Integrating risk management's best practices to estimate deep excavation projects’ time and cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study provides an integrated risk-based cost and time estimation approach for deep excavation projects. The purpose is to identify the best practices in recent advances of excavation risk analysis (RA) and integrate them with traditional cost and time estimation methods. Design/methodology/approach The implemented best practices in this research are as follows: (1) fault-tree analysis (FTA) for risk identification (RI); (2) Bayesian belief networks (BBNs), fuzzy comprehensive analysis and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) for risk analysis; and (3) sensitivity analysis and root-cause analysis (RCA) for risk response planning (RRP). The proposed approach is applied in an actual deep excavation project in Tehran, Iran. Findings The results show that the framework proposes a practical approach for integrating the risk management (RM) best practices in the domain of excavation projects with traditional cost and time estimation approaches. The proposed approach can consider the interrelationships between risk events and identify their root causes. Further, the approach engages different stakeholders in the process of RM, which is beneficial for determining risk owners and responsibilities. Originality/value This research contributes to the project management body of knowledge by integrating recent RM best practices in deep excavation projects for probabilistic estimation of project time and cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".