Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Formal risk analysis techniques applied in managing construction project risks tend to focus on risks that lend
themselves to objective methods of economic analysis. Although subjective probabilities and Bayesian
methods are applied successfully in other industries to manage subjective risks similar to those encountered in
construction contracts, very little is reported on the application of such methods for analysing risks in
construction contracts. An investigation has been carried out into using subjective expert opinions and Bayesian
methods in construction contract risk analysis. The elicitation of expert opinions about the risk of encountering
adverse ground conditions on construction sites is examined. Prior distributions of expert opinions about the
risk form the critical component in the Bayesian analysis of risk. The conclusion of this is that although
construction professionals have difficulty estimating intermediate and tail values of probability distributions,
elicitation techniques can be used to develop prior distributions of contract risks which, coupled with sample
information on the risks, would enable the Bayesian analysis of risks. Effective strategies for systematically
analysing significant individual contract risks often covered under an arbitrary project contingency sum can
now be developed to enhance the risk management efforts of contractors and construction experts.
Keywords: Subjective probabilities, elicitation techniques, Bayesian analysis, risk analysis, Delphi techniques
Introduction
In terms of the broad approaches by which risks are
analysed, construction project risks can be broadly
classified as either objective or subjective. Risks that are
purportedly analysed by the actual observation or
calculation of their occurrence and impact on a project
are often described as objective risks. Analyses of
objective risks are quantitative in nature and often
structured in probabilities. They involve experimental
evidence, long-term experience, or complicated analytical calculations that describe actual or potential risks.
Risks that are assessed based on beliefs about the risks
rather than objective recorded risk data are often
referred to as subjective risks. Analyses of subjective
risks are often qualitative and based on the analysts
knowledge and experience of the risks and the process
* E-mail: francis.adams@usm.edu
by which the analyst selects and organizes such knowledge and experiences into meaningful patterns. The
majority of construction contract risks are subjective;
there are often insufficient historical data to enable
their objective analysis.
The use of rigorous analytical techniques for
objective risks in construction is well reported in the
literature. However, reports of empirical work on the
application of similar rigor to contract risks such as
payment delays, adverse ground conditions, etc., is
scant. Evidence suggests that such risks are often
analysed in a somewhat arbitrary manner.
Contractors tend to resort to the addition of a single
arbitrary percentage cost contingency to give their
overall impression of the total risk rather than assessing
the risks that they are asked to carry. However,
applications of analytical rigor to similar risks in other
industries point to the potential benefits that such
methods present to the construction industry. For
82
example, subjective probability forecasting has been
used reliably, in combination with classical methods
involving objective probabilities, in short-range weather
forecasting (Murphy and Winkler, 1984). Elicitation
of expert beliefs has been used in the development of
probabilistic expert systems for the diagnosis of
congenital heart disease (Spiegelhalter et al., 1994)
and in population projection (Kadane and Wolfson,
1997). Elicitation of prior beliefs has also been
successfully used in estimating the future maintenance
costs of water treatment plants, in determining the
hydraulic conductivity of rocks for nuclear waste
repository development (OHagan, 1997), and in
uncertainty analysis for radiological protection
(OHagan and Haylock, 1997).
Subjective predictions made on the weather are
based on the forecasters knowledge and experience of
weather patterns in much the same way as a construction experts knowledge and experience of soil characteristics that lead to risks such as adverse ground
conditions drive his predictions about such risks.
Furthermore, unlike recurring events that are subject
to the laws of large numbers, most contract risks
represent rare event samples for which analysis of longrun frequency and traditional statistical approaches are
often inapplicable. Tversky (1974) argues that predictions and analysis of such subjective risks are often
based on the intuitive judgements of the decisionmaker. These intuitive judgements and estimates are
influenced by individual perceptions and biases that are
often not addressed during the analysis. Analytical
methods for construction contract risks are thus needed
to enhance risk management efficiency. Bayesian
methods, for example, enable subjective opinions about
uncertainties to be combined with sample evidence
about the risk to form posterior probability distributions of the risk. Such distributions can then be used as
input variables in the systematic analysis of the
uncertainty. The adjustment of the individual experts
estimate by the available sample information will lead
to a more accurate representation of the probability of
the risk. Furthermore, an appropriate design of the
elicitation method and aggregation of opinions from
multiple experts can reduce the impact of individual perceptions and biases on the estimates (Adams,
2004).
This article reports on an empirical study that
investigated the use of elicitation and Bayesian methods
in transforming expert opinions into subjective probability distributions for use as input variables in
construction contract risk analysis. Specifically, the
article discusses some of the issues involved in eliciting
expert opinions from construction experts and
addresses the issues of
Adams
(a) whether expert elicitation techniques used for
objective risk analysis can be extended to
construction contract risk analysis; and
(b) whether elicited subjective expert opinions on
construction contract risks can be transformed
into subjective prior distributions for Bayesian
analysis of the risks.
If the two tasks above can be achieved, then a more
effective and systematic strategy for contract risk
management could be developed to replace the current
practices of assigning arbitrary contingency sums or risk
premiums for the overall contract risk. This strategy
will be helpful not only to contractors who share the
great bulk of project risks, but also to construction
experts who give advice for proper project risk
management.
83
P xjh1 P h1
P h1 jx~ P
P hi :P xjhi
And
P xjh1 ~
P causejeffect ~
P h1 jx
P hi :P xjhi
P h1
84
encode subjective probabilities within their areas of
competence are thus considered to be calibrated.
The use of Bayesian methods has however, not been
without critics. Mak (1995), for example, argues that
the Bayesian assumptions of mutual exclusivity,
exhaustive hypothesis and conditional independence
of evidence in hypothesis do not always hold.
Furthermore, the Bayesian view does not allow one to
distinguish uncertainty from ignorance in that one
cannot tell whether the degree of belief was directly
calculated from evidence or indirectly inferred from an
absence of evidence. Mak (1995) further argues that
because the single degree of belief is represented by a
point estimate, it is difficult to verify its accuracy.
Phillips (1973) and Chau (1995) argue however, that
the issues of vagueness and dependence arise due to the
human inability to handle complex events and systems.
Reliability of the estimates decreases as the event/subsystem increases in size and complexity. Thus, by
decomposing complex events/sub-systems into simple
units, making judgements about the simple units and
then reassembling the pieces using the laws of probability, we can confidently arrive at consistent and
meaningful probabilities regarding the original complex
events. Chau (1995) further argues that construction
estimators estimates are not random guess-timates
but are based on experiences that include historical
facts that may not necessarily be recorded systematically in the estimators minds. Furthermore, the
issues of bias due to differences in individual perceptions and range of experiences can be reduced through
group estimating techniques such as the Delphi
technique.
Adams
to be successful and whether it can be made more
successful by adaptation. In such circumstances, it is
desirable to be more flexible with the approach in order
to examine these questions. Hence, the study did not
directly implement the model but took essential
elements of the model to explore how they would
function.
85
Table 1
Phase
Preliminaries
Purpose(s)
Prepare for Process
Develop Elicitation/Assessment
Schedule/Questions
Expert Selection
Expert Elicitation
Analysis of Subjective
Judgements
Process steps
N Confirm need for Elicitation exercise
N Appoint, brief and train Probability Assessor/
Facilitator
N Establish Elicitation Objectives and Approach
N Establish Process budget for time, cost and
human resources
N Confirm project definition
N Clarify uncertainty and clearly define risk(s) for
which prior estimates are being sought
N Decompose risks and define decomposed risks if
necessary
N Obtain sample evidence for risk(s)
N Define questions using the relative likelihood and
Direct Response methods
N Define questions using a continuous variable
scaling technique and Direct Response methods
N Determine appropriate professional categories
N Determine appropriate industrial sector of
expertise
N Determine Extent of relevant professional
expertise
N Establish target expert group
N Obtain actual experts through prequalification
N Introduce the Assessor/Facilitator
N Explain the purpose of the elicitation
N Leave the elicitation schedule or arrange an
appointment for the elicitation interview
N Discuss Feedback processes and their possible
further involvement in the process.
N Motivating the subject by establishing rapport and
investigating the subjects biases.
N Structuring the uncertain quantity by having it
clearly defined and explained to the expert.
N Conditioning the subject by making the subject
think fundamentally about his judgement and to
avoid any of his cognitive biases.
N Encoding or quantifying the probability judge
ments, and
N Verifying the responses by checking for consistency
and seeing if the subject believes his results.
N Obtain estimates of full range of risk attributes
through smoothing and scaling of expert estimates
N Convert smoothed estimates into coherent prob
abilities that sum up to unity
N Map and define probability distribution
N Define appropriate weighting for aggregation of
estimates
N Aggregate estimates using selected weighting
N Obtain estimates of full range of risk attributes
through smoothing and scaling of aggregated
estimates
N Convert smoothed estimates into coherent prob
abilities that sum up to unity
N Map and define probability distribution
86
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Adams
seeking their co-operation and participation;
providing the experts with an initial position
paper on the status of the issue; and
eliciting the opinions of each expert through
personal interview(s).
87
Figure 1
88
Table 2
Adams
Profile of the survey sample
Profession
Construction managers
Project managers
Quantity surveyors
Contracts managers
Othersa
Total respondents
Number selected
Number responding
Percentage responding
40
40
40
40
0*
160
2
4
18
1
4
29
5.00%
10.00%
45.00%
2.50%
10.00%
18.13%
a
The Other category therefore refers to professionals such as directors of companies, property developers and legal consultants who felt that
their current job functions did not fit accurately into any of the four main categories indicated on the questionnaire.
89
PDF measure
of risk
Minimum
number
Maximum
number
Most likely
number (A)
Higher number
half as likely
as A
Lower number
half as likely
as A
Higher number
a quarter as
likely as A
Lower number a
quarter as
likely as A
Rating
Construction
managers
Project
managers
Quantity
surveyors
Contracts
managers
Others
11.91
7.50
5.67
14.97
20.00
5.33
37.86
37.50
29.00
41.60
42.00
30.00
60
23.04
17.50
14.00
25.94
30.00
20.75
30
29.42
27.50
17.00
34.87
19.67
30
16.96
15.00
8.75
20.00
25.00
11.25
15
33.57
30.00
21.50
41.18
42.00
23.00
15
13.81
7.50
5.67
16.59
22.00
11.25
Figure 3 PDFs for the risk of encountering adverse ground conditions (the graphs are based on the relative likelihoods
method. The Triangular distribution is based on the minimum, maximum and modal values of the Group Aggregate)
90
of probability, the distributions selected should be
relatively easy to understand. They should also have
clear cut-off points since most estimators can say
reasonably clearly that the cost or time for a particular
variable will never exceed a fixed maximum nor be less
than fixed minimum value. However, the findings of the
current research do not support the use of the
triangular distribution for the analysis of construction
contract risks. For the sake of comparison, the
triangular distribution of the group aggregate based
on the minimum, maximum and modal values of the
Group Aggregate is also given in Figure 3. The author
of this article contends that while the criteria set out by
Raftery (1994) for the choice of distributions are sound
guidelines, it is equally important that experts are given
the opportunity to express their true beliefs as fully as
possible without introducing any analyst biases into the
elicitation process by presupposing a form of distribution. Furthermore, it is possible to elicit as much detail
as possible about the distribution forms that represent
the experts true beliefs without the need for the expert
having an advanced knowledge of statistics.
Estimates from experts who did not belong to the
four main professional categories were so inconsistent
with each other that no meaningful distribution could
be derived from them. This highlights the importance
of making the selection of substantive experts an
essential pre-condition for the elicitation. It also
confirms that the estimates given by the experts from
the main categories are genuine and that the inconsistencies shown in their estimates are not the result of
guesswork, but that of genuine difficulty the experts
have in providing probability estimates for tail values. It
is also worth noting that the numbers of occurrences of
adverse ground conditions given by all the experts fall
within the range 342, providing an indication of the
range of likely values to consider for preliminary
decision making purposes. Moreover, although the
probability values given by the probability density
functions from the various categories differ from each
other, the shapes of the curves are fairly similar to each
other. This indicates that the general problem representations for the risk among the experts are very
similar, the differences arising perhaps from differences
in their experiences regarding the extremes of the
occurrences. Aggregation of expert opinions will therefore capture a problem representation that truly reflects
the collective knowledge and experience of the experts,
and therefore provide a more accurate distribution
form for the risk.
Table 4, Figure 4 and Appendix 2 present the results
from the second series of questions that applied a
continuous variable scaling technique to encode
responses. While the actual estimates and distributions
from the two sets of questions display some
Adams
inconsistencies, the distribution forms are evident and
generally consistent throughout the professions. The
results presented in Figure 3 are considered more
accurate as the relative likelihood method is more
efficient in reducing bias errors in the elicitation process
(Ranasinghe and Russell, 1993).
Conclusions
The main conclusion of this article is that Bayesian
methods can indeed be applied to the analysis of
construction contract risks. By combining theoretical
requirements with practical considerations in the
elicitation process, we can elicit expert opinions about
construction contract risks and transform these into
subjective prior probability distributions of the risk.
This will combine with sample information on the risk
in Bayesian fashion to arrive at a posterior distribution
that can then be utilized as an input variable to formal
risk analysis. The significance of this result is that it
provides an empirical basis for the development of
more effective strategies for the systematic analysis and
management of construction contract risk. Such
strategies will be helpful not only to contractors who
share the great bulk of project risks, but also to
construction experts who give advice for appropriate
risk management and enhanced project performance.
The application of such strategies will also have the
ultimate benefit of enhanced project performance for
the project owner, and improve the productivity of the
industry as a whole.
The effectiveness of the elicitation model used is
supported by two factors. First, it effectively captured the
problem representations of the various groups of experts,
as seen in the similarity of the shapes of the distributions.
Second, the questioning and response methods
employed enabled most of the experts to self-elicit their
own beliefs in a manner that allowed the easy transformation of the estimates into subjective probability
distributions. Although the model did not completely
overcome the difficulties faced by some construction
experts in assigning extreme and intermediate values of
subjective probability estimates, the issue does not
appear to be a failing of the model. Previous research
suggesting that experts in some other fields do not have
this problem perhaps point to the need for the preparation of construction professionals in the applications of
probabilities in construction. Developments in mathematical and scientific theories and advancements in
modern technology present many innovative solutions to
construction problems that are currently addressed in
much less optimal ways. Thus, rather than shying away
from certain aspects of statistics and mathematics, the
91
As many
occurrences of
adverse ground
conditions as:
0
5
25
50
75
95
100
Construction
Managers
Project
Managers
Quantity
Surveyors
Contracts
Managers
Others
12.96
57.17
42.88
20.79
8.87
5.93
3.95
12.50
27.50
57.00
18.50
6.00
3.50
0.00
2.67
88.00
47.00
24.33
8.00
3.67
0.33
15.13
49.71
39.40
32.13
18.00
20.47
18.40
1.00
88.00
35.00
19.00
6.00
1.00
1.00
33.50
32.67
36.00
10.00
6.33
1.00
0.00
Figure 4 PDFs for the risk of encountering adverse ground conditions (using the scaling technique)
References
Adams, F.K. (2004) The management of risks in international infrastructural projects, PhD thesis, The University
of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Ashton, H.A. and Ashton, R.H. (1985) Aggregating subjective forecasts: some empirical results. Management
Science, 31(12), 1499508.
92
Chau, K.W. (1995) Monte Carlo simulations of construction
costs using subjective data. Construction Management &
Economics, 13, 36983.
Chesley, G.R. (1975) Elicitation of subjective probabilities: a
review. The Accounting Review, L, 32337.
Cooper, D.F. and Chapman, C.B. (1987) Risk Analysis for
Large Engineering Projects: Models, Methods and Cases,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (1994) Strategy: Process, Content,
Context, West Publishing Company, St Paul.
Finch, J. (1987) The vignette technique in survey research.
Sociology, 21(1), 10514.
Gustafson, D.H., Shukla, R.K., Delberg, A. and
Walster, G.W. (1973) A comparative study of differences
in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals,
interacting groups, Delphi groups and nominal groups.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 28091.
Hertz, D.B. and Thomas, H. (1984) Practical Risk Analysis:
An Approach Through Case Histories, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Kadane, J.B. and Wolfson, L.J. (1997) Experiences in
elicitation. The Statistician, 46, (4), 117.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment
Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lock, A. (1987) Integrating group judgments in subjective
forecasts, in Wright, G. and Ayton, P. (eds), Judgmental
Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Mak, S. (1995) Risk analysis in construction: a paradigm shift
from hard to soft approach. Construction Management &
Economics, 13, 38592.
Moore, P.G. and Thomas, H. (1976) Anatomy of Decisions
Penguin Books, London.
Murphy, A.H. and Winkler, R.L. (1984) Probability forecasting in meteorology. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 79(387), 489500.
Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1981) Research Methods in
the Social Sciences, Edward Arnold, London.
OHagan, A. (1997) Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial
practical applications. The Statistician, 46(4).
OHagan, A. and Haylock, R.G. (1997) Bayesian uncertainty
analysis and radiological protection, in Barnett, V. and
Adams
Turkman, K.F. (eds), Statistics for the Environment 3,
Pollution Assessment and Control, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 10928.
Phillips, L.D. (1973) Bayesian Statistics for Social Scientists,
Thomas Nelson & Sons, London.
Raftery, J. (1994) Risk Analysis in Project Management, E &
FN Spon, London.
Ranasinghe, M. and Russell, A.D. (1993) Elicitation of
Subjective probabilities for economic risk analysis: an
investigation. Construction Management & Economics, 11,
32640.
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research, Blackwell, Oxford.
Simonton, D. (1996) Creative expertise: a lifespan developmental perspective, in Ericsson, K. (ed.), The Road to
Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts
and Sciences, Sports and Games, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 22753.
Spetzler, C. and Stael Von Holstein, C.A.S. (1975)
Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management
Science, 22(3).
Spiegelhalter, D.J., Harris, N.L., Bull, K. and
Franklin, R.C.G. (1994) Empirical evaluation of prior
beliefs about frequencies: methodology and a case study in
congenital heart disease. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 79(387), 489500.
Tversky, A. (1974) Assessing uncertainty. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B, 36(2), 14859.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under
uncertainty: heuristics and biases., Science, 185, 112431.
Vick, S. (2002) Degrees of Belief - Subjective Probability and
Engineering Judgement, ASCE Press, Virginia.
Wallsten, T.S. and Budescu, D.V. (1983) Encoding subjective probabilities: a psychological and psychometric
Review. Management Science, 29(2), 15173.
Ward, S.C., Chapman, C.B. and Curtis, B. (1991) On the
allocation of risk in construction projects. International
Journal of Project Management, August, 1407.
Wright, G. and Ayton, P. (1987) The psychology of
forecasting, in Wright, G. and Ayton, P. (eds),
Judgmental
Forecasting,
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New York.
93
Scaled estimates and assessed probabilities for the occurrence of adverse ground conditions (relative
likelihood method)
Relative likelihood (smoothed)
Number of
occurrences
Construction Project
Quantity Contracts
of adverse
managers managers surveyors managers
ground
conditions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
0.0
1.5
3.5
5.5
8.0
10.0
12.9
16.0
20.3
24.0
28.0
32.0
38.0
44.5
50.0
55.0
58.0
59.0
59.0
58.5
56.5
53.2
50.5
46.8
43.0
39.0
35.2
32.0
29.0
25.2
21.2
18.0
15.2
13.3
12.0
11.2
10.8
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.3
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
0.0
2.0
4.6
7.0
9.5
12.4
16.0
21.0
26.0
31.5
38.0
45.0
52.0
57.0
60.0
55.0
41.0
30.0
25.0
21.0
18.0
16.0
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.5
11.0
10.6
10.2
10.0
9.9
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.0
0.0
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.8
5.3
6.2
7.0
7.8
8.8
9.6
10.5
11.5
16.6
15.5
17.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
36.0
43.0
50.0
55.0
59.0
60.0
59.0
56.5
53.0
49.2
45.2
40.9
36.6
32.5
29.5
26.5
23.2
20.4
18.2
16.5
15.2
14.2
13.5
13.0
12.6
12.2
11.8
11.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.3
2.8
3.3
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.4
6.0
6.6
7.2
8.0
8.4
9.0
9.8
10.3
11.0
12.0
13.0
15.0
18.0
24.0
30.0
37.0
45.0
52.0
57.5
60.0
57.3
50.0
42.0
35.0
30.0
26.6
24.2
22.1
20.1
18.6
17.3
16.1
15.2
14.5
14.0
13.2
13.0
12.6
Assessed probability
Group
aggregate
0.0
1.0
1.8
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.5
6.4
7.4
8.0
9.0
10.5
12.0
16.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.8
42.0
48.8
54.5
58.5
60.0
59.0
55.5
49.5
43.5
38.0
32.2
27.5
23.5
19.5
16.5
13.6
11.8
11.0
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.3
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
Construction
managers
Project
managers
Quantity
surveyors
Contracts
managers
Group
aggregate
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.011
0.014
0.017
0.020
0.023
0.027
0.032
0.035
0.039
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.041
0.040
0.038
0.036
0.033
0.030
0.028
0.025
0.023
0.021
0.018
0.015
0.013
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.007
0.009
0.012
0.016
0.020
0.025
0.031
0.037
0.044
0.051
0.056
0.058
0.054
0.040
0.029
0.024
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.016
0.015
0.017
0.019
0.024
0.029
0.035
0.042
0.049
0.054
0.057
0.058
0.057
0.055
0.052
0.048
0.044
0.040
0.036
0.032
0.029
0.026
0.023
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.015
0.018
0.023
0.029
0.036
0.044
0.051
0.056
0.058
0.056
0.049
0.041
0.034
0.029
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.020
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.014
0.017
0.021
0.025
0.030
0.036
0.041
0.046
0.050
0.051
0.050
0.047
0.042
0.037
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.020
0.017
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
94
Adams
(Continued)
Relative likelihood (smoothed)
Number of
occurrences
Construction Project
Quantity Contracts
of adverse
managers managers surveyors managers
ground
conditions
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Total
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.0
1,412.0
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
1,026.7
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.3
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.3
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.0
1,026.7
12.4
12.1
11.9
11.6
11.4
11.1
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0
8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.3
6.1
5.8
5.6
5.3
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
1,026.7
Assessed probability
Group
aggregate
Construction
managers
Project
managers
Quantity
surveyors
Contracts
managers
Group
aggregate
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.0
1,179.5
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
95
13
16
19
22
25
28
29
30
32
33
35
36
38
40
41
42
44
45
47
48
50
51
53
54
56
57
55
54
52
51
49
48
46
45
43
42
40
39
37
36
34
33
31
30
28
27
25
24
22
3
20
37
54
71
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
65
63
61
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
46
45
44
43
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
15
22
29
36
43
50
49
49
48
48
47
47
46
46
45
45
44
44
43
43
42
42
41
41
40
40
39
39
39
38
38
38
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
35
35
35
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
1
18
36
53
71
88
85
83
80
77
75
72
69
67
64
62
59
56
54
51
48
46
43
40
38
35
34
34
33
32
32
31
31
30
29
29
28
27
27
26
25
25
24
23
23
22
22
21
20
Assessed probability
Group
aggregate
13
21
30
39
48
57
56
56
55
54
54
53
52
51
51
50
49
49
48
47
47
46
45
44
44
43
42
41
40
39
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
Construction
managers
Project
managers
Quantity
surveyors
Contracts
managers
Group
aggregate
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.019
0.020
0.021
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.024
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.001
0.007
0.012
0.018
0.024
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.005
0.007
0.009
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.000
0.007
0.014
0.021
0.028
0.035
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.019
0.023
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
96
Adams
(Continued)
Number of
occurrences
of adverse
ground
conditions
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Total
21
19
18
18
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
0
2,322
25
25
24
23
23
22
21
21
20
19
19
18
17
17
16
15
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
0
3,001
32
32
31
31
30
30
29
29
28
28
27
26
26
25
25
24
24
23
22
22
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
20
19
19
19
3,069
20
19
18
18
17
17
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2,532
Assessed probability
Group
aggregate
Construction
managers
Project
managers
Quantity
surveyors
Contracts
managers
Group
aggregate
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
18
17
17
16
16
15
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
2,520
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
1.000
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
1.000
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
1.000