## 4 Results and Discussion
### Risk Interdependency Model in Sand  
The CMR and AVE of the significant risk groups for the time and cost of pile installation are presented in Table 8. The common risk groups shared in the time and cost were CR, OGR, and SR. However, MR is a significant risk group for time. ECR and EQR, on the other hand, each play a crucial role in the cost. The CMR value of some risk groups is slightly lower than the acceptable level (0.7). Hence, the models suffered slight violations of reliability. The AVE values of all time and cost risk groups are higher than the threshold value (0.5). In addition, Table 9 shows the discriminant validity in terms of the Fronell-Larcker criterion. The results showed that the square root of the AVE of the risks group, shown in the diagonal element of Table 9, is higher than the correlation coefficient between the two risk groups. Therefore, the time and cost model satisfied the Fronell-Larcker criterion. Figure 4: Flowchart of the second phase for developing the interdependency model. As for the cross-loading criterion, Table 10 shows the cross-loading values of significant risks for different risk groups of time and cost. The related risk values to the risk groups shall be higher than the value of the unrelated risk. For example, the cross-loading value of CR4 and CR6 to the CR were 0.893 and 0.565 (shown in red writing in Table 10), respectively. These values are higher than the unrelated cross-loading risks to CR (MR1, MR2, OGR2, OGR3, SR1, and SR2), shown in Table 10. Therefore, the time and cost models were satisfied with respect to discriminant validity. Figure 5 shows the interrelationships among the risk groups with the significant risks of pile installation with respect to time (Figure 5a) and cost (Figure 5b). The model considered the qualitative and quantitative analyses, as previously illustrated in the Research Methodology section. The significant risks of CR, MR, OGR, and SR are (CR4, CR6), (MR1, MR2), (OGR2, OGR3), and (SR1, SR2), respectively. Figure 5 also presents the interrelationships among the risk groups for the time and cost of pile installation. The statistical test results of these interrelationships (paths) in terms of b coefficients, t-values, and the corresponding \(p\)-values are shown in Table 11. The \(p\)-values are less than 0.1 (a confidence level of 90%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Time**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Cost**} \\ \hline  & **CR** & **MR** & **OGR** & **SR** & **CR** & **ER** & **OGR** & **SR** \\ \hline CR4 & 0.893 & 0.134 & \(-\)0.003 & 0.198 & CR3 & 0.743 & 0.168 & 0.083 & 0.215 & 0.094 \\ CR6 & 0.565 & 0.041 & 0.088 & 0.106 & CR6 & 0.783 & 0.128 & 0.061 & 0.131 & 0.119 \\ MR1 & 0.154 & 0.529 & 0.051 & 0.010 & ECR2 & 0.180 & 0.858 & 0.115 & 0.076 & 0.113 \\ MR2 & 0.064 & 0.870 & 0.032 & 0.102 & ECR4 & 0.076 & 0.523 & 0.047 & 0.086 & 0.110 \\ OGR2 & 0.007 & 0.033 & 0.846 & 0.161 & EQR4 & 0.096 & 0.107 & 0.853 & 0.054 & 0.076 \\ OGR3 & 0.060 & 0.048 & 0.584 & 0.100 & EQR6 & 0.026 & 0.065 & 0.566 & 0.167 & 0.111 \\ SR1 & 0.089 & 0.093 & 0.065 & 0.426 & OGR2 & 0.143 & 0.064 & 0.053 & 0.809 & 0.077 \\ SR2 & 0.195 & 0.059 & 0.174 & 0.908 & OGR5 & 0.189 & 0.098 & 0.153 & 0.613 & 0.122 \\  & & & & & SR4 & 0.138 & 0.104 & 0.090 & 0.058 & 0.696 \\  & & & & & SR5 & 0.076 & 0.122 & 0.090 & 0.133 & 0.789 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Discriminant validity in terms of cross-loading for time and cost of pile installation in sand. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Time** & & & **Cost** & \\ \hline
**Risk Group** & **CMR** & **AVE** & **Risk Group** & **CMR** & **AVE** \\ \hline CR & 0.706 & 0.558 & CR & 0.736 & 0.583 \\ MR & 0.671 & 0.519 & ECR & 0.658 & 0.504 \\ OGR & 0.684 & 0.528 & EAR & 0.679 & 0.524 \\ SR & 0.642 & 0.504 & OGR & 0.676 & 0.515 \\ SR & 0.711 & 0.553 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: CR and AVE of risk groups for the time and cost of pile installation in sand.