Abstract
A proper identification, assessment, and allocation of risks are essential for reducing the likelihood of time and cost overruns. Aiming for lowering the overall cost of claims and disputes, this study aims for the identification, assessment, and allocation of the risks in private building projects in Chile. Based on a thorough examination of the literature, reveals 104 risks that are organized into four categories and eleven subcategories. The allocation, probability, and impact of these risk variables were estimated by experts consulted through questionnaires. Results show that delays in approval/permits, delays in decision-making, poor design, equipment problems, planning deficiencies, poorly trained skilled labor, unclear contract clauses and conditions, late design changes, competition, resource availability, and unrealistic baseline scheduling are the top-ranked risk factors. The study’s respondents’ recommendations regarding the risk allocation were compared with the contractual risk allocation in the projects analyzed unraveling that over 50% of the most critical risks had disparities between contractual allocation and respondents’ recommendations. The study’s findings are useful for assisting practitioners in allocating risks to those stakeholders who are better equipped to evaluate, manage, and control those risks. The risks can be prioritized for response planning using the generated risk priority.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
The development of architectural and engineering projects generates significant contributions to the economic growth of all the countries around the world. However, the complexity of these projects and their increasingly uncertain environments may jeopardize their quality, budget, and time performance [1]. Moreover, the poor performance and recurrent conflict between the contractor and client in these projects frequently are linked to flaws in the risk assessment and allocation [2].
Numerous risks and conflicting relationships exist between contractors and owners throughout construction projects, which typically result in disputes initiated by either party. These conflicts frequently are disruptive, expensive, and time-consuming particularly when they are not solved quickly and escalate to official resolution by a tribunal or a court [3,4,5,6].
The construction sector is constantly looking for more effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, such as alternative dispute resolution techniques like adjudication, mediation, conciliation, and other hybrid procedures that are popular and well-liked in the building sector [7]. However, these methods are expensive and, frequently, ineffective in resolving disagreements [8]. Furthermore, the majority of alternative dispute resolution techniques for avoiding litigation and arbitration are not legally binding on the parties until the dispute is finally settled by the end of the project [3].
The allocation of risks involves their transfer via contractual provisions from one party to another [9]. Fair risk allocation is a practical method for preventing expensive disagreements [2, 10]. In effect, unclear risk allocation in building contracts is one of the main causes of disputes [11, 12]. Proper risk management and allocation in building projects require a careful development of contractual governance mechanisms reflected in risk allocation and control [13,14,15,16]. For this reason, the identification and understanding of risks should be prioritized in the early phases of the project to limit potential negative consequences of them [17].
Project Management researchers have developed countless papers focused on risk allocation of public work projects [16, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Their preference for these projects is due to the availability of public databases with the information required. However, there is a remaining gap in non-public projects because of the lack of transparency on this information, as reported in the literature [26, 27]. Moreover, the construction sector has been the subject of risk assessment research by a number of academics in regions around the world, such as North America, East Asia, and Europe rather than medium size developing countries located in some other regions. To address the aforementioned gap, this study aims for analyzing the risk factors in the Chilean private building construction sector.
2 Background
2.1 Risk Quantification
The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) establishes that risks are chance events that may negatively or positively affect the objectives of the project [28]. Risk is inevitable considering the inherent uncertainty associated with every human action [29]. Considering the frequency and influence of risks on project objectives, decision-makers should conduct risk quantification.
One of the first quantification models proposed was developed by Daniel Bernoulli almost 300 years ago and was focused on the calculation of the utility of weighted averages for the potential outcomes based on an uncertain scenario [1]. This model became the standard reference for two hundred years until the mid-1900s when Neumann and Morgenstern proposed the probability-weighted average of a single utility of combined outcomes but of the utilities of all outcomes [30].
Nowadays, the Expected Utility Theory has become the most widely accepted model to quantify risks. Under this theory, the PI model establishes the estimation of a risk event as the multiplication of its impact (I) and the probability of occurrence (P).
2.2 Risk Assessment and Identification
The implementation of risk management is impeded by insufficient resources, insufficient experienced staff, and scarce time for implementation [8]. Cost overruns and time delays are the main reasons for disputes [31, 32]. Moreover, the biggest influence on construction time and cost is financial risk, which is typically correlated with a lack of financial resources, cash flow issues, and claims due to payment delays [33,34,35,36,37]. Construction time and cost also demonstrated being susceptible to specific features such as delayed modular component deliveries, disruptions in the supply chain, capital cost increases, management complexity, environmental sustainability, and stakeholder fragmentation [38,39,40,41,42].
From the perspective of the contractor, construction risk factors include decreased productivity, uncertain ground conditions, ambiguous specifications, and varying construction standards [43, 44]. Additionally, contract-based analyses have identified key risk factors: change in design, design error, unclear clauses and conditions, inflation, Currency exchange rate fluctuations, corruption, and public opposition to projects [8, 45]. However, it is required to complement risk identification with quantification to offer value for project managers and improve risk management.
3 Methodology
3.1 Risk Identification
The methodological process started by identifying the construction projects’ risk factors. This identification process was focused not only on a list of potential risks but also on a taxonomy to classify them into specific risk categories, as recommended in risk literature [46,47,48].
Based on a literature review process, 137 risks were identified initially. Risks unrelated to lump-sum contracts were discarded. After this filtering process, a list of 104 risks was reached as shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is consistent with previous risk identification [8, 49].
The risk taxonomy considered three hierarchies. The first is the category that is closely related to the project phase, namely: procurement, design, construction, and transfer. Then, the subcategory focused on the risk type such as environmental, management, institutional, liaison, relational, technical, and contracting.
In summary, procurement risks entail six subcategories and twelve risks (Table 1), design risks are made of five subcategories and fourteen risks (Table 2), construction risk is disaggregated into thirteen subcategories and 76 risks (Table 3), and transfer risk related to one single risk and subcategory (Table 4).
3.2 Projects’ Data Collection
For this pilot study, Chilean projects were selected. In general, all the projects are lump sum contracts for high-rise residential buildings, 83% of the projects are Design-Bid-Build, and 17% Design-Build.
3.3 Risk Quantification
For this pilot study, an exploratory analysis was conducted based on questionnaires with various experts. The questionnaire’s respondents included representatives from the owner (37%) and the contractor (63%). The respondents were filtered to exclude practitioners with less than three years of working experience and avoid the least experienced and qualified practitioners.
The questionnaire started by asking for respondents’ general information. Then, the severity (impact) and probability of occurrence of each of the risk factors were requested using a Likert scale, where five (5) and one (1) mean very high and very low, respectively. Finally, the allocation of each risk factor was asked, giving the options of the contractor, owner, or shared, as recommended by risk literature [8].
The risk factor was computed based on the associated risk impact and risk probability as follows:
Consequently, for a respondent that assesses a low (=2) probability and high (=4) impact of a certain risk, the Risk Factor is eight (8).
3.4 Risk Allocation
The contractual documents of each project were analyzed through a content analysis for identifying the risk allocation. This analysis technique allows for replicability in the inferences through the coding and interpretation of text [46, 50,51,52,53].
A risk allocation rubric was developed for the analysis of the contractual documents, as recommended in risk allocation studies [54]. Then, the risk allocation was filled in the form based on the content analysis of the contractual documents.
The respondents were also asked for their recommendations regarding the risk allocation for each of the risks. This allows for contrasting the real risk allocation with the experts’ perspectives.
3.5 Validation
To evaluate the consistency and reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was calculated as follows:
where α is Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, K is the number of risk factors in the questionnaire, Vi is the variance of risk i, and Vt is the total variance. According to the extant literature, when this coefficient exceeds 70%, the questionnaire may be considered reliable [8].
4 Findings and Discussion
The reliability and consistency of the questionnaires were confirmed based on Cronbach’s Alpha values over 0.95. Based on the data gathered in the questionnaires, the Risk Impact was calculated. The most critical risks according to the Risk Impact (>20) are shown in Table 5.
Although design risks only represent around 10% of the risks analyzed in this study, 20% of the most critical risks were related to design issues. The first and third risks are within the design category, namely: “delay in approval/permits and “poor design.” In effect, a significant proportion of the risks may not necessarily affect the critical path of the project and, consequently, will not affect the project duration; “delay in approval/permits” undoubtedly affect the critical path of the project and, consequently, the project duration. Additionally, previous literature has emphasized the common practice of owners to impose tight schedules for the delivery of the drawing and design that could be in some cases unrealistic [8]. Moreover, “poor design” may also have significant detrimental effects on the quality, cost, and time performance of the project. Additionally, there is one single critical risk within the procurement category, namely, “planning deficiencies.” In effect, project management literature has emphasized the relevance of planning processes in order to establish a proper scope and accurate budget and schedule [55].
Conversely, eight out of the eleven critical risks within the construction category, namely: “delays in decision-making”, “equipment problems”, “poorly trained skilled labor”, “unclear contract clauses and conditions”, “late design changes”, “competition”, “resources availability”, and “unrealistic baseline scheduling.” Overall, the insufficient time and untimely efforts devoted by the owner in the planning along with organizational issues may result in delays triggered by the owner affecting the time for key decisions, lack of clarity in the contract clauses, late design changes (and their consequent cost and time overruns), and unrealistic schedule.
4.1 Risk Allocation
An essential aspect of risk management is risk allocation, which is the practice of allocating risks to the most appropriate contracting party. The importance of assigning risk to the party that can manage it the best is that a suboptimal risk allocation is likely to result in controversies, drive up costs, and significant delays.
The allocation of the risks was analyzed in both the contractual documents and according to the experts’ criteria. For the analysis of questionnaires, this study adopted the literature’s recommendation to assign each risk to the party when there is more than 50% of respondents agree to allocate that risk to it [8, 56]. Conversely, risks that have a threshold of less than 50% are classified as “non-decided.”
The allocation recommended for each critical risk in this study is shown in Table 6. There are only four risk factors listed that should ideally be allocated to the owner: “Delays in decision-making”; “Poor design”; “Unclear contract clauses and conditions”; and “Late design changes”. Most of these risks (60%) belong to the construction category and the remaining 40% to the design. Evidently, these risks entail untimely decisions of the owner that will impact the project outcomes so as poor contractual documents and design (for DBB projects).
Conversely, Table 6 shows that five risk factors are assigned to contractors. These risks are “Equipment Problems”, “Planning deficiencies”, “Poorly trained skilled labor”, “Competition”, and “Resources availability”. Most of these risks (80%) belong to the construction category and the remaining 20% to the procurement category. This pattern is closely related to general practice for allocating construction risks to the contractor.
The remaining two critical risks (“Delay in approval/permits” and “Unrealistic baseline schedule”) were recommended to be shared.
A comparison between the contractual risk allocation in the Chilean contracts analyzed and the recommendations made by experts is shown in Table 7. Interestingly, almost 50% of the most critical risks presented discrepancies between contractual allocation and what respondents have recommended, as seen in the table. These differences and ambiguities in risk allocation could lead to recurrent claims and conflicts.
5 Conclusions
The findings show that the assessed risks’ impact and probability on the project’s goal were moderate on average. In effect, only 11% (11 out of the 104) risks analyzed were critical and 17% of the risks were significant. Conversely, 36% of the risks were moderated, and 30% minor.
Although only around 10% of the risks examined in this study were design risks, 20% of the most critical risks included design-related difficulties. In practice, design risks undoubtedly affect the critical path of the project and, as a result, the project duration. Within the procurement category, there is only one single major risk, which indicates the need for planning procedures in order to establish an appropriate scope, precise budget, and reliable timetable.
Contrarily, eight out of the eleven significant risks in the construction category fall into the category of critical risks, It illustrates how organizational problems, combined with the owner’s inadequate planning efforts and timing, can lead to mistakes in the scope, budget, and schedule definition.
Both the contractual papers and the recommendations established by the experts were used to examine how the risks were allocated. There are only four significant risks that pertain to the construction and design categories and should ideally be assigned to the owner.
Contrarily, five critical risks are allocated to contractors in the construction category, while the remaining are allocated to the procurement category, This is very similar to the custom of transferring construction risk to the contractor. It was suggested that only two critical risks be disclosed.
It was found that over 50% of the most critical risks had disparities between contractual allocation and what respondents suggested. These discrepancies and ambiguities in risk allocation may give rise to repeated disputes and claims.
References
Farooq MU, Thaheem MJ, Arshad H (2018) Improving the risk quantification under behavioural tendencies: a tale of construction projects. Int J Proj Manag 36(3):414–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.12.004
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Mesa H, Flores D (2020) Risk allocation in unsolicited and solicited road public-private partnerships: sustainability and management implications. Sustain 12(11):1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114478
Marques RC (2018) Is Arbitration the right way to settle conflicts in PPP arrangements? J Manag Eng 34(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000564
Osei-Kyei R, Chan APC, Yu Y, Chen C, Dansoh A (2019) Root causes of conflict and conflict resolution mechanisms in public-private partnerships: comparative study between Ghana and China. Cities 87(Aug):185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.10.001
Cruz CO, Marques RC, Cardoso P (2015) Empirical evidence for renegotiation of PPP contracts in the road sector. J Leg Aff Disput Resolut Eng Constr 7(2):05014003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000151
Harisankar KS (2013) Rethinking Dispute Resolution in Public – Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development in India. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974930613488292
Levitt RE, Henisz W, Scott WR, Settel D (2010) Governance Challenges of Infrastructure Delivery: The Case for Socio-Economic Governance Approaches, pp 757–767
Hiyassat MA, Alkasagi F, El-Mashaleh M, Sweis GJ (2020) Risk allocation in public construction projects: the case of Jordan. Int J Constr Manag 22:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1728605
Zhang S, Zhang S, Gao Y, Ding X (2016) Contractual governance: effects of risk allocation on contractors’ cooperative behavior in construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 142(6):04016005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001111
Castelblanco G, Guevara J (2020) Risk allocation in PPP unsolicited and solicited proposals in latin america: pilot study in Colombia. Constr Res Congr 2020:1321–1329. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482889.141
Marcellino M, Castelblanco G, De Marco A (2022) Contract renegotiation in PPPs: evidence from Italy. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Mesa H, Hartmann A (2022) Social legitimacy challenges in toll road PPP programs: analysis of the Colombian and Chilean cases. J Manag Eng 38(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001010
Hodge G, Greve C, Boardman A (2017) Public-private partnerships: the way they were and what they can become. Aust J Public Adm 76(3):273–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12260
Yan L, Zhang L (2020) Interplay of contractual governance and trust in improving construction project performance: dynamic perspective. J Manag Eng 36(4):04020029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000791
Dewulf G, Garvin MJ (2020) Responsive governance in PPP projects to manage uncertainty. Constr Manag Econ 38(4):383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1618478
Guo F, Chang-Richards Y, Wilkinson S, Li TC (2014) Effects of project governance structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects: a comparative analysis. Int J Proj Manag 32(5):815–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.001
Loosemore M, Raftery J, Reilly C, Higgon D (2006) Risk Management in Projects. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781908979513_0009
Meng X (2012) The effect of relationship management on project performance in construction. Int J Proj Manag 30(2):188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.002
Bing L, Akintoye A, Edwards PJ, Hardcastle C (2005) The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. Int J Proj Manag 23(1):25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.006
Wibowo A, Mohamed S (2010) Risk criticality and allocation in privatised water supply projects in Indonesia. Int J Proj Manag 28(5):504–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.003
Carbonara N, Costantino N, Pellegrino R (2014) Concession period for PPPs: a win-win model for a fair risk sharing. Int J Proj Manag 32(7):1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.007
Nasirzadeh F, Khanzadi M, Rezaie M (2013) Dynamic modeling of the quantitative risk allocation in construction projects. Int J Proj Manag 32(3):442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.06.002
Wang H, Liu Y, Xiong W, Song J (2019) The moderating role of governance environment on the relationship between risk allocation and private investment in PPP markets: evidence from developing countries. Int J Proj Manag 37(1):117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.008
Lam KC, Wang D, Lee PTK, Tsang YT (2007) Modelling risk allocation decision in construction contracts. Int J Proj Manag 25(5):485–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.005
Jin XH, Zhang G (2011) Modelling optimal risk allocation in PPP projects using artificial neural networks. Int J Proj Manag 29(5):591–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.011
Saeed AM, Duffield C, Hui FKP (2018) An enhanced framework for assessing the operational performance of public-private partnership school projects. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 8(2):194–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-07-2017-0041
Agarchand N, Laishram B (2017) Sustainable infrastructure development challenges through PPP procurement process: Indian perspective. Int J Manag Proj Bus 10(3):642–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2016-0078
Project Management Institute (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide), 5th Edition. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania
Loosemore M, McCarthy CS (2008) Perceptions of contractual risk allocation in construction supply chains. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 134(1):95–105. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1052-3928(2008)134:1(95)
Sánchez-Silva M, Klutke GA (2016) Reliability and Life-Cycle Analysis of Deteriorating Systems. Springer, Piscataway. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854049708407039
Oduro Asamoah R, Offei-Nyako K, Ampofo-Twumasi K (2021) Relative importance of triggers influencing cost contingency determination for building contracts - the perspective of quantity surveyors. Int J Constr Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1930638
Moazzami M, Dehghan R, Ruwanpura JY (2011) Contractual risks in fast-track projects. Procedia Eng 14:2552–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.321
Flyvbjerg B et al (2018) Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 118(July):174–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.013
Flyvbjerg B, Bester DW (2021) The cost-benefit fallacy: why cost-benefit analysis is broken and how to fix it. J Benefit-Cost Anal 12(3):395–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2021.9
Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, van Wee B (2008) Decision-Making on Mega-Projects: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Mendez-Gonzalez P (2022) PPP Renegotiation Flight Simulator: A System Dynamics Model for Renegotiating PPPs after Pandemic Crisis. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483978.011
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Mendez-Gonzalez P (2022) In the Name of the Pandemic: A Case Study of Contractual Modifications in PPP Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals in COVID-19 Times. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483978.006
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Salazar J (2022) Remedies to the PPP crisis in the Covid-19 pandemic: lessons from the 2008 global financial crisis. J Manag Eng 38(3):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001036
Castelblanco G, Guevara J (2022) Crisis driven literature in PPPs: a network analysis. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing, Melbourne - Australia. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1101/5/052002. https://oxford-abstracts.s3.amazonaws.com/bbb900d1-74cf-4dbb-b573-81550cf6ef90.pdf
Mesa HA, Molenaar KR, Alarcón LF (2016) Exploring performance of the integrated project delivery process on complex building projects. Int J Proj Manag 34(7):1089–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.007
Castelblanco G, Guevara J (2022) Building bridges: unraveling the missing links between public-private partnerships and sustainable development. Proj Leadersh Soc 3(100059):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100059
Castelblanco G, Guevara J, Rojas D, Correa J, Verhoest K (2023) Environmental impact assessment effectiveness in public-private partnerships: study on the colombian road program. J Manag Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA/MEENG-5015
Bloomfield P, Westerling D, Carey R (1998) Innovation and risk in a public-private partnership: financing and construction of a capital project in massachusetts. Public Product Manag Rev 21(4):460–471
Ogunlana SO (2010) Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int J Proj Manag 28(3):228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005
Nguyen D, Garvin MJ (2016) Risk allocation and management practices in highway PPP contracts: pilot study of Virginia, pp 2861–2871
Siraj NB, Fayek AR (2019) Risk identification and common risks in construction: literature review and content analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 145(9):03119004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001685
Yescombe ER, Farquharson E (2018) Public-Private Partnerships for infrastructure: Principles of policy and finance, 2nd edn Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100766-2.00001-2
Almarri K, Alzahrani S, Boussabaine H (2019) An evaluation of the impact of risk cost on risk allocation in public private partnership projects. Eng Constr Archit Manag 26(8):1696–1711. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2018-0177
Tembo Silungwe CK, Khatleli N (2020) An analysis of the allocation of pertinent risks in the Zambian building sector using Pareto analysis. Int J Constr Manag 20(4):321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484853
Krippendorff K (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Metholody, 2nd edn, vol 31, no 6. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.31.3460
Elo S, Kyngäs H (2007) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs no. Cole 1988, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Kolbe RH, Burnett MS (1991) Content analysis research: an examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. J Consum Res 18(2):243–250
Afjei SM (2015) A Content Analysis of Sustainability Dimensions inAnnual Reports. Florida International University. https://doi.org/10.25148/etd.FI15032103
Nguyen DA, Garvin MJ, Gonzalez EE (2018) Risk allocation in U.S. public-private partnership highway project contracts. J Constr Eng Manag 144(5):04018017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001465
Wang L, Kunc M, Bai S (2017) Realizing value from project implementation under uncertainty: an exploratory study using system dynamics. Int J Proj Manag 35(3):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.009
El-Sayegh SM (2008) Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. Int J Proj Manag 26(4):431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Castelblanco, G., Mesa, H., Serra, L. (2023). Risk Analysis in Private Building Projects: A Pilot Study in Chile. In: Favari, E., Cantoni, F. (eds) Complexity and Sustainability in Megaprojects. MERIT 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 342. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30879-6_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30879-6_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30878-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30879-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)