International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management

Volume 11 • Issue 1

Theory and Practice in

Contingency Allocation:
Characterizing Evidence From a
Multiple Case Study in Sri Lanka
Chandana Jayalath, University of Vocational Technology, Sri Lanka
Iresha Gamage, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

Although contingency allocation management is widely accepted as a proactive concept rich in

theories, its applications do not seem to be well embraced in many countries due to many factors.
This study aims to broadly investigate this theory-practice gap concerning contingency allocation
in building projects in Sri Lanka. Twelve case studies with a desk review on seven local projects
were carried out to explore the contingency allocation practice at the site level. Fifteen independent
consultants were interviewed to share an understanding of the practical relevance of this research
while largely eliminating the need for further justification. Code-based content analysis was used to
analyze data. Nearly 44 incremental approaches were found to have theoretically evolved in a history
of 35 years. It was revealed that the practice of ascertaining contingency sums is ad-hoc, informal,
and subjective. More than 25 gaps were detected, while nearly 50 strategies were introduced. An
impression among the practitioners is that the formal methods are overly theoretical.

Keywords
Content Analysis, Contingency Allocation, Management, Projects, Risk Management, Strategies, Theory-
Practice Gap

INTRODUCTION

Contingency has become a widely used tool to control risks in an informed and structured way (Mills,
2001). Similarly, assigning contingency within the project value is often considered as a minimum
threshold in risk management. Hence, contingency allocation is one of the salient features in any
form of construction contracting. As a concept, contingency has several dimensions so that a wide
variety of interpretations exists. Contingency is generically defined as a reserve for unexpected events
(Howell, 2012). In the same way, a contingency could be used as a functional monetary incentive
by evaluating various risk drivers (Mei Liu et al., 2013). However, the term contingency, as mainly
defined by many authors, is to describe the budgeted amount to scaffold cost overruns (Querns, 1989;
Smith and Bohn 1999; Baccarini, 2004; Günhan and Arditi, 2007). In addition, contingency refers to
a pool of money reserved to shield unanticipated project costs (Davis, 2020). Because contingency
plays a vital role in construction projects, good attention should be given to allocating contingency
amounts used to cover up the probable risks.

DOI: 10.4018/IJRCM.290039 *Corresponding Author


Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


1
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Akintoye and MacLeod (1996) confirmed that contingency allocation depends mainly on
instinct, ruling, and practice. Further, Akintola et al. (1996) contended that formal techniques are
rarely used on many grounds; lack of knowledge and doubts on the suitability of these techniques.
M Otali, IA Odesola (2014) contended that the percentage so allowed for projects ranges between
5- 20 merely on the consultants’ will. In research on risk management of constructions in developing
countries, Bahamid and Doh (2017) found a heavy dependence on practical experience when assessing
contingency allocation. In Sri Lanka, the way cost categories are ranged very conservatively, resulting
in a contingency sum being far larger or smaller than what might be needed (Kanchana et al., 2009). A
considerable prominence is given to contract clauses in dealing with risk transference than managing
contingencies (Kanchana et al., 2009). Quite often, the Sri Lankan practice adds 10% of the total
value of the preliminaries and measured works (Jayalath, 2012).
Even though the term Contingency has been well established in the construction industry,
management of such contingency allocation was not sufficiently argued. Therefore, there is a need
to truly enhance contingency allocation practices to provide all-out benefits to all stakeholders. This
run-through starts with a proper allocation of a contingency sum within the budgeted amount at the
outset. In order to promote sensible allocation of contingency sums, it is crucial to recognize the
way it truly works in the construction industry compared to the theories developed in the academic
and research arena. Although there are many different theoretical approaches, there is no evidence
in empirical research as to why gaps between theory and practice exist. Hence, the question targeted
to address this research is” How to bridge contingency allocation management theory-practice gap
existing in the building construction industry”. This knowledge base is expected to pave the way
for greater synergy to better the construction industry. This research is aimed to broadly investigate
the theory-practice gap about contingency allocation in building projects. The objectives are to
determine the purposes of contingency allocation, the rationality behind methods used in ascertaining
contingency as an integral part of budgeting, and derive strategies to encourage the application of
more sophisticated tools related to contingency allocation. The scope of this research is confirmed
within the allocation tools and its application in building construction which has its risk profile poles
apart when compared with other types of projects.

LITERATURE FINDINGS

Literature findings are presented incrementally in the order of defined objectives and ultimately
reaches towards the research aim.

Functions of Contingency Allocation

Contingency is aimed to manage risks (Ford, 2002). A more settled outlook is to minimize threats
and exploit opportunities (Ibrahim et al., 2014). Budgets provide the basis for cost control in the
time being (Baccarini, 2004). According to Akinsola (1996), contingency is decisive in achieving
project objectives. Contingency funds are included in development budgets to address deviations
that threaten project objectives (Diekmann, Sewester, and Taker, 1988). Contingencies are used to
cater for unforeseeable events (Jayalath, 2011). The use of contingency is a kind of financial risks
treatment. In the designer’s eyes, contingency is important to accommodate updates that need to be
made as the design develops (Davis, 2020). Contingency sum caters to scope creep when changes
to the design are required (Davis, 2020). In a nutshell, it enhances the ability to hedge against risks
encountered during construction (Jayalath, 2011). The function of contingency allocation in managing
risks is indeed versatile.

2
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Theoretical Developments in Relation to Contingency Allocation Tools

Determination of contingency allocation has evolved with many theoretical methods over time. Such
tools used to determine contingencies as available in literature can be presented in a summarized
way. See Table 1.

Determining Contingency Allocation

Assigning a percentage is considered arbitrary, so the validity is questionable (Yeo 1990, Newton
1992). All too often, the risk is either ignored or underestimated (Thompson & Perry, 1992).
Percentage addition results in a single-figure prediction only (Mak et al., 1998). It indicates only the
downside risk, not any potential for cost-saving (Mak et al., 1998). Moreover, it does not encourage
creativity in estimating, either. It is merely a routine and mundane administrative approach requiring
almost no analysis (Yeo 1990, Mak et al. 1998). Hogg (2003) reported ‘intuitive perception’ does
not necessarily reflect the project’s overall perception. A contingency percentage can be allocated to
each cost item (Moselhi, 1997) in work breakdown structure (Karlsen and Lereim, 2005) or several
work packages (Ahmad, 1992), and the project’s overall contingency is estimated as a weighted
average. According to Ahmad (1992), each work package can be treated as a risk center, and the
amount of contingency allocated will be different. Hence, the most basic deterministic method ranges
from estimating a general percentage to weightage average (Baccarini 2004, Barraza 2010). In both
methods, Anderson, Mukherjee, and Onder (2010) highlighted that contingencies are determined
subjectively using intuition, experience, and historical data. Moselhi (1997) considered that these
subjective approaches are arbitrary and unscientific.
Quoting many studies, Ford (2002) contended that contingencies are often subjective and non-
systematic, and formal methods are rarely used. Ford (2002) insisted that an aggressive strategy can
only be robust but performed poorer than a passive strategy. Smith and Bohn (1999) criticized how
complex the formal methods are to be applied. Barraza (2010) considered that complexity is the
major reason why formal methods are not preferred. González, Alarcón, and Molenaar (2009) and
González et al. (2011) added up that empirical evidence of the actual practice is limited, jointly with
Ford (2002) and Laryea and Hughes (2010), formal methods are overly theoretical and hard to apply.

Theory Practice Gap

Various studies have confirmed that the theory-practice gap exists. Summarizing an unswerving
nursing problem, Greenway et al. (2019) advocated that the gap between theorists and practitioners
triggers the hidden theories encountered within their practice, of which they may not even be aware.
Matthew and Tucker (2018) accentuated when clinical practice does not use the best scientific evidence,
leading to non-standard care of the patient. Similarly, Scully (2010) indicated that the theory-practice
gap represents the separation of the practical dimension from the theoretical knowledge despite
differing elucidations. Scholars have been raising different issues on the reason behind the gap, for
instance, in translating the knowledge produced in the research into practice straight (Sudhir Rana,
2008). Another challenge is when the knowledge creators and practitioners often live in different
environments and have different purposes for using the knowledge produced. There are four major
ways in which the “theory-practice gap” is identified; (a) knowledge transfer gap, (b) philosophical
gap, (c) knowledge production gap, and (d) knowledge implementation gap. This study uses this
particular gap as a basis for empirical investigation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A literature survey on theoretical development establishes the initial focus of the study. A qualitative
approach establishes credibility mainly when the context is recognizable to those who share the
experience and those who care for or treat them (Hammarberg , 2016). Followed by a discussion

3
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Table 1. Tools of contingency allocation

No CM tools Author
1 Controlled Interval Memory Cooper and Chapman (1985)
2 Different percentage to different components of an estimate Patrascu (1988)
3 Range Estimating Curran (1989)
4 Method of Moments Diekmann, 1983; Moselhi, 1997, Yeo
1990;
5 Range estimating using Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution K. T. Yeo (1990)
(TOPSIS)
6 Regression Merrow & Schroeder 1991; Aibinu &
Jagboro 2002
7 Probabilistic bill of quantities using expected value and standard deviation Silva, TLRT (1992)
8 Fuzzy Sets Paek, Lee, & Ock, 1993
9 Analytical Hierarchy Process Dey, Tabucanon & Ogunlana, 1994
10 Contingency Allocation and Management (CALM) model Ranasinghe (1994)
11 Traditional percentage Ahmad, 1992; Moselhi 1997
12 Individual risks – expected value Mak, Wong & Picken 1998
13 Influence Diagrams Diekmann & Featherman 1998
14 Elemental probability of cost overrun Woollett (1998)
15 Artificial Neural Networks Chen & Hartman 2000; Williams 2003
16 Monte Carlo Simulation Lorance & Wendling 2001
17 Factor Rating Hackney, 1985, Oberlander & Trost,
2001
18 A neural network approach to contingency allocation. Chen, Dong (2000)
19 Estimating using risk analysis (ERA) Mak and Picken (2000)
20 Probabilistic model considering chance of change orders and their impact Touran (2003)
21 Theory of Constraints Leach (2003)
22 Calculated on the level of confidence assuming a Poisson arrival pattern for change orders Baccarini (2004)
23 Statistical analysis of past projects Baccarini (2004)
24 A stochastic linear programming model and convex-concave utility model Thibadeau (2006)
25 Historical approach treating individual items that are most risk prone Günhan (2007)
26 Simulating iterative cycles of concurrent design and construction resulting from unanticipated Motawa (2007)
changes and their subsequent impacts.
27 A three-tier approach for risk analysis and contingency estimation Molenaar and Wilson (2009)
28 Integrating a fuzzy logic-based change prediction model with the system dynamics model of the Wilson (2010)
Dynamic Planning and Control Methodology (DPCM)
29 The sum of the ‘average risk allowance’ Mak, Wong & Picken (2010)
30 Risk analysis and fuzzy expert system Idrus, Nuruddin & Rohman, 2011.
31 Equivalent linear stochastic process to model the complex non-linear random variation with time Espinoza (2011)
of the technical and market uncertainty for projects.
32 Estimation and depletion of contingency over project durations resulting a possibility measure, Moselhi and Salah (2012)
agreement index, fussiness measure, ambiguity measure and quality fuzzy number index.
33 Focused on the contingency allocation from two perspectives; estimating and depletion of Ahmad (2012)
contingency over project duration
34 Compounded price contingency using inflationary indexes ADB (2014)
35 Optimism Bias and Top-down approaches Bhakshi (2014)
36 A fuzzy-set based model using indices, measures, and ratios to quantify and characterize these Salah and Moselhi (2015)
uncertainties.
37 Fuzzy expert system Tesfaye et al, (2016)
38 Integrated project key performance indicators with future risk perception Ayuba et al (2016)
39 Based on the activity’s contribution to the overall cost variance of the project, including cost, Hamad et al, (2016)
uncertainty, and criticality in schedule
40 Using dynamics of how project managers can spend their contingencies into three S-shaped cost Narbaev and De Marco (2017)
growth profiles by the Gompertz model using nonlinear regression
41 Multiple regression method can be applied as a reliable tool to predict contingency sums Lam and Siwingwa (2017)
42 Risk-based econometric models and Monte Carlo simulation Bhargava, Labi, Chen, Saeed, & Sinha,
2017.
43 Risks are adequately assessed together with their impact on the construction project Akinradewo et al. (2019)
44 A Monte Carlo simulation approach for both time and cost contingency allocation where Traynor & Mahmoodian (2019)
individual components are assigned a time and cost contingency.

4
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Table 2. Profile of the case study

Project Type Cost overrun* Time overrun* Responsibility Documents dealt with
A apartment 68 100 Chief quantity Cost plan, Cash flow.
complex surveyor Contingency plan.
B hotel project 52 125 Cost controller Business plan.
Cash flow.
Bill of quantities
C Housing 73 250 Resident Cost report
development Engineer
D condominium 95 185 Project Engineer Cost plan, Cash flow.
project Contingency plan.
E Hospital 80 105 Project Quantity Bill of quantities 
extension project Surveyor Monthly interim statement
F a factory and 40 40 Project Quantity Priced bill of quantities
warehouse Surveyor
G School extension 60 125 Project Engineer Monthly interim statement,
project financial report
* Percentage compared to initial contract sum and scheduled completion

on the initial findings of a pilot survey, this research has adopted multiple case studies and expert
interviews. In addition, a multiple case study in the form of a documentary review was executed
(Table 2). Multiple-case studies add observations for study without partaking in a quantitative terrain
(Jenny S, 2011). These are recently completed local building projects, the cost of which exceeded
100 million Rs.

Expert Interviews
Interviews are a data collection technique that can obtain in-depth views and reliable data from
competent interviewees (Fellows and Liu 2015); (Walliman 2011). When the interviewees are
highly qualified, their information could be true but hidden (Libakova et al., 2015). Thus, a series of
expert interviews were conducted to gauge the perception of knowledge gaps from an independent
perspective. Findings of the literature survey and site-based interview outcome provided the basis of
expert interviews conducted via zoom. Purposive sampling on inclusion criteria which is a minimum
of 25 years’ experience, continued until data saturation. Thirty-two experts in commercial and risk
management in construction projects were interviewed, eliminating the need to use additional screening
because respondents are highly qualified in the analyzed question.

Content Analysis
Interview findings were transcribed and analyzed using NVivo 11 code-based content analysis
software. The objective is to systematically transform a large amount of text into a highly organized
and concise summary of key results. The raw data from verbatim transcribed interviews form categories
or themes (Christein and Petra, 2017). In this approach, open coding steps were performed while
continuously comparing data alongside the interviews.

5
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

International Case Studies

Several methods, from simple percentage calculation to more sophisticated probability-based methods,
have been researched and introduced in the academic arena over three decades. For example, risk
engineering models for decision-making under uncertainty have existed since the 1980s despite their
use seeming very limited. While classifying these techniques broadly in two key groups, deterministic
and probabilistic, it is clear that there are incremental value additions within the key groups. The
following is a narrative of foreign case studies focused inter-alia on the method of determining
contingencies. Various tools adopted, the drivers that inspired the use of these tools, and the barriers
that hamper the utilization of new methods with the strategies suggested are given in Table 3.
Most of the cases follow the traditional percentage method where a percentage of the initial
contract sum is across-the-board applied as a fixed sum forming part of the contract sum. The disposal
of contingency sums is retained solely at the discretion of the employer. A key driver is that this
method is easy to use and requires no additional effort.

Local Case Studies

The intended function, method, rationality behind implementing CM for each local project are
tabulated in Table 4.
The purposes of contingency applied in each project were only slightly different. Having a
contingent amount for almost every selected project was to use as a buffer stock of some money to
utilize as and when necessary to cope with additional works, scope creeps, price escalation, etc., during
the progress for which no special approval is required. The next common reason was to accommodate
new works that may crop up when the project is nearing completion and when the budget has been
substantially exhausted. The literature confirms that the purpose of any systematic contingency
allocation is risk absorption, cost control, functional monetary incentive, baseline management, and
budget control and management reserve. However, the local practice is limited to either management
reserve or budget control. In terms of calculation methods, nearly 45 methods have been evolved over
35 years. However, the local practice is confined to a predefined percentage or a fixed sum which is
almost a gut feeling. The literature suggests that contingencies should encompass cost provision for
possible eventualities assessed as a reasonably high risk. To overcome poor performance, contingency
should be allocated to specific risk components and not treated as a general ‘bucket’ of additional
funds. It has been suggested that contingency allocation should be commensurate with the risks
associated with project cost overruns or underruns and project types. However, the local practice
is that contingency allocation caters for events specifically within a defined project scope that are
unknown, undefined, uncertain, or unforeseeable, assuming that all the projects entail more or less a
similar risk profile. The previous comparison depicts the gap between theory and practice concerning
contingency allocation in building construction. There are no significant differences between local
practice and international practice, except a few cases reported (Ignesio et al., 2004). In both contexts,
contingency allocation is ad-hoc, subjective, informal, and has no established framework (Buertey
and Ignatius, 2012; Mukhtar, 2012; Ford, 2002; Otali and Odesola, 2014; Lam and Siwingwa, 2017;
Smith and Bohn, 1999).

Gap Identification and Strategies for Filling the Gaps

The interviews were more of a discourse structured around verifying the gap and the measures to
overcome or minimize these gaps. The analysis was done using NVivo (version 11). The themes were
presented under four dimensions, i.e., (a) philosophical gaps, (b) knowledge production gaps, (c)
knowledge transfer gaps, and (d) knowledge implementation gaps. The categories cover the industry
requirements that emerged from the literature survey and case studies and the comments specifically
made by interviewees. A long list of gaps and strategies concerning contingency allocation emerged

6
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Table 3. Contingency allocation in building projects

# Author Country Research Findings

CM Tools Drivers Barriers/weaknesses Strategies for
Improvement
1 Buertey and Ghana Primarily used Ease of application Unavailability of any tested Develop a
Ignatius (2012) traditional methods and approved framework framework, retraining
and lack of knowledge on professionals to
complex risk analysis acquire knowledge in
risk analysis
2 Mukhtar (2012) Nigeria Percentage on budget Traditional practice Lack of formal policy or Organizations
value reliable guidelines for allocation of should establish a
project cost contingency policy or guideline
which is more often for allocation of
inadequate to cater for all the contingency fund.
risks and uncertainties
3 Bello and South An intuitive 5% Intuition, no additional Contingency allowance has Enhance awareness of
Odusami (2012) Africa allowance effort, ‘everyone neither been adequate nor benefits of using new
does it’ technically predictable. and models
no formal reporting within
their organizations
4 Otali and Odesola Nigeria Traditional Ability to rely on past Process of cost contingency Enhance awareness
(2014) percentage between experience, historical estimation lacks framework
5- 20 while the average data and organizational and it a well-defined lacks
contingency allowed is culture that upholds any scientific basis and a
10.4 (%). conservative approaches structured risk management
approach.
5 Lam and Zambia Traditional percentage Ease of use Organizations do not have Introduce site-based
Siwingwa (2017) on initial contract sum established guidelines for the user manuals,
estimation and management workshops etc.
of contingency funds.
6 Ignesio et al. Spain Despite few maintains Complexity involved in Pessimistic attitude on Educate site-based
(2004) formal procedures, modern tools new methods, resistance to personnel on modern
contingencies are often change methods
defined in a subjective
manner.
7 Jackson (2004) Australia A reluctance to utilize Showing precisely Lack of time allocated or A series of
formal cost allocation where contingencies available for application of contingency plans
procedures on minor were used and indicates the techniques. E capital based on historical
projects, estimated the balance of the works projects are often data could be
to cost less than $1 available contingency required urgently. developed as templates
million. to be applied to
various project types.
8 Mak, Wong & Hong Kong Capital cost estimating Reduce unnecessary Significant difference in Further improvement
Picken (2010) using risk analysis and exaggerated variation and consistency and refinement of
(ERA) allowance for risk. between these groups the ERA method is
suggested.
9 Infrastructure New Flexibility of approach Allows for most suitable Relies on accuracy and Quantify appropriate
NSW (2014) Zealand in applying options 1 method to be adopted completeness of risk profile, contingency funds
deterministic and 2, based on risk profile requires defined guidelines across the portfolio,
probabilistic depending and lifecycle of project, and thresholds for when and based upon the
on the lifecycle stage provides robust method how each method is to be assessed risk profile
and risk profile. to cover all identified applied to enable accurate
risks financial appraisal and
control.
10 Okere (2018) UK Weighted average Ease of use Lack of interest, lack Should be
of awareness, lack of commensurate with
stakeholder patronage for the risks. consider
modern tools project cost overruns
or underruns as the
work proceeds
11 Baccarini (2014) Australia A percentage Intuition, past Arbitrary method of Encourage creativity
contingency onto the experience and contingency calculation in estimating
estimated cost of a historical data difficult for the estimator to practice, promote
project is typical justify or defend routine and mundane
administrative
approach
12 Hoseini et al. Netherland Traditional percentage Ease of use Projects were not confident Encourage influx of
(2020) about their estimates and the modern methods in
increase can be explained simple terms
by a lack of experience,
organizations’ culture, or the
phenomenon of “pessimistic
bias.”

7
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Table 4. Purpose, method and rationality of contingency allocation

Case Purpose of Contingency allocation Method of Calculating Rationality

contingency
A Controlling the budget overrun due On awarding the contract, Assume that projects have equal risk
to unforeseen circumstances, seen as 10% of the contract value profile
a license to exceed the budget in the is included as contingency
knowledge that the client has a reserve in the cost plan.
that can be spent.
B Allowing the design to evolve in an Contingency amount given Assume that estimated project cost is
orderly fashion while ensuring that you fixed in the contract sum. realistic and sufficient to contain any
are aware of the likely total ‘end cost’ cost incurred by risks
C Catering unforeseen events or Retention. Catering events within a
unresolved design modifications, defined project scope that are
unknown, undefined, uncertain or
unforeseeable;
D Providing compensation for “estimating On awarding the contract, A means to reduce the impact if
accuracy based on quantities assumed 20% of the contract value retained risks eventuate
or measured, unanticipated market is included as contingency
conditions, scheduling delays and in the cost plan.
acceleration issues, lack of bidding
competition, subcontractor defaults,
and interfacing omissions between
various work categories.
E Allowing for items, conditions, or Contingency allocation A risk management tool. It provides a
events for which the state, occurrence, of 15% on the work done means to reduce the impact if retained
or effect is uncertain and that deducted from each risks eventuate
experience shows will likely result, interim bill
in aggregate, in additional costs. A
separate management reserve is given
F As a management reserve, Unexpended provisional A reserve of money
sums
G Control of cost overrun The percentage Project managers use key
contingencies applied performance indicators (KPIs) for
and reduced as better contingency release decisions
particulars about the
project become available
and some risks have
passed or been overcome.

during the interviews, and interviewees highly desired some strategies. Finally, the identified gaps
and strategies were combined ‘like-for-like’ to produce the broader knowledge gaps (themes). The
research findings are presented in Table 5.

LS-Literature Survey, CS-Case Study, EI-Expert Interview

In terms of philosophical gaps, practitioners are reluctant to use direct findings from academic research
on the notion that theory does not work or is harder to implement. This idea has been reiterated
by Carter and Craig R (2008). On the same token, researchers often fail to integrate practitioners’
perspectives (Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft, 2001). Pettigrew (2001) interpreted this issue as a gap of
knowledge production. It was also found that site-level managers take a passive attitude in academic
research when making site-level decisions. This is true with the arguments cited by Abrahamson
1996 and Mowday (1997). The respondents believed that the scholars do not consider practitioners’
perspectives, agreeing with the idea of Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft (2001) while accepting the fact

8
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Table 5. Bridging contingency allocation theory-practice gap

Gaps Identified Source Strategies to Bridge Gaps

Identified

PHILOSOPHICAL GAPS  Incentivize new approaches and appraisal for system change
1. A threat to conservative system that operates on the caveat EI  Client participation in fisting new approaches
of precedence   Compare and contrast projects with and without proper risk
2. ‘We offer what client wants’ mindset CS management applications
3. Risks are anyway inherent in projects LS/CS/EI Open up access for new knowledge via site-based workshops and
4. Latest knowledge is anyway far away in access LS/CS/EI pilot programs
5. Time is more valuable than money  Introduce audit and appraisal of both time and contingency
6. This is not actual cash but a notional value  CS allocation 
7. CM awareness sessions are not relevant to all CM workshops CS Value is a function of cost and time. Educate the relationship
take time and CS/EI between these variables 
additional cost  CM is a part of agenda in cost meetings
8. Difficulty of selecting suitable CM  Short term brainstorm sessions at office and site level 
methodology for different construction CS CM implementation guideline
projects  Pilot application, trial and error, back up option
9. CM new developments are of no practical use  Theory works. Attitudinal change required, exploit the
EI commercial benefits and convert it a bonus scheme

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION GAPS  Conduct tailor made mock ups 

1. Lack of practical guidance  LS/EI Compile policies with the patronage of regulatory bodies
2. Lack of policy  LS/EI Conduct workshops and seminars on CM, 
3. Lack of qualified staff LS/EI Revisit the contractual provisions and reinforce the necessity of
4. Contracts give no prominence to CM LS/CS/EI CM applications 
5. Practical issues are not addressed in research CS/EI Introduce certificate courses and assign credit values on CM
studies
Arrange meet up sessions to share research knowledge to
industry and industry issues for researches. Researchers to
cooperate more with practitioners in formulating problems

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFERRING GAPS  Advise clients on importance of implementing CM, motivate

1. Client’s lack of motive due to unawareness of CM benefits EI investors by conducting workshops and seminars on CM,
2. Wrong CM practices due to no experience in CM  Supports CM implementation by funding selected projects
3. Less commitment from top management to implement CM LS/EI Govern CM knowledge sharing and controlling, collaborate with
4. The awareness of CM and its application in the construction  contracting and consulting organizations when implementing
industry is low EI CM, conduct tailor made mock up CM workshop. Develop CM
5. Lack of communication with overseas CM practitioners  implementation guideline
6. Poor knowledge transformation from researcher to industry LS/EI Motivate employees to learn CM, adjust organization structure
 to suit CM implementation
EI Collaborate with contracting and consulting organizations when
 implementing, conduct tailor made mock up CM workshops,
LS/EI Govern CM knowledge sharing and controlling, Develop CM
implementation guideline
Bring foreign experts to train Sri Lankan construction
professionals
Arrange meet up sessions to share research knowledge to
industry and industry issues for researches

KNOWLEDGE IMPLEMENTATION GAPS  Identify potential professionals who are practicing CM, Mandate
1. Difficulty of gathering all practitioners for CM EI CM education for professionals
2. Tight work schedule allocated for consultants  Govern CM knowledge sharing and controlling, Do proper
3. Myths of CM (no need CM for small projects) EI project planning
4. Conflicts within the project team LS/EI Post evaluation of projects and document lessons learned
5. No special monetary benefit for  Improve attitude of the professionals to implement CM
consultant EI Prove benefit accruable on implementing CM
EI Introduce contractual provisions for consultants to get additional
payments for implementing VM

that there is a knowledge transfer problem. Respondents also contended that most of the findings
have less relevance to their day-to-day practice. This is wholly a knowledge production question that
insists on the importance of more practice-oriented and managerially relevant research.
The knowledge production problem centers upon how to generate managerially relevant research
better, to begin with. However, there must be a sufficient criterion to ensure relevance. The term
relevance refers to creating knowledge that is used to understand better phenomena relating to what
practitioners handle. Indeed, practitioners are better positioned to identify relevant research vacuum
(Campbell, Daft and Hulin 1982). This can often be promoted through incremental, rigorous, but
relevant studies. This concern has been expressed by professionals and scholars alike in the preceding
study.
9
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

CONCLUSION

Contingency allocation management is rich in theories. However, an appreciation is lacking. Case

study findings revealed that contingencies are allocated mainly in budget control. However, the premise
behind contingency allocation is not fully embraced by the construction industry personnel except
few instances. No significant difference is reported between the international practice and the local
practice. Most projects in both contexts use the traditional percentage assignment as a contingency,
which is a mere subjective judgment based on educated guess than any rational approach. Around
25 gaps between theory and practice were found in the study. Gaps remain apparently because of a
lack of established framework, a guideline for contingency allocation, the complexity involved in the
overall process, lack empirical evidence as to the success of implementation, and the practitioners’
impression that the formal methods are overly theoretical. The most evident reason for the gap is less
awareness. Resistance to change is the second most significant reason. In addition, gaps such as lack
of time, lack of experience, lack of commitment and non-availability of policies were also highlighted.
The implementation of contingency allocation management theories in local and foreign construction
sectors is far behind the latest theoretical developments. The strategies in minimizing these gaps
proposed by experts are site-based training and knowledge sharing. Enhancing the industry orientation
of academicians via an institutional mechanism will result in a synergetic effect on risk management.
The academics and practitioners have a dual role to play in bridging the gaps identified in this study.
A couple of methodical limitations have been encountered in this research. Sample selection
is purposive due to a handful of practitioners having hands-on experience in construction risk
management in the Sri Lankan context. Due to insufficient sample size, any statistical measurement
was difficult, if not impossible. The lack of previous research studies on the topic relevant to the
substantive context of building projects also became a methodical limitation. No conflicts were
arising from any bias, cultural or otherwise. The context is building construction, like other types
of projects, would entail different risk profiles. The findings may be important for policy, practice,
theory, and subsequent research. It is believed that the research outcome would enhance awareness
among the industry practitioners on vast chunks of theoretical know-how and foster sophistication
of the same at determining the contingency allocation for their projects.

10
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

REFERENCES

ADB. (2014). Preparing and Presenting Cost Estimates for Projects and Programs Financed by the Asian
Development Bank. Financial Management Technical Guidance Note.
Ahmad, I. (1992). Contingency Allocation: A Computer-aided Approach. AACE Transactions, 28, F.4.1-7.
Aibinu, A. A., & Jagboro, G. O. (2002). The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 593–599. doi:10.1016/S0263-
7863(02)00028-5
Akinsola, A.O. (1996). A neutral network model for predicting building projects’ contingency. Proceedings of
Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 507–516.
Alves, T., & Tommelein, I. D. (2004). Simulation of buffering and batching practices in the interface detailing-
fabrication-installation of HVAC ductwork. Proceedings of IGLC-12.
Anderson, G. R., Mukherjee, A., & Onder, N. (2009). Traversing and querying constraint driven temporal
networks to estimate construction contingencies. Automation in Construction, 18(6), 798–813. doi:10.1016/j.
autcon.2009.03.010
Andi, A. (2004). Appropriate allocation of contingency using risk analysis methodology. Civil Engineering
Dimension, 6(1), 40–48.
Baccarini, D. (2004). Accuracy in estimating project cost construction contingency— A statistical analysis. In The
Int. Construction Research Conf. of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Leeds Metropolitan University.
Bahamid, R. A., & Doh, S. I. (2017). A review of risk management process in construction projects of
developing countries. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 271, 12-21. doi:10.1088/1757-
899X/271/1/012042
Ballard, G. (2005). Construction: one type of project production system. 13th International Group for Lean
Construction Conference: Proceedings. International Group of Lean Construction, 29.
Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1995). Toward construction JIT. Lean Construction.
Barraza, G. A. (2010). Probabilistic estimation and allocation of project time contingency. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(4), 259–265. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000280
Bello, W. A., & Odusami, K. T. (2012). The effectiveness of construction contingency in contract delivery in
Nigeria. Proceedings of the construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors RICS COBRA 2012, 1627-1636.
Bent, J. A., & Humphreys, K. K. (1996). Effective project management through applied cost and schedule
control. M. Dekker. doi:10.1201/9781482273519
Bhargava, A., Labi, S., Chen, S., Saeed, T. U., & Sinha, K. C. (2017). Predicting cost escalation pathways and
deviation severities of infrastructure projects using risk-based econometric models and Monte Carlo simulation.
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32(8), 620–640. doi:10.1111/mice.12279
Bilal, A. (2016). Dynamic management of cost contingency: Impact of KPIs and risk perception. International
Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction, 145, 82 – 87.
Bilal, A. (2019). Contingency release during project execution: The contractor’s decision-making dilemma.
Project Management Journal, 12(2), 1–15.
Bradd, A. T., & Mojtaba, M. (2019). Time and cost contingency management using Monte Carlo simulation.
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(1), 11–18. doi:10.1080/14488353.2019.1606499
Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. (1982). What to study: Generating and developing research questions.
Sage.
Carter, C. R. (2020). Knowledge production and knowledge transfer: Closing the research-practice gap. The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 22–45.

11
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Chapman, C. (2000). Project risk management: the required transformations to become project uncertainty
management. In PMI Research Conference. Paris. PMI.
Chen, D. & Hartman, F. T. (2000). A neural network approach to risk assessment and contingency allocation.
AACE Transactions.
Christein, E., & Petra, B. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001 PMID:30456117
CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association). (1996). Control of risk: a guide to the
systematic management of risk from construction. CIRIA.
Clark, F. D., & Lorenzoni, A. B. (1985). Applied cost engineering. M. Dekker.
Cooper, D. F., & Chapman, C. B. (1985). Risk analysis of a construction cost estimate. International Journal
of Project Management, 3(3), 141–149. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(85)90065-1
Curran, M. W. (1989). Range Estimating. Cost Engineering (Morgantown, W. Va.), 31(3), 18–26.
Dey, P., Tabucanon, M. T., & Ogunlana, S. O. (1994). Planning for project control through risk analysis, a
petroleum pipelaying project. International Journal of Project Management, 12(1), 23–33. doi:10.1016/0263-
7863(94)90006-X
Diekmann, J. E. (1983). Probabilistic estimating: Mathematics and applications. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 109(3), 297–308. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1983)109:3(297)
Diekmann, J. E., & Featherman, W. D. (1998). Assessing cost uncertainty: Lessons from environmental
restoration projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6), 445–451. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(445)
Diekmann, J. E., Sewester, E. E., & Taker, K. (1988). Risk management in capital projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 128(1), 30–39.
Duriau, L., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in
organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research
Methods, 10(1), 5–34. doi:10.1177/1094428106289252
Eldosouky, I., Ibrahim, A. H., & Mohammed, H. E.-D. (2014). Management of construction cost contingency
covering upside and downside risks. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 12(2), 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2014.09.008
Espino, E., Aranda, C., Walsh, K., Hutchinson, T., Restrepo, J., Hoehler, M., & Bachman, R. (2012). Relationship
of time lag buffer to material stockpile bufferlevels. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International
Group forLean Construction (IGLC 20).
Espinoza, D. (2011). Contingency estimating using option pricing theory: Closing the gap between theory and
practice. Construction Management and Economics, 29(9), 913–927. doi:10.1080/01446193.2011.610328
Fellows, M., & Liu, L. (2015). Research Methods for Construction. John Wiley & Sons.
Fisher, R. B. (2004). Partnering construction contracts: A conflict avoidance process. AACE International
Transactions, 21(1), 45–68.
Ford, D. N. (2002). Achieving multiple project objectives through contingency management. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 128(1), 56–67. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:1(30)
González, V., Alarcón, L. F., Maturana, S., & Bustamante, J. A. (2011). Site management of work-in-process
buffers to enhance project performance using the reliable commitment model: Case study. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(9), 707–715. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000346
González, V., Alarcón, L. F., & Molenaar, K. (2009). Multi-objective design of work-in-process buffer
for scheduling repetitive building projects. Automation in Construction, 18(2), 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.
autcon.2008.05.005
Greenway, K., Butt, G., & Walthall, H. (2019). What is a theory-practice gap? An exploration of the concept.
Nurse Education in Practice, 34(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2018.10.005 PMID:30393025

12
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Günhan, S., & Arditi, D. (2007). Budgeting owner’s construction contingency. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 133(7), 492–497. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:7(492)
Hackney, J. W. (1985). Applied contingency analysis. AACE Transactions, B.1-4.
Hamad, E. (2016). Allocation and management of cost contingency in projects. Journal of Management
Engineering, 32(6), 12–34. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000447
Hamburger, D. (1994). Upper management’s leadership role in the contingency planning and control process.
In PMI Annual Seminar and Symposium. PMI.
Hammarberg, L., Kirkman, M., & Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and
how to judge them. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 31(3), 498–501. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev334
PMID:26759142
Hartman, F. T. (2000). Don’t park your brain outside. PMI.
Heinze, K. (1996). Cost management of capital projects. M. Dekker.
Hester, W. T., Kuprenas, J. A., & Chang, T. C. (1991). Construction changes and change orders, Source document
66. Construction Industry Institute.
Hillson, D. (1999). Developing effective risk responses. In PMI Annual Seminar and Symposium. PMI.
Hoseini, E., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Hertogh, M. (2020). Cost contingency and cost evolvement of construction
projects in the preconstruction phase. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(6), 54–67.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001842
Howell, G. A. (2012). Uncertainty and contingency: implications for managing projects. Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 20).
Howell, G. A., Laufer, A., & Ballard, G. (1993). Uncertainty and project objectives. Project Appraisal, 8(1),
37–43. doi:10.1080/02688867.1993.9726884
Idrus, A., Nuruddin, M. F., & Rohman, M. A. (2011). Development of project cost contingency estimation model
using risk analysis and fuzzy expert system. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1501–1508. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.07.061
Ignatius, J., Buertey, T., Abeere-Inga, E., & Kumi, T. (2012). Project cost contingency estimation in Ghana: An
integrated approach. Science Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 20(12), 12–19.
José, I. (2014). Contingency management in construction projects: A survey of Spanish contractors. Proceedings
IGLC-22.
Lam, T. Y. M., & Siwingwa, N. (2017). Risk management and contingency sum of construction projects. Journal
of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 22(3), 237–251. doi:10.1108/JFMPC-10-2016-0047
Laryea, S., & Hughes, W. (2010). Risk and price in the bidding process of contractors. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(4), 248–258. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000293
Leach, L. P. (2003). Schedule and cost buffer sizing: How to account for the bias between project performance
and your model. Project Management Journal, 34(2), 34–47. doi:10.1177/875697280303400205
Levine, H. (1995). Risk management for dummies: Managing schedule cost and technical risks and contingency.
PM Network, 13(2), 30–32.
Libakova, M. (2015). The method of expert interview, Journal of Siberian Federal University, Humanities &.
Social Sciences, 11(8), 114–129.
Liyanage, N. D. M. (2014). Factors affecting the contingency budget of bridge projects, MSc in Construction
Project Management. University of Moratuwa.
Lorance, R. B., & Wendling, R. V. (2001). Basic techniques for analysing and presenting cost risk analysis. Cost
Engineering (Morgantown, W. Va.), 43(6), 25–31.

13
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Mak, S., & Picken, D. (2000). Using risk analysis to determine construction project contingencies. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 126(2), 130–136. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:2(130)
Mak, S., & Picken, D. (2000). Using Risk Analysis to Determine Construction Project Contingencies. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(2), 12–19. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:2(130)
Mak, S., Wong, J., & Picken, D. (1998). The effect on contingency allowances of using risk analysis in
capital cost estimating: A Hong Kong case study. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), 615–619.
doi:10.1080/014461998371917
Mak, S., Wong, J., & Picken, D. (1998). The effect on contingency allowances of using risk analysis in
capital cost estimating: A Hong Kong case study. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), 615–619.
doi:10.1080/014461998371917
Mak, S., Wong, J., & Picken, D. (2010). The effect on contingency allowances of using risk analysis in capital
cost estimating: A Hong Kong case study. Journal Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), 19–25.
Matthew, J., & Tucker, B. (2018). Current understandings of the research-practice gap in nursing: A mixed-
methods study. Aust. J. Nurs. Pract., 25(2), 171–179.
Merrow, E. W. & Schroeder, B. R. (1991). Understanding the costs and schedule of hydroelectric projects.
AACE Transactions, I.3.1-7.
Mieu, L., Griffis, F. H., & Bates, A. J. (2013). Compensation Structure and Contingency Allocation in Integrated
Project Delivery. In 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
Mills, A. (2001). A Systematic Approach to Risk Management for Construction. Structural Survey, 19(5),
245–252. doi:10.1108/02630800110412615
Molenaar, K. R., & Wilson, C. R. (2009). A risk-based approach to contingency estimation in highway project
development. Construction Research Congress, AACE.
Moselhi, O. (1997). Risk assessment and contingency estimating. AACE Transactions, 06.1-6.
Moselhi, O., & Salah, A. (2012). Fuzzy Set-based Contingency Estimating and Management. AACE International
Transactions, 12(2), 90–95.
Motawa, I. A., Anumba, C. J., Lee, S., & Peña-Mora, F. (2007). An integrated system for change management
in construction. Automation in Construction, 16(3), 368–377. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.07.005
Mukhtar, M. M. (2012). An Appraisal of Cost Contingency Management Practices for Building Projects In
Nigeria. Journal of Engineering Technology, 7(1), 34–51.
Narbaev, T., & De Marco, A. (2014). An earned schedule-based regression model to improve cost estimate at
completion. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 1007–1018. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.005
Newton, S., & Smith, V. K. (1992). Methods of analyzing risk exposure in the cost estimates of high quality
offices. Construction Management and Economics, 10(5), 431–449. doi:10.1080/01446199200000040
Okere, G. (2018). Evaluating the allocation of contingency on state DOT projects based on project types and
rate of cost overruns. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(4), 463–472. doi:10.1007/s42107-018-0042-3
Otali, M., & Odesola, I. A. (2014). Effectiveness evaluation of contingency sum as a risk management tool
for construction projects in Niger-Delta, Nigeria. Ethiop. Journal of Environment Standard and Management,
7(6), 588–598.
Paek, J. H., Lee, Y. W., & Ock, J. H. (1994). Pricing construction risk: Fuzzy set application. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4), 743–756. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:4(743)
Patrascu, A. (1988). Construction cost engineering handbook. M. Dekker. doi:10.1201/9780429246678
Pettigrew, A. M. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12(s1), S61–
S70. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.8
PMI. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. PMI.

14
 International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Querns, W. R. (1989). What is Contingency Anyway? AACE Transactions, B.9.1-4.

Rad, P. F. (2002). Project estimating and cost management. Management Concepts.
Rana, S. (2008). Covering the Gap between Theories and Practices in Business and Management, FIIB. Business
Review, 7(2), 67–68.
Ranasinghe, M. (1994). Contingency allocation and management for building projects. Construction Management
and Economics, 12(3), 233–243. doi:10.1080/01446199400000031
Rolfe, G. (2013). Thinking as a subversive activity: Doing philosophy in the corporate university. Nursing
Philosophy, 14(1), 28–37. doi:10.1111/j.1466-769X.2012.00551.x PMID:23279581
Rother, M. (2010). Toyota Kata: Managing people for improvement, adaptiveness, and superior results. McGraw
Hill.
Russell, M. M. (2012). Causes of time buffer in construction project task durations. Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 20).
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer
between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 340–355. doi:10.5465/3069460
Salah, A. (2012). Fuzzy Set-Based Contingency Estimating And Management (Masters thesis). Concordia
University.
Salah, A., & Moselhi, O. (2015). Contingency Modelling for Construction Projects Using Fuzzy Set Theory.
Journal of Engineering. Construction and Architectural Management, 22(2), 214–241. doi:10.1108/ECAM-
03-2014-0039
Scully, N. J. (2010). The theory-practice gap and skill acquisition: An issue for nursing education. Collegian
(Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 18(2), 93–98. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2010.04.002 PMID:21706997
Seung, H., & Hyung, K. (2004). Categorical relationship approach as an alternative risk analysis for predicting
cost contingency. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(2), 173–180. doi:10.1007/BF02829117
Silva, T. T. (1992). An analytical method for quantification of uncertainty in building projects (MSc Dissertation).
University of Moratuwa.
Smith, G. R., & Bohn, C. M. (1999). Small to medium contractor contingency and assumption of risk. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 125(2), 101–108. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:2(101)
Stewart, J. (2011). Multiple-case study methods in governance-related research. Public Management Review,
14(1), 21–34.
Tesfaye, E. T., Berhan, E., & Kitaw, D. (2016). A comprehensive literature review on construction project risk
snalysis. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 5(4), 1–15. doi:10.4018/IJRCM.2016100101
Thibadeau, B. (2006). Stochastic Optimization Models for Contingency Allocation in Project Management (PhD
dissertation). The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Thompson, P. A., & Perry, J. G. (1992). Engineering construction risks. Thomas Telford.
Touran, A. (2003). Probabilistic cost estimating with subjective correlations. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 119(1), 58–71. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:1(58)
Vermeulen, F. (2007). “I shall not remain insignificant”: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(4), 754–761. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.26279167
Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: The Basics. Routledge.
White, C., & Marsh, M. (2006, Summer). Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology, Graduate School of
Library and Information Science. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45.
doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0053
Wideman, R. M. (1992). Project and program risk management: a guide to managing risks and opportunities.
PMI.

15
International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management
Volume 11 • Issue 1

Williams, T. P. (2003). Predicting final cost for competitively bid construction projects using regression models.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(8), 593–599. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00004-8
Wilson, C. R. (2010). A Risk-Based Approach to Contingency Estimation in Highway Project Development. In
Construction Research Congress 2010. AACE.
Yeo, K. T. (1990). Risks, Classification of Estimates and Contingency. Journal of Management Engineering,
6(4), 458–470. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1990)6:4(458)
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publication.
Zeitoun, A. A., & Oberlander, D. G. (1993). Early Warning Signs of Project Changes, Document 91. Construction
Industry Institute.

16