See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339336849

Prediction of Risk Delay in Construction Projects Using a Hybrid Artificial

Intelligence Model

Article in Sustainability · February 2020

DOI: 10.3390/su12041514

CITATIONS READS

78 1,896

4 authors:

Zaher Mundher Yaseen Zainab Hasan Ali

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals University of Diyala
461 PUBLICATIONS 14,261 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 353 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sinan Salih Nadhir Al-Ansari

Al-Bayan University Luleå University of Technology
82 PUBLICATIONS 2,878 CITATIONS 1,094 PUBLICATIONS 14,091 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic changes in ecosystems' carbon and water fluxes and their responses to drought disturbances View project

Groundwater in Highland centre, Vietnam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nadhir Al-Ansari on 18 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Prediction of risk delay in construction projects using
a hybrid artificial intelligence model
Zaher Mundher Yaseen 1, Zainab Hasan Ali 2, Sinan Q. Salih 3,* and Nadhir Al‐Ansari 4,*
1 Sustainable Developments in Civil Engineering Research Group, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam; [email protected]
2 Civil Engineering Department, College of engineering, University of Diyala, Baquba 32001, Iraq;

[email protected]
3 Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam

4 Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology,

97187 Lulea, Sweden

* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.Q.S.); [email protected] (N.A‐A.)

Received: 22 December 2019; Accepted: 14 February 2020; Published: 18 February 2020

Abstract: Project delays are the major problems tackled by the construction sector owing to the
associated complexity and uncertainty in the construction activities. Artificial Intelligence (AI)
models have evidenced their capacity to solve dynamic, uncertain and complex tasks. The aim of
this current study is to develop a hybrid artificial intelligence model called integrative Random
Forest classifier with Genetic Algorithm optimization (RF‐GA) for delay problem prediction. At
first, related sources and factors of delay problems are identified. A questionnaire is adopted to
quantify the impact of delay sources on project performance. The developed hybrid model is trained
using the collected data of the previous construction projects. The proposed RF‐GA is validated
against the classical version of an RF model using statistical performance measure indices. The
achieved results of the developed hybrid RF‐GA model revealed a good resultant performance in
terms of accuracy, kappa and classification error. Based on the measured accuracy, kappa and
classification error, RF‐GA attained 91.67%, 87% and 8.33%, respectively. Overall, the proposed
methodology indicated a robust and reliable technique for project delay prediction that is
contributing to the construction project management monitoring and sustainability.

Keywords: delay sources; risk management; random forest‐genetic algorithm; computer aid;
construction project

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background

The construction sector has a crucial role in improving the economics of developed countries [1].
The success of this sector is measured by time, cost and quality performance of construction projects.
Prediction of construction durations represents a problem for both researchers and project managers.
The construction process is subject to many factors and unpredicted variables that result from many
sources. These sources prevent the completion of projects within the specified time and lead to a
delay risk in the construction process [2,3].
Delay risk is considered as one of the major challenges tackled by construction firms [3,4]. Delay
can be defined as an action or event that extends the time required to complete the project identified
in a contract [3]. Project delay has an adverse effect on the project performance, which leads to cost
overruns and productivity reduction. Its effect extends to include the owner, consultant and
contractor in terms of litigation, dispute and arbitration [5]. Delays are caused by many sources and

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514; doi:10.3390/su12041514 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 2 of 14

factors such as the owner [6,7], designer [3,8], contractor [4,7], materials [4,7], project [7,8], labor [9]
and external factors [3,10].

1.2. Literature Review

The prediction of project delay based on internal and external sources can help project managers
to provide an accurate forecast of the project schedule, and this can assist a proactive management
approach in the construction project [11]. Construction projects are dynamic and complex, included
a huge number of project stockholders, feedback processes and non‐linear relationships [12]. The
existence of a delay problem is related to interdependent factors that affect the construction project
and the complexity and uncertainty of construction activities. Thus, providing of an efficient tool for
analyzing delay factors is key for estimating an accurate duration in construction projects [11].
By recalling previous studies, Chan (2001) used regression analysis to identify time–cost
relationships for building projects in Malaysia [2]. This approach was developed for managers and
owners to estimate the average time that is required for project delivery. Chan and Chan (2004)
performed multiple regression exercises to analyze data related to the time performance of
construction projects [13]. The results indicated that multiple regression was used as a useful method
to predict time performance in construction projects. Rezaie et al. (2007) used Monte Carlo analysis
to investigate the effects of uncertainties on the schedule performance [14]. The results revealed that
this method is a good tool to simulate the relationship of uncertainties of construction projects, and
represents many dimensions of the utility function. Hammad et al. (2008) developed a statistical
model and sample tests to predict the cost and duration of construction projects in Jordan [15]. The
proposed model showed reliable statistical results in the prediction of the time and cost performance
of construction projects. Mohamed et al. (2009) introduced Analytical Hierarchy Processes (AHP) to
predict time contingency in construction projects [16]. The model provided a reliable result in the
estimation process. In another study, Abu Hammad et al. (2010) used statistical analysis to measure
the risk impact on the time and cost of public building projects [17]. Dursun and Stoy (2011) modeled
construction project duration by testing the statistical efficiency in classifying projects with respect to
their locations [18]. The results demonstrated that the model was valid to select populations.
Kokkaew and Wipulanusat (2014) presented a stochastic‐based Monte Carlo approach for managing
delay risk in construction projects [19]. This approach has been applied to two case studies, a
commercial building and a build–operate–transfer (BOT) road. The results showed that this approach
may enhance risk management in construction projects that are surrounded with uncertainties.
However, although there have been several models introduced for delay risk simulation, these
methods cannot explain and clarify the uncertainty and complexity of the construction process very
well, and this can affect the prediction process of project duration.
Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been widely applied in different fields of
engineering and science [20]. Several studies used AI models in their research on construction project
management. Elazouni (2006) Used an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) during the prequalification
process before awarding a contract [21]. The model was used to classify contractors into several
groups depending on their performance. The model demonstrated reliable result in representing
contractors in four‐dimensional space. Chao and Chien (2009) developed a neural network model to
estimate the S‐curve in a construction project, which represented by polynomial parameter [22]. The
results displayed that the model can be useful for contractors and owners in the early planning phase
of a construction project. Desai and Joshi (2010) used a decision tree to analyze labor productivity in
construction projects [23]. Shin (2011) proposed the AdaBoost algorithm for the selection of a
framework system in construction projects [24]. The algorithm was compared with an ANN model
and the results revealed that the AdaBoost algorithm performed with better accuracy than the ANN
model. In another study, Chou and Lin (2012) applied an ensemble method for disputing problems
in public–private partnership projects [25]. The study used four regression and classification trees
and two statistical techniques to compare the performance of the utilized method. The study revealed
that the ensemble models provided better accuracy that the individual models. Rudžianskaitė‐
Kvaraciejienė et al. (2015) Integrated a Random Forest algorithm with the modeling of public–private
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 3 of 14

partnerships in infrastructure projects [26]. The method performed with good accuracy in the
prediction process for public and private projects.
Heravi and Eslamdoost (2015) investigated the potential of an ANN model for the prediction of
labor productivity in construction projects [27]. The results discovered that the ANN model showed
better modeling of labor productivity. Gerassis et al. (2016) applied Bayesian networks to analyze the
causes of accidents in embankment construction [28]. The study revealed that this method provided
an accurate identification of embankment stability in civil engineering projects. By recalling the
related literature review studies, AI model application is still a new methodology in the field of
construction management research and delay risk prediction [29]. Few studies used AI models in risk
prediction and classification.
Asadi et al. (2015) used a decision tree and a Naive Bayes model based on a questionnaire survey
to predict delay in construction logistics. The authors evidenced the capacity of the decision tree has
higher accuracy by 79.41% over the Naive Bayes model, which showed a lower accuracy value of
73.52% [30]. Naji et al. (2018) used a Bayesian decision tree model to predict the impact of contract
changes on the time and quality performance of construction projects [31]. The model performed with
good accuracy in the prediction process and caused an improvement in the project performance.
Gondia et al. (2020) utilized Naive Bayes and decision tree models to predict the delay risk in
construction projects. The study revealed the power of AI models in delay risk prediction and
improving risk management strategies [11]. Based on the reported studies in the literature, the
current research is established with the aim of providing a reliable methodology for delay risk
prediction that will contribute to the baseline knowledge of construction management. Owing to the
fact that standalone AI models experienced some limitations on tuning their internal parameters for
an optimal learning process [32], the current study is adopted based on the integration of a nature‐
inspired optimization algorithm called Genetic Algorithm (GA) with a Random Forest (RF) model.
The GA optimization approach was demonstrated as a reliable technique in tuning AI models for
multiple engineering applications and thus it was selected for the current study [33–35].

1.1. Research Objectives

In the current study, the authors aim to explore and develop an effective tool to predict delay
risk problems based on delay sources using previous construction projects data. The main
contribution of the current investigation is to provide an accurate methodology that can assist in the
prediction of future durations and monitor risk levels, based on these projects. This work can enhance
a proactive approach in risk management. To achieve this aim, sources and factors of delay risk are
extracted from the literature, and then related data to the delay risk problems are collected from
previous construction projects. A questionnaire survey is adopted to measure the impact of various
sources on the delay level in construction projects. Based on the complex nature of the construction
process and the associated uncertainties of the delay sources, a hybrid model based on the integration
of the Random Forest and Genetic Algorithm (RF‐GA) is developed in order to analyze the data of
completed previous projects. The performance of the developed model is studied statistically and
discussed comprehensively. The potential of the proposed RF‐GA model is validated against the
classic RF model.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Random Forest Model

The RF model was first developed by Breiman (2001) based on the combination of decision tree
classifiers [36]. Each tree provides a prediction for the class label and the algorithm selects the classes
that have the most choices. Random Forest is a very popular tool that uses the bootstrapping method
to train dataset samples and construct multiple random trees [37]. The algorithm gained significant
important because it is invariant under scaling and it is robust to the inclusion of irrelevant features
[38]. Several studies examined the application of Random Forest in engineering applications and
demonstrated its feasibility in prediction processes [26,34,35]. Under the bootstrapping method, the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 4 of 14

data during the training phase are selected randomly and independently to develop an RF model,
and the data that are not involved in the selection process are named “out‐of‐bag” [41]. During this
process, the out‐of‐bag data are changed and the prediction error is measured to estimate the
importance of input variables [41,42]. In the RF algorithm, overfitting does not occur due to large
numbers of trees and the choice of the right type of random variables leads to accurate classification.
Random Forests contain several parameters that need to be optimized, such as number of trees,
minimum gain and maximum tree depth. In this study, these parameters were optimized by a genetic
algorithm.

2.2. The Hybrid RF‐GA Model

Genetic algorithm is a popular technique used to optimize problems in complex systems based
on natural selection [43]. To solve a problem in a GA algorithm, random solutions are generated, and
then the selection of the population is done to develop the model. The new solutions are developed
by using selection, crossover and mutation. A string of bits or chromosomes is used to represent the
solutions in the GA model. The position of bits is called the gene, and the gene contains many values
that are named alleles. GA has been widely applied in different fields, such as image processing,
pattern recognition and controlling systems [44]. The GA model was used in different research in
construction management such as resources optimization [45], project scheduling [46,47], optimizing
of time and cost in construction projects [48] and dispute classification [49]. In the present study, a
GA model is presented to optimize parameters of the RF model, including number of trees, minimum
gain and maximum tree depth. The description of the hybrid FR‐GA model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Hybrid artificial intelligence model Random Forest and Genetic Algorithm (RF‐GA)
structure.

2.3. Identification of Delay Sources and Factors in Construction Projects

The most important factors that affect delays in construction projects were identified from a
literature survey, and these factors were categorized into different sources. These sources included
owner, designer, contractor, project, material, equipment, labor and external factors. To obtain more
information on the delay problems and their factors in construction projects, interviews were held
with 15 experts in construction work [11]. By this interview, the identified sources and factors and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 5 of 14

their relevance to the construction industry were confirmed. Based on the reviews and literature
review, the most important delay factors and their sources were identified as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Identified factors and sources in construction projects.

Delay source Delay factors

1.1 Owner financial problems
1.2 Payment delay by the owner
1.3 Choosing of inefficient design team
1.4 Inadequate experience of the owner
1. Owner
1.5 Issuing of change orders by the owner
1.6 Delay in location delivery to the contractor
1.7 Choice of inefficient contractor
1.8 Delay in decision making procedure
2.1 Inadequate experience of design members
2. Designer 2.2 Delay in the preparation of design documents
2.3 Defects in the design and ambiguity of design drawings
3.1 Ineffective project planning
3.2 Financial contractor difficulties
3.3 Inadequacy of contractor
3. Contractor 3.4 Rework due to defects in executed work
3.5 Ineffective supervision and site management
3.6 Many changes in subcontractor parties
3.7 Poor communication between contractor and project parties
4.1 Awarding the contract to an inadequate contractor
4.2 Disputes between project parties
4. Project
4.3 Period of contract is very short
4.4 Errors in contract documents
5.1 Deficiency of materials in the market
5.2 Delay in supplying materials
5. Material
5.3 Ineffective quality of materials
5.4 Poor storage of materials
6.1 Poor efficiency of equipment
6. Equipment
6.2 Unsuitable type of equipment
7.1 Poor labor productivity
7. Labor 7.2 Inadequacy of workforce
7.3 Lack of labor
8.1 Political situation and terrorism
8.2 Inflation
8.3 Legislation changes in the country
8. External factors
8.4 Unpredicted surface conditions
8.5 Neighbor problems
8.6 Bad weather conditions

2.4. Data Collection

The compiled data included 40 completed projects that had different degrees of time overrun.
These projects were executed in Diyala city, Iraq. The collected data included historical documents
of previous projects that were investigated to extract the measure of risk delay in construction
projects. These documents included contract documents, specifications, change orders records and
schedule baselines. To complete data collection, a questionnaire survey was arranged and
constructed. Each questionnaire form contained a construction project and another nine variables.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 6 of 14

The first variable represented the delay level, and the other eight variables referred to the risk delay
sources in the construction project. Each risk source was given scores depending on two scales. The
first scale was the probability of risk to occur in the construction project and the second related to the
impact of sources on the delay of the construction project, as shown in Table 2. The overall risk impact
was evaluated by multiplying the two scales [3, 43, 44].
The probability and impact of the variables were measured by using a five‐point Likert scale
with measures form very low to very high level. The input variables were classified as: very low, low,
medium, high and very high. The output variable (delay level) was also classified into three class
measures. This method resulted in three categories of delay level that reduced the bias during the
execution of the artificial intelligence model. Delay level was categorized as: ˂50% delay, 50%–100%
delay and ˃100% delay. The questionnaire was allocated to a pilot study to measure the questionnaire
reliability and to investigate the problems and determine the items that are more confusing than the
others. The authors selected 40 parties for the pilot study as the size of the study was ranged between
30 and 50 parties [52]. To confirm the questionnaire reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was adopted, and
in this study the value of the alpha coefficient is 91.8%. The result of Cronbach’s alpha confirms the
reliability of the questionnaire.

Table 2. Scales of probability and impact of risk delay in construction projects.

Scale Probability Impact

Very low 0.1 0.05
Low 0.3 0.1
Medium 0.5 0.2
High 0.7 0.4
Very high 0.9 0.8

2.5. Model Development Procedure

The questionnaire was distributed to 300 experts who worked in the collected projects. The
experts were involved in different parties, which include client, engineer and the other experts of
these projects. The collected projects were divided into two phases: 70% of the total projects (28
projects) were used for the training phase and 30% (12 projects) for the testing phase of the hybrid
intelligence model. The genetic algorithm was applied to optimize the Random Forest classifier, and
the hybrid RF‐GA was used to predict the time performance in construction projects based on their
risk levels by dividing the projects into a class label describing the predicted time delay. At first, the
model describes the data with a set of records and variable values. The rows represent the individual
projects and the columns represent the value of each project. The input variables included owner,
designer, contractor, project, material, equipment, labor and external factors. The hybrid model was
used for learning the dataset in order to predict the time delay at different levels of time overrun. The
structure of the developed model is described in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 7 of 14

Figure 2. Structure of the delay prediction model.

2.6. Model Performance Measures

The performance of the predicted model was evaluated by using class performance and overall
performance measures. Class performance was measured by precision, sensitivity and specificity
[53,54]. The overall performance of the predicted model was evaluated by accuracy, classification
error and kappa statistics. The kappa coefficient (k) was used in statistics to measure the quality of
an item based on inter classifier agreement [55,56]. The equations of performance measures are
explained as follows:
𝑇𝑃
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑇𝑃 𝐹𝑃 (1)

𝑇𝑃
𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 (2)
𝑇𝑃 𝐹𝑁

𝑇𝑁
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (3)
𝑇𝑁 𝐹𝑃

𝑇𝑃 𝑇𝑁
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 (4)
𝑇𝑃 𝐹𝑃 𝑇𝑁 𝐹𝑁

𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 1 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 (5)

𝑝 𝑝
𝑘 (6)
1 𝑝

where:
TP means the number of positive classes that are correctly recognized by the algorithm;
FP represents the number of positive classes that are incorrectly classified by the algorithm;
TN means the number of negative classes that are correctly predicted by the algorithm;
FN represents the number of negative classed that are incorrectly recognized by the algorithm;
Po means the observed agreement between rates; and
Pe represents the probability of chance agreement.

3. Results and Discussion

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 8 of 14

Analysis of collected data based on 40 projects was conducted to identify the sources of delay
problems effectively. The properties of the complied data and the distribution of delay sources among
the construction project are presented in Figures 3 and 4.

Delays in construction projects

18
16
14
Count of delays

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
˂ 50% ˃100% 50%-100%
Delays value

Figure 3. Frequency count of delays in construction projects.

(a) ˂ 50% delay

0.2

0.15
Risk level

0.1

0.05

0
Delay risk sources
owner designer contractor project
material equipment labur external factor

(b) 50%-100% delay

0.35
0.3
Risk level

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Delay risk sources
owner designer contractor project
material equipment labor external factor
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 9 of 14

(c) ˃ 100% delay

Risk level 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Delay risk sources
owner designer contractor project
material equipment labor external factor
Figure 4. (a) Distribution of delay sources among projects with class ˂50% delay, (b) distribution of
delay sources among projects with class 50%–100% delay, (c) distribution of delay sources among
projects with class ˃100% delay.

Based on the reported results, Figure 3 shows the counts of projects with a ˂50% delay, 50%–
100% delay and ˃100% delay were 10 (25%), 14 (35%) and 16 (40%), respectively. It can be seen that a
high percentage of projects belongs to the class of ˃100% delay. Figure 4 demonstrates the distribution
of delay sources among each class of delay problem, which was obtained from the historical records,
pilot study and distributed questionnaire. These outcomes revealed the delay sources values of
contractor, owner, designer, project and external factors have a higher impact that the other delay
sources. Owner, designer, contractor and project are represented as the internal risk sources that have
an impact on the project delay. External factors can be discussed by the special circumstances that are
experienced in the studied region “Iraq” in a manner that severely affected the construction industry.
These conditions have an enormous impact on the project stockholder and project performance.
These conditions resulted in the stumbling and failure of many projects in the construction sector. On
the other hand, the application of a robust predictive model can contribute to estimating an accurate
duration in construction projects and analyzing delay risk sources that arise from the complex and
dynamic nature of construction sector.
The statistical performance of the training and testing datasets of the proposed hybrid RF‐GA
model were evaluated based on the model performance measures against the classical Random Forest
classifier. The performance measure metrics were evaluated based on the confusion matrix of the two
classifiers. The confusion matrix is described in the performance of the classification model. The
confusion matrix of the RF and RF‐GA are displayed in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Confusion matrix from RF classifier.

Actual class
Predicted class ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100% Total
˂50% 2 0 1 3
50%–100% 0 0 3 3
˃100% 1 4 1 6
Total 3 4 5

Table 4. Confusion matrix from RF‐GA classifier.

Actual class
Predicted class ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100% Total
˂50% 2 0 0 2
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 10 of 14

50%–100% 1 5 0 6
˃100% 0 0 4 4
Total 3 5 4

The columns in the confusion matrix represent the actual classification within each class, while
the rows correspond to the number of the predicted class. The correct predictors are located on the
diagonal of the matrix. The confusion matrix of a high‐performance model contains large numbers
in its diagonal and the zero numbers outside the diagonal. The performance of the hybrid RF‐GA and
RF models during the training and testing phases was evaluated. Precision, sensitivity, specificity,
accuracy, classification error and kappa statistics were computed and are presented in Tables 5 and
6.

Table 5. Comparison of two classifiers based on performance measures for the training phase (70%).

RF RF‐GA
Performance ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100% ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100%
index delay delay delay delay delay delay
Precision 87.5 100 90 87.5 100 100
Sensitivity 87.5 83.33 90 100 91.67 90
Specificity 95 100 94.44 95.2 100 100
Accuracy 92.86 96.43
Classification 7.41 3.57
error
Kappa 89.2 94.6

Table 6. Comparison of two classifiers based on performance measures for the testing phase (30%).

RF RF‐GA
Performance ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100% ˂50% 50%–100% ˃100%
index delay delay delay delay delay delay
Precision 66.67 100 90 66.67 83.33 100
Sensitivity 50 50 90 80 100 80
Specificity 87.5 100 94.44 71.4 85.7 100
Accuracy 75 91.67
Classification 25 8.33
error
Kappa 62.5 87

Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate the comparison of the RF‐GA and RF models based on performance
measures for the overall and class performance. Based on these results, the attained values of
accuracy, classification error, and Kappa for RF‐GA were 96.43%, 3.57% and 94.6%, respectively for
the training phase; whereas the RF model provided an accuracy value of 92.86%, a classification error
of 7.41% and a Kappa statistics value of 89.2%. It can be noticed that the both models gave good
results for the training phase. Based on the results of testing phase, RF‐GA revealed a better
performance than the RF model. The provided values of accuracy, classification error and Kappa of
RF‐GA are 91.67%, 8.3%, and 87%, respectively.
With regards to performance measures, the RF‐GA model exhibited a good performance in the
prediction of delay in the construction sector. Based on the training phase, RF‐GA achieved the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 11 of 14

minimum values of precision, sensitivity and specificity of 87.5, 90 and 95.2, respectively. The lowest
values of RF in terms of precision, sensitivity and specificity were 87.5, 83.33 and 94.44, respectively.
Based on the comparison between the two classifiers, it can be concluded that the RF‐GA model
outperformed the feasibility of the classical RF model in both the training and testing performances.
Tables 5 and 6 revealed the superiority of the RF‐GA classifier in terms of accuracy, classification
error and Kappa statistics. This can be explained as due to the potential of the integration of the
nature‐inspired optimization algorithm (i.e., GA) that assisted in providing reliable hyperparameters
optimization and thus attained a reliable learning process. The RF‐GA model also provided higher
values of precision, sensitivity and specificity in comparison with the RF model.
The RF‐GA classifier showed an impressive performance in terms of overall and class measure
indices. These results can be discussed by the ability of the genetic algorithm in solving optimization
problems depending on the chromosome approach, and its capacity to solve the problems while
dealing with multiple solutions [57]. It is even better to validate the current research results with the
reported research over the literature. As compared with the previous results, it can be inferred that
the RF‐GA model demonstrated remarkable prediction superiority in comparison with the previous
established studies as reported in Table 7. The capacity of the RF‐GA model was compared with the
best outcomes. The RF‐GA model exceeded all of the reported related literature.

Table 7. Validation of the current research results against the reported related literature studies.

Author Methods Results

Accuracy of decision tree 79.41%
Questionnaire survey, decision tree and Naive
[30] is higher than Naive Bayes by
Bayes
5.81%
Bayesian decision tree gained an
[31] Questionnaire and Bayesian decision tree
accuracy of 86.7%
Records of construction projects, meeting with Accuracy of Naive Bayes, 51.2%, is
[11]
experts, decision tree and Naive Bayes higher than decision tree by 4%
The Records of construction projects, meetings and Accuracy of genetic Random
current questionnaire survey, classical Random Forest, Forest, 91.76%, is higher than
study hybrid genetic Random Forest classical Random Forest by 16.67%

To summarize, a proactive management approach involves the identification of new risk delay
sources and the monitoring of the sources that arise during the project lifecycle. As a result, the
proposition of a reliable and robust methodology as an analysis tool that is able to mimic and
comprehend the dynamic input variables is highly needed for this purpose. Hence, and based on the
established methodology of the current research, the potential of the RF‐GA model to be modified
and set up for project duration prediction though the project lifecycle was evidenced. The RF‐GA
model was successfully developed for the investigated dynamic project delay risk prediction.

4. Conclusions
In this present study, an analysis tool that is capable of predicting the delay level in construction
projects based on delay sources was proposed. To meet this goal, two approaches were adopted in
this study. First, delay sources and factors were collected from a literature review and identified by
an expert meeting. Data that are related to delay levels were compiled from 40 construction projects
that are located in Diyala city, Iraq. The collected data included historical records of previous projects
that were investigated, and in order to extract the measure of delay risk in construction projects a
questionnaire was prepared and distributed to 300 experts so as to extract the information about
delay sources in construction projects. Risk sources were measured by computing the probability and
the impact of each source. An analysis of data results and distribution of delay sources among the
collected previous projects was implemented in order to better understand delay factors in the
construction sector. Secondly, a hybrid RF‐GA model was developed to deal with the complex and
dynamic nature of data in the construction sector. The RF‐GA model was evaluated by performance
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 12 of 14

measure indices and compared with the classical RF model. Based on the analysis results, RF‐GA
revealed a better performance than the RF model. The RF‐GA provided values of accuracy,
classification error and Kappa were 91.67%, 8.3%, and 87%, respectively. These results reflect the
ability of the model to handle the nonlinearity and complexity of data in the construction sector. The
results also revealed the capability of the genetic algorithm in solving problems with multiple
solutions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Zaher Mundher Yaseen and Zainab Hasan Ali; Data curation, Zaher
Mundher Yaseen; Formal analysis, Zaher Mundher Yaseen and Al‐Ansari Nadhir; Funding acquisition, Al‐
Ansari Nadhir; Investigation, Zaher Mundher Yaseen, Zainab Hasan Ali and Sinan Q. Salih; Methodology,
Zainab Hasan Ali and Sinan Q. Salih; Project administration, Sinan Q. Salih; Resources, Zainab Hasan Ali;
Software, Zainab Hasan Ali and Sinan Q. Salih; Supervision, Al‐Ansari Nadhir; Validation, Zainab Hasan Ali
and Sinan Q. Salih; Visualization, Zainab Hasan Ali and Sinan Q. Salih; Writing—original draft, Zaher Mundher
Yaseen, Zainab Hasan Ali, Sinan Q. Salih and Al‐Ansari Nadhir; Writing—review and editing, Zaher Mundher
Yaseen and Al‐Ansari Nadhir. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Vorakulpipat, C.; Rezgui, Y.; Hopfe, C.J. Value creating construction virtual teams: A case study in the
construction sector. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 142–147.
2. Chan, A.P. Time‐cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 223–
229.
3. Assaf, S.A.; Al‐Hejji, S. Causes of delay in large construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 349–357.
4. Sambasivan, M.; Soon, Y.W. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2007, 25, 517–526.
5. Aibinu, A.; Jagboro, G. The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction
industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 593–599.
6. Odeh, A.M.; Battaineh, H.T. Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20,
67–73.
7. Fugar, F.D.; Agyakwah‐Baah, A.B. Delays in Building Construction Projects in Ghana. Australas. J. Constr.
Econ. Build. 2010, 10, 103–116.
8. Aziz, R.F. Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian revolution. Alex. Eng. J. 2013, 52,
387–406.
9. Al‐Momani, A.H. Construction delay: a quantitative analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2000, 18, 51–59.
10. Jing, W.; Naji, H.I.; Zehawi, R.N.; Ali, Z.; Al‐Ansari, N.; Yaseen, Z.M. System Dynamics Modeling Strategy
for Civil Construction Projects: The Concept of Successive Legislation Periods. Symmetry 2019, 11, 677.
11. 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.
12. Mahamid, I.; Bruland, A.; Dmaidi, N. Causes of delay in road construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 28,
300–310.
13. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W. Developing a benchmark model for project construction time performance in
Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 339–349.
14. Rezaie, K.; Amalnik, M.; Gereie, A.; Ostadi, B.; Shakhseniaee, M. Using extended Monte Carlo simulation
method for the improvement of risk management: Consideration of relationships between uncertainties.
Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 190, 1492–1501.
15. Hammad, A.A.A.; Ali, S.M.A.; Sweis, G.J.; Bashir, A. Prediction model for construction cost and duration
in Jordan. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2008, 2, 250–266.
16. Mohamed, D.; Srour, F.; Tabra, W.; Zayed, T. A prediction model for construction project time contingency.
In Construction Research Congress 2009: Building a Sustainable Future; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 736–
745.
17. Abu Hammad, A.; Ali, S.M.A.; Sweis, G.J.; Sweis, R. Statistical Analysis on the Cost and Duration of Public
Building Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 105–112, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742‐597X(2010)26:2(105).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 13 of 14

18. Dursun, O.; Stoy, C. Time–cost relationship of building projects: statistical adequacy of categorization with
respect to project location. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 97–106.
19. Kokkaew, N.; Wipulanusat, W. Completion delay risk management: A dynamic risk insurance approach.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 1599–1608.
20. Brunette, E.S.; Flemmer, R.C.; Flemmer, C.L. A review of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2009
4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Wellington, New Zealand, 10–12
February 2009; pp. 385–392.
21. Elazouni, A. Classifying Construction Contractors Using Unsupervised‐Learning Neural Networks. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 1242–1253.
22. Chao, L.‐C.; Chien, C.‐F. Estimating Project S‐Curves Using Polynomial Function and Neural Networks. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 169–177.
23. Desai, V.S.; Joshi, S. Application of decision tree technique to analyze construction project data. In
Communications in Computer and Information Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems, Technology and Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 11–13 March 2010; Springer: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2010; pp. 304–313.
24. Shin, Y.‐S. Formwork System Selection Model for Tall Building Construction Using the Adaboost
Algorithm. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2011, 11, 523–529.
25. Chou, J.‐S.; Lin, C. Predicting disputes in public‐private partnership projects: Classification and ensemble
models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 27, 51–60.
26. Rudžianskaitė–Kvaraciejienė, R.; Apanaviciene, R.; Gelzinis, A. modelling the effectiveness of ppp road
infrastructure projects by applying random forests. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 290–299.
27. Heravi, G.; Eslamdoost, E. Applying Artificial Neural Networks for Measuring and Predicting
Construction‐Labor Productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015032.
28. Gerassis, S.; Martín, J.E.; García, J.T.; Saavedra, A.; Taboada, J. Bayesian decision tool for the analysis of
occupational accidents in the construction of embankments. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 143, 4016093.
29. Bilal, M.; Oyedele, L.; Qadir, J.; Munir, K.; Ajayi, S.; Akinade, O.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Pasha, M. Big
Data in the construction industry: A review of present status, opportunities, and future trends. Adv. Eng.
Inform. 2016, 30, 500–521.
30. Asadi, A.; Alsubaey, M.; Makatsoris, C. A machine learning approach for predicting delays in construction
logistics. Int. J. Adv. Logist. 2015, 4, 115–113.
31. Hassan, Z.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Naji, H. Evaluation of Legislation Adequacy in Managing Time and Quality
Performance in Iraqi Construction Projects‐ a Bayesian Decision Tree Approach. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 993.
32. Yaseen, Z.; Mohtar, W.H.M.W.; Ameen, A.M.S.; Ebtehaj, I.; Razali, S.F.M.; Bonakdari, H.; Salih, S.Q.; Al‐
Ansari, N.; Shahid, S. Implementation of univariate paradigm for streamflow simulation using hybrid data‐
driven model: Case study in tropical region: Implementation of univariate paradigm for streamflow
simulation using hybrid data‐driven model: Case study in tropical region. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 74471–74481.
33. Chou, J.‐S.; Pham, A.‐D. Hybrid computational model for predicting bridge scour depth near piers and
abutments. Autom. Constr. 2014, 48, 88–96.
34. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ehteram, M.; Hossain, S.; Chow, M.F.; Koting, S.; Mohd, N.S.; Jaafar, W.B.; Afan, H.A.; Hin,
L.S.; Zaini, N.; et al. A Novel Hybrid Evolutionary Data‐Intelligence Algorithm for Irrigation and Power
Production Management: Application to Multi‐Purpose Reservoir Systems. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1953.
35. Yaseen, Z.M.; Ebtehaj, I.; Kim, S.; Sanikhani, H.; Asadi, H.; Ghareb, M.I.; Bonakdari, H.; Mohtar, W.H.M.W.;
Al‐Ansari, N.; Shahid, S. Novel Hybrid Data‐Intelligence Model for Forecasting Monthly Rainfall with
Uncertainty Analysis. Water 2019, 11, 502.
36. Breiman, L.; Cutler, A. State of the art of data mining using Random forest. In Salford Data Mining
Conference; 2012.
37. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32.
38. Ruppert, D. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
2004, 99, 567.
39. Alipour, M.; Harris, D.K.; E Barnes, L.; Ozbulut, O.; Carroll, J. Load‐Capacity Rating of Bridge Populations
through Machine Learning: Application of Decision Trees and Random Forests. J. Bridg. Eng. 2017, 22,
04017076.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1514 14 of 14

40. Naghibi, S.A.; Ahmadi, K.; Daneshi, A. Application of Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and
Genetic Algorithm Optimized Random Forest Models in Groundwater Potential Mapping. Water Resour.
Manag. 2017, 31, 2761–2775.
41. Catani, F.; Lagomarsino, D.; Segoni, S.; Tofani, V. Landslide susceptibility estimation by random forests
technique: sensitivity and scaling issues. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2815–2831.
42. Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2002, 2, 18–22.
43. Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology,
Control, and Artificial Intelligence; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.
44. Azar, A.T.; Vaidyanathan, S. Computational Intelligence Applications in Modeling and Control; Springer:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
45. Kandil, A.; El‐Rayes, K. Parallel Genetic Algorithms for Optimizing Resource Utilization in Large‐Scale
Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 491–498.
46. Senouci, A.; Eldin, N.N. Use of Genetic Algorithms in Resource Scheduling of Construction Projects. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 869–877.
47. Long, L.D.; Ohsato, A. A genetic algorithm‐based method for scheduling repetitive construction projects.
Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 499–511.
48. Rogalska, M.; Bozejko, W.; Hejducki, Z. Time/cost optimization using hybrid evolutionary algorithm in
construction project scheduling. Autom. Constr. 2008, 18, 24–31.
49. Chou, J.‐S.; Cheng, M.‐Y.; Wu, Y.‐W.; Pham, A.‐D. Optimizing parameters of support vector machine using
fast messy genetic algorithm for dispute classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 3955–3964.
50. Xia, N.; Zhong, R.; Wu, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, S. Assessment of Stakeholder‐Related Risks in Construction
Projects: Integrated Analyses of Risk Attributes and Stakeholder Influences. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017,
143, 04017030.
51. Ismail, I.; Memon, A.H.; Rahman, I.A. Expert opinion on risk level for factors affecting time and cost
overrun along the project lifecycle in Malaysian construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Technol. Manag. 2013,
1, 2289.
52. Thomas, S.J. Using Web and Paper Questionnaires for Data‐Based Decision Making: From Design to Interpretation
of the Results; Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press: 2004.
53. Helmer, G.; Wong, J.; Honavar, V.G.; Miller, L. Automated discovery of concise predictive rules for
intrusion detection. J. Syst. Softw. 2002, 60, 165–175.
54. Davis, J.; Goadrich, M. The relationship between Precision‐Recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Machine Learning; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 233–240.
55. Smeeton NC. Early history of the kappa statistic. Biometrics 1985, 41, 795.
56. Pontius, R.G.; Millones, M. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement
for accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote. Sens. 2011, 32, 4407–4429.
57. Tabassum, M.; Mathew, K. A genetic algorithm analysis towards optimization solutions. Int. J. Digit. Inf.
Wirel. Commun. 2014, 4, 124–142.

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats