The identified risks.
Abstract
The importance of risk management has been increasing for a lot of construction projects in different industries, and thus risk management department must be established to monitor the risks. The construction industry and its managers are exposed to a high degree of risk that leads to increasing the cost or delay in the projects. Therefore, there must be techniques used to control the risk and determine the best method to respond to it. Artificial intelligence and its techniques will be described includes the principle of and its advantages, types and the techniques that used for the classification that includes, decision tree and K-star, neural network and support vector machine and simulation techniques like system dynamic and also using optimization techniques, Particle swarm, Gravitational Search Algorithm as follows: Classification (decision tree, K-star, neural network, support vector. Machine and).
Keywords
- risk
- risk management
- techniques
- classification
- neural network
1. Introduction
The concept of risk management includes two parts: the first one is the management, and the meaning of management is planning, organizing, and protecting; while the other part which is risk is the variability of what is expected [1].
Risk management is defined as the process that is able to find the risks and analyze these risks using a suitable method and then put the appropriate response to eliminate those risks or reduce them, thereby increasing the success of the project and the achievement of its goals [2].
Risk management is also defined as the process that enables the analysis and management of risks related to the project and its aim is to reduce the risk that threatens the goal of the project and hence it takes the responsibility of increasing the opportunity for the competition of the project in time, cost, and quality [3]. Risk management techniques are considered to be very important and there are a lot of techniques, especially artificial intelligent techniques.
Artificial intelligence is defined as the process of studying systems which behave in an intelligent manner as an observer to another. AI includes the use of tools depending on the intelligent behavior of human beings and other animals too in order for the complex problems [4].
AI is interested in artifacts intelligent behavior, which includes understanding, thinking, learning, communicating, and working in environments which are complex. In general, the utmost objective of AI is the process of perceiving the development of tools and mechanisms that can behave as humans behave or even better. Another objective of AI can be known which can as comprehension behavior, whether it appears in machines or in humans that mean simulate the human’s behaviors. Thus, AI contains both scientific and engineering objectives [5]. Various references discover in the scientific literature that artificial intelligence integrates with project management areas are based on the artificial intelligence, project success estimation, critical success factors identification, project budget Relatedness, project schedule connection planning of the project, and risk identification relatedness [6].
Artificial intelligence include the classification techniques.
2. Classification
Classification, as described in statistics and machine learning, is the identification of a group of categories (subpopulations) to identify a new category, depending on the o training set of data that have the same instance whose classes are already known. For instance, if an email is to be assigned as spam or nonspam or diagnosis of a specific patient by certain disease based on known features of the patient like gender, the symptoms that he has and blood pressure, in another word, can be said that classification is a symbol of pattern recognition [7].
Classification is the process of training the objective function
The model classification can be used for the following.
Descriptive modeling: the model of classification can work as a caption tool to show the difference between different classes with the same objects.
Predictive modeling: in this type of classification model, a label of the class that belongs to unknown data can be predicted [8], as shown in Figure 1.
The methods used in classification can be split into two categories as parametric and nonparametric problems. As a matter of fact, the basis of the parametric method is on the assumptions that the population normally distributed and the parameters are assessed to solve the problem [9]. On the other hand, there are no assumptions made about the distributions in the nonparametric methods and hence the distribution is free [10].
3. Classification techniques
The classification techniques are as follows.
3.1 Decision tree
The decision is supported by using a tool like a decision tree by using the graph as a tree or modeling a variety of decisions and their potential effects, which include several examples of the outcomes of a chance event, costs of the resource, and utility [11].
Decision trees are usually used in the research of operations, more specific in analysis of the decision, to assist in the identification of the most of the strategies used to reach a goal, but they are a very popular tool to use in machine learning [11].
The induction of the decision tree is to learn the decision trees from the row of training in the class that is already labeled. A decision tree as can be considered as a flowchart, for instance, tree structure, in which the internal node stands for test on an attribute, and the outcome of this test is represented by the node of the leaf containing a class label [12].
3.2 K-star algorithm
An instance-based classifier called K-star or K*, is a class of the instance in the test step depending on the similar instance in the training step, as found by the function of the similarity. The difference between this algorithm and other instance-based learners is that this one uses a distance based on the entropy function. Classification based on the instance-based learners is made by comparing the instance to database examples that are previously classified. The basic assumption is that instances with similar classifications will be similar too. “Similar instance” and “similar classification” can be defined as follows: the instance-based components are the distance function that identifies the similarity between the two instances, and the classification function assigns how the instance similarities yield a final classification to classify the new instance. The entropic measure is used in K-star algorithm, depending on the likelihood of an instance transforming randomly into another by selecting among all potential transformations. The distance of the instance by using entropy as a meter is very helpful and the distance between the instances is measured with the help of the information theory. The distance between the instances is actually represented by the transformation complexity of one instance into another. It is being accomplished into two parts: first, a limited group of transformations is identified, which will assign one instance into another. Later, one instance (a) is tranformed to another instance (b) with the help of programs in a limited transformations sequence, beginning at (a) and ending at (b). A collection of points that is unbounded is given and a group of transformations that previously defined T is defined; group T has the value of. This t will be assigned as t: I → I. To assign instances with it, σ is used in the T (σ(a) = a). σ ending P, the group of all codes of the prefix from T*. Transformation on I is identified by members of T* and of P uniquely.
For the employment of the classifier for the instance-based of a that employs the distance measure of entropy, there is the necessity of a method to select values for the
For every dimension, the selection of values must be made to the
where
Value for
3.3 Neural network
The neural network is an analogous, information that considers distributed processing structure being composed of a processing element (which can have a local memory and implement operations that are considered as localized information processing) interrelated together as connections by using unidirectional signal channels. Each output is rlated to one element that connects with branches (“fans out”) into many collaterals as like (everyone has the same signal which is the output signal of the processing element) [14].
3.4 Support vector machine
In COLT-92 by Boser, Guyon and Vapnik introduced support vector machine (SVM). Since that time, it has become popular. This algorithm was theoretically developed from the theory of the statistical learning, and it considers the well-motivated algorithm since the 1960s [15].
Pattern classification consider the main problem that deals with, that means different types of patterns is classified using this algorithm. Now, different sort of pattern exists, i.e., linear and nonlinear. Patterns that are linear can be distinguished easily or are able to be separated in low dimension easily, and on the other hand, the patterns that are nonlinear cannot be distinguish easily or are not able to be separated easily, and thus these patterns sorts require manipulation in order to be easily separated [15].
The SVM main idea is the formation of a hyperplane that is considered an optimal, that is, able to be used for classification, in order to split the linear patterns. The selection of the optimal hyperplane is based on the selection of a hyperplane among the group of hyperplanes for the classification of the patterns in which the hyperplane margin is maximized like the distance between the nearest point of each pattern and the hyperplane. The main goal of SVM is that the margin is maximized in order and the process of the classification is preformed correctly of the given patterns, i.e., when the margin size is larger, the classification of the patterns is more accurate [15, 18]. The hyperplane equation:
The pattern that is given by using kernel functions is able to be assigned to higher space of dimension; the function of the kernel is Φ(x). I.e. x Φ (x), the various functions of kernel election are very necessary for the classification using SVM; usually, the functions of the kernel that are used contain RBF, linear sigmoid, and Poly. For example [14].
The Poly Kernel function equation is given as [14]:
The basic concept of support vector machine is that a group of training sample is given (a) that contains a distributed sample which is considered identical and independent; the sample has xi, in which xi belongs to the Rd, and yi belongs to the {−1,1} and they both as {(xi,yi)}N i = 1, and they both refer to the classification input and output. The object is to determine wT.x + b = 0 that consider a hyperplane equation, in which two various samples are being split accurately. Hence, problem-solving with the classification that considers optimal is translated into quadratic programming for problems-solving. The search for a partition hyperplane is to maximize the area of bilateral blank (2/||w||), which means the weight of the margin has to be maximized. It is expressed as [14]:
4. Case study
The main problem with the construction industry that contains a number of risks, and in order to minimize these risks, a model should be used to analyze these risks. A scientific research methodology is adopted which includes three stages:
4.1 Theoretical study
A review of the scientific literature and sources (books, magazines, engineering, research), which dealt with all of them.
Risk responses concept and strategies in construction projects.
Studying cost elements, types, and factors affecting it with the study of the causes of their appearance.
Studying the artificial intelligence techniques and the steps of its procedures and its uses in the construction projects.
Studying the simulation methods and the steps of its procedures and its uses in the construction projects.
4.2 Field study
The field study includes the following:
4.2.1 Open questionnaire
This stage includes conducting many interviews with experts. The interviews include managers and university professors, and other parts of the projects in the following ministries: the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and the Ministry of Education. These interviews have a very important role in helping the researcher in the later stage, also discussion about the questionnaire which is initially prepared from the literature and previous studies as well as doing some modifications on the form and adding another questions with the help of the experts to make sure of the success of the method and questions presented.
4.2.2 Closed questionnaire
After the interviews with many experts have been finished. The problems of the research were divided into several groups which including the risks that cause to cost overruns, the top risk and their impacts on the projects, the strategies that are used for each risk, the reasons for risk response failure and finally the risks generated from risk response.
4.3 Stage of system building and software design
In the light of the responses received from the questionnaire, the practical study is as follows:
Planning of risk.
Identification of risk.
Analysis of risk using decision tree and K-star machine.
Risk response evaluation using neural network and support vector.
In this model, two types of classification were used, descriptive classification by using decision tree and predictive classification by using K-star and as follow:
Identify the dependent variable.
Identify the independent variable.
Implement descriptive classification using a decision tree.
Implement predictive classification using K-star.
4.4 Identify the independent variable of descriptive classification
The decision tree application is an example of a descriptive classification. This type of classification considers a number of attributes (variable) which affect the variable to be described. This type of classification is important to the variables that have an effect on the target.
This research describes the method of classification by using a decision tree to describe the qualitative analysis of the risks of project cost based on historical data. The data used to develop the classification model were the past data from various engineering works in different ministries. The method that is used to collect data is the direct data gathering from the engineering and the direct interview with the engineers and managers.
Results gained were collected from two parts: first one is the literature survey and the second one is the field of investigation (interview and questionnaire analysis) as mentioned before; 23 variables were considered as the independent variables; these variables are risks and their probabilities are considered too high, high, medium, low, and too low, and the impacts as too high, high, medium, low, too low, which are shown in Table 1.
RISKS |
1-Price fluctuation |
2-Inflation |
3-Unavailability of information |
4-Increase in cost due environment constrain |
5-Financial difficulty by the contractor |
6-financial difficulty by owner |
7-Absence of measurement before advance |
8-Design team performance |
9-Inadequate owner requirement |
10-Delay in agreement of design |
11-Mismanagement of contract |
12-Ambiguity of contract |
13-Selection of team management |
14-Miss selection of sit |
15-Labor production |
16-Luck of labor |
17-Delay in deliver in equipment |
18-Quality control on material |
19-Exceptional circumstances and risks |
20-Weather |
21-Wrong estimation |
22-Delay in the completing of the project |
23-Increase in the cost of material and equipment |
4.5 Dependent variables
Qualitative analysis is considered to be the dependent variable which is too high, high, medium, low, too low, and each individual engineer or manager is used as the basic unit of the observation. Therefore this model is considered to be an attempt to make a model consisting of the independent variables which could describe the qualitative analysis classification.
4.6 Weka implementation: two techniques were used in this program
4.6.1 Decision tree implementation: Weka program
Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (Weka) is a famous software in machine learning suite; the language used is Java; and University of Waikato, New Zealand developed this program. It is a software that considered as free, and the license of this program is a GNU General Public License. The Weka (said to rhyme similar to Mecca) is considered to be a workbench [16] which includes a group of tools for visualization and algorithms that are used to analyze the data and molding for the predictions; it is easy to access this function by using graphical user interface [15] and the version of Weka 3 that was developed in the early 1997 was used for many different implementation areas, especially for the purpose of education and research.
Several standard data mining tasks are supported by Weka, to be more specific, preprocessing of the data, regression, classification, clustering, visualization, and selection of the feature [17, 19], as shown in Figure 2.
The Explorer is in the GUI which is opened and the explorer is pressed on to insert the file that needs to be classified and by pressing the bottom open file to insert the file in the preprocess window which is used to choose and modify the data being acted on. As shown in Figure 3.
At this stage, the model was uploaded and full information such as relation means the name of the file, the total number of instances, attributes, type, the missing value, and others is shown in the figure above.
After this stage, a classifier was selected to perform the descriptive analysis as shown in Figure 4.
In the section of Classify at the top, there is a Classifier box. This box has a number of text area that provides the name of the classifier that the research work with, and by clicking on the tree bottom, there are several algorithms available under this option, the researcher selects j48 algorithm which one the application and implementations of C4.5 as shown in Figure 5.
In this step, the properties of the algorithm are selected. In this model after the trial and error, the confidence factor is 0.25, the debug is false, min NUM obj is 2, NUM Folds are 3, and the unpruned option is true, which give the researcher the best results achieved as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Tp rate | Fp rate | Precision | Recall | F-measure | MCC | ROC area | Prc area | Class | Description of the results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.000 | 0.031 | 0.714 | 1.000 | 0.833 | 0.832 | 0.970 | 0.638 | High | The results show that this class is classified correctly as the Tp is 1 and Fp low and precision acceptable and the recall high, the MCC takes the classification between each two class and Roc area is high which indicates good performance for the high class and Prc is the medium indicator of the model performance |
0.867 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.867 . | 0.929 | 0.983 | 0.983 | 0.957 | Medium | The results show that this class is classified kind off correctly as the Tp is 0.867 and Fp is zero and precision acceptable and the recall high, the MCC takes the classification between each two class and Roc area is high which indicate good performance for the medium class and Prc is the good indicator of the model performance consider very good |
1.000 | 0.130 | 0.939 | 1.000 | 0.968 | 0.904 | 0.978 | 0.979 | Low | The results show that this class is classified correctly as the Tp is 1 and Fp is low and precision high and the recall high, the MCC takes the classification between each two class and Roc area is high which indicates good performance for the low class and Prc is the good indicator of the model performance which considers very good |
0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.739 | 0.264 | Too low | The results show that this class is classified incorrectly as the Tp is zero and Fp is zero and precision, the recall, the MCC are zero while Roc area is very low which indicates bad performance for the too low class and Prc is the good indicator of the model performance which considers very bad |
0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.493 | 0.014 | Too high | The results show that this class is classified incorrectly as the Tp is zero and Fp is zero and precision, the recall, the MCC are zero while Roc area is very low which indicates bad performance for the too high class and Prc is the good indicator of the model performance which considers very bad |
0.928 | 0.089 | 0.895 | 0.928 | 0.908 | 0.861 | 0.965 | 0.915 | As a total cumulative result, its consider being good classification |
Risks | Actual | Classified |
---|---|---|
Price fluctuation | High | High |
Inflation | Medium | Medium |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Medium |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Low | Low |
The increase in cost due environment | Too low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | Low | Low |
Financial difficulty by owner | Low | Low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | High | High |
Design team performance | Low | Low |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Low | Low |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Miss selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Medium | Medium |
The decrease in labor | Medium | Medium |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Medium | |
Quality control on material | Low | Low |
Unexpected condition | High | High |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Low | Low |
Price fluctuation | Low | Low |
Inflation | Low | Low |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Low | Low |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Low | Low |
The increase in cost due environment | Too low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Medium |
Financial difficulty by owner | Low | Low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | Medium | Medium |
Design team performance | Medium | Medium |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Low | Low |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Low | Low |
The decrease in labor | Low | Low |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Low | Low |
Quality control on material | Medium | High |
Unexpected condition | Medium | Medium |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Medium |
Price fluctuation | Low | Low |
Inflation | Low | Low |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Low | Low |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Medium | Medium |
The increase in cost due environment | Low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | High | High |
Financial difficulty by owner | Too high | Low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | Medium | Medium |
Design team performance | Low | Low |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Medium | Medium |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Low | Low |
The decrease in labor | Low | Low |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Medium | High |
Quality control on material | Low | Low |
Unexpected condition | High | High |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Low | Low |
According to the tree, the risk with medium impact has the following probability: medium—13 risks, low—3 risks, and too low and high—there is no medium classification; while the risk with low impact has the following probability: medium there are 7 class low, too low has 1 class, low has 36 class, and high does not have any class; on the other hand, the risk that has the impact high has class high with two of them are wrongly classified and the risks with impact too low and too high have the class of one too low and one too high, respectively, as shown in Figure 6.
4.6.2 K-star implementation: Weka program
As mentioned, Weka is a popular software for machine learning, and this type of algorithm will be used for predictive classification to predict the qualitative analysis of the risks for the periods 2014–2016 depending on the qualitative analysis for the previous periods from 2006 to 2014. The result is shown in Table 4.
Risks | Actual | Classified |
---|---|---|
Price fluctuation | High | Medium |
Inflation | Medium | Medium |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Medium |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Low | Low |
The increase in cost due environment | Too low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | Low | Low |
Financial difficulty by owner | Low | Low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | High | High |
Design team performance | Low | Low |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Low | Low |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Miss selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Medium | Medium |
The decrease in labor | Medium | Medium |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Medium | |
Quality control on material | Low | Low |
Unexpected condition | High | High |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Low | Low |
Price fluctuation | Low | Low |
Inflation | Low | Low |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Low | Low |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Low | Low |
The increase in cost due environment | Too low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Medium |
Financial difficulty by owner | Low | Low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | Medium | Medium |
Design team performance | Medium | Medium |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Low | Low |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Low | Low |
The decrease in labor | Low | Low |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Low | Low |
Quality control on material | Medium | High |
Unexpected condition | Medium | Medium |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Medium |
Price fluctuation | Low | Low |
Inflation | Low | Low |
Increase the cost of skilled labor | Low | Low |
Unavailability of information | Low | Low |
Inaccurate estimation | Medium | Medium |
The increase in cost due environment | Low | Low |
Financial difficulty by the contractor | High | Medium |
Financial difficulty by owner | Too high | Too low |
The absence of measurement before | Low | Low |
Delay in time of the project | Medium | Medium |
Design team performance | Low | Low |
Inadequate owner requirement | Low | Low |
Delay in agreements of design | Medium | High |
The ambiguity of contract | Low | Low |
Selection of team management | Low | Low |
Miss election of sit | Low | Low |
Labor production | Low | Low |
The decrease in labor | Low | Low |
Delay in delivery in equipment | Medium | Medium |
Quality control on material | Low | Low |
Unexpected condition | High | Medium |
Weather | Low | Low |
Mismanagement of the contract | Low | Low |
Thus the probability for each instance is calculated in the category of the qualitative analysis, and the highest probability is taken for the classification of the new instance.
The process of opening the program and loading the file is mentioned earlier; the next step is choosing the properties of the algorithm as shown in Figure 7.
The global blending was taken as 20 after several trial and error; it was found to be the best result, the entropy autoblending which means entropy base blending in this case, it does not use for better accuracy.
The training data set has good accuracy, this high accuracy because the algorithm uses an entropy distance and use the whole data as training data. As shown in Figure 8.
After this step, the testing data set is uploading to perform the prediction classification.
In order to make a comparison between the two techniques, the whole data are used in cross-validation to make a comparison. As shown in Table 5.
Correctly classified instances | 91.304% | This is considered being good classification accuracy |
Incorrectly classified instances | 8.6975 | There is no classification error |
Kappa statistic | 81.85% | Consider being good value as compared to the realistic |
4.6.3 KNIME implementation
Using the program, risk response failure in construction project was analyzed using the following techniques.
4.6.3.1 Neural network
This technique was used as part of the model to describe the risk response failure.
This workflow represents the neural network model right-click it and select “Configure” from the menu, as shown in Figure 9.
The max number of iterations was selected 100 and by trial and error the number of the hidden layers was 1 and hidden neuron were 10, as shown in Figure 10.
The results are shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Project and year | Risks | Qualitative analyses | Risk response | Effectiveness | Effectiveness linguistic |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
1, 2006 | Inflation | Medium | Avoidance | 2.60 | Low |
1, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
1, 2006 | Labor productivity | Medium | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
1, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 1.85 | Low |
1, 2006 | Wrong estimation | High | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
Acceptance | 2.51 | Low | |||
2, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 3.40 | Medium |
2, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 1.80 | Low |
2, 2006 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Avoidance | 2.87 | Medium |
2, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
2, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3.10 | Medium |
3, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
3, 2006 | Labor productivity | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
3, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 1.95 | Low |
3, 2006 | Wrong estimation | High | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
4, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.07 | Medium |
4, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.60 | Low |
4, 2006 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Avoidance | 3.20 | Medium |
4, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3 | Medium |
4, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
5, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 3.20 | Medium |
5, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.60 | Low |
5, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.20 | Medium |
5, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.13 | Medium |
5, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 1.85 | Low |
6, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
6, 2006 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Avoidance | 3.40 | Medium |
6, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
6, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
7, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 2.80 | Medium |
7, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
7, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
7, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
7, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.60 | Low |
8, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
8, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.17 | Medium |
8, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
8, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
8, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 1.90 | Low |
9, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.87 | Medium |
9, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
9, 2006 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
9, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.04 | Medium |
9, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
10, 2006 | Price fluctuation | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
10, 2006 | Increase in the cost of skilled labor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.77 | Medium |
10, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.27 | Medium |
10, 2006 | Luck of the labor | Medium | Avoidance | 3 | Medium |
10, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 1.81 | Low |
11, 2006 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.3 | Medium |
11, 2006 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.17 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.85 | Medium |
12, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
13, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.60 | Medium |
13, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.04 | Low |
13, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
13, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
14, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
14, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.10 | Medium |
14, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
15, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.13 | Medium |
15, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.95 | Medium |
15, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Acceptance | 1.81 | Low |
15, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Medium | 2.21 | Low |
16, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Avoidance | 3.20 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Design team performance | Medium | Acceptance | 3 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Mitigate | 2.90 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Acceptance | 3.22 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
16, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.23 | Medium |
17, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.17 | Medium |
17, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.85 | Medium |
17, 2008 | Design team performance | Medium | Mitigate | 3.17 | Medium |
17, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 2.22 | Low |
17, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
17, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 1.81 | Low |
18, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
18, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
18, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
18, 2008 | Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
18, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.60 | Medium |
19, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
19, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
19, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
20, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.33 | Low |
20, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.85 | Medium |
20, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.03 | Medium |
20, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
21, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.40 | Medium |
21, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
21, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
21, 2008 | Mismanagement of the contract | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
21, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.07 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Design team performance | Medium | Mitigate | 2.95 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
22, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
23, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.21 | Medium |
23, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.07 | Low |
23, 2008 | Design team performance | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
23, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.21 | Medium |
23, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
23, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.20 | Medium |
24, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.13 | Medium |
24, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.85 | Medium |
24, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.13 | Medium |
24, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
24, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
25, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 3.07 | Medium |
25, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
25, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
26, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.67 | Medium |
26, 2008 | Design team performance | Medium | Acceptance | 2.70 | Low |
26, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 2.55 | Medium |
26, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
26, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.17 | Medium |
27, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.80 | Medium |
27, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
27, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.17 | Medium |
27, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
27, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
28, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.33 | Low |
28, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.04 | Medium |
28, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.21 | Medium |
28, 2008 | Wrong estimation | High | Acceptance | 2.73 | Medium |
29, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.77 | Medium |
29, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 3.27 | Medium |
29, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.03 | Medium |
29, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.81 | Medium |
30, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 3.03 | Medium |
30, 2008 | Quality control of the material | Medium | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
30, 2008 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | Medium | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
30, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.33 | Low |
31, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.07 | Low |
31, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
32, 2008 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 1.81 | Low |
32, 2008 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
32, 2008 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 2.60 | Medium |
33, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | High | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
33, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Avoidance | 2.80 | Medium |
33, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Avoidance | 2.87 | Medium |
33, 2014 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
33, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.10 | Low |
34, 2014 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Avoidance | 3.33 | Medium |
34, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.13 | Low |
34, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Acceptance | 2.95 | Medium |
34, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Avoidance | 3.07 | Medium |
34, 2014 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
34, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Avoidance | 2.60 | Medium |
35, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.20 | Low |
35, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Acceptance | 3 | Medium |
35, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
35, 2014 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Acceptance | 2.20 | Low |
35, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Avoidance | 2.33 | Low |
36, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 3.20 | Medium |
36, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Acceptance | 2.13 | Low |
36, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.85 | Medium |
36, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.07 | Low |
37, 2014 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Avoidance | 2.61 | Medium |
37, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
37, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Acceptance | 2.60 | Medium |
37, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.77 | Medium |
37, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.80 | Medium |
38, 2014 | Wrong estimation | Medium | Acceptance | 1.87 | Low |
38, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.67 | Medium |
38, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Avoidance | 2.60 | Medium |
38, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.13 | Medium |
38, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3.17 | Medium |
39, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | High | Avoidance | 2.90 | Medium |
39, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Avoidance | 2.80 | Medium |
39, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 2.90 | Medium |
39, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 2.87 | Medium |
40, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Avoidance | 3.07 | Medium |
40, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | High | Acceptance | 3.33 | Medium |
40, 2014 | Change in cost of equipment | Medium | Avoidance | 2.04 | Low |
40, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3.40 | Medium |
41, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the contractor | Medium | Avoidance | 2.07 | Low |
41, 2014 | Finical difficulty by the owner | High | Avoidance | 2.77 | Medium |
41, 2014 | Delay in completing of the project | Medium | Acceptance | 2.27 | Low |
41, 2014 | Exceptional circumstance and risks | High | Acceptance | 3 | Medium |
Risk response | Actual effectiveness | Predication effectiveness |
---|---|---|
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Low |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Low |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Low |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Low |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Low |
Acceptance | Medium | Low |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Low |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Low |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Low |
Acceptance | Medium | Low |
Avoidance | Medium | Low |
Avoidance | Low | Low |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
4.6.3.2 Support vector machine
This technique was used as part of the model to predict risk response failure. As shown in Figures 11 and 12.
When clicking on the SVM learner node the following window appears. The results are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
Class | True post | False post | True neg | False neg | Recall | Precision | sensitivity | Specify | f-mean | Accuracy | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Medium |
|
23 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.842 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.941 | The results show data classified correctly and the result perform well | |
Low | 0 | 0 | 123 | 23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | The results show that this class is not classified correctly as there is a lot of error in the low class and the Precision, and also the f measure is less that indicate the reason to lower the classification accuracy | |
Overall | 84.2 |
Risk response | Actual effectiveness | Predication effectiveness |
---|---|---|
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Mitigate | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Medium | Medium |
Avoidance | Low | Medium |
Acceptance | Medium | Medium |
5. Conclusions
The result from the statistical analysis results in a period of (2006–2007) show that the risks that have the highest qualitative analysis are the same that resulting from the classification result by using j48 algorithm
The result from the statistical analysis results in the period of (2014–2016) show that the risks that have the highest qualitative analysis are the same that resulting from the classification result by using j48 algorithm except for one risk which is the quality control on the material and expertise in execution and that leads to an error.
The result from the statistical analysis results in the period of (2014–2016) show that the risks that have the highest qualitative analysis are same that resulting from the classification result by using j48 algorithm except for two risks which are financial difficulty by owner and Changes in the purchase costs or delay in the delivery of equipment and machinery and that leads to an error.
Different risks were found due to the different condition of these periods, however, some risks were the same as the delay in completing the project, exceptional circumstances, and the wrong estimation existed in every period
The decision tree is a successful quality technique in risk analysis
The result from the statistical analysis results in a period of 2014–2016 showed that the risks that have the highest qualitative analysis are same that resulting from the classification result by using K-star algorithm except for one risk which is financial difficulty by owner.
In the periods of (2006–2007) the method that used for risk response selection was historical information for similar previous projects has the mean of 4.03 that means often this method used for selection.
In the periods of (2008–2013) the method that used for risk response selection was historical information for similar previous projects has the mean of 3.73 that means often this method used for selection.
In the periods of (2014–2016) the method that used for risk response selection was historical information for similar previous projects has the mean of 3.80 that mean often this method used for selection.
The existing methods and tools for selecting a risk response are based on historical information for similar previous projects, m.aking them easily affected by anxiety, uncertainty.
Three techniques to identify risk response failure.
The decision tree shows the high accuracy and that because it considers the best algorithm in prediction of nominal class
The neural network shows the lower accuracy as the nature of the algorithm tends more to the numerical class.
The support vector machine show good results close to the decision tree
The most important reasons that risk response fails in the period of (2006–2007) were The difficulty of implementing a risk-response plan correctly for internal factors (terrorism and sabotage), Multiple decision sources for selecting a response strategy, Inadequate strategy with high risk and The inability to introduce sophisticated management methods to respond to risks.
The most important reasons that risk response fails in the period of (2008–2013) were Changes in the cost criteria that have been estimated at the planning stage of the project to the implementation stage, Inadequate strategy with high risk and The inability to introduce sophisticated management methods to respond to risks.
The most important reasons that risk response fails in the period of (2014–2016) are negligence of supervisors in the follow-up to the risk response plan, lack of funds for training and continuous development of the risk response team, inadequate strategy with high risk, delay in the disbursement of financial dues by the responsible party, the difficulty of implementing a risk-response plan correctly for internal factors (terrorism and sabotage) and The inability to introduce sophisticated management methods to respond to risks.
The period of (2014) shows many reasons that led to risk response failure in construction projects due to the condition of the country.
References
- 1.
Ali BM. The reality of risk management and its importance in industrial organizations, field study in the spinning and weaving factory in Mosul [Master thesis]. Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Mosul; 2004 - 2.
Taylor I, Bassler J. Application of ANSI Standard to Space Station Resources. INOSE International Proceedings, IEEE. 1997; 83 (3):345-377 - 3.
Norris C, Perry J, Simon P. Project Risk Analysis and Management. The Association for Project Management; 2000 - 4.
Coppin B. Artificial Intelligence Illuminated. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2004 - 5.
Nilsson NJ. Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. New York: Morgan Kaufmann; 2002 - 6.
Martínez DM, Fernández-Rodríguez JC. Artificial Intelligence applied to project success: A literature review. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia & Artificial Intelligence. 2015; 3 (5) - 7.
Alpaydin E. Introduction to Machine Learning. MIT Press; 2010. p. 9. ISBN: 978-0-262-01243-0 - 8.
Tan PN, Steinbach M, Kumar V. Introduction to Data Mining. Addison-Wesley Companion Book Site; 2006 - 9.
Zhang D, Huang H, Chen Q, Jiang Y. Comparison of credit scoring models. In: Third International Conference of Natural Computation; 2007 - 10.
Berry MJA, Linoff GS. Data Mining Techniques for Marketing, Sales and Customer Support. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1997 - 11.
Quinlan JR. Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1987; 27 (3):221 - 12.
Handaga B, Handaga B. A new classification technique based on hybrid fuzzy soft set theory and supervised fuzzy c-means [Doctoral dissertation]. Malaysia: Universiti Tun Hussein Onn; 2013 - 13.
Cleary JG, Trigg LE. K*: An instance-based learner using an entropic distance measure. In: 12th International Conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann; 1995. pp. 108-114 - 14.
Archana S, Elangovan K. Survey of classification techniques in data mining. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Applications. 2014; 2 (2):65-71 - 15.
Holmes G, Donkin A, Witten IH. WEKA: A machine learning workbench (PDF). In: Proceedings of the Second Australia and New Zealand Conference on Intelligent Information Systems; Brisbane, Australia; 1994 - 16.
Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA. Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. 3rd ed. USA: Elsevier; 2011 - 17.
Reutemann P, Pfahringer B, Frank E. Proper: A toolbox for learning from relational data with propositional and multi-instance learners. In: 17th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI2004). Springer-Verlag; 2004 [Retrieved: June 25, 2007] - 18.
Pao YH. Neural net computing for pattern recognition. In: Handbook of Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision. 1993. pp. 125-162 - 19.
Aghila G. A survey of Naive Bayes machine learning approach in text document classification. 2010. arXiv preprint: arXiv-1003.1795