International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Critical success factor analysis for effective

risk management at the execution stage of a
construction project

Shadi Shayan, Ki Pyung Kim & Vivian W. Y. Tam

To cite this article: Shadi Shayan, Ki Pyung Kim & Vivian W. Y. Tam (2022) Critical success
factor analysis for effective risk management at the execution stage of a construction
project, International Journal of Construction Management, 22:3, 379-386, DOI:
10.1080/15623599.2019.1624678

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1624678

Published online: 12 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1669

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
2022, VOL. 22, NO. 3, 379–386
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1624678

Critical success factor analysis for effective risk management at the

execution stage of a construction project
Shadi Shayana, Ki Pyung Kima and Vivian W. Y. Tamb
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; bSchool of Computing, Engineering and
Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite the importance of proper risk management during the construction execution stage, Risk management; critical
the current studies mainly focus on risk management at the planning stage. In order to effect- success factors; execution
ively manage risks and accomplish a project success, it is instrumental to manage and mitigate stage; construc-
tion management
risks at the execution stage where the most of risks are actually occurred. Hence, this research
aims to identify the most critical success factors for effective risk management at the execution
stage of a construction project. A mixed method was adopted to identify the priorities among
various success factors for risk management through a questionnaire survey, and follow-up
interviews were conducted to retrieve more insights and lessons learnt from construction pro-
fessionals. Total 55 construction professionals responded that a) Project management capacity;
b) knowledge and experience; c) early involvement of contractors and d) socio-cultural forces
are the most critical success factors for successful risk management during the execution stage.
This research identified the critical success factors and its relative importance expected to pro-
vide a means for the construction professionals to prioritise critical success factors for risk man-
agement at the execution stage, and it will serve a risk management supporting tool to make a
proper plan and decision on risks.

Introduction to manage stakeholders’ requirements. The complexity

Customer requirements for a building have become
more complex and bespoke in its design and materials
as well as sustainable attributes related to operational
energy consumptions. In order to cater for these
requirements and complete a project successfully,
effective integration of various construction informa-
tion such as design, engineering drawing, and energy
analysis, and coordination of project management
information such as project management plan, quality
assurance, and cost and time management among key
project participants are more essential than ever. In
order to determine the most affordable building
design financially and environmentally, diverse infor-
mation such as design, costs and environmental
impacts of construction materials should be collected
and integrated from the outset of a project among
key project stakeholders. However, the current prac-
tice in the construction industry seems to be challeng-
ing to effectively and efficiently cope with the ever
increasing complexity of a project due to the highly
fragmented nature of the construction industry and a
lack of knowledge and skills of construction personnel
and uncertainties of construction projects continue to
increase (Zavadskas et al. 2010), and high rate of fatal
accidents and injuries (Safe Work Australia 2016),
cost overruns and time delays (Memon et al. 2011),
and disputes among stakeholders (Mashwama et al.
2016) has become more frequent.
It is challenging to predict all potential risks and
develop response strategies or mitigation plans at the
project planning stage (Osipova 2007), and Banaitiene
and Banaitis (2012) and Ritchie et al. (2013) asserted
that more careful attention must be given to the con-
struction stage by utilizing a risk management frame-
work or a guideline to respond to predicted and
unpredicted risks during the execution of a construc-
tion project. Indeed, there are a number of standards
and guidelines such as the Project Management Body
of Knowledge, ISO 21500 and ISO 31000 to manage
risks. However, the construction industry is deemed
to fail in managing risks in the construction stage
(Bahamid and Doh 2017), and the current guidelines
mainly focus on the project planning stage where
identify and develop a risk management plan

CONTACT Ki Pyung Kim ki.kim@unisa.edu.au

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
380 S. SHAYAN ET AL.
although the most of risks including physical and
managerial risks as well as design coordination risks
such as interferences between structure and mechan-
ical designs occur in the construction stage (Wood
et al. 2008; Bissonette 2016). As a result, researchers
emphasize the importance of risk management during
the construction stage, and recommend using critical
success factors to manage and monitor various risks
in the execution stage as a complementary manage-
ment tool to a risk management plan developed at
the planning stage (Chapman, 2001; Kuo and Lu,
2013; El-Sayegh and Mansour, 2015; Olechowski et al.
2016). Kannan (2017) argue that well-defined critical
success factors (CSFs) for risk management in the
construction stage can improve the outcome of a con-
struction project significantly as CSFs can serve as an
effective decision making supporting tool for a project
manager or a construction manager who work with
constraints including time and budget. Despite the
importance of the CSFs for risk management in the
construction stage, the specific CSFs targeting the
construction stage has been rarely researched.
Therefore, this research aims to identify the most crit-
ical success factors for risk management at the execu-
tion stage of a construction project, to improve the
current risk management practice and the quality of a
construction project.
Importance of risk management at the
execution stage
Currently, most of the risk management research puts
more emphasis on the adoption of the risk manage-
ment standards and procedures at the planning phase
rather than the execution stage although the most of
risks including physical, managerial and design coord-
ination risks occur in the execution stage (Wood
et al. 2008; Bissonette 2016). There are a number of
studies in risk management using CSFs in the project
planning stage (Crickette et al. 2011), and researchers
point out that the identified risks at the planning
stage can be complemented by CSFs which can
empower construction professionals to effectively
reflect actual risks occurred in the project execution
stage and update the risk management plans to miti-
gate time delays, cost overruns and low project qual-
ity. Furthermore, Retfalvi (2009) criticized that it can
be ineffective and inefficient to identify and plan for
all potential risks in the planning stage, and the
researcher asserted that a risk management plan
should be updated and further developed in the exe-
cution stage to capture the up-to-date risk
information in a project. (Siddiqui et al., 2016;
Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh, 2017), In response to the
current issues, Gunduz and Yahya (2015) and
Gudien_e et al. (2013) asserted that proactive risk
management plans and actions using CSFs in the con-
struction stage are instrumental to deliver an agreed
project deliverable to a client on time and budget.
Ghorbani (2017) asserted that the unknown risks are
not easily identified during the planning stage, and
cannot be mitigated by a risk management plan devel-
oped at the early stage of a project. To manage the
unknown risks, the researcher emphasizes that a con-
tingency as a CSF can enable a project manager to
manage risks during the execution stage, and yet, the
research only consider the monetary value of contin-
gency. Without a holistic consideration of CSFs for
proper risk management will eventually increase the
total project budget and it cannot be standardized as
a risk threshold can be varied based on the organiza-
tional project environment and financial capacity
(England and Moreci 2012; Project Management
Institute 2017). Consequently, in alignment with the
efforts to establish risk management practice in the
construction stage, there have been various risk man-
agement studies in specific countries such as Ghana
(Chileshe et al. 2010), Iran (Hosseini et al. 2016) and
Tanzania (Chileshe and Kikwasi 2014) to identify
how construction professionals perceive CSFs of risk
management and how CSFs can be adopted and uti-
lized better in conjunction with risk management
processes. Although there are various research and
studies conducted regarding the CSFs, it has been
rarely investigated to identify CSFs that are the most
relevant to manage risks and support a project man-
ager and construction professionals to make a proper
decision at the execution stage. Thus, this research
will review CSFs for the planning stage and identify
which CSFs can provide a decision making support
for risk management.
Critical success factors for risk management
Given the competitive market status, effective and
efficient project management is crucial to achieve a
strategic goal and a project success in the construc-
tion industry. Among various attributes for successful
project management, various researchers (Chen et al.,
2012; Banihashemi et al., 2017; Yong and Mustaffa,
2017) asserted the importance of CSFs for effective
and efficient risk management. It is instrumental to
identify CSFs in order to focus on the most overarch-
ing risks first rather than focus on all potential risks
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 381

because a construction project cannot be free from

CSF 1 CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 CSF 6 CSF 7 CSF 8 CSF 9 CSF 10 CSF 11 CSF 12 CSF 13 CSF 14 CSF 15 CSF 16 CSF 17 CSF 18 CSF 19 CSF 20 CSF 21 CSF 22 CSF 23 C S F 24
the constraints such as time and budget. (Rodrıguez-

1
冑
Segura et al., 2016). According to Freund (1988),
CSFs are essential to achieve the intended strategy

2
冑

冑
and articulate the priorities among various attributes

2
冑

冑
for effective risk management since time and budget
are not always abundant to manage all identified risks

1
冑
based on equal priorities. As a result, various
researchers have identified CSFs to support construc-

2
冑

冑
tion professionals to effectively identify risks at the
planning stage over the last 10 years as shown in

1
冑
Table 1.
Zhao et al. (2013) recognized top management

1
冑
support including risk ownership and training sup-
port as the CSFs for effective risk management at the

2
冑

冑
execution stage. Indeed, Oliveira et al. (2018) pointed
out that the CSFs need to be understood strategically

1
冑
rather than an individual project level, and Phu
(2017) suggested that CSFs need to be identified as an

6
冑

冑
冑

冑
enterprise risk management level to communicate
risks effectively based on common risk language.

2
冑

冑
Based on the research findings from the literature and
PMBoK guide (PMI, 2017), the identified CSFs in

4
冑

冑
Table 1 are further organized into four major CSF
categories as shown in Table 2.

2
冑

冑
Yaraghi and Langhe (2011) asserted that the identi-
fied CSFs can enhance the implementation of risk

3
冑

冑
management at the execution stage. Green (2015)

3
冑

冑
argued that the risks identified at the early stage of a
project should be monitored and controlled thor-

5
冑

冑
oughly as unidentified risks may occur at the execu-
tion stage. The researcher emphasized that CSFs for

3
冑

risk management implementation at the execution

stage will enable construction professionals to priori-

2
冑

tize risks (Green 2015), and minimize unnecessary

4
冑

冑
delay and expenses due to fatal injuries (Aksorn and
Table 1. Identified critical success factors in last 10 years.

Hadikusumo, 2008; Haadir and Panuwatwanich,

2
冑

2011). Thus, this research aims to identify the most

11

critical success factors for construction professionals

冑
冑

冑
冑
冑

冑
冑
冑

to manage risks at the execution stage effectively and

7
冑

efficiently.
7
冑

冑
冑

冑
冑

Research methods
9
冑

冑
冑
冑

冑
冑

The research adopted a mixed method approach uti-

Haadir and Panuwatwanich (2011)
Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008)

lizing a web-based questionnaire survey and a semi-

Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014)
Yaraghi and Langhe (2011)

structured interview to identify the most critical suc-

Total number of research
Atika and Hartman (2011)

Hosseini MR et al. (2014)

Hosseini M et al. (2016)

Chileshe et al. (2010)

cess factors for effective and efficient risk manage-

Petrovic et al. (2017)
Rostami et al. (2015)

Oliveira et al. (2018)

Hwang et al. (2014)
Pheng et al. (2009)

Maina et al. (2016)

ski (2017)
Zhao et al. (2013)

Sidorenko (2016)
Previous research

Patterson (2015)

Chapman (2016)

ment at the execution stage of a construction project.

Liu et al. (2015)

Jin et al. (2017)

Hillson (2017)

A total number of 100 construction professionals

Phu (2017)

Szyman

were invited for a questionnaire survey, and they

were identified internationally via professional
382 S. SHAYAN ET AL.

Table 2. Grouped CSFs.

CSFs category Labels CSFs
Organizational factors CSF1 Top management support
CSF2 Availability of resources
CSF5 Project management capacity
CSF9 Organizational strategy
CSF17 Organization’s risk culture
CSF18 Organization’s technological capacity
Human behavioural factors CSF3 Timely communication
CSF4 Knowledge and experience
CSF8 Collaboration among project parties
CSF11 Positive human dynamics
CSF15 Project staffs’ participation in risk management
CSF24 Common risk language
Procedural factors CSF6 Clear roles and responsibilities
CSF13 Robust risk management procedures
CSF14 Document control
CSF16 Procurement method
CSF19 Early involvement of contractors
CSF20 Continuous improvement
External factors CSF7 Project type
CSF10 Business environment
CSF12 Customer’s demand
CSF21 Economic environment
CSF22 Industry risk management standards
CSF23 Socio-cultural forces

organization websites such as Chartered Institute of Table 3. Respondents profile.

Building, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
Australian Institute of Project Management, and
Australian Institute of Building to collect various
viewpoints of the construction professionals. The
web-based questionnaire was comprised of 10 ques-
tions designed to explore the priorities among CSFs
for each risk categories identified through a literature
review (See Table 2). The questions consisted of mul-
tiple choice and rating questions using the Likert scale
that obtain facts and inquire personal opinions as a
subject matter expert. After the completion of
the web-based questionnaire survey, the follow-up
semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain
comprehensive insights and in-depth knowledge about
the CSFs and their importance.
Research results and discussion
Total of 100 professionals were selected for the question-
naire survey, and the response rate was 55% (55 out of
100). The average experience of respondents was 11 years,
and 40% (22 respondents) has more than 20 years of
experience in managing risks over a project life cycle.
The respondents’ profile is as shown in Table 3.
The invited construction professionals were asked
to rank the importance of CSFs of each category, and
the result is presented as shown in Table 4.
Priorities of organizational CSFs
For the organizational factor, the Project Management
Capacity is selected as the first priority and
Profession Number of Respondent
Engineer 23
Project/construction manager 15
Contractor 9
Architect 8
Total 55
respondents commonly commented that an organiza-
tion must be mature enough to implement risk man-
agement practice prior to actually execute risk
management. This is supported by the second priority
‘Organisation’s Risk Culture’ which can only be devel-
oped once an organization has a certain level of pro-
ject risk management maturity. Furthermore,
respondents commented that the first and second
CSFs must be established with ‘Top Management
Support’ which is identified as the third CSF.
‘Availability of Resources’ was commonly recognized
as the lowest priority since resource availability can
be concerned after sufficient organization maturity is
established. Interviewees commented that it is vital to
secure essential resources from the top management
once an organization gets matured in risk manage-
ment practice. Although ‘Availability of Resources’
indicated the lowest priority, all respondents empha-
sized the continuous support from the top manage-
ment ensure resource availability. This comment is
supported by the slight differences in weighted aver-
age score between the first CSF (4.0) and the last CSF
(3.3). Finally, an interviewee with 20 years of experi-
ence commented on the ‘Early Involvement’
as follows:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 383

Table 4. Priorities of CSFs for each category.

CSF Category Ranks CSFs
Organizational factors 1 Project management capacity
2 Organization’s risk culture
3 Top management support
4 Organizational strategy
5 Organization’s technological capacity
6 Availability of resources
Human behavioural factors 1 Knowledge and experience
2 Common risk language
3 Project staffs’ participation in risk management
4 Collaboration among project parties
5 Timely communication
6 Positive human dynamics
Procedural factors 1 Early involvement of contractors
2 Continuous improvement
3 Document control
4 Clear roles and responsibilities
5 Robust risk management procedures
6 Procurement method
External factors 1 Socio-cultural forces
2 Industry risk management standards
3 Economic environment
4 Customer’s demand
5 Business environment
6 Project type

I believe Communication is critical although its
priority has been indicated the lowest. It is not
because Communication is unimportant, but because
there are more critical factors for risk management at
the execution stage.
Priorities of human behavioural CSFs
Respondents indicated that ‘Knowledge and Experience’
is important to practice risk management during the
execution stage since it is not easy to cope with changes
and occurred risks, which is not planned, without
proper experience and knowledge. Furthermore,
respondents emphasized that an experienced and know-
ledgeable risk champion or a manager must lead the
risk management practice in order not to cause confu-
sions and unclear roles and responsibility issues among
project team members. An interviewee commented on
the ‘Collaboration among Project Parties’ as follows:
No matter how professional project members are,
risk management cannot be executed effectively if
there is a lack of collaboration and teamwork,
because risk management is teamwork by its nature.
Furthermore, other interviewees commented
regarding the ‘Project Staffs’ Participation’ as follows:
Having structured roles and responsibilities is crucial
because it allows you to know who is responsible for
what. It also makes communication easier and
more effective.
Finally, an interviewee with 10 years of experience
commented on the ‘Positive Human Dynamic’
as follows:
Positive human dynamic is not on the top of the list
as long as there is clear communication among
stakeholders and well-defined roles and
responsibilities for managing risk at the execution
phase. Also, collaboration and teamwork are under
the influence of the distinct roles and responsibilities.
To me, knowledge and experience is the most
important factor in this group.
Thus, the human behavioural CSFs are correlated
as the results and comments from the survey and
interviews each comment and survey results are com-
plementing each other. Furthermore, construction
professionals or an organization who attempt to adopt
risk management practice in the execution stage
should be aware of the correlation among the CSFs
for proper risk management practice establishment
and project team members’ buy-in.
Priorities of procedural CSFs
Respondents commonly pointed out the fragmented
nature of a construction project, and it is the main
reason why the ‘Early Involvement of Contractors’ is
chosen as the first priority for the risk management
CSF at the execution stage. In addition, respondents
commented that the late involvement of contractors
causes conflicts among stakeholders and unnecessary
design changes and change orders. Documentation is
the source of information which will be distributed
among stakeholders. Respondents recognized the
‘Document Control’ as the third CSF since it is prone
to causing misinterpretations or misunderstandings of
384 S. SHAYAN ET AL.
project information when various construction and
project documents are controlled in an unorganized
manner. Respondents mentioned advanced digital
technologies including Building Information
Modelling (Kim and Park, 2018) and Cloud-based
document management system. In particular, there
are many different versions of drawings and engineer-
ing reports generated during the construction stage,
and inattentive document version control will cause
risks in time and budget of a project. The
‘Procurement Method’ was selected the lowest priority
since all respondents agreed that types of procure-
ment method are not important as long as contractors
achieve the intended result of the risk management
plan and perform as required.
Priorities of external CSFs
Respondents considered the ‘Socio-Cultural Forces’ as
the top priority because it defines a direction and a
strategy from the outset of a project, and the defin-
ition of strategy can clear out project boundaries,
which support a project team can focus only on
essential risks. In relation to the ‘Socio-Cultural
Forces’, respondents also emphasized the ‘Economic
Environment’ as the third priority since economy
situation affect significantly on project risk thresholds
in terms of time and budget. Thus, respondents
emphasized the importance of a project direction and
strategy for risk management based on the ‘Socio-
Cultural Forces’ and the ‘Economic Environment’.
Among the CSFs, the ‘Project Type’ was the most
contentious factor as respondents all agreed that a
project type is relatively less important, but respond-
ents’ opinions were divided into two aspects – one is
the project type is completely irrelevant and another
is relevant to risk management as a project environ-
ment is affected by the ‘Project Type’. An interviewee
commented on the ‘Project Type’ as follows:
Project type is not a critical factor for risk
management at the project execution phase. If a
project manager and a team have sufficient
knowledge and experience in risk management, they
can handle the complexity regardless of a project
type. Rather, proper knowledge and insights and
training should be more emphasised.
In contrast, two interviewees commented against
the previous comment as follows:
Complexity such as numerous stakeholders, various
communication channels, and complex project scope
is significantly affected by a project type, i.e. a small
residential house compared to a high-rise commercial
building. Particularly, the execution stage of a
construction project will have more unforeseen risks
depending on the complexity.
Indeed, the ‘Project Type’ is the least important
factor among others since a project type is already
fixed when a contract is awarded. However, a project
team must be aware of a project type and its com-
plexity to manage risks properly.
Finally, an interviewee with 20 years of experience
made a comment as follows:
Usually a public or large construction project has
relatively more access to various resources as it will
become a landmark or a focal point of the public,
which may be under the Socio-cultural forces such as
political or social value. It is crucial to access to
sufficient resources at the construction stage as a
project team can effectively cope with risks, and this
can make a huge difference.
Thus, proper risk management should be consid-
ered and planned based on a holistic perspective
rather than an ad-hoc perspective in order to manage
risks effectively at the execution stage.
Conclusion
Despite the importance of risk management imple-
mentation at the execution stage, there is a lack of
research to identify critical success factors that
empower a project manager and a project team to
manage risks effectively with limited time and budget.
To bridge the current research gap, this research aims
to identify critical success factors for risk management
at the execution stage. The research results revealed
that there are four major categories of critical success
factors – ‘Organisational’, ‘Human Behavioural’,
‘Procedural’ and ‘External’, and each critical success
factor categories include six critical success factors
(See Table 2). Among six critical success factors,
‘Project Management Capacity’, ‘Knowledge and
Experience’, ‘Early Involvement of Contractors’, and
‘Socio-cultural Forces’ are identified the first priority
critical success factors. Furthermore, all research par-
ticipants pointed out the importance of ‘Top
Management Support’, ‘Knowledge and Experience’
and ‘Timely Communication’ for successful risk man-
agement at the execution stage. More importantly,
this priority is relative importance, and indeed,
research participants emphasized that all critical suc-
cess factors must be considered as a whole rather
than individual factors. Thus, this research identified
the critical success factors and its relative importance
for a project manager and construction professionals
to focus and manage first, and the research also

revealed that the critical success factors are correlated
each other. This research is expected to provide a
means for the construction professionals to prioritize
critical success factors for risk management at the
execution stage, and will serve a risk management
supporting tool to make a proper plan and decision
on risks.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Australia-Korea
Foundation’s support for the research collaboration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Reference
Aksorn T, Hadikusumo B. 2008. Critical success factors
influencing safety program performance in Thai con-
struction projects. Safety Sci. 46(4):709–727.
Atika J, Hartman F. 2011. Barriers to effective project risk
management. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Alberta: University of Calgary.
Bahamid R, Doh S. 2017. IOP conference series: materials
science and engineering. Institute of Physics Publishing.
271(1):1–8.
Banaitiene N, Banaitis A. 2012. Risk management in
construction projects. In: Banaitiene N, editor. Risk man-
agement—current issues and challenges. London, UK:
InTech.
Banihashemi S, Hosseini MR, Golizadeh H, Sankaran S.
2017. Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of
sustainability into construction project management
practices in developing countries. Int J Project Manag.
35(6):1103–1119.
Bissonette M. 2016. Project risk management: a practical
implementation approach. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Chapman RJ. 2001. The controlling influences on effective
risk identification and assessment for construction design
management. Int J Project Manag. 19(3):147–160.
Chapman RJ. 2016. The rules of project risk management:
Implementation guidelines for major projects. London,
[England]; New York, New York: Routledge.
Chen YQ, Zhang YB, Liu JY, Mo P. 2012.
Interrelationships among critical success factors of con-
struction projects based on the structural equation
model. J Manage Eng. 28(3):243–251.
Chileshe N, Agyakwa-Baah A, Stephenson P. 5th
International Conference on Project Management Crete
G-M. 2010. Critical success factors for risk assessment
and management processes implementation: perceptions
of construction professionals in Ghana. Greece.
Chileshe N, Kikwasi G. 2014. Critical success factors for
implementation of risk assessment and management
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 385
practices within the Tanzanian construction industry.
Eng, Const Arch Manage. 21(3):291–319.
Crickette G, Drobnis K, Egerdahl R, Fox C. 2011. An over-
view of widely used risk management standards and
guidelines. risk and insurance management society;
[accessed 23 April 2018]. https://www.rims.org/resources/
ERM/Documents/RIMS%20Executive%20Report%20on%
20Widely%20Used%20Standards%20and%20Guidelines%
20March%202010.pdf.
El-Sayegh SM, Mansour MH. 2015. Risk assessment and
allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE. J
Manage Eng. 31(6):04015004.
England k, Moreci J. 2012. PMI Global Congress;
Vancouver, Canada.
Freund YP. 1988. Critical success factors. Planning Rev.
16(4):20–23.
Green P. 2015. Risk management: A common framework
for the entire organization. Oxford, MS: Elsevier Science
& Technology.
Gudien_e N, Banaitis A, Banaitien_e N. 2013. Evaluation of
critical success factors for construction projects – an
empirical study in Lithuania. Int J Strat Prop Manage.
17(1):21–31.
Gunduz M, Yahya AMA. 2015. Analysis of project success
factors in construction industry. Technol Econ Dev
Econ. 17(1):1–14.
Haadir SA, Panuwatwanich K. 2011. Critical success factors
for safety program implementation among construction
companies in Saudi Arabia. Procedia Eng. 14:148–155.
Hillson D. 2017. Managing risk in projects. Farnham,
England: Gower Publishing. (Fundamentals of Project
Management.
Hosseini M, Chileshe N, Jepson J, Arashpour M. 2016.
Critical success factors for implementing risk manage-
ment systems in developing countries. CEB. 16(1):18–32.
Hosseini MR, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Perera B. 2014.
Enhancing the effectiveness of risk management practices
in Sri Lankan road construction projects: a Delphi
approach. Int J Construct Manag. 14(1):1–19.
Hwang B-G, Zhao X, Toh LP. 2014. Risk management in
small construction projects in Singapore: Status, barriers
and impact. Int J Project Manage. 32(1):116–124.
Investopedia 2017. Sampling error. [accessed 25 May 2018].
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/samplingerror.asp.
Jin X, Zhang G, Liu J, Feng Y, Zuo J. 2017. Major partici-
pants in the construction industry and their approaches
to risks: A theoretical framework. Procedia Eng. 182:
314–320.
Kannan D. 2017. Role of multiple stakeholders and the crit-
ical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier
selection process. Int J Product Econ. 22.(:1):391–418.
Kim KP, Park KS. 2018. Delivering value for money with
BIM-embedded housing refurbishment. Facilities. 36(13/
14):657–675.
Kuo Y-C, Lu S-T. 2013. Using fuzzy multiple criteria deci-
sion making approach to enhance risk assessment for
metropolitan construction projects. Int J Project Manage.
31(4):602.
Lin, Y-H, Du, L-H 2010. Analysis on the key successful fac-
tors of enterprise-wide risk management: based on the
insight of effective encouragement. Chengdu, China.
IEEE.
386 S. SHAYAN ET AL.
Liu J, Meng F, Fellows R. 2015. An exploratory study of
understanding project risk management from the per-
spective of national culture. Int J Project Manage. 33(3):
564–575.
Maghsoodi AI, Khalilzadeh M. 2017. Identification and
evaluation of construction projects’ critical success fac-
tors employing Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. KSCE J Civ
Eng. 1(1):1–13.
Maina NP, Mbabazize M, Kibachia J. 2016. Evaluation of
factors affecting effectiveness of risk management in pub-
lic housing construction projects in Rwanda. Eur J Bus
Soc Sci. 5(1):85–101.
Mashwama XN, Aigbavboa C, Thwala D. 2016.
Investigation of construction stakeholders’ perception on
the effects & cost of construction dispute in Swaziland.
Procedia Eng. 164:196–205.
Memon AH, Abdullah MR, Rahman IA, Azis AA. 2011.
Time overrun in construction projects from the perspec-
tive of project management consultant (PMC). J Survey
Construct Property. 2(1) 54–66.
Olechowski A, Oehmen J, Seering W, Ben-Daya M. 2016.
The professionalization of risk management: What role
can the ISO 31000 risk management principles play? Int
J Project Manage. 34(8):1568–1578.
Oliveira K, Mexas M, Meiri~ no M, Drumond G. 2018.
Critical success factors associated with the implementa-
tion of enterprise risk management. J Risk Res. 1(1).:
1–16.
Osipova E. 2007. Risk Management In The Different Phases
Of A Construction Project—A Study Of Actors’
Involvement. 4th Nordic Conference on Construction
Economics and Organisation: Development Processes in
Construction Management; Luleå, Sweden.
Patterson T. 2015. The use of information technology in risk
management AICPA; [accessed 24 May 2018]. https://www.
aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/AssuranceAdvisoryServices/
DownloadableDocuments/ASEC_Whitepapers/Risk_Technology.
pdf.
Petrovic D, Warsame A, Klingborg K. 2017. Risk manage-
ment in construction projects: A knowledge management
perspective from Swedish contractors. Stockholm,
Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.
Pheng LS, Junying L, He S. 2009. External risk management
practices of chinese construction firms in Singapore.
KSCE J Civ Eng. 13(2):85–95.
Phu TQ. 2017. Enterprise risk management implementa-
tion: The critical success factors for Vietnamese
construction companies. J Multidiscipl Eng Sci Stud 3(2):
1365–1379.
Project Management Institute 2017. A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 0th
ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
(PMBOK guide.
Retfalvi L. 2009. The benefits of event-based risk manage-
ment in project execution. PMI Global Congress; North
America, Orlando, FL.
Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. 2013.
Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science
students and researchers. California, USA: Sage.
Rodrıguez-Segura E, Ortiz-Marcos I, Romero JJ, Tafur-
Segura J. 2016. Critical success factors in large projects in
the aerospace and defense sectors. J Business Res. 69(11):
5419–5425.
Rostami A, Sommerville J, Wong IL, Lee C. 2015. Risk
management implementation in small and medium
enterprises in the UK construction industry. Eng Const
Arch Manage. 22(1):91–107.
Safe Work Australia 2016. Work-related traumatic injury
fatalities Australia. [accessed 13 Nov 2018]. https://www.
safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1710/work-
related-traumatic-injury-fatalities-report-2016.pdf.
Siddiqui SQ, Ullah F, Thaheem MJ, Gabriel HF. 2016. Six
Sigma in construction: A review of critical success fac-
tors. Lean Six Sigma J. 7(2):171–186.
Sidorenko A. 2016. Four key concepts for effective risk
management. continuity central; [accessed 27 April 2018].
https://www.continuitycentral.com/index.php/news/erm-news/
1402-four-key-concepts-for-effective-risk-management.
Szyma nski P. 2017. Risk management in construction proj-
ects. Procedia Eng. 208:174–182.
Wood D, Lamberson G, Mokhatab S. 2008. Project execu-
tion risk management for addressing constructability.
Hydroc Process. 87(12):35–42.
Yaraghi N, Langhe RG. 2011. Critical success factors for
risk management systems. J Risk Res. 14(5):551–581.
Yong YC, Mustaffa NE. 2017. Critical success factors for
Malaysian construction projects: An investigative review.
Jurnal Alam Bina. 4(2):93–104.
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Tamosaitien_e J. 2010. Risk assess-
ment of construction projects. J Civ Eng Manage. 16(1):
33–46.
Zhao X, Hwang B-G, Low SP. 2013. Critical success factors
for enterprise risk management in Chinese construction
companies. Construct Manage Econ. 31(12):1199–1214.