Risk assessment of underground and elevated metro projects from clients' and contractors' perspective

Abstract

PurposeIndia is a rapidly urbanizing developing country with a population of 1.4 Billion. Indian governments have invested USD 50 Billion) in metro rail projects in 18 cities. Metro constructions are multi-stakeholder mega-projects and are prone to a variety of risks. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the risks involved in metro rail construction projects in a densely populated developing country for two types of systems and from two perspectives. Current literature lacks an understanding of similarities and differences in the risks involved in underground and elevated metro projects from clients' and contractors' perspectives, which the paper highlights.Design/methodology/approachA total of twenty-five risks were identified, categorized and assessed through experts' opinions about the impact and probability of occurrence of the risks through a questionnaire-based survey. The survey respondents included experts in metro rail construction from client and contractor sides. Paper uses a Fuzzy Inference System to calibrate risk magnitude from occurrence probability and impact.FindingsA notable difference was observed in the views of clients and contractors, except for certain common risks. Both stakeholders had different risk perceptions for the underground and elevated metro rail systems.Practical implicationsThis study contributes to the risk assessment for different types of metro systems. This research can help policymakers as well as consultants in prioritizing their risk management strategies in developing countries like India.Originality/valueHighlighting the critical aspects of risks in metro projects in a developing country, this paper also provides system-based and stakeholder-based comparative aspects of risk analysis.

Significant risks that trigger cost overruns and delays in urban rail projects: a typical case study of Vietnam

“…Recently, identification of risk in metro rail projects in India was also undertaken by Patil et al . (2019) and Karmarkar et al . (2022).…”

“…Historical building preservation problems, relocation risk of people surrounding the project, traffic diversion problems, insurance for all projects and surrounding areas, and political pressure were asserted to be the top five risk factors. In another study in the same context in India on the Risks that trigger cost overruns and delays risk assessment of underground and elevated metro projects, Karmarkar et al (2022) also identified 25 risk factors. The study showed that delay in project approvals and the economic crisis were the two most critical risks from the perspectives of both clients and contractors among the two types of metro systems, elevated and underground.…”

“…In Singapore, Zhao et al (2013) identified the critical risks in underground rail international construction joint ventures. Recently, identification of risk in metro rail projects in India was also undertaken by Patil et al (2019) and Karmarkar et al (2022). In another study in China, Feng et al (2021) evaluated the risks of urban rail transit projects.…”

“…Historical building preservation problems, relocation risk of people surrounding the project, traffic diversion problems, insurance for all projects and surrounding areas, and political pressure were asserted to be the top five risk factors. In another study in the same context in India on the risk assessment of underground and elevated metro projects, Karmarkar et al. (2022) also identified 25 risk factors.…”

“…incomplete designGhosh and Jintanapakanont (2004),Zou and Li (2010),Mittal and Paul (2018),Patil et al (2019),Tran et al (2020),Kassa (2020),Feng et al (2021),Karmarkar et al (2022) R02 Slow design approval and appraisal processHan et al (2009),Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Mittal and Paul (2018) R03 Unexpected changes in the design approvedGhosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Hua et al (2004), Han et al (2009), Patil et al (2019), Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Abdorahman (2020) R04 ODA (Official Development Assistance) projects suffering from tight constraints of main sponsors Experts' opinion R05 Slowly disbursed project capital Tavassolirizi et al (2020) R06 Payment delays Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Zou and Li (2010), Mittal and Paul (2018), Patil et al (2019), Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Abdorahman (2020), Karmarkar et al (2022) R07 Exchange rate change Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Zou and Li (2010), Zhao et al (2013), Feng et al (2021), Karmarkar et al (2022) R08 Changes in material, labor and machinery costs Hua et al (2004), Lee (2008), Patil et al (2019), Tran et al (2020), Feng et al (2021) R09 Lack of coordination and support from government agencies at all levels Zou and Li (2010), Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Mittal and Paul (2018), Patil et al (2019), Tran et al (2020) R10 Interface problems between contractors due to lack of information and consensus Tran et al (2020) R11 Changes in local policies and regulations Zou and Li (2010), Zhao et al (2013), Patil et al (2019), Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Tran et al (2020), Feng et al (2021), Karmarkar et al (2022) R12 Lack of standards for design, construction and verification for new projects first implemented Experts' opinion R13 Lack of mechanisms and regulations for managing EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) contract type Experts' opinion R14 Delays during the bidding and contractor selection from the project management unit Tran et al (2020) R15 The project management unit's lack capacity and experience in managing and operating complex projects Tran et al (2020), Zhao et al (2013), Kassa (2020) R16 Delays in decision regarding contract changes and project adjustments from the project management unit Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Tran et al (2020) R17 Consultants' shortcomings during project quality supervision Tran et al (2020) R18 Errors, accidents and work problems at construction site due to contractors' poor management Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Mittal and Paul (2018), Tran et al (2020), Abdorahman (2020), Karmarkar et al (2022) R19 Delays in making and approving dossiers regarding plan, design, quality, acceptance documents Tavassolirizi et al (2020), Tran et al (2020), Abdorahman (2020), Karmarkar et al (2022) R20 Changes in project scope Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), Hua et al (2004), Lee (2008), Mittal and Paul (2018), Patil et al (2019), Abdorahman (2020), Kassa (2020), Karmarkar et al (2022) (continued )…”