




































AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES 6(1) (2024), 8-14 

 
8 

 

        Business and Management Studies 
                                                              AIJEFR VOL 6 NO 1 (2024) P-ISSN 2641-4937  E-ISSN 2641-4953 

                                                                                                                        Available online at www.acseusa.org      

                                                                                                                                     Journal homepage: https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms 

                                                                                                                                             Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

RISK AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT IN MEP PROJECT-

BASED COMPANIES AND ITS IMPACT ON BUSINESS 

PERFORMANCE               
                     

  Muhammad Awais Javed (a)1    Ali Hassan (b)    Usman Latif (c)     

  
  (a)  School of Business, Los Angeles, International American University, Main Campus, Los Angeles, 90010, CA, USA; E-mail: dr.mawaisjaved@gmail.com 
  (b) School of Business, Los Angeles, International American University, Main Campus, Los Angeles, 90010, CA, USA; E-mail: ali.hass927@gmail.com 
  (c) Head of Engineering Department, Bunny’s Limited Lahore, Pakistan; E-mail: usmanlatif750@gmail.com 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
 

 

Article History: 

 

Received: 6th July 2024 

Reviewed & Revised: 6th July 

to 8th September 2024 

Accepted: 10th September 2024 

Published: 16th September 2024 
 

Keywords: 

 

Risk Management, MEP Business Performance, 

Construction Industry, Risk Evaluation, PLS 

Model 

 

JEL Classification Codes:  

 

G32 

 

Peer-Review Model:  
 

External peer review was done through  

double-blind method.  

 
A B S T R A C T 

 
The board is crucial for MEP project-based organizations to progress. Gamble the board prevents cost 

overruns and project delays, while opportunity the executives capitalize on excellent opportunities. 

Chance administration in Pakistan's growth is the study's main focus, and Chance mechanical, 

electrical, and plumbing (MEP) management in project board in Pakistani development is reviewed. 

The evaluation included several hundred development (MEP) projects from Karachi, Lahore, 

Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Islamabad Pakistan's five largest cities with active development and large 

investments. Surveys are sent to company managers via group inspection, and 250 responses are 

received mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) projects management. Data is analyzed using 

Savvy PLS's structured condition presentation. Business performance is connected to the board systems 

that are based on proven evidence, evaluation, checking and helped the construction project succeed. 

Risk executives' methods fundamentally and well affected job completion, according to the assessment. 

Understanding executive risk valuation is much better. The results reveal that that in terms of genuine 

development projects, an efficiency study may present a fuller picture of risk the board in various 

enterprises. The practice of conducting systematic audits to assess the philosophy of writing is rarely 

employed in the execution of executive projects and risk analysis. The results revealed that the effective 

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) performance of the board tactics is in improving project 

execution in Pakistan. The exploratory approach is employed to integrate previous studies on risk 

management executives and the implementation of business ventures in the field of development. 

 
 

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. 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/).                           

 

INTRODUCTION 

The dynamic and serious development industry relies on Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) project-based firms 

to deliver complex infrastructure projects. MEP projects are especially vulnerable to a variety of risks and opportunities that 

might affect business performance due to their complexity and interdisciplinary (Jin et al., 2018). Executives in MEP projects 

identify, survey, and mitigate predicted risks while identifying and profiting from opportunities (Alzoubi, 2022). The 

Business pressures, administrative changes, and manufacturing network disruptions is caused MEP venture risks (During et 

al., 2021). The mechanical advances, process improvements, market expansion, and critical organizations. The combined 

focus on risks and opportunities allows MEP businesses to be proactive, boosting their flexibility and preparedness even 

with weaknesses (Ben Mahmoud et al., 2022). ROM's impact on MEP project-based organizations' display is poorly 

understood despite its importance. This gap in data emphasizes the need for a rigorous analysis of board performance and 

opportunity practices and company performance metrics. This study examines the interaction between these aspects to show 

how strong ROM systems is boosted project success, functional effectiveness, and MEP organization manageability. 

Understanding how ROM affects business execution is assisted MEP firms navigate complicated development projects' 

challenges and opportunities, boosting their seriousness and market positioning (Perusso, 2021). The comprehensive study 

will examine ROM in MEP projects, including risk identification, appraisal, and mitigation methods, as well as open door 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0009-0001-4568-056X  
© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by ACSE. Peer review under responsibility of ACSE, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijbms.v6i1.317  

 
To cite this article: Javed, M. A., Hassan, A., & Latif, U. (2024). RISK AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT IN MEP PROJECT-BASED 

COMPANIES AND ITS IMPACT ON BUSINESS PERFORMANCE. American International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 6(1), 8–14. 

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijbms.v6i1.317 
 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46545/aijbms.v6i1.317
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4568-056X
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0641-7233
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4490-2723


  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

9 
 

acknowledgment and capitalization. The study will also investigate the relationship between ROM practices and KPIs 

including project completion time, cost efficiency, customer satisfaction, and benefit. The study uses quantitative and 

subjective methods to understand how ROM affects MEP company performance. The MEP project-based businesses must 

effectively manage risks and great opportunities. The study addresses the knowledge gap and shares notable experiences to 

advance ROM practices and their vital role in growth. As MEP projects become more complex, the study's findings will 

help determine risk and opportunity boards, improving MEP organizations' exhibition and manageability. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Mep Project-Based Performance 

Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) project-based companies face numerous challenges and opportunities that 

significantly impact their business performance (Lavikka et al., 2021). Risk management in MEP projects involves 

identifying, assessing, and mitigating various risks, such as technical, operational, Business, regulatory, compliance, and 

human resource risks (Liu et al., 2016). The opportunity management focuses on identifying and capitalizing on potential 

gains through innovation, market expansion, sustainability initiatives, and client relationship management (Schaltegger & 

Wagner, 2011). Embracing technologies like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Internet of Things (IoT), 

exploring new markets, implementing green building practices, and maintaining strong client relationships are essential for 

seizing opportunities (Regona et al., 2022). The industry evolves, continuous improvement in ROM strategies will be 

essential for sustained success. Thus, robust risk and opportunity management practices are fundamental to enhancing the 

overall business performance of MEP project-based companies (Demil & Lecocq, 2010). With a weight of 0.113—the 

highest possible score—the outcome-based contract is the most important kind of contract (Javed, 2024). 

 

Randon Project Completion  

Risk the board is identifying elements that might affect a project's cost, timeline, and quality. Past studies have found mixed 

effects of random administration on project completion (Chien et al., 2014). Project delays and increased cost result from 

the inability to take genuine performances the board practices in many agricultural nations, including Pakistan (Briscoe et 

al., 2005). Risk distinguishing evidence, quantitative and subjective performance analysis, risk reaction planning, and 

chance checking are prevalent in performance the board interactions (Sheedy, 2021).  

 

Performance Evaluation 

A subjective report of semi-organized interviews with SMEs in the development sector in three EU nations found that risk 

the CEOs take increases hierarchical seriousness in mindfulness, efficiency, and benefit (Mburu, 2022). In Pakistani it has 

a chance management techniques including performance recognition, evaluation, and response improve project management 

and success (Kardes et al., 2013). The risky executive practices are essential for development programs, especially in 

agricultural nations. These methods help estimate costs and timelines and improve project execution and seriousness (Jaffee 

et al., 2010). 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Data Collection 

To accomplish these objectives, a quantitative methodology to data collection from executive directors of Pakistani 

construction firms is employed. There are several studies where construction firms' executive directors are the main 

respondents among others. Some studies conducted in Africa found that the level of awareness of project managers about 

RM is low. Therefore, it is expected that managers of construction companies would be more familiar with the level of RM 

practice in their firms and project performance. The population comprised 450 building construction firms based on the 

statistics provided by the Pakistani Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Given the security situation in Pakistan, it is 

difficult for the researcher to choose all the cities for the data collection.  

 

Research Design 

Questionnaires are distributed to 312 Pakistani construction companies in Faisalabad, Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, and 

Rawalpindi. A total of 200 surveys are submitted, and 80% of them are ansared. In this study, the operationalization of the 

RM practices measurement is based on 24 items distributed over three elements of RM practices; which are risk 

identification (RMP_RI), risk assessment (RMP_RA), and response and Monitoring of Risks (RMP_RMR) drawn from 

Chien et al. (2014). All items are designed to be ensured based on a five-point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 2= 

Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5= Strongly Agree). 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Descriptive Statistics 

Table 1 indicates that 80/8% (n= 348) of respondents from the Pakistani development business are male, while 8.2% (n= 

24) are female. The largest proportion of responses (42.8%) falls within the age range of 20 to 29 years, followed by 26.4% 

falling within the age range of 26 to 29 years, and 34% falling within the age range of 29 to 42 years. 84.2% of individuals 

hold four-year certificates, 28.4% have achieved aces, and 34.8% possess secondary school recognitions. 4% of respondents 

possess doctoral credentials. The majority of respondents (69.2%) hold the position of chiefs.  

 

 

 



  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

10 
 

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents 

 
Variable Detailing Frequencies Percentage 

Gender Male 348 80.8 

Female 24 8.2 

  22-24 years 03 0.123 

  24-29 years 72 26.4 

Age 29-31 years 82 42.8 

31-45 years 72 34 

  45-60 years 42 34.4 

  Over 60 26 6.4 

Education Below High School 0 0 

High School 0 0 

Bachelor 284 84.2 

Master 68 34.8 

Doctorate 20 4 

               Responsible positions Company Director 329 80.4 

Supervisor 4 2.6 

Project manager 34 4.8 

Program Manager 8 4.2 

Work Experience Less than 6 years 0 0 

6-20 years 62 20.8 

22 - 24 years 206 42.4 

More than 24 years 82 29.8 

Number of Workers Below 26 Employees 8 4.2 

26-60 Employees 53 28.6 

62-86 Employees 86 40 

86-200 Employees 29 28 

202-329 Employees 53 28.2 

329-452 Employees 28 8.2 

More than 452 Employees 28 6.8 

 

Approximately 28% of the participants had been employed in the field of development for a duration ranging from 

6 to 20 years, whilst 69.2% had accumulated more than 20 years of experience. Each entity handled various operations 

related to private accommodations, hotel, business, and shopping complexes. 26% of the incidents reported were false 

private occurrences, 34.6% were related to shopping establishments, 8.2% were related to workplaces, and 4.8% were related 

to hotels. Approximately 40% of enterprises had a workforce size ranging from 4 to 50 employees, followed by 86 to 200 

employees (28%), 26 to 60 employees (28.6%), and 202 to 329 employees (28.2%). Organizations employing between 329 

and 452 experts, with 26 or less, had the lowest rates, namely 8.2% and 4.2%. The selected companies had been operating 

in Pakistan for a period of 26-20 years, accounting for 53.6% of the total, followed by a duration of 20-24 years, which 

constituted 28.2%. Approximately 20% of the enterprises had a presence in Pakistan for over two decades, and 24% had 

been operating there for a period ranging from 6 to 20 years. 60.4% of enterprises have polished RM for a period of less 

than 6 years. Subsequently, 53.4% of enterprises used Risk Management for a duration between 6 and 20 years, while 34.4% 

practiced it for a duration between 20 and 24 years. Only a small fraction of firms (2.4%) has practiced Risk Management 

for over 26 years. Following the 29.8% are practicing CPRMS and 29.5% do not have a plan. 

 

PLS Model Results 

Table 2 are utilized to distinguish the degree of Hazard the board (RM) rehearses. The dangers included risk recognizable 

proof (RM_RI), risk appraisal (RM_RA), and reaction and observing of dangers (RM_DM). Likert scale estimating from 2 

to 6 is utilized in the three performance the board types to decide use of RM in project the executives. The utilization of 

least worth in the examination which is 2.53 as addressing 2.00 and the most elevated worth of 4.68 addressing 6.00 in the 

Likert scale. Table 2 the degree of chance administration rehearses in Pakistani development organizations are Controlled 

concerning Hazard Distinguishing proof (RM_RI), Chance Appraisal (RM_RA), and Reaction and Checking of Dangers 

(RM_DM) with their mean qualities running somewhere in the range of 4.08 and 4.29 and the standard deviation is in the 

request somewhere in the range of 2.04 and 1.69. This mirrored that there is irregularity of the interest of supervisors in 

Pakistani development organizations corresponding to the most common way of rehearsing risk the executives. The 

Performance Recognizable proof (RM_RI) connected with RM positioned first in quite a while of the interest of Pakistan 

development organization chiefs, with a Controlled terrible of 4.29 and by and large normal deviation of 1.69. The number 

juggling implies values for all chance distinguishing proof things ran somewhere in the range of 4.20 and 4.64, and the 

standard deviation values went somewhere in the range of 2.42 and 2.42. The reaction and checking of dangers (RM_DM) 

in RM are evaluated second with a controlled all out dreadful of 4.42 and generally speaking standard deviation of 1.69. For 

all RM_RI things the relating values ran somewhere in the range of 4.26 and 4.48 and the standard deviations somewhere 

in the range of 2.53 and 2.42. At last, the performance evaluation (RM_DM) of RM is put third with a Limited mean of 4.08 

in general regular deviation of 2.04. The math implies for all RM_RA things went from 2.84 to 4.29 while the standard 

deviations are somewhere in the range of 2.29 and 2.42. 

 

 

 



  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

11 
 

Table 2. Statistics on RM practices 

 
Variable Item Mean Std. Deviation Rank RM practice’s Level 

Risk Identification 

(RM_RI) 

RM_RI1 4.48 2.42 4 Restrained 

RM_RI2 4.6 2.53 2 Restrained 

RM_RI3 4.4 2.42 6 Restrained 

RM_RI4 4.48 2.53 4 Restrained 

RM_RI5 4.64 2.48 2 Restrained 

RM_RI6 4.42 2.48 8 Restrained 

RM_RI7 4.48 2.48 6 Restrained 

RM_RI8 4.2 2.42 8 Restrained 

Mean   4.29 1.69 -2 Restrained 

Risk Assessment 

(RM_RA) 

RM_RA1 2.84 2.4 4 Restrained 

RM_RA2 4.06 2.42 4 Restrained 

RM_RA3 2.82 2.48 6 Restrained 

RM_RA4 4.24 2.48 2 Restrained 

RM_RA5 4.29 2.29 2 Restrained 

Mean   4.08 2.04 -4 Restrained 

Response and Monitoring 

of Dangers (RM_DM) 

RM_DM1 4.42 2.48 4 Restrained 

RM_DM2 4.48 2.4 2 Restrained 

RM_DM3 4.26 2.48 8 Restrained 

RM_DM4 4.42 2.48 4 Restrained 

RM_DM5 4.28 2.48 6 Restrained 

RM_DM6 4.26 2.53 8 Restrained 

RM_DM7 4.53 2.48 4 Restrained 

RM_DM8 4.4 2.48 6 Restrained 

RM_DM9 4.26 2.48 8 Restrained 

Mean   4.42 1.69 -2 Restrained 

 

Model Development 

Studying the estimating model with a focus on the primary element and an end value of 0.60 establishes the model. Table 3 

shows that every loading was higher than 0.60. Factor loadings, composite dependability (CR), and separated normal 

fluctuation (AVE) are used to analyze the structure. It suggests that AVE and CR cutoffs be set above 0.60 and 0.80, 

respectively.  

 

Table 3. Results of convergent validity and loading factor 

 
Model Construct Measurement Item Loading Composite 

Reliability (CR) 

Average Variance Extracted 

(AVE) 

Risk Identification RM_RI1 0.69     

RM_RI2 0.82     

RM_RI3 0.69     

RM_RI4 0.69 0.848 0.829 

RM_RI5 0.69 

RM_RI6 0.82     

RM_RI7 0.69     

RM_RI8 0.69     

Risk Assessment (RM_RA) RM_RA1 0.72     

RM_RA2 0.62     

RM_RA3 0.68 0.826 0.624 

RM_RA4 0.84     

RM_RA5 0.86     

Response and Monitoring of 

Risks (RM_DM) 

RM_DM1 0.82     

RM_DM2 0.84     

RM_DM3 0.69     

RM_DM4 0.82     

RM_DM5 0.69     

RM_DM6 0.86 0.848 0.853 

RM_DM7 0.69     

RM_DM8 0.69     

RM_DM9 0.69     

RM_DM10 0.84     

RM_DM11 0.8     

Project Routine (PR) PR1 0.8     

PR2 0.82 0.848 0.698 

PR3 0.82 

PR4 0.82     

 

Heterotrait-Monotrait Test 

Table 4 represents the CR and AVE exceeded 0.80 and 0.60, respectively. The Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) percentage of 

connections technique is utilized to assess discriminant legitimacy once focused legitimacy is authorized. HTMT is utilized 

to analyze interior component or variable correlations when the multimethod grid is used HTMT values above 0.8 may 



  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

12 
 

compromise discriminant validity. Later, discriminant legitimacy is explained, and Table 4 shows its benefits are smaller 

than 0.80. 

 

Table 4. Results of discriminant validity analysis by HTMT 

 
Construct PR RM_DM RM_RA RM_RI 

PR 1       

RM_DM 0.692 1     

RM_RA 0.82 0.842 1   

RM_RI 0.696 0.694 0.802 1 

 

First-request builds to quantify RM rehearsals were represented in the results that built up RM_RI, RM_RA, and 

RM_DM. Instead of employing several variables to handle the overall display of the project, the execution estimation 

analysis is applied. In order to better understand project execution, the effects of RM drills (RM_RI, RM_RA, and RM_DM) 

are seen as a single construct. Evaluation of the Main Model Following approval of the estimate model, the underlying 

model is examined using the Savvy PLS 4 tool to look at the relationships between the various elements. Table 5 shows that 

the model's R2 upsides are high enough to at least partially explain the changes. R2 values should not be less than 0.20 when 

illustrating a ward's variation. To be considered large, the R2 value must be more than 0.86 and the satisfactory value must 

be greater than 0.26.  

 

Stone Test 

In the unlikely event that the value of predictive significance Q2 is greater than 0.0, the model possessed predictive 

legitimacy for a certain ward construct. The Stone-test the formula that goes with it is used to calculate Geisser's Q2, which 

is Q2 = 2-SSE/SSO, Eq (2), where Q2 = Prescient Pertinence. SSE is equal to the square of errors Number of squares of 

perceptions equals SSO. To determine shared reiteration measures for the dependent components, the continuing review 

employed d = 8. The Q2 values should be 0.02 (little), 0.26 (middle), and 0.29 (enormous).  

 

Table 5. Usefulness of the model for making predictions 

 
Items SSO SSE Q² (=2- SSE/SSO) 

Construction Projects’ Performance 2000 472.532 0.629 

 

Hypotheses Testing 

Table 6 demonstrates that the performance of building projects has a substantial predictive value as a comparative measure 

of predictive relevance. The model's predictions are of sufficient quality, with the Q2 value being about 0.6. As part of the 

underlying model assessment, the examination also includes an analysis of the coefficients, which indicate the strength of 

the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. A bootstrap resampling approach is employed to calculate 

T-insights and the standard errors. The bootstrap technique assessment differs significantly from conventional algorithms. 

 

Table 6. Hypotheses test results 

 
  Hypotheses Path Coefficient Standard error T-Stat. P-Value Results 

H2 RM_RI -> 0.262 0.062 4.692 0 Supported 

Construction PR 

H2 RM_RA -> 0.628 0.064 8.034 0 Supported 

Construction PR 

H4 RM_DM -> 0.34 0.064 4.434 0 Supported 

Construction PR 

 

The coefficients, standard errors, and t-values are shown in Table 6. The three hypotheses H01, H02, and H04 are 

supported. The outcomes of the ongoing review align with previous studies on risk management practices (RM_RI, RM_RA, 

and RM_DM) and project performance, specifically in the context of construction projects. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 
The study examined risk executives' practices (appraisal, reaction, and checking) and development project execution in 

Pakistan. Multiple development initiatives in Pakistan are under assumption due to several variables winning in the nation, 

prompting the evaluation. The development industry is the most dangerous, especially during the Coronavirus 28 epidemic 

and the countrywide war. One strategy to solve the concerns is to assess the risks faced by many development businesses. 

The study classified Pakistani development organizations' risk management practices into risk identification, reaction 

promotion, and risk assessment. This started with a fundamental cycle (distinguishing proof) and progressed to increasingly 

difficult situations, which is realistic and risk-appropriate for executives. To mindfulness (RM-RI) had the highest mean of 

4.29 and standard deviation of 1.69 among the three board hazard classifications. These results matched previous studies 

conducted in Pakistan and development enterprises. To examine how RM practice (RM_RI, RM_RA, and RM_DM) affects 

Pakistani development project presentation. The main question is how RM_RI will affect Pakistani development projects. 

A significant favorable effect of RM_RI is seen in development projects (β = 0.262, t = 4.692, p <0.002). Compared to 

Nguyen and Watanabe (2028), Pakistani development enterprises' RM_RI practices have increased their initiatives' 



  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

13 
 

presentation by 26%. Hazard evaluation (RM_RA) affects Pakistani development activities' exhibition. Compared to 

assumption 2, RM_RA positively impacts development undertakings' exhibition (β = 0.628, t = 8.034, p <0.002). Pakistani 

development enterprises' RM_RA technique improved project presentation by 262%. Hypothesis 4 found that RM_DM 

positively impacted Pakistani development projects' presentation (β = 0.340, t =4.434, p <0.002). RM_DM improved 

performance by 34%. The RM practices (RM_RI, RM_RA, and RM_DM) strongly influenced upgrading project execution. 

Through these techniques, Pakistani development organizations now account for 84% of the overall presentation. 

Subsequent studies might assess the appropriateness of these associations for organizations in Pakistan. Cross-sectional 

evaluations do not include any RM progressions, such as RI (repeated improvement), RA (repeated achievement), and DM 

(differential mastery). Therefore, future researchers will employ subjective methodologies to provide comprehensive 

information on issues and conduct long-term studies to examine the relationship between resource management techniques 

and the performance of Pakistani development firms. External ecological factors, construction companies, and project loans 

is influenced resource management techniques and project performance. Further investigation is required to delve into these 

matters.  
 

 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.J., A.H. and U.H.; Methodology, M.A.J.; Software, M.A.J.; Validation, M.A.J.; Formal Analysis, M.A.J., 

A.H. and U.H.; Investigation, M.A.J.; Resources, M.A.J.; Data Curation, M.A.J.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, M.A.J., A.H. and U.H.; Writing – 

Review & Editing, M.A.J., A.H. and U.H.; Visualization, M.A.J.; Supervision, M.A.J.; Project Administration, M.A.J.; Funding Acquisition, M.A.J., A.H. 

and U.H. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the fact that the research does not deal with 

vulnerable groups or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 

Acknowledgement: Not applicable.  

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 

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

 

REFERENCES 

Alzoubi, H. M. (2022). BIM as a tool to optimize and manage project risk management. International Journal of 

Mechanical Engineering, 7(1), 6307-6323.  

Ben Mahmoud, B., Lehoux, N., Blanchet, P., & Cloutier, C. (2022). Barriers, strategies, and best practices for BIM adoption 

in quebec prefabrication small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Buildings, 12(4), 390. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040390 

Briscoe, J., Qamar, U., Contijoch, M., Amir, P., & Blackmore, D. (2005). Pakistan’s water economy: Running dry. World 

Bank, Washington, DC, 3540. 

Chien, K. F., Wu, Z. H., & Huang, S. C. (2014). Identifying and assessing critical risk factors for BIM projects: Empirical 

study. Automation in construction, 45, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.04.012 

Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long range planning, 43(2-

3), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.004 

During, S. R., Episodes, C., Linked, E. R., & Brear, A. S. (2021). Entrepreneurial and. Cases on Small Business Economics 

and Development During Economic Crises, 52. 

Jaffee, S., Siegel, P., & Andrews, C. (2010). Rapid agricultural supply chain risk assessment: A conceptual framework. 

Agriculture and rural development discussion paper, 47(1), 1-64. 

Jin, R., Yang, T., Piroozfar, P., Kang, B. G., Wanatowski, D., Hancock, C. M., & Tang, L. (2018). Project-based pedagogy 

in interdisciplinary building design adopting BIM. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 

25(10), 1376-1397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2017-0119 

Javed, M. A. (2024). A Critical Analysis of the HVAC Business Model to Determine Its Success Criteria. The American 

Journal of Management and Economics Innovations, 6(05), 78-86. 

https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume06Issue05-09 

Kardes, I., Ozturk, A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Managing global megaprojects: Complexity and risk 

management. International business review, 22(6), 905-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.003 

Liu, L. C., Li, Q., Zhang, J. T., & Cao, D. (2016). Toward a framework of environmental risk management for CO 2 

geological storage in China: gaps and suggestions for future regulations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for 

Global Change, 21, 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9589-9 

Lavikka, R., Chauhan, K., Peltokorpi, A., & Seppänen, O. (2021). Value creation and capture in systemic innovation 

implementation: case of mechanical, electrical and plumbing prefabrication in the Finnish construction sector. 

Construction Innovation, 21(4), 837-856. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-05-2020-0070 

Mburu, L. N. (2022). Factors influencing Adoption of Strategic Internal Change Management in Deposit taking SACCO'S 

in Mombasa County, Kenya. 

Perusso, A. S. (2021). Experiential learning in management education: Evaluating the practice-turn. 

Regona, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Xia, B., & Li, R. Y. M. (2022). Opportunities and adoption challenges of AI in the construction 

industry: A PRISMA review. Journal of open innovation: technology, market, and complexity, 8(1), 45. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010045 

Sheedy, E. (2021). Risk governance: Biases, blind spots and bonuses. Routledge. 



  Javed et al., American International Journal of Business and Management Studies 6(1) (2024), 8-14

  

14 
 

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and 

interactions. Business strategy and the environment, 20(4), 222-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682 

 
 

Publisher’s Note: ACSE stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. 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/). 

American International Journal of Business and Management Studies (P-ISSN 2641-4937 E-ISSN 2641-4953) by ACSE is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

