Risk factors influencing construction supply chain management in Saudi Arabia.

Risk factors influencing construction supply chain management in Saudi Arabia - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Sci Rep . 2026 Apr 13;16:12353. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-43672-9 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Risk factors influencing construction supply chain management in Saudi Arabia Fahad K Alqahtani Fahad K Alqahtani 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia Find articles by Fahad K Alqahtani 1 , Maan Shafaay Maan Shafaay 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia Find articles by Maan Shafaay 1 , Eid Alagha Eid Alagha 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia Find articles by Eid Alagha 1 , Omar Ahmed Omar Ahmed 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia Find articles by Omar Ahmed 1 , Abdullah Alshehri Abdullah Alshehri 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia Find articles by Abdullah Alshehri 1 , Mohamed Sherif Mohamed Sherif 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA Find articles by Mohamed Sherif 2 , Ibrahim S Abotaleb Ibrahim S Abotaleb 3 Department of Construction Engineering, the American University in Cairo, AUC Avenue, Cairo, 11835 Egypt Find articles by Ibrahim S Abotaleb 3, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA 3 Department of Construction Engineering, the American University in Cairo, AUC Avenue, Cairo, 11835 Egypt ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 May 7; Accepted 2026 Mar 5; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13079884  PMID: 41974812 Abstract The construction industry in Saudi Arabia faces numerous supply chain risks due to the complexity of operations, involvement of multiple stakeholders, reliance on imported materials, and fluctuating material costs. While numerous studies have identified and ranked construction risks, few have focused on the Saudi context to produce a validated hierarchy of risks. This study provides a systematic assessment of construction supply chain risks in the Saudi context by integrating an extensive literature review, expert consultation, and a quantitative survey methodology. Initially, 50 risk factors were identified through literature and refined to 23 critical risks through input from six subject matter experts (SMEs). A structured questionnaire was then distributed to 112 industry professionals, and the data were analyzed using the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Risk Index (RI) to prioritize risks based on their probability and impact. Using RII and a derived Risk Index (RI), the study prioritizes the most influential risks, identifying financial instability (RI = 0.432), supplier delivery failure (RI = 0.397), demand fluctuations (RI = 0.386), and single sourcing (RI = 0.386) as the top threats to construction supply chain performance in Saudi Arabia. Reliability testing produced a strong Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, and a significant positive correlation between probability and impact scores (ρ = 0.6156, P = 0.0008) confirmed the coherence of the risk structure. The study contributes to construction supply chain management literature by extending the application of RII in the Gulf region and offers practical insights for project managers and policymakers to develop targeted mitigation strategies. These findings support the formulation of more resilient supply chain frameworks for large-scale infrastructure development. Keywords: Supply chain, Risk factors, Saudi Arabia, Risk management, Relative importance index Subject terms: Civil engineering, Engineering Introduction The construction industry is vulnerable to various risks at every stage of the project lifecycle. This vulnerability is due to the sector’s intrinsic complexity, the dynamic nature of project activities, and the involvement of numerous stakeholders, including contractors, suppliers, and regulatory bodies 1 – 2 . Each construction project is unique, operating within the confines of temporary contracts, tight deadlines, and limited resources. These constraints make the absence of effective risk management potentially catastrophic, leading to cost overruns, delays, or even project failure 3 – 4 . One of the most critical areas in construction risk management is the supply chain, which plays a pivotal role in ensuring project success 5 . As the complexity of the supply chain increases, so does the potential for disruptions. This complexity is further heightened by external factors such as fluctuating material costs, labor shortages, transportation delays, regulatory changes, and geopolitical risks 6 . The impact of these disruptions is magnified in large-scale construction projects, where delays or supply chain failures can lead to substantial financial losses and reputational damage 7 . In this context, the management of supply chain risks becomes a critical element for the successful delivery of construction projects 8 – 9 . In the construction industry, the risks associated with supply chain management are not only diverse but also interdependent. For example, a delay in the delivery of critical materials can cascade through the project, impacting scheduling, labor allocation, and even the financial stability of the project. Furthermore, the global nature of supply chains in modern construction adds layers of complexity, introducing risks such as currency fluctuations, international regulations, and logistics challenges. This study focuses on the construction industry in Saudi Arabia, a region known for its ambitious mega projects, including the construction of entire cities, airports, and large-scale infrastructure. Saudi Arabia’s reliance on imported construction materials, labor, and technologies further amplifies the risks, making supply chain management a crucial area of focus for project success 10 . Despite extensive global research on construction supply chain risks, current studies show three key limitations. First, very few investigations focus on the Saudi Arabian construction sector. Second, prior RII-based studies typically rank risks but do not validate them through multi-method approaches, such as expert refinement, risk indexing, and correlation analysis. Third, existing research seldom connects risk prioritization to practical mitigation strategies, leaving a gap between academic findings and managerial decision-making. Research goal and merit To address the identified gaps in the literature and the specific challenges of the Saudi Arabian construction sector, this study pursues four specific, testable objectives. First, the research aims to identify a comprehensive inventory of supply chain risk factors pertinent to the Saudi construction industry through a systematic literature review and expert consultation. Second, it seeks to categorize these risks into distinct domains to facilitate structured analysis and clear risk ownership. Third, the study intends to quantify and prioritize the identified risks based on their probability of occurrence and severity of impact using the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Risk Index (RI). Finally, the research proposes actionable mitigation strategies to enhance supply chain resilience and minimize disputes. While global literature on supply chain management is extensive, there is limited research addressing the unique dynamics of the Saudi construction market. The merit of this study is defined by three key contributions. Contextually, it provides a systematic assessment of supply chain risks tailored specifically to the Saudi environment, which is characterized by large-scale projects and a heavy reliance on imported resources. Methodologically, the study extends the application of the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Risk Index (RI) frameworks to the Gulf region’s construction supply chain, establishing a validated hierarchy of critical risk factors for future benchmarking. Practically, unlike studies that focus solely on risk identification, this research bridges the gap between theory and practice by linking risk analysis directly to mitigation. Literature review This literature review examines the critical role of Supply Chain Management (SCM) as a strategic tool for mitigating these risks and ensuring the successful delivery of projects. A particular emphasis is placed on the unique challenges posed by the Saudi Arabian market, where mega projects are especially vulnerable to disruptions in supply chain activities. Supply Chain Management’s pivotal significance across industries, including construction, forms the foundation for this exploration 11 . SCM is a comprehensive management philosophy that integrates the flow of goods, services, and information from raw material procurement to the delivery of finished products to end-users. In a construction context, SCM encompasses the coordination of materials, labor, equipment, and information to ensure that all project components are delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards. When effectively implemented, SCM has the potential to act as a significant competitive advantage by reducing operational inefficiencies, enhancing customer satisfaction, and increasing profitability 12 . Mega projects, in particular, present unique logistical and supply chain challenges. These projects are often distinguished by their large budgets, extended timelines, and high levels of public and political scrutiny. They also involve a wide array of stakeholders, including government entities, private contractors, suppliers from different regions, and local communities, all of which can add to the complexity of managing supply chains. Delays or disruptions in any part of the supply chain can have far-reaching consequences, potentially leading to cost escalations, contract penalties, and reputational damage 13 . The high stakes associated with mega projects make SCM not just a logistical concern but a strategic imperative for ensuring project success 14 . The challenges posed by mega projects in Saudi Arabia, such as the construction of entire cities, airports, and high-profile infrastructure, are further compounded by geographic, climatic, and socio-economic factors, which necessitate a holistic and integrated approach to SCM 15 . Construction Supply Chain Management (CSCM) represents a specific adaptation of SCM principles tailored to address the distinct needs and challenges of the construction industry. Despite the clear benefits of applying SCM principles to construction, the industry has been slow to adopt these practices, largely due to its unique project-based nature. Unlike manufacturing, where production processes are repetitive and standardized, construction projects are typically one-off endeavors that require customized solutions. The fragmented nature of the industry, with multiple contractors and subcontractors working on different aspects of the project, further complicates the implementation of SCM 16 – 17 . Another crucial aspect of SCM in construction is the management of risks associated with the supply chain. Construction projects are highly susceptible to a range of risks, including material shortages, transportation delays, fluctuating costs, and regulatory changes. Managing these risks is critical to ensuring the timely and cost-effective completion of construction projects. Studies from other industries, such as automotive and aerospace, offer valuable insights that can be adapted to the construction sector, particularly in terms of identifying and mitigating supply chain risks 18 . However, the unique nature of construction projects means that risk management strategies must be customized to fit the specific context of each project 19 . To manage these risks effectively, systematic approaches are needed. The identification, assessment, and mitigation of risks in construction supply chains are crucial for minimizing claims, disputes, and delays. Advanced risk management practices, such as scenario planning and predictive analytics, are increasingly being adopted to anticipate potential disruptions and allow for proactive measures to be taken 20 , 21 . reviewed supply chain risks in the construction industry, identifying key risk factors and ranking them based on frequency in the literature. In addition 6 , explored supply chain risks in large-scale engineering and construction projects, providing a detailed ranking of the top ten supply chain risks in such projects. The Relative Importance Index (RII) is widely used in construction management research to rank risks based on their likelihood and severity. The method provides a systematic way of evaluating risk factors and determining the most critical areas for intervention 2 . Worldwide, and with respect to construction supply chain risks, this method has been used to investigate the risks associated with construction supply chain in countries like North America 22 , Turkey 23 , Pakistan 8 , China 24 , and several other countries. Yet, there is a shortage of literature about the risks of supply chain management when it comes to the Saudi construction market. When it comes to more recent research directions, research by 25 presents a comprehensive framework for identifying and managing supply chain risks in construction projects, showing how these risks affect project success 26 . have explored the integration of AI in assessing these risks, highlighting the need for more studies on AI’s limitations and potential biases in the construction context 27 . conducted a fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis to identify and rank critical risk factors in the Chinese construction supply chain. A comparative analysis of previous studies on construction supply chain risk management is presented in Table 1 . The reviewed literature varies in scope, country of focus, and methodology, ranging from conceptual frameworks and literature reviews to empirical approaches such as surveys, case analyses, and hybrid models. While these studies have contributed significantly to the understanding of supply chain risks, several recurring limitations are apparent. For example, although 11 developed a structured risk management process model, their work did not focus on or identify risks specific to the construction industry 17 . offered a grounded theory approach but lacked quantitative validation 21 . concentrated on process related risks within construction projects but did not organize these risks under a structured classification model, which limits their applicability for comparative or prioritization purposes 6 , along with studies by 8 , 28 , highlighted various risks but lacked a structured risk categorization. Table 1. Literature review analysis. Study Year Country Method Key Findings Gap Tummala & Schoenherr 2011 USA Conceptual framework (SCRMP) Developed structured SCRMP model for SCM risk management Lacked construction specific application Shojaei & Haeri 2019 Iran Grounded theory approach Created grounded SCRM model for construction projects Lacked quantitative validation and prioritization Aloini et al. 2012 Italy Systematic literature review Outlined key implementation risks in construction SCM Focused more on process risks than strategic alignment Rudolf & Spinler 2018 Germany Qualitative case analysis Identified critical risks in large-scale engineering projects No structured classification and prioritization Abas et al. 2022 Pakistan Survey and statistical analysis Ranked critical risks and success factors in Pakistani construction SCM Limited generalizability outside Pakistani context Shinde & Landage 2021 India Risk assessment approach Emphasized the role of risk assessment in improving SCM efficiency No alignment with theoretical frameworks Genc 2023 Turkey RII and EFA Ranked top risks in Turkish construction using RII and EFA Focused on probability, not full impact assessment Karamoozian & Wu 2022 Iran Hybrid (fuzzy AHP and SWOT) Assessed COVID-era SCM risks using hybrid methods Lacked sector wide generalization Okika et al. 2024 South Africa Systematic SCM risk identification Proposed structured framework for SCM risk management in construction Need for empirical validation in broader regions Deng et al. 2023 China Fuzzy synthetic evaluation Identified critical risks in Chinese construction supply chains Limited stakeholder integration Shishehgarkhaneh et al. 2024 Germany Literature review and model development Reviewed risk management strategies for construction SCM Limited empirical support for proposed model Open in a new tab Despite the critical role of supply chain risk management in construction projects, the literature review reveals a limited research focus on this specific area within the construction supply chain management domain. The dearth of extensive research in this field underscores the need for further exploration to enhance understanding and develop effective risk management strategies. Methodology The methodology employed in this study follows a comprehensive, multi-phase approach aimed at systematically identifying and prioritizing the risks associated with construction supply chain management in Saudi Arabia, as shown in Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Methodology flow chart. Conceptual framework This study is guided by the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP) model developed by 20 , which offers a structured and systematic method for identifying, analyzing, and responding to supply chain risks. The SCRMP model emphasizes a process oriented view of risk management and consists of five key steps: risk identification, risk assessment, risk evaluation, risk mitigation, and risk monitoring. These steps are designed to be iterative and adaptable to different industries and risk environments. In this research, particular attention is given to the initial stages of the model, including risk identification, risk assessment, and risk evaluation, as they are fundamental to understanding which risks are most critical in the context of construction supply chain management. The SCRMP model also stresses the importance of a structured classification of risks and the involvement of key stakeholders during the risk analysis process. Its practical and theory driven foundation makes it suitable for application in complex and uncertain environments such as the construction industry, particularly in large scale projects where delays, disruptions, and coordination issues are common. By using this framework, the study ensures that risk analysis is both systematic and aligned with best practices in supply chain risk research. Identification of risk factors The initial phase involves an extensive review of scholarly articles, industry reports, and research papers, resulting in the compilation of a list of 50 potential risk factors. This extensive literature review provides a foundational understanding of the complexities and nuances of supply chain risks within the construction industry. By gathering insights from various global and regional studies, this phase ensures that the initial list encompasses a wide array of both internal and external risk factors affecting construction projects 29 . Refinement of the identified list factors Following the literature review, the compiled list of risk factors is subjected to further scrutiny by a panel of six subject matter experts (SMEs), all of whom are selected based on predefined criteria. Specifically, each SME was required to have a minimum of 20 years of professional experience in the Saudi construction industry, direct responsibility for or oversight of large-scale projects (including supply chain or procurement components), and familiarity with risk management practices on mega projects. The use of six experts aligns with established practices in construction research, where panels between five and ten experts are commonly adopted to balance depth of insight with manageability of the judgment process 30 . In our case, six SMEs were deliberately chosen to ensure heterogeneity across roles and organizations while maintaining a panel size that allows for detailed discussion of each risk factor. Collectively, these experts represented contracting, consulting, and client organizations involved in mega projects, which ensured that the refinement of the initial 50 risks into 23 critical risks reflected multiple stakeholder perspectives rather than a single organizational viewpoint. Moreover, increasing the panel size beyond six would likely have introduced redundancy in expert opinions without proportionate gains in new information, while also complicating the logistics of consensus-building. Thus, the selection of six SMEs was a methodological decision aimed at achieving a pragmatic trade-off between diversity of expertise, feasibility of engagement, and the level of depth required for this specialized risk refinement exercise. Collectively, these experts bring over two decades of direct experience working on mega projects with budgets ranging from SAR 800 to 1000 million. Their intimate knowledge of the challenges and complexities endemic to the construction supply chain in Saudi Arabia, combined with their professional affiliations with leading construction companies, provides a deep reservoir of expertise to refine the initial list of risks 31 . This expert consultation phase is critical for narrowing down the initial risk factors to the most relevant and impactful ones, resulting in a refined list of 23 critical risks (which are shown in the Results and Discussion section). These risks are then selected based on their perceived relevance to construction supply chains in the context of mega projects, their potential to cause delays, and their financial implications. Analysis To gain a more nuanced understanding of the severity and probability of these identified refined risks, a comprehensive questionnaire is developed. This questionnaire is designed with input from the SMEs to ensure it captured the full scope of the risks facing the construction supply chain. The questionnaire was distributed to a broader audience of professionals within the construction industry. Potential respondents were drawn from a database maintained by [name of professional body/authority/company], which includes registered construction and certified professionals working in Saudi Arabia. For this study, the sampling frame was restricted to individuals whose job titles and departmental affiliations indicated direct involvement in procurement, contracting, project management, or supply chain–related functions. From this filtered list, a simple random sample was generated using a computerized random number function, ensuring that each eligible professional had an equal probability of selection. Invitations containing a survey link were sent by email, and up to two reminder messages were issued to non-respondents over a four-week period. A total of 112 industry professionals completed the questionnaire, representing contractors, consultants, and clients and therefore providing a diverse range of perspectives across key construction-related disciplines. This probabilistic approach to survey distribution was adopted to enhance reproducibility and to support the representativeness of the quantitative findings. This broad dissemination of the survey helped to ensure a robust dataset, with responses gathered from professionals with direct experience in supply chain management for large-scale projects 32 . The primary objective of the survey was to refine the risk factors further and to prioritize them according to their perceived impact on construction supply chain management. To achieve this, the questionnaire employed a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Very Low’ to ‘Very High,’ to rate the significance of each risk factor. This scale was used to assess both the probability of occurrence and the potential impact of each risk on the overall project delivery. The Likert scale allowed for a detailed, quantitative assessment of the risks, which was crucial for conducting subsequent statistical analyses. The aim was to achieve a confidence level of 95% in the results, with a margin of error of 6%, ensuring the reliability of the data collected 33 . The survey’s response rate was robust, with the confidence level achieved at approximately 83%, making the findings statistically reliable and comprehensive of the broader construction industry in Saudi Arabia. Once the questionnaire responses were collected, the data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to rank the risk factors. One of the primary tools used for this analysis was the Relative Importance Index (RII), which allowed for the prioritization of risks based on the collective input from the survey respondents. The RII calculation provided a systematic means of determining which risks were perceived as the most critical to address in construction supply chain management. This method is widely used in risk assessment studies, as it enables the clear identification of the most impactful risks based on both probability and severity 34 . The application of the RII was instrumental in producing a ranked list of the 23 critical risks, which were then presented to the expert panel for validation. Validation The final step in this methodological process involved reconvening the original panel of six SMEs to review the ranked list of risks. This validation phase ensured that the analysis reflected real-world conditions and that the identified risks were aligned with the experts’ on-the-ground experiences in managing large-scale construction projects. Through this process, the SMEs provided additional insights and suggestions, ensuring that the final list of prioritized risks was both accurate and actionable. In addition, another validation step is comparing the results of this research to those of similar research efforts. This systematic approach, from the initial literature review to expert validation, provided a comprehensive foundation for understanding the risks affecting construction supply chains in Saudi Arabia. The methodological rigor applied in this study ensures that the findings are both indicative of the industry’s challenges and robust enough to inform future risk management practices. No experiments on humans were conducted. The questionnaires and interviews were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of King Saud University. Informed consent was obtained from all interviewed experts. No personal information was collected or recorded. Accordingly, the need for ethics approval was deemed unnecessary according to KSA national legislation and the regulations put forth by the Deanship of Scientific Research (Research Ethics Committee) at King Saud University because the research did not include experimentation on humans or animals. Results Identification of construction supply chain risks As described earlier, an exhaustive analysis of existing research was conducted and a list of 50 primary risks and challenges within the construction supply chain management (SCM) framework in the region were identified. By employing a thematic analysis and utilizing the expertise of six subject matter experts (SMEs), the list was refined into 23 risks (as shown in Table 2 ). The identified risks were classified into four theoretical categories: Environmental, Organizational, Supply, and Demand, adopting a deductive classification approach derived from established supply chain literature 28 , 35 . This structure was selected to ensure alignment with global management standards, allowing for a systematic evaluation of risk priorities within the Saudi context. Environmental risks are defined as factors arising from external conditions outside the control of the project. Organizational risks refer to internal issues related to project governance, coordination, and team performance. Supply risks involve challenges associated with procurement, supplier performance, and logistics. Demand risks are linked to variability in client requirements and market conditions. These categories broadly align with established theoretical risk types: Environmental and Demand risks correspond to external and strategic risks, Organizational risks align with internal and operational risks, and Supply risks represent a combination of operational and strategic risks. This classification ensures consistency with widely recognized frameworks in supply chain risk management while maintaining relevance to the construction industry context. Among the 112 survey respondents, 50% identified as contractors, 30% as consultants, and 20% as clients. These proportions reflect the stakeholder composition commonly observed in the Saudi construction industry and help provide a comprehensive view of supply chain risks from multiple professional standpoints. Table 2. Risk affecting construction supply chain. Category Risk ID Risk factor Description Reference Environmental (External) Risks RF1 Political unrest Risks associated with the political crisis that affects the businesses. 18 , 38 RF2 Economic instability Risks related to issues such as currency fluctuations, inflation, oil crises which cause supply disruptions. 15 , 19 RF3 Government restrictions Changing governmental policies like trade barriers, import restrictions, increase in customs duty, and change in law arises risks to supply chains. 16 , 30 , 35 , 39 RF4 Labor disputes The risk associated with labor such as strikes, payments, staff reduction, and downsizing and governmental wage rate change. 15 , 16 , 39 Organizational risks RF5 Organizational Risk arises due to the consumption or production of the product like product liability and emission of the pollutants. 15 , 16 RF6 Financial Risk arises due to the poor financial conditions, less cash at hand, collectable problems. 17 – 19 RF7 Behavioral Risk arises due to the conflicts of managers and employees, corporate governance issues, and agency problems. 16 , 18 RF8 Research & Development Risk arises due to issues in a new product, its design, its features, etc. 30 , 38 RF9 Technological Risk arises due to change in technology, misuse of technology, using outdated technology, or using labor, which is not skilled how to use equipment or having a supplier with obsolete technology. 18 , 38 RF10 Communication Risk arises due to the failure of communication within and outside the organization. This communication can be company goals, strategies, and relationships. 35 , 38 Supply risks RF11 Supplier quality problem When the supplier provides low-quality products and then compromises over high-quality equipment, risk arises in supply chains. 18 , 30 RF12 Supplier delivery failure Risk arises due to not on-time delivery by the supplier; it creates problems in production. 18 , 30 RF13 Single Sourcing Having a single supplier is a risk itself if the supplier fails in delivering the product the company faces. 30 , 35 RF14 Insolvency of supplier Risk arises due to suppliers becomes insolvent and has insufficient funds to operate 30 , 35 RF15 Increase in raw material prices Increase in raw material prices causes problems in procurement, and this kind of situations arise risk for the supply chain. 30 , 35 RF16 Upstream cargo damage Sometimes cargo damages create huge problems, operating on risky routes by logistics companies. 30 , 38 Demand risks RF17 Demand fluctuations Change in demand due to seasonality, volatility, change in fashion and trends uplift the demand fluctuation risk. 15 , 30 RF18 Forecasting error This risk arises while forecasting the demand for a product. Error in forecasting leads to loss. 15 RF19 Poor customer relationship Poor customer relationship is the most significant risk to the company because spreading bad word of mouth can ruin the business 35 , 38 RF20 Inflexibility Risk of losing market share in high demand due to production inflexibility. 15 , 35 RF21 Decline in market prices The decline in market prices exposes supply chains to risk as the company will not be covering production cost. 30 , 38 RF22 Inventory shortage Organizations try to cut of inventory cost and use lean inventory technique, which rises inventory shortage risk. 15 , 35 RF23 Delivery chain disruptions Delivery chain disruptions result in late deliveries to the customers, which creates a harmful impact and is a risk to company reputation 30 , 35 Open in a new tab This analytical process offers clear insights into the key challenges facing supply chain management in the Saudi Arabian construction industry and provides a foundation for developing strategies to enhance resilience and improve project outcomes. Risk probability and impact The participants in the survey represented a diverse group of professionals predominantly between the ages of 40 and 60, working in roles related to procurement, contracting, engineering, and construction. Their collective experiences across different regions and various types of projects provided a broad spectrum of perspectives on construction supply chain risks. The responses were analyzed using several statistical methods, including mode and standard deviation to measure the commonality and variability of responses, Cronbach’s alpha to test the reliability of the questionnaire, and the Relative Importance Index (RII) to prioritize the risk factors based on their perceived impact on construction supply chain management. The mode analysis (shown in Table 3 ) highlighted that labor disputes, organizational risks, single sourcing, and upstream cargo damage were among the highest-rated risk factors. This indicates a strong consensus among the respondents regarding the prevalence and potential impact of these risks. Labor disputes were frequently cited as a significant issue, affecting the timely execution of projects due to work stoppages or insufficient labor availability. Organizational risks, which include internal inefficiencies, management conflicts, and poor communication, were also highly rated, reflecting their critical role in disrupting project workflows. Additionally, the risks related to upstream cargo damage were particularly relevant to Saudi Arabia’s reliance on imported materials. Any delay or damage during the transport of materials can significantly impact project timelines and budgets. Single sourcing, the practice of depending on a single supplier, was another critical risk, as any disruption with the supplier could halt entire project operations. Table 3. Probability assessment of supply chain risk factor. Category Risk ID Risk factor Probability Impact Mode Standard Deviation Mode Standard Deviation Environmental Risks RF1 Political unrest Moderate 1.0582 Moderate 1.0286 RF2 Economic instability Moderate 0.9987 High 1.0164 RF3 Government restrictions Moderate 0.9293 High 1.0038 RF4 Labor disputes Moderate 1.0239 High 1.0938 Organizational risks RF5 Organizational Risks Moderate 1.0521 High 1.1341 RF6 Financial risk Moderate 0.9682 High 0.9528 RF7 Behavioral risk Moderate 0.9923 Moderate 1.0558 RF8 Research & Development risk Moderate 1.0423 Moderate 1.1560 RF9 Technological risk Moderate 1.0099 Moderate 1.1378 RF10 Communication risk Moderate 1.0843 Moderate 1.1087 Supply risks RF11 Supplier quality problem Moderate 0.9923 Moderate 1.1179 RF12 Supplier delivery failure Moderate 1.0202 Moderate 1.0188 RF13 Single Sourcing Moderate 1.0415 High 1.0996 RF14 Insolvency of supplier Moderate 1.0075 Moderate 1.0457 RF15 Increase in raw material prices Moderate 0.9761 Moderate 1.0127 RF16 Upstream cargo damage Moderate 1.0079 Moderate 1.1239 Demand risks RF17 Demand fluctuations Moderate 0.9579 Moderate 1.0610 RF18 Forecasting error Moderate 0.9595 Moderate 1.0455 RF19 Poor customer relationship Moderate 1.0057 Moderate 1.0384 RF20 Inflexibility Moderate 0.9748 Moderate 1.1197 RF21 Decline in market prices Moderate 1.0533 Moderate 1.0678 RF22 Inventory shortage Moderate 0.9868 Moderate 1.0653 RF23 Delivery chain disruptions Moderate 0.9407 Moderate 0.9884 Open in a new tab On the other hand, some risks, such as behavioral risks, were rated lower in impact. While these risks typically related to the interpersonal dynamics within project teams and issues in corporate governance may not cause immediate disruptions, they could still play a role in long-term project inefficiencies. This suggests that while behavioral risks are not as acutely felt as logistical or financial risks, they should not be ignored, as they can contribute to larger organizational issues if left unaddressed. Analysis of standard deviation revealed variability in the responses, particularly for risks like upstream cargo damage and demand fluctuations. This variation highlights the complexity of managing risks in construction supply chains, as different professionals, depending on their project experiences, might perceive the impact of these risks differently. For example, those involved in international procurement may experience upstream cargo risks more directly, while those focused on local projects may be more concerned with demand fluctuations. This underscores the importance of context-specific risk management strategies that can adapt to the particular needs of each project. Agreement analysis The calculation of SMEs’ agreement percentages (Shown in Fig. 2 related to the identified risk factors offers valuable insights into the level of concordance among professionals regarding various supply chain management (SCM) issues in construction companies operating in Saudi Arabia. By carefully assessing the agreement percentages for all the risk factors (shown in Fig. 2 ), the study was able to highlight a broad spectrum of challenges, spanning from environmental risks to demand-related risks. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Level of agreement regarding the risk factors. One of the key findings from this analysis was the moderate concern expressed regarding political unrest, a factor that has the potential to significantly impact construction projects in the region. This risk was identified with a standard deviation of 1.0582, indicating that while there was some variability in the responses, there was a general awareness among professionals of the disruptive nature of political instability. This suggests that political unrest, while not always a direct or immediate concern, remains a persistent threat that professionals consider important in their risk management strategies. Similarly, organizational risks and economic instability were noted as areas of concern. These risks, with standard deviations of 1.0521 and 0.9987 respectively, were identified as having average impacts, highlighting that while there is some disagreement among respondents, there is an underlying consensus within the industry that disruptions in these areas are possible and potentially impactful. Organizational risks, which include issues related to internal inefficiencies and mismanagement, were seen as a significant concern, particularly in large-scale projects where poor organizational coordination can lead to delays and increased costs. Economic instability, which encompasses risks such as currency fluctuations and inflation, was also flagged as a critical issue, as it can have widespread effects on material procurement, labor costs, and overall project financing. The risks associated with ‘Delivery chain disruptions’ and ‘Forecasting error’ exhibited significant variability, as indicated by their standard deviations of 0.9407 and 0, respectively. The occurrence rates of these terms, 7595 and 9595, suggest that there was less consensus among the experts regarding the severity and impact of these risks. This variation can be attributed to the differing levels of exposure and perceptions based on the professionals’ individual experiences within the construction industry. Those who have dealt with frequent delivery issues or struggled with inaccurate forecasts may rate these risks higher, while others may have encountered fewer challenges in these areas. This divergence in opinions highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of risk management within the construction supply chain. While certain risks, such as political instability or organizational turmoil, are universally acknowledged as significant threats, other risks are perceived differently depending on the specific context of each project or professional experience. This disparity underscores the necessity for adopting flexible and tailored risk management strategies that account for the varying circumstances of each project. A one-size-fits-all approach to risk management is unlikely to be effective, given the wide range of potential disruptions and the differing perceptions of their impact. Despite the variability in responses to certain risks, the analysis of ‘Environmental risks’ showed a relatively low standard deviation, approximately 1. This consistency suggests a shared understanding among the professionals of the significant impact that political turbulence and economic volatility can have on the construction supply chain. The result of 1.0018 supports this finding, indicating a general consensus on the relevance of these external factors. Political and economic instability are recognized as key disruptors, capable of affecting everything from material availability to project financing and are thus seen as critical components of any comprehensive risk management strategy within the construction industry. These findings not only illuminate the areas of greatest concern among industry experts but also emphasize the need for targeted strategies to address the most agreed-upon risks. Understanding the agreement levels helps in prioritizing risk management efforts, guiding stakeholders to focus on mitigating the risks perceived as most detrimental to the construction supply chain in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the nuanced understanding of where opinions diverge offers a unique opportunity for further research and discussion, potentially leading to innovative solutions for less commonly acknowledged risks. Relative importance of construction supply chain risks The relative importance – through risk indexing - was employed to prioritize the identified risk factors, combining the frequency of their occurrence with the severity of their impact. As shown in Table 4 , the ranking of the top 10 risks in construction supply chain management within the Saudi Arabian context - as supported by the RII analysis and critical discussion - emphasizes several crucial risk factors. These risks include financial risks, supplier insolvency risks, supplier delivery risks, labor risks, political risks, risks related to single sourcing, economic instabilities, upstream cargo damage, customer relationship risks, and government-related risks. Among these, financial risk stood out as the most prominent, receiving one of the highest RII scores in both probability and impact. This high ranking underscores the critical importance of financial stability in construction projects, as budget fluctuations and funding issues can significantly impact project timelines, material procurement, and overall success. To synthesize these findings into a visual framework for prioritization. Figure 3 presents Risks Heat Map derived from the RI scores. The color gradient, transitioning from green (low risk) to red (high risk), visually represents the increasing severity of risk factors. More specifically, the map categorizes identified factors into three distinct zones based on their RI scores: the Critical Risk (Red) Zone (RI > 0.380); the Moderate Risk (Yellow) Zone (0.365 < RI < 0.380); and the Low Risk (Green) Zone (RI < 0.365). Table 4. Overall risk ranking. Category Risk Code Risk factor Relative important index (RII) Risk Index ( P *I) Rank Probability ( P ) Impact (I) Organizational risk RF6 Financial risk 0.627 0.689 0.432 1 Supply risk RF12 Supplier delivery failure 0.588 0.675 0.397 2 Demand risks RF17 Demand fluctuations 0.591 0.654 0.386 3 Supply risk RF13 Single Sourcing 0.577 0.670 0.386 4 Organizational risks RF7 Behavioral risk 0.584 0.657 0.384 5 Environmental Risk RF2 Economic instability 0.571 0.671 0.384 6 Environmental risks RF3 Government restrictions 0.579 0.657 0.380 7 Supply risks RF15 Increase in raw material prices 0.579 0.657 0.380 8 Supply risk RF14 Insolvency of supplier 0.561 0.677 0.379 9 Supply risks RF11 Supplier quality problem 0.584 0.646 0.377 10 Environmental risk RF1 Political unrest 0.555 0.677 0.376 11 Demand risks RF23 Delivery chain disruptions 0.582 0.645 0.375 12 Environmental risk RF4 Labor disputes 0.555 0.673 0.374 13 Organizational risks RF9 Technological risk 0.575 0.650 0.374 14 Organizational risk RF10 Communication risk 0.561 0.661 0.370 15 Demand risks RF18 Forecasting error 0.582 0.636 0.370 16 Supply risk RF16 Upstream cargo damage 0.566 0.652 0.369 17 Organizational risks RF5 Organizational Risks 0.546 0.663 0.362 18 Demand risks RF21 Decline in market prices 0.575 0.629 0.361 19 Demand risk RF19 Poor customer relationship 0.541 0.666 0.360 20 Organizational Risks RF8 Research & Development risk 0.561 0.639 0.358 21 Demand risks RF20 Inflexibility 0.564 0.630 0.356 22 Demand risks RF22 Inventory shortage 0.563 0.632 0.356 23 Open in a new tab Fig. 3. Open in a new tab Risk heat map. Reliability and validation Reliability testing of the questionnaire through Cronbach’s alpha produced a value of 0.87, indicating a strong level of internal consistency in the responses 36 . This high reliability score confirms that the instrument was effective in capturing the variety of risks influencing the construction supply chain. The consistent responses across different items suggest that the identified risks are accurately reflective of the real-world concerns faced by industry professionals. To further validate the findings and address the inferential relationship between risk dimensions, a Spearman’s rank correlation analysis ( ) was conducted. This non-parametric test was selected as the most appropriate method given the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale data. The analysis revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between the probability and impact rankings of the 23 identified risk factors (ρ = 0.6156, P = 0.0008). This strong correlation indicates a general tendency within the Saudi construction supply chain wherein risks with higher frequencies of occurrence also carry greater potential for severity. However, while this linear relationship validates the overall coherence of the risk landscape, the deviation of critical outliers, such as Delivery Chain Disruptions (High Probability, Moderate Impact) and Organizational Risks (Moderate Probability, High Impact), reinforces the necessity of the multi-dimensional assessment provided by the Risk Matrix. Another way of validation was reconvening with the original panel of six SMEs to review the ranked list of risks. A consensus was reached by the SMEs on the ranking of the risks; which confirmed the validity of the findings and provided a reliable framework for developing targeted risk mitigation strategies 37 . The final form of validation of this study’s findings was conducted by comparing them with similar previous research, specifically 8 , 28 , both of which emphasize critical risks such as financial instability, supply chain disruptions, and political unrest within the construction sector. Similar to our study, both 8 , 28 underscored the vulnerabilities related to financial management and logistical challenges in large-scale construction projects 28 . however, extended the analysis by categorizing risks into strategic, supply, and operational domains, further highlighting the intricate complexity of managing construction supply chains effectively. The comparison between these studies reveals a shared concern regarding the critical impact that supply chain dynamics have on construction project success. Our analysis, which delves into specific risk factors such as upstream cargo damage, labor disputes, and supplier insolvency, broadens the risk identification framework established by earlier studies. In contrast to Shinde 28 more generalized categorizations of construction risks, our study offers a more comprehensive approach by identifying the nuanced factors that contribute to delays and disruptions. This expanded view enhances the understanding of the multifaceted risks influencing construction supply chains, underscoring the necessity for targeted, strategic risk management approaches. The alignment between findings of this research and those of the other studies validates the methodology used in this research. It also highlights common perceptions of the most pressing risks facing the construction sector. By confirming that our results resonate with existing literature, this study reinforces the importance of an integrated approach to risk management in construction projects. It also emphasizes that such strategies must consider both internal factors, such as organizational inefficiencies and labor management, and external factors, such as political and economic instabilities. This holistic understanding of risk is crucial for safeguarding project timelines, budgets, and overall success. Synthesizing these findings from diverse research methodologies provides a comprehensive perspective on managing risks within construction supply chains. It highlights the importance of adopting multifaceted risk management strategies that can address the broad range of threats that may arise throughout the project lifecycle. The discussions drawn from our results offer insights into the complex interplay between various risk factors, showing how financial, logistical, and external risks can converge to impact construction projects. By identifying and prioritizing these risks, project managers and decision-makers are better equipped to develop targeted strategies that mitigate their impact. This proactive approach enhances both the resilience and efficiency of construction projects, ensuring that risks are addressed before they cause significant delays or financial losses. Overall, this study contributes significantly to the body of knowledge on construction supply chain risk management, with a particular focus on the dynamic and evolving market of Saudi Arabia. It emphasizes the need for continuous risk evaluation and tailored strategies that reflect the specific challenges of each project, ensuring successful outcomes in a highly competitive and complex industry. Limitations of the methodology While this study provides valuable insights into construction supply chain risks in Saudi Arabia, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged to contextualize the findings and guide future research. First, using expert judgment and a small SME panel may introduce subjectivity, as the results reflect perceptions rather than objective risk data. The refinement of the initial list of 50 risks into 23 critical factors depended on the views of six experts, which, although consistent with construction research practice, may not fully capture the diversity of perspectives in the wider industry. Second, the survey sampling frame was limited to a specific registration database and depended on voluntary participation, which may lead to coverage and non‑response bias. Both the SME evaluation and the survey rely on self‑reported perceptions of risk probability and impact rather than objective project performance measures such as delay records or cost overrun data. Third, the use of the RII and Risk Index is appropriate for ranking risks but does not capture complex interactions and cascading effects between them. More advanced methods, such as system dynamics models, Bayesian networks, or fuzzy logic approaches, could provide deeper insights into interdependencies among risk factors. Fourth, the cross‑sectional design of the survey means that the data represent a single point in time, even though supply chain risks may evolve with changing economic conditions, regulatory environments, and project phases. Longitudinal designs would allow the tracking of how risk probability and impact change across different market cycles and project lifecycles. Discussion The Discussion interprets the prioritized risk hierarchy by situating the findings within established supply chain risk management frameworks and empirical studies from construction and other industries. Using the SCRMP model as a conceptual lens, the analysis explains how the most critical risks identified, particularly financial instability, supplier delivery failure, demand fluctuations, and single sourcing interact across the environmental, organizational, supply, and demand domains to shape systemic vulnerabilities in the Saudi construction supply chain. The importance of financial risk at the top of the RI ranking underscores that supply chain fragility in Saudi projects is often triggered by capital constraints rather than purely technical failures. This aligns with prior work showing that cash flow interruptions and under-capitalized contractors are central drivers of delays and disputes in complex projects. By framing financial instability as an organizational risk within the SCRMP process, the findings suggest that upstream risk identification and assessment should explicitly include liquidity screening, payment-term design, and creditworthiness evaluation of key supply chain actors, not only contractors. In practical terms, this moves financial risk management from a project accounting issue to a core component of supply chain resilience planning in mega projects. Political risks and economic instabilities also emerged as critical factors, particularly in the Saudi Arabian construction environment, where large-scale infrastructure projects are often influenced by governmental policies and global economic trends. The elevated RI values for government restrictions, economic instability, and political unrest are consistent with prior studies that classify such factors as high-impact external risks in construction and large-scale engineering supply chains. Within the SCRMP model, these risks fall under the “risk identification” and “risk evaluation” stages and highlight the need for scenario-based assessments that explicitly account for oil price cycles, trade policy changes, and regional geopolitical tensions. Rather than treating these as uncontrollable background conditions, the results imply that contract structures, sourcing strategies, and contingency inventories should be tailored to the volatility profile of the Saudi macroeconomic and regulatory context. The relatively high ranking of single sourcing, supplier delivery failure, and upstream cargo damage indicates that the Saudi construction supply chain is structurally exposed to concentration and logistics risks. Earlier work on construction and automotive supply chains has similarly shown that overreliance on a limited supplier base amplifies the impact of any disruption, particularly when cross-border logistics and long lead times are involved. Interpreted through the environmental–supply risk categories used in this study, these findings suggest that mitigation cannot rely solely on expediting shipments or tightening delivery clauses; it requires redesigning the network architecture through multi-sourcing, near-shoring where feasible, and establishing alternative logistics corridors for critical materials. Such strategic decisions correspond to the “risk mitigation” and “risk monitoring” stages of SCRMP, where portfolio-level supplier diversification and continuous performance tracking become central. Demand fluctuations and related demand-side risks, although ranked below financial and delivery related factors, play a structural role in shaping capacity and inventory decisions across the supply chain. This pattern echoes findings from manufacturing-oriented SCRM studies, where inaccurate demand forecasts propagate as the bullwhip effect, generating overstocking or shortages downstream. In the Saudi construction context, the combination of mega-project pipelines and policy driven shifts (e.g., changes in public investment priorities) means that demand variability is often exogenous to individual firms, reinforcing the importance of collaborative forecasting and flexible contracting arrangements with clients and suppliers. Labor risks, including labor disputes, shortages, and regulatory changes, were also identified as critical concerns. Similar to international evidence from large infrastructure programs, the results show that disruptions in workforce availability and stability can offset even well designed material supply plans. By classifying these risks primarily under the environmental and organizational domains, the study reinforces arguments in the literature that labor management practices, compliance with evolving labor regulations, and worker welfare provisions should be integrated into supply chain risk assessments rather than treated as isolated HR issues. For Saudi projects, this is particularly relevant given the reliance on expatriate labor and evolving national labor policies. Lastly, customer relationship and government-related risks were identified as significant factors. Customer dissatisfaction or failure to meet client expectations can lead to project delays, financial penalties, and reputational damage. On the other hand, government risks, including changes in policy or regulatory frameworks, can introduce unforeseen challenges that impact project approvals, timelines, and resource availability. Taken together, the risk hierarchy and its mapping onto environmental, organizational, supply, and demand categories illustrate that vulnerabilities in the Saudi construction supply chain are systemic rather than isolated events. Financial instability, concentrated sourcing structures, exposure to macroeconomic volatility, and labor-related uncertainties all interact along the SCRMP stages, from risk identification to mitigation and monitoring. This integrated view explains why piecemeal interventions (for example, renegotiating a single contract or expediting one shipment) often fail to prevent recurring disruptions, and it supports the growing argument in the SCRM literature that construction firms need portfolio-level risk governance spanning projects, contracts, and supplier networks. From a theoretical standpoint, the results extend the application of the SCRMP model to a high‑import, mega‑project construction context by demonstrating that the five process stages are not evenly stressed by all risk types. Financial and political–economic risks primarily challenge the risk identification and evaluation stages, while supplier structure and logistics risks put pressure on mitigation and monitoring, particularly through multi‑sourcing and performance tracking decisions. This differentiation refines earlier SCRMP‑based studies that treat construction supply chain risks more homogeneously and shows how risk governance responsibilities could be allocated across project controls, procurement, and contract administration functions. Implications for practice The findings of this study carry significant practical implications for construction professionals, project managers, and policymakers in Saudi Arabia and similar markets. Based on the prioritized risks identified; particularly financial instability, supplier delivery failure, demand fluctuations, and single sourcing, several actionable strategies can be adopted to enhance the resilience of construction supply chains (Table 5 ): Table 5. Recommended actions. Actions Details Enhance Financial Risk Management Establish robust cash flow forecasting models to anticipate funding gaps and payment delays. Implement milestone-based payment structures tied to project deliverables to ensure liquidity across the supply chain. Encourage the use of performance bonds and credit insurance for contractors and key suppliers to reduce the impact of financial default. Mitigate Supplier Delivery Failure and Single Sourcing Develop a multi-sourcing procurement strategy to reduce overreliance on a single supplier, particularly for critical materials. Maintain a prequalified supplier database that includes local and regional vendors to allow faster pivoting during supply disruptions. Establish long-term partnerships with reliable suppliers through framework agreements that include performance-based incentives and penalties. Address Demand Fluctuations Incorporate agile procurement frameworks that allow flexible adjustments to material orders based on real-time project progress. Engage in regular market assessments to understand trends that may impact client requirements and demand levels. Adopt modular and prefabricated construction methods when feasible, as they allow better scalability in response to demand variability. Strengthen Risk Communication and Monitoring Systems Implement a centralized Supply Chain Risk Management Dashboard to monitor high-impact risks and flag early warning signs. Assign risk management responsibilities to a dedicated team or function to ensure continuity in tracking and responding to emerging threats. Promote inter-organizational transparency and communication protocols for early identification of supplier-side and logistical issues. Institutionalize Risk Provisions in Contracts Integrate risk-sharing clauses into contracts that define responsibilities, response timelines, and penalties related to supply disruptions, financial delays, and force majeure events. Include material price fluctuation clauses, especially for volatile commodities, to prevent disputes and accommodate market variability. Open in a new tab By adopting these strategies, construction stakeholders can better anticipate and mitigate the impacts of supply chain disruptions. These practical interventions also help align risk management practices with global standards, supporting the delivery of large-scale infrastructure projects on time and within budget. Conclusion This research identified and prioritized the key risks affecting construction supply chains in Saudi Arabia by integrating expert judgment with empirical analysis using the Relative Importance Index (RII), Risk Index (RI), and correlation testing. The findings highlight financial instability, supplier delivery failure, demand fluctuations, and single sourcing as the most critical threats to supply chain performance. These insights provide a structured foundation for improving risk management practices in a market characterized by large-scale, high-complexity projects and heavy reliance on imported resources. More importantly, the results underscore the need for a shift toward technology-enabled supply chain resilience. Emerging tools such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Building Information Modeling (BIM), digital twins, and advanced analytics can play a transformative role in mitigating the risks identified in this study. For example, AI-based forecasting can help anticipate demand fluctuations; BIM-integrated procurement platforms can enhance transparency across suppliers; and IoT-enabled tracking can reduce the likelihood of cargo damage and delivery failures. Embedding these technologies into supply chain processes will be essential for improving visibility, responsiveness, and coordination across project stakeholders. While this study offers valuable insights into supply chain risk factors affecting the Saudi construction industry, several limitations should be acknowledged. In particular, the study is constrained by its focus on the Saudi market and by several methodological choices such as reliance on expert judgment and perception‑based survey data, as discussed in the limitations sections. Future research should first translate the ranked risks identified in this study into predictive models that use AI or machine‑learning algorithms to estimate the likelihood and impact of disruptions. Second, scholars should assess the feasibility and effectiveness of BIM‑linked risk dashboards and digital twin simulations for providing real‑time visibility of construction supply chain vulnerabilities and testing alternative mitigation strategies. Third, comparative investigations across other GCC countries, combined with longitudinal datasets, are needed to benchmark regional risk profiles and to observe how they evolve in response to technological adoption and market fluctuations. Finally, future work should critically evaluate how contractual frameworks, including risk‑sharing clauses and digital procurement regulations, need to be redesigned to support the practical integration of these advanced analytical and digital tools into construction supply chain management. Acknowledgements The authors extend their appreciation to the Ongoing Research Funding program (ORF-2026-264), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research work. Author contributions FA: research idea and guidance and supervision, EA and OA collected the data and performed preliminary analysis, MS and AA conducted detailed analysis, IA: methodology development. All authors participated in writing the manuscript. Funding This research was funded by the Ongoing Research Funding program (ORF-2026-264), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality requirements. However, aggregate and partially redacted data can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Abotaleb, I. S. & El-adaway, I. H. Administering employers’ payment obligations under national and international design–build standard forms of contract. J. Legal Affairs Dispute Resolution Eng. Constr. 9 (2), 04517003 (2017). [ Google Scholar ] 2. Abotaleb, I. S., El-Adaway, I. H., Ibrahim, M. W., Hanna, A. S. & Russell, J. S. Developing a rating score for out-of-sequence construction. J. Manag. Eng. 36 (3), 04020013 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 3. Elsaid, M., Nassar, K., Alqahtani, F. K. & Abotaleb, I. Comparative analysis of earned value management techniques in construction projects. Sci Rep 15 , 23606 (2025). 10.1038/s41598-025-05834-z [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Sherif, M., Abotaleb, I. & Alqahtani, F. K. Application of integrated project delivery (IPD) in the Middle East: Implementation and challenges. Buildings 12 (4), 467 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 5. Pham, H. T., Pham, T., Quang, T., Dang, C. N. & H., & Supply chain risk management research in construction: a systematic review. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 23 (11), 1945–1955 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 6. Rudolf, C. A. & Spinler, S. Key risks in the supply chain of large scale engineering and construction projects. Supply Chain Management: Int. J. 23 (4), 336–350 (2018). [ Google Scholar ] 7. Gharib, S., Hosny, O., Waly, A. & Abotaleb, I. System dynamics as an assistive tool to delay analysis in identifying productivity losses. J. Legal Affairs Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 15 (3), 04523017 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 8. Abas, M., Khattak, S. B., Habib, T. & Nadir, U. Assessment of critical risk and success factors in construction supply chain: a case of Pakistan. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 22 (12), 2258–2266. 10.1080/15623599.2020.1783597 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 9. Gurtu, A. & Johny, J. Supply chain risk management: Literature review. Risks 9 (1), 1–16. 10.3390/risks9010016 (2021). [ Google Scholar ] 10. Alqahtani, F. K. et al. Evaluation of insurance policies in the Saudi Arabian construction contracts. Heliyon. (2024). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 11. Ki, Y. & Cheung, F. The use of supply chain management to reduce delays: malaysian public sector construction. 403–414. (2011). 12. Koc, K. & Gurgun, A. P. Stakeholder-associated life cycle risks in construction supply chain. J. Manag. Eng. 37 (1), 04020107 (2021). [ Google Scholar ] 13. Ibrahim, M. W., Hanna, A. S., Russell, J. S., Abotaleb, I. S. & El-Adaway, I. H. Comprehensive analysis of factors associated with out-of-sequence construction. J. Manag. Eng. 36 (4), 04020031 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 14. Phong, N. Application of supply chain management in construction industry. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 12 (2), 11–19. 10.12913/22998624/92112 (2018). [ Google Scholar ] 15. Salleh Hudin, N. & Abdul Hamid, A. B. Supply chain risk management in automotive small and medium enterprises in Malaysia. Appl. Mech. Mater. 773 , 799–803 (2015). [ Google Scholar ] 16. Sharma, S. K. & Bhat, A. Risk mitigation in automotive supply chain: An empirical exploration of enablers to implement supply chain risk management. Global Bus. Rev. 17 (4), 790–805. 10.1177/0972150916645678 (2016). [ Google Scholar ] 17. Shojaei, P. & Haeri, S. A. S. Development of supply chain risk management approaches for construction projects: a grounded theory approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 128 , 837–850. (2019). 10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.045 [ Google Scholar ] 18. Sodhi, M. S., Son, B. & Tang, C. S. Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management. Prod. Oper. Manage. 21 (1), 1–13. 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01251.x (2012). [ Google Scholar ] 19. Sofyalıoğlu, Ç. & Kartal, B. The Selection of global supply chain risk management strategies by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process – a case from Turkey. Proc. - Soc. Behav. Sci. 58 , 1448–1457 (2012). [ Google Scholar ] 20. Tummala, R. & Schoenherr, T. Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk management process (SCRMP). Supply Chain Manage. 16 (6), 474–483. 10.1108/13598541111171165 (2011). [ Google Scholar ] 21. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. & Mininno, V. Supply chain management: a review of implementation risks in the construction industry. Bus. Process. Manage. J. 18 (5), 735–761 (2012). [ Google Scholar ] 22. Dharmapalan, V., O’Brien, W. J., Morrice, D. & Jung, M. Assessment of visibility in industrial construction projects: a viewpoint from supply chain stakeholders. Constr. Innov. 21 (4), 782–799 (2021). [ Google Scholar ] 23. Genc, O. Identifying principal risk factors in Turkish construction sector according to their probability of occurrences: a relative importance index (RII) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approach. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 23 (6), 979–987 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 24. Karamoozian, A. & Wu, D. A hybrid approach for the supply chain risk assessment of the construction industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 71 , 4035–4050 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 25. Okika, M. C., Vermeulen, A. & Pretorius, J. H. C. A systematic approach to identify and manage supply chain risks in construction projects (Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 2024). 26. Shishehgarkhaneh, M. B., Moehler, R. C. & Fang, Y. Construction supply chain risk management (Automation in Construction. Elsevier, 2024). 27. Deng, B., Lv, X., Du, Y., Li, X. & Yin, Y. Critical risk factors for construction supply chain in China: A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis (Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2023). 28. Shinde, S. B. & Landage, A. B. Improvising construction supply chain through risk assessment. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET) , 8 (8). (2021). 29. Zhang, X., Li, J., Li, G. & Li, W. Generalized asset fairness mechanism for multi-resource fair allocation mechanism with two different types of resources. Cluster Comput. 25 (5), 3389–3403 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 30. Tran, T. H., Dobrovnik, M. & Kummer, S. Supply chain risk assessment: a content analysis-based literature review. Int. J. Logistics Syst. Manage. 31 (4), 562–591. 10.1504/IJLSM.2018.096088 (2018). [ Google Scholar ] 31. De Munck, B. Commons and the nature of modernity: towards a cosmopolitical view on craft guilds. Theory Soc. 51 (1), 91–116 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 32. Xu, X., Zhang, Y., Liao, Y. & Fu, X. Labor protection, enterprise innovation, and sustainable development. Sustainability 15 (11), 8529 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 33. Llorente, R. Analytical Marxism and the division of labor. Sci. Soc. 70 (2), 232–251 (2006). [ Google Scholar ] 34. Zhang, X. Housing rental incentive and development empirical analysis from the perspective of financial decentralization. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2021(1) , 1252407 (2021). [ Google Scholar ] 35. Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Gimenez, C. & McIvor, R. Risk, risk management practices, and the success of supply chain integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171 , 361–370 (2016). [ Google Scholar ] 36. Agbo, A. A. Cronbach’s alpha: review of limitations and associated recommendations. J. Psychol. Afr. 20 (2), 233–239 (2010). [ Google Scholar ] 37. Dierckx, S. China’s capital controls: between contender state and integration into the heartland. Int. Politics . 52 , 724–742 (2015). [ Google Scholar ] 38. Shahbazi, S., Delkhosh, A., Ghassemi, P. & Wiktorsson, M. Supply chain risks: an automotive case study. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Manufacturing Research (ICMR2013), September, 525–530. (2013). 39. Syed, M. W., Li, J. Z., Junaid, M., Ye, X. & Ziaullah, M. An empirical examination of sustainable supply chain risk and integration practices: a performance-based evidence from Pakistan. Sustain. (Switzerland) . 10.3390/su11195334 (2019). [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality requirements. However, aggregate and partially redacted data can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.0 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top