QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IN LARGE-SCALE GLOBAL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Abstract

This study addresses a persistent problem in enterprise, case-based civil construction delivery: risk tools are common, yet structural integrity outcomes still vary substantially across interfaces, increasing exposure to nonconformities, rework, and reliability risks. The purpose was to quantify how Risk Management Effectiveness (RME) predicts Structural Integrity Performance (SIP) and to identify which risk-cycle dimensions drive integrity outcomes. A quantitative cross-sectional, case-study–based design used a five-point Likert questionnaire in a large-scale global civil construction project case (N = 210 valid responses after screening). Key variables were overall RME and four dimensions (risk identification, risk assessment and prioritization, mitigation or planning, monitoring and communication) and SIP as the dependent construct (compliance discipline, inspection and testing rigor, materials control, and defect closure). The analysis plan applied data screening, composite indexing, descriptive statistics, reliability testing, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression controlling for role, experience, and phase. Reliability was strong (RME α = 0.91; SIP α = 0.88). Descriptively, RME was high (M = 3.87, SD = 0.54), with monitoring and communication the lowest RME dimension (M = 3.71, SD = 0.66); SIP was high (M = 3.76, SD = 0.57) but showed weaker areas in defect closure (M = 3.62, SD = 0.69) and materials traceability and QC consistency (M = 3.67, SD = 0.65). RME correlated strongly with SIP (r = 0.68, p < .001), and each dimension was positively related to SIP (r = 0.56 to 0.63, p < .001). In regression, controls explained 12% of SIP variance (R² = 0.12), while adding overall RME increased explanatory power to 49% (ΔR² = 0.37; β = 0.66, p < .001). The dimensional model reached R² = 0.53, with risk assessment (β = 0.22, p = .004), mitigation or planning (β = 0.31, p < .001), and monitoring or communication (β = 0.19, p = .011) as significant unique predictors, whereas identification was marginal (β = 0.12, p = .071). The findings imply that integrity improvements depend most on execution-focused risk governance that strengthens prioritization discipline, mitigation ownership, and monitoring and escalation, especially to speed defect closure and improve traceability across subcontract tiers.