Table 5.
Risk impact.
| Score |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Major | Significant | Moderate | Minor | |||||
| Score 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Marginal | ||||
| Cost | >25 % cost increase | 15–25 % cost increase | 5–15 % cost increase | <5 % cost increase | Insignificant Cost increase | ||||
| Score 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Marginal | ||||
| Time | >20 % time increase | 10–20 % time increase | 5–10 % time increase | <5 % time increase | Insignificant Time increase | ||||
| Score 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Marginal | ||||
| Scope | Project end item is effectively useless | Scope reduction unacceptable to the sponsor | Major areas of scope affected | Minor areas of scope affected, | Scope decrease Barely noticeable | ||||
| Score 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Marginal | ||||
| Quality | Project end item is effectively useless | Quality reduction unacceptable to the sponsor | Quality reduction requires sponsor approval |
Only very demanding applications affected | Quality decrease Barely noticeable | ||||
* The impacts on the brand image are not comparable to the impacts on the cost which SHS bears, even if the profitability can be amplified by a shortage of client funding. El-Sayegh et al.
[25] identified the shortage of client funding risk to be the highest risk in the UAE sustainable construction projects which we will take into consideration.