An AHP-Based Assessment of the Relative Importance of Risk Factors in Project Management: Designing a Bid Preparation Checklist

Abstract

This study primarily aims to evaluate the relative importance of factors influencing project risk management. In particular, we seek to identify and prioritize the key factors affecting the bidding process within the cross-strait political and economic context. This research employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to calculate the relative weights of project risk factors. This study conducted AHP questionnaire interviews with 15 experts, including industry professionals, government project management executives with over 15 years of experience, and professors specializing in project risk management. Through pairwise comparisons across three hierarchical levels and twelve factors, this study identified the key influencing factors that account for 70% of the cumulative eigenvector weight. Based on seven key risk factors identified, namely, political factors, lack of professional skills among subcontractors, lack of professional skills among personnel, resident protests, insufficient project duration, insufficient manpower, and lowest bid awarded, a project management bid preparation checklist is developed. Political ideology is identified as the most significant risk factor for contractors. Implementing this checklist can effectively control approximately 70% of the identified risks.

1. Introduction

Project management research has evolved continuously over the past 50 years and is now a well-established academic discipline. Despite this, project management risks persist because no project is entirely risk-free [1]. In addition to internal factors such as organizational and managerial aspects, external influences, including climate, pandemics, and wars, must also be considered [2,3]. This is particularly applicable to project development for new products, for which the success rate remains relatively low [4,5]. The implications of innovation failure in project development, whether positive or negative, appear to be associated with different types of innovation failure [6]. This study primarily focuses on comparing the relative weights of personnel risks, client risks, and unexpected event risks in project management based on expert evaluations. A bid preparation checklist is developed by selecting factors with cumulative importance weights exceeding 70%. In the context of Taiwan, political factors are no longer limited to issues such as bribery or regime change typically found in developing countries but are also influenced by the broader geopolitical concerns of cross-strait unification and independence [7].

Large-scale system projects, which require a high degree of integration, often face execution challenges beyond the aforementioned factors. These challenges include unclear requirements from the owner or client and unreasonable budgeting or scheduling demands. Internally, companies may struggle to secure sufficient workforce and technical support; in some cases, the deployment of unsuitable personnel may lead to difficulties in controlling project management costs, which significantly increases the risk of project failure. Externally, projects may be awarded on the basis of connections rather than competence, resulting in contractors with insufficient expertise or poor contractual credibility [8,9]. These factors can contribute to project failure, resulting in an inability to meet quality and timeline expectations, and in severe cases, even lead to risks of suspension or disqualification for the company.

By implementing information-based management, mechanisms can be established prior to securing a project to eliminate internal and external human errors and prevent suboptimal scenarios from interfering with the execution of project performance. This approach enhances the likelihood of successful project completion and reduces the risk of the company facing suspension. Therefore, analyzing potential risks and effectively managing risks throughout the software system project management lifecycle is crucial. However, project risk management itself is inherently uncertain. Different types of innovation, such as sustaining innovation and disruptive innovation, involve varying degrees of uncertainty, which may lead to research and development project failures [8,9,10]. Consequently, project development poses significant risk management challenges.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Project Management and Risk Management

Risk management was first introduced as a research subject in 1989 [11]. Subsequently, researchers proposed distributed project management approaches to address software development risks and establish risk frameworks [12,13].

Numerical analysis researchers have utilized data mining techniques for risk analysis, employing methods such as simulation analysis, fuzzy logic models, fuzzy multiple regression, neural network models, genetic algorithms, and heuristic algorithms [14]. These models use historical failure data from previous software projects—including project schedules, task durations, resource allocations, and project outcomes—as training data to determine the key factors influencing project success and effectively assess software project risks. The models are developed using machine learning techniques and incorporate logistic regression, naïve Bayes, support vector machines, decision trees, neural networks, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems [15,16].

Other researchers have employed the ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management Framework and the ISO 27005:2018 Information Security Risk Management Framework to assess system development risks [17,18,19,20].

The purpose of project risk management is to reduce the likelihood of project failure. Risk management is an integral component of project management, and project management is indispensable for product development; therefore, risk management in product development should occur as naturally as schedule management [21,22].

In recent years, companies have become increasingly aware of the importance of project portfolios for achieving corporate objectives within multi-project environments. Project portfolio risk is a complex system in which inappropriate risk response can compromise the effectiveness of risk identification and risk assessment [23,24]. Different risks arise at various stages in the lifecycle of a project or a project portfolio, with some risks occurring only at specific stages [25].

2.2. Risk Factors of Project Management

In terms of personnel risks, previous studies have identified labor shortages and a lack of technical expertise as major risks in project management [26,27]. Insufficient manpower and the absence of qualified technicians often hinder the successful contracting and implementation of projects. A lack of cross-departmental integration is also considered a significant personnel-related risk [26,27], as many tasks require coordination across multiple departments, and poor integration can result in decreased work efficiency. Furthermore, equipment stability has been recognized as another critical risk in project management [27,28].

In terms of client-related risks, an overly compressed project timeline has been identified as a factor contributing to project delays and the failure to meet planned schedules [29]. Standard procedures in project planning require adequate time to be properly completed. The adoption of the lowest-bid selection method is another critical issue leading to poor project execution quality. This approach often excludes high-performing contractors, potentially resulting in increased legal disputes and contract breaches during project implementation [27]. Furthermore, penalties imposed due to contractual breaches can damage a contractor’s reputation and future competitiveness in the market, posing an additional risk from the contractor’s perspective [28].

Regarding unexpected event risks, Taiwan is vulnerable to natural disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes, and landslides. These unforeseeable events can lead to the suspension or termination of project implementation [27]. Prior research has also confirmed that political influence, vested interests, and corruption can significantly affect project management outcomes [27,28]. A unique feature in Taiwan is the impact of political ideologies shaped by the cross-strait unification–independence debate. Local government leaders may be influenced by the broader political climate between Taiwan and Mainland China which, in turn, can affect the approval or execution of projects perceived as either pro-China or anti-China. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis: personnel risks, unexpected event risks, and client risks are significant risk factors that affect project management.

2.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process

Calik et al. [30] applied the AHP method to analyze lifecycle risks in productivity management within Turkish construction projects. Their study identified the key risk factors at each stage of the process. Jajac [31] utilized the AHP method during the construction planning phase to provide decision support for managing individual buildings and building portfolios (investment portfolios); specifically, the research aimed to assist decision-makers in the decision-making process while planning construction activities and projects. Alzahmi and Ndiaye [32] employed the AHP method to rank various options for solar photovoltaic waste disposal in terms of priority, considering five key criteria: environmental impact, economic feasibility, social impact, policy and regulatory compliance, and technical feasibility. Okudan et al. [33] pointed out that delays and disruptions are persistent challenges during the construction phase, particularly for large-scale projects. The study emphasized the need for contractors to systematically monitor claimable causes of delays and disruptions by using a fuzzy AHP to assess the relative significance of each claimable cause according to its impact on large-scale project items. Jiang et al. [34] pointed out that large-scale railway construction projects involve significant risks and pose substantial construction management challenges. To accurately assess the construction management standards for such projects, Jiang incorporated resilience theory into this domain and established a resilience evaluation index system for managing major railway construction projects by using a grounded theory approach. A resilience evaluation model based on the AHP method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation was also proposed and applied to evaluate the construction management resilience of a large-scale railway project in the mountainous region of southwest China.

3. Materials and Methods

This study explored the key risk factors influencing successful project management. We first identified and summarized the key factors affecting risk management by conducting a review of the relevant literature. The key factors were then used to design a questionnaire. The questionnaire analysis employed the AHP method to determine the relative weight of each key factor and identify the primary risk factors that should be prioritized in project management [35].

3.1. Study Participants

This study focused on assessing and validating risk management implementation in project management. Participants included industry professionals with practical experience in project management, government officials, and experts and scholars engaged in related research. This study selected 15 experts from industry, government, and academia, all of whom possess both theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the field of project risk management. The industry and government experts each have over 15 years of professional experience. The academic respondents are scholars specializing in project risk management research. The panel of experts represents a diverse and balanced composition across sectors. The AHP questionnaire included illustrative examples to guide respondents in providing consistent and rational pairwise comparisons across multiple criteria. In addition, a hierarchical structure was provided to help experts accurately understand the analytical framework and evaluation logic.

A hierarchical framework of key risk factors for project management was established based on a comprehensive review of the previous literature. The key factors were then formulated into an expert questionnaire to collect valuable reference information. Statistical analysis was conducted to determine the weight of each key factor contributing to project management risk.

3.2. Research Design for the Expert Questionnaire and AHP Method

The AHP method is widely used in social science research to analyze the weight of risk factors. One of its key advantages is its ability to assess how specific situations should be handled while quickly capturing the specialized experience of experts and scholars in dealing with particular events [36].

The development of the hierarchical framework and the identification of key risk factors must align with the fundamental principles of the AHP method: each sub-level factor within the hierarchical framework must be assumed to be independent, meaning that factors within a given level can only be related to the immediate higher level and not to other factors at the same level. In other words, the relationship between levels and factors is strictly hierarchical; each level influences only the level directly above or below it [37]. On this basis, the present study invited experts to review the key factors of project management risks and refine the hierarchical framework that was initially established through the literature review.

Through a literature review, data collection, and expert questionnaires, this study identified three major dimensions that influence project management: personnel safety risks, client risks, and unexpected event risks. Based on an analysis of relevant causes, key influencing factors belonging to each dimension were selected, as summarized in Figure 1. Based on these key influencing factors, a total of 12 key risk factors that pose threats to the successful completion of project management were identified under the three major dimensions. These factors served as evaluation criteria for applying the AHP method to analyze project management challenges. It is particularly noted that cross-strait relations significantly influence Taiwan, where local government leaders may exhibit different project preferences based on their tendencies toward unification or independence [7]. These tendencies, in turn, affect the acceptance or rejection of government projects.

• Establishing a Hierarchical Framework

A hierarchical framework serves as a structural backbone for systematically presenting the complete functionality and dimensions of a system. The number of hierarchical levels depends on the complexity and variability of project issues under investigation. In 1980, Saaty proposed several principles for structuring hierarchical frameworks [35,38]:

• The top level represents the ultimate evaluation goal (expected outcome) [35,39].
• Elements of similar importance should be placed within the same level to ensure their independence [35].
• Each level should contain no more than seven elements, as an excess of elements may cause dispersion and reduce clarity [35].
• The elements within each level should maintain independence to avoid ambiguity in decision-making [29].

Based on these principles, the present study deconstructed the complex problem into multiple levels, as shown in Figure 2. Level 1 represented the expected outcome to be achieved. Level 2 consisted of the evaluation criteria used to achieve the expected outcome. Level 3 included factors for measuring assessments completed using the previous level’s evaluation criteria.

2.

Questionnaire Design

To determine the relative importance of the elements, a pairwise comparison was conducted. The nine-point rating scale recommended by Saaty [35] (

Table 1. Explanation of the AHP evaluation scale [40].

n	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
RI	0	0	0.58	0.9	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49	1.51

) was used to design a pairwise comparison questionnaire, in which n criteria required n(n − 1)/2 pairwise comparisons (

Table 2. The AHP pairwise comparison questionnaire [40].

Importance Level	Client Risk
Absolutely Important	9
—	8
Extremely Important	7
—	6
Fairly Important	5
—	4
Slightly Important	3
—	2
Equally Important	1
—	2
Slightly Important	3
—	4
Fairly Important	5
—	6
Extremely Important	7
—	8
Absolutely Important	9
Importance Level	Personnel Risk

).

3.3. Establishing the AHP Hierarchical Framework for the Present Study

The present study adopted the AHP, a multi-objective decision-making method, to serve as an analytical and recommendation tool for assessing threat risk factors in project management. Thus, the AHP’s hierarchical structuring theory was applied to construct a hierarchical framework for decision-making in response to key risk factors threatening project management. The analysis categorized risk factors into three major dimensions: personnel risks, client risks, and unexpected event risks. Each dimension contained several influencing factors for a total of 12 key influencing factors. The definitions and components of these dimensions and key factors are detailed in

Table A1. Project management risk factors—personnel risks.

Dimension	Key Factors	Description
Personnel Risks	Insufficient manpower	Due to budget constraints, the company does not provide adequate manpower support [41,42,43].
	Lack of cross-departmental integration	Large-scale projects require communication across multiple interfaces and cannot be completed by a single department. Poor communication can affect project success [41,42].
	Lack of professional skills among personnel	The personnel involved lack sufficient expertise, making it difficult to meet project requirements [41,42,43,44].
	Lack of professional skills or equipment stability among subcontractors	The contracted equipment suppliers or construction contractors lack expertise or have unstable equipment, resulting in incomplete acceptance of the project [45].

,

Table A2. Project management risk factors—owner (client) risks.

Dimension	Key Factors	Description
Owner (Client) Risks	Impact of interface work	Additional unforeseen interface work increases the project budget [46].
	Insufficient project duration	Inadequate project duration leads to construction delays [27,46,47].
	Lowest bid awarded	Many contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder. Fluctuations in equipment and raw material prices can directly impact procurement efficiency, leading to project delays. Additionally, the use of equivalent substitutes instead of original foreign-manufactured equipment may result in client dissatisfaction [27].
	Penalties	The client continuously raises issues and refuses to sign progress documents or deliberately finds faults to impose penalties [48].

and

Table A3. Project management risk factors—unexpected event risks.

Dimension	Key Factors	Description
Unexpected Event Risks	Natural disasters	Project management may be affected by earthquakes, typhoons, or large-scale landslides, causing damage and leading to project delays [27,49].
	Political factors	Government transitions may result in project suspension or cancellation. Additionally, politically appointed officials without relevant expertise may make poor decisions, leading to losses [27,28,49].
	Unexpected incidents	Terrorist attacks, workplace safety accidents, or fire safety incidents may result in project shutdown [27,28,42,50].
	Protests	Opposition from local residents, environmental groups, tree protection alliances, or political organizations may lead to construction delays [50].

in Appendix A. The AHP questionnaire was designed based on a pairwise comparison of expert questionnaires, which helped determine the relative importance and weight of evaluation criteria across different hierarchical levels.

In terms of personnel risks, insufficient manpower and a lack of professional skills among personnel are recognized as human resource risks in project management [29,39]. Without adequately skilled personnel, project contracting becomes difficult. A lack of cross-departmental integration hinders the smooth execution of projects [29,38]. A lack of professional skills or equipment stability among subcontractors also constitutes a project management risk [29,40]. Professional expertise and equipment stability are critical factors for successful project management execution.

Regarding owner (client) risks, insufficient project duration is identified as a cause of project management delays [29]. Awarding the lowest bid can lead to decreased construction quality, the exclusion of reputable contractors, and contract disputes and legal issues [29]. Penalties not only affect contractors’ financial stability but can also result in reputational damage and increased legal risk and can even impact future market competitiveness [40].

Project plans can be impacted by earthquakes, typhoons, or large-scale landslides, leading to project delays [29]. Natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes, and floods, can cause construction or operational disruptions, affecting the original schedule. Additional expenditures are required to repair damaged facilities or equipment, resulting in cost overruns. Existing studies have also identified political factors as influential in project management [29,40]. In these studies, political factors primarily refer to political interference and bribery. This study, however, focuses on the impact of electoral transitions amidst cross-strait tensions. Protests, a form of political influence, are analyzed as a separate sub-factor. Given the distinct ideological differences between the major political parties across the Taiwan Strait, any ruling government is likely to encounter protest activities.

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of AHP Results

A total of 15 AHP questionnaires were distributed, and all 15 were successfully collected, resulting in a 100% response rate. An analysis of risk factor weights was conducted based on expert knowledge and experience. Expert Choice 2000 decision support software was used as the primary tool for questionnaire analysis. In accordance with the software’s design, an I.R. of <0.1 was required to meet the logical consistency requirement. Subsequently, the relative weights of each key factor were further analyzed, and the results are presented below.

Level 2 of the hierarchy comprised three major dimensions, and the relative weight comparisons are shown in

Table 3. Risk dimension weights and ranking.

Questionnaire Dimension	Weight Value	Ranking	I.R.	O.I.I.
Personnel Risks	0.351100	1	0.06	0.036
Unexpected Event Risks	0.343523	2
Client Risks	0.305377	3
Total	1.0

. The I.R. for the pairwise comparison matrix was 0.06, and the O.I.I. was 0.036; both were below the 0.1 threshold. This indicated a high level of consistency among the queried experts, demonstrating strong agreement in their evaluations of the key factors.

Table 3 reveals that among the dimensions influencing ICT project management, personnel risk had the highest weight. Projects rely on personnel; therefore, assigning the wrong personnel will directly affect the project’s overall success rate. Unexpected event risks ranked second; unforeseen incidents can extend project timelines, increase costs, and lower the success rate. Although client risk ranked third, it still accounted for over 30% of the total risk, indicating that it must be carefully managed.

Level 3 factors within the ICT project management risk hierarchy were assessed based on factors belonging to the Level 2 dimensions. After understanding the relative importance of the three major dimensions in relation to the overall goal of identifying key risk factors in ICT project management, further analysis and weight calculations were conducted for each Level 3 factor within the three major dimensions.

For the personnel risk dimension, the weight distribution among the Level 3 factors, including a lack of professional skills among subcontractors, a lack of professional skills among personnel, insufficient manpower, and a lack of cross-departmental integration, is summarized in

Table 4. Weight distribution of risk factors in the personnel risk dimension.

Personnel Risk Factors	Weight Value	Ranking	I.R.
Insufficient manpower	0.232762	3	0.06
Lack of cross-departmental integration	0.184446	4
Lack of professional skills among personnel	0.286508	2
Lack of professional skills among subcontractors	0.296284	1
Total	1.0

. The I.R. for this evaluation was 0.02, which was below the 0.1 threshold, indicating a sufficiently high level of agreement among the experts responding to the questionnaire.

According to Table 4, among all the factors evaluated in the personnel risk dimension, a lack of professional skills among subcontractors was the most critical factor recognized by project management experts from industry, government, and academia. The second ranked factor, a lack of professional skills among personnel, ranked only slightly behind the first, indicating that both execution personnel expertise and subcontractor expertise have a direct impact on project success. Their weight values were significantly higher than those of the third ranked factor (insufficient manpower) and the fourth ranked factor (a lack of cross-departmental integration), highlighting that in ICT project management, the professional skills of personnel and subcontractors, including their relevant knowledge and work experience, are crucial factors for evaluating personnel risk. Insufficient manpower can be addressed by hiring additional staff, but a lack of subcontractor expertise can lead to major errors, such as the design of incorrect interfaces or incorrectly performed tasks, which could result in project delays, rework costs, and additional risks. Insufficient professional knowledge and skills can lead to poor decision-making or execution difficulties, requiring additional training and learning time, which may increase costs and delay project schedules.

Table 5. Weight distribution of risk factors in the client risk dimension.

Client Risk Factors	Weight Value	Ranking	I.R.
Impact of interface work	0.226457	4	0.01
Insufficient project duration	0.271035	1
Lowest bid awarded	0.262705	2
Penalties	0.239803	3
Total	1.0

summarizes the weight distribution of the Level 3 factors within the client risk dimension, which include insufficient project duration, lowest bid awarded, penalties, and the impact of interface work. The inconsistency ratio (I.R.) for this evaluation was 0.01, which was below the 0.1 threshold, indicating a sufficiently high level of agreement among the experts responding to the questionnaire.

According to Table 5, among the factors evaluated in the client risk dimension, insufficient project duration was identified as the most critical factor, followed by lowest bid awarded. Insufficient project duration leads to tight scheduling, significantly impacting project completion and quality. It increases the likelihood of compromised outcomes due to rushed work, potentially causing discrepancies between the actual results and initial expectations. The decision to award the lowest bid focuses solely on cost, often neglecting quality, functionality, and other essential aspects, implying that the selection criteria may not be comprehensive enough. The weight values for penalties and the impact of interface work were much lower than those of the top two factors, indicating that they pose less severe threats to project success. In project management, the risks caused by interface work impact are relatively minor, and overall project benefits far exceed the losses arising from penalties.

Table 6. Weight distribution of risk factors in the unexpected event risk dimension.

Unexpected Event Risk Factors	Weight Value	Ranking	I.R.
Natural disasters	0.142453	4	0.022
Political factors	0.394516	1
Unexpected incidents	0.205240	3
Protests	0.257791	2
Total	1.0

summarizes the weight distribution among the Level 3 factors in the unexpected event risk dimension, including political factors, protests, unexpected incidents, and natural disasters. The I.R. for this evaluation was 0.022, which was below the 0.1 threshold, indicating a sufficiently high level of agreement among the experts responding to the questionnaire.

According to Table 6, among the factors evaluated in the unexpected event risk dimension, political factors (0.394516) had the highest importance, significantly outweighing other factors. Changes in local government leadership and the political stance of appointed officials can greatly impact project timelines; the potential for policy opposition must be considered, and efforts should be made to minimize losses caused by prolonged negotiations. Protests (0.257791) ranked second; public opposition can lead to project delays and may also attract widespread media scrutiny, forcing the project to be examined under public pressure. Unexpected incidents (0.205240) and natural disasters (0.142453) ranked third and fourth, respectively. If proper training, disaster prevention, and preparedness measures are implemented, departments can respond efficiently by following predefined standard procedures, and they can significantly reduce damages and risks due to unexpected incidents and natural disasters. As a result, their impact level and associated risks were lower than the top two factors. Taiwan’s geopolitical position in the Taiwan Strait makes its political stance on reunification with China or independence highly sensitive. Party transitions impact policies and regulations, and political influence can affect project decision-making. This, in part, explains the international geopolitical risks associated with project management in Taiwan.

The complete hierarchical structure of risk dimensions and factors, including detailed weight values for indicators, dimensions, and levels, is presented in

Table 7. Weight values of various risk factors.

Dimension	Dimension Weight Value	Indicator Name	Indicator Weight Value	Level Weight Value	Remarks
Personnel Risks	0.351100	Insufficient manpower	0.232762	0.08172	6
		Lack of cross-departmental integration	0.184446	0.06476	11
		Lack of professional skills among personnel	0.286508	0.10059	3
		Lack of professional skills among subcontractors	0.296284	0.10403	2
Client Risks	0.305377	Impact of interface work	0.232762	0.06915	10
		Insufficient project duration	0.184446	0.08277	5
		Lowest bid awarded	0.286508	0.08022	7
		Penalties	0.296284	0.07323	8
Unexpected Event Risk	0.343523	Natural disasters	0.142453	0.04894	12
		Political factors	0.394516	0.13553	1
		Unexpected incidents	0.205240	0.07050	9
		Protests	0.257791	0.08856	4

.

4.2. Analysis of AHP Expert Questionnaire Results

While Table 3 shows an analysis of risk dimensions based on dimension weight values and Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 show an analysis of risk factors based on indicator weight values, Table 7 provides further calculations of the level weight value of each risk factor (dimension weight value × indicator weight value). The ranking of the 12 risk factors based on their level weight values is as follows: political factors (0.13553), a lack of professional skills among subcontractors (0.10403), a lack of professional skills among personnel (0.10059), protests (0.08856), insufficient project duration (0.08277), insufficient manpower (0.08172), lowest bid awarded (0.08022), penalties (0.07323), unexpected incidents (0.07050), the impact of interface work (0.06915), a lack of cross-departmental integration (0.06476), and natural disasters (0.04894).

In accordance with the Handbook for Risk Management and Crisis Handling of the Executive Yuan (

Table 8. Acceptable risk levels.

Risk Level	Acceptable Risk Probability	Tolerance
Low	80–100%	Negligible
Moderate	60–79%	Acceptable
High	59% and below	Requires improvement and review

), risk factors with an acceptable risk probability of 80–100% are classified as low risk (negligible), those with an acceptable risk probability of 60–79% are classified as moderate risk (acceptable), and those with an acceptable risk probability of 59% or lower are classified as high risk (unacceptable, requiring improvement and review).

Therefore, this study used a 70% acceptable risk threshold (moderate risk) as the analysis criterion. On the basis of the questionnaire analysis, the 12 risk factors were ranked from highest to lowest risk according to their weight values. The top 70% factors in terms of cumulative weight value, comprising a total of seven factors, were identified as key areas requiring priority consideration and enhanced control in project management. The cumulative weight values and ranking of each risk factor are summarized in

Table 9. Cumulative weight values of risk factors.

Risk Factor	Ranking by Weight (High to Low)	Cumulative Value	Final Ranking
Political factors	0.13553	0.13553	1
Lack of professional skills among subcontractors	0.10403	0.23955	2
Lack of professional skills among personnel	0.10059	0.34014	3
Protests	0.08856	0.42870	4
Insufficient project duration	0.08277	0.51147	5
Insufficient manpower	0.08172	0.59319	6
Lowest bid awarded	0.08022	0.67342	7
Penalties	0.07323	0.74665	8
Unexpected incidents	0.07050	0.81715	9
Impact of interface work	0.06915	0.88631	10
Lack of cross-departmental integration	0.06476	0.95106	11
Natural disasters	0.04894	1.00000	12
Total	1.0

.

The following analysis focuses on the top 70% factors (a total of seven risk factors) in terms of cumulative weight value. In this study on project management, political factors ranked first, indicating that it is crucial to assess whether there will be leadership transitions at the regulatory or city/county government level during project execution and whether the new leaders might oppose the project objectives, which could potentially cause significant delays or disruptions. Political risks were further categorized into the following subtypes: (1) geopolitical risks, e.g., cross-strait tensions between Taiwan and China, as well as US–China relations and their broader impact; (2) internal conflicts, e.g., racial or ethnic group conflicts and population migration, which may affect project execution; (3) regulations, standards, and policies, e.g., changes in laws, regulatory frameworks, and government policies that could impact the project; and (4) breach of contract, e.g., failure by the government to honor contracts, leading to termination or suspension of the second and third phases of a project, which could result in significant losses, especially if the company planned manpower and resources based on a three-phase project scale but was only allowed to complete one phase, leading to substantial intangible losses.

A lack of professional skills among subcontractors ranked second. This factor requires careful selection of subcontractors in accordance with appropriate selection criteria that are tailored to each project. It is essential to verify whether subcontractors have a proven track record and whether their past performance meets a fivefold revenue threshold or higher. Additionally, it must be explicitly stated that further subcontracting is not allowed. In Taiwan, many industries suffer from a multi-layered subcontracting system in which experienced contractors secure a project, but the actual work is carried out by inexperienced subcontractors. This fragmented subcontracting model significantly increases risks, making the establishment of contract fulfillment regulations crucial. Retaining reliable subcontractors is another major challenge for companies, as many businesses struggle with maintaining long-term partnerships with high-quality subcontractors.

A lack of professional skills among personnel ranked third. This raises critical questions about how to select the right personnel, how to enhance their professional skills, and whether to organize training programs or provide financial incentives to encourage participation in professional development. Currently, young employees have a high turnover rate because they switch jobs frequently, chasing a slight salary increase. Companies invest significant resources in training employees only for them to leave, allowing other employers to reap the benefits. Additionally, Taiwan is faced with the issue of low wages in general, which makes it difficult for businesses to retain high-quality talent. Moreover, system integrator companies may not secure the same type of projects every year, meaning that many project managers are forced to work in areas outside their expertise, further complicating personnel management and skill retention.

Protests ranked fourth. Managing this risk involves strategies for calming residents, negotiating with them, and achieving agreements. The client should take the lead in negotiations, with the company playing a supporting role and ensuring that all relevant documents and records are retained. In the event of unreasonable protests, the authorities should be notified so that law enforcement can intervene where necessary. Because these types of protests are considered force majeure events, it is crucial to preserve all relevant documents and evidence. This documentation can serve as supporting material for mediation or arbitration in the event of project schedule disputes.

Insufficient project duration ranked fifth. In typical construction projects, failure of the client to fulfill their cooperative obligations within a certain timeframe usually results in project delays rather than complete project termination. What contractors actually need is additional time for project completion (to avoid liquidated damages for delays or compensation claims from the client) rather than contract termination or damage claims. Most construction contracts include specific provisions for such common scenarios in the project extension clause to reduce disputes. Additionally, they often contain general provisions stating that “other causes not attributable to the contractor, as recognized by the client” may also qualify for a project extension.

Regarding the sixth ranked issue—insufficient manpower—many companies, fearing a lack of work, take on low-margin or non-specialized projects simply to keep their engineers employed. However, when the company later secures higher-margin projects, its engineers are often already overwhelmed with multiple ongoing assignments. Because competitive bidding projects rely heavily on evaluation scores and the sales department faces pressure to secure contracts, the issue of insufficient manpower occurs frequently in mid-sized system integrator companies, where different projects constantly compete for available engineers. One possible solution is to collaborate with universities, leveraging industry–academia partnerships to create win–win situations. Professors can guide students in project-based learning and assist in project execution. Another approach is to subcontract unprofitable projects or those unlikely to lead to similar future bids, thus allowing the company to allocate manpower more efficiently.

As for the seventh ranked risk, lowest bid awarded, the principle of “bad money driving out good” can lead to well-established and high-quality contractors withdrawing from bidding, thereby reducing overall industry standards. To mitigate risks, companies may require audit approval for all lowest-bid projects and set a company-wide limit, ensuring that lowest-bid projects do not exceed 30% of their total contracts. From the client’s perspective, the advantages of awarding contracts to the lowest bidder include (1) free market competition, (2) simplified bidding and award procedures, and (3) cost savings. However, in many cases, clients eventually increase the budget to ensure project completion, making the final cost less economical than initially expected. Furthermore, disputes and arbitration frequently arise, often resulting in prolonged project timelines.

To ensure the successful execution of projects, this present study developed a project management bid preparation checklist (

Table 10. Project management bid preparation checklist.

Item	Description	Score
Political factors (20 points)	1. Is there a change in the city/county government leadership? 2. Are there any regulatory or legal issues? 3. Are there potential war-related concerns (e.g., cross-strait issues)?
Lack of professional skills among subcontractors (16 points)	1. Does the subcontractor have experience? 2. Has the accumulated revenue reached at least five times the subcontract amount? 3. Has the subcontractor been suspended or disqualified before?
Lack of professional skills among personnel (15 points)	1. Do personnel hold relevant certifications? 2. Do personnel have prior experience in project management?
Protests (13 points)	Were there any protests in the local area during the design phase?
Insufficient project duration (13 points)	1. Has a project timeline assessment identified insufficient duration as a risk? 2. Is a preliminary project schedule attached?
Insufficient manpower (12 points)	Is the manpower allocation sufficient? (Including in-house personnel and subcontractor workforce evaluation)
Lowest bid awarded (11 points)	1. The lowest bid price must maintain a minimum 15% gross profit margin to avoid financial loss. 2. Are product or equipment specifications restricted in the bid process?
Total (100 points) *

* Projects scoring 80 points or above qualify for bid acceptance.

) based on the weighted risk factors identified earlier. This checklist can serve as a future evaluation tool for assessing potential project risks. It can be used before accepting a project to assess potential risks, focusing on the following top seven risk factors as primary evaluation criteria: political factors (0.13553), a lack of professional skills among subcontractors (0.10403), a lack of professional skills among personnel (0.10059), protests (0.08856), insufficient project duration (0.08277), insufficient manpower (0.08172), and lowest bid awarded (0.08022). A normalized scoring system is applied, with a total score of 100 points. If a project achieves at least 80 points, it qualifies for bid preparation and submission.

5. Discussion

The present study utilized expert questionnaires, AHP questionnaires, and the AHP method as research tools to analyze key factors in project management within the ICT industry. Risk factors were categorized into three major dimensions, i.e., personnel risks, client risks, and unexpected event risks. Among these, the personnel risk dimension was identified as the most critical. On the basis of the comprehensive analysis, in the personnel risk dimension, a lack of professional skills among subcontractors was the most critical factor; in the client risk dimension, insufficient project duration was the most significant factor; and in the unexpected event risk dimension, political factors were the most critical.

Among all the factors evaluated in the personnel risk dimension, a lack of professional skills among subcontractors (0.296284) was identified as the most critical factor by project management experts from industry, government, and academia. The second ranked factor, a lack of professional skills among personnel (0.286508), ranked only slightly lower, indicating that the professional competency of both execution personnel and subcontractors can directly impact the overall project success rate. The weight values of these two factors were significantly higher than that of the third ranked factor, insufficient manpower (0.232762), and the fourth ranked factor, a lack of cross-departmental integration (0.184446). This highlights the importance of expertise and experience in ICT project management, particularly for the personnel and subcontractors carrying out the work. Although insufficient manpower can be addressed by increasing the number of staff, a lack of subcontractor expertise can lead to major errors, such as incorrect implementation or interface design mistakes, which may cause greater project risks and disruptions.

Among all the factors evaluated in the client risk dimension, insufficient project duration (0.271035) was identified as the most critical factor, followed by lowest bid awarded (0.262705). An insufficient project duration results in tight scheduling, significantly impacting project completion and quality; it also increases the likelihood of compromised outcomes due to rushed work, potentially leading to minor discrepancies between the final result and initial expectations. The decision to award the lowest bid is based solely on cost considerations and often overlooks critical aspects such as quality and functionality, indicating that the selection criteria are not comprehensive enough.

Among all the factors evaluated in the unexpected event risk dimension, political factors (0.394516) had the highest level of importance, significantly outweighing the other factors. Leadership change at the city/county government level and the political stance of newly elected officials regarding project approval must be carefully considered, as these factors can heavily impact project timelines. Efforts should be made to minimize losses caused by prolonged negotiations. Protests (0.257791) ranked second, as public opposition may lead to project delays or intensified public scrutiny, forcing the project to be examined under media and societal pressure. Unexpected incidents (0.205240) and natural disasters (0.142453) ranked third and fourth, respectively. Taiwan faces cross-strait tensions, which contribute to political uncertainty arising from party transitions and policy changes. Budget allocations and financial planning are often subject to political intervention, and conflicts between local and central governments over jurisdiction, and responsibilities further complicate project management. This presents a unique challenge in studying project risk management.

The 12 risk factors ranked as follows: political factors (0.13553), a lack of professional skills among subcontractors (0.10403), a lack of professional skills among personnel (0.10059), protests (0.08856), insufficient project duration (0.08277), insufficient manpower (0.08172), lowest bid awarded (0.08022), penalties (0.07323), unexpected incidents (0.07050), the impact of interface work (0.06915), a lack of cross-departmental integration (0.06476), and natural disasters (0.04894). In accordance with the Handbook for Risk Management and Crisis Handling of the Executive Yuan, risk factors with an acceptable risk probability of 80–100% are classified as low risk (negligible), those with an acceptable risk probability of 60–79% are classified as moderate risk (acceptable), and those with an acceptable risk probability below 59% are classified as high risk (unacceptable, requiring improvement and review). The research team set a risk threshold of 65–70% and identified the top seven risk factors as follows: political factors (0.13553), a lack of professional skills among subcontractors (0.10403), a lack of professional skills among personnel (0.10059), protests (0.08856), insufficient project duration (0.08277), insufficient manpower (0.08172), and lowest bid awarded (0.08022). By effectively managing these seven risk factors, a project’s success rate can reach nearly 70%.

The fact that political factors rank highest in relative importance warrants academic attention, as Taiwan’s political and administrative systems have long been shaped by its relationship with mainland China [7]. Local government leaders’ tendencies toward unification or independence can influence project selection and implementation. This unification–independence orientation is globally unique; no other country experiences a political climate centered on the choice between unification with or independence from the People’s Republic of China.

6. Conclusions

This study proposes a bid preparation checklist for project management within a political context. By utilizing this checklist, contractors can mitigate project risks. Notably, this research reveals that in the tense cross-strait environment, where the ideologies of the two major political parties are distinct, political factors represent the most significant risk to project contracting. Project management risks are maximized during electoral transitions of ruling parties. While subcontractors, participating personnel, resident protests, and construction schedules are aspects that contractors can communicate about and control to some degree, political factors remain beyond their control. This study employed the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to clarify the relative weights of risks borne by contractors, thereby contributing to project risk management theory. Political factors emerged as a paramount risk to project management, particularly within the context of increasing global political polarization, warranting in-depth investigation.

A project risk management checklist in the bidding process can enhance the identification and understanding of potential risks, enabling both procuring entities and bidders to systematically examine possible risk factors. Secondly, it facilitates effective risk communication and consensus-building by clarifying responsibilities and risk-sharing mechanisms during the bidding stage. Thirdly, incorporating risks into cost considerations helps reduce the likelihood of budget overruns or additional funding requests. Finally, the checklist serves as a basis for post-award monitoring, supporting project units in tracking the implementation of risk response measures.

The use of a project risk management checklist during the bidding phase also presents several limitations. First, such checklists often rely heavily on the experience and judgment of experts or practitioners, making them susceptible to subjective bias. Second, incomplete project information at the bidding stage may hinder comprehensive risk identification. Lastly, to remain relevant and effective, the risk checklist must be continuously updated to reflect evolving risk conditions.

7. Study Limitations

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is advantageous in addressing complex and systematic decision-making problems by transforming the subjective preferences of experts or decision-makers into quantifiable weight values. However, certain limitations of the AHP method must also be acknowledged, which represent constraints of this study. The AHP method relies on expert or decision-maker judgments in pairwise comparisons, which may be influenced by individual experience, biases, or cognitive differences. Although the AHP method incorporates a consistency ratio (CR) to assess the logical coherence of responses, it cannot entirely eliminate concerns regarding reliability.

This study primarily focuses on construction and government projects, which may not be fully applicable to information technology or innovation projects. Differences in stakeholder structures and project objectives lead to variations in risk management factors across project types. The limited duration of this study did not allow for long-term observation or longitudinal research. Future researchers may consider adopting a longitudinal approach to enable extended analysis over time.