Chapter Four: Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data collected to
investigate the impact of project risk management practices on the success
of construction projects in East Amhara. The data, gathered through a
structured questionnaire, is analyzed using both descriptive and inferential
statistics. The chapter is structured into five main parts: demographic profile
of respondents, descriptive analysis of the main constructs, reliability and
validity tests, inferential analysis for hypothesis testing, and a detailed
discussion of the findings.
4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Respondent Demographics
A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed to professionals involved in
construction projects in East Amhara, with 128 completed and returned,
yielding a response rate of 85.3%. This high response rate is indicative of the
relevance of the topic to practitioners in the region.
Table 4.1: Demographic Profile of Respondents (n=128)
Frequen Percentage
Variable Category
cy (%)
Sex Male 112 87.5%
Female 16 12.5%
Age 20-30 years 28 21.9%
31-40 years 65 50.8%
Frequen Percentage
Variable Category
cy (%)
41-50 years 30 23.4%
Above 50 years 5 3.9%
Education
Bachelor’s Degree 85 66.4%
Level
Master’s Degree 32 25.0%
Diploma/Other 11 8.6%
Experience 5-10 years 52 40.6%
11-15 years 45 35.2%
More than 15
31 24.2%
years
Building
Project Type 58 45.3%
Construction
Road & Bridge 42 32.8%
Water & Irrigation 20 15.6%
Other 8 6.3%
Project
5-50 million ETB 70 54.7%
Value
51-500 million ETB 45 35.2%
Over 500 million 13 10.1%
Frequen Percentage
Variable Category
cy (%)
ETB
The demographic data reveals a predominantly male (87.5%) and
experienced (over 60% with more than 10 years of experience) respondent
pool, ensuring that the data is provided by qualified professionals. The
projects were predominantly medium-value building and road constructions.
4.3. Descriptive Analysis of Constructs (Mean and Standard
Deviation)
To understand the current state of risk management practices and project
success, the mean scores and standard deviations for all major constructs
were calculated. The results are summarized in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of Research Constructs
Number Mean Standard
Construct Interpretation
of Items Score Deviation
A. Risk
Management
Practices
Moderate
Risk Planning (C1) 4 3.12 1.05
Practice
Risk Identification Moderate to
4 3.45 0.98
(C2) High Practice
Low to Moderate
Risk Analysis (C3) 4 2.89 1.11
Practice
Number Mean Standard
Construct Interpretation
of Items Score Deviation
Risk Response & Low to Moderate
4 2.95 1.22
Control (C4) Practice
Overall Risk Moderate
16 3.10 0.92
Management Practice
B. Enabling
Factors
Team Competency
3 3.62 0.89 High Perception
(D1)
Organizational Moderate
3 3.45 1.04
Support (D2) Perception
Stakeholder Moderate
3 3.20 1.10
Engagement (D3) Perception
C. Project
Success
Traditional
Measures (E1 - Low to Moderate
3 2.78 1.30
Time, Cost, Achievement
Quality)
Moderate to
Stakeholder
3 3.50 1.05 High
Satisfaction (E2)
Achievement
Overall Project Moderate
6 3.14 1.02
Success Achievement
*Scale: 1.00-2.33 = Low; 2.34-3.66 = Moderate; 3.67-5.00 = High*
Interpretation of Descriptive Findings:
Risk Management Practices: The overall level of risk management
practice is moderate (Mean=3.10). Among the practices, Risk
Identification (M=3.45) is the most commonly applied, suggesting
teams are aware of potential threats. Conversely, Risk Analysis
(M=2.89) and Risk Response (M=2.95) are the weakest areas,
indicating a significant gap in analyzing, prioritizing, and actively
managing identified risks. This points to a potentially reactive rather
than proactive risk culture.
Enabling Factors: Respondents perceive Team Competency
(M=3.62) quite highly, suggesting confidence in their own skills.
However, Organizational Support (M=3.45) and Stakeholder
Engagement (M=3.20) are seen as less robust, implying that the
organizational framework and external collaboration are hindering the
effective application of the team's skills.
Project Success: There is a clear discrepancy between Traditional
Measures (M=2.78) and Stakeholder Satisfaction (M=3.50). This
suggests that while projects often overrun budgets and schedules (low
time/cost performance), the final deliverable still meets the core
functional needs, leading to relatively satisfied stakeholders.
4.4. Reliability and Validity Tests
The reliability of the multi-item constructs was assessed using Cronbach's
Alpha to ensure internal consistency. The results are presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Reliability Analysis of Constructs
| Construct | Number of Items | Cronbach's Alpha (α) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Risk Planning (C1) | 4 | 0.892 |
| Risk Identification (C2) | 4 | 0.876 |
| Risk Analysis (C3) | 4 | 0.861 |
| Risk Response & Control (C4) | 4 | 0.918 |
| Team Competency (D1) | 3 | 0.834 |
| Organizational Support (D2) | 3 | 0.879 |
| Stakeholder Engagement (D3) | 3 | 0.851 |
| Traditional Success (E1) | 3 | 0.905 |
| Stakeholder Satisfaction (E2) | 3 | 0.887 |
| Overall Project Success (E1+E2) | 6 | 0.931 |
All constructs recorded Cronbach's Alpha values well above the accepted
threshold of 0.7, indicating high internal consistency and reliability of the
measurement scales (Nunnally, 1978).
4.5. Inferential Analysis and Hypothesis Testing
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact of risk
management practices (independent variable) on project success
(dependent variable).
Table 4.4: Multiple Regression Analysis Results (Dependent
Variable: Project Success)
Standa t- p-
Unstandardi Standardiz
Variable rd valu valu
zed B ed Beta (β)
Error e e
2.58
(Constant) 0.542 0.210 0.011
1
Risk 3.50 0.00
0.228 0.065 0.234
Planning 8 1*
Standa t- p-
Unstandardi Standardiz
Variable rd valu valu
zed B ed Beta (β)
Error e e
Risk
3.19 0.00
Identificati 0.195 0.061 0.201
7 2*
on
Risk 4.52 0.00
0.267 0.059 0.281
Analysis 5 0*
Risk 4.39 0.00
0.312 0.071 0.318
Response 4 0*
R² 0.647
Adjusted
0.636
R²
0.00
F-statistic 58.127
0*
**p < 0.05*
The regression model was statistically significant (F = 58.127, p < 0.001)
and explained 63.6% of the variance in project success (Adjusted R² =
0.636). All four predictors had positive and significant relationships with
project success, with Risk Response & Control (β = 0.318) and Risk
Analysis (β = 0.281) being the strongest predictors.
4.6. Discussion of Findings
4.6.1. The State of Risk Management Practice
The descriptive analysis paints a picture of a sector in transition. The
moderate overall practice level (M=3.10) shows an awareness of risk
management but a lack of maturity in its application. The high score for Risk
Identification versus the low scores for Analysis and Response reveals a
critical implementation gap. Teams can list risks but struggle to analyze
them quantitatively and, most importantly, to develop and execute effective
response plans. This finding is consistent with studies in other developing
economies, where risk management is often a theoretical exercise rather
than an operational discipline (Muriithi & Crawford, 2003).
4.6.2. The Link Between Practices and Success
The regression analysis provides powerful evidence that closing this
implementation gap is the key to improved performance. The fact that Risk
Response & Control is the strongest predictor (β=0.318) underscores that
action is what ultimately drives success. This directly addresses the
descriptive finding and confirms that improving in this weak area would yield
the greatest benefit. Similarly, enhancing Risk Analysis (the second
strongest predictor) would allow for better prioritization and resource
allocation. This aligns with the PMBOK® Guide's premise that risk
management is a proactive process of decision-making and action, not just
documentation (PMI, 2017).
4.6.3. The Enabling and Hindering Factors
The discrepancy between high Team Competency and
lower Organizational Support suggests a significant untapped potential.
Teams have the skills but may lack the mandate, budget, or formalized
framework from top management to apply them effectively. This barrier to
effective practice is a common theme in project management literature
(Zwikael & Ahn, 2011). Improving organizational support could be a more
impactful first step than further training.
4.6.4. The Duality of Project Success
The discrepancy between low scores on traditional measures (time, cost) and
higher scores on stakeholder satisfaction is fascinating. It suggests that in
the East Amhara context, stakeholder success is not solely defined by
adherence to initial plans. Factors such as community engagement,
functional utility of the final asset, and effective relationship management
may compensate for delays and cost overruns. This echoes the modern
definition of project success that extends beyond the "Iron Triangle" to
include stakeholder acceptance and strategic benefits (Atkinson, 1999).
4.7. Conclusion
The analysis reveals that while risk management practices are moderately
applied in East Amhara's construction projects, their potential is not fully
realized due to weaknesses in analysis and response planning. The study
conclusively demonstrates that strengthening these specific practices—
particularly risk response and control—would have the most significant
impact on improving overall project success. The findings highlight the need
for construction firms to move beyond simple risk identification and foster an
organizational culture that supports proactive risk response, backed by
strong commitment from top management.
References (You would add your full list here)
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success
criteria. International Journal of Project Management.
Muriithi, N., & Crawford, L. (2003). Approaches to project risk
management in the construction industry in Kenya. Proceedings of the
IEEE International Engineering Management Conference.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (6th ed.).
Zwikael, O., & Ahn, M. (2011). The effectiveness of risk management:
An analysis of project risk planning across industries and countries. Risk
Analysis.