Can ChatGPT exceed humans in construction project risk management?

Roope Nyqvist · Antti Peltokorpi · Olli Seppänen

75 citations0/0 files storedEngineering Construction & Architectural Management

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Construction Project Management and Performance BIM and Construction Integration Artificial Intelligence Applications

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this research is to investigate the capabilities of the ChatGPT GPT-4 model, a form of artificial intelligence (AI), in comparison to human experts in the context of construction project risk management. Design/methodology/approach Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study draws a qualitative and quantitative comparison between 16 human risk management experts from Finnish construction companies and the ChatGPT AI model utilizing anonymous peer reviews. It focuses primarily on the areas of risk identification, analysis, and control. Findings ChatGPT has demonstrated a superior ability to generate comprehensive risk management plans, with its quantitative scores significantly surpassing the human average. Nonetheless, the AI model's strategies are found to lack practicality and specificity, areas where human expertise excels. Originality/value This study marks a significant advancement in construction project risk management research by conducting a pioneering blind-review study that assesses the capabilities of the advanced AI model, GPT-4, against those of human experts. Emphasizing the evolution from earlier GPT models, this research not only underscores the innovative application of ChatGPT-4 but also the critical role of anonymized peer evaluations in enhancing the objectivity of findings. It illuminates the synergistic potential of AI and human expertise, advocating for a collaborative model where AI serves as an augmentative tool, thereby optimizing human performance in identifying and managing risks.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

References

2023ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope 2023The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT 2023Who is better in project planning?Generative artificial intelligence or project managers?2011How to Make Decisions in An Uncertain World: Heuristics, Biases, and Risk Perception 2020Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Cited by

2025Artificial intelligence in risk management within the realm of construction projects: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review 2024Utilizing Large Language Models to Illustrate Constraints for Construction Planning 2025Exploring Large Language Model AI tools in Construction Project Risk Assessment: Chat GPT Limitations in Risk Identification, Mitigation Strategies, and User Experience 2025Panta Rh-AI: Assessing multifaceted AI threats on human agency and identity

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.