticalities of intuitive risk identification of events outside our scope of heuristics
(Loosemore et al. 2006). The research participants’ failure in identifying risk events out-
side their specialist backgrounds have subsequently provided empirical substantiation for
the research theoretical prediction that intuitive risk management practices which exclude
some of the project team members run the risk of failing to adequately identify project risk
events, especially those associated with the specialist background of the excluded mem-
bers. The realisation of consistent empirical support across the different specialist roles and
risk management strategies from the four cases has confirmed theoretical replication for
the study theoretical predictions, and subsequently analytical generalisation for research
proposition 2.
The empirical evidence on the psychological difficulties involved in the intuitive risk
identification of events outside the scope of a specialist background, coupled with the other
empirical evidence validating the research novel theoretical explanation of risk perception
categorisation along the lines of the differences in specialist affective heuristics suggests
that the effectiveness of an intuitive risk management system will depend on the scope of
198 8 Application
professional expertise and experience of the assembled project team within the construc-
tion delivery system. Where the project team lacks resources in a specific specialist role
affective heuristic, the absence of an associated availability and representative heuristics
(Kahneman 2011) may potentially constrain the identification and management of related
risk events (Benthin et al. 1993). Even within a multi-disciplined project team, the exclusion
of a specialist role from the risk management process may likewise weaken the robustness
of the risk identification and treatment processes, especially for the risk events relating to
the excluded specialist role affective heuristics. The empirical findings therefore suggest the
need for careful selection of project team members with the appropriate grounded heuris-
tics, to ensure effective risk management systems. The formation of project teams should
therefore incorporate specialist roles with relevant heuristics in contract procurement and
execution, appropriate for comparable project settings. And in order to achieve this, there is
the need for further empirical investigations to critically map out the heuristics boundaries
of the different specialist roles, and also to develop a model for identifying the heuristics
indicators for different construction project settings, to ensure compatibility in the affective
specialist-role stimulus of project team members and their specific project setting (Arthur
2018).

The empirical findings from theoretical issue 6 have revealed substantial evidence of min-
imal education and training in formal risk management systems. Analysis of the study
participants’ responses has further revealed marginal inverse correlation between the level
of formal risk management training and the years of industrial experience. The empirical
findings have also confirmed intuitive dominated risk management practices, consistent
with the prevailing literature (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kulu-
langa and Kuotcha 2010). The empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed
spontaneous and effortless generation of responses from the participants suggesting intu-
itive decision processing (Kahneman 2011).
The empirical findings from theoretical issue 7 have demonstrated substantial evidence
of higher knowledge, application, and preference for qualitative data presentation formats
over quantitative data. This appears consistent with the existing empirical evidence from
the behavioural sciences (Slovic et al. 2010). Analysis of the variance between the propor-
tions of applied systems of risk management techniques presented under theoretical issue
6 (89.1% intuitive versus 10.9% rational), against the applied systems of risk data formats
(72.37% qualitative versus 27.63% quantitative), suggests theoretically incompatible prac-
tices of intuitive processing of approximately 60% of the applied quantitative data formats.
The empirical findings from theoretical issue 8 have revealed substantial evidence of
minimal knowledge and understanding of statistics and probability across all the cases,
and specialist roles, consistent with the current literature (March and Shapira 1987; Akin-
toye and Macleod 1997; Edwards and Bowen 1998; Lyons and Skitmore 2004). The con-
tracts manager and quantity surveyor specialist roles however exhibited marginal superior
understanding of statistical and probability assessments, which may be due to the compar-
ative mathematical orientation of the risk management practices of those specialist roles
8.5 Summary 199
(Edwards and Bowen 1998), and the resultant impact on their store of affective heuris-
tics (Slovic et al. 2010). The observation from the contracts manager, and quantity sur-
veyor specialist roles also appears consistent with the present empirical evidence from the
behavioural sciences regarding the ability of experts to rely on their professional experiences
to achieve accurate intuitive judgment (Kahneman 2011).
The empirical evidence from theoretical issue 9 has likewise demonstrated superior
level of accuracy for qualitative assessments compared to quantitative assessments, which
appears consistent with the prevailing behaviour science theories (Slovic et al. 2010;
Kahneman 2011).
Lastly, the empirical evidence from theoretical issue 10 has revealed significant insensi-
tivity for probability predictions of emotive events, in intuitive evaluations. This also seems
consistent with the prevailing behaviour sciences theories (Slovic et al. 2010). Analysis of
the study participants’ responses has further discovered a negative correlation between the
extent of insensitivity and the level of understanding of the probability concept.
The empirical findings from theoretical issues 6–10 have collectively provided substan-
tial support for the research proposition 3. The observation of systematic errors arising from
the theoretical imbalances in the construction risk management decision-making systems,
coupled with the direct observations of emotional discomfort from some of the study par-
ticipants during the statistical and probability risk assessments, has collectively confirmed
the complications in intuitive processing of quantitative data. The realisation of consis-
tent empirical support across the different specialist roles and different assessment settings
applied on the four cases have also confirmed theoretical replication for the study’s theoret-
ical predictions, and subsequently analytical generalisation for research proposition 3.
The absence of significant differences between the findings from the private sector cases
(1 and 2) and public sector cases (3 and 4) with their different risk management strate-
gies, have confirmed independence of the empirical evidence outside the influence of risk
management strategy affective heuristics.
The realisation of consistent evidence across the different specialist roles and cases
has confirmed theoretical replication for the 10 theoretical issues (Rowley 2002), and
subsequently, analytical generation for the three research propositions (Eisenhardt 1989;
Yin 2014). It must however be emphasised that the intuitive investigative context of
the empirical evidence, in the light of the previous analytical review on the operational
variations between the different systems of thinking and decision-making (Kahneman
2011 – discussed in Chapter 5) suggests the validity of the research findings and potential
benefits, including the novel theory for risk perception categorisation, may be limited to
applications under intuitive decision-making.
The research findings have in effect challenged the prevailing construction risk manage-
ment practice of intuitive processing of statistical and probability data presentation formats
and further established a logical foundation for the rethinking of construction risk man-
agement practices to ensure complementarity between the decision processing approach
and data presentation formats. The previous analytical review on the differences in opera-
tion of the rational and intuitive decision-making systems (Kahneman 2011 – discussed in
Chapter 5) coupled with the theoretical evidence on the need for complementarity between
system components to foster the achievement of system objectives (Cole 2004; Cole and
200 8 Application
Kelly 2020; Walker 2007, 2015 – discussed in Chapter 2) suggests the reasonable method-
ological remediation to be either revision in the construction risk management decision
processing approach to reflect proportional application of rational techniques to comple-
ment the quantitative properties of statistics and probability or alternatively, revision of the
data presentation formats to qualitative to align with the existing intuitive decision pro-
cessing practices. The other research empirical evidence of low competency in rational risk
management techniques observed under theoretical issue 6 and the high preference for
future application of subjective techniques and qualitative data observed under theoreti-
cal issues 6 and 7 suggests prolonged existence for the present intuitive construction risk
management decision processing approach. Revision of the data presentation formats to
qualitative therefore seems the most appropriate option. The theoretical evidence of spon-
taneous and effortless operation of the intuitive decision-making system (Kahneman 2011)
also suggests that adopting the above remedial approach will assist construction profes-
sionals to address the increasing client and regulatory demand for quick and accurate risk
responses using limited available data (Loosemore et al. 2006; Perlow et al. 2002). There
is however the need for further empirical investigates to test the appropriate qualitative
data presentation formats which will complement the present intuitive construction risk
management practices.
201
Conclusions
9.1 Summary
The prevailing theoretical evidence of intuitive dominated construction risk management
practices (Akintoye and Macleod 1997; Lyons and Skitmore 2004; Kululanga and Kuotcha
2010) suggests corresponding reliance on emotional stimulus in the decision-making
processes (Slovic et al. 2010). The current construction management research publications
however appear limited in exploring the psychology behind the intuitive risk identification
and treatment processes. The purpose of this book therefore has been to address the
resulting data gap, by drawing upon theories from systems thinking and behavioural
sciences to examine the behavioural patterns of intuitive construction risk management
decision-making systems in the context of the sources and structure of the risk perception
categorisations and the psychological issues involved in mixing tools and techniques from
different systems of thinking and decision-making.
The Part 1 has evaluated key concepts on intuitive risk management systems. The
theoretical framework centred on the social construction of risk within the construction
delivery process and the subjectivity of risk perceptions. The discussions have employed
systems thinking and behaviour science theories in reviewing key concepts includ-
ing general system principles and processes (Checkland 1999; Bertalanffy 1968, 2015;
Cole 2004; Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015; and Cole and Kelly 2020 – discussed
in Chapter 2); the generation of construction project risk events from systems differ-
entiation processes (Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998; Walker 2007, 2015; Slovic et al.
2010 – discussed in Chapter 2); risk etymology (Luhmann 2005; Japp and Kusche 2008;
The Risk Net 2020 – discussed in Chapter 3); the different risk conceptual interpretations
(Zinn 2008 – discussed in Chapter 3); the construction risk management process (Smith
et al. 2006; Dallas 2006; Walker 2007, 2015 – discussed in Chapter 4); risk perception forma-
tion from affect heuristics (Benthin et al. 1993; Damasio 2006; Slovic et al. 2010 – discussed
in Chapter 5); risk data presentation formats (Bowers 1994; Bowden et al. 2001; Slovic
et al. 2010 – discussed in Chapter 5); subjectivity of risk perceptions, and the inherent
biases of intuitive decision-making (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and
Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5); and the generating processes
of differentiated risk perceptions (Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015; Slovic et al. 2010;
Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5). The systematic evaluation of the above
theoretical concepts has strengthened their analytical interpretations.
202 9 Conclusions
The Part 2 has presented findings from a four-case empirical investigation evaluating
the theoretical and practical issues of the current intuitive construction risk management
practices. The research methodology focused on testing theoretical replication of the propo-
sitions developed in the Part 1 including the novel differentiated risk perception model.
A bespoke matching pattern analytical tool called the differentiated matrix has also been
developed. This tool was applied in the analysis of the research’s novel theoretical expla-
nation for risk perception categorisation, under proposition 1, and again, in demonstrating
the effects of excluding project subgroups from intuitive risk management processes, under
proposition 2. The inherent dynamics of the analytical tool, which enabled multiple appli-
cations within the different categorisation contexts suggest there could be potential for
extending it into other behavioural categorisation studies within construction management
research and other allied social science disciplines.
The specific empirical contributions from the three research propositions are as follows:

● Extension of the prevailing theories and concepts from systems thinking (Checkland
1999; Bertalanffy 1968, 2015; Cole 2004; Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015; Cole and
Kelly 2020) and behavioural sciences (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and
Tversky 1982a,b; Benthin et al. 1993; Damasio 2006; Slovic and Peters 2006; Slovic et al.
2010; Bateman et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011) in demonstrating empirical substantiation
for the novel theoretical explanation for risk perception categorisation, along the lines of
the differences in objectives and interests of differentiated specialist roles.
● The theoretical review and empirical validation has highlighted the failures of the
present theories and concepts including differences in personality traits (Weber and
Milliman 1997; Smith et al. 2006; Chauvin et al. 2007), prospect theory (Kahneman
and Tversky 1979; Kahneman 2011), differences between project team members and
external stakeholders (Loosemore et al. 2006), and culture theory (Thompson et al. 1990)
in offering adequate explanation for the complex variations in perceptions within the
construction project delivery system. The empirical evidence of identical risk perceptions
within related specialist roles across the different assessment settings and cases where
different risk management strategies were applied has however provided empirical
substantiation, and subsequently analytical generalisation for a robust novel theoretical
explanation for risk perception categorisation.
● Notwithstanding the above, the previous theoretical discussions on systems differentia-
tion (Walker 2007, 2015 – discussed in Chapter 2) and the psychology of perception for-
mation (Slovic et al. 2010; Bateman et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5)
suggest that the components within the perception formation system at the construction
project organisational level will comprise of heuristics acquired through diverse sources
including personal, specialist roles, project, organisational, and industrial experiences.
This was also confirmed in the empirical findings from the case study, where a few of the
study participants exhibited dominant affective heuristics from sources other than experi-
ences acquired through their specialist roles. In light of the present theoretical evidence
suggesting that the other sources of affective heuristics are also capable of influencing
differentiation within the internal structure of the construction project delivery system
9.1 Summary 203
(Carmichael 2006; Walker 2007, 2015 – discussed in Chapter 2), it would be worth con-
ducting further empirical investigations to test their influence in risk perception categori-
sation at the construction project organisational level.

● Extension of the existing theories and concepts on systems differentiation and systems
decomposition, in demonstrating the effects of excluding project subgroups from intu-
itive risk management decision-making. The book has subsequently provided empirical
evidence strengthening the current theoretical evidence of perception formation from the
availability and representative heuristics (Slovic et al. 2010; Kahneman 2011 – discussed
in Chapter 5), inherent subjectivity of perceptions (Alhakami and Slovic 1994; Slovic
and Peters 2006 – discussed in Chapter 5), and the psychological difficulties in percep-
tion formation outside the scope of our heuristics (Kahneman 2011 Loosemore et al.
2006 – discussed in Chapter 5). In the context of the prevailing construction risk manage-
ment practices, the book has provided empirical evidence on the dangers of weakening
the risk identification and treatment processes, whenever we exclude a specialist role.
● The empirical evidence from theoretical issue 3 has extended the present knowledge
base on risk perception formation from heuristics (Benthin et al. 1993; Slovic et al. 2010;
Kahneman 2011), through the discovery of a positive correlation between the years of
industrial experience and the extent of heuristics influence in the risk identification
process.
● The empirical evidence on the psychological difficulties involved in the intuitive risk
identification of events outside the scope of a specialist background, in addition to the
other empirical findings validating the book’s novel theoretical explanation of risk per-
ception categorisation based on the differences in specialist affective heuristics, suggests
that the effectiveness of an intuitive construction risk management system will depend on
the scope of professional expertise and experiences of the assembled project team mem-
bers. Where the project team lacks resource in a specific specialist role affective heuristics,
the absence of an associated availability and representative heuristics (Kahneman 2011)
may impede the identification and management of related risk events (Benthin et al. 1993;
Damasio 2006). Even within a multi-disciplined project team, the exclusion of a specialist
role may likewise affect the robustness of the risk identification and treatment processes,
especially for the risk events relating to the excluded specialist role affective heuristics.
The empirical findings in effect points to the need for careful selection of project team
members with appropriate grounded heuristics to facilitate effective risk management
systems. The establishment of construction project teams should therefore incorporate
specialist roles with relevant heuristics in contract procurement and execution appro-
priate for the particular project setting. And in order to achieve this, there is the need
for further empirical investigations to critically map out the heuristics boundaries of the
different specialist roles, and also to develop a model for identifying the heuristics indi-
cators for different construction projects settings, to ensure compatibility in the affective
specialist-role stimulus of the project team members and their specific project settings.
This will eventually facilitate efficient project resource management.
204 9 Conclusions

● Extension of the prevailing theories and concepts on affect heuristics (Benthin et al. 1993;
Damasio 2006; Slovic and Peters 2006; Slovic et al. 2010; Bateman et al. 2010 – discussed
in Chapter 5), intuitive judgement (Tversky and Kahneman 1982a,b,c; Kahneman and
Tversky 1982a,b; Kahneman 2011 – discussed in Chapter 5), and systems thinking
(Bertalanffy 1968, 2015; Walker 2007, 2015; Carmichael 2006 – discussed in Chapter 2)
in demonstrating the inherent psychological conflicts of mixing tools and techniques
from different decision-making systems. The empirical evidence has challenged the
fundamentals of the existing construction risk management practice of intuitive pro-
cessing of statistical and probability data and further provided the spring board for
further analytical discussions and investigations into the appropriate data presentation
formats that will complement the applied intuitive construction risk management
decision-making approach.
● The empirical evidence from theoretical issue 6 has revealed an emerging theory concern-
ing a marginal inverse correlation between the level of formal risk management training
and the years of industrial experiences. The research participants with longer years of
industry experience demonstrated comparatively lower understanding of the probability
principles.
● The empirical evidence from theoretical issue 10 has also extended the prevailing knowl-
edge base on the insensitivity of probability predictions of emotive events, under intuitive
evaluations (Slovic et al. 2010). The analysis of the empirical data has discovered a nega-
tive correlation between the extent of insensitivity and the level of understanding of the
probability concept. The research participants with lower competency in probability prin-
ciples demonstrated higher degrees of insensitivity to the different probability predictions
of emotive events.
● The empirical findings have revealed the inherent psychological conflicts associated with
mixing tools and techniques from different decision-making systems, as evident in the
present construction risk management practices of intuitive processing of statistical and
probability data. The ensuing logical remediation therefore becomes either revising the
construction risk management approaches to reflect proportional rationality, to achieve
compatibility with the quantitative properties of statistics and probability, or alterna-
tively, revising the data presentation formats to qualitative to align with the intuitive
decision-making practices. The book’s other empirical evidence of low competency in
rational decision-making systems among construction specialist roles, and also the high
preference for future application of subjective risk techniques, and qualitative data pre-
sentation formats realised under theoretical issues 6 and 7 suggests that construction risk
management practices within the foreseeable future will continue to exhibit dominant
intuitive practices. The option to revise the data presentation formats to qualitative, to
align with the present intuitive decision-making practices, therefore becomes the most
feasible logical route. Again, the theoretical evidence on the spontaneity and effortless
operation of the intuitive decision-making system (Kahneman 2011) suggests that adopt-
ing the above remedial option will also assist construction professionals to address the
9.2 Rethinking Construction Risk Management Practices 205
increasing client and regulatory demand to provide quick and accurate risk responses
using limited available data (Loosemore et al. 2006; Perlow et al. 2002). There is however
the need for further empirical investigations into the appropriate qualitative data pre-
sentation formats which will be compatible with the existing intuitive construction risk
management practices. As a start, it may be worth examining the reliability of fuzzy sys-
tem linguistic data application (Byrne 1995), within the present intuitive construction
risk management decision-processing systems.
9.2 Rethinking Construction Risk Management Practices

The book’s novel philosophy of risk perception categorisation along the lines of the differ-
ences in specialist roles, and its ensuing practical and theoretical implications, suggests the
need for involving wide-range specialists, in intuitive construction risk management prac-
tices. This will facilitate robust risk identification and treatment. The theoretical review on
the differences in micro-objectives and functionalities of the differentiated specialist roles
(Bertalanffy 1968; Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998; Carmichael 2006 – reviewed in Chapter 2)
coupled with the conceptual relationship between a ‘risk event’ and its ‘impact on an objec-
tive’ (Loosemore et al. 2006 – reviewed in Chapter 3) suggests that there will be differences
in risk interpretations and actions from the different actors operating within the construc-
tion project delivery system. In a situation where the different specialist roles decide to
adopt different risk management systems, there could be cross-purpose strategies which
could be injurious to project success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al. 2007; Arthur
and Pryke 2013). Even in a situation where a joint risk management system is practised,
the failure to recognise and integrate the differences in affective heuristics of the assem-
bled specialist roles could lead to conflict (Mullins 2005). The validation of the book’s novel
theory for risk perception categorisation therefore suggests the need for expansion of the
coordinating role of construction project management (Walker 2007, 2015) to encompass
both the technical and affective heuristics variations of the different specialist roles (Arthur
2018). This will likewise facilitate efficient risk management systems and ultimately project
success (Pryke and Smyth 2006; Cagno et al. 2007). And in order to achieve this, there may
be the need to incorporate behavioural science modules in the training programmes for
construction project management students and the continuous professional development
programmes for construction professionals.
The empirical observation of theoretically incompatible risk management practices in the
form of intuitive processing of quantitative statistical and probability data and the resulting
systematic errors in the risk analysis and decision flow have likewise emphasised the need
for procedural changes to ensure complementarity between the risk management decision
processing approach and the data presentation format.
Bringing all the above together, the book has challenged the prevailing construction
risk management practices and further established a logical foundation for the rethinking
of construction risk management systems. It is therefore imperative that construction
206 9 Conclusions
risk management researchers, training providers, and professionals support the paradigm
transition by adopting the novel philosophy for risk perception categorisation based
on the differences in affective heuristics of the differentiated specialist roles involved in
construction project delivery; restructuring the existing construction risk management
training programmes to emphasise practises which promote compatibility between the
decision processing vehicle and the data presentation format; and also join the exploratory
wagon for the discovery of appropriate qualitative data presentation formats to align with
the current intuitive decision processing practices.
207
Appendix A
Research Design – Theory, Methodology, and Field Questions
Research proposition 1: Differentiation in risk perceptions within the construction project

delivery system occur along the lines of the internal subgroupings – different specialist roles.
Research strategy
Theoretical Related How does Population for and data
issues questions it work data collection collection approach
1. Systems Personal perception Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:

differentiation also on common be confirmed if members involved in Case study
generate differences construction empirical evidence design development
in risk perceptions project risk events reveals similarities and risk management Data collection
among the system (Refer to IQ 22 in the respondent’s decision-making, approach: Direct
components – and 23) risk perceptions including project observations and
different specialist and their specialist/ managers, contracts semi-structured
roles (Walker 2007, professional managers, quantity interviews to assess
2015; Kahneman background surveyors, technical the risk perceptions
2011; Slovic et al. coordinators, of the different
2010) architects, engineers professional roles
and clients drawn
from four case study
projects (two public
sector and two
private sector)
208 Appendix A Research Design – Theory, Methodology, and Field Questions
Research strategy
2. The differences in Personal Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:

micro-objectives perceptions on be confirmed if members involved in Case study
and functionalities hypothetical project empirical evidence design development
of differentiated scenarios (show reveals similarities and risk management Data collection
subsystems photographs and in risk perceptions decision-making, approach: Direct
(Carmichael 2006; drawings of projects from participants including project observations and
Loosemore et al. to interviewees within the same managers, contracts semi-structured
2006) suggest that and ask them to professional group, managers, quantity interviews to assess
the impact of rank the potential and differences in surveyors, technical the risk perceptions
environmental risk events) risk perceptions coordinators, of the different
forces will result in (Refer to IQ 24) between architects, engineers professional roles
differences in participants from and clients drawn
affective heuristics, different specialist/ from four case study
and therefore professional groups projects (two public
differences in sector and two
perceptions within private sector)
the system compo-
nents – different
specialist roles
Research proposition 2: Intuitive risk management practices under the representative

and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project subgroupings, run the risk of
failing to adequately identify potential risk events.
Research strategy
3. Perceptions are Examine the Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
formed from the influence of be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
representative and grounded heuristics participants’ risk design development
availability in the risk identification on and risk management Data collection
heuristics identification the hypothetical decision-making, approach: Direct
(Kahneman 2011; process using a project scenarios including project observations and
Slovic et al. 2010) hypothetical correspond to their managers, contracts semi-structured
construction project availability managers, quantity interviews to
scenarios (i.e. if the heuristics (evident surveyors, technical examine correlation
participant’s risk from their coordinators, between
identification has responses on the architects, engineers participants risk
been done common and clients drawn perception and
intuitively) construction project from four case study their grounded
(Refer to IQ 22–24) risk events) projects (two public heuristics evident
sector and two in response to
private sector) questions 22 and 23
Research strategy
4. The inherent Testing subjectivity Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
subjectivity of and manipulative be confirmed if members involved in Case study
perceptions make it influence from exposure to design development
manipulative and perceptions additional and risk management Data collection
less rational. (influence of information decision-making, approach: Direct
Additional exposed heuristics (a schedule of including project observations and
information could in manipulating construction risk managers, contracts semi-structured
change risk risk perception/ sources) changes managers, quantity interviews to
perception even analysis) the participant’s surveyors, technical examine if exposure
where the base (Refer to IQ 24 risk perception/ coordinators, to additional
situation has not and 25) analysis architects, engineers information can
changed – best case and clients drawn influence/
scenarios which from four case study manipulate risk
lead to gaps between projects (two public perception/analysis
pre-commencement sector and two
estimates and actual private sector)
figures at
completion stage
(Flyvbjerg et al.
2003; Alhakami and
Slovic 1994; Slovic
and Peters 2006)
5. An uncertainty Analysis of Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
becomes a risk event responses from be confirmed if members involved in Case study
to a subject if its theoretical issues 2a participants fail to design development
occurrence can and 2b to verify if identify risk events and risk management Data collection
potentially affect the the absence of outstand their spe- decision-making, approach: Direct
objective(s) of the relevant grounded cialist/professional including project observations and
subject (Loosemore heuristics can affect areas (associated managers, contracts semi-structured
et al. 2006), risk identification/ with lack of related managers, quantity interviews to
suggesting that analysis (Refer to grounded heuristics) surveyors, technical examine if the
where there is no IQ 24) coordinators, missed risk events
possibility of architects, engineers can be attributed to
impact, the subject and clients drawn the lack of relevant
may fail to recognise from four case study grounded heuristics
the uncertainty as a projects (two public
risk event sector and two
private sector)
Research proposition 3: Statistical and probability risk data presentation and analysis are
less likely to be understood and applied in intuitive risk management systems compared to
the use of qualitative data presentation formats and subjective assessment techniques.
Research strategy
6. Research findings Assess the level of Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
have identified knowledge and be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
construction risk application of risk empirical evidence design development
management to be management reveals preference and risk management Data collection
dominated by techniques for intuitive risk decision-making, approach: Direct
people without (Refer to IQ 7–11) management including project observations and
formal training in approaches over managers, contracts semi-structured
risk management rational tools and managers, quantity interviews to assess
systems using techniques surveyors, technical competency in
intuition and coordinators, probability tools
heuristics (Akintoye architects, engineers
and Macleod 1997; and clients drawn
Lyons and Skitmore from four case study
2004; Kululanga and projects (two public
Kuotcha 2010) sector and two
private sector)
7. Psychometric Assess the level of Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
research findings knowledge and be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
suggest that most application of empirical evidence design development
people relate better statistical models reveals preference and risk management Data collection
to narratives, and tools for qualitative data decision-making, approach: Direct
models, illustrations (Refer to IQ 12–14) presentation including project observations and
and anecdotal formats over managers, contracts semi-structured
simulations better statistical data and managers, quantity interviews to assess
than statistical data quantitative models surveyors, technical competency in
(Slovic et al. 2010) coordinators, probability tools
architects, engineers
and clients drawn
sector and two
private sector)
8. Most people do Assess the level of Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
not trust, knowledge and be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
understand or use application of empirical evidence design development
statistics and statistical and reveals low level of and risk management Data collection
probability probability tools knowledge and decision-making, approach: Direct
estimates in their (Refer to IQ 15–18) application of including project observations and
risk management statistics and managers, contracts semi-structured
decision-making probability managers, quantity interviews to assess
(March and Shapira assessments surveyors, technical competency in
1987; Akintoye and coordinators, statistical models
Macleod 1997; architects, engineers and tools
Edwards and Bowen and clients drawn
1998; Lyons and from four case study
Skitmore 2004) projects (two public
sector and two
private sector)
Research strategy
9. Most people relate Intuitive judgement Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
better to qualitative of hypothetical risk be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
assessments than events expressed in empirical evidence design development
quantitative quantitative and reveals high and risk management Data collection
assessments (Slovic qualitative formats accuracy for risk decision-making, approach: Direct
et al. 2010) (Refer to IQ 19 analysis expressed including project observations and
and 20) in whole numbers, managers, contracts semi-structured
qualitative managers, quantity interviews to
statements, and surveyors, technical examine if different
scenarios, coordinators, probability
compared to risk architects, engineers predictions of the
analysis expressed and clients drawn likelihood of
in percentages, from four case study asbestos
decimals and ratios projects (two public contamination and
sector and two impact can
private sector) influence risk
response
10. Where a Assess the impact Theoretical issue to Project team Research strategy:
potential outcome of of strong affective be confirmed if the members involved in Case study
a future event stimuli on empirical evidence design development
evokes a strong probability reveals insensitivity and risk management
affective memory, evaluations to different ranges decision-making,
Data collection
the assessor may be (Refer to IQ of hypothetical including project
strategy: Direct
insensitive to the 21i–21iii) probability managers, contracts
observations and
probability predictions of managers, quantity
semi-structured
predictions on the asbestos surveyors, technical
interviews to assess
event (Slovic et al. contamination risk coordinators,
the comparative
2010) architects, engineers
effectiveness of
and clients drawn
instinctive risk
analysis utilising
qualitative model
sector and two
over quantitative
private sector)
models
Note: IQ, Interview Question reference.
Interview Questions
Section A. General Details: Questions 1–5 Collects General Details of the Respondent
1 Please select the professional/specialist area that best describe your role in the con-
struction industry?
Architect (………)
Technical Co-ordinator/Manager (………)
Quantity Surveyor (………)
Structural Engineer (………)
Electrical Engineer (………)
Mechanical Engineer (………)

Lift Engineer (………)
Project Manager (………)
Contracts Manager (………)
Development Manager (………)
Others (please specify)…………………………………………………………………
2 How long have you been involved in your role?

Less than one year (………)
One year to less than three years (………)
Three years to less than five years (………)
Over five years (………)
3 Please select from below the type of organisation that best describe your area of
employment?
Client/Developer (………)
Contractor (………)
Consultant (………)
Others (please specify)…………………………………………………………………
4 How long have you been working at your current organisation?

Less than six months (………)
Six months to less than one year (………)
5 How long have you been involved in this project?

Less than six months (………)
Six months to less than one year (………)
Section B. Risk Management – Level of Involvement and Training: Questions 6 and 7

Describes the Respondent’s Level of Involvement and Training in Construction Project
Risk Management
6 How often do you get involved in the identification and management of project con-
straints and opportunities (as a project team member or participation in project risk
management workshop/brainstorming)?
Always (………)
Sometimes (………)
Sparsely (………)
Never (………)
7 Please indicate your level of education/training in project risk management tools and
practices?
c. Continuing professional developments (CPDs) and seminars on project risk man-
agement (………)
Management, MSc Risk Management ( )
Please specify title of degree/diploma ……………………………………………… . . . ..
Section C. Construction Risk Management Techniques: Questions 8–11 Assesses

Knowledge, and Preference for Risk Management Techniques
8 Which of the following risk management techniques have you heard of? (Please
indicate with a tick)
Personal experiences (heuristics) ………… Risk breakdown analysis ………… . . . ..
Worse/best case scenario ……………… Monte Carlo simulation/analysis ………… . . . .
Brainstorming………… . . . . Failure mode and effect analysis ……………
9 Which of the following risk management techniques have you applied on this project?
(Please indicate with a tick)
Personal experiences (heuristics) ………… Risk breakdown analysis ………… . . . ..
Brainstorming……………… Failure mode and effect analysis ……………
Gut feeling ……… . . . . Other (please specify) …………………………
10 On a scale of 1–3 please rank the top three (3) techniques which you would
prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select from the
following list – Risk register, Probability matrix, Fault tree, Personal feelings and values,
Personal experiences (heuristics), Risk breakdown analysis, Worse/best case scenario,
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis, Brainstorming, Failure mode and effect analysis, Fish
bone, Cultural believes, and Gut feeling (please note: A scale of 1 represents the highest
preference, and a scale of 3 represents the lowest preference)

2nd ranked technique …………………………………………………………………….
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………
11 What are the factors influencing your preference of the above risk management
technique?
2nd ranked technique …………………………………………………………………….
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………
Section D. Construction Risk Data Presentation – Part 1: Questions 12–14 Assesses

Knowledge and Preference for Construction Risk Data Presentation Format
12 Which of the following forms of risk data presentations do you know? (Please tick all
the applicable)
Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
13 Which of the following forms of risk data presentations have you applied on this
project? (Please tick all the applicable)

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
14 On a scale of 1–3, please rank the top three (3) risk data presentation formats which
you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select
from the following list – Narratives, Probabilities, Qualitative statements, Whole num-
bers, Graphs, Ratios, Fractions, Scenarios, and Simulations (please note: A scale of 1
represents the highest preference, and a scale of 3 represents the lowest preference)
1st ranked …………………………………………………………………………………
2nd ranked …………………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked …………………………………………………………………………………
Section E. Construction Risk Data Presentation – Part 2: Questions 15–20 Assesses

Knowledge in Statistical Symbols and Probability Risk Evaluations (You are Kindly
Requested not to Make Reference from Statistical Tables or Use a Calculator as this is
Meant to be an Intuitive Exercise)
15 Which of the following statistical symbols are you familiar with? Please indicate by
selecting from the following list: summation, probability density function, probability
function, sample mean, population mean, median, variance, standard deviation, sample
standard deviation, and don’t know
Symbol Name
P(A)
s
∑
Please use the hypothetical risk evaluations represented in the table below to answer
questions 16–18
A 1/7 30/35
B 97.9% 84%
C 1 : 9743 4:5
16 Which of the above risk events is certain to occur?

Risk event A ……………………………………………
Risk event B ……………………………………………
Risk event C ……………………………………………
All (risk events A, B, and C) …………………………..
None of the risk events ………………………………..
Don’t know …………………………………………….
17 Which of the above risk events is certain not to occur?

Risk event A ……………………………………………
Risk event B ……………………………………………
Risk event C ……………………………………………
All (risk events A, B, and C) …………………………..
None of the risk events ………………………………..
Don’t know …………………………………………….
18 Which of the above risk events is certain to have the highest impact?
Risk event A ……………………………………………
Risk event B ……………………………………………
Risk event C ……………………………………………
All (risk events A, B, and C) …………………………
None of the risk events ………………………………
Don’t know ……………………………………………
19 Which of the following hypothetical project settings offer the highest probability
estimate (Indicate with a tick)
20 Which of the following hypothetical project settings offer the highest probability esti-
mate? (Indicate with a tick)
B. out of every projects overrun their initial budget
(………)
C. After reviewing the financial records of the four completed construction projects,
only project A recorded a final cost higher than the initial budget estimate (………)
(two additional subsidiary questions based on interviewee’s experience with answer-

ing questions 19 and 20):
– Which of the questions was easy to understand and answer?
19 (………)
20 (………)
– Which of the question formats do they think would be understood and appreciated
by most construction professionals?
19 (………)
20 (………)
Section F. Construction Risk Data Presentation – Part 3: Questions 21 Assesses the

Impact of Probability Predictions on Events Which Evokes Strong Affective (Emotional)
Memories
Asbestos related illness has been a major cause of construction occupational death. Accord-
ing to the Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom, there has been a recent surge
in asbestos related illness and deaths (see the table and pictures below).
Asbestos -related cancer

Year mesothelioma deaths Asbestosis death
1968 153
2009 2321 411
2010 2347 412
2011 2291 429
2012 2535 464
Source: Adobe Stock
response’ column of the ‘Hypothetical project risk evaluation matrix’ below. Please
select your response from any of the following options:
i. Appoint a licenced contractor to carry out further surveys to identify and remove
the asbestos before the commencement of construction works
ii. Carry on construction works at the non-contaminated area whilst carrying out
further investigations at the remaining areas to identify and remove any asbestos
residue
iii. Supply protective masks to all operatives and carry on with the construction works
iv. Carry on with the construction works and forget about any asbestos
Probability of occurrence Probability of impact Appropriate risk response

Project based on initial survey based on initial survey (please select from i, ii, iii, iv above)
A 95% probability of 99% probability of ……………………………… . . . .

mesothelioma causing death resulting ……………………………… . . . .
asbestos fibre from exposure ……………………………… . . . .
contamination on 100% of
the site
21ii What will be your risk response if the risk evaluation results were to change to:


non-malignant asbestos asbestos infection ……………………………… . . . .
contamination on 10% of ……………………………… . . . .
the site
21iii What will be your risk response if the risk evaluation results were to change to:


non-malignant asbestos non-malignant ……………………………… . . . .
contamination within a pleural infection ……………………………… . . . .
specific 1% area of the site
Section G-1. Construction Project Risk Events – Part 1: Questions 22–24 Requires
Ranking of the Typical Construction Risk Events at the Different Phases of Project
Execution
22 Drawing from your professional experiences, what will you say are the factors likely
to affect project success (risk events) at the pre-construction phase (before the start of
actual construction on site)?
1. ..……… . . . .……………………………………………………………………………
2. …………………………………………………………………………………………
3. …………………………………………………………………………………………
23 Drawing from your professional experiences, what will you say are the factors likely to
affect project success (risk events) at the construction phase (during actual construc-
tion work on site)?
1. ..……… . . . .……………………………………………………………………………
2. …………………………………………………………………………………………
3. …………………………………………………………………………………………
24 The pictures below depict hypothetical sites (edged in bold front) being considered for
residential development. The project is at the inception stage with the following key
project objectives;
– Design: 50 units to meet minimum building regulation requirements, lifetime
homes, secured by design, and minimum 40% carbon reduction
– Budget: Construction cost not to exceed £15 million

– Programme: To be completed within two years
Hypothetical site A: Brown field development within high density urban area
Hypothetical site B: Green field development within low density rural area

Please list the factors that are likely to affect the success of the projects (risk events)
during the pre-construction and actual construction phases.
No. Risk event (Picture A) No. Risk event (Picture B)
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
Section G-2. Construction Project Risk Events – Part 2: Question 25 Examines the
Impact of Additional Information on Intuitive Risk Evaluation
Please refer to the table of construction risk sources below and answer question 25 (please note
the question is a repetition of question 24. You are kindly requested not to use the table of
construction risk sources to amend your previous responses to question 24. It is acceptable to
have different responses for the two identical questions). Please kindly select your responses
from the ‘Sources of risk’ column.
Construction project risk sources
Categories Sources of risk
Physical Loss or damage by fire, earthquake, flood, accident, landslip

Environmental Ecological damage, pollution, waste treatment, public enquiry
Design New technology, innovative applications, reliability, safety details, precision and
appropriateness of specifications, design risk arising from surveys, investigations,
likelihood of change, interaction of design with method of construction
Logistics Loss or damage in the transportation of materials and equipment, availability of
specialised resources – expertise, designers, contractors, suppliers, plant, scarce
construction skills, materials, access and communications, organisational
interfaces
Financial Availability of funds, adequacy of insurance, adequate provision of cash flow,
losses due to default of constructors, suppliers; exchange rate fluctuations,
inflation, taxation
Legal Liability for acts of others, direct liability, local laws, legal differences between
home country and home countries of suppliers, contractors, designers
Political Political risks in countries of owner and suppliers, contractors – war, revolution,
changes in law
Construction Feasibility of construction methods, safety, industrial relations, extent of change,
climate, quality and availability of management and supervision
Operational Fluctuations in market demand for product or service, maintenance needs, fitness
for purpose, safety of operation
Source: Perry and Hayes (1985).

25 The pictures below depict hypothetical sites (edged in red) being considered for
residential development. The project is at the inception stage with the following key
project objectives;
– Design: 50 units to meet minimum building regulation requirements, lifetime
homes, secured by design, minimum 40% carbon reduction
– Budget: Construction cost not to exceed £15 million
– Programme: To be completed within two years


Please list the factors that are likely to affect the success of the projects (risk events)
during the pre-construction and actual construction phases.
No. Risk event (Picture A) No. Risk event (Picture B)
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
26 We have now completed the interview questions. I would however like to give you
the opportunity if you have any comment to add. Your responses will be analysed and
included in the empirical investigation report. You may provide your contact details
if you wish to receive a copy of the executive summary of the report. Thank you for
taking the time to participate.
Comments: ………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Email: ……………………………………………………………………………………
Telephone number:………………………………………………………………………
225
Appendix B
Case 2 Data Presentation
Appendix B presents the empirical evidence from case study 2. The findings have been pre-
headings relating to the underlining theoretical issues. The presentation has adopted the
B.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings

the construction project delivery system occur along the lines of the internal subgroup-
ings – different specialist roles. The underlining theoretical issues are as follows:
– 1. Systems differentiation also generate differences in risk perceptions among the system
2010).
– 2. The differences in micro-objectives and functionalities of differentiated subsystems
pants supported the study theoretical prediction of risk perception categorisations defined
Theoretical Issue 1
– Theoretical issue 1: Systems differentiation also generate differences in risk perceptions
among the system components – different specialist roles (Walker 2007, 2015; Kahneman
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
226 Appendix B Case 2 Data Presentation

The related interview questions are 22 and 23 (see Appendix A). The rationale behind
to facilitate the generation of risk perceptions from the participants’ inherent heuristics
responses from these questions have therefore been termed grounded heuristics denoting
events (Table 7.3) developed from the cumulative responses of interview questions 22–24
The empirical findings have been summarised in Table B.1.
The differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising the project manager, technical
manager, and contracts manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of rank-
ing: ground condition related (first), logistics and communication related (second), legal
and statutory approval related (third). The designers comprising the architect and engi-
neer also generated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: design and quality
related (first), financial and commercial related (second), and legal and statutory approval
related (third). The quantity surveyor’s generated risk perceptions on the other hand were
in the following order of ranking: ground condition related (first), financial and commercial
related (second), design and quality related (third).
In summary, the empirical findings have revealed evidence of reasonable differentiation
within the study participants’ risk perceptions on the typical pre-construction project risk
events, with correlation to their different specialist backgrounds.
Findings: The responses have been presented in Table B.2 using the same format as the
The empirical evidence has once again revealed differentiation within the study par-
ticipants’ risk perceptions on the typical project risk events at the construction phase,
consistent with the differences in their specialist backgrounds. The differentiated builder
specialist subgroup comprising, the contracts manager, technical manager, and project
manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: construction related
(first), ground condition related (second), and financial and commercial related (third).
Table B.1 Risk events at the pre-construction phase.
Category Category Category
Reference Specialist role 1st risk event and score 2nd risk event and score 3rd risk event and score
Builders
PM-2 Project manager Contamination of site GCR (5) Achieving planning DQR (3) Planning and CR (1)
permission and programming of the
discharge of conditions construction works
TM-2 Technical Site setup, welfare, and LCR (5) Site setup, and LCR (3)
manager deliveries organisation of
construction plant
CM-2 Contracts Ownership of land LSAR (5) Contamination of site GCR (3) Previous land use to GCR (1)
manager establish ground condition
Scores: 1st: GCR (9)
2nd: LCR (8)
3rd: LSAR (5)
Designers
A-2 Architect Planning and CR (5) Completing within FCR (3)
programming of the budget
construction work
E-2 Engineer Availability and DQR (5) Achieving planning LSAR (3) Completing within budget FCR (1)
feasibility of service permissions and
connections discharge of condition
Scores: 1st: DQR and CR (5)
2nd: FCR (4)
3rd: LSAR (3)
Quantity surveyor
QS-2 Quantity Contamination of site GCR (5) Procurement of labour FCR (3) Getting the design right at DQR (1)
surveyor and material the concept stage
Scores: 1st: GCR (5)
2nd: FCR (3)
3rd: DQR (1)
GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR, logistics and communication related; FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal
and statutory approval related; CR, construction related; OR, operational related.
Table B.2 Risk events at the construction phase.
Category Category Category
Reference Specialist role 1st risk event and score 2nd risk event and score 3rd risk event and score
Builders
PM-2 Project manager Project planning CR (5) Completing within FCR (3) Safety on site CR (1)
budget
TM-2 Technical Safety on site CR (5) Working at height CR (3)
manager
CM-2 Contracts Ground condi- GCR (5) Unexpected ground GCR (3) Safety on site CR (1)
manager tions – contamination conditions
Scores: 1st: CR (15)
2nd: GCR (8)
3rd: FCR (3)
Designers
A-2 Architect Design team DQR (5) Safety on site CR (3)
coordination
E-2 Engineer Completing within FCR (5) Achievement of design DQR (3) Availability of specialist DQR (1)
budget standards within contractors to build to
budget design
Scores: 1st: DQR (9)
2nd: FCR (5)
3rd: CR (5)
Quantity surveyor
QS-2 Quantity Procurement of labour FCR Weather condition FMR Getting the design right DQR
surveyor and material
Scores: 1st: FCR (5)
2nd: FMR (3)
3rd: DQR (1)
FMR, force majeure related; GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR, logistics and communication related; FCR, financial and
communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; CR, construction and site related; OR, operational related.
B.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings 229
The designers comprising the engineer and architect also generated risk perceptions in
the following order of ranking: design and quality related (first), financial and commercial
related (second), and construction related (third). The quantity surveyor’s generated
risk perceptions on the other hand were in the following order of ranking: financial and
commercial related (first), force majeure related (second), and design and quality related
(third).
Theoretical Issue 2
ground.
The related interview question is 24 (see Appendix A). The rationale behind this question
was to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on two hypothetical construction projects.
secured by design, and minimum 40% carbon reduction.


events (see Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Tables B.3–B.5.
There is further comparison of the data from the two hypothetical projects to check for
consistency and also examine the pattern of the generated risk perceptions for evidence of
differentiation along the lines of the research participants’ respective specialist background.
The consistency analysis was also meant for filtering out the other extraneous risk forma-
tion variables which are unrelated to specialist role affective heuristics.
The empirical findings have revealed evidence of differentiation within the generated
risk perceptions from the two hypothetical projects, with the pattern of categorisation being
consistent with the specialist background of the study participants. The consistency analysis
has also revealed the following:
– Design and quality related risk events were perceived by the architect and engineer.
– Logistics and communication related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor
and technical manager.
– Financial and commercial related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor,
project manager, and engineer.
– Legal and statutory approval related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor,
project manager, and architect.
– Construction related risk events were also perceived by the project manager and contracts
manager.
Table B.3 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project A.
Case study 2
for for
Risk perception PM-2 TM-2 CM-2 builders A-2 E-2 designers QS-2

Demolition and excavation Yes Yes
Site contaminations Yes Yes Yes
Design and quality related

Achievement of scheme Yes Yes Yes Yes
design standards
Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
services connections
Rights of light Yes Yes
Logistics and communication

related
Access and egress into the site Yes Yes Yes
Site setup and organisation Yes Yes
Financial and commercial

related
Completing within budget Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Legal and statutory approval

related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
permission and discharging
conditions
Achieving third party Yes
approval from train/tube
operators
Partywall issues resulting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
from adjoining properties
Political related
(Continued)
Table B.3 (Continued)
Case study 2
for for
Programming of construction Yes Yes Yes
works to achieve completion
date
Operational related
Evaluation of the evidence from the consistency analysis from the perspective of the dif-
ferent specialist roles has also revealed the following categorisations:
– The builders comprising the project manager, the technical manager, and the contracts
manager have exhibited diverse risk perceptions associated with logistics and communi-
cation, financial and commercial, legal and statutory, and construction related events.
– The designers comprising the architect and the engineer also displayed risk perceptions
relating to ground condition, design and quality, financial and commercial, and legal
and statutory approval events. Design and quality risk events were consistent in all the
responses.
– The quantity surveyor on the other hand has exhibited risk perceptions relating to finan-
cial and commercial, logistics and communication, and legal and statutory approval
events.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 1 and 2 have revealed sub-
stantial support for research proposition one. The findings on differentiation within the
study participants’ risk perceptions on the typical project risk events at the different con-
struction delivery phases and also under different hypothetical project settings have been
very consistent with the study’s theoretical predictions. The realisation of patterns of risk
perceptions correlating to the specialist background of the study participants has subse-
quently provided empirical support for the research novel proposition of systems differen-
tiation influencing risk perception categorisation within the construction project delivery
system.

the representative and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project sub group-
ings, run the risk of failing to adequately identify potential risk events. The underlining
theoretical issues are as follows:
Table B.4 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project B.
Case study 2
for for

Ground contamination Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ecological Yes Yes

Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes Yes

related
Access to the site Yes Yes
Delivery of material to the site Yes
Attracting sub contractors/ Yes Yes
labour to the project

related
Procuring subcontractors and Yes Yes Yes
labour
Completing within budget Yes Yes
Marketing of completed Yes Yes Yes Yes
properties

related
Difficulty in achieving Yes
statutory design standards
conditions
Political related
(Continued)
Case study 2
for for
Programming construction Yes Yes
works to achieve project
completion date
Operational related
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
– 4. The inherent subjectivity of perceptions makes it manipulative and less rational. Addi-
tional information could change risk perception even where the base situation has not
pants supported the study theoretical predictions.
Theoretical Issue 3
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the participants’ risk identification on the hypotheti-
cal projects corresponds to their availability heuristics (evident from their responses on the
common construction project risk events).
examined for evidence of the influence of grounded heuristics in the risk identification pro-
cesses, using hypothetical construction projects. The interview protocol was designed to
first collect data on the participants’ grounded heuristics before asking them to identify risk
events from hypothetical projects. The rational was to ascertain whether the risk identifi-
cation on the hypothetical projects was done intuitively through reliance on heuristics.
Table B.5 Consistency analysis of the risk perceptions from hypothetical projects A and B (Case 2).
Case Study 2
Cummulative for Commulative for

PM-2 TM-2 CM-2 Builders A-2 E-2 Designers QS-2
Questions &
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related

contamination
Site investigation Yes Yes
Ecological Yes Yes
Demolition & Yes Yes

excavation
Site Yes Yes Yes

contaminations
Yes
Design & Quality

Related
Achievement of Yes Yes Yes Yes

scheme design
standards
feasibility of
services
connections
Yes Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case Study 2
Cummulative for Commulative for

PM-2 TM-2 CM-2 Builders A-2 E-2 Designers QS-2
Questions &
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and egress Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

into the site
Attracting sub Yes Yes

contractors/
labour to the
project
Site setup and Yes Yes

organisation
Delivery of Yes
material to the
site
Yes Yes Yes
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

within budget
Procuring Yes Yes Yes

subcontractors
and labour
Marketing of Yes Yes Yes Yes

completed
properties
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Legal & Statutory
Approval Related
Achieving Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Achieving third Yes

party approval
from train/ tube
operators
Partywall issues Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

resulting from
adjoining
properties
Difficulty in Yes
achieving
statutory design
standards
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political Related
Construction
Related
Programming of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

construction
works to achieve
project
completion date
Safety on site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Operational
Related
grounded heuristics, against their risk identification on hypothetical projects. The risk
events have also been categorised using the table of construction project risk events
(Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table B.6.
The empirical findings have revealed substantial risk identification correlating with the
study participants’ grounded heuristics, which confirms reliance on the representative and
availability heuristics:
– QS-2: Two out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. Two out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project
– PM-2: Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Four out of the four risk identification from hypothetical
– TM-2: Two out of the five risk identification from hypothetical project A have correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. One out of the two risk identification from hypothetical project
– A-2: One out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A has corresponding
grounded heuristics. One out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project B
has corresponding grounded heuristics.
– E-2: Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. Two out of the two risk identification from hypothetical project
– CM-2: Two out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A has corre-
Theoretical Issue 4

and less rational. Additional information could change risk perception even where

The related interview questions are 24 and 25 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined to see if exposure to additional information (a schedule of construction
risk sources) can influence the risk identification process. The interview protocol was
designed to first solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical projects using
their grounded heuristics. The participants were later given a schedule of construction
risk sources to study and re-identify risk events from the same hypothetical projects. The
rational was to ascertain whether the introduction of additional information will alter their
previous risk evaluation. The risk identifications after the participants were provided with
Table B.6 Analysis of perception being formed from availability and representative heuristics (Case 2).
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Weather condition Yes
Ground Condition
Related
Excavation of site Yes
Previous landuse to Yes
establish ground
conditions
Ecological issues Yes
Unexpected ground Yes
conditions
Yes Yes No No No No Yes
Design & Quality
Related
Getting the design right Yes
at the concept stage
feasibility of service
connections
(Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Co ordination of Yes
Achieving scheme Yes Yes Yes

design standards
Availability of specialist Yes
contractors to build
Right of Light Yes

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Site access Yes Yes Yes
organisation of
construction plants
Site setup, welfare and Yes
deliveries
Delivery of material Yes
No No Yes Yes No
Financial &
Commercial Related
Procurement of labour Yes Yes Yes Yes
and materials
Completing within Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
budget
properties
Insolvency of suppliers Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Legal and Statutory
Approval Related
permissions &
discharge of conditions
Ownership of land Yes
Third party issues- Yes Yes Yes Yes
partywall, etc
including building
regulations
No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes
Political Related
(Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Construction & Site
Related
Planning and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
programming of the
construction works
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Operational Related
additional information have been termed exposed heuristics, denoting that they have been
generated based on exposure to additional information which has become assimilated
initial risk identification on the hypothetical projects, against their subsequent risk iden-
tification on the same hypothetical projects following exposure to additional assessment
information. The risk events have also been categorised using the table of construction
project risk events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table B.7.
the study participants were exposed to additional assessment information, which confirms
the vulnerability of perception to being manipulated. The changes in risk identification
profiles were observed in the responses from all the participants. As an illustration, the
technical manager whose initial risk appraisal concentrated on health and safety events,
subsequently expanded his responses to include other risk categories after being exposed
to the schedule of construction risk sources. The changes occurred even though the project
settings have not been altered.
The changes in risk identification profiles were observed in the responses from all the
participants:
– QS-2: One out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Two out of the five risk assessment categories on
– PM-2: Two out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
different from the initial assessment. Two out of the five risk assessment categories on
– TM-2: One out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
– A-2: One out of the three risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Two out of the three risk assessment categories on
– E-2: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. One out of the two risk assessment categories on
– CM-2: Two out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
Theoretical Issue 5
where there is no possibility of impact, the subject may fail to recognise the uncertainty
as a risk event.
Table B.7 Analysis of the influence of additional information (exposed heuristics) on perception formation (Case 2).
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Landslips Yes Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes
Flood destructions Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polution from adjoining Yes Yes
sites
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site investigations Yes
No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Availability and feasibility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Achieving scheme design Yes Yes
standards
Right of Light Yes
Design constraints/ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
opportunities resulting
from surveys
Accuracy and Yes
appriopriateness of design
specification
Accuracy of Yes
investigations to feed into
design
Coordinating design Yes Yes
with construction
method
Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes
Logistics &
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site setup and Yes
organisation of
construction plants
Delivery of material to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Related
Procurement of labour and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
materials
Completing within budget Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
properties
Constructors and Yes
supplier’s default
Inflation rate Yes
Fluctuations in market Yes Yes Yes
demands
Project cash flow Yes
No No No Yes No No Yes
(Continued)
TableB.7 (Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 P M-2 TM-2 A-2
Questions & Responses E-2 C M-2
Legal and Statutory 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B
Approval Related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
conditions
Third party issues- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
partywall, etc
Statutory approvals Yes Yes Yes
including building
regulations
No No No No No
Political Related
Differences between Yes
regional and national
laws and regulations
Differences in stakeholder Yes
expectations
Yes Yes
Construction & Site Related
Safety Yes Yes Yes
Planning and Yes Yes Yes Yes
programming of the
construction works
Suitability of construction Yes Yes
method
No No Yes No
Operational Related
Ensuring fitness for purpose Yes
Yes
The related interview question is 24 (see Appendix A). The study data has been exam-
protocol was designed to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project
settings using their grounded heuristics.
risk identification on the hypothetical project settings, against the project cumulative risk
identification profiles, to reveal the items missed by each participant. The risk events have
findings have been summarised in Tables B.8–B.10.
The data from the two hypothetical project settings has been further analysed for consis-
tency in the participants’ missed risk events.
The empirical evidence and consistency examination have revealed that exclusion of
a specialist role from the risk identification exercise would have resulted in some of the
risk events being missed. The individual responses have revealed some risk events being
perceived by singular specialist roles. The contracts manager with his 36 years extensive
experience was the only participant to have perceived right of light as a possible risk to hypo-
thetical project A. The project architect with his six years architectural experiences in roles
including coordination of planning validation site surveys, likewise, was the only partici-
pant to have perceived ecological constraints as possible risk to hypothetical project B. This
suggest that exclusion of the contract manager and architect from the risk identification
exercise may have resulted in the missing of the associated risk events, with consequential
impact on the ensuing risk management response and project performance, assuming the
hypothetical projects and risk events to be real.
Issues 3–5. Their responses were spontaneous and effortless, suggesting intuitive decision
processing.
The empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 3–5 have provided substantial support
for research proposition 2. The findings have revealed substantial correlation between
the research participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project settings and their
initial grounded heuristics on hypothetical construction project risk events, which suggest
intuitive decision processing based on the representative and availability heuristics. All
the study participants altered their risk evaluation after they were exposed to additional
assessment information in the form of a schedule of construction risk sources, which also
confirms the ease by which perceptions can be manipulated. Analysis of the individual
participants’ responses against the cumulative case responses has also revealed individual
missed risk events outside the respective specialist backgrounds, thereby validating the
research proposition of restricted risk management practices impairing robust risk identi-
fication and decision-making, especially the risk categories associated with the specialist
background of the excluded roles.
Table B.8 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical Project Scenario A.
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2

Total Risk Project Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Perceptions risk risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed-
of 24A events events project events project events project events project events project events project
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
excavation
Site Yes Yes Yes
contaminations
Design & Quality
Related
Achievement of Yes Yes Yes
scheme design
standards
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes
feasibility of
services
connections
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and egress Yes Yes Yes
into the site
organisation
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
within budget
Missed Missed
Legal &
Statutory
Approval Related
Achievingn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Achieving third Yes Yes
party approval
from train/ tube
operators
Partywall issues Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
resulting from
adjoining
properties
(Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2

Total Risk Project Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Perceptions risk risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed-
of 24A events events project events project events project events project events project events project
Political Related
Construction
Related
construction
works to achieve
completion date
Operational
Related

Key
Table B.9 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical Project Scenario B.
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Total Risk Project Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Perceptions risk Individual Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed- risk Missed-
of 24B events risk events project events project events project events project events project events project
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
contamination
Site Yes Yes
investigations
Ecological Yes Yes
Missed Missed
Design & Qulity
Related
feasibility of
services
connections
(Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access to the site Yes Yes
Delivery of Yes Yes
material to the site
contractors/
labour to the
project
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Procuring Yes Yes Yes
subcontractors
and labour
Completing Yes Yes
within budget
Marketing of Yes Yes Yes
completed
properties
Missed Missed
Legal &
Statutory
Approval Related
Difficulty in Yes Yes
achieving
statutory design
standards
Achieving Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Political Related
Construction
Related
Programming Yes Yes
construction
works to achieve
project
completion date
(Continued)
Case Study 2
QS-2 PM-2 TM-2 A-2 E-2 CM-2
Operational
Related

Key
Table B.10 Consistency analysis of missed risk events.
Missed risk events Missed risk events Consistent missed

Reference Specialist role – 24A – 24B risk event
QS-2 Quantity surveyor DQR, CR GCR, CR CR

PM-2 Project manager GCR, LCR DQR, LCR LCR
TM-2 Technical manager GCR, DQR DQR, FCR, LSAR, CR DQR
A-2 Architect DQR, FCR, CR LCR, FCR, CR FCR, CR
E-2 Engineer LCR; CR GCR, LCR, LSAR, CR LCR, CR
CM-2 Contracts manager GCR, LCR, FCR DQR, LSAR None
related; FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related;
CR, construction related.
ment techniques. The underlining theoretical issues are as follows:
2010).
2010).
Theoretical Issue 6
and Kuotcha 2010).
examined for evidence on the level of knowledge and application of rational techniques
within the construction risk management decision-making subsystems. The interview pro-
tocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and decision processing by allowing the
participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 2 have been summarised in Figures B.1–B.9 and
Table B.11.
c. Continuing professional developments (CPDs) and seminars on project risk manage-
ment (………)
Management, MSc Risk Management (………)
Findings: The responses have been presented in Figure B.1.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure B.1 Level of education/training in risk management systems.

Figure B.2. Figure B.3 also categorises the responses into intuitive and rational techniques.
Others 0%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00%12.00%14.00%
Figure B.2 Risk management techniques known by the participants (all responses).
Rational,
25.49%
Intuitive,
74.51%
Figure B.3 Risk management techniques known by the participants (categorisation into intuitive
and rational).
Findings: The responses against the applied risk management techniques have been
presented in Figure B.4. Figure B.5 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Observation and analysis of plans – Intuitive 3%
Monte Carlo simulation/ analysis – Rational 0%
Worse/ best case scenario – Intuitive 11.43%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 4.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Figure B.4 Risk management techniques applied (all responses).

Rational, 8.57%
Intuitive,
91.43%
Figure B.5 Risk management techniques applied (categorisation into intuitive and rational).
Interview Question 10 On a scale of 1–3 please rank the top three (3) techniques which
you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select from
the following list – Risk register, Probability matrix, Fault tree, Personal feelings and values,
Personal experiences (heuristics), Risk breakdown analysis, Worse/best-case scenario, Monte
Carlo simulation/analysis, Brainstorming, Failure mode and effect analysis, Fish bone, Cul-
tural believes, Gut feeling (please note: A scale of 1 represents the highest preference, and a
scale of 3 represents the lowest preference).
2nd ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………….……………………………
presented in Figure B.6. Figure B.7 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Observation and analysis of plans – Intuitive 2%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%
Figure B.6 Risk management techniques preferred (all responses).
Rational, 7.41%
Intuitive,
92.59%
Figure B.7 Risk management techniques preferred (categorisation into intuitive and rational).
and preferred has been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the responses that could
been presented in Figures B.8 and B.9.
Observation and analysis of plans – Intuitive

Cultural beliefscIntuitive
Failure mode and effect analysis – Rational
Monte Carlo simulation/ analysis – Rational
Risk breakdown analysis – Rational
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive
Probability matrix – Rational
Gut feeling – Intuitive
Fish bone – Rational
Brainstorming – Intuitive
Worse/ best case scenario – Intuitive
Personal experiences (heuristics) – Intuitive
Fault tree – Rational
Risk register – Intuitive
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure B.8 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred.
100.00% 91.43% 92.59%
90.00%
80.00% 74.51%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
25.49%
30.00%
20.00%
8.57% 7.41%
10.00%
0.00%
Intuitive 74.51% 91.43% 92.59%
Rational 25.49% 8.57% 7.41%
Figure B.9 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred
across the three assessment variables, which suggest that the risk management practices of
the research participants within the short term will continue to utilise intuitive thinking and
decision-making. The individual participants’ responses have confirmed sole reliance on
intuitive technique for all the specialist roles, apart from the project manager and technical
manager. The contracts manager who was also the project director confirmed that most
private developers do not follow structured risk management systems. His observation in
the course of 36 years industry experience has been the use of internal subsidiary contractor
to complete a risk register at project commencement to satisfy corporate due diligence, with
subsequent reliance on personal experiences and gut feelings to manage day-to-day project
risk events.
The limited knowledge and application of rational risk management techniques among
the case study participants may be partly attributed to the low level of training and educa-
tion in project risk management tools and techniques presented in Figure B.1.
various risk management techniques has been addressed in Interview Question 11.

3rd ranked technique ……………………………………….………………………………
Findings: The findings have been presented in Table B.11.
Theoretical Issue 7
The related interview questions are 12–14 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined for evidence on preference for construction risk management data pre-
sentation format. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking
and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the
questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 2 have been summarised in Figures B.10–B.17.
Table B.11 Factors influencing risk management technique preference.
Case study 2
Risk register Good for risk allocation and as an audit trail for 1
checking risk management responses
Enable all project risk to be documented in a single 1
document for monitoring and treatment
Simple way of recording and presenting project risk 2
from project inception
Familiar method of risk identification and treatment 1
Personal experience Opportunity to draw from lessons learnt on previous 3
projects
Instinctive way of identifying risk 1
Brainstorming Opportunity to utilise knowledge from all the project 1
team rather than just one person
Personal feeling and Opportunity to utilise the wealth of professional 1
values experiences in project risk management
Risk breakdown analysis Enable risk to be broken down for better clarity 1
Monte Carlo An opportunity to transfer build-up experience into 1
simulation/analysis project risk identification and treatment
Worse/best case scenario Instinctive way of identifying risk 1
Opportunity to analysis risk associated with different 2
project scenarios
Observation and analysis Practical way of identifying design risk 1
of plans
Gut feeling Use your experience in risk identification and 1
treatment

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
been presented in Figure B.10. Figure B.11 also categorises the responses into qualitative
Using different colours to rank severity of risk – 2.63%

Qualitative
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00%12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Figure B.10 Risk management data presentation formats known.
Figure B.11 Risk management

data presentation formats known
(categorisation into qualitative and
36.84%
63.16%

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Using different colours to rank severity of risk – Qualitative 8.70%
0.00%2.00%4.00% 6.00%8.00%10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%
Figure B.12 Risk management data presentation formats applied.

(categorised into qualitative and
39.13% quantitative formats).
60.87%
Interview Question 14 On a scale of 1–3, please rank the top three (3) risk data presentation
select from the following list – Narratives, Probabilities, Qualitative statements, Whole num-
bers, Graphs, Ratios, Fractions, Scenarios, and Simulations (please note: A scale of 1 represents
the highest preference, and a scale of 3 represents the lowest preference).

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Using different colours to rank severity of risk – Qualitative 9.43%
Whole numbers – Qualitative
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Figure B.14 Risk management data presentation formats preferred.

data presentation formats
preferred (categorised into
qualitative and quantitative). 43.40%
56.60%
known, applied, and preferred has been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the
tices. The evidence has been presented in Figures B.16 and B.17.
Others
Sketches and mark-ups on drawings –Qualitative 5.00
1.00
1.00
Using different colours to rank severity of 5.00
2.00
risk – Qualitative 1.00
Scenarios – Qualitative 7.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Ratios – Quantitative 3.00
4.00
Whole numbers – Qualitative Preferred
4.00
6.00 Applied
Probabilities – Quantitative 4.00
5.00 Known
5.00
Simulations – Qualitative 2.00
4.00
11.00
Graphs – Quantitative 2.00
5.00
4.00
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 3.00
5.00
4.00
Narrative – Qualitative 4.00
6.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Figure B.16 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied, and
preferred.
70.00% 63.16%
60.87%
60.00% 56.60%
50.00% 43.40%
39.13%
36.84%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Qualitative 63.16% 60.87% 56.60%
Quantitative 36.84% 39.13% 43.40%
Figure B.17 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied, and
The evidence from the trend analysis has revealed comparatively higher responses
for qualitative data presentation formats across the three assessment variables, which
suggest prolonged existence for the research participants’ current risk management
practice of qualitative data processing. The individual responses have also revealed
preference for qualitative risk data presentation for all the specialist roles. The quantity
surveyor asserted that pictorial risk data presentation formats including the use of differ-
ent colours and illustrations for risk classification, enhances visual appreciation of the
risk event.
Notwithstanding the above, the trend analysis has revealed disparities between the
proportions of applied systems of risk data presentation formats (60.87% qualitative against
39.84% quantitative) versus the systems of applied risk management techniques presented
under Theoretical Issue 6 (94.43% intuitive against 8.75% rational). There is also a pattern
of progressive increase in the application and preference for quantitative data presentation
formats, which also appears theoretically incompatible with the trend analysis of compar-
ative reduction in application and preference for rational risk management techniques,
presented under Theoretical Issue 6. The previous theoretical discussion on the need for
complementarity between a decision processing system and its data presentation format
(Kahneman 2011) suggests the likelihood of psychological conflicts and reduced accuracy
in the risk analysis output of the case study participants.
Theoretical Issue 8
Findings: The findings from case study 2 have been summarised in Table B.12 and
Figures B.18–B.20.
Please indicate by selecting from the following list: summation, probability density func-
tion, probability function, sample mean, population mean, median, variance, standard devi-
ation, sample standard deviation, and don’t know.
Symbol Name
P(A)
S
∑
Findings: The responses have been summarised in Table B.12.
Table B.12 Level of knowledge and understanding of

statistical symbols.
Case study 2
Statistical No of correct Percentages

symbol responses (%)
P(A) 2 out of 6 33.33

s 0 out of 6 0.00
∑
3 out of 6 50.00
𝜇 0 out of 6 0.00
Interview Question 16–18: Please use the hypothetical risk evaluations represented in the
table below to answer questions 16–18.
Probability of Probability of
Risk event occurrence impact
A 1/7 30/35
B 97.9% 84%
C 1 : 9743 4:5

Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Findings: The percentage of correct responses has been presented in Figure B.18.
Figure B.18 Risk events certain to 0.00%

occur.
100.00%
Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Figure B.19 Risk event certain

not to occur. 16.67%
83.33%
Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
All (risk events A, B, and C) …………………… . . . .
None of the risk events ………………………… . . . .
Don’t know ……………………………………………
0.00% Figure B.20 Risk event certain to

100.00%
Table B.12). The project manager asserted that most construction professionals do
not use statistics in their regular activities. He attributed this to a general perception
that statistical data presentation is usually applied when professionals want to deceive
laymen.
– 1 out of 18 correct responses for the probability assessments which represents 5.56%.
A significant empirical observation is the wrong responses from the project manager,
technical manager, engineer, and contracts manager whose other research responses
confirms sole reliance on intuitive risk analysis of data formats including quantitative
probability. Another significant empirical discovery is the erroneous linkage of higher
probability prediction to certainty of occurrence of an event, which may have resulted
from a general lack of understanding of the probability concept.
Theoretical Issue 9
The related interview questions are 19 and 20 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined for evidence on the participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of
qualitative and quantitative assessments. The interview protocol was designed to stimu-
late intuitive thinking and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to
Findings: The findings from case study 2 have been summarised in Figures B.21 and B.22
and Table B.13.
Figure B.21 Assessment of 0.00%

quantitative probability equations.
100.00%
B. out of every projects overrun their initial budget (………)
project A recorded a final cost higher than the initial budget estimate (………)
Figure B.22 Assessment of

qualitative probability equations. 33.33%
66.67%

– Qualitative probability equation: Four out of six correct responses representing 66.67%.
– Quantitative probability equation: Zero out of six correct response representing 0%.
Another significant evidence is the composition of the wrong responses. Five out of
the six wrong respondents selected the probability equation expressed in percentages,
representing 83.33% of the wrong responses. Further questioning on the rationale
behind the preference for the ‘percentage equation’ format revealed the following
responses:
tion – two responses.
b. Percentages are what we use in our everyday working life – one response.
c. Percentages are easy to understand – two responses.
There were two further supplementary questions to solicit empirical evidence on the par-
ticipants’ experience with answering the two forms of probability equations. The findings
have been presented in Table B.13.
Table B.13 Participants’ experience with answering the quantitative and qualitative probability
equations.
Supplementary question Assessment format Response Percentage (%)
1. Which of the questions was easy to Quantitative 3 out of 6 50

understand and answer? Qualitative 3 out of 6 50
2. Which of the question formats do they Quantitative 3 out of 6 50
think would be understood and appreciated Qualitative 3 out of 6 50
by most construction professionals?
The empirical evidence revealed balanced responses for both quantitative and qualita-
tive data presentation formats. The indifference in the study participants’ experience and
the preceding empirical observation of low accuracy in intuitive risk analysis of quanti-
tative probability equations may have resulted from the psychological conflict of mixing
tools and techniques from the different systems of thinking, discussed under Theoretical
Issue 7.
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals insensitivity
to different ranges of hypothetical probability predictions of asbestos contamination
risk.
The related interview questions are 21i–21iii (see Appendix A). The study data has been
the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 2 have been summarised in Table B.14.
Table B.14 The impact of probability predictions on events which evokes strong affective
memories.
Hypothetical occurrence based impact based on Appropriate Responses/
setting on initial survey initial survey risk response percentages
21i 95% probability 99% probability Appoint a licenced 6 out of 6

of mesothelioma of death contractor to carry out (100%)
causing asbestos resulting from further surveys to
fibre contami- exposure identify and remove the
nation on 100% asbestos before the
of the site commencement of
construction works
21ii 10% probability 50% probability Appoint a licenced 5 out of 6
of of asbestos contractor to carry out (83.33%)
non-malignant infection further surveys to
asbestos identify and remove the
contamination asbestos before the
on 10% of the commencement of
site construction works
Carry on construction 1 out of 6
works at the (16.67%)
non-contaminated area
whilst carrying out
further investigations at
the remaining areas to
identify and remove any
asbestos residue
21iii 1% probability of 1% probability of Appoint a licenced 5 out of 6
non-malignant non-malignant contractor to carry out (83.33%)
asbestos pleural infection further surveys to
contamination identify and remove the
within a specific asbestos before the
1% area of the commencement of
Carry on construction 1 out of 6
works at the (16.67%)
non-contaminated area
whilst carrying out
further investigations at
the remaining areas to
identify and remove any
asbestos residue
Interview Question 21 Asbestos related illness has been a major cause of construction
occupational death. According to the Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom,
there has been a recent surge in asbestos related illness and deaths (see the table and
pictures below).
Asbestos-related
cancer mesothelioma
Year deaths Asbestosis death
1968 153
2009 2321 411
2010 2347 412
2011 2291 429
2012 2535 464
Source: Adobe Stock


A 95% probability of 99% probability of …………………………………

mesothelioma causing death resulting from …………………………………
asbestos fibre exposure
contamination on
100% of the site


non-malignant asbestos infection …………………………………
asbestos
contamination on 10%
of the site

A 1% probability of 1% probability of ……………………………………

non-malignant non-malignant pleural ……………………………………
asbestos infection
contamination within
a specific 1% area of
the site
Findings: The study participants’ risk responses under the different probability predic-
tions have been presented in Table B.14.
The empirical evidence has revealed significant insensitivity to the different ranges of
hypothetical probability predictions on asbestos contamination. 83.33% of the participants
consistently responded that they would appoint a licensed contractor to carry out further
asbestos surveys to identify and remove asbestos contaminated materials before they com-
mence site construction works. The different levels of probability risk predictions could
not alter their responses, not even for the very low probability prediction of non-malignant
contamination within a small specified area. The contracts manager who confirmed los-
ing his father from mesothelioma in the preceding year was very emotional during the
interrogations. He indicated that his risk response to asbestos contamination will always
be avoidance irrespective of the probability estimate. His zero tolerance to asbestos risk
may have been precipitated by an inducement of a strong affective feeling associated with
his previous bitter experience of observing his father dying from asbestos cancer.
discomfort for some of the participants during the interrogations, especially the statistical
symbols on the internet and process the quantitative equations with calculators. When this
was denied, the frustration became evident in their body language, confirming the psy-
chological conflict they were facing in attempting intuitive processing of quantitative data
formats.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 6–10 has provided substan-
tial support for research proposition 3. The findings have revealed intuitive dominated risk
management practices and limited training and education in formal risk management sys-
tems. There is also evidence of disparities between the systems of applied and preferred risk
management techniques versus the applied and preferred risk data presentation formats,
with evidence of intuitive processing of theoretically incompatible quantitative probability
data. The study participants have demonstrated low proficiency in statistical symbols and
probability judgement. They have also exhibited reasonable accuracy for intuitive evalua-
tion of qualitative data, a complete failure for intuitive evaluation of quantitative data, and
insensitivity to probability predictions of emotive events.
279
Appendix C
Appendix C presents the empirical evidence from case study 3. The findings have been pre-
in Section 6.2. The findings for the propositions have been further organised under sepa-
rate headings relating to the underlining theoretical issues. The presentation has adopted
the question and answer approach. The interview questions relating to each theoretical
issue have been described in Appendix A.
C.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings

the construction project delivery system occur along the lines of the internal subgroup-
– 1. Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions among the system
2010).
The presentation of findings has been organised under two headings corresponding to the
above theoretical issues. The findings have been analysed to test the extent to which the
pants supported the study theoretical predictions of risk perception categorisations defined
Theoretical Issue 1
– Theoretical issue 1: Systems differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
280 Appendix C Case 3 Data Presentation

The related interview questions are Interview Question 22 and Interview Question 23
(see Appendix A). The rationale behind these questions was to solicit the participants’ rank-
ing of the typical construction project risk events at the pre- and post-construction phases.
The interview protocol was designed to facilitate the generation of risk perceptions from
the participants’ inherent heuristics at a time when they have not been introduced to any
immediate project information. The responses from these questions have therefore been
termed grounded heuristics, denoting that they have been generated based on the research
participants’ store of previous experiences which over time have become grounded within
their knowledge base.
The empirical findings have been summarised in Table C.1.
The differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising the project manager and con-
tracts manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: legal and statu-
tory approval related (first), construction related (second), and ground condition related
(third). The designers comprising the engineer and architect also generated risk percep-
tions in the following order of ranking: design and quality related (first), ground condition
related (second), and construction related (third). The quantity surveyor’s generated risk
perceptions on the other hand were in the following order of ranking: ground condition
related (first), construction related (second), and financial and commercial related (third).
The client generated risk perceptions were also of the following ranking: ground condition
related (first), legal and statutory approval related (second), and logistics and communica-
tion related (third).
In summary, the empirical findings have revealed evidence of differentiation within
the study participants’ risk perceptions on the typical pre-construction phase project
risk events. Apart from ground condition related risk events which appeared common
in most of the responses, the remaining generated risk perceptions exhibited reasonable
correlation with the study participants’ specialist background. The universality of ‘ground
condition related’ risk perceptions may have resulted from the dominant influence of
an associated construction industry affective heuristics component (Finucane et al. 2003;
Slovic et al. 2010) within the study participants’ risk identification transformational
systems (Walker 2007, 2015), leading to the generation of associated ‘ground condition
related’ risk perceptions (Benthin et al. 1993).
C.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings 281
Table C.1 Risk events at the pre-construction phase.

Builders
PM-3 Project Achieving LSAR (5) Ecological issues GCR (3) Availability DQR (1)
manager planning and feasibility
permission and of service
discharge of connections
conditions
CM-3 Contracts Achieving CR (5) Third party LSAR (3)
manager project issues – partywall,
completion etc.
within
programme
Scores:
1st: LSAR (8)
2nd: CR (5)
3rd: GCR (3)
Designers
A-3 Architect Contamination GCR (5) Asbestos GCR (3) Impact of DQR (1)
of site existing
service layout
on design
E-3 Engineer Getting the DQR (5) Availability of DQR (3) Planning and CR (1)
design right at design programming
the concept information and of the
stage specification construction
works
Scores:
1st: DQR (9)
2nd: GCR (8)
3rd: CR (1)
Quantity surveyor
QS-3 Quantity Site constraints GCR (5) Planning and CR (3) Procurement FCR (1)
surveyor e.g. congested programming of of labour and
site the construction materials
works
Scores:
1st: GCR (5)
2nd: CR (3)
3rd: FCR (1)
Client
CDM-3 Client Contamination GCR (5) Third party LSAR (3) Site access LCR (1)
develop- of site issues – partywall,
ment etc.
manager
Scores:
1st: GCR (5)
2nd: LSAR (3)
3rd: LCR (1)
FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; CR, construction related.
Findings: The responses have been presented in Table C.2 using the same format as the
The empirical evidence on the typical construction phase risk events at the construction
phase has also revealed differentiation within the generated risk perceptions, with a pattern
of categorisation corresponding with the study participants’ specialist backgrounds. The
differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising the project manager and contracts
manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: ground condition
related (first), legal and statutory approval related (second), and financial and commercial
related (third). The designers comprising the engineer and architect also generated risk per-
ceptions in the following order of ranking: financial and commercial related (first), ground
condition and construction related (second), and design and quality related (third). The
quantity surveyor’s generated risk perceptions on the other hand were in the following
order of ranking: financial and commercial related (first), construction related (second),
and ground condition related (third). The client generated risk perceptions were all con-
struction related. Upon further interrogations, the client confirmed previously working as
a site manager before embarking on a career change into his present role.
Theoretical Issue 2
– Theoretical issue 2: The differences in objectives of differentiated subsystems (Carmichael
2006; Loosemore et al. 2006) suggest that the impact of environmental forces will result
in differences in affective heuristics, and therefore differences in perceptions within the
system components – different specialist roles.
ground.
The related interview question is numbered Interview Question 24 (see Appendix A).
The rationale behind this question was to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on two
hypothetical construction project settings.
Interview Question 24 The following pictures depict hypothetical sites (edged in bold
front) being considered for residential development. The project is at the inception stage
with the following key project objectives:
Table C.2 Risk events at the construction phase.

Builders
PM-3 Project Unexpected GCR (5) Ground GCR (3) Weather FMR (1)
manager archaeological conditions – conditions
findings contaminations
CM-3 Contracts Achieving LSAR (5) Completing FCR (3)
manager planning within budget
permission and
discharge of
conditions
Scores:
1st: GCR (8)
2nd: LSAR (5)
3rd: FCR (3)
Designers
A-3 Architect Ground GCR (5) Completing FCR (3) Impact of DQR (1)
conditions – within budget existing
contaminations service layout
on design
E-3 Engineer Construction CR (5) Payment delays FCR (3) Client design DQR (1)
phasing and changes/
sequencing variations
Scores:
1st: FCR (6)
2nd: GCR and CR (5)
3rd: DQR (2)
Quantity surveyor
QS-3 Quantity Procurement of FCR (5) Construction CR (3) Unexpected GCR (1)
surveyor labour and techniques ground
material condition
Scores:
1st: FCR (5)
2nd: CR (3)
3rd: GCR (1)
Client
CDM-3 Client Safety on site CR Working at height CR Site excava- CR
development tions/service
manager diversion
Scores:
1st: CR (8)
2nd: –
3rd: –
FMR, force majeure related; GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; FCR, financial and
communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; CR, construction related.


events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Tables C.3–C.5.
Table C.3 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project A.
Case study 3
Risk perception PM-3 CM-3 for builders A-3 E-3 for engineers QS-3 CDM-3
Ground condition
related
Site contaminations Yes Yes Yes
Archeological findings Yes Yes
Demolition – asbestos Yes
Design and quality

related
Achievement of scheme Yes Yes
design standards
connections
Design coordination Yes
Logistics and
Access and egress into Yes Yes
the site
organisation
Access for delivery Yes Yes Yes Yes
vehicles
labour
Financial and
commercial related
Completing within Yes Yes
budget
Subcontractor Yes
procurement
(Continued)
Table C.3 (Continued)
Case study 3
Risk perception PM-3 CM-3 for builders A-3 E-3 for engineers QS-3 CDM-3
Legal and statutory

approval related
permission and
Third party issues Yes Yes
Partywall issues Yes
resulting from
adjoining properties
Political related
Programming of Yes
achieve completion
date
Operational related
Ensuring building Yes
meets the needs of
prospective tenants
(fitness for purpose)
There is further comparison of the data from the two hypothetical projects to check for
consistency and also to examine the pattern of the generated risk perceptions for evidence of
differentiation along the lines of the research participants’ respective specialist background.
The consistency analysis was also meant for filtering out the other extraneous risk forma-
tion variables which are unrelated to specialist role affective heuristics.
risk perceptions from the two hypothetical projects, with the pattern of categorisation being
consistent with the specialist background of the study participants. The consistency analysis
has also revealed the following:
– Ground condition related risk events were perceived by the project manager and quantity
surveyor.
Table C.4 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project B.
Case study 3
Risk perception PM-3 CM-3 for builders A-3 E-3 for designers QS-3 CDM-3
Weather Yes Yes
Fire Yes
Ground condition
related
Ground contamination Yes
Contamination Yes
resulting from previous
landuse
Ecological Yes Yes Yes
Archeological findings Yes Yes
Design and quality

related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
connections
Achieving lifetime Yes Yes
homes standards
within site constraints
Parking provisions Yes Yes
Achieving 50 units Yes Yes
within the area of the
site
Logistics and
Access to the site Yes
contractors/labour to
the project
Financial and
commercial related
Supply chains – Yes Yes
procurement of
materials
(Continued)
Case study 3
Risk perception PM-3 CM-3 for builders A-3 E-3 for designers QS-3 CDM-3
Legal and statutory

approval related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes
permission and
Political related
Site security Yes
Foundation solution Yes
Operational related
Getting residents to Yes
occupy completed
properties
– Design and quality related risk events were perceived by the project manager, architect,
client development manager, and engineer.
– Logistics and communication related risk events were perceived by the contracts man-
ager, and quantity surveyor.
– Legal and statutory approval related risk events were perceived by the project manager
and architect.
– Construction related risk event was also perceived by the quantity surveyor.
Operational related risk event was perceived by the client development manager.
ferent specialist roles has also revealed the following categorisations consistent with the
differences in specialist background:
– The builders comprising the project manager and the contracts manager have exhibited
risk perceptions associated with ground condition, design and quality, logistics and com-
munication, and legal and statutory related events.
relating to design and quality and legal and statutory approval events. Design and quality
risk events were consistent in all of the responses.
Table C.5 Consistency analysis of the risk perceptions from hypothetical projects A & B (Case 3).
Case Study 3

PM-3 CM-3 Builders A-3 E-3 Designers QS-3 CDM-3
Questions &
Force Majeure
Related
Weather Yes Yes
Fire Yes
Ground
Condition
Related
Site Yes Yes Yes

contaminations
Archeological Yes Yes

findings
Demolition- Yes
asbestos

findings
Ground Yes
contamination
Contamination Yes
resulting from
previous landuse
Yes Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case Study 3

Questions &
Design & Quality

Related

scheme design
standards
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
feasibility of
services
connections
Design Yes Yes

coordination
Achieviing Yes Yes

lifetime homes
standards within
site constraints
Parking Yes Yes

provisions
Achieving ther Yes Yes

50 units withiin
the area of
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and Yes Yes Yes Yes

egress into

organisation
Access for Yes Yes Yes Yes

delivery vehicles
Availability of Yes Yes
specilist labour

contractors/
labour to the
project
Yes Yes Yes
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes

within budget
Subcontractor Yes
procurement
Supply Yes Yes

chains-
procurement of
materials
Legal & Statutory

Approval Related
Achieving Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
3rd party issues Yes Yes
Partywall issues Yes

resulting from
adjoining
properties
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political Related
(Continued)
Case Study 3

Questions &
Construction
Related
Programming of Yes Yes

construction
works to achieve
completion date
Working at Yes
height
Site security Yes Yes
Foundation Yes
solution
Yes
Operational
Related
Ensuring Yes
building meets
the needs of
prospective
tenants (fitness
for purpose)
Getting residents Yes

to occupy
completed
properties
Yes
– The quantity surveyor on the other hand has exhibited risk perceptions relating to logis-
tics and communication, ground condition, and construction events.
– The client has also displayed risk perceptions associated with operational and design and
quality related events.
research proposition 1. The findings have revealed differentiation in risk perception
categorisations on the typical construction project risk events at the pre-construction;
and actual construction delivery phases, and also for risk assessments under different
project settings, with the pattern of differentiation correlating with the study participants’
specialist background. The realisation of consistent findings under the different project
delivery phases and settings have invariably confirmed the research novel theoretical
proposition of systems differentiation influencing risk perception categorisation within the
construction project delivery system, with the pattern reflecting the differences in affective
heuristics of the assembled specialist roles.

The second research proposition advances that intuitive risk management practices
under the representative and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project
subgroupings, run the risk of failing to adequately identify potential risk events. The
underlining theoretical issues are as follows:
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
– 4. The inherent subjectivity of perceptions make it manipulative and less rational. Addi-
Theoretical Issue 3
cal project settings corresponds to their availability heuristics (evident from their responses
on the common construction project risk events).
examined for evidence of the influence of grounded heuristics in the risk identification
processes, using hypothetical construction project settings. The interview protocol was
designed to first collect data on the participants’ grounded heuristics before asking them
to identify risk events from hypothetical projects. The rational was to ascertain whether
the risk identification on the hypothetical project settings was done intuitively through
reliance on heuristics.
grounded heuristics, against their risk identification on hypothetical project settings. The
(Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table C.6.
The empirical findings have revealed substantial risk identification correlating with the
participants’ grounded heuristics, which confirms reliance on the representative and avail-
ability heuristics:
sponding grounded heuristics. Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical
– CM-3: One out of the two risk identification from hypothetical project A has correspond-
B has corresponding grounded heuristics.
– QS-3: Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
– A-3: One out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A has correspond-
– CDM-3: Two out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. One out of the four risk identification from hypothetical
project B has corresponding grounded heuristics.
– E-3: One out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A has correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. One out of the one risk identification from hypothetical project
Theoretical Issue 4
Table C.6 Analysis of perception being formed from availability and representative heuristics (Case 3).
Case study 3
PM-3 CM-3 QS-3 A-3 CDM-3 E-3
Weather condition Yes Yes
Fire Yes
No No
Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Previous landuse to establish Yes
ground conditions
Site constraints, eg congested Yes
site
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes
Asbestos Yes Yes
Unexpected ground conditions Yes
Unexpected archeological Yes Yes Yes
findings
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Getting the design right at the Yes
concept stage
Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
service connections
(Continued)
TableC.6 (Continued)
Case study 3
PM-3 CM-3 Q -3S
Questions & Responses A-3 C M-3D E-3
Impact of existing service 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22
Yes & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B
layouts on design
Co ordination of design team Yes
standards
Achieving lifetime home Yes
standards within site
constraints
Parking provisions Yes
Availability of design Yes
information and specification
Client design changes/ Yes
variations
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Logistics &
Site setup and organisation of Yes
construction plants
Availability of specialist labour Yes
Access for delivery vehicles Yes
No No No No Yes No
Related
Procurement of labour Yes Yes Yes
and material
Completing within budget Yes Yes Yes
Supply chains management Yes
Yes Yes No
Legal and Statutory
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

conditions
Third party Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Political Related

Safety Yes
Planning and programming of Yes Yes Yes
the construction works
Achieving project completion Yes
within programme
Site Security Yes
Construction technique Yes
No Yes Yes No
Operational Related
Getting residents to occupy Yes
Building to meet the needs of Yes
prospective tenants (fitness for
purpose)
No No
the base situation has not changed – best case scenarios which lead to gaps between

The related Interview Question are 24 and 25 (see Appendix A). The study data has been
examined to see if exposure to additional information (a schedule of construction risk
sources) can influence the risk identification process. The interview protocol was designed
to first solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project settings using their
grounded heuristics. The participants were later given a schedule of construction risk
sources to study and re-identify risk events from the same hypothetical project settings.
The rational was to ascertain whether the introduction of additional information will alter
their previous risk evaluation. The risk identifications after the participants were provided
with additional information have been termed exposed heuristics, denoting that they have
been generated based on exposure to additional information which has become assimilated
initial risk identification on the hypothetical project settings, against their subsequent risk
identification on the same hypothetical project settings following exposure to additional
assessment information. The risk events have also been categorised using the table of con-
struction project risk events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table C.7.
the participants were exposed to additional assessment information, which confirms how
easily perceptions can be manipulated. In particular, the project engineer who struggled
with his initial risk assessment of the hypothetical projects, later generated extensive risk
perceptions when he was exposed to the schedule of construction risk sources. The changes
in his responses occurred even though the project settings at the different assessment stages
remained unaltered.
The changes in risk identification profiles were observed in the responses from all the
participants:
– PM-3: Three out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
– CM-3: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
different from the initial assessment. Three out of the four risk assessment categories on
– QS-3: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
– A-3: Three out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Three out of the three risk assessment categories on
Table C.7 Analysis of the influence of additional information on perception formation (Case 3).
Case study 3
PM- 3 CM- 3 QS- 3 A- 3 CDM- 3 E- 3
Fire destruction Yes Yes Yes Yes
Flood destruction Yes Yes Yes
Earthquake Yes
Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polution from adjoining sites Yes Yes
Previous landuse to establish Yes
ground conditions
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Asbestos Yes
Unexpected archeological Yes Yes
findings
No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
service connections
Co ordination of design team Yes
standards
(Continued)
Case study 3
PM- 3 CM- 3 QS- 3 A- 3 CDM- 3 E- 3
Achieving lifetime home Yes
standards within site
constraints
Parking provisions Yes
Availability of design Yes Yes
information and specification
Design constraints and Yes Yes
opportunities resulting from
surveys
Accuracy of investigations to Yes
feed into designs
Difficulty in achieving Yes
required units within site
constraints
Achieving secured by design Yes Yes
construction method
No Yes Yes No No No No No
Logistics & Communication
Related
Site setup and organisation of Yes
construction plants
deliveries
Delivery of material to the site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Availability of specialist Yes Yes Yes
labour
Waste transfer from site Yes
No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Related
Procurement of labour and Yes Yes
material
Completing within budget Yes
Availability of funds Yes Yes Yes
Supply chains management Yes
Constructors and supplier’s Yes
default
Fluctuations in market Yes Yes
demand
Adequacy of insurance Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Legal and Statutory Approval
Related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
conditions
Third party issues- partywall, Yes Yes Yes Yes
etc
Statutory approvals including Yes
building regulations
No No Yes Yes
Political Related
Differences between regional Yes
and national laws and
regulations
Changes in laws and Yes
regulations
Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case study 3
PM- 3 CM- 3 QS- 3 A- 3 CDM- 3 E- 3
Planning and programming of Yes Yes Yes
the construction works
Site Security Yes
Suitability of construction Yes Yes Yes Yes
method
Subtotal No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Operational Related
Getting residents to occupy Yes
Building to meet the needs of Yes Yes
prospective tenants (fitness for
purpose)
Subtotal Yes
– CDM-3: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
– E-3: Two out of the three risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
Theoretical Issue 5
as a risk event.
The related Interview Question is 24 (see Appendix A). The study data have been exam-
protocol was designed to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project
settings using their grounded heuristics.
findings have been summarised in Tables C.8–C.10.
The empirical evidence and consistency examination have confirmed that exclusion of
a specialist role from the risk identification exercise would have resulted in some of the
risk events being missed. The individual responses have revealed some risk events being
perceived by singular specialist roles. The client development manager for instance, was
the only specialist role to have perceived operational related risk events for both hypothet-
ical project settings, which suggest that excluding him from the risk identification exercise
may have resulted in total miss of the operational related risk events with consequential
impact on the ensuing risk management response and project performance, assuming the
hypothetical projects and risk events to be real.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 3–5 has provided substantial
support for research proposition 2. The findings have revealed risk perception generation
Table C.8 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical project A.
Case study 3
PM- 3 CM- 3 QS- 3 A- 3 CDM- 3 E- 3
Perceptions of risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk
24A events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
Site Yes Yes Yes
contaminations
findings
Demolition- Yes Yes
asbestos
Design &
Quality Related
scheme design
standards
feasibility of
services
connections
Design Yes Yes
coordination
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and Yes Yes Yes
egress into

organisation
Access for Yes Yes Yes
delivery vehicles
specilist labour
Missed
(Continued)
TableC.8 (Continued)
Case study 3
PM-3 CM-3 -3Q A-3
S M-3C E-3
D
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes
within budget
Subcontractor Yes Yes
procurement
Legal &
Statutory
Approval
Related
Achievingn Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Third party issues Yes Yes

Partywall issues Yes Yes
resulting from
adjoining
properties
Missed Missed
Political Related
Construction
Related
Programming of Yes Yes
construction
works to achieve
completion date
Working at Yes Yes
height
Operational
Related
Ensuring Yes Yes
building meets
the needs of
prospective
tenants (fitness
for purpose)
Subtotal Missed Missed Missed Missed Missed

Key
Identified risk events
Missed risk events-project level

TableC.9 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical project B.
Case study 3
PM-3 M-C 3 -3Q A-3
S M-3C E-3
D
Force Majeure
Related
Weather Yes Yes
Fire sY e Yes
Ground
Condition
Related
Ground Yes Yes
contamination
resulting from
previous
landuse
findings
Design & Qulity
Related
feasibility of
services
connections
Achieving Yes Yes
lifetime homes
standards
within site
constraints
Parking Yes Yes
provisions
Achieving 50 Yes Yes
units within the
area of the site
Missed Missed
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access to the Yes Yes
site
contractors/
labour to the
project
(Continued)
Case study 3
PM- 3 CM- 3 QS- 3 A- 3 CDM- 3 E- 3
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Supply Yes Yes
chains-
procurement of
materials
Legal &
Statutory
Approval
Related
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Political Related
Construction
Related
Site security Yes Yes
Foundation Yes Yes
solution
Operational
Related
Getting Yes Yes
residents to
occupy
completed
properties

Key
Identified risk events.
Missed risk events–project level.

Table C.10 Consistency analysis of missed risk events.
Missed risk Missed risk Consistent missed

Reference Specialist role events – 24A events – 24B risk event
PM-3 Project manager FCR, CR, OR FMR, LCR, FCR, OR FCR, OR

CM-3 Contracts GCR, DQR, FCR, GCR, DQR, LSAR, GCR, DQR, CR, OR
manager CR, OR CR, OR
QS-3 Quantity DQR, LSAR, OR FMR, DQR, FCR, DQR, LSAR, OR
surveyor LSAR, OR
A-3 Architect GCR, LCR, FCR, OR FMR, GCR, LCR, GCR, LCR, FCR, OR
FCR, CR, OR
CDM-3 Client GCR, FCR, CR LCR, FCR, LSAR, CR FCR, CR
development
manager
E-3 Engineer GCR, DQR, LSAR, FMR, GCR, LCR, GCR, LSAR, CR, OR
CR, OR FCR, LSAR, CR, OR
FMR, force majeure related; GCR, ground condition related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR,
logistics and communication related; FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory
approval related; PR, political related; CR, construction and site related; OR, operational related.
on hypothetical project settings consistent with the grounded heuristics of the study par-
ticipants, which confirms intuitive decision processing fuelled by the representative and
availability heuristics. The empirical findings have also revealed variations in the study par-
ticipants risk assessment of hypothetical project settings after being exposed to additional
information in the form of a schedule of construction risk sources, which also validates
the susceptibility of perceptions to manipulation. In addition, a review of the study par-
ticipants’ individual risk assessments against the cumulative case risk identification profile
has revealed missed risk events outside their respective specialist backgrounds, thereby val-
idating the research proposition of restricted risk management practices impairing robust
risk identification and decision-making, especially the risk categories associated with the
specialist background of the excluded roles.
2010).
2010).
Theoretical Issue 6
and Kuotcha 2010).
examined for evidence on the level of knowledge, application, and preference for rational
risk management techniques within the construction risk management decision-making
subsystem. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and deci-
sion processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 3 have been summarised in Figures C.1–C.9 and
Table C.11.
a. No formal education or training in project risk management (…….)
b. On the job informal experience (…….)
ment (…….)
d. Short duration formal course (less than six months) (…….)
Management, MSc Risk Management (…….)
Findings: The responses have been presented in Figure C.1.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure C.1 Level of education/training in risk management systems.
Risk register ……………. Probability matrix ……………
Personal experiences (heuristics) …………… Risk breakdown analysis …………….
Worse/best case scenario ……………… Monte Carlo simulation/analysis ……………
Brainstorming……………. Failure mode and effect analysis ……………
Gut feeling …………. Other (please specify) …………………………
Figure C.2. Figure C.3 also categorises the responses into intuitive and rational techniques.
Others 0%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00%
Figure C.2 Risk management techniques known by the participants (all responses).
Rational,
26.67%
Intuitive,
73.33%
Figure C.3 Risk management techniques known by the participants (categorisation into intuitive
and rational).
Risk register ……………. Probability matrix ……………
Personal experiences (heuristics) …………… Risk breakdown analysis …………….
Worse/best case scenario ……………… Monte Carlo simulation/analysis ……………
Brainstorming……………. Failure mode and effect analysis ……………
Gut feeling ………… Other (please specify) ……………………………
presented in Figure C.4. Figure C.5 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Others 0%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Figure C.4 Risk management techniques applied (all responses).

Rational, 3.70% Figure C.5 Risk management

techniques applied (categorisation
into intuitive and rational).
Intuitive,
96.30%
Interview Question 10 On a scale of 1–3, please rank the top three (3) techniques which
you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select from
the following list – Risk register, Probability matrix, Fault tree, Personal feelings and values,
Personal experiences (heuristics), Risk breakdown analysis, Worse/best case scenario, Monte
Carlo simulation/analysis, Brainstorming, Failure mode and effect analysis, Fish bone, Cul-
tural believes, and Gut feeling (please note: A scale of 1 represents the highest preference, and
a scale of 3 represents the lowest preference).
1st ranked technique .………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………………………….……………
presented in Figure C.6. Figure C.7 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Others 0%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Figure C.6 Risk management techniques preferred (all responses).

Figure C.7 Risk management Rational,

techniques preferred 20.75%
(categorisation into intuitive and
rational).
Intuitive,
79.25%
and preferred have been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the responses that could
been presented in Figures C.8 and C.9.
Others 0
0
0
Cultural beliefs – Intuitive 0 2
2
0 2
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis – Rational 0
0
0
Risk breakdown analysis – Rational 1 4
4
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive 0 4
4
Probability matrix – Rational 3 9
4
Gut feeling – Intuitive 1 34
Fish bone – Rational 0
0
0
6
6
Personal experiences (heuristics) – Intuitive 5 9
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure C.8 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred.
across the three assessment variables. The individual response also confirms sole reliance
on intuitive risk management practices for the project manager and contracts manager,
with the remaining differentiated specialist roles exhibiting comparative superior reliance
on the intuitive techniques.
A significant discovery from the trend analysis is the variance between the percentages
of rational techniques known, applied and preferred. Out of the 26.67% ‘rational’ segment
90.00% 81.08% 79.25%

80.00% 73.33%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
26.67%
30.00%
18.92% 20.75%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Intuitive 73.33% 81.08% 79.25%
Rational 26.67% 18.92% 20.75%
Figure C.9 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known, applied, and preferred
of the ‘known’ risk management techniques, only 70.94% are being applied on the case
study project, representing 18.92% of the responses on ‘applied’ risk management tech-
niques. There is however a 77.80% preference to apply the ‘known’ rational techniques
on a future project, representing 20.75% of the responses on ‘preferred’ risk management
techniques. The empirical evidence has therefore revealed that though there appears to be
limited knowledge of rational risk management techniques among the case study partici-
pants, the comparatively higher preference for applying the ‘known’ rational techniques on
future projects suggests the cause of the dominated intuitive practices within the case to be
other extraneous factors beside the disfavour of rational techniques. The evidence of low
level of training and education in project risk management tools and techniques presented
in Figure C.1 could be one of the extraneous factors.
Notwithstanding the above, the comparatively lower preference for future application of
rational risk management techniques implies that the risk management practices of the
research participants within the short term will continue to utilise intuitive thinking and
decision-making.
1st ranked technique .………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………………………….……………
Findings: The findings have been presented in Table C.11.
Table C.11 Factors influencing risk management technique preference.
Case study 3
Risk register Enable all project risk to be documented in a 1

single document for monitoring and treatment
Simple way of recording and presenting project 2
risk from project inception
Provides the base data for risk analysis and 1
response
Personal experience Opportunity to draw from lessons learnt on 2
previous projects
Brainstorming Opportunity to utilise knowledge from all the 2
project team rather than just one person
Personal feeling and values Opportunity to utilise the wealth of professional 1
experiences in project risk management
Risk breakdown analysis This method is applied because it is an 1
organisational procedure
Gut feeling Spontaneous generation of risk perceptions 1
based on experience to guide risk identification
and treatment
Probability matrix Enable risk impact to be calculated 2
Enables new project team members without 1
previous experience to participate in the risk
management process
Fault tree Simple model for analysing risk that enables
those without specific project experience to
participate
Theoretical Issue 7
Theoretical issue to be confirmed if the empirical evidence reveals preference for
qualitative data presentation formats, over statistical data, and quantitative models.
The related Interview Questions are 12–14 (see Appendix A). The study data has
been examined for evidence on preference for construction risk management data pre-
sentation format. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking
and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the
questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 3 have been summarised in Figures C.10–C.17.
Narrative ………. Probabilities …………………
Qualitative statements ………… Whole numbers ……………
Graphs …………. Ratios ……………………………
Fractions ………… Scenarios ………
Simulations …………. Other (please specify) ……………
been presented in Figure C.10. Figure C.11 also categorises the responses into qualitative

Qualitative
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00%
Figure C.10 Risk management data presentation formats known.
Figure C.11 Risk management

(categorisation into qualitative and
39.29% quantitative formats).
60.71%
Graphs …………. Ratios ……………………………

5.88%
Qualitative
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Figure C.12 Risk management data presentation formats applied.

(categorised into qualitative and 29.41%
70.59%

Graphs …………. Ratios ……………………………

Qualitative 10.20%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%
Figure C.14 Risk management data presentation formats preferred.


preferred (categorised into 22.45%
77.55%
responses that could shed light on the rationale behind the prevailing risk management
practices. The evidence has been presented in Figures C.16 and C.17.
Others
1
Sketches and mark-ups on drawings – Qualitative 1
2
5
Using different colours to rank severity of risk – Qualitative 1
6
Scenarios – Qualitative 2
4
Ratios – Quantitative 1
2
10
Probabilities – Quantitative 3
3
2
Simulations – Qualitative 1
3
Fractions – Quantitative 1
3
1
Graphs – Quantitative
3
13
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 3
4
11
Narrative – Qualitative 4
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure C.16 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied, and
preferred.
90.00%
77.55%
80.00%
70.59%
70.00% 60.71%
60.00%
50.00%
39.29%
40.00%
29.41%
30.00% 22.45%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Qualitative 60.71% 70.59% 77.55%
Quantitative 39.29% 29.41% 22.45%
Figure C.17 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied, and
The evidence from the trend analysis has revealed high responses for qualitative data
presentation formats across the three assessment variables, suggesting prolonged existence
for the study participants’ current risk management practice of qualitative data process-
ing. The application and preference of qualitative data formats were elaborated in all the
study participants’ responses. The project manager in particular attributed his attraction
to qualitative data, to the ease of recalling previous experiences to guide spontaneous risk
assessments.
A major concern however is the variance between the proportions of applied systems
of risk management techniques presented under Theoretical Issue 6 (81.08% intuitive ver-
sus 18.92% rational) and the applied systems of risk data formats (70.56% qualitative ver-
sus 29.41% quantitative), which confirms theoretically incompatible practices of intuitive
processing of some quantitative data formats. For instance, the contracts’ manager whose
responses from Theoretical Issue 6 confirmed sole reliance on intuitive techniques has also
admitted quantitative probability data application. The previous theoretical discussion on
the requirement for complementarity between a decision processing vehicle and the applied
data presentation format (Kahneman 2011) suggests the potential for psychological con-
flicts and systematic errors in the contracts manager’s risk analysis output.
Theoretical Issue 8
the questions intuitively, without consulting any reference source.
Findings: The findings from case study 3 have been summarised in Table C.12 and
Figures C.18–C.20.
Please indicate by selecting from the following list: summation, probability density func-
tion, probability function, sample mean, population mean, median, variance, standard devi-
ation, sample standard deviation, and don’t know.
Symbol Name
P(A)
S
∑
Findings: The responses have been summarised in Table C.12.
Table C.12 Level of knowledge and understanding of statistical symbols.
Case study 3
Statistical symbol No of correct responses Percentages (%)
P(A) 0 out of 6 0.00

s 0 out of 6 0.00
∑
2 out of 6 33.33
𝜇 0 out of 6 0.00
Total 2 out of 24 8.33%
following table to answer questions 16–18.
A 1/7 30/35
B 97.9% 84%
C 1 : 9743 4:5

Risk event A ………………………………………….
Risk event B ………………………………………….
Risk event C ………………………………………….
Don’t know …………………………………………...
Findings: The percentage of correct responses has been presented in Figure C.18.
Figure C.18 Risk events certain to

occur.
50.00% 50.00%
Risk event A ………………………………………….
Risk event B ………………………………………….
Risk event C ………………………………………….
Don’t know …………………………………………...
Figure C.19 Risk event certain

not to occur.
50.00% 50.00%

Risk event A ………………………………………….
Risk event B ………………………………………….
Risk event C ………………………………………….
Don’t know …………………………………………...
Figure C.20 Risk event certain to

have the highest impact. 16.67%
83.33%
Table C.12).
– 7 out of 18 correct responses for the probability assessments, which represent 38.89%.
The responses provided by some of the study participants suggested an erroneous belief
of ‘higher probability prediction’ being equal to ‘certainty of an event occurring’, which
may have resulted from a general lack of understanding of the probability concept. Never-
theless, the contracts manager gave correct responses for all the quantitative probability
assessments. At first glance, this may appear contrary to the previous theoretical predic-
tion of potential systematic errors in his intuitive processing of quantitative probability
data, discussed under Theoretical Issue 7. A deeper analytical examination, however sug-
gest the deviation may have resulted from his 16 years extensive industry experience, and
educational background including active participation in continuous professional devel-
opment sessions and seminars on quantitative risk management systems, which over the
years may have become assimilated into his grounded heuristics. The empirical evidence
on the contracts manager’s probability assessment in effect appears consistent with the
existing behaviour science evidence on experts relying on their professional experiences
to achieve accurate intuitive assessment (Kahneman 2011).
Theoretical Issue 9
analysis expressed in whole numbers, qualitative statements, and scenarios compared to
The related Interview Questions are 19 and 20 (see Appendix A). The study data has been
examined for evidence on the study participants’ level of knowledge and understanding of
qualitative and quantitative assessments. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate
intuitive thinking and decision processing by allowing the participants limited time to
Findings: The findings from case study 3 have been summarised in Figures C.21 and C.22
and Table C.13.
est probability estimate (Indicate with a tick)
A. There is a 75.2% probability of half of the site being contaminated (……)
B. There is a 1 : 321 probability of the site being contaminated (……)
C. There is a 0.381 probability of the site being contaminated (……)
Figure C.21 Assessment of

33.33% quantitative probability equations.
66.67%
A. The probability of projects over running their initial budget is 3 out of 10 (……)
B. out of every projects overrun their initial budget (……)
project A recorded a final cost higher than the initial budget estimate (……)
Figure C.22 Assessment of

66.67%
The empirical evidence has revealed higher percentage of accuracy for the qualitative prob-
ability equations compared to the quantitative probability equations:
– Qualitative probability equation: Four out of six correct responses representing
66.67%.
– Quantitative probability equation: Two out of six correct responses representing 33.33%.
Another significant evidence is the composition of the wrong responses. All the four
wrong respondents selected the probability equation expressed in percentages. Further
questioning on the rationale behind the preference for the ‘perc entage equation’ format
revealed the following responses:
tion – one response.
b. Percentages are what we use in our everyday working life – three responses.
The above responses suggest that the participants who selected the percentage
equation were simply relying on their availability heuristics to intuitively generate the
answers.
There were two further supplementary questions to solicit empirical evidence on the
participants’ experience with answering the two forms of probability equations. The
findings have been presented in Table C.13. The empirical evidence has revealed
the qualitative equation format to be comparatively straightforward and easy to
understand.
Table C.13 Participants’ experience with answering the quantitative and qualitative probability
equations.
Supplementary question Assessment format Response Percentages (%)
1. Which of the questions was easy Quantitative 4 out of 6 66.67

to understand and answer? Qualitative 2 out of 6 33.33
2. Which of the question formats do Quantitative 3 out of 6 50
they think would be understood Qualitative 3 out of 6 50
and appreciated by most
construction professionals?
ent ranges of hypothetical probability predictions of asbestos contamination risk.
The related Interview Questions are 21i–21iii (see Appendix A). The study data has been
the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 3 have been summarised in Table C.14.
Interview Questions 21
Asbestos -related cancer

Year mesothelioma deaths Asbestosis death
1968 153
2009 2321 411
2010 2347 412
2011 2291 429
2012 2535 464

Source: Adobe Stock

Probability of Probability of Appropriate risk response

occurrence based impact based on (please select from i, ii, iii,
Project on initial survey initial survey iv above)
A 95% probability of 99% probability of death ………………………………….

mesothelioma causing resulting from exposure ……………………………………
asbestos fibre
contamination on 100%
of the site
21ii\ What will be your risk response if the risk evaluation results were to change to:

occurrence based impact based on (please select from i, ii, iii,
Project on initial survey initial survey iv above)

non-malignant asbestos asbestos infection ……………………………………
contamination on 10% of
the site

occurrence based on impact based on (please select from i, ii, iii,
Project initial survey initial survey iv above)

non-malignant asbestos non-malignant pleural ……………………………………
contamination within a infection
specific 1% area of the site
been presented in Table C.14.
Table C.14 The impact of probability predictions on events which evokes strong affective
memories.
Hypothetical occurrence based impact based Appropriate risk Responses/
setting on initial survey on initial survey response percentages
21i 95% probability of 99% probability Appoint a licenced contractor 6 out of 6

mesothelioma of death to carry out further surveys to (100%)
causing asbestos resulting from identify and remove the
fibre contamination exposure asbestos before the
on 100% of the site commencement of
construction works
21ii 10% probability of 50% probability Appoint a licenced contractor 5 out of 6
non-malignant of asbestos to carry out further surveys to (83.33%)
asbestos infection identify and remove the
contamination on asbestos before the
10% of the site commencement of
construction works
Carry on construction works at 1 out of 6
the non-contaminated area (16.67%)
whilst carrying out further
investigations at the remaining
areas to identify and remove
21iii 1% probability of 1% probability of Appoint a licenced contractor 3 out of 6
non-malignant non-malignant to carry out further surveys to (50%)
asbestos pleural infection identify and remove the
contamination asbestos before the
within a specific 1% commencement of
area of the site construction works
Carry on construction works at 3 out of 6
the non-contaminated area (50%)
whilst carrying out further
investigations at the remaining
areas to identify and remove
hypothetical probability predictions on asbestos contamination. 50% of the participants
consistently responded that they would appoint a licensed contractor to carry out further
asbestos surveys to identify and remove asbestos contaminated materials before they com-
mence site construction works. The different levels of probability risk predictions could
not alter their responses, not even for the very low probability prediction of non-malignant
contamination within a small specified area. The client development manager in particu-
lar indicated that he will always insist on the contractor appointing a specialist firm to fully
address asbestos risk before commencing site construction works, irrespective of the prob-
ability predictions. He was not prepared to compromise on the health and safety of the site
operatives.
The empirical evidence from the direct observations also revealed some level of emo-
tional discomfort for some of the participants during the interrogations, especially the sta-
tistical and probability assessments (Theoretical Issue 8) and the quantitative equations
(Theoretical Issue 9). Some of the participants even inquired if they could search the statis-
tical symbols on the internet and also process the quantitative equations with calculators.
When this was denied, the frustration became evident in their body language, confirming
the psychological conflict they were facing in attempting intuitive processing of quantitative
data formats.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 6–10 has provided support
for research proposition 3. There has been evidence of intuitive dominated construction
risk management practices, and limited risk management training comprising, on the job
informal training, and participation in continuous professional development sessions. The
findings have also revealed massive qualitative data application and preference. Analysis of
the empirical evidence has also revealed intuitive processing of theoretically incompatible
quantitative data formats especially quantitative probability, by the study participants who
have demonstrated low proficiency in statistical symbols and probability judgement. Apart
from the project manager, contracts manager, and quantity surveyor, the remaining differ-
entiated specialist roles demonstrated a general lack of understanding of the probability
concept. The ensuing systematic issues evident from the empirical findings are compar-
atively higher accuracy for the intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk data formats over
quantitative risk data formats and insensitivity to probability predictions of emotive events.
335
Appendix D
Appendix D presents the empirical evidence from case study 4. The findings have been pre-
headings relating to the underlining theoretical issues. The presentation has adopted the
D.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings

the construction project delivery system occurs along the lines of the internal subgroup-
– 1. Systems’ differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions among the sys-
tem components – different specialist roles (Walker 2007, 2015; Kahneman 2011; Slovic
et al. 2010).
will result in differences in affective heuristics, and therefore, differences in perceptions
the above theoretical issues. The findings have been analysed to test the extent to which
the empirical evidence from the interviews and direct observations of the seven research
participants supported the study theoretical prediction of risk perception categorisations
defined by the differences in specialist roles.
Theoretical Issue 1
– Theoretical issue 1: Systems’ differentiation also generates differences in risk perceptions
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
336 Appendix D Case 4 Data Presentation

the respondents’ risk perceptions on common construction project risk events, and the risk
The related Interview Question are 22 and 23 (see Appendix A). The rationale behind
to facilitate the generation of risk perceptions from the participants’ inherent heuristics
responses from these questions have therefore been termed grounded heuristics, denoting
The empirical findings have been summarised in Table D.1.
The differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising, the technical manager, project
manager, and contracts manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of rank-
ing: ground condition related (first), design and quality related (second), legal and statutory
approval related (third). The designers comprising the engineer and architect also gener-
ated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: legal and statutory approval and
construction related (first), financial and commercial and logistics and commercial related
(second), and political and design and quality related (third). The quantity surveyor’s gener-
ated risk perceptions on the other hand were in the following order of ranking: ground con-
dition related (first), design and quality related (second), and construction related (third).
The client generated risk perceptions were also of the following ranking: ground condition
related (first) and design and quality related (second).
The empirical findings have subsequently revealed evidence of differentiation within the
risk perceptions at the pre-construction phase. Apart from ground condition related risk
events which appeared common in most of the responses, the remaining generated risk
perceptions exhibited reasonable correlation with the study participants’ specialist back-
ground. The universality of ‘ground condition related’ risk perceptions may have resulted
from the dominant influence of an associated construction industry affective heuristics
component (Finucane et al. 2003; Slovic et al. 2010) within the study participants’ risk
identification transformational systems (Walker 2007, 2015), leading to the generation of
associated ‘ground condition related’ risk perceptions (Benthin et al. 1993).
D.1 Research Proposition 1: Findings 337
Table D.1 Risk events at the pre-construction phase.

Builders
TM-4 Technical Availability DQR (5) Previous land GCR (3) Achieving LSAR (1)
manager and feasibility use to establish planning
of service ground permissions
connections condition and discharge
of conditions
PM-4 Project Previous land GCR (5) Site GCR (3) Planning and CR (1)
manager use to establish constraints, programming
ground e.g. congested of the
conditions site construction
works
CM-4 Contracts Previous land GCR (5) Impact of DQR (3) Achieving LSAR (1)
manager use to establish existing service planning
ground layouts on permissions
conditions design and discharge
of conditions
Scores:
1st: GCR (16)
2nd: DQR (8)
3rd: LSAR (2)
Designers
A-4 Architect Statutory LSAR (5) Availability of FCR (3) Community PR (1)
approvals funds engagement
including
building
regulations
E-4 Engineer Planning and CR (5) Site setup and LCR (3) Coordination DQR (1)
programming organisation of of design team
of the construction
construction plants
work
Scores:
1st: LSAR and CR (5)
2nd: FCR and LCR (3)
3rd: PR and DQR (1)
Quantity surveyor
QS-4 Quantity Previous land GCR (5) Getting the DQR (3) Managing the CR (1)
surveyor use to establish design right at project team
ground the concept
condition stage
Scores:
1st: GCR (5)
2nd: DQR (3)
3rd: CR (1)
(Continued)
Table D.1 (Continued)

Client
CDM-4 Client Site GCR (5) Availability DQR (3) Managing DQR (1)
develop- constraints, and feasibility client design
ment e.g. congested of service expectations
manager site connections
Scores:
1st: GCR (5)
2nd: DQR (4)
3rd: –
FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; PR, political related; CR,
construction related.
Findings: The responses have been presented in Table D.2 using the same format as the
The empirical evidence has once again revealed differentiation within the risk percep-
tions at the construction phase, with a pattern consistent with the differences in special-
ist backgrounds. The differentiated builder specialist subgroup comprising, the technical
manager and project manager generated risk perceptions in the following order of rank-
ing: financial and commercial related (first), construction and legal and statutory approval
related (second), and design and quality related (third). The designers comprising the engi-
neer and architect also generated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: design
and quality related (first) and construction related (second). The quantity surveyor’s gen-
erated risk perceptions on the other hand were in the following order of ranking: financial
and commercial related (first) and design and quality related (second). The client gener-
ated risk perceptions in the following order of ranking: design and quality related (first)
and construction related (second).
Theoretical Issue 2
ground.
The related interview question is numbered Interview Question 24 (see Appendix A).
The rationale behind this question was to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on two
hypothetical construction project settings.
Table D.2 Risk events at the construction phase.

Builders
TM-4 Technical Quality of CR (5) Communication LCR (3) Poor quality DQR (1)
manager subcontractors and information control
flow
PM-4 Project Achieving LSAR (5) Getting the DQR (3) Subcontract FCR (1)
manager planning design right procurement
permission
and discharge
of conditions
CM-4 Contracts Incorrect FCR (5) Subcontract FCR (3) Weather FMR (1)
manager project pricing procurement condition
at pre-contract
stage
Scores:
1st: FCR (9)
2nd: CR and LSAR (5)
3rd: DQR (4)
Designers
A-4 Architect Achieving DQR (5) Managing client DQR (3)
building design
regulations expectations
E-4 Engineer Design team DQR (5) Construction CR (3) Safety on site CR (1)
coordination phasing and
sequencing
Scores:
1st: DQR (13)
2nd: CR (4)
3rd: –
Quantity surveyor
QS-4 Quantity Subcontract FCR (5) Getting the DQR (3) Procurement FCR (1)
surveyor procurement design right of labour and
material
Scores:
1st: FCR (6)
2nd: DQR (3)
3rd: –
Client
CDM-4 Client Availability of DQR (5) Coordination of CR (3) Client design DQR (1)
develop- specialist the project team changes/
ment contractors to variations
manager build to design
Scores:
1st: DQR (6)
2nd: CR (3)
3rd: –
FMR, force majeure related; DQR, design and quality related; LCR, logistics and communication related; FCR,
financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; CR, construction related.


events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Tables D.3–D.5.
The data from the two hypothetical project settings have been further analysed for evi-
dence of consistency in responses and also to filter out the other extraneous risk formation
variables which are unrelated to specialist role affective heuristics.
risk perceptions from the two hypothetical project settings, with the study participants suc-
cessfully identifying risk events from related specialist categories. The consistency analysis
has revealed comparatively broader categorisation in most of the participants’ risk identifi-
cation. This may have resulted from their long years of involvement in the construction
industry as evident in Table 7.23 (see Chapter 7), and the consequential propensity for
multi-specialist exposures. The project manager’s initial involvement in the construction
industry was in quantity surveying, whilst the client development manager also previously
worked as a roofer. Their extensive construction industry experience may have resulted in
the availability of wide-ranging grounded heuristics, influencing the generation of compa-
rably broader categorisation of risk events.
The findings from the consistency analysis have been presented below:
– Ground condition related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor, technical
manager, and contracts manager.
– Design and quality related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor, technical
manager, architect, and client development manager.
– Logistics and communication related risk events were perceived by the client develop-
ment manager, project manager, and engineer.
– Financial and commercial related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor,
architect, and contracts manager.
– Legal and statutory approval related risk events were perceived by the quantity surveyor,
technical manager, architect, client development manager, and contracts manager.
– Construction related risk events on the other hand were perceived by the architect and
engineer.
– The client development manager was the only research participant to perceive opera-
tional related risk events.
ferent specialist subgroups has also revealed the following categorisations:
– The builders comprising the technical manager, the project manager, and the contracts
manager have exhibited varied risk perceptions with the dominant consistent events
being ground condition, and legal and statutory approval related.
relating to design and quality, logistics and communication, financial and commercial,
legal and statutory approval, and construction events. Construction related risk events
were consistent in all the responses.
Table D.3 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project A.
Case study 4
Risk perception TM-4 PM-4 CM-4 for builders A-4 E-4 for designers QS-4 CDM-4

Demolition and excavation Yes Yes
Site contaminations Yes Yes
Buried services Yes

Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes
Sustainability – renewable Yes Yes
system
Proximity to transport Yes Yes Yes
network – road; rail
lines – obtaining relevant
approvals
contractors to build to design

related
Access and egress into the site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Site setup and organisation Yes Yes Yes Yes
labour
Site parking facilities Yes Yes

related
Completing within budget Yes Yes Yes Yes
Availability of funding Yes Yes
Subcontractor procurement Yes
Case study 4
related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes
conditions
Land title and boundaries Yes
Partywall issues resulting Yes Yes Yes
from adjoining properties
Political related
Community engagement Yes Yes
Programming of construction Yes Yes Yes Yes
works to achieve completion
date
Operational related
Insufficient social Yes
facilities – schools, GP, etc.
Table D.4 Risk perceptions on hypothetical project B.
Case study 4

Ground contamination Yes Yes Yes
Ecological Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case study 4
Availability and feasibility of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
architects and other trades

related
Access to the site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Availability of skilled labour Yes
Site set-up/establishment Yes Yes

related
Completing within budget Yes Yes Yes Yes
Supply chains – procurement Yes
of materials

related
Achieving planning permission Yes Yes Yes Yes
and discharging conditions
Land title/ownership Yes
Political related
Programming construction Yes Yes
works to achieve project
completion date
Form of construction Yes
Operational related
Insufficient social Yes
infrastructure – e.g. school,
GP, etc.
Table D.5 Consistency analysis of the risk perceptions from hypothetical projects A and B (Case 4).
Case Study 4

TM- 4 PM- 4 CM- 4 Builders A- 4 E- 4 Designer QS- 4 CDM- 4
Questions & Responses 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consitency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consitency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency
Ground Condition
Related

excavation
Site contaminations Yes Yes
Buried services Yes
Ground contamination Yes Yes Yes
Ecological Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Design & Quality

Related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
connections
Sustainability- Yes Yes

renewable system
Proximity to transport Yes Yes Yes

network- road; rail
lines- obtaining relevant
approvals
(Continued)
Case Study 4

TM- 4 PM- 4 CM- 4 Builders A- 4 E- 4 Designer QS- 4 CDM- 4
Questions & Responses 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consitency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consitency 24A 24B Consistency 24A 24B Consistency

design
Co ordinating design Yes Yes

with architects and
other trades
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and egress into Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
the site
Site setup and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
organisation
Access for delivery Yes

vehicles
Availability of specilist Yes Yes Yes

labour
Site parking facilities Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Financial &
Commercial Related
Completing within Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
budget
Availability of funding Yes Yes
Subcontractor Yes
procurement
Supply chains- Yes

procurement of
materials
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Legal & Statutory
Approval Related
Achieving planning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
permission &
Land title and Yes Yes Yes

boundaries
Partywall issues Yes Yes Yes

resulting from adjoining
properties
Statutory approvals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political Related
Community Yes Yes

engagement
Programming of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

achieve completion date
Safety on site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Form of construction Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Operational Related
Insufficient social Yes Yes Yes

facilities- schools,
Yes
– The quantity surveyor on the other hand has exhibited risk perceptions relating to
financial and commercial, ground condition, design and quality, and legal and statutory
approval events.
– The client has also displayed risk perceptions associated with design and quality, logistics
and communication, legal and statutory, and operational related events.
research proposition 1. There has been evidence of differentiation within the study partici-
pants’ responses on the typical project risk events. Apart from ground condition related risk
events which appeared common in the responses on the typical pre-construction project
risk events, the remaining answers exhibited reasonable correlation with the study par-
ticipants’ specialist backgrounds. The empirical evidence on the risk identification under
different hypothetical project settings also generated a broad range of risk perceptions, with
a pattern reflecting the differences in specialist background. The realisation of consistent
patterns of differentiation at the different project delivery phases and under different project
settings have inferably provided reasonable validation for the study’s novel theoretical pre-
diction of risk perception categorisation within the construction project delivery system
reflecting the differences in specialist role affective heuristics.
the representative and availability heuristics, which exclude some of the project subgroup-
ings, run the risk of failing to adequately identify potential risk events. The underlining
theoretical issues are as follows:
2011; Slovic et al. 2010).
– 4. The inherent subjectivity of perceptions makes it manipulative and less rational. Addi-
Theoretical Issue 3
cal project settings correspond to their availability heuristics (evident from their responses
on the common construction project risk events).
The related interview questions are 22–24 (see Appendix A). The study data have been
examined for evidence of the influence of grounded heuristics in the risk identification
processes, using hypothetical construction project settings. The interview protocol was
designed to first collect data on the participants’ grounded heuristics before asking them
to identify risk events from hypothetical project settings. The rationale was to ascertain
whether the risk identification on the hypothetical project settings was done intuitively
through reliance on heuristics.
grounded heuristics, against their risk identification on hypothetical project settings. The
(Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table D.6.
Evidence from the empirical findings suggests substantial risk identification based on the
participants’ grounded heuristics:
– QS-4: Three out of the five risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical
– TM-4: Three out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
– A-4: Four out of the five risk identification from hypothetical project A have correspond-
ing grounded heuristics. Three out of the six risk identification from hypothetical project
– CDM-4: One out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A has corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. One out of the four risk identification from hypothetical
project B has corresponding grounded heuristics.
– CM-4: Three out of the four risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
– E-4: Three out of the three risk identification from hypothetical project A have corre-
sponding grounded heuristics. Two out of the two risk identification from hypothetical
Table D.6 Analysis of perception being formed from availability and representative heuristics (Case 4).
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Questions &
Responses 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 22B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B
Force Majeure
Related
Ground Condition
Related
Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes
Previous landuse to Yes Yes Yes Yes
establish ground
conditions
Site constraints, eg Yes Yes
congested site
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes Yes
Buried services Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Design & Quality
Related
Getting the design Yes Yes
right at the concept
stage
connections
Impact of existing Yes
service layouts on
design
Poor quality control Yes
Managing client Yes Yes
design expectations
Co ordination of Yes Yes
design team
specialist contractors
to build to design
Right of Light Yes
Client design changes Yes
Sustainability- Yes
renewable system
Proximity to transport Yes Yes
network- road; rail
lines (obtaining
relevant approvals)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Communication and Yes
information flow
organisation of
construction plants
Site setup, welfare Yes
and deliveries
Delivery of material Yes
to the site
(Continued)
TableD.6 (Continued)
Case study 4
QS-4 TM-4 A-4 CDM-4 CM-4 PM-4 E-4
Questions &
Responses 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 22B 22 & 23 24A 24B 22 & 23 24A 24B
specialist labour
Site parking facilities Yes
No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Financial &
Commercial Related
Procurement of Yes
labour and material
Completing within Yes Yes Yes Yes
budget
Availability of funds Yes Yes
Supply chains Yes
management
Subcontract Yes Yes Yes Yes
procurement
Incorrect project Yes
pricing at pre-
contract stage

Legal and Statutory
Approval Related
permissions &
Third party Yes Yes Yes
issues- partywall, etc
Statutory approvals Yes Yes Yes Yes
including building
regulations
Land titles and Yes Yes
boundaries
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Political Related
Community Yes Yes
engagement
Yes
Safety Yes Yes Yes
Planning and Yes Yes
programming of the
construction works
Managing the project Yes Yes
team
Achieving project Yes Yes Yes
completion within
programme
Construction Yes
technique
Quality of Yes
subcontractors
Construction phasing Yes
and sequence
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Operational Related
Insufficient social Yes Yes
No No
3 of 5 3 of 4 3 of 3 4 of 4 4 of 5 3 of 6 1 of 4 1 of 4 3 of 4 4 of 4 3 of 4 2 of 3 3 of 3 2 of 2
Theoretical Issue 4
The related interview questions are Interview Question 24 and 25 (see Appendix A). The
study data has been examined to see if exposure to additional information (a schedule of
construction risk sources) can influence the risk identification process. The interview pro-
tocol was designed to first solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on hypothetical project
settings using their heuristics. The participants were later given a schedule of construction
risk sources to study and re-identify risk events from the same hypothetical project settings.
The rational was to ascertain whether the introduction of additional information will alter
their previous risk evaluation. The risk identifications after the participants were provided
with additional information have been termed exposed heuristics, denoting that they have
been generated based on exposure to additional information which has become assimilated
initial risk identification on the hypothetical project settings, against their subsequent risk
identification on the same hypothetical project settings following exposure to additional
assessment information. The risk events have also been categorised using the table of con-
struction project risk events (Table 7.3). The findings have been summarised in Table D.7.
The empirical evidence has revealed changes in the initial risk identification profiles
after the participants were exposed to additional assessment information, thereby confirm-
ing the susceptibility of perceptions to manipulation. The changes occurred even though
the project settings have not been altered. The changes in risk identification profiles were
observed in the responses from all the participants apart from the client development man-
ager who declined to re-assess the hypothetical project settings after receiving the additional
assessment information and simply responded that his answers to interview question 25 are
the same as those offered in the initial risk identification.
– QS-4: One out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. Two out of the five risk assessment categories on
– TM-4: Two out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
– A-4: One out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was different
from the initial assessment. Two out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical
project B were different from the initial assessment.
– CDM-4: Zero out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was
different from the initial assessment. Zero out of the four risk assessment categories on
Table D.7 Analysis of the influence of additional information on perception formation (Case 4).
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Questions & Responses 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 24A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B 24A 25A 24B 25B
Fire Yes
Earthquake Yes Yes
Structural collapse Yes Yes
Flood destruction Yes Yes
Ground Condition
Related
Contamination of site Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polution from adjoining Yes
sites
Ecological issues Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
foundations
Buried services Yes
No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Design & Quality
Related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
connections
Co ordination of design Yes
team
design
Right of Light Yes
Sustainability- Yes
renewable system
Proximity to transport Yes Yes
network- road; rail lines
(obtaining relevant
approvals)
Accuracy and Yes Yes
appriopriateness of
design specifications
Design constraints and Yes Yes Yes Yes
opportunities arising
from surveys
No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Site access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Planning and Yes
programming of project
delivery
organisation of
construction plants
deliveries
Delivery of material to Yes Yes Yes Yes
the site
Availability of specialist Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
labour
Site parking facilities Yes
No Yes No No No No No No No
Financial &
Commercial Related
Completing within Yes Yes Yes Yes
budget
Availability of funds Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Supply chains Yes
management
Subcontract Yes
procurement
Exchange rate Yes Yes
fluctuations
Fluctuations in market Yes Yes Yes
demand
Yes Yes No No No No
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Legal and Statutory
Approval Related
permissions &
Third party Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
issues- partywall, etc
Statutory approvals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
including building
regulations
Land titles and Yes Yes
boundaries
Differences between Yes
regional and natiional
laws & regulations
No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes
Political Related
Community Yes
engagement
Differences in Yes
stakeholder
expectations
Changes in law and Yes Yes
regulations
Yes Yes Yes
Safety Yes Yes
Achieving project Yes Yes Yes
completion within
programme
Availability and quality Yes Yes Yes
of management and
supervision
Suitability of Yes Yes
construction method
Yes Yes Yes No No
Operational Related
Insufficient social Yes Yes Yes Yes
Property maintenance Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes
1 of 5 2 of 5 2 of 4 3 of 4 1 of 5 2 of 5 0 of 4 0 of 4 1 of 4 1 of 4 3 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5
– CM-4: One out of the four risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A was dif-
ferent from the initial assessment. One out of the four risk assessment categories on
– PM-4: Three out of the five risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were
different from the initial assessment. Four out of the five risk assessment categories on
– E-4: Two out of the three risk assessment categories on hypothetical project A were dif-
Theoretical Issue 5
as a risk event.
The related interview question is Interview Question 24 (see Appendix A). The study
data have been examined to see if the participants’ failure in identifying certain risk events
can be attributed to their lack of related grounded heuristics outside their specialist back-
ground. The interview protocol was designed to solicit the participants’ risk perceptions on
hypothetical project settings using their grounded heuristics.
findings have been summarised in Tables D.8–D.10.
The empirical evidence and consistency examination have revealed that exclusion of a
specialist role from the risk identification exercise would have resulted in some of the risk
events being missed. The individual responses have revealed some risk events being per-
ceived by singular specialist roles. As an illustration, the client development manager was
the only specialist role to have perceived operational related risk events for the two hypo-
thetical project settings. The quantity surveyor also was the only specialist role to have
perceived procurement of materials to be a risk event to the hypothetical project setting A.
This suggest that exclusion of the client development manager and the quantity surveyor
from the risk identification exercise may have resulted in the missing of the associated risk
events with consequential impact on the ensuing risk management responses and project
performance, assuming the hypothetical projects and risk events to be real.
Table D.8 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical project A.
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Project Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed
Risk Perceptions risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk
of 24A events events events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
excavation
Site Yes Yes
contaminations
Ground Yes Yes
investigations
Design & Quality
Related
Availability and Yes Yes Yes
feasibility of
services
connections
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Sustainability- Yes Yes
renewable system
Proximity to Yes Yes Yes
transport
network- road;
rail lines-
obtaining
relevant
approvals
specialist
contractors to
build to design
Missed Missed
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access and egress Yes Yes Yes Yes
into the site
organisation
Access for Yes Yes
delivery vehicles
specilist labour
Site parking Yes Yes
facilities
Missed Missed
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes Yes
within budget
funding
Subcontractor Yes Yes
procurement
Legal & Statutory
Approval Related
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Land title and Yes Yes
boundaries
Partywall issues Yes Yes Yes
resulting from
adjoining
properties
Statutory Yes Yes Yes
approvals
Missed
Political Related
Community Yes Yes
engagement
Missed Missed Missed Missed Missed Missed
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS-4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Construction
Related
construction
works to achieve
completion date
Operational
Related

Key
Identified risk
events.
Missed risk events–
project level.
Table D.9 Effect of limited heuristics (excluding some project team members) on project risk identification – Hypothetical project B.
Case study 4
QS-4 TM-4 A-4 CDM-4 CM-4 PM-4 E-4
Risk Project Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed Individual Missed
Perceptions risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk risk
of 24B events events events events events events events events events events events events events events events
Force Majeure
Related
Ground
Condition
Related
Ground Yes Yes Yes
contamination
Ecological Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Missed Missed
Design & Qulity
Related
feasibility of
services
connections
Coordinating Yes Yes
design with
architects and
other trades
Missed
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS-4 TM-4 A-4 CDM-4 CM-4 PM-4 E-4
Logistics &
Communication
Related
Access to the site Yes Yes Yes Yes
skilled labour
Site set-up/ Yes Yes
establishment
Financial &
Commercial
Related
Completing Yes Yes Yes
within budget
Supply Yes Yes
chains-
procurement
of materials
Legal & Statutory
Approval Related
Achieving Yes Yes Yes Yes
planning
permission &
discharging
conditions
Land title/ Yes Yes
ownership
Missed Missed
Political Related
Construction
Related
Programming Yes Yes
construction
works to achieve
project
completion date
Form of Yes Yes
construction
(Continued)
Case study 4
QS- 4 TM- 4 A- 4 CDM- 4 CM- 4 PM- 4 E- 4
Operational
Related
infrastructure- eg
school, GP, etc
Key
Identified risk
events.
Missed risk events–
project level.
Table D.10 Consistency analysis of missed risk events.
Missed risk Missed risk Consistent missed

Reference Specialist role events – 24A events – 24B risk event
QS-4 Quantity surveyor PR, CR, OR LCR, CR, OR CR, OR

TM-4 Technical manager LCR, FCR, PR, CR, LCR, FCR, OR LCR, FCR, OR
OR
A-4 Architect GCR, LCR, OR OR OR
CDM-4 Client development GCR, FCR, PR, CR GCR, FCR, CR GCR, FCR, CR
manager
CM-4 Contracts manager DQR, PR, CR, OR LCR, CR, OR CR, OR
PM-4 Project manager GCR, DQR, PR, OR FCR, LSAR, CR, OR OR
E-4 Engineer GCR, FCR, LSAR, GCR, DQR, FCR, GCR, FCR, OR
PR, OR LSAR, OR
related; FCR, financial and communication related; LSAR, legal and statutory approval related; PR,
political related; CR, construction and site related; OR, operational related.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 3–5 have provided support
for research proposition 2. The study participants’ risk assessment on hypothetical project
settings have produced findings correlating with their grounded heuristics, which confirms
intuitive decision processing inspired by the representative and availability heuristics. All
the study participants, except the client development manager who declined to re-appraisal
the hypothetical project settings, changed their initial risk assessment profiles after being
exposed to additional information in the form of a schedule of construction risk sources. The
variations occurred even though the project settings remained un-altered, which validates
the susceptibility of perceptions to manipulation. A review of the study participants’ indi-
vidual risk assessments against the cumulative case risk identification profile have revealed
missed risk events outside their respective specialist backgrounds, which inferably provides
support for the research proposition of, restricted risk management practices impairing
robust risk identification and decision making, especially the risk categories associated with
the specialist background of the excluded roles.

2010).
2010).
pants have supported the study’s theoretical predictions.
Theoretical Issue 6
and Kuotcha 2010).
examined for evidence on the level of knowledge, application, and preference for rational
risk management techniques within the construction risk management decision-making
subsystems. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and deci-
sion processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 4 have been summarised below in Figures D.1–D.9
and Table D.12.
a. No formal education or training in project risk management (… . . . .)
b. On the job informal experience (… . . . .)
ment (… . . . .)
d. Short duration formal course (less than six months) (… . . . .)
Management, MSc Risk Management (… . . . .)
Findings: The responses have been presented in Figure D.1.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure D.1 Level of education/training in risk management systems.
Figure D.2. Figure D.3 also categorises the responses into intuitive and rational techniques.

Others 0%
Monte Carlo simulation/ analysis – Rational 0.00%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%
Figure D.2 Risk management techniques known by the participants (all responses).
Rational, Figure D.3 Risk management

14.29% techniques known by the
participants (categorisation into
intuitive and rational).
Intuitive,
85.71%
presented in Figure D.4. Figure D.5 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Interview Question 10 On a scale of 1–3, please rank the top three (3) techniques which
you would prefer to use on your future risk management practices? You may select from the
following list – Risk register, Probability matrix, Fault tree, Personal feelings and values, Per-
sonal experiences (heuristics), Risk breakdown analysis, Worse/best case scenario, Monte Carlo
simulation/analysis, Brainstorming, Failure mode and effect analysis, Fish bone, Cultural
Others 0%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%
Figure D.4 Risk management techniques applied (all responses).
Figure D.5 Risk management Rational,

techniques applied (categorisation 12.50%
into intuitive and rational).
Intuitive,
87.50%
believes, and Gut feeling (please note: A scale of 1 represents the highest preference, and a scale
of 3 represents the lowest preference).
1st ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………….
2nd ranked technique …………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ………………………………………………………………………….
presented in Figure D.6. Figure D.7 categorises the responses into intuitive and rational
techniques.
Others 0%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Figure D.6 Risk management techniques preferred (all responses).
Rational, 6.35% Figure D.7 Risk management

techniques preferred
(categorisation into intuitive and
rational).
Intuitive,
93.65%
and preferred have been carried out to see if there are any pattern in the responses that could
shed light on the rationale behind the existing risk management practices. The evidence has
been presented below in Figures D.8 and D.9.
across the three assessment variables. All the study participants except the technical man-
ager and project engineer confirmed sole reliance on intuitive risk management techniques.
The quantity surveyor confessed that notwithstanding the mathematical orientation of his
specialist role, his risk management practices are mostly guided by personal experiences
and gut feelings.
Others 0
0
0
01
Cultural beliefs – Intuitive 1
1
1
Monte Carlo simulation/analysis – Rational 0
0
0
Risk breakdown analysis – Rational 23
2
Personal feelings and values – Intuitive 1 3
4
Probability matrix – Rational 01
3
Gut feeling – Intuitive 45
6
Fish bone – Rational 0
0
0
6
Personal experiences (heuristics) – Intuitive 4 6 12
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure D.8 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known; applied and preferred.
100.00% 93.65%
85.71% 87.50%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00% 14.29% 12.50%
6.35%
10.00%
0.00%
Intuitive 85.71% 87.50% 93.65%
Rational 14.29% 12.50% 6.35%
Figure D.9 Trend analysis of the risk management techniques known; applied and preferred
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issue 6 have revealed limited
knowledge and application of rational risk management techniques among the case study
participants, which may be due to the low level of training and education in project risk
management tools and techniques, as presented in Figure D.1. The empirical evidence
therefore suggests that the risk management practices of the research participants within
the short term will continue to utilise intuitive thinking and decision-making.
1st ranked technique ……………………………………………………………………………
2nd ranked technique ……………………………………………………………………………
3rd ranked technique ……………………………………………………………………………
Findings: The findings have been presented in Table D.11.
Table D.11 Factors influencing risk management technique preference.
Case study 4
Risk register Good for risk allocation and as an audit trail for checking risk 1
management responses
Simple way of recording and presenting project risk from 1
project inception
Familiar method of risk identification and treatment 3
Personal experience Opportunity to draw from lessons learnt on previous projects 4
Brainstorming Effective in using your previous experience in risk identification 1
Opportunity to utilise knowledge from all the project team 4
rather than just one person
Gut feeling Use your experience in risk identification and treatment 2
Theoretical Issue 7
examined for evidence on preference for construction risk management data presentation
format. The interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and decision
processing by allowing the participants limited time to respond to the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 4 have been summarised below in Figures D.10–
D.17.
Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
been presented in Figure D.10. Figure D.11 also categorises the responses into qualitative

0.00%
Qualitative
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00%
Figure D.10 Risk management data presentation formats known.
Figure D.11 Risk management

(categorisation into qualitative and 33.33%
66.67%
applied on this project? (Please tick all the applicable).
Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Photographs to show the risk – Qualitative 4%
Sketches and mark-ups on drawings – Qualitative 0%

4%
Qualitative
Scenarios – Qualitative 16%
Ratios – Quantitative 0%
Whole numbers – Qualitative 4%
Probabilities – Quantitative 16%
Simulations – Qualitative 4%
Fractions – Quantitative 0%
Graphs – Quantitative 4%
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 28%
Narrative – Qualitative 20%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Figure D.12 Risk management data presentation formats applied.

20.00% (categorised into qualitative and
80.00%

Graphs ……… . . . .. Ratios ……………………………
Photographs to show the risk – Qualitative 0.00%

4.92%
Qualitative
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%
Figure D.14 Risk management data presentation formats preferred.

preferred (categorised into 27.87%
72.13%
tices. The evidence has been presented below in Figures D.16 and D.17.
Photographs to show the risk – Qualitative 1

Sketches and mark-ups on drawings –...
1
Using different colours to rank severity of... 3
1
Scenarios – Qualitative 4 9
6
Ratios – Quantitative 3
Whole numbers – Qualitative 1 4
Probabilities – Quantitative 4 16
6
Simulations – Qualitative 1 4
3
Fractions – Quantitative 2
Graphs – Quantitative 1
1 3
Qualitative statement – Qualitative 5 7
7
Narrative – Qualitative 5 23
7
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure D.16 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied,
and preferred.
80.00% 76.00%
72.13%
66.67%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% 33.33%
27.87%
30.00% 24.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Known Applied Prefered
Qualitative 66.67% 76.00% 72.13%
Quantitative 33.33% 24.00% 27.87%
Figure D.17 Trend analysis of the risk management data presentation formats known, applied,
and preferred (categorisation into qualitative and quantitative).
The evidence from the trend analysis has revealed high responses for qualitative data
presentation formats across the three assessment variables. This suggests the study
participants’ current risk management practices of qualitative data processing may
continue for some time.
A major concern however is the variance between the proportions of applied systems
of risk management techniques presented under Theoretical Issue 6 (87.5% intuitive ver-
sus 12.5% rational) and the applied systems of risk data formats (76% qualitative versus
24% quantitative), which suggests theoretically incompatible practices of intuitive process-
ing of some quantitative data formats. This was validated in the responses of the contracts
manager and project manager, who after confirming sole reliance on intuitive techniques
under Theoretical Issue 6, have also admitted quantitative probability data application. The
previous theoretical discussion on the need for complementarity between a decision pro-
cessing system and its data presentation format (Kahneman 2011) suggests the likelihood
of psychological conflicts and reduced accuracy in their ensuing risk analysis.
Theoretical Issue 8
Findings: The findings from case study 4 have been summarised below in Table D.12 and
Figures D.18–D.20.
Please indicate by selecting from the following list: summation, probability density
function, probability function, sample mean, population mean, median, variance, standard
deviation, sample standard deviation, don’t know.
Symbol Name
P(A)
S
∑
Findings: The responses have been summarised in Table D.12.

Table D.12 Level of knowledge and understanding of statistical

symbols.
Case study 4
Statistical No. of correct
symbol responses Percentages (%)
P(A) 0 out of 7 0.00

s 0 out of 7 0.00
∑
3 out of 7 42.86
𝜇 0 out of 7 0.00
table below to answer questions 16–18.
Risk event occurrence impact
A 1/7 30/35
B 97.9% 84%
C 1 : 9743 4:5

Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
All (risk events A, B, and C) ……………………… . . . ..
None of the risk events …………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ………………………………………… . . . .
Findings: The percentage of correct responses has been presented in Figure D.18.
Figure D.18 Risk events certain to

occur.
57.14% 42.86%

Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
All (risk events A, B, and C) …………………… . . . ..
None of the risk events ………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………………
Figure D.19 Risk event certain

not to occur.
57.14% 42.86%
Risk event A ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event B ……………………………………… . . . ..
Risk event C ……………………………………… . . . ..
Don’t know ……………………………………… . . . ..
Figure D.20 Risk event certain to 0.00%

100.00%

Table D.12).
– 6 out of 21 correct responses for the probability assessments which represents 28.57%
(see page 5 of Appendix D). A significant empirical discovery is the low accuracy in
responses from the project manager and the contracts manager, which appears consis-
tent with the previous predication of reduced precision in their risk analysis output (see
Theoretical Issue 7), due to their theoretically incompatible risk management practice
of intuitive processing of quantitative probability data. The project manager’s responses
were all wrong, whilst the contracts manager also gave one wrong response. The overall
responses from the case reflected erroneous linkage of higher probability prediction to
certainty of occurrence of an event, which may also have resulted from a general lack of
understanding of the probability concept.
Theoretical Issue 9
The related interview questions are Interview Question 19 and Interview Question 20
(see Appendix A). The study data has been examined for evidence on the participants’
level of knowledge and understanding of qualitative and quantitative assessments. The
interview protocol was designed to stimulate intuitive thinking and decision processing by
allowing the participants limited time to respond to the questions intuitively without using
calculators.
Findings: The findings from case study 4 have been summarised below in Figures D.21
and D.22, and Table D.13.
A. There is a 75.2% probability of half of the site being contaminated (… . . . .)
B. There is a 1 : 321 probability of the site being contaminated (… . . . .)
C. There is a 0.381 probability of the site being contaminated (… . . . .)
A. The probability of projects over running their initial budget is 3 out of 10 (… . . . .)
B. out of every projects overrun their initial budget (… . . . .)
project A recorded a final cost higher than the initial budget estimate (… . . . .)
Figure D.21 Assessment of

quantitative probability equations. 28.57%
71.43%
Figure D.22 Assessment of

71.43%
– Qualitative probability equation: Five out of seven correct responses representing 71.43%.
– Quantitative probability equation: Two out of seven correct responses representing
28.57%. Another significant evidence is the composition of the wrong responses. All
the five wrong respondents selected the probability equation expressed in percentages.
Further questioning on the rationale behind the preference for the ‘percentage equation’
format revealed the following responses:
tion – two responses.
b. Percentages are what we use in our everyday working life – two responses.
c. Percentages are easy to understand – one response.
There were two further supplementary questions to solicit empirical evidence on the par-
ticipants’ experience with answering the two forms of probability equations. The findings
have been presented below in Table D.13. The empirical evidence has revealed the qualita-
tive equation format to be comparatively straightforward and easy to understand.
Table D.13 Participants’ experience with answering the quantitative and qualitative probability
equations.
Assessment Percentages
Supplementary question format Response (%)
1. Which of the questions was easy to understand Quantitative 2 out of 7 28.57

and answer? Qualitative 5 out of 7 71.43
2. Which of the question formats do they think Quantitative 1 out of 7 14.29
would be understood and appreciated by most Qualitative 6 out of 7 85.71
construction professionals?
– Theoretical issue 10: Where a potential outcome of a future event evokes a strong
affective memory, the assessor may be insensitive to the probability predictions on the
event (Slovic et al. 2010).
ent ranges of hypothetical probability predictions of asbestos contamination risk.
The related interview questions are 21i–21iii (see Appendix A). The study data has been
the questions.
Findings: The findings from case study 4 have been summarised below in Table D.14.
Interview Questions 21
Asbestos -related cancer Asbestosis

Year mesothelioma deaths death
1968 153
2009 2321 411
2010 2347 412
2011 2291 429
2012 2535 464

Source: Adobe Stock



mesothelioma death resulting
causing asbestos from exposure …………………………………
fibre contamination
on 100% of the site


non-malignant asbestos infection
asbestos …………………………………
contamination on
10% of the site

A 1% probability of 1% probability of ……………………………… . . . ..

non-malignant non-malignant
asbestos pleural infection ……………………………… . . . ..
contamination
within a specific 1%
area of the site
been presented in Table D.14.
Table D.14 The impact of probability predictions on events which evokes strong affective memories.
Hypothetical Probability of occurrence Probability of impact Appropriate risk Responses/

setting based on initial survey based on initial survey response percentages
21i 95% probability of 99% probability of death Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 7 out of 7 (100%)
mesothelioma causing resulting from exposure out further surveys to identify and remove
asbestos fibre contamination the asbestos before the commencement of
on 100% of the site construction works
21ii 10% probability of 50% probability of asbestos Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 6 out of 7 (85.71%)
non-malignant asbestos infection out further surveys to identify and remove
contamination on 10% of the the asbestos before the commencement of
21iii 1% probability of 1% probability of Appoint a licenced contractor to carry 4 out of 7 (57.14%)
non-malignant asbestos non-malignant pleural out further surveys to identify and remove
contamination within a infection the asbestos before the commencement of
specific 1% area of the site construction works
hypothetical probability predictions on asbestos contamination. About 57.14% of the study
participants consistently responded that they would appoint a licensed contractor to carry
out further asbestos surveys to identify and remove asbestos contaminated materials before
they commence site construction works. The different levels of probability risk predictions
could not alter the responses from the technical manager, project architect, client devel-
opment manager, and project engineer, not even for the very low probability prediction of
non-malignant contamination within a small specified area.
discomfort for some of the participants during the interrogations, especially the statistical
symbols on the internet and process the quantitative equations with calculators. When this
was denied, the frustration became evident in their body language, confirming the psy-
chological conflict they were facing in attempting intuitive processing of quantitative data
formats.
In summary, the empirical evidence from Theoretical Issues 6–10 has provided sub-
stantial support for research proposition 3. The empirical findings have revealed low level
training in formal risk management techniques, and intuitive dominated risk management
practices among the study participants. There has also been evidence of immense qualita-
tive data application and preference. The empirical findings have also revealed disparities
between the proportions of applied systems of risk management approach versus the
applied data processing formats, with evidence of intuitive processing of quantitative
probability by the project manager and contracts manager. All the differentiated specialist
roles exhibited low proficiency in statistical symbols, and probability judgement. The
project manager in particular performed poorly in the probability judgement, thereby
validating the analytical effects of his theoretically incompatible data processing practices.
A review of the study participants’ risk assessment has further revealed comparatively
higher accuracy for intuitive evaluation of qualitative risk data formats over quantitative
risk data formats; and insensitivity to probability predictions of emotive events. Bringing all
the above together, confirms the incompatibility of mixing decision processing approaches
and data presentation formats from the different decision-making systems.
391
References
Abderisak, A. and Lindahl, G. (2015). Take a chance on me? Construction client’s perspectives
on risk management. Procedia Economics and Finance 21: 548–554.
Adams, F.K. (2008). Risk perception and Bayesian analysis of international construction
contract risks: the case of payment delays in a developing economy. International Journal of
Project Management 26: 138–148.
Akintoye, A.S. and Macleod, M.J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction.
International Journal of Project Management 15 (1): 31–38.
Alhakami, A.S. and Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between
perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 14 (6): 1085–1096.
Allcoat, J. (2018). Construction Statistics, Great Britain, 2018. Office of National Statistics.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/articles/
constructionstatistics/2018 (accessed on 9 February 2020).
Allinson, K. (2008). Architects and Architectures of London. Oxford: Elsevier.
Arthur, A.C. (2017). Is It Time to Learn the Lessons? Fire Incidence at Atomic Junction.
Ghanaian Daily Graphic, October 16, 2017. No. 20510, p. 7.
Arthur, A.C. (2018). Do Construction Project Managers Need Training in Behavioural Sciences
to Effectively Manage Project Risk? RICS COBRA 2018 (23–24 April 2018). London, UK:
RICS HQ.
Arthur, A.C. (2020). Linkages, networks, and interactions: exploring the context for risk
decision making in construction supply chains. In: Successful Construction Supply Chain
Management; Concepts and Case Studies (ed. S. Pryke), 143–165. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN:
978-1-119-45054-2.
Arthur, A.C. and Pryke, S.D. (2013). Instinctive thinking; analysis of construction risk
management systems. Proceedings of the Construction, Building and Real Estate Research
Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, New Delhi, September 2013.
London: RICS.
Arthur, A.C. and Pryke, S.D. (2014). Are we adding risk to our projects by mixing objective
assessments of compound conjunctive and disjunctive project risks with intuitive
approaches? In: Proceedings 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1–3 September 2014
(eds. A.B. Raiden and E. Aboagye-Nimo), 1399–1408. Portsmouth: Association of
Researchers in Construction Management.
Aven, T. (2010). Misconceptions of Risk. Chichester: Wiley.
392 References
Bar-Hillel, M. (1973). On the subjective probability of compound events. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance 9: 396–406.
Bateman, I., Dent, S., Peters, E. et al. (2010). The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of
simple gambles. In: The Feeling of Risk, New Perspective on Risk (ed. P. Slovic), 3–19. London:
Earthscan Ltd.
BCIS (2011). Tender Prices Show Rising Trend at Start to 2011. http://www.bcis.co.uk/site/
scripts/news_article.aspx?newsID=221 (accessed on 2 August 2011).
Bea, R.G. (1994). The Role of Human Error in Design, Construction, and Reliability of Marine
Structures, Ship Structure Committee SSC-378. Washington, DC: U.S. Coastguard.
Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2002). The terrorist threat, world risk society revisited. Theory, culture and society.
Sage 19 (4): 39–55.
Beck, U. (2007). World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Benthin, A., Slovic, P., and Severson, H. (1993). A psychometric study of adolescent risk
perception. Journal of Adolescence 1993 (16): 153–168.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1968). General System Theory, Foundations Development Applications.
Norwich: Fletcher and Son Ltd.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (2015). General System Theory; Foundations, Development, Applications,
Revisede. New York: George Braziller.
Bikart, J. (2019). The Art of Decision Making, How We Move from Indecision to Smart Choices.
London: Watkins.
Blanchard, B.S. and Fabrycky, W.J. (1998). Systems Engineering and Analysis, 3. London:
Prentice Hall Inc.
Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwartz, N., and Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: a cognitive
response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16 (2): 313–330.
Bowden, A.R., Lane, M.R., and Martin, J.H. (2001). Triple Bottom Line Risk Management. New
York: Wiley.
Bowers, J.A. (1994). Risk management, data for project risk analyses. Internal Journal of Project
Management 12 (1): 9–16.
Bowley, M. (1966). The British Building Industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, P. (1995). A vague way of dealing with uncertainty in real estate analysis? Journal of
Property Valuation and Investment 13 (3): 22–41.
CABE (2021). Who We Are. Chartered Association of Building Engineers. https://cbuilde.com/
page/who_we_are (accessed on 14 February 2021).
Cagno, E., Caron, F., and Mancini, M. (2007). A multi-dimensional analysis of major risks in
complex projects. Risk Management 9 (1): 1–18.
Carafano, J.J. and Zuckerman, J. (2011). 40 Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: Combating
Complacency in the Long War on Terror. https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/40-
terror-plots-foiled-911-combating-complacency-the-long-war-terror (accessed on 14
February 2021).
Carmichael, D.G. (2006). Project Planning, and Control. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
References 393
Carnevale, P.J.D. and Isen, A.M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the
discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 37: 1–13.
CBI (2010). Procuring in a Downturn. CBI.
Chabris, C. and Simons, D. (2010). The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive
Us. Random House, NY: Crown Publishers.
Chapman, R.J. (1999). The likelihood and impact of changes of key project personnel on the
design process. Construction Management and Economies 17: 99–106.
Chapman, G.B. and Johnson, E.J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: anchors in judgments of
belief and value. In: Kahneman Heuristics and Biases, The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
(eds. T. Gilovich and D. Griffin), 120–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chauvin, B., Hermand, D., and Mullet, E. (2007). Risk perception and personality facets. Risk
Analysis 27 (1): 171–185.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Cohen, J., Chesnick, E.I., and Haran, D.A. (1972). A confirmation of the INERTIAL-ψ effect in
sequential choice and decision. British Journal of Psychology 63 (1): 41–46.
Cole, G.A. (2004). Management Theory and Practice, 27. Singapore: Seng Lee Press.
Cole, G. and Kelly, P. (2020). Management and Practice, 9e. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Cova, B. and Salle, R. (2006). Communications and stakeholders. In: The Management of
Complex Projects, A Relationship Approach (eds. S. Pryke and H. Smyth), 131–146. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Cox, E. (1999). The Fuzzy Systems Handbook: A Practitioner’s Guide to Building, Using, and
Maintaining Fuzzy Systems, 2e. London: AP Professional.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,
3e. London: Sage.
Dallas, M. (2006). Value and Risk Management, A Guide to Best Practice. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Damasio, A. (2006). Descartes’ Error, Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Vintage
Books.
Davies, A. (2018). Modern Methods of Construction, A Forward-Thinking Solution to the Housing
Crisis? Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Denes-Raj, V. and Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when
people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66
(5): 819–829.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2007). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research. http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/17670_Chapter1.pdf
(accessed on 12 August 2015).
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4e. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derry, T.K. and Williams, T.I. (1960). A Short History of Technology, From The Earliest Times to
A.D. 1900. Oxford University Press.
Dohle, S., Keller, C., and Siegrist, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and
implicit associations: implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis 30 (7): 1116–1128.
394 References
Edkins, A. (2009). Risk management and the supply chain. In: Construction Supply Chain
Management: Concepts and Case Studies (ed. S. Pryke), 115–136. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Edwards, P.J. and Bowen, P.A. (1998). Risk and risk management in construction: a review and
future directions for research. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 5 (4):
339–349.
Egan, S.J. (1998). Rethinking Construction - The Report of the Construction Task Force. London:
Department of Trade and Industry.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.
Epley, N. and Gilovich, T. (2002). Putting adjustment back in the and adjustment heuristic. In:
Kahneman Heuristics and Biases, The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (eds. T. Gilovich and
D. Griffin), 139–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Everis (2009). Risk Management in the Insurance Business Sector. MFC Artes Graficas, S.L.
http://www.everis.com/global/WCRepositoryFiles/Study%20of%20Risk%20Management
%20-%20sept%2009.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2015).
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2008). Research Methods for Construction, 3e. Chichester: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and Slovic, P. (2003). Judgement and decision making: the dance of
affect and reason. In: Emerging Perspectives on Judgement and Decision Research (eds.
S.L. Schneider and J. Shanteau), 327–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. et al. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric
study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9 (2): 127–152.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and Risk, An Anatomy of
Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgement: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychology Bulletin
117 (1): 39–66.
Forgas, J.P. (2001). Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Forgas, J.P. (2002). Feeling and doing: affective influences on interpersonal behavior.
Psychological Inquiry 13 (1): 1–28.
Garratt, M. (2010). A four pronged approach. Construction Journal, RICS April–May 2010.
Gate Safe (2020). Making Gates Safe. https://gate-safe.org/ (accessed on 23 December 2020).
Gov.UK (2021a). Check a public building’s Display Energy Certificate. https://www.gov.uk/
check-energy-performance-public-building (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Gov.UK (2021b). Energy Performance Certificates for your business premises. https://www.gov
.uk/energy-performance-certificate-commercial-property (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Gov.UK (2021c). Find an energy assessor. https://www.gov.uk/find-an-energy-assessor
(accessed on 8 February 2021).
Gov.UK (2021d). Building a new home and VAT. https://www.gov.uk/vat-building-new-home
Gov.UK (2021e). Stamp duty land tax, reliefs and exemptions. https://www.gov.uk/stamp-
duty-land-tax/reliefs-and-exemptions (accessed on 13 February 2021).
References 395
Hammond, E. (2011). European construction: prospect of a recovery heralds new threats.

https://www.ft.com/content/f5fd9d1a-4b86-11e0-89d8-00144feab49a (accessed on 14
February 2021).
Hillson, D., Grimaldi, S., and Rafele, C. (2006). Managing project risk using a cross risk
breakdown matrix. Risk Management 8 (1): 61–76.
HK Magazine (2016). Why does that building in repulse bay have a hole in it?. https://www
.scmp.com/magazines/hk-magazine/article/2038049/why-does-building-repulse-bay-have-
hole-it (accessed on 14 February 2021).
HM Government (2020). Manual to the Building Regulations, a code of practice for use in
England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/901517/Manual_to_building_regs_-_July_2020.pdf (accessed on 8
February 2021).
HM Treasury (2010). Spending Review 2010. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203826/Spending_review_
2010.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2021).
HM Treasury (2018). The Green Book, Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and
Evaluation. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2020).
Holmgren, R. (2002). “Money on the hoof” The astragalus bone–religion, gaming and primitive
money. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome (9–12 September 2002).
Hood, C. and Jones, D.K.C. (eds.) (1996). Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk
Management. Abingdon, VA: UCL Press.
HSE (2011). Health and Safety Executive – Annual Statistics Report 2010/11. Accessible from
https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1011.pdf.
HSE (2012). Health and Safety Executive – Annual Statistics Report 2011/12. Accessible from
https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1112.pdf.
HSE (2013). Health and Safety Executive – Annual Statistics Report for Great Britain 2012/13.
Accessible from https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1213.pdf.
HSE (2014). Health and Safety Statistics – Annual Report for Great Britain 2013/14. Accessible
from https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1314.pdf.
IFE (2020). IFE Strategic Plan 2014–2018. The Institution of Fire Engineers. https://www.ife
.org.uk/IFE-Strategic-Plan (accessed on 28 April 2020).
Inbar, Y., Cone, J., and Gilovich, T. (2010). People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and
intuitive choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (2): 232–247.
Insko, C.A. and Oakes, W.F. (1966). Awareness and the “conditioning” of attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 4 (5): 487–496.
Isen, A.M. and Daubman, K.A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Pyschology 47 (6): 1206–1217.
Isen, A.M. and Labroo, A.A. (2003). Some ways in which positive affect facilitates decision
making and judgement. In: Emerging Perspectives on Judgement and Decision Research (eds.
S.L. Schneider and J. Shanteau), 365–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isen, A.M., Daubman, K.A., and Nowicki, G.P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1122–1131.
Isen, A.M., Niedenthal, P.M., and Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social
categorization. Motivation and Emotion 16 (1): 65–78.
396 References
Ive, G.J. and Gruneberg, S.L. (2000). The Economies of the Modern Construction Sector.
Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Jain, L.C. and Martin, N.M. (1998). Fusion of Neural Networks, Fuzzy Sets and Genetic
Algorithms- Industrial Application. London: CRC Press.
Japp, K. and Kusche, I. (2008). Systems theory and risk. In: Social Theories of Risk and
Uncertainty: An Introduction (ed. J.O. Zinn), 52–75. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
JCT News (2012). Low-Carbon Building That Does Not Cost the Earth. London: JCT. Sweet &
Maxwell.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80
(4): 237–251.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica 47 (2): 263–292.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982a). Subjective probability: a judgment of
representativeness. In: Tversky Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D.
Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky), 32–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982b). On the psychology of prediction. In: Judgement Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky), 48–68.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamper, E. (2000). Decision Making Under Risk in Organisationals; The Case of German Waste
Management. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Khazaeni, G., Khanzadi, M., and Afshar, A. (2012a). Fuzzy adaptive decision making model for
selection balanced risk allocation. International Journal of Project Management 30: 511–522.
Khazaeni, G., Khanzadi, M., and Afshar, A. (2012b). Optimum risk allocation model for
construction contracts: fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 39:
789–800.
Knight, A. and Turnbull, N. (2008). Epistemology. In: Advanced Research Methods in the Built
Environment (eds. A. Knight and L. Ruddock). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kululanga, G. and Kuotcha, W. (2010). Measuring project risk management process for
construction contractors with statement indicators linked to numerical scores. Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management 17 (4): 336–351.
Kuo, Y. and Lu, S. (2013). Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance
risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. Internal Journal of Project
Management 31: 602–614.
Larsen, R.J. and Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: a
review. Journal of Research in Personality 21: 1–39.
Latham, S.M. (1994). Constructing the Team: Joint Review of Procurement and Contractual
Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction Industry. Final Report. London: HMSO.
ISBN 0-11-752994-X, https://constructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
Constructing-the-team-The-Latham-Report.pdf.
Lock, D. (2003). Project Management, 8e. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.
Loosemore, M. (2006). Managing project risks. In: The Management of Complex Projects, A
Relationship Approach (eds. S. Pryke and H. Smyth), 131–146. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., and Higgon, D. (2006). Risk Management in Projects.
Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
References 397
Luhmann, N. (2005). Risk: A Sociological Theory. New Brunswick.

Lyng, S. (2008). Edgework, risk, and uncertainty. In: Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty:
An Introduction (ed. J.O. Zinn), 106–137. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lyons, T. and Skitmore, M. (2004). Project risk management in the Queensland engineering
construction industry: a survey. International Journal of Project Management 22: 51–61.
MacCrimmon, K.R. and Wehrung, D.A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives.
Management Science 36 (4): 401–518.
Mackie, D. and Worth, L.T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in
persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1): 27–40.
Malley, P.O. (2008). Governmentality and risk. In: Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An
Introduction (ed. J.O. Zinn), 52–75. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
March, J.G. and Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking.
Maytorena, E., Winch, G.M., Freeman, J., and Kiely, T. (2007). The Influence of experience and
information search styles on project risk identification performance. IEEE Transactions on
Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (2): 315–326.
Mullins, L.J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7e. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
National Audit Office (2000). The Millennium Dome; Report by the Comptroller and Auditor
General. HC 936 Session 1999–2000. London: The Stationery Office.
Ng, A. and Loosemore, M. (2007). Risk allocation in the private provision of public
infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management 25: 66–76.
O’Dwyer, M. (2020). Law firms hit with big increases in professional indemnity insurance.
Telegraph Media Group Limited. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/04/law-
firms-hit-big-increases-professional-indemnity-insurance/ (accessed on 29 October 2020).
Patrick, C.J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: startling new insights. Psychophysiology 31 (4):
319–330.
Perlow, L.A., Okhuysen, G.A., and Repenning, N.P. (2002). The speed trap: exploring the
relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management
Journal 45 (5): 931–955.
Perry, J.G. and Hayes, R.W. (1985). Risk and its management in construction projects.
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Part I 75: 499–521.
Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (2000). The springs of action: affective and analytical information
processing in choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1465–1475.
Pryke, S. (2006). Projects as networks of relationships. In: The Management of Complex Projects,
A Relationship Approach (eds. S. Pryke and H. Smyth), 213–235. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Pryke, S. (2012). Clients as supply chain managers: prominence, path lengths, knowledge and
innovation. Paper presented to the Management of Construction: Research to Practice CIB
International Conference. Montreal, Canada: Centre Mont-Royal (26–29 June 2012).
Pryke, S. and Smyth, H. (2006). The Management of Complex Projects, A Relationship Approach.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rendall, E. (2011). Specialist costs off-site manufacture. Building, Issue No: 372011, Volume:
CCLXXVI No 8695 ISSN 0007-3318.
Rhodes, C. (2019). Construction Industry: Statistics and Policy. House of Commons Library.
file:///C:/Users/ARX/Downloads/SN01432.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2020).
398 References
RIBA (2020). RIBA Plan of Work 2020 Overview. RIBA. Architecture.com.

\LY1\textbackslashhttps://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Test-resources-
page/Additional-Documents/2020RIBAPlanofWorkoverviewpdf.pdf?la=en (accessed on 13
April 2020).
RIBA (2021). The Royal Institute of British Architects. https://www.architecture.com/about
RICS (2018a). Pathway Guide. Quantity Surveying and Construction. https://www.rics.org/
globalassets/rics-website/media/assessment/qs-and-construction.pdf (accessed on 13
February 2021).
RICS (2018b). Pathway Guide. Building Surveying. https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-
website/media/qualify/pathway-guides/building-surveying-pathway-guide-chartered-rics
.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2021).
RICS (2018c). Pathway Guide. Project Management. https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-
website/media/qualify/pathway-guides/project-management-pathway-guide-chartered-rics
.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2021).
RICS (2021a). About Us. History. https://www.rics.org/uk/about-rics/ (accessed on 13 February
2021).
RICS (2021b). Sector pathways. https://www.rics.org/uk/surveying-profession/join-rics/sector-
pathways/ (accessed on 13 February 2021).
RICS (2021c). BIM Manager Certification. https://www.rics.org/uk/surveying-profession/
career-progression/accreditations/bim-manager-certification/ (accessed on 26 July 2015).
Risk Net (2020). Etymology of the Term Risk. The Risk Management Network. https://www
.risknet.de/en/knowledge/etymology/ (accessed on 30 August 2020).
Robinson, B. (2011). London’s Burning: The Great Fire. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/
british/civil_war_revolution/great_fire_01.shtml (accessed on 14 February 2021).
Romeike, F. and Hager, P. (2009). Risk Management as a Success Factor 2.0–Methods, Examples,
Checklists: Practical Handbook for Industry and Commerce, 2e. Wiesbaden: Gabler
Publishing House.
Romeike, F. and Muller-Reichart, M. (2008). Risk Management in Insurance Companies.
Weinheim: Wiley.
Rowe, G., Hirsh, J.B., and Anderson, A.K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of
attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of
America 104 (1): 383–388.
Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News 25 (1): 16–27.
Sawhney, A., Khanzode, A., and Tiwari, S. (2017). Building Information Modelling for Project
Managers. Report for Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1990). Are risk-attitudes related across domains and response modes?
Schwartz, N. and Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of
affective states on analytic reasoning. In: Emotion and Social Judgement (ed. J.P. Forgas),
55–71. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Slack, J. (2008). Police Has Foiled 15 Terror Plots in Britain Since 2000. Ian Blair Reveals. http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561267/Police-foiled-15-terror-plots-Britain-2000-Ian-
Blair-reveals.html (accessed on 21 February 2021).
Slovic, P. (1964). Assessment of risk taking behavior. Psychology Bulletin. 61 (3): 220–233.
References 399
Slovic, P. (2010). The Feeling of Risk, New Perspective on Risk Perception. London: Earthscan Ltd.
Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversal: a broader perspective. American
Economic Review 73 (4): 596–605.
Slovic, P. and Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Currrent Directions in Psychological
Science 15 (6): 322–325.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., and Roe, F.J.C. (1981). Perceived risk: psychological
factors and social implications and discussion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 376 (1764): The Assessment and Perception of
Risk, 17–34.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding
perceived risk. In: Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D. Kahneman,
P. Slovic and A. Tversky), 463–489. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In:
Heuristics and Biases, The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (eds. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and
D. Kahneman), 397–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2010). Risk as analysis and risk as
feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. In: The Feeling of Risk, New
Perspective on Risk perception (ed. P. Slovic), 21–36. London: Earthscan Ltd.
Smith, N.J., Merna, T., and Jobling, P. (2006). Managing Risk in Construction Projects, 2e.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., and Toplak, M.E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient, Toward a Test of
Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: First MIT Press.
Staw, B.M. and Barsade, S.G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: a test of the
sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly 38
(2): 304–331.
Sutrisna, M. (2009). Research methodology in doctoral research: understanding the meaning of
conducting qualitative research, working paper. In: Proceedings of the Association of
Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Doctoral Workshop (ed. A. Ross), 48–57.
Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-9562622-0-8.
The Economic Times (2011). “Blackberry riots” in Britain. Addition to Smart phones. http://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/blackberry-riots-in-britain-
addiction-to-smartphones/articleshow/9601104.cms (accessed on 14 February 2021).
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., and Wildavsky, A. (1990). Culture Theory. Oxford: Westview Press.
Tulloch, J. (2008). Culture and risk. In: Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction
(ed. J.O. Zinn), 52–75. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982a). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
In: Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and
A. Tversky), 3–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982b). Belief in the law of small numbers. In: Judgement
Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky),
23–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982c). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. In: Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (eds. D. Kahneman,
P. Slovic and A. Tversky), 163–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
400 References
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (2002). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction
fallacy in probability judgment. In: Heuristics and Biases, The Psychology of Intuitive
Judgment (eds. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman), 19–48. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
UNEP (2021). About UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/about-un-
environment (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Walker, A. (2007). Project Management in Construction, 5e. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Walker, A. (2015). Project Management in Construction, 6e. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Weber, E.U. and Milliman, R.A. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes; relating risk perception to
risky choice. Management Science 43 (2): 123–144.
Wetherbe, J.C. and Vitalari, N.P. (1994). Systems Analysis and Design; Best Practice, 4e. New
York: West Publishing Company.
Winch, G.M. (2010). Managing Construction Projects, 2e. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research; Design and Methods, 3e. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research; Design and Methods, 5e. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist 35 (2): 151–175.
Zajonc, R.B. (2001). Mere exposure: a gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in
Psychological Science 10 (6): 224–228.
Zeng, J., An, M., and Smith, N.J. (2007). Application of a fuzzy based decision making
methodology to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project
Management 25: 589–600.
Zinn, J.O. (2008). Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
401
Index
a analytical generalisation 78, 88, 161, 168,

actuarial science 34, 38 176, 195, 197, 199, 202
adjustment 23, 47, 52, 63, 64, 69, 82, 83 anchor and adjustment 52, 63, 64, 69, 82, 83
adventure 33 anecdotal 60, 69, 73, 85, 125, 132, 180, 210,
affect 2, 3, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 37, 44, 49, 59, 255, 261, 313, 319, 370, 376
72, 84, 85, 94, 98, 102, 117, 124, 143, application 7, 11–14, 16–18, 28–32, 34,
146, 158, 169, 203, 209, 217, 219, 221, 36–39, 41, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 68,
223, 226, 230, 234, 243, 274, 280, 282, 69, 72, 73, 77, 82, 88, 124, 131, 134,
284, 293, 303, 331, 336, 338, 348, 360, 135, 137, 154, 157, 161, 164, 168, 180,
387 183–186, 195, 198–200, 202, 204, 205,
affective heuristics 2, 7, 59, 60, 65, 73, 84, 91, 210, 221, 256, 261, 267, 313, 318, 324,
94, 97, 98, 102, 146, 153, 162–165, 168, 334, 370, 375, 381, 390
169, 176, 186, 189, 196–199, 202, 203, architect 2, 16, 18–22, 89, 90, 92, 94–96, 98,
205, 206, 208, 225, 229, 230, 279, 280, 100, 124, 147–152, 154–156, 158, 163,
282, 286, 335, 336, 338, 341, 348 164, 171, 174, 175, 179, 181, 187, 188,
air source heat pump 19, 28 190, 193, 207–211, 226–230, 232, 247,
analysis 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16–18, 20, 25, 255, 280–283, 288, 312, 336–339, 341,
28, 29, 31–39, 41, 43–50, 58–62, 64–66, 344, 346, 365, 369, 390
68–74, 78, 81, 82, 85–89, 98, 100, 108, assessment 21, 35, 43, 44, 46, 57, 58, 64, 68,
112–114, 116, 124, 126–131, 134, 136, 85, 112, 117, 124, 125, 129, 134, 137,
139, 146, 150, 154, 164–167, 170, 173, 139–141, 145, 147, 148, 153, 154,
176, 180, 182–186, 189, 192, 195–199, 157–159, 161, 165, 168, 173, 175, 176,
202, 204, 205, 209, 211, 213, 230, 232, 179, 180, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192,
235, 238, 239, 244, 247, 255, 257–261, 195–199, 202, 209–211, 243, 247, 255,
266, 267, 270, 272, 286, 288, 289, 295, 261, 267, 270–272, 276, 293, 298, 303,
298, 299, 312, 314–319, 323, 324, 328, 312, 313, 317, 324, 325, 327–330, 333,
334, 341, 345, 350, 354, 355, 369, 354, 360, 369, 370, 374, 381, 384–386,
371–375, 380, 381, 384 390
analytical 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 17, 41, 46, 47, 50, assessor 22, 52, 57, 58, 60, 62–64, 82, 83, 85,
51, 54, 64, 66, 68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 83, 125, 141, 180, 211, 255, 272, 313, 330,
84, 86–88, 161, 164, 168, 176, 195–197, 370, 386
199, 201, 202, 204, 327, 390 associations 4, 43, 47, 56, 63, 71, 73, 170
402 Index
astragalus 33 242, 244, 246, 248, 250–252, 254, 256,

attention 52, 54, 55, 68, 73 261, 262, 267, 268, 270, 273, 279,
availability heuristics 51, 56, 61–63, 66, 69, 285–289, 291, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302,
82, 84, 85, 102, 107, 124, 141, 146, 148, 304, 306, 308, 310, 313, 318, 319, 325,
156–158, 169, 192, 208, 232, 234, 238, 327, 328, 330, 335, 342–346, 350, 352,
247, 272, 293, 294, 312, 329, 348, 349, 355, 356, 358, 361, 362, 364–366, 368,
369, 385 370, 375, 376, 381, 382, 384, 386
axiology 86 cash flow 25, 115, 221, 245
axioms 85 categorisation 2–4, 7, 14, 52, 64, 65, 69, 74,
83, 86–88, 91, 96, 100, 102, 127–130,
b 133, 136, 146, 148, 153, 157, 161, 162,
behavioural science 2, 34, 41, 51, 68, 72, 73, 164, 168, 169, 176, 196, 197, 199,
82, 86, 192, 198, 199, 202, 205 201–203, 205, 206, 225, 230, 232,
biases 2, 34, 51, 54, 62–64, 66, 69, 73, 77, 201 257–260, 263, 266, 279, 282, 286, 288,
Bible 11 293, 315–318, 320, 324, 335, 341, 348,
BIM manager 19–22 372–375, 377, 380
biological sciences 11, 29 certainty 3, 64, 65, 139, 162, 186, 270, 327,
bridges 10, 12, 15, 29 384
brownfield 97, 220, 222, 229, 284, 340 Christian mission 11
building 1, 2, 10, 13–22, 26–29, 32, 42, 49, civil engineering 10
93, 95, 97, 103, 105, 109, 111, 115, 151, classical natural sciences 11
183, 222, 229, 241, 246, 282, 286, 292, client 2, 13–16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 42, 44,
297, 301, 302, 307, 337, 339, 340, 352, 48, 56, 89, 93, 151–158, 163–165, 168,
358 172–175, 179, 181, 183, 187, 188, 191,
building engineer 19, 20 194, 195, 200, 205, 207–212, 280–283,
building regulation 2, 16, 18, 28, 32, 93, 97, 288, 293, 296, 303, 312, 333, 336, 338,
219, 222, 229, 282, 301, 340 339, 341, 348, 351, 354, 360, 369, 390
building stock 10 closed system 9, 11, 29
building surveyors 19, 20 cognitive 7, 34, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 68,
built environment 9, 29, 85 72, 73
business activities 13, 14, 23, 25 commercial 10, 12, 15, 22, 33, 38, 42, 44, 48,
72, 73, 89, 93, 94, 98–101, 105, 110,
c 122, 147, 154, 163–165, 168, 179, 226,
callibrationist 2 229–233, 236, 241, 245, 249, 252, 280,
callibrationist viewpoint 2 282, 285, 287, 291, 296, 301, 306, 310,
capital cost 9, 10, 29 336, 338, 341, 342, 344, 346, 348, 352,
carbon footprint 28 357, 363, 366
carbon reduction 28, 97, 219, 222, 229, 282, common 4, 19–21, 33, 38, 60, 66, 70, 77, 78,
340 88, 91, 94, 98, 107, 146, 153, 155, 158,
case of suggestion 83 162, 163, 168, 170, 196, 207, 208, 226,
case study 4, 70, 77, 78, 81, 86–92, 99–106, 234, 280, 294, 336, 348, 349
108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122, communication 1, 2, 10, 11, 22, 25, 30–32,
125, 130–132, 137, 139–141, 146–156, 34–36, 38, 44, 71, 72, 93–96, 98, 99,
158, 161–164, 170, 173, 180, 182, 183, 101, 104, 110, 114, 119, 122, 124, 165,
189, 202, 207–211, 231–236, 239, 240, 166, 168, 175, 177, 179, 221, 226–228,
Index 403
230–233, 236, 240, 245, 249, 252, 255, construction period 9, 10, 29
280, 281, 283, 285, 287, 288, 290, 293, construction products 1, 9–11, 13, 27–29
296, 300, 305, 309, 312, 338, 339, 341, construction project delivery 1–3, 56, 74, 83,
342, 344, 346, 348, 351, 357, 362, 366, 84, 91, 102, 146, 148, 153, 157, 161,
369 168, 169, 196, 202, 205, 206, 225, 232,
component 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 29, 65, 279, 293, 335, 348
66, 83, 84, 91, 97, 162, 163, 168, 196, construction system 9, 10, 12–14, 22, 25–30
199, 202, 207, 208, 225, 229, 279, 282, constructor 23, 25, 115, 221, 245, 301
335, 338 contemporary 1–3, 11, 23, 25, 30, 31, 35, 36,
concept 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 14, 16–18, 29–33, 38, 41, 59, 60, 65, 68, 71, 72, 182
35–39, 41, 43, 49, 65, 69, 71, 72, 86, 87, contract 18, 25, 28, 41, 42, 45, 49, 72, 89, 90,
89, 93, 95, 96, 109, 139, 154, 161, 168, 93, 94, 148, 151, 155, 179, 198, 203, 352
186, 195, 196, 199, 201–204, 227, 239, contractor 13–16, 25, 29, 42, 47, 50, 90, 92,
270, 281, 295, 327, 334, 337, 384 93, 96, 101, 109, 142, 144, 145, 147–149,
conceptual 2, 7, 9, 17, 20, 30, 31, 33–39, 49, 151, 152, 155, 156, 183, 186, 192, 194,
52, 60, 65, 68–72, 77, 83, 86, 88, 169, 212, 218, 221, 228, 233, 236, 240, 252,
185, 196, 201, 205 261, 273, 275, 276, 287, 331–333, 339,
construction 1–4, 7, 9–30, 32, 35, 37–39, 41, 342, 351, 356, 362, 387–390
43–52, 56–62, 64–74, 77, 78, 81–87, contracts manager 2, 89, 90, 94, 98, 100, 124,
89–98, 100, 102, 106, 107, 111, 112, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 157, 158,
114, 116, 117, 120, 123–125, 129, 130, 162, 163, 171, 174, 175, 179, 181, 183,
132, 134, 140, 142, 144–153, 155–159, 185–190, 193, 195, 198, 199, 212, 226,
161–165, 167–170, 173, 175, 176, 247, 255, 261, 270, 276, 280, 288, 317,
178–180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 192, 324, 327, 334, 336, 341, 369, 384, 390
194–216, 218–223, 225–230, 232, 234, control 2, 11, 17–19, 25, 26, 42, 43, 45, 46,
237, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245–247, 250, 59, 68, 93, 96, 109, 339, 351
253, 255, 256, 261, 270–273, 275, 276, Corinthians 11
279–286, 288, 292–294, 296–298, 300, coronavirus 25
302, 303, 307, 311–313, 319, 328, 330, corporate activities 1
332, 333, 335–341, 343, 344, 347–349, Covid-19 pandemic 1, 31, 32, 35–38, 42
351, 354, 357, 359, 360, 364, 367, 369, cross-purpose working 10, 19, 21, 24, 30,
370, 376, 384, 386, 388–390 197, 205
construction activities 13, 16, 25 cultural studies 34, 35
construction client 2 culture theory 3, 4, 66, 70, 87, 162, 168, 196,
construction delivery 1, 9–11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 202
20–22, 26, 29, 32, 65–67, 81, 84, 102,
146, 153, 176, 198, 232, 293 d
construction industry 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, data 3, 4, 7, 44, 46, 48–51, 53, 54, 60–63, 68,
19, 21–23, 26, 28–30, 37, 39, 43, 44, 69, 72, 73, 77–79, 81, 82, 84–90, 107,
47–51, 61, 62, 69, 71, 81–83, 87, 90, 92, 112, 117, 124, 125, 132–137, 139, 141,
94, 130, 146, 149, 152, 153, 156, 145–147, 150, 151, 153–155, 157–159,
162–164, 170, 180, 182, 185, 211, 280, 179, 180, 184–186, 189, 192, 195,
336, 341 198–201, 204–211, 214–216, 225, 230,
construction management 3, 10, 11, 41, 50, 234, 238, 247, 255, 256, 261–267, 270,
70, 73, 201, 202 272, 273, 277, 279, 286, 294, 298, 303,
404 Index
data (contd.) 205–208, 221, 225, 226, 229, 246, 279,

312, 313, 316, 319–325, 327, 328, 330, 282, 288, 293, 301, 335, 338, 348, 358
334, 335, 341, 349, 354, 360, 369, 370, differentiated functional subsystems 1, 25,
376–381, 384, 386, 390 26, 35, 71
data presentation formats 3, 4, 46, 51, 60, 69, differentiated risk perceptions 7, 64, 66, 67,
72, 73, 87, 124, 132–136, 147, 150, 154, 70, 77, 81, 83, 84, 88, 165, 166, 176,
179, 184, 185, 198–201, 204–206, 209, 179, 201, 202
214, 255, 261–267, 272, 277, 312, differentiation 2, 4, 10, 17, 19–25, 29, 30, 37,
319–324, 369, 376–381, 390 66, 67, 70, 74, 77, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 94,
decision setting 41, 51, 72 96, 98, 102, 146, 148, 153, 155, 157,
decision task 47, 50–54, 68, 69, 71, 73 161–167, 175, 176, 179, 189, 201–203,
decision-making 2–4, 31, 32, 36, 38, 41, 207, 225, 226, 230, 232, 279, 280, 282,
47–55, 57–66, 68–70, 72, 73, 77–79, 81, 286, 293, 335, 336, 338, 341, 348
82, 84–87, 89, 124, 125, 131, 136, 146, discipline 11, 21, 22, 30–35, 38, 59, 60, 69,
147, 152, 153, 156–159, 168, 170, 179, 73, 82, 84, 86, 176, 198, 202, 203
180, 183, 185, 186, 189, 195, 197, discovery 2, 11, 29, 88, 130, 183, 192, 203,
199–201, 203, 204, 207–211, 247, 255, 206, 270, 317, 384
256, 261, 267, 312, 313, 318, 324, 370, displayed energy certificate 28
375, 381, 390 dispute 25
decision-making subsystems 3, 64, 124, 125,
146, 153, 157, 158, 255, 256, 313 e
department 9, 14, 15, 29 ecological functional subsystem 27
design 2, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21–24, 27, 28, 42, economic functional subsystem 10, 26
44, 45, 62, 78, 81, 85, 87–91, 93–104, economies 10, 23, 34, 38
107, 109, 112–114, 117, 119, 122–125, edgework 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 72
132, 137, 139, 141, 148, 151, 155, 158, electric door entry system 1
162–166, 168, 175, 177, 179, 183, electric gates 1
207–211, 219, 221, 222, 226–240, 244, empirical 2–4, 17, 34, 43, 46, 50, 56, 68, 70,
245, 247, 248, 251, 253, 255, 256, 261, 72–74, 77–79, 81, 87–89, 91, 94, 96–98,
262, 267, 270, 273, 280–283, 285, 287, 102, 107, 112, 117, 124, 125, 131, 132,
288, 290, 291, 293–296, 298–300, 303, 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 145–148, 150,
305, 309, 312, 313, 319, 325, 328, 330, 153–155, 157–159, 161–165, 168–170,
336–346, 348–351, 354, 356, 360–362, 173, 176, 179, 180, 182–186, 189, 192,
365, 369, 370, 376, 381, 384, 386 195–200, 202–205, 207, 208, 210, 211,
design concepts 2, 16, 18, 89 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 234, 238,
design development 2, 16, 18, 87, 89, 158, 243, 247, 255, 256, 261, 267, 270, 272,
207–211 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 286, 293, 294,
design errors 2 298, 303, 312, 313, 318, 319, 324,
dice 33 327–330, 333–336, 338, 341, 348, 349,
differences 2–4, 10, 13, 17, 19–24, 29, 30, 37, 354, 360, 369, 370, 375, 376, 381,
38, 47, 49, 50, 52, 63–67, 69, 70, 74, 83, 384–386, 390
84, 87, 91, 93, 96, 97, 100, 102, 146, empirical investigations 4, 34, 43, 77, 78, 81,
153, 157, 161–164, 168–170, 176, 180, 87, 162, 179, 183, 196, 198, 202, 203,
182, 183, 196, 197, 199, 202, 203, 205, 223
Index 405
empirical research 2 Extinction rebellion 28

employment 10, 28, 29, 212
energy efficient 28 f
energy performance 27 fear 33, 38, 53
energy performance certificate 28 Feng Shui 27
energy solution 24, 27 fire 1, 19–22, 31, 32, 38, 42, 49, 58, 93, 113,
engineer 2, 10, 16, 18–22, 34, 38, 47, 50, 89, 221, 287, 289, 295, 299, 308, 355
90, 93–96, 98, 100, 112, 117, 124, 130, firm 10, 14–16, 22–24, 26–29, 42, 48, 50, 82,
139, 146–149, 151–158, 163, 164, 157, 333
172–175, 179, 181, 182, 186–188, 190, First World War 21
193, 207–212, 226–230, 232, 255, 270, fraction 61, 132–136, 214, 262–266, 320–323,
280–283, 285, 286, 288, 298, 312, 376–380
336–339, 341, 369, 374, 390 fridge 11
environment 4, 7, 9–12, 14, 17, 21–30, 35, function 9, 11–13, 21, 24, 32, 35, 43, 53, 137,
36, 41, 43–45, 47, 49, 55, 56, 66, 71, 79, 215, 267, 325, 381
84–86, 91, 97, 162, 208, 221, 225, 229, functional 1, 2, 10, 25–28, 30, 31, 35, 38, 71
279, 282, 335, 338 functionality 9, 11, 20, 24, 30, 66, 71, 83, 84,
environmental changes 11, 21–25, 30, 44 91, 162, 169, 196, 205, 208, 225, 279,
environmental forces 4, 10, 12, 17, 21, 22, 335
24–26, 28–30, 66, 84, 86, 91, 97, 162, funding requirement 28
225, 229, 279, 282, 335, 338 future 2, 23, 31–33, 35, 37–39, 46, 57, 58, 60,
environmentalist 27 62, 63, 68, 71–73, 78, 82, 85, 125, 127,
epidemiology 34, 38 131, 133, 141, 180, 183–185, 200, 204,
epistemology 31, 32, 37, 38, 60, 77, 81, 86, 211, 213, 214, 255, 259, 264, 272, 313,
88 316, 318, 322, 330, 370, 372, 378,
etymology 7, 31, 32, 201 386
evolution 21, 30, 185 fuzzy linguistics 44, 69
expenditure 25 fuzzy logic 46, 50, 72, 73
experiences 46, 47, 51–53, 56–58, 60–62, 65,
68, 69, 73, 83, 91, 94, 126–131, 150, g
154, 162, 164, 168, 176, 180, 183, 189, gain 3, 57, 64, 65
196, 199, 202–204, 213, 219, 226, 247, games of chance 31, 33, 71
257–262, 280, 282, 314–317, 319, 324, general systems theory 9, 11, 29, 72
327, 336, 338, 371–375 government 9, 10, 13, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32,
experiential 46, 47, 55, 61, 63, 69 34–36, 38, 42, 43, 49
export 9, 10, 29 gradual approach 51, 52, 54, 55, 68
exposed heuristics 112–114, 116, 173, 243, graph 14, 132–136, 214, 262–266, 320–323,
244, 298, 354 376–380
exposure 4, 56–59, 65, 68, 84, 85, 112, 142, greenfield 98, 220, 222, 230, 284, 340
144, 164, 170, 173, 197, 209, 218, 238, greenhouse gas emission 9, 10, 29, 49
243, 273, 275, 298, 332, 333, 341, 354, Greenpeace UK 28
388, 389 Grenfell Tower 1, 31, 32, 38
external stakeholders 3, 4, 52, 56, 65, 69, 74, Greta Thunberg activists 28
87, 162, 168, 196, 202 ground source heat pump 28
406 Index
grounded heuristics 91, 107, 112, 117, 124, 328, 330, 332, 333, 338, 340–343, 345,
146, 148, 153, 157, 158, 162, 164, 170, 348, 349, 354, 360, 361, 365, 369, 382,
171, 173, 176, 197, 198, 203, 208, 209, 384, 386, 388–390
226, 234, 238, 243, 247, 280, 294, 298,
303, 312, 327, 336, 341, 349, 360, i
369 identification 2, 3, 31, 41, 43–45, 49, 57, 69,
grouping 22, 24, 66 72, 74, 79, 84, 94, 107, 112, 117, 118,
groups 4, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 26–28, 30, 64, 65, 121, 124, 131, 139, 146, 150, 153, 155,
70, 94, 163–165, 175, 183, 185, 208 157, 158, 162, 164, 168–171, 173, 176,
guided morality 1, 27, 31, 38, 71 182, 186, 196–198, 201, 203, 205, 208,
209, 212, 234, 238, 243, 247, 248, 251,
h 262, 270, 280, 294, 298, 303, 304, 308,
hazard 1, 32 312, 319, 327, 336, 341, 348, 349, 354,
heuristics 2, 7, 35, 39, 47, 50–52, 55, 56, 360, 361, 365, 369, 376, 384
59–63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 77, 79, ideologies 2, 11
82–85, 87, 91, 94, 97, 98, 102, 107, 108, illustration 13, 17, 19, 24, 25, 35, 55, 60, 61,
112–114, 116–118, 121, 124–130, 141, 85, 117, 125, 132, 150, 157, 180, 210,
146, 148, 153, 157, 158, 162–165,
243, 255, 261, 267, 313, 319, 360, 370,
168–171, 173, 176, 179, 180, 186, 189,
376
192, 196–199, 201–206, 208–210, 213,
impact 1–4, 7, 17, 21–26, 30, 31, 34–39, 41,
225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 234, 238, 239,
42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 57, 59, 60, 64–66,
243, 244, 247, 248, 251, 255–260, 272,
68–70, 73, 74, 83–85, 87, 91, 93, 97,
279, 280, 282, 286, 293–295, 298, 303,
102, 117, 137, 139, 142, 144, 145, 150,
304, 308, 312–317, 327, 329, 335, 341,
153, 157, 162, 169, 186, 189, 196, 199,
348–350, 354, 356, 358, 360, 361, 365,
205, 208, 209, 211, 215, 216, 218, 219,
369–375, 385
221, 225, 229, 234, 247, 268–270, 273,
high rise buildings 1, 49
275, 276, 279, 281–283, 293, 296, 303,
homeostatic 2
319, 325, 327, 332, 333, 335, 337, 338,
homeostatic perspective 2
348, 351, 360, 382, 383, 388, 389
housing 10, 13, 32, 87, 89, 90, 147, 148, 151,
155, 158 importation 9, 10, 29
human 1, 2, 9–13, 17, 29, 31, 36, 38, 46, 55, industry 2, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 19, 21–23,
57, 68, 71, 73, 82 26–30, 33, 35, 37–39, 41, 43, 44, 47–51,
human condition 1 56, 61, 62, 69, 71–73, 81–83, 87, 90, 92,
human resource 9 94, 130, 146, 148, 149, 151–153, 155,
human subjectivity 2 156, 162–164, 170, 180, 182, 183, 185,
human survival 1, 38 204, 211, 261, 280, 327, 336, 341
hypothetical 17, 57, 79, 97–99, 101–103, 107, infection 25, 32, 38, 142, 145, 219, 273, 276,
112, 117, 118, 121, 124, 137, 140–142, 332, 333, 388, 389
144–146, 148, 150, 153, 155, 157, 158, information 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 37, 45,
164, 165, 168–170, 173, 175, 176, 192, 46, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 82, 85,
195, 197, 208, 211, 215, 216, 218–220, 87, 91–93, 102, 110, 112–114, 116, 124,
222, 229–235, 238, 243, 247, 248, 251, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156–158,
268, 271–273, 275, 276, 282, 284–287, 162, 169, 173, 197, 209, 218, 221, 226,
289, 294, 298, 303, 304, 308, 312, 325, 234, 238, 243, 244, 247, 275, 280, 281,
Index 407
293, 294, 296, 298–300, 312, 332, 336, 198, 202–205, 218, 221, 223, 233, 235,
339, 348, 351, 354, 355, 369, 388 239, 244, 245, 251, 273, 275, 300, 332,
infrastructure 10, 95, 101, 104, 109, 114, 122, 333, 345, 350, 355, 356, 361, 388, 389
344, 368
innovation 11, 24, 27 j
inputs 9, 12, 14, 17–19, 22, 23, 29, 30, 41, judgement 2, 34, 35, 38, 46, 47, 54, 56–58,
43–45, 49, 65, 71 61–64, 82, 146, 150, 154, 157, 159, 189,
institutions 4, 21, 22, 26–29, 31, 34–36, 38, 204, 211, 277, 334, 390
39, 42, 56, 66, 68, 70, 72–74, 162
insurance 21, 31, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, 49, k
60, 71, 72, 115, 185, 221, 301 knowledge 22, 33, 41, 57, 61, 69, 72, 73, 81,
interactions 7, 9–12, 14, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 86, 91, 125, 131, 137, 139, 162, 180,
30, 31, 34–36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 184, 186–188, 198, 203, 204, 210,
66, 71–73, 78, 86, 163, 221 213–215, 226, 256, 261, 262, 267, 268,
interest 2, 23, 26, 28, 36, 37, 39, 72, 74, 86, 270, 280, 313, 318, 319, 324, 325, 328,
202 336, 370, 375, 376, 381, 382, 384
internal 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22–25,
29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 49, 66, 70–72, l
74, 77, 84, 88, 90, 91, 148, 154, legal 10, 26, 28, 30, 42, 44, 71, 93, 94, 98, 100,
161–164, 170, 173, 180, 183, 186, 189,
101, 105, 111, 115, 123, 124, 163, 165,
195, 202, 207, 225, 261, 279, 335
168, 175, 179, 221, 226–228, 230–233,
intuition 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 61, 63, 64, 66,
237, 241, 246, 249, 253, 255, 280–283,
72, 82, 85, 124, 125, 180, 182, 210, 255,
286, 288, 291, 297, 301, 306, 310, 312,
256, 312, 313, 369, 370
336, 338, 339, 341, 343, 344, 347, 348,
intuitive 3, 4, 7, 41, 46–48, 50–52, 55, 59–64,
352, 358, 363, 367, 369
66, 68, 69, 72–74, 77–79, 81–87, 91,
legal functional subsystem 10, 28
102, 107, 112, 117, 124–132, 135, 137,
likelihood 2, 35, 37, 44, 49, 56, 185, 211, 221,
139, 141, 145–148, 150, 151, 153, 154,
267, 381
157–159, 161, 168–170, 173, 176,
linguistic variables 44, 46, 50, 60, 69, 72, 73,
179–183, 185, 186, 189, 192, 195–206,
208–211, 215, 221, 232, 234, 243, 247, 87, 205
255–261, 267, 270, 272, 273, 277, 293, linkages 11, 12, 139, 186, 270, 384
294, 298, 303, 312–319, 324, 325,
327–330, 334, 348, 349, 354, 360, m
369–376, 381, 384–386, 390 machine 11
investigate 11, 169, 180, 200 management 1–4, 7, 9–11, 16–25, 27–33,
investigation 2, 4, 34, 43, 68, 72, 77, 78, 81, 36–39, 41–52, 59–66, 68–74, 77–79,
87, 93, 96, 101, 103, 106, 113, 121, 142, 81–87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 102, 117,
144, 162, 168, 179, 183, 194, 196, 198, 124–136, 146–159, 161, 163–165,
202–205, 218, 221, 223, 233, 235, 239, 168–170, 172, 173, 176, 179–189, 191,
244, 245, 251, 273, 275, 332, 333, 342, 192, 194–214, 221, 225, 232, 247,
345, 350, 355, 356, 361, 388, 389 255–267, 277, 293, 296, 303, 312–324,
investigative 2, 4, 11, 34, 43, 68, 72, 77, 78, 327, 334, 348, 352, 357, 359, 360,
81, 87, 93, 96, 101, 103, 108, 113, 121, 369–381, 384, 390
142, 144, 162, 168, 179, 183, 194, 196, manual gates 1
408 Index
materials 9–13, 17, 19, 21, 26, 29, 32, 61, 93, 307, 311, 312, 341, 343, 344, 347, 348,
96, 105, 110, 114, 115, 145, 157, 159, 353, 359, 360, 364, 368, 369
192, 221, 227, 228, 233, 236, 240, 241, organisation 7, 9, 13–15, 17–19, 21–23,
245, 252, 276, 281, 283, 287, 291, 296, 25–30, 37, 41, 42, 46, 49, 59, 72, 84, 90,
300, 301, 310, 333, 339, 344, 346, 351, 92, 93, 99, 119, 148, 149, 151, 152, 155,
352, 357, 360, 366, 390 156, 163, 168, 182, 183, 185, 196, 202,
media reportage 1, 27 203, 212, 221, 227, 231, 236, 240, 245,
medicine 11 249, 285, 290, 296, 300, 305, 319, 337,
mega project 59, 83 342, 346, 351, 357, 362
methodology 11, 35, 37, 49, 50, 64, 77, 78, output 9, 12–14, 16–19, 24, 25, 29, 30, 41,
81, 85, 86, 88, 147, 153, 155, 161, 173, 43–45, 49, 55, 71, 73, 267, 324
202, 207
mixed prospects 3, 64 p
models 43, 60, 85, 125, 132, 180, 210, 211, pandemic 1, 25, 31, 32, 35–38, 41, 42
255, 261, 313, 319, 370, 376 parent companies 21, 22
modern methods of construction 27 pattern 2, 34, 51–55, 66, 68, 70, 73, 77, 78,
modern society 1, 32, 35, 36 82, 86–88, 96, 98, 100, 102, 107, 112,
modular methods 27 117, 129, 134, 146, 148, 157, 158,
multivariate statistics 34 161–165, 170, 186, 189, 192, 195, 201,
202, 230, 232, 238, 243, 247, 260, 266,
n 267, 282, 286, 293, 294, 298, 303, 317,
narratives 11, 44, 47, 60, 69, 73, 85, 125,
323, 338, 348, 349, 354, 360, 374, 380
132–136, 180, 210, 214, 255, 261–266,
people 3, 4, 47, 49, 60–65, 69, 81, 85, 124,
313, 319–323, 370, 376–380
125, 132, 136, 139, 180, 210, 211, 255,
national economy 9, 10, 29
256, 261, 267, 270, 312, 313, 319, 324,
national gross domestic product 10, 26
328, 369, 370, 376, 381, 384
natural 1, 11, 33, 38, 41, 49, 53, 68
perceptions 2–4, 7, 22, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44,
negative affect 55, 61
46–48, 50–53, 55–59, 61, 64–70, 72–74,
negative risk 57, 58, 68
77, 81–88, 91, 94, 96,–103, 107, 108,
network 11, 12, 21, 93, 183, 342, 345, 351,
112–114, 116–118, 121, 122, 124, 146,
356, 362
148, 150, 153, 157, 158, 161–166,
o 168–170, 173–177, 179, 196, 197, 199,
objective 2, 4, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 20–25, 29–31, 201–203, 205–209, 225, 226, 229–235,
33–35, 37–39, 43, 44, 49, 52, 65–67, 238, 239, 243, 244, 247, 248, 250–252,
70–72, 74, 83–85, 91, 97, 102, 117, 162, 254, 270, 279, 280, 282, 285–289,
168, 169, 196, 199, 202, 205, 208, 209, 293–295, 298, 299, 303, 304, 306, 308,
219, 222, 225, 229, 234, 243, 279, 282, 310, 312, 319, 335, 336, 338, 341–345,
293, 303, 335, 338, 340, 348, 360 348–350, 354, 355, 360, 365, 366, 368,
Office of National Statistics 10, 26 369
open system 9, 11–14, 29, 43, 49, 71, 163 persistence 1
operational 2, 9–13, 16–18, 28, 29, 44, 52, 71, personal 1–3, 21, 23, 30, 33, 37, 39, 44, 46,
93, 100, 102, 106, 111, 116, 120, 123, 50–53, 58, 62, 64, 66–69, 73, 74, 87,
153, 165, 168, 169, 175, 179, 199, 221, 115, 126–131, 161, 163, 168, 183, 196,
227, 228, 232, 234, 237, 242, 246, 250, 202, 207, 208, 213, 257–262, 314–317,
254, 286, 288, 292, 293, 297, 302, 303, 319, 371–376
Index 409
personal perceptions 2, 39, 44, 50, 51, 53, 69, 275–277, 312–317, 319, 324, 325,
73, 74, 207 327–330, 332–334, 369–375, 381, 382,
personality traits 3, 52, 64, 69, 74, 87, 161, 384–386, 388–390
168, 196, 202 probability analysis 34, 38
perspectives 2, 7, 31, 34, 36–39, 41–43, 49, probability judgement 2, 82, 146, 150, 154,
51, 72, 77, 81, 86, 90, 100, 165, 170, 157, 159, 277, 334, 390
182, 183, 185, 232, 288, 341 probability matrix 46, 126–130, 213,
philosophy 11, 85, 168, 169, 196, 197, 205, 257–260, 314–317, 319, 371–375
206 processes 2–4, 7, 9, 11–14, 17, 20–25, 27–32,
photovoltaics 28 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 46, 51, 52, 64, 66,
planning condition 16, 18 69–71, 74, 77, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88, 107,
policies 11, 25–27, 36, 38, 42, 45, 49, 71 117, 163, 170, 176, 180, 198, 201–203,
political 1, 10, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 44, 71, 93, 234, 294, 349
100, 102, 106, 111, 116, 123, 124, 165, product 9–11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 25–29, 32, 35,
167, 178, 179, 221, 231, 233, 237, 241, 36, 221
246, 250, 253, 286, 288, 297, 301, 306, product delivery 9
310, 312, 336, 338, 343, 344, 347, 353, professional 10, 14, 15, 19–22, 26, 28, 29, 41,
358, 363, 367, 369 42, 50, 53, 55, 59, 61, 69, 72, 73, 87, 92,
political functional subsystem 10, 26 94, 131, 141, 150, 153, 172, 176, 189,
political policies 26, 27 198–200, 203–209, 211, 213, 216, 219,
positive affect 57–59, 68, 393 226, 256, 262, 270, 272, 280, 282, 313,
positive heat ventilation system 28 319, 327, 330, 334, 336, 338, 370, 386
positive risk 57, 58, 68 professional services 10, 26, 29
practice 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19–22, 24, 27, 29, project 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 13–30, 37, 39, 41–46,
30, 33, 36, 41, 43, 47–52, 55, 59–62, 48–54, 56–59, 62, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74,
64–66, 68–74, 77, 81–84, 86, 87, 102, 77–79, 81–84, 86–103, 107, 110–112,
125, 127, 129–131, 133–135, 150, 153, 116–118, 120–126, 130, 131, 133, 135,
154, 157, 158, 161, 168–170, 176, 179, 140, 144–158, 161–165, 168–176,
180, 182–186, 189, 192, 195–206, 208, 179–188, 190, 191, 193–198, 201–203,
213, 214, 232, 247, 256, 259–261, 264, 205–214, 216, 218, 219, 221–223,
266, 267, 277, 293, 312, 313, 316–318, 225–238, 243, 245, 247, 248, 250–256,
322–324, 334, 348, 369, 370, 372, 374, 258, 261–263, 270, 271, 275, 276,
375, 378, 380, 381, 384, 390 279–290, 293, 294, 297, 298, 303, 304,
pre-civilization 1 306–313, 315, 317–319, 321, 324, 328,
preference reversals 3, 65, 162 332, 334–345, 348, 349, 352–354, 357,
principles 2, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 29, 34–36, 43, 359–362, 364–371, 374–377, 381, 384,
50, 53, 61, 63, 64, 71, 72, 77, 82, 87, 89, 388, 390
201, 204 project brief 13, 16, 18, 28
probability 2–4, 7, 32–35, 38, 44, 46, 47, 49, project management 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 24, 30,
51, 60–65, 69, 71, 73, 82–85, 87, 39, 43, 48, 52, 71, 165, 168, 169, 197,
124–130, 135–137, 139–142, 144–147, 205
150, 154, 157, 159, 162, 179, 180, 185, project manager 2, 19, 20, 43, 53, 89, 90, 94,
186, 188, 189, 192, 195, 198–200, 204, 98, 100, 124, 135, 145, 147, 148, 150,
205, 209–211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162–164, 170,
255, 257–260, 267, 268, 270–273, 171, 174, 175, 179, 181, 182, 185, 187,
410 Index
project manager (contd.) psychometric 7, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 50, 51,
188, 190, 193, 195, 212, 226–228, 230, 56, 68, 69, 71–73, 85, 86, 88, 125, 132,
232, 255, 261, 270, 280, 282, 286, 288, 180, 210, 255, 261, 313, 319, 370, 376
312, 317, 324, 334, 338, 341, 369, 381, psychophysical scaling 34, 38
384, 390 public debate 1
project organisational level 13, 14, 21, 22, public discussions 1
29, 84, 203 public risk communication 2
public sector 25, 87, 89, 150, 151, 154, 155,
project risk 2, 24, 42, 48, 77, 81, 86, 90, 91,
158, 161, 163, 164, 170, 173, 180, 182,
93, 94, 96, 98, 107, 112, 117, 118, 121,
183, 186, 189, 195, 199
124, 125, 131, 144–148, 151, 153–155,
158, 162–164, 170, 172, 180, 181, 183,
q
186–188, 191, 194, 197, 201, 207, 212,
qualification 21
213, 218, 219, 221, 226, 230, 232, 234, qualitative 2, 32, 44, 51, 53, 60, 69, 72, 73, 85,
238, 243, 247, 248, 251, 256, 261, 262, 86, 124, 125, 132–136, 139–141, 146,
275, 276, 280, 285, 293, 294, 298, 303, 147, 150, 154, 157, 159, 161, 179, 180,
304, 308, 313, 318, 319, 332, 336, 341, 184, 185, 189–192, 198–200, 204–206,
348, 349, 354, 360, 361, 365, 370, 375, 209–211, 214, 255, 261–267, 270–272,
376, 388 277, 312, 313, 319–324, 328–330, 334,
project risk events 2, 24, 42, 77, 81, 90, 91, 369, 370, 376–381, 384–386, 390
96, 107, 112, 117, 124, 146–148, 153, qualities 29
155, 158, 162, 163, 170, 183, 201, 207, quality 16–19, 24, 25, 44, 48, 53–55, 68, 73,
219, 221, 226, 232, 234, 238, 243, 247, 77, 81, 85, 88, 93–96, 98–101, 103, 109,
280, 293, 294, 298, 303, 336, 348, 349, 113, 119, 122, 124, 163–165, 168, 175,
354, 360 179, 221, 226–233, 235, 239, 244, 248,
project success 2, 3, 42, 44, 49, 59, 62, 83, 94, 255, 280–283, 285, 287, 288, 290, 293,
169, 197, 205, 219, 226, 280, 282, 336, 295, 299, 305, 312, 336, 338, 339, 341,
338 342, 344, 345, 348, 350, 351, 353, 356,
project team members 3, 4, 21–23, 30, 56, 359, 361, 369
65, 69, 74, 83, 87, 90, 118, 121, 147, quality control inspections 19
quantity surveyor 2, 19–21, 89, 90, 94–96,
148, 151, 154, 155, 155, 158, 168, 176,
98, 100, 124, 129, 139, 147, 148, 151,
179, 196–198, 202, 203, 212, 248, 251,
154, 155, 157, 163–168, 172, 174, 175,
304, 308, 319, 361, 365
177–182, 186–189, 191, 194, 196, 198,
prospects 3, 64
199, 211, 226–230, 232, 255, 280–283,
prospect theory 3, 52, 64, 65, 69, 74, 87, 162,
288, 293, 334, 336–339, 341, 348, 360,
168, 196, 202
369, 374
psychological 3, 4, 7, 32, 33, 38, 48, 49, 56, quick approach 51–55, 68
65, 68, 71, 73, 77, 82, 87, 145, 154, 159,
173, 176, 179, 186, 189, 192, 195, 197, r
201, 203, 204, 267, 272, 277, 324, 334, rational 2, 3, 34, 39, 41, 46–51, 54, 55, 60, 68,
381, 390 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 102,
psychological difficulties 3, 154, 173, 176, 107, 112, 125–131, 147, 150, 154, 157,
192, 195, 197, 203 169, 170, 180–186, 189, 192, 195,
psychology of perception 2, 7, 55, 163, 202 198–200, 204, 209, 210, 234, 238,
Index 411
256–261, 267, 293, 294, 298, 313–318, risk communication 1, 2, 22, 25, 30, 31,
324, 348, 354, 370–375, 381 34–36, 38, 71, 72
rational decision-making 2, 41, 50, 87, 157, risk data 4, 7, 50, 51, 60, 69, 72, 73, 85, 124,
170, 183, 204 132–134, 146, 147, 150, 154, 157–159,
rationality 46, 47, 50, 60, 68, 72, 79, 204 179, 185, 198, 201, 209, 214–216, 255,
real and objective 31, 33–35, 37 262–264, 267, 277, 312, 320–322, 324,
real and socially constructed 31, 33, 36, 38, 334, 369, 376–378, 381, 390
72 risk etymology 7, 31, 32, 201
recession 41, 42, 49 risk events 1, 2, 10, 14, 24, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39,
relationship 2, 23, 26, 36, 37, 39, 42, 52, 53, 42, 44–46, 49, 56, 59, 60, 62–65, 70,
55–57, 59, 65, 70, 74, 83, 169, 170, 182, 72–74, 77, 81, 83–85, 89–91, 93–96, 98,
196, 205 100, 102, 107, 112, 117, 120, 123, 124,
religious 1, 31, 36, 38, 71 137–139, 146–148, 150, 153, 155, 157,
remedies 1 158, 162–165, 168–170, 173, 176, 179,
repair 10 183, 196–198, 201, 203, 205, 207–209,
215, 216, 219, 221, 223, 226–228, 230,
representative heuristics 51, 62, 79, 82, 108,
232, 234, 238, 243, 247, 250, 254, 255,
176, 198, 203, 239, 295, 350
261, 267–270, 280–286, 288, 293, 294,
resource 9–13, 17, 19, 29, 48, 84, 176, 198,
298, 303, 307, 311, 312, 325–327,
203, 221
336–339, 341, 348, 349, 354, 360, 364,
review 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 16–18, 23–26, 31, 38, 39,
368, 369, 382, 383
41, 43–46, 49–52, 54, 59–61, 64, 65, 68,
risk generation 7, 9, 86
69, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 86–91, 140,
risk identification 2, 3, 31, 41, 43–45, 49, 72,
144, 146, 147, 151, 153–155, 157–159,
79, 94, 107, 112, 117, 118, 121, 124,
161, 168, 169, 179, 185, 186, 189, 192,
131, 146, 150, 153, 157, 158, 162, 164,
196, 199, 201, 202, 205, 216, 218, 271,
168–171, 173, 176, 182, 196–198, 201,
275, 312, 328, 332, 369, 384, 388, 390
203, 205, 209, 234, 238, 243, 247, 248,
rhiza 33 251, 262, 280, 294, 298, 303, 304, 308,
RIBA Plan of Work 14, 16–19, 24, 30, 53, 312, 319, 341, 348, 349, 354, 360, 361,
71 365, 369, 376
risco 33 risk interpretation 2, 9, 10, 26, 169, 196, 205
risk 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 24–39, risk management 1–4, 7, 9, 10, 19, 24, 27, 29,
41–53, 56–74, 77–79, 81–103, 107, 112, 31, 37–39, 41–52, 58–66, 68–74, 77–79,
117, 118, 120–139, 141, 144–159, 81–87, 89, 90, 92, 102, 117, 124–136,
161–173, 175–192, 194–216, 218, 219, 146–148, 150, 151, 153–155, 157–159,
221, 223, 225–235, 238, 243, 247, 248, 161, 163, 164, 168–170, 172, 173, 176,
250–252, 254–270, 272, 273, 275––277, 179–189, 191, 192, 194–214, 232, 247,
279–289, 293, 294, 298, 303, 304, 255–267, 277, 293, 303, 312–324, 327,
306–308, 310–328, 330, 332–339, 334, 348, 360, 369–381, 384, 390
341–345, 348, 349, 354, 360–362, risk management subsystems 2, 44
364–366, 368–384, 386, 388–390 risk management system 2, 10, 41, 43,
risk analysis 32–34, 37, 41, 43–46, 48, 49, 60, 45–50, 60, 61, 66, 68, 72, 74, 77, 81, 83,
61, 72, 139, 186, 205, 267, 270, 272, 85, 124–126, 150, 169, 176, 180, 183,
319, 324, 328, 381, 384 186, 197, 198, 201, 203, 205, 209, 255,
risk averse 3, 64 256, 261, 277, 312–314, 327, 369–371
412 Index
risk perception categorisation 2, 3, 7, 52, 64, science 11, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 51, 68, 72, 73,
65, 69, 74, 83, 86–88, 91, 96, 102, 146, 77, 86, 88, 180, 186, 189, 192, 199, 201,
148, 157, 161, 162, 164, 168, 169, 196, 202, 205, 327
197, 199, 202, 203, 205, 206, 225, 232, scientific approach 2, 36, 37
279, 293, 335, 348 Second World War 21
risk perceptions 2–4, 7, 34, 35, 38, 52, 56–58, sectors 9, 21, 22, 25, 29, 87, 89, 90, 147, 148,
64–67, 69, 70, 74, 77, 81, 83–88, 91, 94, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 163, 164,
96–103, 112, 117, 146, 148, 153, 157, 170, 173, 180, 182, 183, 186, 189, 195,
158, 161–166, 168–170, 173, 175–177, 199, 207–211
179, 196, 197, 199, 201–203, 205–209, security risk 1
225, 226, 229–235, 238, 247, 279, 280, simulations 46, 60, 85, 125, 132–136, 180,
282, 285–289, 293, 294, 298, 303, 319, 210, 214, 255, 261–266, 313, 319–323,
335, 336, 338, 341–345, 348, 354, 370, 376–380
360–362, 364–366, 368 social construction 2, 7, 9, 10, 25, 26, 28, 35,
risk response 26, 33, 41, 43–45, 49, 66, 72, 64, 71, 77, 81, 201
124, 142, 145, 146, 158, 195, 205, 218, social construction of risk 2, 25, 26, 28, 64,
219, 273, 275, 276, 332, 388
71, 81, 201
risk review 41, 43–46, 49, 72
social hazard 1
risk variables 1
social menace 1
risky scenarios 3, 65, 69, 162
social risk communication 1
risqué 33
social risk interpretation 2
rituals 1, 31, 33, 38, 60, 71
social setup 4, 36
road 10, 12, 15, 117, 342, 345, 351, 356, 362
social structure 1, 35, 38
role 2, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20–22, 24, 30, 36, 46, 53,
socially constructed 31, 33–36, 38, 49, 72,
66, 67, 69, 71, 83, 84, 87, 90–92, 95–98,
86, 88
100, 102, 117, 124, 129, 146, 148–158,
socially mediated 31, 33–35, 38
161–165, 168–176, 179–182, 184,
society 1, 4, 31, 32, 34–36, 38, 162
186–190, 192–199, 202–208, 211, 212,
socio-cultural functional subsystem 10, 27
225, 227–230, 232, 247, 255, 261, 267,
sociology 38
279, 281–283, 286, 288, 293, 303, 312,
317, 334, 335, 337–339, 341, 348, 360, specialist installations 10
369, 374, 390 specialist roles 2, 9, 10, 17, 20–22, 24, 30, 46,
Romans 11 66, 67, 71, 83, 84, 90–92, 96–98, 100,
102, 117, 124, 129, 146, 148–158,
s 161–165, 168–176, 179, 181, 182, 184,
safety 1, 16, 22, 28, 61, 90, 93, 95, 96, 100, 186–190, 192–199, 202–208, 225,
106, 111, 116, 120, 143, 150, 216, 221, 227–230, 232, 247, 255, 261, 267, 279,
228, 232, 234, 237, 242, 243, 246, 250, 282, 286, 288, 293, 303, 312, 317, 334,
253, 274, 283, 297, 330, 333, 339, 343, 335, 338, 341, 348, 360, 369, 374
344, 347, 353, 359, 364, 367, 386 specification 19, 45, 89, 93, 114, 221, 245,
safety guidance 1 281, 296, 300, 356
scenario 56, 59, 65, 82, 126–130, 213, 248, stage 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21–24, 28, 30, 39,
251, 257–260, 262, 314–317, 371–375 41, 43–46, 49, 53, 59, 71, 81, 85, 86, 88,
schools 10, 12, 29, 35, 59, 63, 343, 344, 347, 90, 93, 96, 97, 102, 109, 112, 169, 209,
353, 359, 364, 368 219, 222, 227, 229, 234, 238, 239, 281,
Index 413
282, 293, 295, 298, 337, 339, 340, 348, 267, 272, 277, 279, 280, 282, 293,
350, 352, 354 312–314, 324, 327, 334–336, 338, 342,
stakeholder 4, 13, 28, 29, 74, 93, 162 345, 348, 351, 356, 362, 369–371, 381,
statistical 4, 7, 51, 60–62, 64, 69, 73, 78, 84, 390
85, 87, 88, 124, 125, 132, 137, 139, system theory 9, 17, 72
145–147, 150, 154, 157, 159, 161, 179, systematic errors 51, 54, 63, 69, 73, 82, 185,
180, 185–187, 198, 199, 204, 205, 209, 195, 199, 205, 324, 327
210, 215, 255, 261, 267, 268, 270, 276, systems components 4, 13, 17
277, 312, 313, 319, 325, 327, 333, 334, systems decomposition 4, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20,
369, 370, 376, 381, 382, 384, 390 23, 29, 41, 43, 49, 52, 65, 70, 71, 74, 83,
statistical generalisation 78, 88, 161 86
statutory 2, 11, 13, 16, 18, 28, 32, 44, 93, 94, systems differentiation 2, 4, 10, 17, 19, 20,
98, 100, 101, 105, 111, 115, 123, 124, 24, 29, 30, 66, 67, 77, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91,
163, 165, 168, 175, 179, 226–228, 102, 146, 148, 153, 162, 163, 201–203,
230–233, 237, 241, 246, 249, 253, 255, 225, 232, 279, 293
280–283, 286, 288, 291, 297, 301, 306, systems objectives 9, 13, 29
310, 312, 336–339, 341, 343, 344, 347, systems of thinking 3, 7, 51, 52, 68, 72, 73,
348, 352, 358, 363, 367, 369 86, 168, 180, 199, 201, 272
statutory regulations 28 systems thinking 2, 7, 9, 11, 14, 28, 29, 36,
stratified vertical system 1, 31 37, 39, 41, 43, 61, 77, 86, 201, 202, 204
structure 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28–30, 35, 49,
63, 74, 82, 87, 93, 101, 102, 104, 109, t
114, 122, 146, 168, 180, 196, 201, 202, taboos 1, 27, 31, 38, 60, 71
344 task 13, 19, 47, 51–54, 58, 68, 69, 73
structured risk identification 2 taxation 28, 115, 221
subgroups 4, 22, 24, 30, 65, 94, 162, 202, 203, technical manager 2, 89, 90, 94, 98, 100, 124,
226, 280, 282, 336, 338, 341 134, 147, 148, 150, 154, 155, 157, 158,
subject 11, 12, 29, 37, 39, 56, 60, 69, 85, 102, 162, 163, 171, 174, 175, 179–181, 187,
117, 161, 168, 169, 196, 209, 234, 243, 188, 190, 193, 226, 230, 232, 243, 255,
293, 303, 348, 360 270, 336, 341, 369, 374, 390
subjective analysis 38 techniques 3, 4, 9, 27, 29, 38, 44, 46, 48, 50,
subjectively biased 31, 33, 34, 38 57, 60, 69, 71–73, 84, 86, 87, 126–131,
subjectivity 2, 77, 85, 102, 112, 169, 173, 174, 134, 135, 147, 150, 154, 157, 158, 182,
201, 203, 209, 234, 238, 293, 294, 348, 183, 185, 198, 200, 201, 204, 213,
354 257–261, 267, 272, 277, 313–318, 324,
subjectivity of risk perceptions 2, 77, 201 370–375, 381
superstition 1, 27, 31, 38, 60, 71 technological 10, 11, 27, 36
surrounding 11 technological functional subsystem 10, 27
sustainability consultant 19, 20, 22 tender selection question 28, 43
system 1–4, 9–31, 33–39, 41, 43–53, 56, 58, theoretical 2–4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 26, 30, 31, 33,
60–74, 77–79, 81–87, 91–94, 97, 102, 37–39, 41, 49–53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 64–66,
124–126, 129, 134, 135, 146–154, 68, 69, 71–74, 77, 78, 81–83, 86–89, 91,
156–158, 161–163, 168–170, 176, 179, 96, 97, 102, 107, 112, 117, 124, 127,
180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 195–205, 132, 134–137, 139, 141, 145–148, 150,
207–210, 225, 229, 232, 255, 256, 261, 153, 154, 157–159, 161–164, 168–170,
414 Index
theoretical (contd.) UNEP 27

173, 176, 179, 180, 182–186, 189, 192, United Kingdom 1, 10, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 42,
195–205, 207–211, 225, 226, 229, 232, 43, 59, 143, 216, 274, 330, 386
234, 238, 243, 247, 255, 256, 261, 267, University 125, 126, 172, 213, 256, 313, 314,
270, 272, 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 293, 370, 371
294, 298, 303, 312, 313, 319, 324, 327, unrealistic 59
328, 330, 333–336, 338, 348, 349, 354,
360, 369, 370, 375, 376, 381, 384, 386, v
390 vaccines 1
theoretical replication 78, 88, 147, 161, 168, value 21, 26, 46, 50, 52, 55, 61, 63–65, 69, 72,
195–197, 199, 202 82, 83, 90, 148, 151, 155
theories 2, 3, 7, 51, 61, 65, 68, 73, 86, 161, value added tax 26
168, 196, 199, 201–204 variables 1, 11, 32, 35, 44, 46, 50, 55, 60, 62,
theorisation 2 69, 72, 73, 86, 87, 98, 129, 134, 164,
threaten 1, 25, 38 176, 183, 184, 230, 261, 267, 286, 317,
threats 1, 17, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39, 46, 71 324, 341, 374, 381
tools 3, 4, 9, 19, 29, 33, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54, vertical social structure 1
60, 61, 78, 82, 84, 86, 125, 131, 164, viewpoint 2, 31, 33–37, 72
170, 181, 183, 201, 202, 204, 210, 213, virtual 25
256, 261, 272, 313, 318, 370, 375
toxicology 34, 38 w
trade 9, 10, 13, 29, 72, 90, 344, 346, 365 whole life costing 9, 29
training 21, 22, 29, 30, 47, 50, 61, 66, 81, 82, whole number 61, 132–136, 139, 211, 214,
85, 92, 124–126, 131, 149, 150, 152, 262–266, 270, 320–323, 328, 376–380,
153, 156–158, 170, 172, 180–183, 185, 384
186, 189, 192, 195, 198, 205, 206, 210, wider environment 7, 9, 12, 14, 25, 26, 28,
212, 213, 255, 256, 261, 277, 312–314, 49, 71
318, 334, 369–371, 375, 390
transformational processes 4, 9, 12, 14, 22, y
23, 27, 28, 30, 84, 180 year 1, 22, 48, 52, 56, 61, 90, 92, 97, 130, 143,
treatment 2, 3, 31, 131, 168, 176, 196, 198, 148–152, 155, 156, 164, 170, 180,
201, 203, 205, 221, 262, 319, 376 182–186, 189, 192, 195, 198, 203, 204,
212, 217, 220, 222, 229, 247, 261, 274,
u 276, 282, 327, 330, 340, 341, 386
uncertain event 2, 24, 37
uncertainty 1, 2, 32, 37, 42, 46, 48, 61, 85, z
102, 117, 169, 209, 234, 243, 293, 303, zero 117, 195, 272, 276, 354
348, 360
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Risk Management Decision Making

Construction Risk Management Decision Making

Understanding Current Practices

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Name: Arthur, Alex C., author.

Cover Design: Wiley

Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Chennai, India

1 Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction Project

Overview of the Concept Chapters 7

2 Systems Analysis of the Construction Industry and Project

2.5.1.4 Differences in Personal Objectives of Project Team Members 23

3 The Concept of Risk 31

4 Construction Risk Management 41

5 Construction Risk Management Decision-Making 51

5.3.3 Impact of Affective Heuristics on Cognitive Reasoning 59

Summary of the Part 1 71

Part 2 Case Studies 75

Overview of the Part 2 77

6 Research Proposal, Methodology, and Design 81

Appendix A Research Design – Theory, Methodology, and Field Questions 207

About the Author

Introduction – A Risk Management Approach to Construction

management decision-making subsystem within the construction project delivery system,

1.1 Risk Perception Categorisation

1.1.1 Differences in Personality Traits

1.1.2 Prospect Theory

1.1.3 Differences Between External Stakeholders and Project Team Members

1.1.4 Culture Theory

1.2 Construction Risk Data Presentation Formats

Overview of the Concept Chapters

Discusses the changing perspectives on organisational risk management strategies,

Figure 1 Overview of the Part 1 (concept chapters).

Systems Analysis of the Construction Industry

communications often leads to cross-purpose working, and subsequently, inhibition

2.2 The Construction Industry

2.3 The Construction Industry System

2.3.1 Open and Closed Systems

Input from the Open system’s Output

2.3.2 Construction System Objective

2.3.3 Construction System’s Components and Decomposition

2.4 Construction Delivery System

Construction industry system

Client’s organisations subsystem

Figure 2.2 Systems decomposition. Source: Adapted from Carmichael (2006).

any defect, submission of project operational and maintenance manual, establishment of

2.5 The Construction Project Management System;

2.5.1 Systems Differentiation

Table 2.1 Construction delivery system.

0 – Strategic Client Preparation of business case to guide Preparation of

Source: Adapted from RIBA (2020).

Input Transformation Output

Organisation: How do we organise the tasks and

Production: Execution of the tasks

Marketing: Customer feedback, sales, and

Risk management: Identify events that can cause

Control: Design audit, quality control inspections,

1. Systems decomposition enables analysis of the phases and

2. The findings reveal internal structure of multiple interconnected

3. The observed differences if left unaddressed, may lead to cross

4. The project management system therefore exists to identify and

The construction consultant’s system: composed of subsystems connected by common identity

Building surveyors Fire engineers

Quantity surveyors Building engineers