CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Construction Project Management and PerformanceBIM and Construction IntegrationCapital Investment and Risk Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 154 of the 154 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of artificial intelligence based risk assessment methods for capturing complexity-risk interdependencies: Cost overrun in construction projects

Afzal, Farman, Yunfei, Shao, Nazir, Mubasher, Bhatti, Saad Mahmood·2021·International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
DOI 10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose In the past decades, artificial intelligence (AI)-based hybrid methods have been increasingly applied in construction risk management practices. The purpose of this paper is to review and compile the current AI methods used for cost-risk assessment in the construction management domain in order to capture complexity and risk interdependencies under high uncertainty. Design/methodology/approach This paper makes a content analysis, based on a comprehensive literature review of articles published in high-quality journals from the years 2008 to 2018. Fuzzy hybrid methods, such as fuzzy-analytical network processing, fuzzy-artificial neural network and fuzzy-simulation, have been widely used and dominated in the literature due to their ability to measure the complexity and uncertainty of the system. Findings The findings of this review article suggest that due to the limitation of subjective risk data and complex computation, the applications of these AI methods are limited in order to address cost overrun issues under high uncertainty. It is suggested that a hybrid approach of fuzzy logic and extended form of Bayesian belief network (BBN) can be applied in cost-risk assessment to better capture complexity-risk interdependencies under uncertainty. Research limitations/implications This study only focuses on the subjective risk assessment methods applied in construction management to overcome cost overrun problem. Therefore, future research can be extended to interpret the input data required to deal with uncertainties, rather than relying solely on subjective judgments in risk assessment analysis. Practical implications These results may assist in the management of cost overrun while addressing complexity and uncertainty to avoid chaos in a project. In addition, project managers, experts and practitioners should address the interrelationship between key complexity and risk factors in order to plan risk impact on project cost. The proposed hybrid method of fuzzy logic and BBN can better support the management implications in recent construction risk management practice. Originality/value This study addresses the applications of AI-based methods in complex construction projects. A proposed hybrid approach could better address the complexity-risk interdependencies which increase cost uncertainty in project.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 154 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 2013, Managing the Continuum: Certainty, Uncertainty, Unpredictability in Large Engineering Projects
  2. 2016, Managing Complex, High Risk Projects
  3. 2013, Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process
  4. 2015, Risk analysis at the edge of chaos, Cost Engineering, 57, 28
  5. 2016, Risk and stakeholder management tools, Project Management ToolBox, 182, 351
  6. 2014, Risk Management for Engineering Projects
  7. 2003, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Decision Making and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback, Creative Decisions Foundation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–172 of 172

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Afzal, F., Yunfei, S., Nazir, M., & Bhatti, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • University of the Punjab (PK)
  • University of Engineering and Technology Lahore (PK)
Corresponding author
Afzal, Farman
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-09-24
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
300-328
ISSN
1753-8378 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047
OpenAlex
W2980412932
Cited by
172
References
154
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › BIM and Construction Integration
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
Keywords
construction risk management, cost risk assessment, cost overruns, artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic, fuzzy neural network, fuzzy simulation, Bayesian networks, uncertainty, hybrid algorithm, subjective risk assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review