Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE DELAY RISK ASSESSMENT BY USING COMBINED AHP-RII METHODOLOGY FOR AN INTERNATIONAL NPP PROJECT

  • Received : 2014.11.10
  • Accepted : 2014.12.24
  • Published : 2015.04.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) construction schedule delay risk assessment methodology is developed and the construction delay risk is assessed for turnkey international NPP projects. Three levels of delay factors were selected through literature review and discussions with nuclear industry experts. A questionnaire survey was conducted on the basis of an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Relative Importance Index (RII) methods and the schedule delay risk is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by severity and frequency of occurrence of delay factors. This study assigns four main delay factors to the first level: main contractor, utility, regulatory authority, and financial and country factor. The second and the third levels are designed with 12 sub-factors and 32 sub-sub-factors, respectively. This study finds the top five most important sub-sub-factors, which are as follows: policy changes, political instability and public intervention; uncompromising regulatory criteria and licensing documents conflicting with existing regulations; robust design document review procedures; redesign due to errors in design and design changes; and worldwide shortage of qualified and experienced nuclear specific equipment manufacturers. The proposed combined AHP-RII methodology is capable of assessing delay risk effectively and efficiently. Decision makers can apply risk informed decision making to avoid unexpected construction delays of NPPs.

Keywords

References

  1. S.A. Assaf, S. Al- Hejji, Causes of delay in large construction projects, Int. J. Project Manag. 24 (2006) 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010
  2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.7, Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: Guidelines and Experience, Vienna, 2012.
  3. KPMG International, Construction Risk in New Nuclear Power Projects - Eyes Wide Open, 2011. kpmg.com/ infrastructure.
  4. G. Harris, P. Heptonstall, R. Gross, D. Handley, Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.116
  5. Project Management Institute (PMI), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ($PMBOK^{(R)}$ Guide), fifth ed., 2013.
  6. S. Aminbakhsh, M. Gunduz, R. Sonmez, Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects, J. Saf. Res. 46 (2013) 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.05.003
  7. S.C. Ward, Assessing and managing important Risks, Int. Project Manag. 17 (1999) 331-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00051-9
  8. ISO GUIDE 73, Risk Management - Vocabulary, 2009.
  9. R.J. Chapman, The controlling influences on effective risk identification and assessment for construction design management, Int. Project Manag. 19 (2001) 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00070-8
  10. P. Elkington, C. Smallman, Managing project risks: a case study from the utilities sector, Int. Project Manag. 20 (2002) 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00034-X
  11. D.F. Cooper, S. Grey, G. Raymond, P. Walker, Project Risk Management Guidelines: Managing Risk in Large Projects and Complex Procurements, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, 2005.
  12. R. Mehdizadeh, Dynamic and Multi-perspective Risk Management of Construction Projects Using Tailor-made Risk Breakdown Structures, Doctoral Thesis, Universite de Bordeux, 2012.
  13. B.W. Boehm, Software risk management: principles and practices, IEEE Software 8 (1991) 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.62930
  14. A. Reza, K. Azari, N. Mousavi, S.F. Mousavi, S.B. Hosseini, Risk assessment model selection in construction industry, Expert. Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 9105-9111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.110
  15. T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process- Panning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1980.
  16. T.L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Services Sci. 1 (2008) 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  17. M.A. Mustafa, J.F. Al-Bahar, Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 38 (1991) 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.65759
  18. B. Srdjevic, Z. Srdjevic, Synthesis of individual best local priority vectors in AHP-group decision making, Appl. Soft Computing 13 (2013) 2045-2056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.11.010
  19. E. Forman, K. Peniwati, Theory and methodology aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Operational Res. 108 (1998) 165-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0
  20. Y.N. Alsuwehri, Supplier Evaluation and Selection by Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach, Engineering Management Field Project, Master's of Science, University of Kansas, 2011.
  21. C. Ramanathan, S.P. Narayanan, A.B. Idrus, Construction delays causing risks on time and cost- a critical review, Aust. J. Construct. Econ. Build. 12 (2012) 37-57.
  22. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TECDOC-1555, Managing the First Nuclear Power Plant Project, Vienna, 2007.
  23. Project Business research group Aalto University Finland, Case Olkiluoto 3 Nuclear Power Plant Project in Finland, 2010.
  24. I.N. Kessides, The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: risks, uncertainties, and continued promise, Energy Policy 48 (2012) 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.008
  25. I. Ruuska, T. Ahola, K. Artto, G. Locatelli, M. Mancini, A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects, Int. J. Project Manag. 29 (2011) 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.10.001
  26. L. Le-Hoai, Y.D. Lee, J.Y. Lee, Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries", KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 12 (2008) 367-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-008-0367-7
  27. M.M. Marzouk, T.I. El-Rasas, Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian construction projects, J. Adv. Res. 5 (2014) 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2012.11.005
  28. K.L. Ravisankar, S.A. Kumar, V. Krishnamoorthy, Study on the quantification of delay factors in construction industry, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Engineering 4 (2014) 105-113. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.4.2.379
  29. S.W. Kidd, Nuclear Power - Economics and public acceptance, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 277-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2013.03.006
  30. J.M.L. Moreira, B. Gallinaro, P. Carajilescov, Construction time of PWRs, Energy Policy 55 (2013) 531-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.044
  31. M. Cooper, Public Risk, Private Profit Ratepayer Cost, Utility Imprudence Advanced Cost Recovery for Reactor Construction Creates Another Nuclear Fiasco, Not a Renaissance, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School, 2013.
  32. M. Sambasivan, Y.W. Soon, Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry, Int. J. Project Manag. 25 (2007) 517-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007
  33. Y. Olawale, M. Sun, Cost and time control of construction projects: Inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice, Construct. Manag. Econ. 28 (2005) 509-526.
  34. V.T. Luua, S.Y. Kimb, N.V. Tuanc, S.O. Ogunlanad, Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks, Int. Project Manag. 27 (2009) 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.003
  35. A. Adamantiades, I. Kessides, Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future prospects, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 5149-5166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.052
  36. A. Grubler, The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 5174-5188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.003
  37. S. Vyas, Causes of delay in project construction in developing countries, Indian J. Construct. Manag. Stud. 4 (2013) 24-29.

Cited by

  1. Implementation of Risk Management in Malaysian Construction Industry: Case Studies vol.2015, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/192742
  2. The decision making method of task arrangement based on analytic hierarchy process for nuclear safety in radiation field vol.93, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.09.006
  3. Mapping the Industrial Perception of Delay Data Through Importance Rating vol.42, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2477-3
  4. 공업화 목조 건축 활성화를 위한 건물정보모델링(BIM) 적용방안 - 사회 네트워크 분석을 통한 신한옥 보급 저해요인 감축 전략 제안을 중심으로 - vol.17, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12813/kieae.2017.17.3.113
  5. Integrating the Input of Stakeholders in Infrastructure Risk Assessment vol.34, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000638
  6. Effects of Risk Attitude and Controllability Assumption on Risk Ratings: Observational Study on International Construction Project Risk Assessment vol.34, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000643
  7. Identifying the risk factors in Indian non-listed real estate funds vol.36, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1108/jpif-11-2017-0073
  8. Risk Level Evaluation on Construction Project Lifecycle Using Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation and TOPSIS vol.11, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11010012
  9. Overview of analytical hierarchy process decision making method for construction risk management vol.244, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/244/1/012034
  10. Modified Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Approach to Cost Overrun Risk Assessment of Power Plant Projects vol.145, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001593
  11. Halting decisions for gas pipeline construction projects using AHP: a case study vol.19, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-016-0277-2
  12. Stakeholder-Associated Supply Chain Risks and Their Interactions in a Prefabricated Building Project in Hong Kong vol.35, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000675
  13. Integrated priority decision index for risk assessment in chaos: cost overruns in transport projects vol.27, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-02-2019-0079
  14. Using probability impact matrix (PIM) in analyzing risk factors affecting the success of oil and gas construction projects in Yemen vol.14, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijesm-03-2019-0011
  15. Causes of Delay in Construction of Motorable Bridges under “Design and Build Model” of Bridge Project, Department of Roads, Nepal vol.11, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2020.118103
  16. Risk Identification and Responses of Tunnel Construction Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic vol.2020, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6620539
  17. Risk Evaluation and Prioritization in Bridge Construction Projects Using System Dynamics Approach vol.25, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000493
  18. A multivariate delay estimation model proposal for public construction projects vol.173, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1680/jmuen.18.00017
  19. A review of artificial intelligence based risk assessment methods for capturing complexity-risk interdependencies : Cost overrun in construction projects vol.14, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047
  20. Theoretical review on critical risk factors in oil and gas construction projects in Yemen vol.28, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-03-2019-0123
  21. Sustainability of Business through Project Risk Identification with Use of Expert Estimates vol.13, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116311
  22. Project delays and cost overruns between public and private sectors in Oman vol.21, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2262
  23. Factors Influencing Adoption and Integration of Construction Robotics and Automation Technology in the US vol.147, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002103
  24. Risk assessment of fast-track projects: a systems-based approach vol.21, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1602587
  25. A New Hybrid AHP and Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence Method for Project Risk Assessment Problem vol.9, pp.24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/math9243225
  26. Multidimensional modelling of complex and strategic construction projects for a more effective risk management vol.21, pp.12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1606493