Establishment of indicator system for risk assessment of Sino-Russian interstate projects based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Sino-Russian interstate projects are generally with the characteristics of large scale, long duration, high technical content, and multiple participants. In the process of project implementation, it will inevitably be affected by many objective conditions such as economy, management, and technology, resulting in certain risks and uncertainties. Therefore, the key factor to improve interstate project management is to control and reduce project risk from the whole life-cycle of the project. Through literature and case analysis, the evaluation indicators suitable for Sino-Russian interstate projects are reasonably selected. Further, through certain methodology, a comprehensive evaluation of risk indicators and guidance for project management is the purpose. The author uses expert interview, brainstorming, and questionnaires to further organize the risk list. The formation of the hierarchical structure and the construction of the risk factor hierarchical model is the first step and important foundation of the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method. The article describes the establishment process of this risk factor hierarchical model in detail. It lays the foundation for the subsequent fuzzy complementary judgment matrix and risk factor importance ranking. The final results provide scientific references for Sino-Russian interstate project management. 

1. Saaty T. L. The analytic hierarchy process, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw Hill, Inc.; 1980. 345 p.

2. Panchal S. & Amit Kr. S. Landslide hazard assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): A case study of National Highway 5 in India. Ain Shams engineering journal. 2022;(13). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.10.021.

3. Amos Darko, Albert P., Ernest E. A., Emmanuel K. O., Erika P. & David J. E. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International journal of construction management. 2019;19(5). Published online: 26 Mar 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098.

4. Zadeh L. A. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;(8):338–353.

5. Zadeh L. A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Part I. Inf Sci. 1975;(8):199–249.

6. Atanassov K. T. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986;(1):87–96.

7. Kutlu G. F., Kahraman C. Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2019;36(1):337–352.

8. Hing Kai C., Xuting S. & Sai-Ho C. When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be used instead of analytic hierarchy process? Decision support systems. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114.

9. Sharma S. K. Risk management in construction projects using combined analytic hierarchy process and risk map framework. Journal of operations management. 2013;12(4):23–53.

10. Gnanavelbabu A. Arunagiri P. Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm. Materials today: proceeding. 2018;(5):13406–13412.

11. Siyang S. Research on the evaluation of knowledge exchange effect of virtual academic community users based on Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis Method. Intelligence science. 2020;38(2):22–28.

12. Wanli W. Research on credit risk rating and prevention mechanism of small and micro enterprises in banks based on fuzzy analytic Hierarchy process. South China university of technology. 2019.

13. Yevchenko N. N., Wang Xiaohan. Research on factor identification of Chinese interstate project risk management. State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes. 2022;(3):32–40. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22394/20791690-2022-1-3-32-40.

14. Qinghua H., Delei Y., Lan L. & Yu G. Measurement of interface management during the implementation of complex construction projects. Decision-making reference. 2017;474(6):49–53.