Purpose This study examines how project delivery methods shape the implementation of collaborative risk management in construction projects. Moving beyond traditional performance comparisons, the study adopts a grounded theory approach to identify the underlying factors that explain differences in collaborative risk management. It further identifies key challenges across various aspects of collaboration and explains how these challenges affect the effectiveness of risk management processes. Design/methodology/approach A grounded theory approach was used, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 21 subject matter experts with extensive experience in heavy industrial construction projects. Qualitative analysis was conducted to identify patterns and themes, and theoretical sampling guided iterative data collection until theoretical saturation was reached. Findings The findings identify four interrelated themes (Stakeholder Collaboration and Engagement; Integration of Risk Management Across the Project Lifecycle; Risk Sharing and Communication; and Roles and Responsibilities) that together explain how project delivery methods shape collaborative risk management. Within each theme, specific categories further describe the underlying factors influencing collaboration. The results demonstrate that no single project delivery method is universally better than the others. Rather, each presents distinct challenges that influence how risks are managed. In addition, factors such as project complexity, contracting strategy, and the risk management maturity of project stakeholders play a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of collaborative risk management processes. Originality/value This study fills a gap in the literature by providing a qualitative analysis of collaborative risk management practices across multiple project delivery methods. It offers practical insights for aligning contractual and organizational arrangements with collaborative risk management objectives and provides a foundation for future approaches that enhance transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Chung et al. (Mon,) studied this question.