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

IF 1.8 Q3 MANAGEMENT Construction Economics and Building Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.5130/ajceb.v20i1.6721
Berenger Yembi Renault, J. Agumba, N. Ansary
{"title":"Underlying structures of risk response measures among small and medium contractors in South Africa","authors":"Berenger Yembi Renault, J. Agumba, N. Ansary","doi":"10.5130/ajceb.v20i1.6721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":51729,"journal":{"name":"Construction Economics and Building","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5130/ajceb.v20i1.6721","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Construction Economics and Building","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v20i1.6721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南非中小型承包商风险应对措施的基本结构
尽管人们已经注意到建筑业(CI)中用于应对风险的措施,但审查风险应对措施(RRM)的基本结构的文献有限,尤其是在中小企业中。因此,本研究提出了RRM的探索性因素分析(EFA)结果。采用实证范式,使用结构化问卷,从南非豪登省181名方便抽样的受访者中收集实证原始数据。研究结果支持了现有文献,并通过两个结构实证建立了风险反应的结构组成。具有新兴措施的结构被称为滞后措施,而具有流行措施的结构则被称为风险应对的领先措施。然而,这项研究得出了一个双因素模型,其中所有六个项目都应该用来衡量风险反应。根据所获得的结果,风险规避和风险缓解似乎是衡量风险应对的可靠措施。因此,这项研究可以作为准确衡量风险应对措施的参考,并为每种风险制定商定的应对措施,包括适当的战略和实施所选战略的具体应对措施。该研究仅限于CI,豪登省的建筑业中小企业的研究范围较小;因此,研究结果不能推广到SA的所有中小企业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Construction Economics and Building (formerly known as the Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [AJCEB]) is a peer reviewed, open access publication for original research into all aspects of the economics and management of building and construction, quantity surveying and property management as well as construction and property education. It is free for authors, readers and libraries.
期刊最新文献
The Institutional Field Of Learning From Project-Related Failures – Opportunities and Challenges. Framework for Evaluating the Success of Integrated Project Delivery in the Industrial Construction Sector: A Mixed Methods Approach & Machine Learning Application Success Factors of the Consultant Selection Stage of the Ghanaian Public Construction Projects: The Road Sector’s Perspective Roofing Distributor Employee Perception: Workforce Attraction/Retention and Need Adopting qualitative data in conceptual system dynamic modelling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1