Underlying structures of risk response measures among small and medium contractors in South Africa

Berenger Yembi Renault,Nazee Ansary,Justus Ngala Agumba

doi:10.5130/ajceb.v20i1.6721

Abstract

Although attention has been given to the measures used to respond to risk in the construction industry (CI), there is limited literature that scrutinizes underlying structures of risk response measures (RRMs) especially among small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This study, therefore, presents findings from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of RRMs. A positivist paradigm was adopted to collect empirical raw data from 181 conveniently sampled respondents in Gauteng, South Africa (SA), using a structured questionnaire. The results support the extant literature and empirically established the structural composition of risk response by two constructs. The construct with emerged measures was termed trailing measures while the one with popular measures was termed leading measures of risk response. However, the study yielded a two-factor model with all the six items supposed to measure risk response. Based on the results obtained, it seems that risk avoidance and risk mitigation are reliable measures for measuring risk response. This study could thus serve as a reference for the accurate measurement of risk response and for the development of agreed responses for each risk, including an appropriate strategy and specific responses to implement the chosen strategy. The study was limited to the CI and to a lesser extent, construction SMEs in Gauteng; hence the findings cannot be generalized to all SMEs in SA.

Highlights

Construction projects are laden with risks despite the factual evidence of its industry’s multiform contributions to any country’s citizenry, through Gross Domestic Product (GDP), job provision and poverty alleviation (Mafundu and Mafini, 2019; Hove and Banjo, 2018; Naude and Chiweshe, 2017)
The current study focuses on risk response measures (RRMs), which could be used in handling construction risks at project level of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and explore underlying structures of the measures identified from extant literature
30.90% were owners, 22.10% were owner-managers, 17.10% were project managers, and 15.50% were managers. Other positions such as quantity surveyors and civil engineers were represented by 14.40%, indicating the various types of professions represented in the industry. 22.90% of the respondents had matriculation, 2.80% had no qualification and 14.50% had attended basic schooling

Summary

Introduction

Construction projects are laden with risks despite the factual evidence of its industry’s multiform contributions to any country’s citizenry, through Gross Domestic Product (GDP), job provision and poverty alleviation (Mafundu and Mafini, 2019; Hove and Banjo, 2018; Naude and Chiweshe, 2017). Regardless of the noted contribution of the CI, the industry is generally considered risk inclined due partly to its long and dynamic processes that are complex and involve several interrelated activities with multi-tasked aspects of its project team and workforce (Nanthuru et al, 2018). These activities are in turn coordinated through management processes that are predisposed to risk; a reoccurring phenomenon in construction that can exert either a positive or a negative impact on project objectives (Szymansk, 2017).

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion