# Study of the Sustainable Functioning of Construction Companies in the Conditions of Risk Factors

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- -
- Attracting the attention of participants of investment and construction projects to the problem of risks and uncertainty.
- -
- Determination and assessment of the degree of influence of risk factors on the activities of companies implementing investment and construction projects.
- -
- Development of a structure for the implementation of compensatory measures to exclude or reduce the impact of risk factors on the activities of construction companies.
- -
- Providing contractors with a risk factor management structure and demonstrating the impact of these factors on achieving the goals of the investment and construction project.

- Identification of potential risk factors in the process of implementing the construction projects.
- Identification and assessment of the main measures to reduce or limit the impact of these risk factors.
- Assessing the risk management mechanism in construction companies implementing projects for the construction projects using the TOPSIS method (method of measuring similarity with the optimal solution). The essence of this method lies in the fact that alternative solutions are located on the coincidence scale with a positive optimal solution and a negative optimal solution. The best solution is the one that is closest to the optimal.

- Anthropogenic factors.
- Natural factors.

## 2. Materials and Methods

- Avoidance (exclusion) of the occurrence of risk factors.
- Transfer of risk factors.
- Reduction or limit of the influence of risk factors.
- Acceptance of the occurrence of risk factors.

_{1}, the second C

_{2}, and the third C3; criteria (applied measures) were designated as K

_{1}, K

_{2},…, K

_{p}. Table 2 presents the results of the evaluation of each alternative for companies by criteria (applied measures) on a scale from 1 to 10, in accordance with the results of the expert survey [42,43].

_{ij}) = m × n will have the following form:

- After summarizing the results of the survey of experts in accordance with Table 2, the importance of the criteria is calculated as follows:

_{ij}is the relative importance of each criterion.

_{j}is the entropy value of each criterion from 0 to 1 and m is the number of alternatives.

_{1}, w

_{2},…, w

_{n}for the evaluated criterion are calculated using the following formula:

- 2.
- The matrix of normalization solutions for criteria (measures to reduce or limit the impact of risk factors) is calculated:

_{ij}is a matrix of normalization solutions for criteria;

_{j}) is the weight of the criterion and the sum of the weights of the criteria is 1 according to the following formula:

- 3.
- Positive and negative ideal solutions are determined:$${\mathrm{A}}^{+}={\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{v}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{j}=\mathrm{1,2},\dots \dots ,\mathrm{n}$$$${\mathrm{A}}^{-}={\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{v}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{j}=\mathrm{1,2},\dots \dots ,\mathrm{n}$$

- 4.
- The distance of the alternative from the positive ideal solution is determined:$$={\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{+}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}$$

- 5.
- The distance of the alternative from the negative ideal solution is determined:$$={\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{-}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}$$

- 6.
- The distance scale (Oi
^{+}) is calculated using the Euclidean distance (n). The distance for each alternative of a positive ideal solution is determined by the following formula:$${\mathrm{O}\mathrm{i}}^{+}=\sqrt{\left\{{\sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{+}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}\right\}}$$

- 7.
- The distance scale (Oi
^{−}) is calculated using the Euclidean distance (n). The distance for each alternative of a negative ideal solution is determined by the following formula:$${\mathrm{O}\mathrm{i}}^{-}=\sqrt{\left\{{\sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\u2013{\mathrm{v}}^{-}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}\right\}}$$

- 8.
- The relative proximity to the positive ideal solution is calculated using the following formula:$${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\frac{{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{i}}^{-}}{{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{i}}^{-}+{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{i}}^{+}}$$

- 9.

## 3. Results

_{j}(see Table 9) and R

_{ij}(see Table 11), a weighted matrix of normalization solutions is calculated for the criteria (applied measures) (see Table 12).

^{+}= 0.179, 0.160, 0087, 0.228,

^{−}= 0.131, 0.119, 0.069, 0.159.

_{i}(company

_{1}) = 0.071/(0.071+0.063) = 0.53 (Satisfactorily);

_{i}(company

_{2}) = 0.079/(0.079+0.024) = 0.77 (good);

_{i}(company

_{3}) = 0.036/(0.036+0.077) = 0.32 (Bad).

## 4. Discussion

- Diversity of measurement methods and tools.
- Multiple criteria for comparison.
- The difference in the relative importance between the criteria.

## 5. Conclusions

- Conducting advanced training courses that teach participants of an investment and construction project the skills of managing risk factors at all stages of the project.
- Optimization of administrative and legal work related to obtaining licenses for construction activities (development of relevant instructions, regulations).
- Checking the quality of building materials and their compliance with specifications at each stage of the project.
- Study and application of ways to improve the effectiveness of the use of technical resources.
- In light of the foregoing, the researchers recommend the preparation of future studies in order to determine and arrange the relative importance of the risk factors affecting construction projects using the TOPSIS technique, as well as to evaluate risk factor management strategies using decision-making methods such as AHP, VIKOR, SAW, and others, and to compare the relative importance and the coefficient of relative proximity to those strategies using decision-making methods.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Afraz, M.F.; Bhatti, S.H.; Ferraris, A.; Couturier, J. The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
**2021**, 162, 120370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weber-Lewerenz, B. Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) in construction engineering—Ethical guidelines for the application of digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI) in user practice. SN Appl. Sci.
**2021**, 3, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Banerjee Chattapadhyay, D.; Putta, J.; Rao, P.R.M. Risk identification, assessments, and prediction for mega construction projects: A risk prediction paradigm based on cross analytical-machine learning model. Buildings
**2021**, 11, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Soebarto, V.; Lu, Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Sustainability attitude and performance of con-struction enterprises: A China study. J. Clean. Prod.
**2018**, 172, 1440–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lapidus, A.A.; Abramov, I.L.; Al-Zaidi, Z.A.K. Assessment of the impact of destabilizing factors on implementation of in-vestment and construction projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 951, 012028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sadri, H.; Pourbagheri, P.; Yitmen, I. Towards the implications of Boverket’s climate declaration act for sustainability indices in the Swedish construction industry. Build. Environ.
**2022**, 207, 108446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Osadchaya, N.A.; Murzin, A.D.; Torgayan, E.E. Assessment of risks of investment and construction activities: Russian practice. J. Adv. Res. Law Econ.
**2017**, 8, 529–544. [Google Scholar] - Al Hasani, M. Understanding Risk and Uncertainty in Project Management. Eur. J. Econ. Law Politics
**2018**, 5, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pan, Y.; Zhang, L. Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends. Autom. Constr.
**2020**, 122, 103517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nwodo, M.N.; Anumba, C.J. A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build. Environ.
**2019**, 162, 106290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lapidus, A.; Topchiy, D.; Kuzmina, T.; Chapidze, O. Influence of the construction risks on the cost and duration of a project. Buildings
**2022**, 12, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hossain, M.U.; Ng, S.T.; Antwi-Afari, P.; Amor, B. Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2020**, 130, 109948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abramov, I. Systemic Integrated and Dynamic Approach as a Basis To Ensure Sustainable Operation of a Construction Company. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
**2018**, 463, 032038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Latysheva, O.; Rovenska, V.; Smyrnova, I.; Nitsenko, V.; Balezentis, T.; Streimikiene, D. Management of the sustainable development of machine-building enterprises: A sustainable development space approach. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.
**2020**, 34, 328–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deng, M.; Menassa, C.C.; Kamat, V.R. From BIM to digital twins: A systematic review of the evolution of intelligent building representations in the AEC-FM industry. J. Inf. Technol. Constr.
**2021**, 26, 58–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alaghbari, W.; Al-Sakkaf, A.A.; Sultan, B. Factors affecting construction labour productivity in Yemen. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
**2019**, 19, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rahman, F. Save the world versus man-made disaster: A cultural perspective. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
**2019**, 235, 012071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buniya, M.K.; Othman, I.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Kashwani, G.; Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Li, H. Critical success factors of safety program implementation in construction projects in Iraq. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
**2021**, 18, 8469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abramov, I.L.; Al-Zaidi, Z.A.K. The impact of risk factors of construction production on the results of activities of construction organizations in Iraq. AIP Conf. Proc.
**2022**, 2559, 060015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guzikova, L.; Plotnikova, E.; Zubareva, M. Borrowed Capital as risk factor for large construction companies in Russia. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
**2017**, 262, 012206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ewertowski, T.; Butlewski, M. Development of a pandemic residual risk assessment tool for building organizational resilience within polish enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
**2021**, 18, 6948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schulte, J.; Villamil, C.; Hallstedt, S.I. Strategic Sustainability Risk Management in Product Development Companies: Key Aspects and Conceptual Approach. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 10531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moktadir, A.; Dwivedi, A.; Khan, N.S.; Paul, S.K.; Khan, S.A.; Ahmed, S.; Sultana, R. Analysis of risk factors in sustainable supply chain management in an emerging economy of leather industry. J. Clean. Prod.
**2021**, 283, 124641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alipour-Bashary, M.; Ravanshadnia, M.; Abbasianjahromi, H.; Asnaashari, E. Building demolition risk assessment by applying a hybrid fuzzy FTA and fuzzy CRITIC-TOPSIS framework. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt.
**2021**, 40, 134–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koulinas, G.; Demesouka, O.; Marhavilas, P.; Vavatsikos, A.; Koulouriotis, D. Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for Sustainable Engineering Projects. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gondia, A.; Siam, A.; El-Dakhakhni, W.; Nassar, A.H. Machine learning algorithms for construction projects delay risk prediction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
**2020**, 146, 04019085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, L.; Sun, X.; Xue, H. Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using DEMATEL method: A case study of China. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 226, 949–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Basari, I. Estimation Risk of High-Rise Building on Contractor. IPTEK J. Eng.
**2017**, 3, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Requirements for Experts. Rights and Obligations of Experts [Electronic Resource]. Available online: https://webkonspect.com/room=profile&id=4828&labelid=59334 (accessed on 7 July 2023).
- Zagorskaya, A.V.; Lapidus, A.A. Application of expert assessment methods in scientific research. The required number of experts. Constr. Prod.
**2020**, 3, 21–34. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] - Zhou, H.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, Q.; Yang, L.; Cai, H. Risk assessment and management via multi-source information fusion for undersea tunnel construction. Autom. Constr.
**2020**, 111, 103050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chirumalla, K. Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process industries: A dynamic capabilities approach. Technovation
**2021**, 105, 102256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abramov, I.; AlZaidi, Z.A.K. Evaluation of the Effective Functioning of Construction Enterprises in the Conditions of Occurrence of Diverse Risk Factors. Buildings
**2023**, 13, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Mhdawi, M.K.S. Risk Management of Construction Projects UNDER Extreme Conditions: A Case Study of Iraq. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Jean-Jules, J.; Vicente, R. Rethinking the implementation of enterprise risk management (ERM) as a socio-technical challenge. J. Risk Res.
**2020**, 24, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tabor, J. Using the Grey-TOPSIS Method to Assess the Functioning of the Occupational Risk Management. MATEC Web Conf.
**2019**, 290, 12027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nidal, A.J. Assessment of Risk Management of Construction Diyala City Projects by Using TOPSIS Technique. J. Eng. Sustain. Dev.
**2016**, 20, 1–15. (In Arabic) [Google Scholar] - Akram, M.; Kahraman, C.; Zahid, K. Extension of TOPSIS model to the decision-making under complex spherical fuzzy information. Soft Comput.
**2021**, 25, 10771–10795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zulqarnain, R.M.; Xin, X.L.; Saeed, M. Extension of TOPSIS method under intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft environment based on correlation coefficient and aggregation operators to solve decision making problem. AIMS Math.
**2020**, 6, 2732–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Widjaja, H.; Desanti, R.I. Decision Support System for Home Selection in South Tangerang City Using TOPSIS Method. IJNMT Int. J. New Media Technol.
**2020**, 7, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Siregar, I. Supplier selection by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and techniques for order preference methods with similarities to ideal solutions (topsis). J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
**2019**, 1339, 012023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sekhavati, E.; Yengejeh, R.J. Assessment optimization of safety and health risks using fuzzy TOPSIS technique (case study: Construction sites in the south of Iran). J. Environ. Health Sustain. Dev.
**2021**, 6, 1494–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shpak, N.; Dvulit, Z.; Maznyk, L.; Mykytiuk, O.; Sroka, W. Validation of ecologists in enterprise management system: A case study analysis. Pol. J. Manag. Stud.
**2019**, 19, 376–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gansen, E.V.; Lapidus, A.A. A Fuzzy Inference System for Assessing the Need for Major Repairs and Reconstruction Based on the Potential of Organizational-Technological Solutions. Compon. Sci. Technol. Prog.
**2021**, 11, 16–22. [Google Scholar] - Mateichyk, V.; Khrutba, V.; Kharchenko, A.; Khrutba, Y.; Protsyk, O.; Silantieva, I. Developing a tool for environmental impact assessment of planned activities and transport infrastructure facilities. Transp. Res. Procedia
**2021**, 55, 1194–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tamošaitienė, J.; Khosravi, M.; Cristofaro, M.; Chan, D.W.M.; Sarvari, H. Identification and prioritization of critical risk factors of commercial and recreational complex building projects: A Delphi study using the TOPSIS method. Appl. Sci.
**2021**, 11, 7906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koulinas, G.K.; Demesouka, O.E.; Sidas, K.A.; Koulouriotis, D.E. A TOPSIS—Risk matrix and Monte Carlo expert system for risk assessment in engineering projects. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 11277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fadaie, F.; Moghaddam, M.A.; Shahraki, M.R. Risk assessment of dam construction projects using Delphi method and multi-criteria decision making techniques (TOPSIS) and Shannon entropy models. J. Crit. Rev.
**2020**, 7, 1050–1055. [Google Scholar] - Solanki, A.; Sarkar, D.; Shah, D. Evaluation of factors affecting the effective implementation of Internet of Things and cloud computing in the construction industry through WASPAS and TOPSIS methods. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
**2023**, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cho, J.; Chae, M. Systematic approach of TOPSIS decision-making for construction method based on risk reduction feedback of extended QFD-FMEA. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2022**, 2022, 1458599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koulinas, G.K.; Marhavilas, P.K.; Demesouka, O.E.; Vavatsikos, A.P.; Koulouriotis, D.E. Risk analysis and assessment in the worksites using the fuzzy-analytical hierarchy process and a quantitative technique–A case study for the Greek construction sector. Saf. Sci.
**2019**, 112, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - AbdolkhaniNezhad, T.; Monavari, S.M.; Khorasani, N.; Robati, M.; Farsad, F. Comparative analytical study of the results of environmental risk assessment of urban landfills approach: Bowtie, network analysis techniques (ANP), TOPSIS (case study: Gilan Province). Environ. Monit. Assess.
**2022**, 194, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Banihashemi, S.A.; Khalilzadeh, M. Evaluating efficiency in construction projects with the TOPSIS model and NDEA method considering environmental effects and undesirable data. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng.
**2021**, 46, 1589–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alyaseer, A.H. Using (TOPSIS) technique for decision-making in Managerial Accounting. A case study. J. Econ. Adm. Leg. Sci. JEALS
**2023**, 7, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Measures to reduce or limit the impact of risk factors in construction companies [33].

Anthropogenic Factors | Natural Factors |
---|---|

Financial factors. These risk factors are mainly related to the financing of construction projects, when local and global events can lead to unexpected changes in interest rates, the degree of solvency, an increase in inflation, additional costs, and so on. | Adverse weather conditions. Floods, sudden temperature fluctuations, and precipitation have a significant impact on the final indicators of investment and construction projects. So, if there is continuous rain during construction for a month, the delivery of a construction object on time can be significantly difficult. |

Social factors. The commission of crimes such as vandalism, arson, destruction, or theft of construction equipment and various acts of sabotage are risk factors that threaten the implementation of construction projects. Construction work may be suspended for an extended period of time while the trials related to the listed criminal actions last. | Pollution. In addition to adverse weather conditions, pollution is another risk factor when considering natural disasters, because harmful gases and waste have a negative impact on the environment, which, in turn, may affect the quality of construction. |

Legal factors. Some legal risks in the construction sector may be related to the terms of contracts. For example, contracts often stipulate the obligation of contractors to pay fines in the case of non-compliance with the deadlines for completion of construction. | Geological processes. The intensification of dangerous geological processes, such as earthquakes or geological faults, similar to those that have occurred in recent years in different regions of the world, is another type of natural risk factor faced by the construction sector. |

Health factors. Viral and infectious diseases can spread among construction site workers, as well as in any labor collective. The occurrence of an epidemic or even a pandemic as long-lasting as COVID-19 poses a serious danger to the health of construction site workers. The health of workers may suffer as a result of accidents related to errors or negligence in the operation of construction machinery and equipment. The loss of employees’ ability to work for the above reasons may lead to interruptions in the company’s activities. | |

Technical factors. These factors include design errors and lack of resources. For example, a shortage of qualified personnel or issues related to the difficulty of access to the construction site, as well as failures in the operation of machinery and equipment leading to undesirable consequences during the implementation of an investment and construction project. |

AAA | AA | A | BBB | BB | B | CCC | CC | C | D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |

No. | Gradation of the Harrington Scale | Desired Rating |
---|---|---|

1 | 1.00–0.81 | Very good |

2 | 0.80–0.64 | good |

3 | 0.63–0.38 | Satisfactory |

4 | 0.37–0.21 | Bad |

5 | 0.20–0.00 | Very bad |

Risk Factors | No. | Description of the Risk Factor | Experts | ∑ Ranks | Factor Weight | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||

Financial factors | 1 | Low liquidity of the company contractor | 16 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 68 | 0.047921 |

2 | Late transfer of funds by the customer to the contractor | 11 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 57 | 0.040169 | |

3 | Late payment of payments by the general contractor to subcontractors | 15 | 17 | 12 | 16 | 15 | 75 | 0.052854 | |

Technical factors | 4 | Non-compliance with norms and standards | 9 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 12 | 49 | 0.034531 |

5 | Change of project documentation | 14 | 13 | 15 | 13 | 16 | 71 | 0.050035 | |

6 | Lack of local skilled labor | 17 | 15 | 14 | 17 | 18 | 81 | 0.057082 | |

7 | Lack of experience working with technical resources | 10 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 45 | 0.031712 | |

8 | Non-compliance with material storage standards | 7 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 33 | 0.023256 | |

9 | Delay in laboratory results | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 21 | 0.014799 | |

10 | Lack of material resources | 13 | 16 | 16 | 11 | 10 | 66 | 0.046512 | |

Legal factors | 11 | Contractual disputes arising between the general contractor and subcontractors | 8 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 11 | 45 | 0.031712 |

12 | Changing the terms of the contract by the customer | 12 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 60 | 0.042283 | |

13 | Lack of licenses and the difficulties that arise in obtaining them | 10 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 12 | 53 | 0.03735 | |

14 | The need to take into account local laws | 3 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 20 | 0.014094 | |

Economic factors | 15 | Currency exchange rate instability | 11 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 56 | 0.039464 |

16 | Inflation | 14 | 15 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 73 | 0.05145 | |

17 | Instability of the market economy | 6 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 35 | 0.024665 | |

18 | Delayed arrival of shipments of materials to the local market | 2 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 21 | 0.014799 | |

19 | Difficulties with the delivery of materials to workplaces | 9 | 8 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 46 | 0.032417 | |

20 | Risks of bank transfers | 12 | 12 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 53 | 0.03735 | |

Management factors | 21 | Software difficulties | 4 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 26 | 0.018323 |

22 | Weakness of the contractor’s administrative staff | 8 | 13 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 56 | 0.039464 | |

23 | Lack of managerial experience | 10 | 11 | 9 | 14 | 14 | 58 | 0.040874 | |

24 | Inefficient planning | 4 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 28 | 0.019732 | |

25 | Slow decision-making mechanism by the customer | 2 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 19 | 0.01339 | |

26 | Low level of communication between contractor and customer, general contractor and subcontractors | 7 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 50 | 0.035236 | |

Natural factors | 27 | Sudden temperature fluctuations | 13 | 9 | 13 | 15 | 12 | 62 | 0.043693 |

28 | Natural and geological disasters (earthquakes, floods, droughts) | 15 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 12 | 73 | 0.051445 | |

29 | Contamination of the work site | 5 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 19 | 0.01339 |

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 6.5 | 6.3 | 8.1 | 7.7 | |

C_{2} | 8.9 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 6.9 | |

C_{3} | 8.1 | 7.2 | 6.4 | 5.4 | |

$\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}$ | 23.5 | 22 | 22.1 | 20 |

**Table 6.**Calculations of the importance of criteria (applied measures), stage 1—(B

_{ij}=$\frac{{\mathrm{\kappa}}_{\mathrm{ij}}}{\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{\kappa}}_{\mathrm{ij}}})$.

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 0.277 | 0.286 | 0.367 | 0.385 | |

C_{2} | 0.379 | 0.386 | 0.344 | 0.345 | |

C_{3} | 0.345 | 0.327 | 0.290 | 0.270 |

**Table 7.**Calculations of the importance of criteria (applied measures), stage 2—(${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\mathrm{ln}{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$).

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | −0.355 | −0.358 | −0.368 | −0.367 | |

C_{2} | −0.368 | −0.367 | −0.367 | −0.367 | |

C_{3} | −0.367 | −0.366 | −0.359 | −0.354 |

**Table 8.**Calculations of the importance of criteria (applied measures), stage 3—(e

_{j}= $\frac{-1}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{m}}\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\mathrm{ln}{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{ij}})$, m = 3 (number of companies studied).

Criteria | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Avoiding (Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptance of the Occurrence of RF | Reduction in the Influence of RF | ||

${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ | 0.992 | 0.993 | 0.996 | 0.990 | |

$1-{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.01 | $\sum 1-{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i}}=0.029$ |

**Table 9.**Calculations of the importance of criteria (applied measures), stage 3—(W

_{j}= $\frac{1-{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}}{\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}(1-{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}})}$).

Criteria | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|

Avoiding (Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptance of the Occurrence of RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | |

W_{j} | 0.276 | 0.241 | 0.138 | 0.345 |

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limitof the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 6.5 | 6.3 | 8.1 | 7.7 | |

C_{2} | 8.9 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 6.9 | |

C_{3} | 8.1 | 7.2 | 6.4 | 5.4 | |

$\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{\kappa}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^{2$ | 187.07 | 163.78 | 164.33 | 136.06 | |

$\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^{2}}$ | 13.68 | 12.8 | 12.82 | 11.66 |

**Table 11.**Matrix of normalization solutions for criteria (applied measures), stage 2—(R

_{ij}=$\frac{{\mathrm{\kappa}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}}{\sqrt{\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{\kappa}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}^{2}}}$).

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 0.475 | 0.492 | 0.632 | 0.660 | |

C_{2} | 0.651 | 0.664 | 0.593 | 0.592 | |

C_{3} | 0.592 | 0.563 | 0.499 | 0.463 |

**Table 12.**Weighted matrix of normalization solutions for criteria (applied measures), ${(\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}={\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ast {\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$).

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 0.131 | 0.119 | 0.087 | 0.228 | |

C_{2} | 0.179 | 0.160 | 0.082 | 0.204 | |

C_{3} | 0.163 | 0.136 | 0.069 | 0.159 |

**Table 13.**The distance of the alternative from the positive ideal solution, stage 1—$\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{+}\mathrm{j}\right)$.

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | −0.048 | −0.041 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |

C_{2} | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.005 | −0.024 | |

C_{3} | −0.016 | −0.024 | −0.018 | −0.069 |

**Table 14.**The distance of the alternative from the positive ideal solution, stage 2—${\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{+}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}$.

Construction Companies | Criteria | Total | ${\mathbf{O}}_{\mathbf{i}}^{+}=\sqrt{\mathbf{T}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{t}\mathbf{a}\mathbf{l}}$ | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||||

C_{1} | 0.0023 | 0.0017 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.004 | 0.063 | |

C_{2} | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000025 | 0.00058 | 0.0006 | 0.024 | |

C_{3} | 0.00026 | 0.00058 | 0.00032 | 0.0048 | 0.006 | 0.077 |

**Table 15.**The distance of the alternative from the positive ideal solution, stage 3—$\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{-}\mathrm{j}\right)$.

Construction Companies | Criteria | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||

C_{1} | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.018 | 0.069 | |

C_{2} | 0.048 | 0.041 | 0.013 | 0.045 | |

C_{3} | 0.032 | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.000 |

**Table 16.**The distance of the alternative from the positive ideal solution, stage 4—${\left({\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}-{\mathrm{v}}^{-}\mathrm{j}\right)}^{2}$.

Construction companies | Criteria | Total | ${\mathbf{O}}_{\mathbf{i}}^{-}=\sqrt{\mathbf{T}\mathbf{o}\mathbf{t}\mathbf{a}\mathbf{l}}$ | ||||

Avoiding(Excluding) the Occurrence of RF | Transfer of RF | Acceptanceof the Occurrenceof RF | Reduction in or Limit of the Influence of RF | ||||

C_{1} | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.00032 | 0.0048 | 0.0051 | 0.071 | |

C_{2} | 0.0023 | 0.0017 | 0.00017 | 0.002 | 0.0062 | 0.079 | |

C_{3} | 0.001 | 0.0003 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0013 | 0.036 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Lapidus, A.; Abramov, I.; Kuzmina, T.; Abramova, A.; AlZaidi, Z.A.K.
Study of the Sustainable Functioning of Construction Companies in the Conditions of Risk Factors. *Buildings* **2023**, *13*, 2282.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092282

**AMA Style**

Lapidus A, Abramov I, Kuzmina T, Abramova A, AlZaidi ZAK.
Study of the Sustainable Functioning of Construction Companies in the Conditions of Risk Factors. *Buildings*. 2023; 13(9):2282.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092282

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Lapidus, Azariy, Ivan Abramov, Tatyana Kuzmina, Anastasiia Abramova, and Zaid Ali Kadhim AlZaidi.
2023. "Study of the Sustainable Functioning of Construction Companies in the Conditions of Risk Factors" *Buildings* 13, no. 9: 2282.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092282