Risk assessment and management practices \(RAMP\)

This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library] On: 01 December 2014, At: 16:32 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Construction Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) within the Tanzania construction industry: Implementation barriers and advocated solutions a

Nicholas Chileshe & Geraldine John Kikwasi

b

a

School of Natural and Built Environment, University of South Australia, City East Campus, P.O Box GPO 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia b

Department of Construction Management, School of Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Published online: 17 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Nicholas Chileshe & Geraldine John Kikwasi (2014) Risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) within the Tanzania construction industry: Implementation barriers and advocated solutions, International Journal of Construction Management, 14:4, 239-254, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2014.967927 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2014.967927

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Construction Management, 2014 Vol. 14, No. 4, 239254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2014.967927

Risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) within the Tanzania construction industry: Implementation barriers and advocated solutions Nicholas Chileshea* and Geraldine John Kikwasib

Downloaded by [University Of South Australia Library] at 16:32 01 December 2014

a School of Natural and Built Environment, University of South Australia, City East Campus, P.O Box GPO 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia; bDepartment of Construction Management, School of Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Despite the extensive research on the barriers to the implementation of risk assessment and management practices (RAMP); there is a paucity of studies that examine these barriers within the context of developing countries, particularly Africa. This paper aims to investigate the perceptions of Tanzanian construction professionals concerning the barriers to the implementation of RAMP. A triangulated data collection approach is adopted. Barriers identified from literature review were empirically tested by data collected using a sample survey of 67 construction professionals drawn from 27 consultants; 24 contractors and 16 client organizations within the Tanzanian construction industry (TCI). Response data was subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. Ranking and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the barriers affecting the implementation of RAMP. These three listed barriers were identified as significant: (i) awareness of risk management processes; (ii) lack of experience; and (iii) lack of information. In contrast, ‘cost implementations’ and ‘time constraints’ were ranked lowly. The identified barriers could be used as a ‘road map’ for the development of appropriate solutions for successful implementation of RAMP, and to improve the decision-making processes of construction organizations. In addition, knowledge and understanding of risk management process would effectively contribute to identifying and managing inherent risk. Keywords: barriers; risk management; risk assessment; construction industry; Questionnaire survey; Tanzania

Introduction The construction industry is vital and plays a critical role to the economic development of most countries. According to Lema (2008), the construction industry in Tanzania accounts for approximately 7% of Tanzania’s gross domestic product (GDP). Studies conducted by Kikwasi (2012) showed that the construction industry is responsible for 9% of employment creation, and about 57% of the capital formation. Conversely, previous studies such as Kikwasi (1999), and recent studies indicate that, the TCI is fraught with frequent cost overruns and delays on a lot of projects (Kikwasi 2012; Chileshe & Kikwasi 2014). In order to improve the performance of the construction industry, some studies signify casual linkages between implementation of some of the risk management practices and project success (Tabish & Jha 2011). It could thus be argued that, awareness of, and subsequent implementation of risk management practices could contribute to the enhanced project performance of the construction industry. Additionally, some studies such as Kululanga and Kuotcha (2010); Manelele and Muya (2008); Kikwasi (2012); and Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014) conducted within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (e.g., Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania) demonstrated that construction organizations that did not implement formal RAMP and techniques, often had difficulties with managing their projects. These difficulties resulted in project costs exceeding planned budgets, and time overruns. The observation above calls for further exploration into barriers to implementation of RAMP in Tanzania. For example, what is the level of RAMP awareness among the Tanzanian construction stakeholders? Can the barriers to the usage and implementation of RAMP be assessed? Can solutions to these barriers be proposed thereby, leading to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)? The impetus for this paper lies within seeking answers to the questions posed. There is therefore, a need of exploring the barriers affecting the implementation of RAMP in developing countries such as Tanzania to use an African context. The present study is aimed at filling the knowledge gap by conducting a survey among construction professionals’ in Tanzania. It is aimed at eliciting perception, identifying and ranking the barriers to the deployment of RAMP. Advocated solutions that could be used to overcome these barriers are proposed. Literature review section presents an overview of some of the challenges facing the TCI. A brief summary of discussions is provided on the extant literature on the barriers affecting the adoption and implementation of RAMP, and the knowledge gap. This is preceded by the methodological approach adopted and a discussion of the findings and implications of the study. Some advocated solutions to the barriers of RAMP implementation are also suggested. Finally the paper concludes with recommendations and conclusions drawn. *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis

240

N. Chileshe and G. J. Kikwasi


Literature review Challenges facing the Tanzanian construction industry Despite the aspirations of the TCI to be competitive and rank among the best in the World, it is still inundated with a number of challenges. These challenges have ranged from ‘poor project performance’ (Ofori 2012); and ‘lack of trained professionals’ (Chiragi 2000; Debrah & Ofori 2005). Tanzania is over reliant on foreign institutions to train her indigenous professionals, contractors and consultants to execute big projects (Debrah & Ofori 2005; van Egmond 2012). The construction industry in Tanzania is still young (Chiragi 2000) which places a challenge on the overall execution and application of project management concepts and principles among stakeholders. Previous Tanzanian studies such as (Kikwasi 1999; Ministry of Works (MoW) 2003; Lema 2008) though focused on addressing project management-related issues such as procurement and project performance, have never addressed the risk management issues directly. Furthermore, recent studies by Kikwasi (2012) aimed at assessing the causes, effects and disruptions in Tanzanian construction projects. Also the Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014) study that aimed at identifying the critical success factors (CSFs) for RAMP, highlighted the issues of poor project performance within the Tanzanian construction sector. Both studies (Kikwasi 2012; Chileshe & Kikwasi 2014) concluded that there are still a number of causes of delays and disruptions existing among the construction projects. These effects put construction projects at great risk and affect performance. Another cause identified by the same study was poor project management. It is recognized that the construction operational environment within Tanzania includes foreign contractors. These foreign contractors often have the competitive advantage over local contractors in relation to skills, training, competencies, and human resources development (HRD) practices. For example, according to the CRB (2010), there are over 4470 contractors registered in Tanzania of which 134 (3%) are foreign and 4336 (97%) are local. Despite the limited numbers of foreign contractors, they own about 96% of the market share in construction. Regardless of the significant social-economic role that the construction industry plays in Tanzania, it’s deemed vital for human settlement; production of the very fabrics of cities and town is one of the major providers of work in urban areas especially for the poor (Jason 2008). As with other developing countries, the TCI has its unique features. These include the existence of a regulated formal part and unregulated informal part (Mlinga & Wells 2002). This has led to the unfair level of competition between the formal contractors and unregistered contractors. The same study by Mlinga and Wells (2002) identified the lack of government support for the informal sector despite the existence of a symbiotic relationship between the two groups (registered contractors and unregistered contractors). According to Jason (2008), instability of employment is another one of the major problems faced by the TCI. The highlighted uniqueness of the TCI has implications for risk management practices. Studies such as Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014) have identified ‘awareness of risk management processes’ and ‘effective use of methods and tools’ among the desirable CSFs for RAMP. The existence of technological linkages between the two sectors (formal and informal), bears every possibility of having less skilled (in risk management) workers. Few informal job seeker entry levels into the sector contribute to the inherent problems associated with implementing RAMP. This appears to be the trend among other neighbouring African countries for example Zambia (Zulu & Chileshe 2008). Barriers affecting the adoption and implementation of RAMP A number of studies have examined the barriers affecting the adoption and implementation of risk assessment practices. However, majority of these studies have been within the context of developed countries. Table 1 presents a summary of selected studies on barriers to RAMP. It must be noted that this review is by no means exhaustive. By contrast the context of this study is Tanzania in Africa. Care has been taken to include some studies from an African context with some examples included from developed (western) economies. The following section briefly discusses some selected barriers identified in developed and developing countries (Table 1). The selected studies are (1) from Ghana (Frimpong et al. 2003) and (2) from the UK (Akintoye & MacLeod 1997; Wood & Ellis 2003). The Ghana study established that, lack of awareness of risk management processes was the cause of delay and cost overruns in construction (Frimpong et al. 2003). This inevitability led to poor resource management. The same study established that, project management tools and techniques played an important role in the effective management of a project. Elsewhere (UK), Akintoye and MacLeod (1997) also identified lack of familiarity as one of the reasons provided by contractors for not using techniques of risk analysis and management. Whereas Wood and Ellis’s (2003) study focussed on cost consultants identified the relative lack of training and skills development among the factors underpinning the risk management provision. Table 1 depicts the lack of usage of risk management practices is not just limited to developing economies, but also affects developed countries such as Australia (Lynos & Skitmore 2004). Another indicated barrier is the issue of risk management being in its infancy a reason for the lack of implementation. This problem also affects developing countries like Hong Kong (Mok et al. 1997), Korea (Kim & Bajaj 2000), U.S.A (Harner 2010), Netherlands

International Journal of Construction Management

241


Table 1. Summary of selected studies on barriers to RAMP application. Researchers1/ Context

Findings

Mok et al. (1997) Survey of 52 building services engineers responsible for cost estimation in the Building Services Branch (BSB) in Hong Kong.

Barriers to RAMP expressed in terms of ‘inherent problems’ and ‘implementation problems encountered’. Identified the following five inherent problems encountered during implementation of risk management processes (RMP): difficulty in obtaining input estimates and assessment of their probabilities; time involvement; difficulty in understanding and interpreting outcomes of RMP; managers cannot agree on quantification of uncertainty/subjective probability. The following five were the ‘implementation problems encountered’ in ranking order: (i) human/ organizational resistance to change; (ii) managers’ understanding of risk management process techniques; (iii) lack of computing resources and assistance; (iv) lack of middle management support; and (v) lack of top management support. Three reasons limiting the usage of risk management techniques: a lack of familiarity with techniques; most clients and / or owners wanted to see tangible calculations and unambiguous evidence of risk; and lack of expertise with techniques Identified nine barriers inhibiting the implementation of risk management: lack of time; lack of familiarity with the techniques; lack of dedicated resources; lack of expertise; lack of information; difficulties in seeing the benefits; human/organization resistance; lack of accepted industry model for analysis; and cost effectiveness. Investigated the key issues and challenges in risk management and insurance in the Chinese construction industry: contractors’ attitudes and perception; knowledge; cultural considerations; lack of experience; and expertise Eleven barriers to risk management: lack of joint management mechanisms by parties; shortage of knowledge/techniques on risk management; different recognition of risk control strategies; ineffective implementation of risk control strategies; ineffective monitoring; lack of formal risk control strategies; ineffective monitoring; lack of formal risk management systems; no incentive for better risk management; lack of risk consciousness; inappropriate risk allocation; lack of historical data for risk trend analysis; inappropriate risk allocation; and insufficient ongoing project information Identified the following three major risks: (i) IP protection; (ii) complex networks of policies; and (iii) decrees and regulations, and fragmentation or conflicting among them imposed by the state, industry and local government. Examined the following two possible barriers to risk management: (i) individual biases; and (ii) cultural norms, The following three cognitive biases that may impede risk assessment: (i) confirmation bias; (ii) overconfidence / optimism; and (iii) framing, were analysed and explored whether ‘corporate culture’ and ‘the environment at entrepreneurial or riskaggressive firms’ posed a barrier to effective risk-management practices. Identified three challenges inadequate risk management knowledge; not being a priority in clients requirements; lack of holistic approach to risk management; and reluctance of consultants to spearhead risk management process Identified seven main barriers to risk assessment and management practices: awareness; lack of experience; lack of coordination between parties involved; lack of information; availability of specialist risk management consultants; time constraints; and lack of knowledge and expertise Identified the following barriers: making a late start, using inexperienced personnel; attitude towards risk; not robust enough; incompetency of risk managers; and not fully pro-active

Kim and Bajaj (2000) Interviews of 13 Korean managers of general construction firms. Lynos and Skitmore (2004) General survey of 17 contractors, 11 consultants, 10 clients and 6 developers in Queensland (Australia) construction engineering organizations Liu et al. (2007)2 General survey of contractors’ attitudes in China Tang et al. (2007)2 ¡- General survey of 115 stakeholders comprising 19 clients, 30 contractors, 21 designers, 20 superintendents, 10 management organizations, 8 planning organizations and 7 others in China

Wang et al. (2009)3 Interviewees of government agencies, and organizations and Australian firms in China. Harner (2010)4 Critical review of legal-related studies considering the impact of boardroom dynamics and US corporate culture on riskmanagement practices. Kikwasi (2011)5 Interviews of 55 consultants, architects and quantity surveyors in Tanzania. Chileshe and Yirenyi-Fianko (2012) General survey of 34 contractors, 46 consultants and 23 clients (public and private) in construction projects in Ghana. Carter and Chinyio (2012) A questionnaire survey of 113 construction professionals (project managers, clients, quantity surveyors and contract experts) in the U.K Paape and Spekle (2012) Surveyed respondents (chief financial officers, controllers and risk managers) from 825 organizations with annual revenues of more EUR 10 million, and more than 30 employees in the Netherlands

Identified the following five broad group of factors as antecedents to the extent of ERM implementation: (1) the regulatory influences; (2) internal influences; (3) ownership; (4) auditor influence; and (5) firm and industryrelated characteristics (continued)

242


Table 1. (Continued ) Researchers1/ Context

Findings

Hwang et al. (2013) - A questionnaire survey of 15 consultants and 19 contractors in Singapore based on data collected from 668 projects.

Identified 10 probable barriers to RM implementation in small project: competition among small and medium contractors (SMC); complexity of analytical tools; lack of potential benefits; lack of budget; lack of government legislation; lack of knowledge; lack of manpower; lack of time; low profit margin; and not economical Based on the overall mean sample scores, identified the following ten CSFs for implementation of RAMP, in ranking order: (1) awareness of risk management; (2) teamwork and cooperation; (3) management style; (4) effective use of methods and tools; (5) goals and strategic objectives of the organization; (6) availability of specialist risk management consultant; (7) consideration of external and internal environment; (8) cooperative culture; (9) customer requirement; and (10) positive human


Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014)5a A questionnaire survey of 24 contractors, 15 clients, and 27 consultants in Tanzania

Notes: 1The studies are arranged in chronological order; this current study is based on the survey instrument as utilized in Chileshe and Yirenyi-Fianko (2012); 2selected studies within the Chinese context; 3General risk identification study; 4Non-construction-related study; 5Specific Tanzanian study on RAMP; 5aSpecific Tanzania study on critical success factors for implementation of RAMP and drew upon the same survey population as the current study (see measurement instrument sub-section).

(Paape & Spekle 2012) and Singapore (Hwang et al. 2013). There is a plethora of studies on barriers to RAMP, and the list portrayed in Table 1 is just an indication. However, notwithstanding the previous barriers derived from a cross section of literature; what is notable from the summary (Table 1) is an obvious omission with the exception of Kikwasi (2011); particularly in the Tanzanian context; studies focussed on identification of the barriers to RAMP and Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014) though aimed at critical success factors (CSFs) of RAMP. It is worth pointing out that successful implementation of RAMP should be in tandem with adoption and usage of information communication technologies (ICTs). Recent studies such as Taroun (2014) identified sensitivity analysis and decision trees as the commonly used tools for the quantitative assessment, which is part of RAMP. Normally, application of quantitative techniques requires the knowledge and expertise of ICT. While internet access might be available in most developing countries; Varghese (2012) points to the main non-technological barriers that limit the widespread applications of these technologies in developing countries Tanzania included. Research method To investigate the perception of construction professionals’ on the barriers to RAMP in Tanzania, the following research methods were employed in the study. Measurement instrument The questionnaire used in this study is based on the Chileshe and Yirenyi-Fianko (2012) instrument and compared with other studies illustrated in Table 1. The first section of the questionnaire included the overarching aims of the research projects and covered the demographics. The second section was designed to evaluate RAMP, and the respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of occurrence and severity of impact of various risk factors. In the third section, the main objective was on establishing the awareness, extent of usage and benefits of RAMP. This was in form of closed questions based on ‘yes’ and ‘no’, while the scale for ascertaining the benefits varied from 1 to 4 with 1 representing low agreement and 4 strong agreement. In the fourth section, which forms the basis of this paper, comprises 7 barriers to adoption, usage and implementation of RAMP. This is identified in the Chileshe and Yirenyi-Fianko (2012) studies and compared with previous studies as summarized in Table 1. Respondents were asked to rate their opinions on these barriers using a five-point Likert-scale (1 D strongly disagree, 2 D disagree, 3 D neutral, 4 D agree, and 5 D strongly agree). A ratio from a difference of 1 5 (4) was used to discuss the degree of central tendency. Results were as follows:

1.00 1.80 (strongly disagree); 1.80 2.60 (disagree); 2.60 3.40 (neutral); 3.40 4.20 (agree); and 4.20 5.00 (strongly agree).



243

The resultant values of mean scores were further classified to address the limitations associated with the single point or number changing from 1 to 5 in the verbal scaling expressions (Chileshe & Yirenkyi-Fianko 2012). The final section was focused on identifying the critical success factors (CSFs) for adopting RAMP. Findings already published (Chileshe & Kikwasi 2014) and summarized in Table 1. The findings reported here only relate to the first and fourth sections of the questionnaire dealing with the barriers. It was also beyond the scope of this study to report all results. The detailed justification for the sampling and data collection method employed is similar to that of Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014), while acknowledging that the purpose of this study was descriptive, the overarching ‘research ethos’ are not reported here. A similar approach of not replicating the detailed research methodology where the study shared a common population had been reported previous. This was also adopted by other researchers such as Kunhui et al. (2013). In additional, some of the previous risk management specific studies which employed a ‘quantitative approach’ based on questionnaire surveys are published in the International Journal of Construction Management (see Wang et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2011). These adopted a similar approach of only reporting on the survey administration without providing any methodological justification. While the benefits of undertaking a pilot study such as ensuring the validity, reliability and objectivity of the measures are reported in literature (Forza 2002); the obvious omission from this study is supported by employing pre-tested constructs used in Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko (2012). Also supported by Tata et al. (1999), and also reported similarly in a study focussed on CSFs to RAMP (Chileshe & Kikwasi 2014, p. 299). The usage of pre-tested constructs from past empirical ultimate studies is crucial in ensuring the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments. Data analysis The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program was also used to analyse the data generated by the research questions. In order to analyse data provided in the questionnaire, the following four statistical methods were used: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Relative agreement indices; Frequency analysis; Ranking analysis; and One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Reviewing of literature showed that approaches such as these have been adopted before in survey-related studies (Tang et al. 2007; Chileshe & Yirenkyi-Fianko 2012). Rank differentiation was employed for barriers having the same mean score through utilization of the lowest standard deviation (Chileshe & Yirenkyi-Fianko 2012). The following subsection presents some description of the identified statistical methods: Using an approach adopted by Dulaimi et al. (2002, p. 241), the null hypothesis H0: m D m0 and the alternative hypothesis H1: m < m0 were set out. Where m is the population mean and m0 is the critical rating above which the barriers to RAMP were considered as disagreeable or ineffective. On the contrary Dulaimi et al. (2002) study used a seven point-Likert where 4 was neutral. Based on the five point-Likert used in our study, the m0 value fixed at 3. Thus any ratings < 3 represented ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’. Accordingly, based on the three categories of respondents (clients, contractors and clients), the null hypothesis, H0 stated that the three population means were equal, and the alternative hypothesis, H1, was that the means were not equal. This approach would thus be used to report and discuss on the F-ratios and significance level (p) values as set at > 0.05 and proposed by Cohen (1992). These results are included in Table 4. Relative agreement indices (RAI) Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006) used the relative importance index method to determine the relative importance of the construction delays and their causative factors. The same approach is adopted in this study within various groups (i.e., clients, consultants or contractors). The Relative Agreement Indices (RAMP-RAI) can be computed using the following expression: P

RAI ¼

W ¼ ð0:200 RAI 1:00Þ AxN

Where: W D the weighting given to each variable (barrier) by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5) A D the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case), and N D number of respondents placing identical weighting / rating for the barrier

(1:0)

244

N. Chileshe and G. J. Kikwasi Table 2. Scoring the levels of the barriers to RAMP implementation within the Tanzanian construction industry. P Average Score ( 5a¼1 Wi=N ) RAI Barrier level 4.0 to 5.0 3.0 to < 4.0 1.0 to < 3.0

0.8 to 1.0 0.6 to < 0.8 0.20 to < 0.6

High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)


Source: Adapted from Chileshe, 2004.

The relative agreement index (RAI) value has a range from 0 to 1 (0 not inclusive), the higher the agreement index, the more significant the barrier resulting to the adoption of RAMP. The lower bound value of 0.200 for the RAI is the minimum possible score that could be obtained assuming that all the respondents assigned the value of 1 for the particular barrier. This is obtained from dividing the minimum score (1) by the maximum score (5) on the five-point Likert scale. The justification for utilizing the RAI was to overcome the inherent weaknesses associated with mean scores and standard deviation when employing the Likert scale (Holt 2014). The RAI generated from equation 1.0 was further used to classify the perceived barriers into three categories of low, medium and high. These are shown in Table 2. The categorization of taxonomies of RAMP benefits is adopted from Chileshe (2004).

Ranking analysis The ‘ranking analysis’ was applied to ascertain the relative importance of the barriers through the examination of the mean values and standard deviations. In cases where the barriers had the same mean values, the approach adopted was to select the one with the lower standard deviation. This approach has been used in previous studies (see Ahadzie et al. 2008; Chileshe & Yirenki-Fianko 2012). Drawing upon the study by Ikediashi et al. (2012, p. 306) which aimed at analyzing the risk factors associated with facilities management, a benchmark of 3 [(1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5/5 D 3)] was used to identify the significant barriers. Any barriers with mean values 3, or RAI greater than 0.6 (see Table 2), were classified as significant or having above medium effects.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) A one-way between groups of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test if there was any significant difference in the responses of respondents. The respondents were divided into three groups according to the sector (1: clients, 2: contractors; and 3: consultants). A p value less than 0.05 indicates that the two groups have different opinions on that particular barrier. Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko (2012) used the same approach in differentiating the risk factors. The other rationale for using ANOVA can be found in the study by Kurniawan et al. (2014) which highlighted the appropriateness of this method when they are more than two groups of respondents.

Population and sampling The questionnaire was administered via post and email to three hundred professionals (see Table 3). Of the 2500 participants attending a construction forum (see Chileshe & Kikwasi 2014) 77 were returned, of which 10 were considered incomplete. 67 questionnaires were thus rendered usable for the data analysis representing a response rate of 22.33%. These participants were drawn from the three regulatory boards namely architects and quantity surveyor’s registration (AQRB), contractors’ registration board (CRB) and engineers’ registration board (ERB). Table 3 provides the breakdown of respondents according to the professional background. As indicated in Table 3, majority respondents were quantity surveyors 19 (28.4%) followed by engineers (25.4%). The minority of the respondents (9.0%) were drawn from the ‘others’ category comprising four Construction Managers and two Contracts Managers. This observation is interesting, given that this was from the total number of delegates, a minority group. The proportions of the respondents in terms of organization size (number of employees) were; majority 46.3% (31) of the respondent organizations had less than 25 employees, followed by 20.9% (14) with more than 25 but less than 49 employees. The remainder of the categories had a fair distribution ranging from 6.0% (4) to 9.0% (6) in the ‘5099’, to more than 300


245

Table 3. Demographical information of survey respondents. Professional background Quantity surveyor Engineers Project manager Architect< Others

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative percentage

19 17 13 12 6

28.4 25.4 19.4 17.9 9.0

28.4 53.7 73.1 91.0 100.0


Notes: 4.00) compared to the clients who had only 14.29% (1 out 7) within that category. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) In order to test the hypothesis of no significant difference in the perception of the different professionals practising with construction clients (private and public), consultants and contractors, the ranking of barriers to RAMP and ANOVA was conducted. The statistical significance level of the analysis was set at a p-value of 0.05. Examination of Table 4, the results revealed that there was no statistical significant difference (p < 0.05) in the perception of the construction professionals working for different types of organizations regarding barriers considered necessary for the deployment of RAMP. This suggests that construction professionals within the TCI, irrespective of the sector (clients, consultants or contractors) that they worked for generally have similar opinions regarding the barriers affecting the deployment of RAMP. Intrinsically, null hypothesis is upheld as the equality of means is above the determined level of significance (p › 0.05). Advocated solutions to barriers of RAMP implementation Having identified and ranked the barriers, the following section defines a series of advocated solutions that could be used to overcome these barriers. In addition, a range of supporting literature is included where applicable to provide support and validity of the proposed results. Solutions are summarized in Table 6. The identified barriers could be used as a ‘road map’ for the development of appropriate solutions for the successful implementation of RAMP, and improve the decision-making processes of construction organizations. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail all the proposed solutions, only the top three ranked barriers as follows are discussed: (i) ‘awareness of risk management processes’; (ii) ‘lack of experience’ and (iii) ‘lack of information’. In addition to highly ranked barriers, the two least singled out barriers are: (i) implementation cost; and (ii) time constraints. The rationale for selecting only the top ranked barriers is to enable a more detailed discussion of the advocated solutions; whilst the least ranked are included to highlight the significance of the barriers. This would then form the basis for highlighting the contribution of the study, and subsequently strive to distinguish the potential contribution of this paper from many others studies. Awareness of risk management processes ! Cultural shift of Senior Management and improved collaboration Table 6 depicts a number of solutions proposed for overcoming the ‘(lack of) awareness of risk management processes’ barrier. This study recommends the need for a ‘cultural shift’ in the mindset of Senior Management and relevant stakeholders within the TCI, ‘engagement or utilization of internal auditors through the application of enterprise risk management (ERM), ‘enhanced and good collaboration and trust between stakeholders in the TCI’. For example, within the areas of risk management, it has been established that, the usage of RAMP is closely aligned to the awareness. Other studies such as Burchett et al. (1999 cited in Francis and Skitmore, 2005) found that the degree of utilization of risk management was dependent on ‘managers’ concerns and time involvement; human organizational resistance and understanding of quantitative techniques. Similarly, within the context of Korea, Kim and Bajaj (2000) found that there was a lack of familiarity among the reasons for the intuition, judgement and experienced based approach of managing risk among the Korean managers. A study by Zwaan et al. (2011) established that internal auditors have a crucial role to play in assisting management in their quest for implementing risk management. It could thus be argued that, mechanisms for improving the ‘familiarity’ among the stakeholders should be encouraged. Against that background, this study recommends that, the relevant regulatory bodies such as CRB, AQRB,) ERB should be at the forefront in providing clear guidance or best practice studies for risk management. This study argues that, implementation of RAMP is more than simply installing the systems and procedures as envisaged or outlined within the existing risk management frameworks, but more about cultural change. The study further


249


Table 6. Advocated solutions to the identified barriers to risk assessment and management practices (RAMP). Rank

Barriers 1

Advocated Solutions

Supporting Literature

1

BR1

Akintoye and MacLeod (1997); Burchett et al. (1999 cited in Francis and Skitmore, 2005); Frimpong et al. (2003); Kim and Bajaj (2000); Luu et al. (2008); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010); de Zwaan et al. (2011)

2

BR2

Cultural shift of top manager’s and usage of ERM Enhanced and good collaboration and trust between stakeholders in the construction industry’ Regulatory bodies such as CRB, AQRB and ERB should be at the forefront in providing clear guidance or best practice studies for risk management. Tanzanian stakeholders (particularly contractors) should be encouraged to collaborate with foreign contractors on projects through joint ventures

3

BR4

4

BR3

5

BR5

Usage of external risk management consultants

6

BR7

7

BR6

Clear project scope and improved clarity in the recognition of risk Removal of the psychological elements amongst managers Increasing the top management understanding on the benefits of risk assessment and management practices.

Adoption of alternative procurement strategies such as partnering, ICT platforms such as Building Information Modelling (BIM). Strive towards becoming a learning organization Joint mechanism, innovative procurement practices such as partnering and project alliance Implementation of ERM

Van

Egmond (2012); Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007, p. 2132); Debrah and Ofori (2006); Liu et al. (2007); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010); Kikwasi (2011); Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014)2 Tang et al. (2007); Kululanga and Kuotcha (2008); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010); Varghese (2012)

Rwelamila et al. (1999); Santoso et al. (2003); Tang et al. (2007); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010); Paape and Spekle (2012); Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014)2 Mansfield (2009); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010) Mills (2001); Lynos and Skitmore (2004); Mansfield (2009); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010)

Lynos and Skikmore (2004); Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010)

Notes: The barriers are listed according to the order of the severity based on the overall mean scores; 1For detailed explanation of the barriers BR1 through BR7, see Tables 4 and 5 listing; 2 Tanzanian study related to the related identification of critical success factors for implementation of RAMP.

proposes that the advocated solutions as proposed should take into consideration the socio-economic context of the TCI. In as much as engaging a ‘cultural shift’ among the practitioners, engagement of the regulatory bodies, and implementing ERM, the preceding challenges associated with the TCI such as existence of the informal and formal sectors will continue to impact on the prevailing practices of both the registered and unregistered contractors (Table 5). Lack of experience ! Joint ventures between ‘local’ and ‘foreign’ contractors The Literature review has demonstrated and highlighted the ‘HRM’-related problems faced by the Tanzanian construction organizations (Debrah & Ofori 2006; Ofori 2012a). Consequently, the skills and experience problem is symbiotic of developing countries (like Tanzania). As pointed out by Kaza and Ulubeyli (2007, p. 2132), one of the two prominent features of the economies of developing countries is low levels of education, training and skills among the workforce. Against this background, Tanzanian studies by Debrah and Ofori (2006) linked the unavailability of training for professionals in the TCI among the reasons for lack of competitiveness of local firms. Similarly, recent studies such as Kikwasi (2011, p. 138) have called upon the Government and industry stakeholders to put in training programmes for informal trained workforce to access formal training so as to acquire proper skills. The proposed solution can be found in the observations by van Egmond (2012, p. 455), indicating that the main source of skills for the majority of the Tanzanian employees was through vocational training and apprenticeships. Most importantly, the study provided overwhelming evidence of professionals and found that as engineers and surveyors involved in project management and supervision had little experience, and only obtained most of their skills in the foreign contractor’s organizations. Given that, risk management is one of the knowledge areas of projects management, a platform of joint ventures between ‘local’ and ‘foreign contractors’ arguably would provide the professionals with an avenue for up skilling, and thereby acquiring the relevant experience.

250



Lack of information ! Adaptation of universally accepted ICT roadmaps such as European Construction Technology Platforms (ECTP) The review of literature identified a number of solutions towards overcoming the barrier of ‘lack of information’. One suggested option is through the adoption of alternative procurement strategies such as partnering. In support of this option, Tang et al. (2007) points out how partnering is built on the co-operative philosophy that encourages open communication. This can contribute to improved information sharing and enables project teams to a better exchange of knowledge of the project, and allows individuals to introduce their personal experiences among others (Tang et al. 2007, p. 952) Other studies such as Varghese (2012) recommend the usage of existing roadmaps such as those developed by ECTP. While ICT technologies uptake within construction organizations is traditionally slow, there is however, scope for adoption and implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) a mechanism for improved information sharing. Kululanga and Kuotcha (2008) recommend that construction organizations should strive towards becoming a learning organization if they are to capture any vital lessons that could derive from project reviews.

Other barriers: Implementation costs and time constraints ! Change in behavioural processes While the barriers of ‘implementation costs’ and ‘time constraints’ were least ranked by the respondents (Table 5), it is still worth discussing some of the advocated solutions. Mills (2001) argues that, the lack of clarity in the recognition or acceptance of risk can magnify the overall cost of risk. In contrast Chileshe (2004) using the TQM implementation as an example found that the problems were more psychological than monetary, with top management not understanding the benefits of TQM. The same assumption could be made of RAMP implementation. This would require a change in the behavioural processes among the stakeholders and change agents. Normally association is made with three factors as follows: (1) Change as illustrated through communicating and convincing; (2) Motivation; and (3) Learning amplified through promoting and training. For RAMP to be effective, it must change (alter) how people, in this context Tanzanian stakeholders behave at work. Henceforth the Tanzanian construction stakeholders to effectively implement RAMP, and overcome some of the barriers, there is a need to take into account the behaviour factors. One suggested mechanism in literature for initiating cultural change is through organizational learning as illustrated by a numbers of studies in Table 6 (Tang et al. 2007; Kululanga & Kuotcha 2008; Agyakwa-Baah & Chileshe 2010; Varghese 2012).

Implications of the findings Relative to implications for practitioners, policy makers, researchers and most notably stakeholders, the following is highlighted: Whilst there are no statistical significance differences (p < 0.05) in the ranking of barriers to RAMP among the three sub groupings of respondents (Table 5), with exception of consultants, there is an obvious need of increased awareness of RAMP by contractors. Secondly, this lack of awareness is further exacerbated by ‘lack of experience’ in RAMP and techniques despite having the majority (51.51%) of the respondents with more than 15 years of experience in the industry. This suggests an on-going problem of limited training opportunities for the Tanzanian construction professionals. In contrast to Table 5 showing that there are marginal differences in the mean scores across the different sectors, these barriers appear to affect three different groupings of stakeholders in various ways. As such the advocated solutions should be interpreted accordingly. For example, contractors require the availability of specialist risk management consultant despite the low ranking given to this barrier (Table 5). Learning from these consultants could enhance levels of RAMP awareness, and at the same time contribute to building upon their experience. For practitioners, these findings may help them in reviewing the necessary barriers when considering implementing RAMP, with further contributions to their understanding of the underlying ‘real barriers’ which are underpinned by a number of factors affecting the operating environment. In so doing, the exploration might contribute to unmasking the apparent layers of industry stubbornness (the ‘real’ barriers). Additionally, the identified barriers could be used as a road map for the successful implementation RAMP.


251


In the case of policy makers, the implication is that, understanding of key barriers would allow them to work with regulatory bodies, foreign contractors as well as institutions in designing appropriate risk management training courses which are conducive for the TCI. This would further assist the small registered contractors given the problems associated with gaining skills (Mlinga & Wells 2002, p. 275) As for researchers, the implication of barriers in implementing RAMP, and advocated solutions should be considered in light of the prevailing socio-economic context of the TCI. This includes the nature and character of the industry if the proposed solutions listed in Table 6 are to be effective. On a positive note, drawing upon Yuan et al. (2011), researchers could however, use these barriers as a sound basis to develop appropriate mitigating strategies in overcoming them. This could enhance the adoption of RAMP strategies that are tailored to the practice of Tanzania. Conclusions and recommendations The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perception of the Tanzanian construction stakeholders on the barriers to RAMP. The second objective was to ascertain whether they are any statistical significant differences among the different stakeholders (sector-wise) in the perception of barriers to RAMP. The findings from descriptive statistics (Table 4) highlighted a medium level (mean score > 3.0 4.0) in the ranking of the majority of the barriers to RAMP. In the quest to investigate the reasons for medium level uptake of RAMP implementation, the following barriers were found to be the most significant: ‘awareness of risk management processes’, ‘lack of experience’, and ‘lack of information’. While a review of literature from developing and developed countries (Table 1) highlighted the same barriers, this study acknowledges the differences in the levels and capabilities of implementing the advocated solutions listed (Table 6). While the results from the analysis of variance (Table 4) showed that there are no statistical significant differences (p < 0.05) in the perception of barriers to RAMP, the ranking of these barriers was nevertheless different. Secondly, the descriptive results (Table 5) showed that the clients, contractors and consultants agreed with the overall ranking of barriers, despite some differences in the mean scores. One interesting emergent finding was that, despite the limited involvement expected of consultants in applying the risk management techniques on the projects, they had the highest overall agreement scores across the barriers investigated. In the context of Tanzania, the relevant regulatory bodies play a key role in upholding the standards of its members. In order to raise the awareness of RAMP benefits, there is a need for a ‘cultural shift’ in the mindset of senior management and relevant stakeholders within the TCI. In addition, the construction organizations, especially the contractors should also be encouraged to engage or utilise internal auditors through the application of ERM as part of the implementation of RAMP. To assist the clients, consultants and contractors with the training issues associated with RAMP, the government could further focus on the development of vocational training and apprenticeships for its citizenry and relevant professionals or provide capacity building. This would act as a source of skills for the majority of the Tanzanian employees. Another avenue worth pursuing in addressing a barrier such as ‘limited experience’ (Table 6) is the entering of joint ventures with foreign contractors. However, as opined by Wang et al. (2009) study in addressing the major risks of Australian construction material, architecture design, engineering and construction firms in China, some lessons can be applied within the Tanzanian context. As such, these joint ventures will only be successful when the foreign contractors understand and respect the local clients, and most importantly take into consideration the local contexts and fit them within the Tanzanian environment. Findings of this study further reinforce the observation that, despite the quest of the TCI to remain competitive, it is faced with a number of challenges which were largely dependent on the socio-economic context. These challenges undoubtedly have an impact of implementation of practices such as risk management. Other performance constraints contributing to the inefficient and deteriorated state of the TCI cited by the selected Tanzanian specific studies (Table 1) included, the ‘low capacity and capability of local contractors and consultants due to ‘weak resource base’ and ‘inadequate experience’. Table 1 further demonstrates that these barriers affect both developing and developed countries. However, given the proliferation of SMEs (by number of employees) among those surveyed in this study, this finding is rather concerning as this category of contractors (SMEs) is the one in most need of implementing RAMP. As observed by Mlinga and Wells (2002), among the problems facing the SMEs are associated with postponement of execution of agreed works and poor quality of executed projects. In addition to providing insights on the barriers to implementation of RAMP across the Tanzanian construction sector; involvement of more stakeholders such as clients, consultants and contractors, for this study has made number of theoretical and practical rich contributions. In comparison to Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014) studies on the CSF to RAMP, one of the main contributions of this study for construction projects in Tanzania lies within the identification of an ordered grouped set of barriers for RAMP.

252



The second significant contribution of this paper is that it sheds light and provides insights on the understanding of barriers affecting the implementation of RAMP within the Tanzanian construction sector, an area previously under-researched. This contributes to the body of knowledge on the subject within the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and developing countries context. Thirdly, it also expands the efforts of studying and evaluating barriers across the developing economies and particularly within the (East) African context. Finally, it extends and builds upon the work of Kululunga and Kuotcha (2010) who acknowledged, albeit from the contractors’ perspective in SSA, that the extent to which they [contractors] followed the series of steps of risk management processes conceived from project management was severely lacking in the literature. Limitations While the study makes several contributions to risk management theory and practice, several limitations of the research need to be acknowledged. Firstly, this study did not distinguish between local organizations (i.e., contractors) and those that tended to collaborate with the foreign contractors. Skill levels among the employees tended to differ, with Tanzanian contractors working with foreign contractors being more experienced (Egmond 2012). In addition, from the contractor’s perspective, this study did not distinguish between the different classes of contractors. In Tanzania there are seven classes for building, civil, electrical and mechanical contractors that is, from class one to seven based on the capacity of such contractors to execute works. Therefore, the barriers identified in this study are generic. Secondly, the sample consisted of organizations in one industry, which is construction operating in Tanzania. Consequently, the findings may not generalize to other industries or organizations operating in other East African or sub-Saharan countries. Thirdly, the sample size in this study (67) was small. As such caution should be exercised in the interpretation and generalization of the results. Regardless of these limitation, the findings represent a snapshot of barriers affecting the implementation of RAMP. Future studies should employ a large number of cases representing the population of interest, in order to determine the statistical significance of the results. Finally, this study relied on the usage of self-report data and indicators of the construct are sensitive and difficult for respondents. Nevertheless, there is consistency within the results from the quantitative and qualitative (literature review) parts of the study. Additionally the results do appear to be consistent with previous research (Table 1) that has examined the barriers to RAMP within developed and developing economies. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to three anonymous reviewers and the associated editor of the International Journal of Construction Management for their constructive and helpful comments to enhance the quality of earlier versions of this paper. It should be noted that an abbreviated version of parts of this paper has been presented and published in the proceedings of the 29th Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference (ARCOM) held in Reading, UK, 1st 3rd September 2013.

References Agyakwa-Baah A, Chileshe N. 2010. Antecedents of risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) deployment within Ghanaian construction related MLE’s. In: Haupt TC, editor. Proceedings of the 5th Built Environment Conference, Southern Sun; 2010 Jul 1820; Elangeni, Durban, South Africa, p. 521537. Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye PO. 2008. Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries. Int J Project Manage. 26:675687. Aibinu AA, Odeyinka HA. 2006. Construction delays and their causative factors in Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manage. 132:667677. Akintoye AS, MacLeod MJ. 1997. Risk analysis and management in construction. Int J Project Manage. 15:3138. Carter A, Chinyio E. 2012. Effectiveness of risk management: barriers and solutions. Int J Project Org Manage. 4:368378. Chileshe N. 2004. The application of TQM within small and medium sized construction related organisations [PhD thesis]. Sheffield (UK): Sheffield Hallam University. Chileshe N, Kikwasi GJ. 2014. Critical success factors for implementation of risk assessment and management practices within the Tanzania construction industry. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 21:291319. Chileshe N, Yirenki-Fianko ABE. 2012. An evaluation of risk factors impacting construction projects in Ghana. J Eng Design Tech. 10:306329. Chiragi FV. 2000. Building construction industry in Tanzania - case study: Youth Sports Centres Complex at Mwananyamala, Dar-essalaam [cited 2014 May 25]. Alumni Papers Series, Lund University, Sweden. Available from: < www.lth.se/fileadmin/hdm/ alumni/papers/icm2000/ICM2000-17.pdf> Cohen J. 1992. Statistical power analysis. Current Dir Psychol Sci. 1:98101. CRB. 2010. Constructors Registrations Board Consultative Meeting, Capacity and Competence of Contractors’- A Key to Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Dar es salaam, Colour Print (T) Limited. Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16:297334.



253

Debrah YA, Ofori G. 2005. Emerging managerial competencies of professionals in the Tanzanian construction industry. Int J Human Res Manage. 16:13991414. Debrah YA, Ofori G. 2006. Human resource development of professionals in an emerging economy: the case of the Tanzanian construction industry. Int J Human Res Manage. 17:440463. Dulaimi MF, Ling FYY, Ofori G, De Silva N. 2002. Enhancing integration and innovation in construction. Build Res Inf. 30:237247. Egmond E. van. 2012. Case studies of construction technology development and innovation in developing countries. In: Ofori G, editor. Contemporary issues in construction in developing countries. London: Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, p. 442477. Forza, C. 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective. Int J Oper Prod Manage. 22:152194. Frimpong Y, Oluwoye J, Crawford L. 2003. Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. Int J Proj Manage. 21:321326. Harner MM. 2010. Barriers to effective risk management. University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law 2010 Seton Hall Law Rev. 40:13231365, 2010 University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-25. [cited 2014 May 3]. . Holt GD. 2014. Guest editorial: asking questions, analysing answers: relative importance revisited. Constr Innovation. 14:216. Hwang B-G, Zhao X, Toh LP. 2013. Risk management in small construction projects in Singapore: status, barriers and impact. Int J Proj Manage. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.007 Ikediashi DI, Ogunlana SO, Boateng P, Okwuashi O. 2012. Analysis of risks associated with facilities management outsourcing: a multivariate approach. J Facilities Manage. 10:301316. Jason A. 2008. Organizing informal workers in the urban economy-the case of the construction industry in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat Int. 32:192202. Kazaz A, Ulubeyli S. 2007. Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study in a developing country. Build Environ. 42:21322140. Kikwasi GJ. 1999. The selection of project procurement system in the Tanzanian construction industry [Unpublished masters dissertation]. Tanzania: University of Dar es Salaam. Kikwasi GJ. 2011. An assessment of risk management practices by consultants in Tanzania. Proceeding of the 6th Built Environment, Johannesburg, South Africa. Kikwasi GJ. 2012. Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in Tanzania. In: Chileshe N, Rofe M, Rameezdeen R, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference and Workshop on Built Environment in Developing Countries ‘Fragmented Futures: the built environment in a volatile world’; 2012 Dec 45; University of South Australia, Adelaide (Australia); p. 138148. Kim S, Bajaj D. 2000. Risk management in construction: an approach for contractors in South Korea. Cost Eng. 42:3844. Kululanga GK, Kuotcha WS. 2008. Measuring organisational learning through project reviews. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 15:580595. Kululanga GK, Kuotcha WS. 2010. Measuring project risk management process for construction contractors with statement indicators linked to numerical scores. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 17:336351. Kunhui Y, Li B, Shen L. 2013. Key factors considered in compiling tender prices for China’s public works projects. J Manage Eng. 29:206215. Kurniawan F, Ogunlana S, Motawa I. 2014. Stakeholders’ expectations in utilising financial models for public-private partnership projects. Built Environ Proj Asset Manage. 4: 421. Lema NM. 2008. Project management practice in engineering performance and future challenges. Dar es Salaam: University Press. Liu J, Li B, Lin B, Nguyen V. 2007. Key issues and challenges of risk management and insurance in China’s construction industry An empirical study. Ind Manage Data Syst. 107:382396. Liu JY, Low SP, He X. 2011. Current practices and challenges of implementing enterprise risk management (ERM) in Chinese construction enterprises. Int J Constr Manage. 11:4963. Luu T, Kim S, Cao H, Park Y. 2008. Performance measurement of construction firms in developing countries. Constr Manage Econ. 26:373386. Lyamuya S. 2013. The State of the Construction Industry in Tanzania. Businesstimes [Internet]. [cited 2014 May 30]. Available from: http://www.businesstimes.co.tz/index.php?option=com_content&id=2362:the-state-of-the-construction-industry-intanzania&Itemid=57>. Lynos T, Skitmore M. 2004. Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: a survey. Int J Proj Manage. 22:5161. Mahamid I. 2012. Factors affecting contractor’s business failure: contractors’ perspective. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 19:269285. Manelele I, Muya M. 2008. Risk identification on community-based construction projects in Zambia. J Constr. 12:27. Mansfield JR. 2009. The use of formalised risk managed approaches by UK design consultants in conservation refurbishment projects. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 16:273287. Mills A. 2001. A systematic approach to risk management for construction. Struct Survey. 19:245252. Ministry of Works (MoW). 2003. Construction industry policy, Government Printer, Dar es Salaam [viewed 2013 Jan 30]. Available from: Mlinga RS, Wells J. 2002. Collaboration between formal and informal enterprises in the construction sector in Tanzania. Habitat Int. 26:269280. Mok CK, Rao Tummala VM, Leung HM. 1997. Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services cost estimation. Constr Manage Econ. 15:161175. Nunnally J. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ofori G. 2012. The construction industries in developing countries Strategic review of the book. In: Ofori G, editor. Contemporary issues in construction in developing countries. London: Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, p. 115.


254


Paape L, Spekle RF. 2012. The adoption and design of enterprise risk management practices: an empirical study. Eur Acc Rev. 21:533564. Rwelamila PD, Talukhaba AA, Ngowi AB. 1999. Tracing the African Project Failure Syndrome: the significance of ‘ubuntu’. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 6:335346. Santoso DS, Ogunlana SO, Minato T. 2003. Assessment of risks in high rise building construction in Jakarta. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 10:4355. Tabish SZS, Jha KN. 2011. Identification and evaluation of success factors for public construction projects. Constr Manage Econ. 29:809823. Tang W, Qiang M, Duffield CF, Young DM, Lu Y. 2007. Risk management in the Chinese construction industry. J Constr Eng Manage. 133:944956. Taroun A. 2014. Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction risk: insights from a literature review. Int J Proj Manage. 32:101115. Tata J, Prasad S, Thorn R. 1999. The influence of organisational structure on the effectiveness of TQM programs. J Managerial Issu. 11:440453. Varghese K. 2012. Information communication technology usage by construction firms in developing countries. In: Ofori G, editor. Contemporary issues in construction in developing countries. London: Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis; p. 126143. Wang X, Fang D, Pham L. 2009. Risk assessment of Australian construction and engineering firms in China. Int J Constr Manage. 9:119131. Wang J, Yuan H. 2011. Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction projects: Case study from China. Int J Proj Manage. 29:209219. Wood GD, Ellis RCT. 2003. Risk management practices of leading UK cost consultants. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 10:254262. Zulu S, Chileshe N. 2008. The impact of service quality on project performance: a case study of building maintenance services in Zambia. Proceedings of the 3rd Built Environment Conference, Association of Schools of Construction of Southern Africa; 2008 Jul 68; Cape Town, South Africa. Zwaan de L, Stewart J, Subramaniam N. 2011. Internal audit involvement in enterprise risk management. Managerial Audit J. 26:586604.