Figure 5 b. Risk index (R2) for project (micro) level sub-areas.
Related Figures (16)
Fig. 1. Hierarchy of risk areas in the macro level. Fig. 2. Hierarchy of risk factors in the micro level. Fig. 3. Qualitative highway projects risk areas performance scale. Data were collected through a questionnaire that had been sent to 17 highway construction experts in China. The col ected data were analyzed to determine the risk effect score of highway projects. Tables la and 1b show the average subjective evaluation of the four highway pro- jects and t heir average effect score. These subjective eval- uations were estimated according to a performance scale of (1-9) points as shown in Fig. 3. For example, Table la shows t hat the interaction of foreign management with local contractors (IMWLC) has the highest values of 0.3, 0.45, 0.48, and 0.38 in projects A, B, C, and D, respec- tively. Moreover, this risk area has the highest average Effect score for company (macro) hierarchy risk sub-areas Effect score for project (micro) hierarchy risk sub-areas Table 1b Pair-wise comparison matrices consistency index (CI) calculation Table 2 Pair-wise comparison matrices consistency ratio (CR) calculation Table 3 Fig. 4. Eigen value consistency ratio (RI) for the pair-wise comparison matrices. Weight of macro level risk areas and sub-areas Table 4a Risk index (R) for macro level risk areas and sub-areas Table 5a Weight of micro level risk areas and sub-areas Fig. Sa. Risk index (R,) for company (macro) level sub-areas. The results of the holistic and model evaluations are shown in Table 6. It shows the test factor (TF) for the four projects. The TF value for project C is the highest (96.4%); however, it is 106.7 for project B. It has the lowest value in Risk index (R) for micro level risk areas and sub-areas Fig. 6. Risk index (R) for different projects. project A (79.2%). On average, the model TF equals to 93.3%, which is considered reasonable for such type of pro- jects. Fig. 7 shows the developed model results in addition to the holistic evaluation (average, average plus standard deviation, and average minus standard deviation values). Test factor (TF) values Fig. 7. Validation chart.
