Risk Management Maturity, Contract Provisions and Project Success: An Integrated Assessment for the Turkish Construction Sector

Öz

In recent years, various crises such as the global pandemic, economic contractions, exchange rate volatility, geopolitical uncertainties, and major earthquakes in Türkiye have significantly reduced predictability in the construction sector. While this crisis environment has increased sector-specific risk factors, sustaining project success has become more complex for firms than ever before. At the same time, global trends such as digitalization, green transformation, and sustainability—driven by the international fight against the climate crisis—have made structural transformation of the sector inevitable. Within this multidimensional transformation process, firms must compete not only with technical competencies but also with their corporate risk management capabilities. In this context, the concept of “risk management maturity” has become a critical factor shaping firms' resilience against crises, stability in project processes, and long-term success strategies. This study addresses this exact need by aiming to analyze the effect of risk management maturity levels of construction firms on project success and the role of contract terms in this relationship. Based on a literature review, data were collected from 32 firms through a survey developed according to a construction sector-specific risk management maturity model. Risk management maturity was evaluated across organizational culture, processes, resources, and practices dimensions; project success was assessed in four dimensions: efficiency, organizational contribution, client impact, and future preparedness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Risk management
• Risk management maturity
• Project success
• Contract management

Kaynakça

1. Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539
2. DeCotiis, T. A., & Dyer, L. (1979). Defining and measuring project performance. Research Management, 22(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1979.11756525
3. Dvir, D., & Shenhar, A. J. (1992). Measuring the success of technology-based strategic business units. Engineering Management Journal, 4(4), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429244.1992.11414698
4. Dvir, D., Segev, E., & Shenhar, A. J. (1993). Technology's varying impact on the success of strategic business units within the Miles and Snow typology. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140206
5. Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00074-6
6. Hillson, D. (2019). Modifying the IACCM capability maturity model for risk. PM World Journal, 8(6).
7. Hopkinson, M. (2014). The project management maturity model: Measuring and improving risk management capability. Gower Publishing.
8. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). Product development cycle time and organizational performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400102

9. Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., & Higgon, D. (2012). Risk management in projects (2nd edition.). Taylor & Francis.
10. Öngel, B. (2009). Assessing risk management maturity: A framework for the construction companies [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University]. METU Institutional Repository.
11. PM Solutions. (2014). The project management maturity & value benchmark 2014. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmsolutions.com/resources/view/the-project-management-maturity-value-benchmark-2014
12. Pollack, J., & Adler, D. (2015). Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.011
13. Ren, Y. T., & Yeo, K. T. (2004). Risk management capability maturity model for complex product systems (CoPS) projects. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, 807–811. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.2004.1407264
14. Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9832
15. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25(4), 607–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2
16. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
17. Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8