**3. Data analysis and results**

*Risk Management in Construction Projects*

**2.2 Stage 2: meta-analysis**

their related subcategories.

of Cleaner Production (JCP), Architectural Engineering and Design Management (AEDM), Construction Management and Economics (CME), International Journal of Construction Education and Research (JCER), International Journal of Construction Management (IJCM), Journal of Civil Engineering and Management (CEM), Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (JCEM), Journal of Management in Engineering (JME), Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction (LADR), Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice (PEEP), Journal of Architectural Engineering (JAE), Engineering Construction and Architectural Management (ECAM), Construction Innovation (CI), Journal of Financial Management of Property (JFMP), Facilities (F), Built Environment Project and Asset Management (BEPAM), Journal of Facilities Management (JFM), International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation (JBPA) and Management Decision (MD). The keywords for searching were designated as "risk management" and "construction projects," and these keywords were searched in title/abstract/keyword fields of the selected journals in the time period between 1980 and 2018. At this point, a total of 471 papers, excluding book reviews, forums and editorials, were retrieved for further analysis. Eventually, 247 papers were considered as the most

relevant to the research aim and were subject to a detailed review.

**Category Subcategory**

Year Publication date of the article

Research output General insights and descriptions

Future directions Future research identified in the articles

Journal Name of the journals

Research focus Risk identification

Level of analysis Project level

Source of information Review

Scientific database ASCE, Elsevier, Emerald, Taylor & Francis

Keyword "Risk management" and "construction projects"

Risk assessment/analysis Risk evaluation Risk response

Risk monitoring and control

Firm level Sector level

Case study Survey/interview

Statistical results Theoretical model Mathematical model Experimental/prototype model

In the second stage, a meta-classification framework, adopted from Betts and Lansley [66], was designed as presented in **Table 1**. Accordingly, the framework has nine categories, such as year, scientific database, journal, keyword, research focus, level of analysis, source of information, research output and future directions with

**74**

**Table 1.**

*Research framework.*

Risk management in construction projects was analysed according to the metaclassification framework given in **Table 1**. It is found that 247 papers have been published on "risk management" in the specified time period in the widely accepted construction and built environment-related peer-reviewed journals.

**Table 2** shows the chronological distribution of the selected papers by a 5-year time period. Accordingly, risk management subject shows an increasing tendency over the years. In addition, half of these papers have been published in the ASCE's Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.

**Table 3** presents the research focus of the published papers over the years. As given in **Table 3**, research focus was classified into ten categories. These categories include four processes of risk management and their multiple combinations. It is noticeable that researchers studied the risk management subject whether discussing


**Table 2.**

*Distribution of the selected papers within the time span.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Analysis of selected papers according to the research focus.*

one of the processes, such as risk identification, risk analysis/assessment, risk response and risk monitoring and control, or examining them through a holistic approach. Despite most of the papers focused only on risk analysis/assessment, a considerable amount of papers studied other risk management processes together with risk analysis/assessment subject. Besides, risk response and risk monitoring and control seem to be neglected processes of risk management. Recently, it is seen that these processes have started to be mentioned in risk management-related researches. Still, they do not have similar impact in the construction risk management literature compared with risk identification and risk analysis/assessment processes.

Most commonly used keywords in the analyzed papers are given in **Table 4**. It is not surprising that "risk management" keyword has the largest rate with 28.9%. The second highly rated keyword is risk (financial, political, design, economic, social, legal, safety) with the rate of 23.8%. This is followed by other keywords such as construction management/project management (11.6%), risk assessment including risk prioritization, risk score and risk rating (11.2%); risk analysis (6.0%); risk identification including checklist, risk mapping and risk breakdown structure (5.8%); cost-related issues (4.7%); risk allocation/distribution (2.0%); risk modeling (1.3%); risk response (1.1%); risk control (0.6%); risk mitigation (0.6%); risk perception/attitude (0.6%); risk strategy (0.4%); risk interruptions (0.2%); risk paths (0.2%); and risk propagation (0.2%).

The papers are analyzed according to the study levels as project level, firm level and sector level. **Figure 2** shows the distribution of these levels within the time span. As seen in **Figure 2**, the majority of the papers are studied in the project level. This is resulted from researchers mostly focused how risk is managed within a construction project rather than concentrating on the risks and their effect within a construction company or in the construction sector. Especially beginning with 2006, a huge focus has given to construction risk management studies at the project level. However, there are few studies which concentrate risk management related issues by discussing them through the firm and sector level.

Different sources of information are used in the analyzed papers which were classified as case studies, survey/interviews and reviews. As illustrated in **Figure 3**, among these, case studies and survey/interviews are the leading sources. After 2005, case studies and survey/interviews show a rapid increase. This reveals that secondary data and data collected from sector professionals are the main sources of information

**77**

**Figure 2.**

**Table 4.**

*A Guide for Risk Management in Construction Projects: Present Knowledge and Future Directions*

**Keywords Number of papers Frequency (%)** Risk management 129 28.99 Risk 106 23.82 Construction management/project management 52 11.68 Risk assessment 50 11.23 Risk analysis 27 6.06 Risk identification 26 5.84 Cost related issues 21 4.71 Risk allocation/distribution 9 2.02 Risk modeling 6 1.34 Risk response 5 1.12 Risk control 3 0.67 Risk mitigation 3 0.67 Risk perception/attitude 3 0.67 Risk strategy 2 0.44 Risk interruptions 1 0.22 Risk paths 1 0.22 Risk propagation 1 0.22

in the analyzed papers. On the other hand, reviews are relatively less preferred

The main outputs of the papers are shown in **Figure 4**, which were classified into five categories as general insights and descriptions, statistical results, theoretical model, mathematical model and experimental/prototype model. The main contribution is statistical results followed by mathematical model. Since most of the papers adopted a research methodology based on case studies and survey/interviews, it is reasonable that the research output shows a high tendency in statistical

information source for risk management researches.

*Analysis of selected papers according to the level of analysis.*

*Analysis of selected papers according to the keywords.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84361*


*A Guide for Risk Management in Construction Projects: Present Knowledge and Future Directions DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84361*

#### **Table 4.**

*Risk Management in Construction Projects*

**≤1995 1996– 2000**

*Analysis of selected papers according to the research focus.*

**2001– 2005**

RI 1 2 3 8 10 14 RA 3 7 11 21 28 23 RR 2 4 6 4 RMC 3 1 RI+RA 3 4 6 12 9 RI+RR 1 1 1 3 2 1 RA+RR 1 1 2 3 RA+RMC 1 RI+RA+RR 1 2 5 2 3 RI+RA+RR+RMC 1 4 4 8 12 3

**2006– 2010**

**2011– 2015**

**>2015 Total number of papers within time span**

one of the processes, such as risk identification, risk analysis/assessment, risk response and risk monitoring and control, or examining them through a holistic approach. Despite most of the papers focused only on risk analysis/assessment, a considerable amount of papers studied other risk management processes together with risk analysis/assessment subject. Besides, risk response and risk monitoring and control seem to be neglected processes of risk management. Recently, it is seen that these processes have started to be mentioned in risk management-related researches. Still, they do not have similar impact in the construction risk management literature

*RI: risk identification, RA: risk analysis/assessment, RR: risk response, RMC: risk monitoring & control.*

compared with risk identification and risk analysis/assessment processes.

paths (0.2%); and risk propagation (0.2%).

issues by discussing them through the firm and sector level.

Most commonly used keywords in the analyzed papers are given in **Table 4**. It is not surprising that "risk management" keyword has the largest rate with 28.9%. The second highly rated keyword is risk (financial, political, design, economic, social, legal, safety) with the rate of 23.8%. This is followed by other keywords such as construction management/project management (11.6%), risk assessment including risk prioritization, risk score and risk rating (11.2%); risk analysis (6.0%); risk identification including checklist, risk mapping and risk breakdown structure (5.8%); cost-related issues (4.7%); risk allocation/distribution (2.0%); risk modeling (1.3%); risk response (1.1%); risk control (0.6%); risk mitigation (0.6%); risk perception/attitude (0.6%); risk strategy (0.4%); risk interruptions (0.2%); risk

The papers are analyzed according to the study levels as project level, firm level and sector level. **Figure 2** shows the distribution of these levels within the time span. As seen in **Figure 2**, the majority of the papers are studied in the project level. This is resulted from researchers mostly focused how risk is managed within a construction project rather than concentrating on the risks and their effect within a construction company or in the construction sector. Especially beginning with 2006, a huge focus has given to construction risk management studies at the project level. However, there are few studies which concentrate risk management related

Different sources of information are used in the analyzed papers which were classified as case studies, survey/interviews and reviews. As illustrated in **Figure 3**, among these, case studies and survey/interviews are the leading sources. After 2005, case studies and survey/interviews show a rapid increase. This reveals that secondary data and data collected from sector professionals are the main sources of information

**76**

**Table 3.**


in the analyzed papers. On the other hand, reviews are relatively less preferred information source for risk management researches.

The main outputs of the papers are shown in **Figure 4**, which were classified into five categories as general insights and descriptions, statistical results, theoretical model, mathematical model and experimental/prototype model. The main contribution is statistical results followed by mathematical model. Since most of the papers adopted a research methodology based on case studies and survey/interviews, it is reasonable that the research output shows a high tendency in statistical

**Figure 2.** *Analysis of selected papers according to the level of analysis.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Analysis of selected papers according to the sources of information.*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Analysis of selected papers according to the research output.*

results. General insights and descriptions, theoretical models and experimental/ prototype models are less adopted methodologies compared with other ones.
