International Peer-Reviewed Journal•Open Access•ISSN 2456-8880
irejournals@gmail.com•+91-7433024337

Home / Current Issue / Paper 1723381

1723381 Vol 10 · Issue 3 Download Paper

From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction

Aliyu Suleiman Samaila Mande Precious P. Sokari Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur Umar Farouq Yahaya

Subject area: Science,Engineering and Technology  ·  Area of research: Procurement Management

Abstract

Risk management and procurement are established fields in construction research, but the decision chain connecting them has not been examined as an object in itself. This review asked whether exposure identified by risk analysis reaches the sourcing decision, whether that decision is fixed contractually, and whether performance data returns to the assessment. Following the PRISMA 2020 statement, one hundred and ninety-seven records were retrieved through eight structured searches, citation chaining and hand searching. After duplicate removal, screening and eligibility assessment, one hundred and thirty studies were coded against a five-stage chain comprising exposure diagnosis, analytical triage, procurement allocation, contractual fixing, and monitoring with feedback. Coverage was analysed at stage level, at span level, and as a pairwise co-occurrence matrix, with a sensitivity analysis excluding venues not indexed in Scopus. Every stage proved substantially covered, from ninety studies addressing exposure diagnosis to thirteen addressing monitoring and feedback. Adjacent transitions were far thinner. Forty-two studies linked diagnosis to analysis, but nine linked analyses to a procurement decision, nine linked procurements to the contract, and two linked the contract to monitoring. One hundred and ten studies spanned two stages or fewer, two traversed analyses through procurement into contractual terms, and none covered all five. The findings were stable across corpus sizes and insensitive to venue exclusion. The review contributes a decision-chain coding scheme, evidence that the field's central prescriptive claim rests on a narrow empirical base, and a research agenda addressing the untraversed transitions.

Keywords

Construction supply chain, contract risk allocation, procurement strategy, risk management, systematic review.

References

[1] J. He, D. Han, and J. Matos, “Evaluation of key factors of logistics risks for overseas EPC projects,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2022, no. 1, 2022.

[2] S. Melaku Belay, S. Tilahun, M. Yehualaw, J. Matos, H. Sousa, E. T. Workneh, and H. Chong, “Analysis of cost overrun and schedule delays of infrastructure projects in low income economies: Case studies in Ethiopia,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021.

[3] P. J. Kulemeka, G. Kululanga, and D. Morton, “Critical factors inhibiting performance of small- and medium-scale contractors in sub-Saharan region: A case for Malawi,” Journal of Construction Engineering, vol. 2015, no. 1, 2015. Wiley

[4] A. Martin, Y. Wang, J. Li, and G. Mends, “Technical risk factors of international construction,” The Journal of Engineering, vol. 2018, no. 3, pp. 138–146, 2018.

[5] M. Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh, R. C. Moehler, Y. Fang, H. Aboutorab, and A. A. Hijazi, “Construction supply chain risk management,” Automation in Construction, vol. 162, Art. no. 105396, 2024. ScienceDirect

[6] H. T. Pham, T. Pham, H. Truong Quang, and C. N. Dang, “Supply chain risk management research in construction: A systematic review,” International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1945–1955, 2023. Taylor & Francis

[7] K. Hosseini and Y. Javid, “Risk management in sustainable construction projects: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis,” Industrial Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 303–333, 2024. Industrial Management Journal

[8] S. Seyis and S. Khodabocus, “Trends and future directions of risk management approaches applied in modular construction projects: Systematic review and meta-analysis,” Uludağ University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 311–330, 2024.

[9] L. Chenya, E. Aminudin, S. Mohd, and L. S. Yap, “Intelligent risk management in construction projects: Systematic literature review,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 72936–72954, 2022. IEEE

[10] C. Feng, Q. Guo, and T. Umar, “Hotspots and trends of engineering bidding and tendering in China: A bibliometric analysis,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2025, no. 1, 2025. Wiley

[11] E. Osipova and P. E. Eriksson, “How procurement options influence risk management in construction projects,” Construction Management and Economics, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1149–1158, 2011. Taylor & Francis

[12] Manuj, “Risk management in global sourcing: Comparing the business world and the academic world,” Transportation Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 80–107, 2013. Penn State University Press

[13] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n71, 2021. BMJ

[14] D. Cottafava, L. Corazza, Z. Shams Esfandabadi, and D. Torchia, “Megaprojects from the lens of business and management studies: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 24, no. 3, 2024. Wiley

[15] Y. Wuni, “A systematic review of the critical success factors for implementing circular economy in construction projects,” Sustainable Development, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1195–1213, 2022.

[16] L. Al-Shwaf and J. E. Bell, “Raw material supply risks: Examining extraction and geopolitical conflict,” Transportation Journal, vol. 64, no. 2, 2025. Wiley

[17] E. Tookey, M. Murray, C. Hardcastle, and D. Langford, “Construction procurement routes: Re-defining the contours of construction procurement,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 20–30, 2001. Wiley

[18] A. S. Oyegoke, “UK and US construction management contracting procedures and practices: A comparative study,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 8, nos. 5–6, pp. 403–417, 2001. Wiley

[19] M. M. Rahman and M. M. Kumaraswamy, “Risk management trends in the construction industry: Moving towards joint risk management,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 131–151, 2002. Wiley

[20] Al-Gahtani, M. Shafaay, O. Ahmed, M. Alawshan, N. Alsanabani, S. Aljadhai, and H. B. Ozmen, “Risk factors for time and cost overruns of pipeline projects in Saudi Arabia,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2023, no. 1, 2023.

[21] A. Sohrabinejad, M. Rahimi, and E. Lui, “Risk determination, prioritization, and classifying in construction project case study,” Journal of Construction Engineering, vol. 2015, no. 1, 2015. Wiley

[22] Y. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Zha, and J. Branco, “ISM-BN-based schedule risk analysis in large-scale public projects,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2024, no. 1, 2024. Wiley

[23] O. Moselhi and N. Roofigari-Esfahan, “Compression of project schedules using the analytical hierarchy process,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 19, nos. 1–2, pp. 67–78, 2011. Wiley

[24] F. A. Ahmad Shukri, Z. Isa, and L. Rodino, “Experts' judgment-based Mamdani-type decision system for risk assessment,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021. Wiley

[25] Y. Zhang, N. He, Y. Li, Y. Chen, L. Wang, Y. Ran, and B. Xin, “Risk assessment of water environment treatment PPP projects based on a cloud model,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021. Wiley

[26] D. Yaghubi, M. Doroodian, M. A. Adibi, and R. Lotfi, “Development of a financing optimization framework based on risk simulation in BOT projects,” Complexity, vol. 2023, no. 1, 2023. Wiley

[27] Jiang and A. Rehman, “Research on influencing factors and early warning of university finance based on decision tree model,” Mobile Information Systems, vol. 2022, no. 1, 2022. Wiley

[28] R. Canesi, L. Gabrielli, G. Marella, and A. G. Ruggeri, “Probabilistic risk assessment framework for cost overruns predictions in infrastructure projects using randomized simulations,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 40, no. 27, pp. 4774–4796, 2025. Wiley

[29] Sadeghi, A. R. Fayek, and W. Pedrycz, “Fuzzy Monte Carlo simulation and risk assessment in construction,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 238–252, 2010. Wiley

[30] N. Alatawi, S. Alyahyan, S. Hussain, A. Alshammari, A. A. Aldaeej, I. K. Alali, H. S. Alwageed, and N. Sarwar, “A data-driven artificial neural network approach to software project risk assessment,” IET Software, vol. 2023, no. 1, 2023. Wiley

[31] Ding, N. Wang, L. Hu, and F. Faleschini, “Framework for designing project delivery and contract strategy in Chinese construction industry based on value-added analysis,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2018, no. 1, 2018.

[32] A. Bagul, V. Balon, and A. Mathur, “Sustainable sourcing strategy for mega construction projects: An empirical analysis,” Business Strategy & Development, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 411–419, 2023. Wiley

[33] Singh, A. Dwivedi, D. Agrawal, and A. Chauhan, “A framework to model the performance indicators of resilient construction supply chain,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1688–1720, 2023. Wiley

[34] R. Yu, Z. Wu, S. Qu, and W. Zhang, “Optimal strategy of supply chain considering interruption insurance,” Complexity, vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021. Wiley

[35] Niu, Z. Zheng, and L. Wang, “Information value versus flexibility cost: Comparison of dual sourcing and artificial intelligence sourcing for resilient supply,” Risk Analysis, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 2197–2231, 2025. Wiley

[36] Sivertson, “Hydroelectric projects—Risks and management,” Natural Gas & Electricity, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 14–18, 2013. Wiley

[37] T. M. Rose and K. Manley, “Financial incentives and advanced construction procurement systems,” Project Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 40–50, 2010. Wiley

[38] S. Chen, T. Klastorin, and M. R. Wagner, “Designing practical coordinating contracts in decentralized projects,” Naval Research Logistics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 183–198, 2020. Wiley

[39] S. M. Ahmed, R. Ahmad, and D. D. De Saram, “Risk management trends in the Hong Kong construction industry: A comparison of contractors and owners perceptions,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 225–234, 1999. Wiley

[40] A. Trautrims, S. Gold, A. Touboulic, C. Emberson, and H. Carter, “The UK construction and facilities management sector's response to the Modern Slavery Act,” Business Strategy & Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 279–293, 2020.

[41] J. Oladiran and M. O. Oche, “Public Procurement Act and project time outcomes in Nigeria,” Covenant Journal of Engineering Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, 2024.

[42] N. Emenike, B. A. Ozurumba, C. E. Ubani, and C. P. Ubah, “Impact of the Nigerian 2007 Public Procurement Act on organizations: Enhancing transparency and accountability,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, vol. 9, no. 1, 2025. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science

[43] Shapiro, “Doing business in Nigeria,” Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 3–6, 2014. Wiley

[44] H. Besaiso, M. Abualqumboz, and X. Cheng, “Review of studies on sustainability of public-private partnership projects: A bibliometric analysis,” Sustainable Development, vol. 33, no. S1, pp. 1551–1575, 2025. Wiley

[45] V. Dixit, “Risk assessment of different sourcing contract scenarios in project procurement,” International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1537–1549, 2020.

[46] K. Tembo Silungwe and N. Khatleli, “An analysis of the allocation of pertinent risks in the Zambian building sector using Pareto analysis,” International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 321–334, 2018.

How to cite this paper

Aliyu Suleiman, Samaila Mande, Precious P. Sokari, Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur, Umar Farouq Yahaya "From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 10 Issue 3 2026 Page 3163-3176
Aliyu Suleiman, Samaila Mande, Precious P. Sokari, Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur, Umar Farouq Yahaya "From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 10, no. 3, Sep. 2026
Aliyu Suleiman, Samaila Mande, Precious P. Sokari, Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur, Umar Farouq Yahaya (2026). From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction. Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 10(3).
Aliyu Suleiman, Samaila Mande, Precious P. Sokari, Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur, Umar Farouq Yahaya "From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 10, no. 3, Sep. 2026.
@article{1723381,
      author = {Aliyu Suleiman, Samaila Mande, Precious P. Sokari, Abubakar Abdulkadir Tukur, Umar Farouq Yahaya},
      title = {From Risk Assessment to Procurement Decision: A Systematic Review in Construction},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {3},
      pages = {3163-3176},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1723381.pdf},
      abstract = {Risk management and procurement are established fields in construction research, but the decision chain connecting them has not been examined as an object in itself. This review asked whether exposure identified by risk analysis reaches the sourcing decision, whether that decision is fixed contractually, and whether performance data returns to the assessment. Following the PRISMA 2020 statement, one hundred and ninety-seven records were retrieved through eight structured searches, citation chaining and hand searching. After duplicate removal, screening and eligibility assessment, one hundred and thirty studies were coded against a five-stage chain comprising exposure diagnosis, analytical triage, procurement allocation, contractual fixing, and monitoring with feedback. Coverage was analysed at stage level, at span level, and as a pairwise co-occurrence matrix, with a sensitivity analysis excluding venues not indexed in Scopus. Every stage proved substantially covered, from ninety studies addressing exposure diagnosis to thirteen addressing monitoring and feedback. Adjacent transitions were far thinner. Forty-two studies linked diagnosis to analysis, but nine linked analyses to a procurement decision, nine linked procurements to the contract, and two linked the contract to monitoring. One hundred and ten studies spanned two stages or fewer, two traversed analyses through procurement into contractual terms, and none covered all five. The findings were stable across corpus sizes and insensitive to venue exclusion. The review contributes a decision-chain coding scheme, evidence that the field's central prescriptive claim rests on a narrow empirical base, and a research agenda addressing the untraversed transitions.},
      keywords = {Construction supply chain, contract risk allocation, procurement strategy, risk management, systematic review.},
      month = {September},
  }