PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 23, 2026Advanced Engineering Informatics1 citationsOpen Access

From divergent paradigms to integrated risk intelligence: synthesizing data- and knowledge-driven approaches in complex projects

View Full Paper
NCNanjiang ChenNNNader NaderpajouhWHWei-Ting Hong

Key Points

  • To evaluate and synthesize data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches for risk analysis in complex engineering projects.
  • Conducted a systematic review of existing risk modeling approaches.
  • Classified modeling approaches into six categories based on their assumptions and characteristics.
  • Analyzed application contexts and technical characteristics of each paradigm.
  • Identified key strengths of data-driven approaches, such as scalability and predictive capabilities.
  • Highlighted challenges of knowledge-driven methods, including adaptability and reliance on experts.
  • Both paradigms feature a static view of risk, lacking the ability to address dynamic interdependencies.

Abstract

Complex engineering projects are increasingly exposed to dynamic, cascading, and interdependent risks. Risk analysis in these projects has evolved, diverging into two dominant paradigms: data-driven approaches, which conceptualize risk as latent statistical patterns extracted from empirical data, and knowledge-driven approaches, which encode heuristics, expert judgment, and institutional knowledge. To critically examine these paradigms, this study conducts a systematic review, classifying modeling approaches into six categories and systematically analyzing their foundational assumptions, technical modeling characteristics, and application contexts. Through this synthesis, it is observed that data-driven approaches offer scalability and predictive power, yet key challenges include interpretability and the lack of standardized benchmark datasets. Knowledge-driven approaches, on the other hand, provide transparency and domain alignment, yet challenges remain in their adaptability, transferability and heavy reliance on experts. Despite their differences, both paradigms commonly rely on a static formulation of risk, which does not capture dynamic feedback, escalation, and evolving interdependencies. In response, the review outlines a future research agenda that emphasizes evidence-support structures (e.g. , knowledge graphs ), dynamic project representations (e.g. , digital twins with retrieval-augmented reasoning ), and temporal-systemic formulations (e.g. , dynamical systems ). Advancing these directions can enable the development of next-generation risk frameworks that are more adaptive, explainable, and transferable across complex project environments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699bee1c1c6c6bad5397fe4ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2026.104401
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A Systematic Taxonomic Review of Risk Modelling and Assessment Methods in Construction Projects (1990–2025)2026
  2. 2Integrating Dimensions in Predictive Risk Models for Construction Projects2024
  3. 3SYNERGISTIC APPROACH TO RISK MANAGEMENT IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER CONDITIONS OF HIGH UNCERTAINTY: APPLICATION OF AN INTEGRATING MASTER MODEL2025
  4. 4Data-driven science, ethics and risk: Building knowledge of key ethics–risk intersections relevant to public sector decision-making2026
  5. 5Integrated Time–Cost–Risk Management in Industrial Construction: A Systematic Review and Unified Analytical Taxonomy2026