**5. Results and discussion**

Effective risk management is vital for project success. Project participants recognise this fact and employ several risk management methods to identify and manage risks. These methods were identified in this study through extant review of the literature. The study examines risks and unsafe site practices to address the digital visualisation of risk management on construction sites. Although, construction businesses implement risk management procedures as noted in the reviewed literature; however, some procedures need to be improved and used more frequently to uncover potential opportunities and negative risks. The entire structure of managing risks revolve around risk identification. Failure to identify risks can lead to inadequacies throughout the management process, which can negatively impact the project resources and success. Evidence shows that organisations that have risk management implemented acknowledge that failure is more likely if adequate procedures are not used when identifying potential risks. The accuracy of the outcomes of the risk management process is determined by a successful risk identification procedure.

The identification methods including their benefits and challenges were examined to arrive at corresponding methods of identifying risks on construction site. Some of the identified methods in the literature are adopted singly (information gathering, risk workshop, interviewing, possible risks scenario and root cause of risks) while some require the combination of more than one method for the identification process (SWOT analysis and document review). Likewise, some of the methods are useful at managerial level while some at employee level. The corresponding methods identified

#### **Figure 3.**

*Classification of unsafe site practices on construction sites [88, 168–182].*

were based on the result and analysis of the reviewed literature. This includes checklists for assessing risks, portfolio of previous projects, DCPP, and identifying risks with PESTLE analysis. Sub-areas of these methods were also identified to achieve the objectives of the study. For example, identification by PESTLE analysis examines risks from six different perspectives: political, economic, sociocultural, technological, legal, and environmental. The analysis in this study examines the threat and opportunities of risks management. However, evidence shows that PESTLE analysis works well with SWOT analysis to identify internal and external risks in project management.

On the other hand, unsafe site practices were identified from four different perspectives: human factors, non-human factors, unsafe workers' acts and actions, and unsafe environmental and site conditions. **Figure 3** shows the review's findings and the resulting classification of unsafe site practices on construction sites.

The research also demonstrates the existence of numerous causes for construction risks and unsafe site practices, with human factor being the primary cause of most construction accidents. Various socio-cultural factors associated with risks management were also identified (**Table 2**). PESTLE analysis showed that risk managementrelated socio-cultural factors could have an impact on construction projects in the society/organisation in which they are developed. The socio-technical component of risk management on the other hand relates to people, organisations, and technology as well as their interactions to risks management. Digital technologies are designed and optimised in consideration of social, organisational structures and humans to fulfil risk-free tasks.
