An Analysis of Cost Overrun - ASU Digital Repository · 2017-06-01 · An Analysis of Cost Overrun...
75
An Analysis of Cost Overrun in the Construction Industry by Abhinav Goyal A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Approved April 2017 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Jacob Kashiwagi, Chair Dean Kashiwagi Oswald Chong ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2017
Transcript of An Analysis of Cost Overrun - ASU Digital Repository · 2017-06-01 · An Analysis of Cost Overrun...
An Analysis of Cost Overrun
in the Construction Industry
by
Abhinav Goyal
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Approved April 2017 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee:
Jacob Kashiwagi, Chair
Dean Kashiwagi Oswald Chong
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 2017
i
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents a literature research analyzing the cost overrun of the
construction industry worldwide, exploring documented causes for cost overrun, and
documented parties responsible for the inefficiency. The analysis looks at a comparison
between the metrics of construction projects in different continents and regions. Multiple
publication databases were used to look into over 300 papers. It is shown that although
construction demands are increasing, cost overrun on these projects is not decreasing at
the same rate around the world. This thesis also presents a possible solution to improve
cost overrun in the construction industry, through the use of the Best Value Performance
Information Procurement System (BV PIPS). This is a system that has been utilized in
various countries around the world, and has documented evidence that it may be able to
alleviate the overrun occurring in the construction industry.
ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis to everyone who has helped me personally
become a better version of myself. First, I would like to thank my parents for allowing
me to choose my own paths, and guiding me when I could not find one. Also, I would
like to thank my parents for their constant and wonderful support. Second, I would like to
thank my brother for teaching me to be humble. You are constantly giving me the
opportunity to be a leader, and teaching me when I need to be a follower. I would like to
thank my friends for always expanding my horizons and helping me become a better
person in society. Lastly, I would like to thank all my personal mentors and teachers who
have been patient with me, and helped teach me how to expand my skillset in various
facets of life in a professional and expert manner, while always humbling me in my quest
to be the best that I can be.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to first and foremost thank Dr. Dean Kashiwagi for creating and
discovering a way of teaching students and individuals to look at life through logic rather
than emotion. This has made it easier to decrease my stress in school and throughout life,
and allowed me to better understand who I am, and how to become an optimal version of
myself.
Second, I would like acknowledge and thank Dr. Jacob Kashiwagi for agreeing to
be the chair of my thesis committee and for being patient with me through my learning
process while finishing my master’s degree. I also have to thank Dr. Jacob for making an
effort to help me see how to simplify my life through logic when I was not able to do so
on my own.
Third, I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Oswald Chong for agreeing to
be part of my thesis committee and for being patient with me during my process of
completing my thesis, and the Safety Management class I took with him. Also, I would
like to thank Dr. Chong for teaching me the importance of safety and the importance to
follow ethics and reducing inefficiencies, so it is not necessary to forego safety guidelines
in order to complete projects on time or on budget.
Lastly, I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues within PBSRG for
supporting and letting me practice IMT, in order to better understand it. I would like to
specially thank Alfredo Rivera, for being very patient and helpful when teaching me how
to better think with logic and IMT. I would also like to thank Nguyen Le for helping me
with the literature research data analysis.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
Problem ..............................................................................................................1
Hypothesis..........................................................................................................1
Methodology ......................................................................................................2
2. LITERATURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................2
Cost Overrun Worldwide ...................................................................................4
Cost Overrun Causes and Responsibility ...........................................................7
Global Cost Analysis .......................................................................................10
Potential Solutions ...........................................................................................13
About Best Value .............................................................................................14
Best Value Process ...........................................................................................15
Results Comparison .........................................................................................16
3. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................17
4. RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................................20
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX
A DATA COLLECTED IN DATABASE FORMAT ...............................................23
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. List of Countries Researched ...................................................................................3
2. Cost Overrun ............................................................................................................5
3. Top 10 Causes of Non-Performance ........................................................................8
4. Cost Overrun Worldwide .......................................................................................11
5. Cost Overrun per Distinct Time Period .................................................................11
6. % Project over Initial Cost per Time Period ..........................................................12
7. % Amount over Initial Cost per Time Period ........................................................12
8. Summary of Cost Metrics Worldwide ...................................................................13
9. Best Value Cost Metrics ........................................................................................16
10. Comparison of Cost Metrics ..................................................................................17
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. % Project over Initial Cost .......................................................................................6
2. Average % over Initial Cost Amount.......................................................................6
3. Documented Parties Responsible for Cost Overrun ................................................9
4. Responsible Parties Based on Documented Causes ...............................................10
1
Introduction
More buildings will be built in the next 30 years than in the last 2000 years (CII,
2015). In order to prepare for this it is necessary to understand the state of the current
construction industry. Preliminary research on U.S. and U.K. construction identified that
almost all construction projects had cost overrun. This leads to the necessity of a study to
understand if every country with documented cost information will have similar cost
overrun. (Rivera, 2014)
Problem
Only 2.5% of projects are defined as successful (scope, cost, schedule, &
business) (Rivera, 2016), after finding out that there is documented cost overrun in the
US and UK, and at an average of 27% over the given initial cost in 2006-2016 (refer to
Table 6). The author has theorized that this cost overrun may be happening around the
world. This is worrying due to the fact that if this is the state of the construction industry
around the world, it means that there is massive inefficiency. If this is true it is necessary
to find out why this is happening, and what the causes are for it. By doing so, it is
possible to find a solution to decrease the cost overrun in the industry, thus making the
industry a more efficient process.
Hypothesis
Due to the findings of the preliminary research done in construction in the U.S.
and U.K., the construction cost overrun found in the U.S. and U.K is hypothesized that
the construction metrics worldwide may show similar results.
2
Methodology
In order to conduct this research, the author will do follow the following:
1) Literature research on construction cost metrics worldwide.
2) Literature research on major issues causing cost overrun worldwide.
3) Analysis of worldwide construction cost data.
4) Identify potential solutions to overcome cost overrun.
5) Provide recommendations and conclusions
Literature Research
A study done by the Construction Industry Institute (2015) showed the below cost
metrics throughout the construction industry worldwide. (Lepatner, 2007; PWC, 2009;
Yun, 2013):
• 2.5% of projects defined as successful (scope, cost, schedule, & business).
• 25 to 50% waste in coordinating labor on a project.
• Management inefficiency costs owners between $15.6 and $36 billion per year.
• An estimated $4 billion to $12 billion per year is spent to resolve disputes and
claims. (Rivera, 2016)
Based on these metrics it is necessary to identify all the countries around the
world, which have documented cost information, that show related cost overrun. In this
analysis, the author will look only at cost overrun, which is defined as the amount of
money exceeding the original cost.
Due to documented cost information, a total of 38 countries from 7 continents or
regions were chosen for this literature research. This study looked at 300+ publications
3
and documented any relevant cost overrun information. It was found that only about 29
publications met the criteria and had relevant cost overrun information. (Rivera, 2016)
Table 1: List of Countries Researched (PBSRG, 2015)
Regions Countries (# of Documented Papers) Total
Countries
Total
Papers
Africa
Botswana (1). Ethiopia (1), Ghana (3) Kenya (1), Libya (1), Nigeria (11). Rwanda (1), Uganda (1), United Republic of Tanzania (1)
9 21
America Canada (1), USA (4) 2 5
Asia Cambodia (1), China (1), Hong Kong (1), India (6), Indonesia (2), Korea (3), Malaysia (6), Thailand (2), Vietnam (2)
9 24
Europe Finland (1), Ireland (1), Netherlands (1), Norway (1), Portugal (2), Sweden (1), Turkey (3), United Kingdom (4)
8 14
Middle East Iraq (2), Jordan (2), Kuwait (2), Oman (2), Pakistan (2), Palestine (3), Qatar (1), Saudi Arabia (5), United Arab Emirates (2)
9 21
Oceania Australia (5) 1 5
Multiple Regions Multiple Regions (5) n/a 5
This study discovered that construction industry professionals around the world
have not been able to deliver projects on budget, leading to low customer satisfaction.
Even though consensus states that first world countries should have an easier time than
other countries being on budget, and having high performance metrics as they have more
advanced technology and bigger budgets, this study discovered that this is not the case
and every country examined has similar cost overrun problems. Even though there have
been many efforts to figure out the cause of this inefficiency in the construction industry,
it has not been found. (Goff, 2014)
4
Cost Overrun Worldwide
Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor in Oxford’s Said Business School, identified that it is
not uncommon for major infrastructure projects to overrun by 50%. In fact, after looking
at many of the large infrastructure projects around the world, he identified fifteen of the
world’s largest cost overruns that ranged from 255% to as high 36,000% (CIMA, 2013).
These statistics similarly match a study CII conducted on cost overruns on construction
projects, which identified only 30% of projects completed within 10% of planned cost.
Multiple continents around the world are facing this epidemic (see Table 2). (Rivera,
2016)
5
Table 2: Cost Overrun (PBSRG, 2015)
Countries Performance Information
Australia Over the study period of 1995-2003, on average, a high construction project costs are more than $1M and have a cost overrun of over 10%.
China In 2014, a study claimed that China, as well as the rest of the world, has an average cost overrun of 28% on all types of infrastructure projects (rail, road, tunnel, bridge, etc.).
Ghana In 2003, a study suggested that 38% of groundwater drilling projects in Ghana exceeded the original budget.
India In 2012, a report published by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI) highlighted that 309 out of 951 projects being monitored have cost overruns.
Korea According to cost data available on social capital projects, 95 road projects and 100% rail projects have cost overrun up to 50%.
Kuwait The construction of 33% of residential projects required additional budget to complete.
Malaysia A study in 2013 indicated that only 46.8% of public sector and 37.2% of private sector projects are completed within budget.
Oman In 2010, a study of 4 public construction projects indicated that on average there is 28.61% increase in original budget.
Portugal In 2007, a study of 66 construction projects indicated that the average cost overrun for a project is 12%.
Saudi Arabia In 2015, more than three hundred project managers from different sectors and disciplines in the construction industry agreed that 80% of the projects were subject to costs overruns.
Vietnam In 2004, a study with 109 participants in large construction projects (>$1 million) identified that project cost overruns occurred in 60% of these projects.
Table 2 displays how common and how prevalent cost overrun is in almost all
facets of construction. To expand on these results, the author did a further analysis,
which graphically shows the percent of projects that were over budget, from documented
publications, in various countries. This can be seen in Figure 1.
6
Figure 1: % Projects over Initial Cost
As can be seen from Figure 1, every worldwide publication with documented cost
metrics displays at least 20% of projects experiencing cost overrun and at most 100% of
the projects experiencing cost overrun. In addition, the author also did an analysis to find
how much over budget the projects documented in these publications were. The results
are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Average % over Initial Cost
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
US
A
Eth
iop
ia
Gh
an
a
Nig
eri
a
Nig
eri
a
Ug
an
da
Ind
ia
UK
Ku
wa
it
Pa
kis
tan
Pa
lest
ine
Pa
lest
ine
US
A
% Projects over Initial Cost
% Projects over Initial
Cost
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
US
A
Gh
an
a
Nig
eri
a
Ma
lay
sia
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
rtu
ga
l
Po
rtu
ga
l
Tu
rke
y
Ku
wa
it
Pa
lest
ine
US
A
Ind
ia
Th
ail
an
d
Inte
rna
tio
na
l
Average % Over Initial Cost
Average % Over Initial
Cost
7
As can be seen from Figure 2, although every project documented was over
budget, not all the projects were over budget by a large amount. In fact, a few of the third
world countries had better metrics than that of the first world countries. This does not
allow for a conclusion that the third world countries have better cost metrics than first
world countries, since this is only information from documented publications. It is
possible that there is a lack of information present, or the information is skewed due to
differences in amount of projects reported on.
Cost Overrun Causes and Responsibility
Due to the large number of issues present in projects within the construction
industry, it is difficult for projects to be delivered on budget. Since the construction
industry is beginning to take on even more projects and with larger scopes, it is becoming
ever more difficult for resources and order to be maintained by any one party on a project
and between supply chain participants (Lepatner, 2007; PWC, 2009; Yun, 2013).
Contractors who are completing work in the projects are now expected to have more
experience and knowledge in order to keep up with the demand of the industry due to the
size of projects increasing (KMPG, 2015).
8
Table 3: Top 10 Causes of Non-Performance (PBSRG, 2016)
Top Ranked Issues No. of
Incidents Rank
%
Appearance
Monthly payment difficulties/ financial problems
47 1 15.3% Owner
Poor project/contract management
28 2 9.2% Owner
Shortage of materials/equipment
25 3 8.2% Owner
Additional work/variation in client's decision/inadequate scope
24 4 7.8% Owner
Design change 23 5 7.5% Owner
Poor planning and scheduling 22 6 7.2% Owner
Poor qualification/shortage of labors
19 7 6.2% Owner
Delay in construction/other delays
18 8 5.9% Other
Unforeseen site condition 17 9 5.6% Unforeseen
Poor/inaccurate estimate 16 10 5.2% Contractor
Table 3 displays some of the results of the literature research, with the top 10
documented issues that may have to do with scope, cost, and schedule overrun, in order
of how often they occurred in the literature, and who is the responsible party for each
issue. In order to better understand who may be responsible for the cost overrun that is
occurring, first, it is necessary to show the documented responsible parties in the
publications that were looked at from the various continents. The following pie chart
(Figure 3) is a visual example to show which party is documented as most responsible for
the overrun.
9
Figure 3: Documented Parties Responsible for Overrun
Figure 3 shows that the majority of the documented responsibility of the cost
overrun may be due to the owner of the project (40%) and the designer(17%), who is
usually also on the owner’s side of the project. It is interesting to note that the contractor,
who is usually the person actually completing the work has the least number of mentions
as a responsible party in all the documented publications.
Second, it is necessary to do a second pie chart (refer to Figure 4) on the data in
Table 3 to visually show the difference in frequency between responsible parties from the
documented issues.
40%
17%
9%
11%
23%
Owner
Designer
Contractor
Unknown
Other
10
Figure 4: Responsible Parties Based on Documented Issues
From observing Figure 4 it is discernable that more than half (79%) the
documented causes for project overrun are attributed to owner inefficiency. Figure 4
shows a correlation, for who may be the most responsible party for cost overrun, with
Figure 3, both having the owner as the most responsible at 40% in Figure 3, and 79% in
Figure 4. This suggests that it may be that the owner is the most responsible party on a
project when it comes to cost overrun.
Global Cost Analysis
In an analysis of the top 15 countries with documented cost overrun information,
it was found that cost metrics around the world, no matter the location, showed cost
overrun. The following table displays this information.
79%
7%
7%
0%
7%
Owner
Unforseen
Other
Designer
Contractor
11
Table 4: Cost Overrun Worldwide (Rivera, 2016)
Countries Cost
Overruns
Customer
Satisfaction
Korea 45.5% Dissatisfied
Vietnam 30.0% Dissatisfied
Turkey 28.8% -
Oman 28.6% -
India 26.1% -
Thailand 25.0% -
Nigeria 20.0% -
Saudi Arabia 20.0% Dissatisfied
China 20.0% -
Portugal 12.0% -
Australia 10.0% -
Malaysia 10.0% Dissatisfied
Bangladesh 8.4% -
Kuwait 1.0% Dissatisfied
International 28.0% Dissatisfied
Average 20.4% Dissatisfied
This table shows the cost overrun metrics from the 15 countries, ranging from
45.5% to 1.0% with an average of 20.4%. This information is further supported by the
following set of tables (Tables 5-7), the first of which, Table 5, displays metrics for the
percent of projects that experienced cost overrun, and what percent they were overrun by,
between 3 distinct sets of years.
Table 5: Cost Overrun per Distinct Time Period
Year % Projects Over Initial Cost % Over Initial Cost Amount
1985-1995 52 36
1996-2005 75 19
2006-2016 61 22
Table 5 indicates that even though technology and information has increased, cost
overrun in the construction industry has maintained steady. This can be shown even
12
further in Table 6 which shows the percent of projects over budget in different regions
and continents between these three distinct time periods.
Table 6: % Project over Initial Cost per Time Period
1985-1995 1996-2005 2006-2016
Africa N/A 80 65
Asia N/A N/A 59
Europe 52 73 38
Middle East N/A 71 62
North America N/A N/A 98
Table 6 shows that even when separated, different regions of the world have
similar documented cost overrun through the three distinct time periods, when referring
to the percent of projects that were completed over budget.
The following table, Table 7, displays the percent amount that projects were over
budget in these various regions and continents between the three distinct time periods.
Table 7: % Amount over Initial Cost per Time Period
1985-1995 1996-2005 2006-2016
Africa N/A 17 33
Asia N/A N/A 16
Europe 36 28 12
Middle East N/A 1 20
North America N/A 2 42
As shown in Table 7, most of the regions and continents showed similar cost
overrun through the different time periods. This supports the information from Table 5,
and allows for the statement that cost overrun is occurring around the world. In order to
show this in one table, based off the literature research done, Table 8 should be consulted
13
to show the overall percentage of projects that were over budget, and the percent of the
budget amount they were over by region and continent.
Table 8: Summary of Cost Metrics Worldwide
% Project Over Initial Cost
% Over Initial Cost Amount
Satisfaction
Africa 69 29 Unsatisfied
Asia 59 16 Unsatisfied
Europe 50 29 Unsatisfied
Middle East 65 15 Unsatisfied
North America 98 28 Unsatisfied
Table 8 also includes the overall owner satisfaction per region and continent for
projects, which echoes the information given in Table 4. Thus, it can be concluded
through an analysis of documented information, that cost overrun is a present within the
worldwide construction industry.
Potential Solutions
Through the analysis of the documented information, it has been shown that there
are many issues that may be related to cost overrun, and the most responsible party for
cost overrun may be the owner. However, there have been no proven solutions found to
alleviate the problem. The only possible solution documented was the Best Value
method:
“In a literature search for potential solutions to resolve the low performance in the delivery of services, the authors identified, that a CIB Task Group (TG61) performed a worldwide study in 2008 which identified innovative construction methods with documented high performance results. The study filtered through more than 15 million articles and reviewed more than 4,500 articles. In the end, the study found only 16 articles with documented performance results. The Best Value (BV) Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) was one of three construction methods found in those articles, and it was found in 75% (12 of 16) of the articles (Egbu, et al., 2008, Kashiwagi, 2013). The other two methods were the Performance Assessment Scoring System (PASS) and the City of Fort Worth Equipment Services Department (ESD - FT).
14
After further investigation, it was found that although the PASS had measured performance information, the system could not show any improvement in performance of their projects. The ESD - FT had measurements to show improvement in their projects, however, this system did not have documented information for how the process worked. It also was a process that was internal to the organization and did not involve projects with suppliers or other organizations. BV PIPS was the only process that had sufficient documentation showing that it could improve customer satisfaction and value on projects in the construction industry that involved suppliers.” (Rivera, 2016)
About Best Value
To show how effective BV PIPS has been and the impacts it has made in the
industry, a list was compiled of nine instances that BV PIPS showed high performance: “
1. Most licensed university developed technology at Arizona State University with 43 licenses issued by the innovation group AZTech at Arizona State University. PIPS tests have been conducted in 31 states in the U.S. and five different countries besides the U.S. (Finland, Botswana, Netherlands, Canada, and Malaysia).
2. Documented performance of over 1800 projects or $6 billion (1629 projects, $4B
construction and 89 projects, $2B non construction), customer satisfaction of 9.8 (out of
10), 93.5% of projects on time and 96.7% on budget.
3. Dominant results include Arizona State University business services and
procurement department testing the PIPS system and generating $100M of revenue based
on the method in the first three tests, and currently observing $110M a year from using
the method.
4. Research tests show that in procuring of services outside of construction, the
observed value is 33% or an increase of revenue or decrease in cost of 33% (Kashiwagi,
2013).
5. Minimization of up to 90% of the client’s professional representative’s risk
management efforts and transactions due to reduced risk levels and the transfer of risk
management and accountability to the vendors. This is the only documented reduction in
management in the construction management industry.
6. In 2008, a CIB Task Group (TG61) performed a worldwide study identifying
innovative construction methods with documented high performance results. The study
filtered through more than 15 million articles and reviewed more than 4,500 articles. In
the end, the study found only 16 articles with documented performance results. PIPS was
one of three construction methods found in those articles, and it was found in 75% (12 of
16) of the articles (Egbu, et al., 2008).
7. In 2013, PBSRG sanctioned a follow on worldwide study to the CIB worldwide
study in 2008 by Task Group 61 (TG61). The study’s objective was to identify all efforts
(research or industry) around the world that are similar to its procurement model BV
15
PIPS, as well as the current construction performance. The study sifted through hundreds
of papers, websites, and personal industry contacts, and found similar results to the first
study. The BV PIPS was the only method with documented performance results (Rivera,
2014).
8. The results of PIPS testing has won the 2012 Dutch Sourcing Award, the
Construction Owners of America Association (COAA) Gold Award, the 2005 CoreNet
H. Bruce Russell Global Innovators of the Year Award, the 2001 Tech Pono Award for
Innovation in the State of Hawaii, along with numerous other awards.
9. Largest projects: $100M City of Peoria Wastewater Treatment DB project; $53M
Olympic Village/University of Utah Housing Project; $1B Infrastructure project in
Netherlands.” (Rivera, 2016)
To emphasize how effective this method is, there was an audit and two studies
done into verifying the effectiveness of BV PIPS. The audit was done by the State of
Hawaii, and the two studies were done by two Dutch Researchers, Duren and Doree. All
of these studies confirmed that BV PIPS is a very effective method to be implemented in
order to increase efficiency as shown below:
“Duren and Doree’s study found the following for BV PIPS projects performed in the United States:
• 93.5% of clients who worked with BV PIPS identified that their projects were
delivered on time.
• 96.7% of clients who worked with BV PIPS identified that their projects were
delivered within budget.
• 91% of the clients stated that there were no charges for extra work.
• 93.9% of the clients awarded the supplier’s performance with greater than an 8
rating (on a scale from 1-10, 10 being the highest performance rating).
• 94% of clients would hire the same supplier again.” (Rivera, 2016)
Best Value Process
The BV PIPS process has been very effective because it puts an emphasis on
project preplanning and constant transparency. In order to prevent unqualified contractors
from being hired for a project, there is a selection phase during which contractors
compete depending on their level of expertise. Expertise is based on past performance
16
metrics, the expertise of the workforce, and the ability to identify risk on a project. The
contractor that has the highest qualifications in the three areas then is able to move into
the clarification phase. During this phase a contractor must simply explain how they plan
to complete the project efficiently and with high customer satisfaction. To make it simple
for the contractors, BV PIPS requires them to create a plan that includes the project’s
scope, major milestones, budget, risk management plan (including foreseeable risks and
how to prevent them), and performance metrics. Once this is complete, a contractor will
set up a meeting with the owner to explain the project simply for approval to start the
project. After a contractor receives approval for the project, they will begin working.
During the project, contractors are expected to track their progress in an excel
spreadsheet called the Weekly Risk Report (WRR). This is a document that tracks their
progress weekly according to the categories laid out in the clarification phase. The WRR
is submitted to the client weekly, in order to make sure that the owner has an
understanding of how the project is progressing. At the end of the project the WRR
becomes a document showing the performance of the project. (Rivera, 2016)
Results Comparison
It can be shown how effective BV PIPS has been through metrics taken from a
documented 1989 projects completed by them, during which the average vendor and
owner cost increase percentage can be shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Best Value Cost Metrics
Vendor Cost Increase % -0.1%
Owner Cost Increase % 3.0%
17
These metrics are particularly impressive when compared to the percent of the
amount that projects were over the initial cost around the world in the span of 2006-2016.
Just comparing the BV PIPS Owner Cost Increase percent with the Percent Amount over
Initial Cost in Table 10, it can be seen how BV PIPS has been able to decrease cost
overrun within the projects it has been applied to.
Table 10: Comparison of Cost Metrics
Best Value Owner Cost Increase % 3.0%
World % Amount Over Initial Cost (2006-2016)
22%
Utilizing the Best Value Approach, it may be possible to alleviate the cost overrun
occurring in the construction industry. While there may be more optimal methods
available suited for this problem in today’s industry, this is the best documented one the
author managed to find.
Conclusion
As the construction industry continues to grow over the next 30 years, more
buildings will be built in that time period than in the last 2000 years. Preliminary research
done in the U.K. and the U.S. found that there was cost overrun occurring in almost all
construction projects. Furthermore, only about 2.5% of projects are defined as successful
in the documented worldwide construction industry, in terms of scope, cost, schedule and
business. In the U.K. and U.S. it was found that the documented cost overrun averaged to
about 27% over the given initial cost in 2006-2016. Due to these findings, it is
hypothesized that with the cost overrun shown in the U.K. and U.S., there may be similar
results shown worldwide. In order to conduct the research, first, a literature research was
18
done, then, an analysis of the research. Next, it was necessary to identify the potential
solutions and provide a recommendation.
In the literature research, publications from a total of 38 countries from 7 different
continents of regions were looked at. About 300+ publications were looked at, and only
about 29 publications met the criteria and had relevant cost overrun information. After
looking at the metrics shown in the publications it was interesting to note that all the
countries had documented cost overrun, and interestingly some third world countries had
better metrics than the first world countries. By looking at the publications, a list of at
least 10 major documented issues causing cost overrun were identified. Of those, the top
3 were: Monthly payment difficulties/financial problems, with 47 incidents; poor
project/contract management, with 28 incidents; shortage of materials/equipment, with 25
incidents. While identifying these issues, it was also necessary to figure out who is
responsible for each documented issue, and to compare those results to the documented
parties responsible in the publications regardless of what issue they were related to. It
was found that in both analyses the owner was most responsible for overrun in the
projects and probably the most responsible for cost overrun on the construction projects.
After looking at the cost overrun metrics of 15 countries, it was shown that the range of
the cost overrun was from 1.0% to 45.5% with an average of 20.4%. In order to better
understand this it was necessary to see how the cost overrun changed over 3 distinct
periods of time, 1985-1995, 1996-2005, and 2006-2016. First, it was necessary to see if
there were projects that were over the initial cost, and how much those projects were over
the initial amount by. It was found that in all the time periods, there were at least 52% of
projects that were over the initial cost, and those projects were at least 19% over the
19
initial cost. Next, it was necessary to see if these cost overrun metrics could be applied to
the various continents and regions that were looked at. Throughout the 3 times periods it
was found that there was cost overrun affecting each of the continents and regions looked
at. All of them showed having projects that were over the initial cost, and what percent
they were over by during the time periods. In a summary of the cost metrics, it was found
that overall, the continents and regions had at least 50% of projects over the initial cost,
and those projects were at least an average of 15% over the initial cost of the project.
After researching and finding these various issues and parties that may be
responsible for the cost overrun, a potential solution was never identified. The only
possible solution documented was the Best Value method. This method was documented
as having an audit and two studies done on it. It was found that 96.7% of clients that used
this method had projects that were delivered on budget and that 93.5% of projects were
delivered on time. This is done in by putting an emphasis on project preplanning and
constant transparency. In order to prevent unqualified contractors from being hired,
during which contractors compete, based on past performance metrics, and the contractor
with the highest qualifications from the past performance metrics is then chosen and
moves into the clarification phase. During this phase, the contractor interacts with the
client as to how they plan to complete the project efficiently and with high customer
satisfaction. In order to ensure transparency during a project, the contractor is required to
fill out a plan that includes the project’s scope, major milestones, initial cost, risk
management plane (including foreseeable risks and how to prevent them), and
performance metrics. Once this is complete, the contractor meets with the owner to
ensure they understand the plan for the project, and will then give the contractor approval
20
to carry out the plan. Throughout the completion of the project, the contractor is required
to update a form called the Weekly Risk Report (WRR) in which they are able to update
their progress in all the categories listed in the previous plan. Once the project is
complete, the WRR serves as documented proof of the project and the performance
during the project.
Recommendation
Though extensive, the author recognizes that this study’s findings can be
strengthened through documenting and analyzing more publications per major region.
Additionally, there may be undocumented and missing data for each region. Thus, it is
recommended that more research be done in this area to possibly identify the cause for
cost overrun, and the possible best solution to solve cost overrun.
21
REFERENCES
Ashford, J. L. (1992). The management of quality in construction.E&F Spon, London. Cheng, J., Proverbs, D. G., & Oduoza, C. F. (2006). The satisfaction levels of UK
construction clients based on the performance of consultants: Results of a case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(6), 567-583.
CII. (2015). CII 25 – Building on 25 Years. Construction Industry Institute. Web. (2
October 2015). Retrieved from https://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/more/cii_25_more.cfm
CII. (2015). Performance Assessment 2015 Edition. Construction Industry Institute. Web.
(2015). Retrieved from http://www. Construction-institute.org/performance. CIMA. (2013). 15 of the world’s biggest cost overrun projects. Financial Management.
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Web (15 October 2015). Retrieved from http://www.fm-magazine.com/infographic/prime-number/15-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-cost-overrun-projects
Egbu, C., Carey, B., Sullivan, K & Kashiwagi, D 2008, Identification of the Use and
Impact of Performance Information Within the Construction Industry Rep, The
International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, AZ. Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2003). How common and how large
are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?. Transport reviews, 23(1), 71-88.
Goff, S. (2014). “IPMA Education and Training Board Series: Closing the Gap between
PM Training and PM Performance: Part 2: Closing the Gap.” PM World Journal, Vol 3(7).
Kashiwagi, D. (1991). Development of a Performance Based Design/Procurement
System for Nonstructural Facility System. Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Arizona State University. Kashiwagi, J. (2013). Dissertation. “Factors of Success in Performance Information
Procurement System / Performance Information Risk Management System.” Delft University, Netherlands.
KPMG. (2015). Global Construction Survey 2015.KPMG International. Web (14 October
2015). Retrieved from <https://www.kpmg.com/BR/PT/Estudos_Analises/artigosepublicacoes/-Documents/Build-Construction/global-construction-survey-2015.pdf>
22
Lepatner, B.B. 2007, Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Liu, J., Geng, L., & Bridge, A. (2016). "Never let a good crisis go to waste": Exploring the effects of psychological distance of project failure on learning intention. Journal
of Management in Engineering. Retrieved October 20, 2016. Love, P. E., & Li, H. (2000). Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction.
Construction Management & Economics, 18(4), 479-490. Memon, A., Rahman, I., & Azis, A. (2012). Time and Cost Performance in Construction
Projects in Southern and Central Regions of Peninsular Malaysia. International
Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences. Moore, P. (2012). Contractors Confront the Growing Costs of Rework. Engineering
News-Record [ENR.com]. Web. (15 October 2015). Retrieved from http://enr.construction.com/business_management/project_delivery/2012/1203-contractors-confront-the-growing-costs-of-rework.asp
Pew Research Center. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://search.pewresearch.org/
PBSRG. (2016). Performance Based Studies Research Group Internal Research
Documentation, Arizona State University, Unpublished Raw Data. Rijt, J. and Witteveen, W. (2011). Contractor selection using BVP in the construction
industry Case studies at the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure, Ipsera Conference
Proceedings Maastricht, 1398-1404.
23
APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTED IN DATABASE FORMAT
24
The following table shows a list of publications used, in the research for this
document, and the corresponding paper code for each publication. D
ata
Ad
ded
Pa
per
Tit
le
AP
A
Cit
ati
on
So
urc
e
Pa
per
Co
de
06
/16
/16
CA
US
ES
AN
D
EF
FE
CT
S O
F
CO
ST
OV
ER
RU
N
ON
PU
BL
IC
BU
ILD
ING
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N
PR
OJE
CT
S I
N
ET
HIO
PIA
Neg
a, F
. (2
00
8).
Cau
ses
and
eff
ects
of
cost
ov
erru
n o
n
pu
bli
c bu
ild
ing
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s in
Eth
iop
ia
(Do
cto
ral
dis
sert
atio
n,
aau
).
htt
p:/
/etd
.aau
.ed
u.e
t
/bit
stre
am/1
23
456
7
89
/42
15
/3/f
aq_
on
li
ne_
too
l_in
stru
ctio
n
s%2
81
%2
9.p
df
AF
ET
00
01
12
/30
/15
Cau
ses
of
del
ay a
nd
co
st
ov
erru
ns
in c
on
stru
ctio
n o
f
gro
un
dw
ater
pro
ject
s in
a
dev
elo
pin
g c
ou
ntr
ies;
Gh
ana
as a
cas
e st
ud
y
Fri
mp
on
g, Y
., O
luw
oy
e, J
.,
& C
raw
ford
, L
. (2
00
3).
Cau
ses
of
del
ay a
nd
co
st
ov
erru
ns
in c
on
stru
ctio
n o
f
gro
un
dw
ater
pro
ject
s in
a
dev
elo
pin
g c
ou
ntr
ies;
Gh
ana
as a
cas
e st
ud
y.
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Jou
rnal
of
pro
ject
man
agem
ent,
21
(5),
32
1-3
26
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t.co
m.e
zpro
xy
1.l
ib.a
su.e
du
/sci
en
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
02
63
78
63
020
0
05
58
AF
GH
00
01
06
/27
/16
DE
LA
Y F
AC
TO
RS
IN
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N P
RO
JEC
T
IMP
LE
ME
NT
AT
ION
IN
TH
E
PU
BL
IC S
EC
TO
R;
A C
AS
E
ST
UD
Y O
F T
HE
KE
NY
A
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RA
L R
ES
EA
RC
H
INS
TIT
UT
E C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
PR
OJE
CT
S
Mb
alu
ku
, H
. N
., &
Bw
isa,
H.
(20
13
).
Del
ay f
acto
rs i
n c
on
stru
ctio
n p
roje
ct
imp
lem
enta
tio
n i
n t
he
pub
lic
sect
or;
a ca
se s
tud
y o
f th
e k
eny
a ag
ricu
ltu
ral
rese
arch
in
stit
ute
co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s. J
OM
O K
EN
YA
TT
A
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
OF
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y,
58
5.
htt
p:/
/ir.
jku
at.a
c.k
e/b
itst
ream
/han
dle
/
12
345
678
9/2
07
7/7
%20
Pro
ject
%2
0M
gt%
20
and
%2
0H
um
an%
20
Res
ou
rce
%2
0D
evel
op
men
t%20
-
%2
0A
.pd
f?se
qu
ence
=1
&is
All
ow
ed=
y
AF
KE
00
01
12
/31
/15
Cau
ses
of
hig
h c
ost
s o
f
con
stru
ctio
n i
n N
iger
ia
Ok
pal
a, D
. an
d
An
iek
wu
, A
. (1
988
).
"Cau
ses
of
Hig
h C
ost
s
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
in
Nig
eria
." J
. C
on
str.
En
g.
Man
age.
,
10
.106
1/(
AS
CE
)07
33
-
93
64(1
98
8)1
14
:2(2
33
),
23
3-2
44
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/do
i
/ab
s/1
0.1
061
/(A
SC
E)0
7
33
-
93
64(1
98
8)1
14
%3
A2
(23
3)
AF
NG
00
01
25
12
/31
/15
Infr
astr
uct
ure
del
ays
and
co
st
esca
lati
on
: ca
use
s an
d e
ffec
ts i
n
Nig
eria
Om
ore
gie
, A
., &
Rad
ford
, D
.
(20
06
, A
pri
l). In
fras
tru
ctu
re
del
ays
and
co
st e
scal
atio
n:
cau
ses
and
eff
ects
in
Nig
eria
.
Pro
ceed
ing
of
six
th i
nte
rnat
ion
al
po
stg
rad
uat
e re
sear
ch
con
fere
nce
, D
elft
Un
iver
sity
of
Tec
hn
olo
gy
and
TN
O,
the
Net
her
lan
ds.
3rd
-7th
Ap
ril.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.i
rbn
et.d
e/d
aten
/ico
n
da/
CIB
_D
C2
69
86
AF
NG
00
02
12
/31
/15
Tim
e-O
ver
run
Fac
tors
in N
iger
ian
Co
nst
ruct
ion
In
du
stry
Eli
nw
a, A
. U
., &
Josh
ua,
M.
(20
01).
Tim
e-o
ver
run
fac
tors
in
Nig
eria
n c
on
stru
ctio
n
ind
ust
ry.
Journ
al o
f
con
stru
ctio
n
eng
inee
ring
an
d
man
agem
ent,
12
7(5
),
41
9-4
25
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/d
oi/
abs/
10
.106
1/(
AS
CE
)
07
33-
93
64(2
00
1)1
27
:5(4
19
)
AF
NG
00
03
01
/14
/16
Sig
nif
ican
t fa
cto
rs
cau
sin
g c
ost
ov
erru
ns
in
tele
com
mu
nic
atio
n
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
Am
eh,
O.,
So
yin
gb
e, A
.,
& O
du
sam
i, K
. (2
01
0).
Sig
nif
ican
t fa
cto
rs
cau
sin
g c
ost
ov
erru
ns
in
tele
com
mu
nic
atio
n
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
.
Jou
rnal
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
in
Dev
elo
pin
g C
oun
trie
s,
15
(2),
49-6
7.
htt
p:/
/web
.usm
.my
/jcd
c/v
ol1
5_
2_
201
0/J
CD
C%
20
1
5(2
)%2
02
010
-
AR
T%
20
3_
corr
ecte
d_
(49
-67
)_2
1.1
2.2
01
0.p
df
AF
NG
00
04
02
/19
/16
Tim
e-co
st m
od
el f
or
bu
ild
ing
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
Og
un
sem
i, D
. R
., &
Jag
bo
ro,
G. O
.
(20
06
). T
ime‐
cost
mo
del
for
bu
ild
ing
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
.
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Man
agem
ent
and
Eco
no
mic
s, 2
4(3
),
25
3-2
58
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
amu
.ed
u/f
acu
lty
/ch
ou
dhu
ry
/art
icle
s/3
8.p
df
AF
NG
00
07
05
/28
/16
Th
e ef
fect
s o
f co
nst
ruct
ion
del
ays
on
pro
ject
del
iver
y i
n
Nig
eria
n c
on
stru
ctio
n
ind
ust
ry
Aib
inu
, A
. A
., &
Jag
bo
ro,
G.
O.
(20
02
). T
he
effe
cts
of
con
stru
ctio
n d
elay
s o
n
pro
ject
del
iver
y i
n N
iger
ian
con
stru
ctio
n
ind
ust
ry.
Inte
rnat
ion
al
jou
rnal
of
pro
ject
man
agem
ent,
20
(8),
59
3-5
99
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t.co
m/s
cien
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
02
63
78
63
020
002
85
AF
NG
00
08
26
02
/22
/16
Cau
ses
and
eff
ects
of
del
ays
and
dis
rup
tio
ns
in
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in
Tan
zan
ia
Kik
was
i, G
. (2
01
3,
Feb
ruar
y).
Cau
ses
and
effe
cts
of
del
ays
and
dis
rup
tio
ns
in c
on
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s in
Tan
zan
ia. In
Au
stra
lasi
an J
ou
rnal
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Eco
no
mic
s an
d
Bu
ild
ing
-Co
nfe
ren
ce S
erie
s
(Vo
l. 1
, N
o.
2, p
p. 5
2-5
9).
htt
ps:
//w
ww
.dro
pb
ox
.co
m/s
/
7s4
cpm
tmcp
oo
g53
/Cau
ses%
20
and
%20
effe
cts%
20
of%
20
del
ays%
20
and
%2
0d
isru
pti
on
s%2
0in
%2
0co
nst
ruct
ion
%2
0
pro
ject
s%2
0in
%2
0T
anza
nia
.
pd
f?d
l=0
AF
TZ
00
01
01
/21
/16
Inv
esti
gat
ion
in
to t
he
Cau
ses
of
Del
ays
and
Co
st O
ver
run
s in
Ug
and
a's
Pu
bli
c S
ecto
r
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
s
Ap
olo
t, R
., A
lin
aitw
e, H
., &
Tin
diw
ensi
, D
. (2
01
1).
An
inv
esti
gat
ion
in
to t
he
cau
ses
of
del
ay a
nd c
ost
ov
erru
n i
n
Ug
and
a’s
pub
lic
sect
or
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts.
In
Sec
on
d
Inte
rnat
ion
al C
onfe
ren
ce o
n
Ad
van
ces
in E
ng
inee
ring
an
d
Tec
hn
olo
gy
(p
p. 3
05-3
11
).
htt
p:/
/web
.usm
.my
/jcd
c/v
ol1
8_
2
_2
013
/JC
DC
%2
01
8(2
)%20
201
3
-Art
.%2
03
%2
0(3
3-4
7).
pd
f
AF
UG
00
01
06
/20
/16
Cla
ims
for
exte
nsi
on
s o
f
tim
e in
civ
il e
ng
inee
rin
g
pro
ject
s
Yo
ges
war
an,
K.,
Ku
mar
asw
amy
, M
. M
., &
Mil
ler,
D.
R.
(19
98).
Cla
ims
for
exte
nsi
on
s o
f
tim
e in
civ
il e
ng
inee
rin
g
pro
ject
s. C
on
stru
ctio
n
Man
agem
ent
&
Eco
no
mic
s, 1
6(3
), 2
83
-
29
3.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
and
fon
lin
e.co
m/d
oi/
abs/
10
.10
80
/01
446
1
99
837
231
2
AS
HK
00
09
27
01
/06
/16
An
aly
sin
g f
acto
rs a
ffec
tin
g d
elay
s in
In
dia
n c
on
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
Do
loi,
H.,
Saw
hn
ey, A
., I
yer
, K
. C
., &
Ren
tala
, S
. (2
012
). A
nal
ysi
ng
fact
ors
aff
ecti
ng
del
ays
in I
nd
ian
co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s. I
nte
rnat
ion
al
Jou
rnal
of
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent,
30
(4),
47
9-4
89
.
htt
p:/
/pl8
cg5
fc8
w.s
earc
h.s
eria
lsso
luti
on
s.co
m/?
ctx
_v
er=
Z39.8
8-
20
04
&ct
x_
enc=
info
%3
Ao
fi%
2F
enc%
3A
UT
F-
8&
rfr_
id=
info
:sid
/su
mm
on
.ser
ials
solu
tio
ns.
com
&rf
t_v
al_
fmt=
info
:ofi
/fm
t:
kev
:mtx
:jo
urn
al&
rft.
gen
re=
arti
cle&
rft.
atit
le=
An
aly
sin
g+
fact
ors
+af
fect
ing
+
del
ays+
in+
Ind
ian
+co
nst
ruct
ion
+p
roje
cts&
rft.
jtit
le=
INT
ER
NA
TIO
NA
L+
J
OU
RN
AL
+O
F+
PR
OJE
CT
+M
AN
AG
EM
EN
T&
rft.
au=
Do
loi%
2C
+H
&rf
t.a
u=
Saw
hn
ey%
2C
+A
&rf
t.au
=Iy
er%
2C
+K
C&
rft.
au=
Ren
tala
%2
C+
S&
rft.
dat
e=2
01
2-0
5-0
1&
rft.
pub
=E
LS
EV
IER
+S
CI+
LT
D&
rft.
issn
=0
26
3-
78
63
&rf
t.ei
ssn
=1
873
-
46
34
&rf
t.vo
lum
e=30
&rf
t.is
sue=
4&
rft.
spag
e=4
79
&rf
t.ep
age=
48
9&
rft_
id=
i
nfo
:do
i/10
.10
16
%2
Fj.
ijp
rom
an.2
011
.10
.004
&rf
t.ex
tern
alD
BID
=n
%2
Fa&
rf
t.ex
tern
alD
ocI
D=
00
030
37
83
40
00
07
&p
aram
dic
t=en
-US
AS
IN0
00
1
01
/27
/16
Eff
ect
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Del
ays
on
Pro
ject
Tim
e
Ov
erru
n:
Ind
ian
Sce
nar
io
Sal
un
kh
e, A
. A
., &
Pat
il,
R.
S.
(20
14
).
effe
ct o
f
con
stru
ctio
n d
elay
s
on
pro
ject
tim
e
ov
erru
n:
Ind
ian
scen
ario
. In
t. J
. R
es.
En
g.
Tec
hn
ol,
3,
54
3-5
47
.
htt
p:/
/esa
tjo
urn
als.
n
et/i
jret
/20
14
v03
/i0
1/
IJR
ET
20
14
030
109
1
.pd
f
AS
IN0
00
3
02
/22
/16
Cau
ses
of
del
ay i
n
pro
ject
co
nst
ruct
ion
in d
evel
op
ing
cou
ntr
ies
Vy
as,
S.
(20
13
).
Cau
ses
of
del
ay i
n
pro
ject
co
nst
ruct
ion
in d
evel
op
ing
cou
ntr
ies.
Ind
ian
jou
rnal
of
Co
mm
erce
&
Man
agem
ent
Stu
die
s, 4
.
htt
ps:
//w
ww
.dro
pb
o
x.c
om
/s/5
zxqu
e5ts
y
9k
k8
j/C
ause
s%2
0o
f
%2
0d
elay
%2
0in
%2
0p
roje
ct%
20
con
stru
ctio
n%
20
in%
20
dev
elo
pin
g%
20
cou
ntr
ie
s.p
df?
dl=
0
AS
IN0
00
4
02
/22
/16
Cau
ses
of
Del
ays
in
any
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
Nai
kw
adi
Su
mai
yy
a, R
., &
Kh
are
Pra
nay
, R
.
(20
14
). C
ause
s o
f
Del
ays
in a
ny
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
.
htt
p:/
/ijs
r.n
et/a
rch
iv
e/v
5i1
/NO
V1
52
57
3.
pd
f
AS
IN0
00
5
28
02
/05
/16
Ex
amin
ing
serv
ice
qu
alit
y
wit
hin
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
cess
es
Al-
Mo
man
i, A
.
H.
(20
00
).
Ex
amin
ing
serv
ice
qu
alit
y
wit
hin
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
cess
es.
Tec
hn
ov
atio
n,
20
(11
), 6
43
-65
1.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
c
edir
ect.
com
/sci
en
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
01
6
64
972
000
000
2X
ME
JO0
00
1
01
/14
/16
Co
st o
ver
run
an
d
cau
se i
n K
ore
an s
oci
al
ov
erh
ead
cap
ital
pro
ject
s: r
oad
s, r
ails
,
airp
ort
s, a
nd p
ort
s
Lee
, J.
(2
00
8).
Co
st
Ov
erru
n a
nd
Cau
se i
n
Ko
rean
So
cial
Ov
erh
ead
Cap
ital
Pro
ject
s: R
oad
s, R
ails
,
Air
po
rts,
an
d P
ort
s. J
.
Urb
an P
lan
n.
Dev
.,
13
4(2
), 5
9–
62
.
htt
p:/
/dx
.do
i.o
rg.e
zpro
xy
1.l
ib.a
su.e
du
/10
.106
1/(
AS
CE
)07
33
-
94
88(2
00
8)1
34
:2(5
9)
AS
KR
00
01
02
/08
/16
An
aly
zin
g S
ched
ule
Del
ay o
f
Meg
a P
roje
ct:
Les
son
s L
earn
ed
Fro
m K
ore
a T
rain
Exp
ress
Han
, S
. H
., Y
un
, S
., K
im,
H.,
Kw
ak,
Y.
H.,
Par
k,
H.
K., &
Lee
, S
. H
. (2
00
9).
An
aly
zing
sch
edu
le d
elay
of
meg
a p
roje
ct:
Les
son
s le
arn
ed f
rom
Ko
rea
trai
n e
xp
ress
. E
ng
inee
ring
Man
agem
ent,
IE
EE
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
on
, 5
6(2
), 2
43
-25
6.
htt
p:/
/iee
exp
lore
.iee
e.org
/sta
mp
/
stam
p.j
sp?a
rnu
mb
er=
481
015
1
AS
KR
00
02
01
/14
/16
Tim
e an
d C
ost
Per
form
ance
in
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
s in
So
uth
ern
an
d C
entr
al R
egio
ns
of
Pen
insu
lar
Mal
aysi
a
Mem
on
, A
., R
ahm
an,
I.,
&
Azi
s, A
. (2
01
2).
Tim
e an
d
Co
st P
erfo
rman
ce i
n
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
s in
So
uth
ern
an
d C
entr
al R
egio
ns
of
Pen
insu
lar
Mal
aysi
a.
Inte
rnat
ion
al J
ou
rnal
of
Ad
van
ces
in A
pp
lied
Sci
ence
s.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.i
aesj
ou
rnal
.co
m/o
nli
ne/
ind
ex.p
hp
/IJA
AS
/art
icle
/
vie
w/5
37
/644
AS
MY
00
01
01
/14
/16
Co
st a
nd
tim
e
ov
erru
ns
of
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a
En
du
t, I
. R
.,
Ak
into
ye,
A.,
&
Kel
ly,
J. (
20
09
).
Co
st a
nd
tim
e
ov
erru
ns
of
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a. r
etri
eved
on
Au
gu
st,
21
,
24
3-2
52
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.i
rbn
et.
de/
dat
en/i
con
da/
CI
B1
06
33
.pd
f
AS
MY
00
02
29
01
/21
/16
Sig
nif
ican
t fa
cto
rs
cau
sin
g c
ost
ov
erru
ns
in
larg
e co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a
Ab
du
l R
ahm
an, I.
,
Mem
on
, A
. H
., K
arim
,
A.,
& T
arm
izi,
A. (2
01
3).
Sig
nif
ican
t fa
cto
rs
cau
sin
g c
ost
ov
erru
ns
in
larg
e co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a.
Jou
rnal
of
Ap
pli
ed
Sci
ence
, 1
3(2
), 2
86
-29
3.
htt
p:/
/ep
rin
ts.u
thm
.edu
.m
y/4
30
6/1
/ism
ail_
abd
ul_
ra
hm
an_2
_U
AS
MY
00
04
02
/26
/16
Cau
ses
and
eff
ect
of
del
ays
in A
ceh
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry
Maj
id,
I. A
. (2
006
).
Cau
ses
and
eff
ect
of
del
ays
in A
ceh
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry
(Do
cto
ral
dis
sert
atio
n,
Un
iver
siti
Tek
no
log
i
Mal
aysi
a, F
acu
lty
of
Civ
il E
ng
inee
rin
g).
htt
p:/
/ep
rin
ts.u
tm.m
y/
53
04
/
AS
MY
00
08
01
/14
/16
Del
ay a
nd
co
st o
ver
run
s in
Vie
tnam
lar
ge
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts:
a c
om
par
iso
n
wit
h o
ther
sel
ecte
d c
oun
trie
s
Le-
Ho
ai,
L.,
Lee
, Y
., &
Ng
uyen
, A
. (2
00
8).
Del
ay a
nd
Co
st O
ver
run
s in
Vie
tnam
Lar
ge
Co
nst
ruct
ion P
roje
cts:
A C
om
par
iso
n w
ith
Oth
er S
elec
ted
Co
un
trie
s. K
SC
E J
ou
rnal
of
Civ
il E
ng
inee
ring
, 12
(6),
36
7-3
77
.
do
i:1
0.1
00
7/s
12
205
-008
-03
67-7
htt
p:/
/pl8
cg5
fc8
w.s
earc
h.s
eria
lsso
luti
on
s.co
m/?
ctx
_v
er=
Z39.8
8-
20
04
&ct
x_
enc=
info
%3
Ao
fi%
2F
enc%
3A
UT
F-
8&
rfr_
id=
info
:sid
/su
mm
on
.ser
ials
solu
tio
ns.
com
&rf
t_v
al_
fmt=
info
:ofi
/fm
t:k
e
v:m
tx:j
ou
rnal
&rf
t.g
enre
=ar
ticl
e&rf
t.at
itle
=D
elay
+an
d+
cost
+o
ver
run
s+in
+V
ie
tnam
+la
rge+
con
stru
ctio
n+
pro
ject
s%3
A+
A+
com
par
iso
n+
wit
h+
oth
er+
sele
cted
+co
un
trie
s&rf
t.jt
itle
=K
SC
E+
Jou
rnal
+of+
Civ
il+
En
gin
eeri
ng&
rft.
au=
Le-
Ho
ai%
2C
+L
on
g&
rft.
au=
Lee
%2
C+
Yo
un
g+
Dai
&rf
t.au
=L
ee%
2C
+Ju
n+
Yo
ng
&rf
t.d
ate=
20
08
-11
-01
&rf
t.is
sn=
12
26
-79
88
&rf
t.ei
ssn
=1
976
-
38
08
&rf
t.vo
lum
e=12
&rf
t.is
sue=
6&
rft.
spag
e=3
67
&rf
t.ep
age=
37
7&
rft_
id=
inf
o:d
oi/
10
.10
07
%2
Fs1
22
05-0
08-0
367
-
7&
rft.
exte
rnal
DB
ID=
n%
2F
a&rf
t.ex
tern
alD
ocI
D=
10_
100
7_
s12
205
_00
8_0
36
7_
7&
par
amd
ict=
en-U
S
AS
VN
00
01
30
01
/14
/16
Lar
ge
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in
dev
elo
pin
g c
ou
ntr
ies:
A c
ase
stu
dy
fro
m V
ietn
am
Ng
uy
en,
D., O
gun
lan
a, S
., T
ruo
ng
,
Q.,
& K
a, C
. (2
00
4).
Lar
ge
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in d
evel
op
ing
cou
ntr
ies:
A c
ase
stu
dy
fro
m
Vie
tnam
. In
tern
atio
nal
Jo
urn
al o
f
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent,
22
(7),
55
3–
56
1-5
53–
561
.
do
i:d
oi:
10.1
01
6/j
.ijp
rom
an.2
00
4.0
3.0
04
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t.co
m.e
zpr
ox
y1
.lib
.asu
.ed
u/s
cien
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii
/S0
26
37
86
304
000
298
AS
VN
00
02
02
/02
/16
An
aly
sin
g c
ust
om
er
sati
sfac
tio
n a
nd
qu
alit
y
in c
on
stru
ctio
n–
the
case
of
pub
lic
and
pri
vat
e
cust
om
ers
Kär
nä,
S.
(20
14).
An
aly
sin
g c
ust
om
er
sati
sfac
tio
n a
nd
qu
alit
y
in c
on
stru
ctio
n–
the
case
of
pub
lic
and
pri
vat
e
cust
om
ers.
No
rdic
jou
rnal
of
surv
eyin
g a
nd
real
est
ate
rese
arch
, 2
.
htt
p:/
/lib
.tk
k.f
i/D
iss/
20
0
9/i
sbn
97
89
522
481
337
/
EU
FI0
00
1
06
/27
/16
Dif
fere
nt
cost
per
form
ance
:
dif
fere
nt
det
erm
inan
ts?:
Th
e
case
of
cost
ov
erru
ns
in
Du
tch
tra
nsp
ort
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
Can
tare
lli,
C.
C.,
Van
Wee
,
B.,
Mo
lin
, E
. J.
, &
Fly
vb
jerg
, B
. (2
012
).
Dif
fere
nt
cost
per
form
ance
:
dif
fere
nt
det
erm
inan
ts?:
Th
e
case
of
cost
ov
erru
ns
in
Du
tch
tra
nsp
ort
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s.
Tra
nsp
ort
Po
licy
, 2
2, 8
8-9
5.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t.co
m/s
cien
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
09
67
07
0X
120
005
71
EU
NL
00
01
06
/22
/16
Co
st o
ver
run
s in
road
con
stru
ctio
n—
wh
at a
re t
hei
r
size
s an
d
det
erm
inan
ts?
Od
eck
, J.
(20
04).
Co
st o
ver
run
s in
road
con
stru
ctio
n—
wh
at a
re t
hei
r
size
s an
d
det
erm
inan
ts?.
Tra
nsp
ort
po
licy
,
11
(1),
43-5
3.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
c
edir
ect.
com
/sci
en
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
09
67
070
X0
300
017
9
EU
NO
00
01
01
/15
/16
Dea
lin
g w
ith
co
st a
nd
tim
e in
th
e P
ort
ug
ese
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry
Mo
ura
, H
., T
eix
eira
,
J.,
& P
ires
, B
. (2
00
7).
Dea
lin
g w
ith
co
st a
nd
tim
e in
th
e P
ort
ug
ese
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry.
CIB
Wo
rld
Bu
ild
ing
Co
ng
ress
20
07
,
12
52-1
26
5.
htt
p:/
/rep
osi
tori
um
.sd
um
.um
inh
o.p
t/b
itst
re
am/1
82
2/8
345
/3/C
ost
%2
0T
ime%
20
-
MO
UR
A.p
df
EU
PT
00
01
31
01
/15
/16
Cla
ims
in
rail
way
pro
ject
s
in P
ort
ug
al
Mo
ura
, H
. M
. P
.,
& T
eix
eira
, J.
M.
C.
(20
05).
Cla
ims
in
rail
way
pro
ject
s
in P
ort
ug
al.
htt
p:/
/rep
osi
tori
u
m.s
du
m.u
min
ho
.
pt/
han
dle
/182
2/4
97
6
EU
PT
00
02
01
/04
/16
Illu
stra
tiv
e
Ben
chm
ark
ing R
ewo
rk
and
Rew
ork
Co
sts
in
Sw
edis
h C
on
stru
ctio
n
Ind
ust
ry
Jose
ph
son
, P
., L
arss
on
,
B.,
an
d L
i, H
. (2
002
).
Illu
stra
tiv
e
Ben
chm
ark
ing R
ewo
rk
and
Rew
ork
Co
sts
in
Sw
edis
h C
on
stru
ctio
n
Ind
ust
ry. J.
Man
age.
En
g.,
18
(2),
76
–83
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/do
i
/pd
f/1
0.1
061
/(A
SC
E)0
7
42
-59
7X
(20
02)1
8:2
(76)
EU
SE
00
01
01
/22
/16
Co
st o
ver
run
s in
pu
bli
c p
roje
cts
Ard
iti,
D.,
Ak
an,
G.
T.,
& G
urd
amar
, S
.
(19
85
). C
ost
ov
erru
ns
in p
ub
lic
pro
ject
s.
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Jou
rnal
of
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent,
3(4
),
21
8-2
24
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t.co
m/s
cien
ce/a
r
ticl
e/p
ii/0
26
37
86
38
59
005
35
ME
TR
00
01
01
/04
/16
Th
e co
st o
f p
oo
rly
ass
emb
led
dat
a to
th
e co
nst
ruct
ion
ind
ust
ry
Ham
il,
S.
(20
13
, A
ugu
st 1
3).
Th
e co
st o
f p
oo
rly
ass
emb
led
dat
a to
th
e co
nst
ruct
ion
ind
ust
ry.
Ret
riev
ed f
rom
htt
p:/
/co
nst
ruct
ion
cod
e.b
log
spo
t.co
m/2
013
/08
/th
e-co
st-o
f-
po
orl
y-a
ssem
ble
d-d
ata-
to.h
tml
htt
p:/
/co
nst
ruct
ion
cod
e.b
log
spo
t.co
m/2
013
/08
/th
e-co
st-o
f-
po
orl
y-a
ssem
ble
d-d
ata-
to.h
tml
EU
UK
00
01
02
/19
/16
Th
e sa
tisf
acti
on
lev
els
of
UK
con
stru
ctio
n c
lien
ts b
ased
on
the
per
form
ance
of
con
sult
ants
:
Res
ult
s o
f a
case
stu
dy
Ch
eng
, J.
, P
rov
erb
s, D
. G
., &
Od
uo
za,
C.
F.
(20
06).
Th
e
sati
sfac
tio
n l
evel
s o
f U
K
con
stru
ctio
n c
lien
ts b
ased
on
the
per
form
ance
of
con
sult
ants
:
Res
ult
s o
f a
case
stu
dy
.
En
gin
eeri
ng
, C
on
stru
ctio
n a
nd
Arc
hit
ectu
ral
Man
agem
ent,
13
(6),
567
-58
3.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.e
mer
ald
insi
gh
t.co
m
/do
i/p
dfp
lus/
10
.11
08
/09
699
980
61
071
237
3
EU
UK
00
03
32
02
/19
/16
Co
st a
nd
tim
e co
ntr
ol
of
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts:
inh
ibit
ing
fac
tors
an
d
mit
igat
ing
mea
sure
s in
pra
ctic
e
Ola
wal
e, Y
. A
., &
Su
n,
M.
(20
10
). C
ost
an
d t
ime
con
tro
l of
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s: i
nh
ibit
ing
fac
tors
and
mit
igat
ing
mea
sure
s in
pra
ctic
e. C
on
stru
ctio
n
Man
agem
ent
and
Eco
no
mic
s, 2
8(5
), 5
09
-52
6.
htt
p:/
/ep
rin
ts.a
sto
n.a
c.u
k/1
5
56
6/2
/Co
st_
and
_ti
me_
con
tr
ol_
inh
ibit
ing_
fact
ors
_an
d_
mit
igat
ing
_m
easu
res.
EU
UK
00
04
02
/19
/16
PF
I: C
on
stru
ctio
n
Per
form
ance
Nat
ion
al A
ud
it O
ffic
e
(20
03
). P
FI:
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Per
form
ance
. V
icto
ria:
Nat
ion
al A
ud
it O
ffic
e.
Ret
riev
ed f
rom
htt
ps:
//w
ww
.nao
.org
.uk
/w
p-
con
ten
t/u
plo
ads/
20
03
/02
/
02
033
71
.pd
f
htt
ps:
//w
ww
.nao
.org
.uk
/w
p-
con
ten
t/u
plo
ads/
20
03
/02
/
02
033
71
.pd
f
EU
UK
00
05
02
/23
/16
An
in
ves
tig
atio
n i
nto
th
e
risk
of
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
del
ays
in t
he
UA
E
Mo
tale
b,
O.,
& K
ish
k,
M.
(20
13
). A
n i
nv
esti
gat
ion
into
th
e ri
sk o
f
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
ct
del
ays
in t
he
UA
E.
Inte
rnat
ion
al J
ou
rnal
of
Info
rmat
ion
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent,
Vo
lum
e 4
Nu
mb
er 3
.
htt
ps:
//o
pen
air.
rgu
.ac.
uk
/
bit
stre
am/h
and
le/1
005
9/1
04
2/K
ish
k%
20
IJIT
PM
%2
02
013
%2
0In
ves
tig
atio
n.p
df?
seq
uen
ce=
1&
isA
llo
we
d=
y
ME
AE
00
01
01
/22
/16
An
Em
pir
ical
Ap
pro
ach
fo
r
Iden
tify
ing
Cri
tica
l T
ime-
Ov
reru
n R
isk
Fac
tors
in
Ku
wai
t's C
on
stru
ctio
n
Pro
ject
s
Al
Zu
bai
di,
H.,
& A
l O
taib
i,
S.
(20
08
). A
n E
mp
iric
al
Ap
pro
ach f
or
Iden
tify
ing
Cri
tica
l T
ime-
Ov
reru
n R
isk
Fac
tors
in
Ku
wai
t's
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
s.
Jou
rnal
of
Eco
no
mic
and
Ad
min
istr
ativ
e S
cien
ces,
24
(2),
35-5
3.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.e
mer
ald
insi
gh
t.c
om
/do
i/ab
s/1
0.1
108
/10
26
411
62
008
000
07
ME
KW
00
01
01
/27
/16
Del
ays
and
co
st i
ncr
ease
s
in t
he
con
stru
ctio
n o
f
pri
vat
e re
sid
enti
al p
roje
cts
in K
uw
ait
Ko
ush
ki,
P.
A.,
Al‐
Ras
hid
,
K.,
& K
arta
m,
N.
(20
05
).
Del
ays
and
co
st i
ncr
ease
s
in t
he
con
stru
ctio
n o
f
pri
vat
e re
sid
enti
al p
roje
cts
in K
uw
ait.
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Man
agem
ent
and
Eco
no
mic
s, 2
3(3
), 2
85
-
29
4.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
and
fon
lin
e.co
m/d
oi/
abs/
10
.10
80
/01
446
1
90
420
003
267
10
ME
KW
00
02
33
01
/21
/16
Cau
ses,
Eff
ects
, B
enef
its,
an
d
Rem
edie
s o
f C
han
ge
Ord
ers
on
Pu
bli
c C
on
stru
ctio
n P
roje
cts
in
Om
an
Aln
uai
mi,
A.
S.,
Tah
a, R
. A
., A
l
Mo
hsi
n,
M.,
& A
l-H
arth
i, A
. S
.
(20
09
). C
ause
s, e
ffec
ts,
ben
efit
s,
and
rem
edie
s o
f ch
ang
e ord
ers
on
pub
lic
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in O
man
. Jo
urn
al o
f
Co
nst
ruct
ion
En
gin
eeri
ng
an
d
Man
agem
ent,
13
6(5
), 6
15-6
22.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/do
i/ab
s/1
0.
10
61
/(A
SC
E)C
O.1
94
3-
78
62
.00
00
154
ME
OM
00
01
01
/29
/16
Cau
ses
of
Del
ay i
n
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
s in
th
e
Oil
an
d G
as I
nd
ust
ry i
n t
he
Gu
lf C
oo
per
atio
n C
ou
nci
l
Co
un
trie
s: A
Cas
e S
tud
y
Ru
qai
shi,
M.,
& B
ash
ir,
H.
A.
(20
13
). C
ause
s o
f d
elay
in c
on
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in
the
oil
an
d g
as i
nd
ust
ry i
n
the
gu
lf c
oo
per
atio
n c
ou
nci
l
cou
ntr
ies:
a c
ase
stu
dy
.
Jou
rnal
of
Man
agem
ent
in
En
gin
eeri
ng
, 31
(3),
05
014
017
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/do
i/fu
l
l/1
0.1
06
1/%
28
AS
CE
%2
9M
E.1
943
-547
9.0
000
248
ME
OM
00
02
01
/14
/16
Co
st O
ver
run
Fac
tors
In
Co
nst
ruct
ion
In
du
stry
of
Pak
ista
n
Azh
ar,
N.,
Far
oo
qu
i, R
.,
& A
hm
ed,
S. (2
00
8).
Co
st
Ov
erru
n F
acto
rs I
n
Co
nst
ruct
ion
In
du
stry
of
Pak
ista
n.
Fir
st
Inte
rnat
ion
al C
onfe
ren
ce
on
Co
nst
ruct
ion
In
Dev
elo
pin
g C
oun
trie
s
(IC
CID
C–
I).
htt
p:/
/ww
w.n
edu
et.e
du
.pk
/Civ
il/I
CC
IDC
-
I/C
on
fere
nce
%2
0P
roce
edi
ng
s/P
aper
s/0
51
.pd
f
AS
PK
00
01
01
/21
/16
Cau
ses
of
Del
ay i
n
Ro
ad C
on
stru
ctio
n
Pro
ject
s
Mah
amid
, I.
,
Bru
lan
d,
A.,
&
Dm
aid
i, N
. (2
01
1).
Cau
ses
of
del
ay i
n
road
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s. J
ou
rnal
of
Man
agem
ent
in
En
gin
eeri
ng
, 28
(3),
30
0-3
10
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/
do
i/fu
ll/1
0.1
061
/%2
8
AS
CE
%2
9M
E.1
94
3-
54
79
.00
00
096
ME
PS
00
02
02
/08
/16
Ris
ks
Lea
din
g t
o C
ost
Ov
erru
n i
n B
uil
din
g
Co
nst
ruct
ion
fro
m
Co
nsu
ltan
ts' P
ersp
ecti
ve
Mah
amid
, I.
, &
Dm
aid
i, N
.
(20
13
). R
isk
s L
ead
ing
to
Co
st
Ov
erru
n i
n B
uil
din
g
Co
nst
ruct
ion
fro
m
Co
nsu
ltan
ts’
Per
spec
tiv
e.
Org
aniz
atio
n,
Tec
hn
olo
gy
&
Man
agem
ent
in C
on
stru
ctio
n:
An
In
tern
atio
nal
Jo
urn
al,
5(2
),
86
0-8
73
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.a
cad
emia
.ed
u/9
61
38
32
/o_
Ris
ks_
Lea
din
g_
to_
Co
st_
Ov
erru
n_
in_
Bu
ild
ing
_C
ons
tru
ctio
n_
fro
m_
Con
sult
ants
_P
e
rsp
ecti
ve
ME
PS
00
03
34
06
/27
/16
Co
st d
evia
tio
n i
n r
oad
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts:
Th
e ca
se o
f P
ales
tin
e
Mah
amid
, I.
, &
Bru
land
,
A.
(20
12
). C
ost
dev
iati
on
in
ro
ad
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts:
Th
e ca
se o
f P
ales
tin
e.
Au
stra
lasi
an J
ou
rnal
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Eco
no
mic
s
and
Bu
ild
ing
, T
he,
12
(1),
58.
htt
ps:
//se
arch
.in
form
it.c
o
m.a
u/d
ocu
men
tSu
mm
ar
y;d
n=
119
892
779
280
269
;res
=IE
LE
NG
ME
PS
00
05
01
/21
/16
Cau
ses
of
del
ay i
n
larg
e co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s
Ass
af,
S.
A.,
& A
l-
Hej
ji,
S.
(20
06
).
Cau
ses
of
del
ay i
n
larg
e co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s.
Inte
rnat
ion
al
jou
rnal
of
pro
ject
man
agem
ent,
24
(4),
349
-35
7.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ce
dir
ect.
com
/sci
ence
/
arti
cle/
pii
/S0
26
37
8
63
050
012
62
ME
SA
00
01
01
/22
/16
Ow
ner
s’ P
ersp
ecti
ve
of
Fac
tors
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g t
o
Pro
ject
Del
ay:
Cas
e
Stu
die
s o
f R
oad
an
d
Bri
dg
e P
roje
cts
in S
aud
i
Ara
bia
Ela
wi,
G.
S.
A.
(20
15
).
Ow
ner
s’ P
ersp
ecti
ve
of
Fac
tors
Co
ntr
ibu
tin
g t
o
Pro
ject
Del
ay:
Cas
e
Stu
die
s o
f R
oad
an
d
Bri
dg
e P
roje
cts
in S
aud
i
Ara
bia
(D
oct
ora
l
dis
sert
atio
n,
Ari
zon
a
Sta
te U
niv
ersi
ty).
htt
p:/
/rep
osi
tory
.asu
.ed
u/
atta
chm
ents
/15
79
57
/co
nt
ent/
Ela
wi_
asu
_0
010
N_
1
51
69
.pd
f
ME
SA
00
02
02
/02
/16
Co
ntr
ibu
tors
to
sch
edu
le
del
ays
in p
ub
lic
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in
Sau
di
Ara
bia
: o
wn
ers'
per
spec
tiv
e
Mah
amid
, I.
(2
01
3).
Co
ntr
ibu
tors
to
sch
edu
le
del
ays
in p
ub
lic
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in
Sau
di
Ara
bia
: o
wn
ers'
per
spec
tiv
e. J
ou
rnal
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
and
Inn
ov
atio
n, 3
(2),
608
-61
9.
htt
p:/
/ref
eren
ce.s
abin
et.c
o.z
a/w
ebx
/acc
ess/
elec
tro
nic
_jo
urn
als/
jcp
mi/
jcp
mi_
v3_
n2_
a1.p
df
ME
SA
00
05
02
/19
/16
Wh
y d
o i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
alw
ays
go
ov
er b
ud
get
?
Sie
mia
tyck
i, M
. (2
01
4,
Jun
e 09
).
Wh
y d
o i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
alw
ays
go
ov
er b
ud
get
?
Th
esta
r.co
m.
Ret
riev
ed F
ebru
ary
19
, 20
16
, fr
om
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
hes
tar.
com
/op
inio
n/c
o
mm
enta
ry/2
01
4/0
6/0
9/w
hy
_do
_in
f
rast
ruct
ure
_pro
ject
s_al
way
s_go
_o
ver
_bu
dg
et.h
tml
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
hes
tar.
com
/op
inio
n/c
o
mm
enta
ry/2
01
4/0
6/0
9/w
hy
_do
_in
f
rast
ruct
ure
_pro
ject
s_al
way
s_go
_o
ver
_bu
dg
et.h
tml
NA
CA
00
02
35
01
/06
/16
Cau
ses
of
Qu
alit
y
Dev
iati
on
s in
Des
ign
and
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Bu
rati
, J.
, Jr
.,
Far
rin
gto
n,
J., an
d
Led
bet
ter,
W.
(19
92).
Cau
ses
of
Qu
alit
y
Dev
iati
on
s in
Des
ign
and
Co
nst
ruct
ion
. J.
Co
nst
r. E
ng
.
Man
age.
, 11
8(1
), 3
4–
49
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
.
ezp
roxy
1.l
ib.a
su.e
du
/
do
i/ab
s/1
0.1
06
1%
2F
%2
8A
SC
E%
29
07
33
-
93
64
%28
199
2%
29
11
8%
3A
1%
28
34
%29
NA
US
00
01
01
/22
/16
Mea
suri
ng
ris
k
man
agem
ent
per
form
ance
wit
hin
a
cap
ital
pro
gra
m
J. P
erre
no
ud,
A.,
C.
Lin
es,
B.,
& T
. S
ull
ivan
,
K.
(20
14
). M
easu
rin
g
risk
man
agem
ent
per
form
ance
wit
hin
a
cap
ital
pro
gra
m.
Journ
al
of
Fac
ilit
ies
Man
agem
ent,
12
(2),
15
8-1
71
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.e
mer
ald
insi
g
ht.
com
/do
i/fu
ll/1
0.1
10
8/
JFM
-03
-20
13
-001
8
NA
US
00
02
02
/22
/16
Th
e ro
ot
cau
ses
of
del
ays
in h
igh
way
co
nst
ruct
ion
Ell
is,
R.
D.,
& T
ho
mas
,
H.
R.
(20
03,
Jan
uar
y).
Th
e ro
ot
cau
ses
of
del
ays
in h
igh
way
co
nst
ruct
ion
.
In 8
2n
d A
nn
ual
mee
ting
of
the
tran
spo
rtat
ion
rese
arch
bo
ard
.
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n R
esea
rch
Bo
ard
Was
hin
gto
n,
DC
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.l
trc.
lsu
.ed
u/T
RB
_8
2/T
RB
20
03
-
00
064
6.p
df
NA
US
00
04
06
/09
/16
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Del
ays
in
Flo
rid
a: A
n E
mp
iric
al
Stu
dy
Ah
med
, S
. M
., A
zhar
,
S.,
Cas
till
o,
M.,
&
Kap
pag
antu
la, P
.
(20
02
). C
on
stru
ctio
n
del
ays
in F
lori
da:
An
emp
iric
al s
tud
y.
Fin
al
rep
ort
. D
epar
tmen
t of
Co
mm
un
ity
Aff
airs
,
Flo
rid
a, U
S.
htt
ps:
//o
hls
c.fi
u.e
du
s/re
sear
ch_
rep
ort
s/d
ela
ys_
pro
ject
.pd
f
NA
US
00
05
11
/01
/16
Bec
hte
l p
rese
nta
tio
n
IHS
Mar
kit
(2
013
). P
ub
lic
An
nu
al R
epo
rts;
pre
ss
rele
ases
. IH
S H
ero
ld G
lob
al
Pro
ject
s D
atab
ase.
Ret
riev
ed
fro
m:
htt
p:/
/ww
w.h
ero
ld.c
om
/res
ear
ch/i
nd
ust
ry_re
sear
ch.h
om
e
htt
p:/
/ww
w.h
ero
ld.c
om
/res
ear
ch/i
nd
ust
ry_re
sear
ch.h
om
e
NA
US
00
07
36
01
/04
/16
Infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct t
yp
e an
d
pro
cure
men
t m
etho
d o
n r
ework
cost
s in
bu
ild
ing
co
nst
ruct
ion
pro
ject
s
Lo
ve,
P.
E.
D. (2
00
2).
Infl
uen
ce o
f
pro
ject
ty
pe
and
pro
cure
men
t
met
ho
d o
n r
ework
co
sts
in
bu
ild
ing
co
nst
ruct
ion p
roje
cts.
Jou
rnal
of
Co
nst
ruct
ion
En
gin
eeri
ng
and
Man
agem
ent,
12
8(1
), 1
8-2
9.
do
i:1
0.1
06
1/(
AS
CE
)07
33
-
93
64(2
00
2)1
28
:1(1
8)
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
.ezp
rox
y1
.lib
.
asu
.ed
u/d
oi/
abs/
10.1
06
1%
2F
%2
8
AS
CE
%2
90
73
3-
93
64
%28
200
2%
29
12
8%
3A
1%
28
1
8%
29
OC
AU
00
01
01
/04
/16
A p
roje
ct
man
agem
ent
qu
alit
y
cost
in
form
atio
n
syst
em f
or
the
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry
Lo
ve,
P.
E., &
Ira
ni,
Z.
(200
3).
A p
roje
ct
man
agem
ent
qu
alit
y
cost
in
form
atio
n
syst
em f
or
the
con
stru
ctio
n i
nd
ust
ry.
Info
rmat
ion
&
Man
agem
ent,
40
(7),
64
9-6
61
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
i
rect
.co
m.e
zpro
xy
1.l
ib
.asu
.ed
u/s
cien
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
03
78
720
602
0
00
940
OC
AU
00
02
01
/04
/16
Qu
anti
fyin
g t
he
cau
ses
and
co
sts
of
rew
ork
in
con
stru
ctio
n
Lo
ve,
P.
E., &
Li,
H.
(20
00
). Q
uan
tify
ing
the
cau
ses
and
co
sts
of
rew
ork
in
con
stru
ctio
n.
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Man
agem
ent
&
Eco
no
mic
s, 1
8(4
),
47
9-4
90
.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
and
fon
li
ne.
com
.ezp
roxy
1.l
ib.
asu
.ed
u/d
oi/
abs/
10.1
08
0/0
14
461
900
500
2
48
97
OC
AU
00
03
01
/04
/16
Rew
ork
in
civ
il
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s:
Det
erm
inat
ion
of
cost
pre
dic
tors
Lo
ve,
P.
E., E
dw
ard
s, D
.
J.,
Wat
son
, H
., &
Dav
is,
P.
(20
10
). R
ewo
rk i
n c
ivil
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s:
Det
erm
inat
ion
of
cost
pre
dic
tors
. Jo
urn
al o
f
con
stru
ctio
n e
ng
inee
ring
and
man
agem
ent,
13
6(3
),
27
5-2
82
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
.ezp
r
ox
y1
.lib
.asu
.ed
u/d
oi/
abs/
10
.106
1%
2F
%2
8A
SC
E%
29
CO
.19
43-
78
62
.00
00
136
OC
AU
00
04
01
/22
/16
Ev
alu
atio
n o
f ri
sk f
acto
rs
lead
ing
to
co
st o
ver
run
in
del
iver
y o
f h
igh
way
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
Cre
edy
, G
. D
., S
kit
more
,
M.,
& W
on
g,
J. K
. (2
01
0).
Ev
alu
atio
n o
f ri
sk f
acto
rs
lead
ing
to
co
st o
ver
run
in
del
iver
y o
f h
igh
way
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts.
Jou
rnal
of
con
stru
ctio
n
eng
inee
ring
an
d
man
agem
ent.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
/do
i/1
0
.10
61
/(A
SC
E)C
O.1
94
3-
78
62
.00
00
160
OC
AU
00
06
37
01
/04
/16
Mea
suri
ng
th
e Im
pac
t
of
Rew
ork
on
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Co
st
Per
form
ance
Hw
ang
, B
., T
ho
mas
, S
.,
Haa
s, C
., a
nd
Cal
das
,
C.
(20
09).
Mea
suri
ng
the
Imp
act
of
Rew
ork
on
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Co
st
Per
form
ance
. J.
Co
nst
r.
En
g.
Man
age.
, 13
5(3
),
18
7–1
98
.
htt
p:/
/asc
elib
rary
.org
.ez
pro
xy
1.l
ib.a
su.e
du
/do
i/
abs/
10
.106
1%
2F
%2
8A
SC
E%
29
07
33
-
93
64
%28
200
9%
29
13
5
%3
A3
%2
81
87
%29
OT
HR
00
01
01
/06
/16
An
aly
sis
of
cost
an
d
sch
edu
le p
erfo
rman
ce o
f
inte
rnat
ion
al
dev
elo
pm
ent
pro
ject
s
Ah
san
, K
., &
Gun
awan
,
I. (
201
0).
An
aly
sis
of
cost
an
d s
ched
ule
per
form
ance
of
inte
rnat
ion
al
dev
elo
pm
ent
pro
ject
s.
Inte
rnat
ion
al J
ou
rnal
of
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent,
28
(1),
68-7
8.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.s
cien
ced
irec
t
.co
m.e
zpro
xy1
.lib
.asu
.ed
u/s
cien
ce/a
rtic
le/p
ii/S
02
63
786
309
000
337
OT
HR
00
02
01
/22
/16
Un
der
esti
mat
ing
co
sts
in
pu
bli
c w
ork
s p
roje
cts:
Err
or
or
lie?
Fly
vb
jerg
, B
., H
olm
, M
. S
.,
& B
uh
l, S
. (2
00
2).
Un
der
esti
mat
ing
co
sts
in
pu
bli
c w
ork
s p
roje
cts:
Err
or
or
lie?
. Jo
urn
al o
f th
e
Am
eric
an p
lan
nin
g
asso
ciat
ion
, 6
8(3
), 2
79
-29
5.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
and
fon
lin
e.co
m
/do
i/p
df/
10
.108
0/0
19
44
360
20
897
627
3
OT
HR
00
03
05
/28
/16
Est
abli
shin
g p
roje
ct r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
team
s
Fra
me,
J.
D.
(199
7).
Est
abli
shin
g p
roje
ct r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
team
s. K
ähk
ön
en K
. an
d
Art
to K
A (
eds.
) M
anag
ing
Ris
ks
in P
roje
cts,
St.
Ed
mu
nsb
ury
Pre
ss L
td.,
Su
ffo
lk,
UK
, 2
2-2
7.
htt
ps:
//b
oo
ks.
go
og
le.c
om
/b
oo
ks?
hl=
en&
lr=
&id
=sr
jtV
WB
qJR
8C
&o
i=fn
d&
pg
=P
A2
2&
dq
=E
stab
lish
ing
+p
ro
ject
+ri
sk+
asse
ssm
ent+
tea
ms+
fram
e&o
ts=
tQ_
WG
6P
luo
&si
g=
8x
Jyej
Elv
LO
UJi
oeC
swK
KE
3aN
1k
#v
=o
nep
age&
q=
Est
abli
shin
g%
20
pr
oje
ct%
20
risk
%2
0as
sess
me
nt%
20
team
s%2
0fr
ame&
f=
fals
e
OT
HR
00
07
38
The following table lays out the metrics found from each publication, identified
by the paper code, and tells what country and the type of work that was being analyzed
for each entry.
Dat
e A
dd
ed
Pap
er C
od
e
Reg
ion
Co
un
try
Ty
pe
of
wo
rk
Yea
r
Rew
ork
% p
roje
ct
del
ay
Av
era
ge
%
del
ay
du
rati
on
% p
roje
ct
ov
erb
ud
get
Av
era
ge
%
ov
erb
ud
get
am
ou
nt
Cu
sto
mer
Sa
tisf
act
ion
2/2
/20
16
EU
FI0
00
1
Eu
rop
e
Fin
lan
d
Su
rvey
20
04
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
Ov
eral
l 6
6
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
07
Dis
sati
sfie
d
12
/31
/20
15
AF
NG
00
01
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
Su
rvey
19
88
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/2
2/2
01
6
AF
TZ
00
01
Afr
ica
Tan
zan
ia
Su
rvey
20
12
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/1
9/2
01
6
NA
CA
00
02
No
rth
Am
eric
a
Can
ada
Pu
bli
c
pro
ject
s
20
14
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/2
2/2
01
6
AS
IN0
00
4
Asi
a
Ind
ia
Ov
eral
l
20
13
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/8
/20
16
AS
KR
00
02
Asi
a
Ko
rea
Su
rvey
20
09
Dis
sati
sfie
d
39
2/5
/20
16
AS
MY
00
04
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Su
rvey
20
13
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
VN
00
01
Asi
a
Vie
tnam
Ov
eral
l
20
08
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
02
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
Su
rvey
20
04
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/1
9/2
01
6
EU
UK
00
03
Eu
rop
e
UK
Su
rvey
20
06
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/1
9/2
01
6
EU
UK
00
03
Eu
rop
e
UK
Su
rvey
20
06
Dis
sati
sfie
d
2/5
/20
16
ME
JO0
00
1
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Jord
an
Su
rvey
20
00
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/2
8/2
01
6
ME
KW
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Ku
wai
t
45
0 p
riv
ate
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
20
04
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/2
1/2
01
6
ME
SA
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Sau
di
Ara
bia
Ov
eral
l 7
6
pro
ject
s
20
06
Dis
sati
sfie
d
5/1
7/2
01
6
ME
AE
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Un
ited
Ara
b
Em
irat
es
Su
rvey
20
13
Dis
sati
sfie
d
40
1/2
2/2
01
6
OC
AU
00
06
Oce
ania
Au
stra
lia
Hig
hw
ay
pro
ject
s
20
10
Dis
sati
sfie
d
1/2
2/2
01
6
ME
SA
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Sau
di
Ara
bia
49
ro
ads
and
bri
dg
es
pro
ject
s
20
15
10
0.0
%
38
.9%
1/2
8/2
01
6
ME
KW
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Ku
wai
t
45
0 p
riv
ate
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
20
04
10
0.0
%
6.4
%
10
/19
/20
16
NA
US
00
07
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
Gen
eral
20
16
98
.0%
98
.0%
80
.0%
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
Ov
eral
l 6
6
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
07
94
.0%
40
.0%
66
.0%
12
.0%
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
MY
00
01
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Ov
eral
l 1
40
pro
ject
s
20
12
92
.0%
7.5
%
89
.0%
7.5
%
2/1
9/2
01
6
AF
NG
00
07
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
Ov
eral
l 8
5
pro
ject
s
20
06
89
.0%
20
.0%
46
.0%
20
.0%
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
KR
00
01
Asi
a
Ko
rea
15
4 r
ail
and
road
pro
ject
s
20
01
88
.2%
27
.5%
41
12
/31
/20
15
AF
NG
00
03
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
Ov
eral
l as
su
gg
este
d b
y 7
2
con
stru
ctio
n p
rofe
ssio
nal
20
01
85
.0%
1/2
2/2
01
6
ME
KW
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Ku
wai
t
28
infr
astr
uct
ure
and
bu
ild
ing
pro
ject
s
20
08
82
.0%
38
.0%
6/9
/20
16
ME
JO0
00
1
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Jord
an
Ov
eral
l 1
30
pro
ject
s
20
00
81
.5%
55
.8%
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
MY
00
02
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Ov
eral
l 3
59
pro
ject
s
20
12
77
.7%
49
.7%
54
.6%
2.1
%
6/2
0/2
01
6
AS
HK
00
09
Asi
a
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
67
pro
ject
s
20
10
76
.0%
85
.0%
1/2
1/2
01
6
ME
SA
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Sau
di
Ara
bia
Ov
eral
l 7
6
pro
ject
s
20
06
70
.0%
20
.0%
12
/30
/20
15
AF
GH
00
01
Afr
ica
Gh
ana
47
gro
und
wat
er
pro
ject
s
19
99
70
.0%
80
.0%
42
2/1
9/2
01
6
EU
UK
00
05
Eu
rop
e
UK
Su
rvey
19
99
70
.0%
73
.0%
5/1
7/2
01
6
AS
MY
00
08
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
30
sta
te
pro
ject
s
20
11
60
.0%
23
.7%
1/2
7/2
01
6
AS
IN0
00
3
Asi
a
Ind
ia
Ov
eral
l 2
05
pro
ject
s
20
12
57
.0%
18
.1%
2/2
2/2
01
6
AF
TZ
00
01
Afr
ica
Tan
zan
ia
Su
rvey
20
12
56
.0%
1/6
/20
16
AS
IN0
00
1
Asi
a
Ind
ia
Ov
eral
l
95
1
pro
ject
s
20
12
49
.8%
32
.5%
2/2
2/2
01
6
AS
IN0
00
5
Asi
a
Ind
ia
64
6 c
entr
al
sect
or
pro
ject
s
20
04
40
.0%
40
.2%
6/1
4/2
01
6
ME
TR
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Tu
rkey
12
6 p
ub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
06
39
.10
%
1/2
8/2
01
6
ME
OM
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Om
an
40
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
15
38
.0%
2/1
9/2
01
6
EU
UK
00
04
Eu
rop
e
UK
Su
rvey
20
10
10
.0%
10
.0%
43
5/2
8/2
01
6
AF
NG
00
08
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
Ov
eral
l 6
1
pro
ject
s
19
99
92
.6%
17
.3%
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
02
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
25
rai
lway
pro
ject
s
20
02
85
.0%
25
.0%
1/6
/20
16
OT
HR
00
02
Asi
a
Ind
ia
20
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
07
55
.7%
26
.1%
1/2
2/2
01
6
NA
US
00
02
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
26
6 u
niv
ersi
ty
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
14
48
.9%
3.2
%
1/2
1/2
01
6
AF
UG
00
01
Afr
ica
Ug
and
a
Ov
eral
l 3
0
pro
ject
s
20
07
46
.5%
1/2
2/2
01
6
EU
TR
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Tu
rkey
Ov
eral
l 3
84
pro
ject
s
19
85
40
.0%
44
.0%
1/6
/20
16
OT
HR
00
02
Asi
a
Ban
gla
des
h
31
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
07
34
.4%
8.4
%
1/6
/20
16
OT
HR
00
02
Asi
a
Th
aila
nd
19
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
07
32
.7%
25
.0%
2/2
2/2
01
6
NA
US
00
04
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
15
0
hig
hw
ay
pro
ject
s
20
02
25
.0%
2.1
%
44
1/2
1/2
01
6
ME
PS
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Pal
esti
ne
Su
rvey
20
12
20
.0%
1/6
/20
16
OT
HR
00
02
Asi
a
Ch
ina
30
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
07
13
.6%
5.4
%
2/1
1/2
01
6
ME
PS
00
03
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Pal
esti
ne
Su
rvey
20
13
10
0.0
%
20
.0%
6/1
7/2
01
6
AF
ET
00
01
Afr
ica
Eth
iop
ia
70
pub
lic
bu
ild
ing
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
08
95
.7%
63
.0%
1/2
8/2
01
6
ME
KW
00
02
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Ku
wai
t
45
0 p
riv
ate
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
20
04
71
.0%
1.0
%
1/2
1/2
01
6
AF
UG
00
01
Afr
ica
Ug
and
a
Ov
eral
l 3
0
pro
ject
s
20
07
53
.0%
16
.2%
6/2
2/2
01
6
EU
NO
00
01
Eu
rop
e
No
rway
62
0 p
roje
cts
19
95
52
.4%
25
.0%
6/2
7/2
01
6
ME
PS
00
05
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Pal
esti
ne
16
9 r
oad
con
stru
ctio
n
20
08
24
.0%
14
.6%
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
Ex
po
98
pro
ject
s
19
98
41
.0%
1/1
5/2
01
6
EU
PT
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Po
rtu
gal
26
maj
or
mo
torw
ay
pro
ject
s
19
95
39
.0%
45
2/8
/20
16
AS
KR
00
02
Asi
a
Ko
rea
29
med
ium
-
size
d
($5
0m
)
pro
ject
s
20
09
32
.5%
1/2
2/2
01
6
OT
HR
00
03
Oth
er
Inte
rnat
ion
al
25
8
tran
spo
rtat
ion
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
20
03
28
.0%
1/1
4/2
01
6
ME
PK
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Pak
ista
n
Su
rvey
20
08
25
.0%
6/2
7/2
01
6
EU
NL
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Net
her
lan
ds
76
pro
ject
s
20
02
16
.5%
1/2
1/2
01
6
ME
OM
00
01
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Om
an
Ov
eral
l 4
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
20
10
2/8
/20
16
AS
KR
00
02
Asi
a
Ko
rea
7 m
ega
pro
ject
s o
ver
1b
bud
get
20
09
6/9
/20
16
NA
US
00
05
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
4 p
roje
cts
of
env
iro
nm
enta
l
and
eng
inee
ring
des
ign
serv
ices
fo
r
road
way
con
stru
ctio
n
20
02
12
/31
/20
15
AF
NG
00
02
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
9 h
igh
way
pro
ject
s
19
94
46
6/2
7/2
01
6
AF
KE
00
01
Afr
ica
Ken
ya
9 c
on
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
13
1/6
/20
16
NA
US
00
01
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
9 p
roje
cts,
1.2
b b
udg
et
19
92
12
.40
%
1/4
/20
16
OT
HR
00
01
No
rth
Am
eric
a
US
A
Ov
eral
l
20
05
5%
1/4
/20
16
EU
SE
00
01
Eu
rop
e
Sw
eden
Ov
eral
l
20
02
4.4
0%
1/4
/20
16
EU
UK
00
01
Eu
rop
e
UK
Ov
eral
l
20
13
5%
1/4
/20
16
OC
AU
00
04
Oce
ania
Au
stra
lia
11
5 c
ivil
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
20
10
10
%
1/4
/20
16
OC
AU
00
01
Oce
ania
Au
stra
lia
Ov
eral
l 1
61
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
20
02
6.4
0%
1/4
/20
16
OC
AU
00
03
Oce
ania
Au
stra
lia
2 p
roje
cts,
16
.8m
bu
dg
et
20
00
2.8
0%
1/4
/20
16
OC
AU
00
02
Oce
ania
Au
stra
lia
1 r
esid
enti
al
and
1
war
eho
use
pro
ject
s
20
03
2.3
0%
47
1/4
/20
16
OT
HR
00
01
Oth
er
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Su
rvey
20
05
5%
12
/31
/20
15
AF
NG
00
01
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
Ov
eral
l
19
88
1/1
4/2
01
6
AF
NG
00
04
Afr
ica
Nig
eria
53
tele
com
mu
nic
atio
n
pro
ject
s
20
10
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
MY
00
01
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Ov
eral
l 1
40
pro
ject
s
20
12
1/2
1/2
01
6
AS
MY
00
04
Asi
a
Mal
aysi
a
20
13
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
VN
00
01
Asi
a
Vie
tnam
Ov
eral
l
20
08
1/1
4/2
01
6
AS
VN
00
02
Asi
a
Vie
tnam
Ov
eral
l
20
04
2/2
/20
16
ME
SA
00
05
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Sau
di
Ara
bia
20
13
48
2/2
/20
16
ME
SA
00
05
Mid
dle
Eas
t
Sau
di
Ara
bia
20
13
5/2
8/2
01
6
OT
HR
00
07
Oth
er
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Ov
eral
l
80
00
pro
ject
s
19
94
49
The following table lays out the performance metrics found in each publication,
as identified by paper code, and who the paper states is the responsible party for the
overrun experienced by a project.
Per
form
ance
met
rics
Par
ty
Res
po
nsi
ble
[O]w
ner
,
[C]o
ntr
acto
r,
[D]e
sig
ner
,
[U]n
fore
seen
,
O[T
]her
Pap
er C
od
e
- In
20
04,
a
surv
ey o
n
20
0 p
riv
ate
and
154
pu
bli
c
ow
ner
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
th
eir
ov
eral
l
cust
om
er
sati
sfac
tio
n
rate
s w
ere
66
.4%
(3.3
2
ou
t o
f 5
) an
d
70
.8%
(3.5
4
ou
t o
f 5
)
resp
ecti
vel
y
-
EU
FI0
00
1
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
ab
ou
t
the
cau
ses
of
no
n-
per
form
ance
issu
es o
n 6
6
pro
ject
s in
Po
rtu
gal
ind
icat
ed
that
cli
ents
wer
e
awar
ded
th
at
they
wer
e th
e
cau
ses
of
no
n-
per
form
ance
issu
es.
-
EU
PT
00
01
- In
19
88,
a
surv
ey i
nd
icat
ed
that
cli
ents
an
d
con
trac
tors
did
no
t se
em t
o
agre
e v
ery
mu
ch
on
del
ay a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
fact
ors
(6
0%
agre
emen
t ra
te).
As
the
resu
lt,
ther
e w
ere
alw
ays
accu
sati
on
s an
d
cou
nte
r-
accu
sati
on
s
bet
wee
n t
he
two
as t
o w
ho
was
resp
on
sib
le f
or
del
ays
and
co
st
esca
lati
on
s.
-
AF
NG
00
01
- In
20
12,
a st
ud
y
sug
ges
ted
that
a
curr
ent
issu
e w
ith
del
ays
had
cau
sed
incr
ease
in
dis
pu
tes,
arb
itra
tio
n,
liti
gat
ion
,
del
ayin
g i
n
retu
rn
loan
s an
d
earn
s
pro
fits
fo
r
clie
nts
.
-
AF
TZ
00
01
- In
20
14,
Go
ver
nm
ents
acro
ss t
he
Gre
ater
To
ron
to A
rea
wer
e cu
rren
tly
un
der
tak
ing
a
per
iod
of
sust
ain
ed
infr
astr
uct
ure
dev
elo
pm
ent,
to m
ake
up
for
a lo
st
gen
erat
ion
of
inv
estm
ent
du
e
to o
ver
-bu
dg
et
issu
es i
n p
ast
pro
ject
s.
-
NA
CA
00
02
- In
20
13,
a
stu
dy
in
Ind
ia
ind
icat
ed
that
del
ay
issu
es h
ave
bee
n a
dd
ing
stre
ss t
o
pro
ject
par
tici
pan
ts
and
dec
reas
ing
cust
om
ers'
fait
h a
nd
tru
st.
-
AS
IN0
00
4
- In
20
09,
sch
edu
le
del
ays
had
bee
n a
sou
rce
of
gre
at
dis
tres
s to
bo
th o
wn
er
and
con
trac
tor.
-
AS
KR
00
0
50
- In
20
13,
the
issu
e
of
cost
ov
erru
n i
n
con
stru
ctio
n h
as
bec
om
e a
seri
ou
s
con
cern
to
inv
esto
rs.
-
AS
MY
00
0
- In
20
08,
Vie
tnam
's
Min
istr
y o
f
Pla
nn
ing
and
Inv
estm
ent
ack
no
wle
dg
e p
roje
ct
del
ays
and
cost
ov
erru
ns
pro
ble
ms
as
a b
ig
hea
dac
he,
esp
ecia
lly
wit
h
go
ver
nm
ent
-rel
ated
fun
ded
pro
ject
s
-
AS
VN
00
01
- In
20
04,
Po
rtu
gu
ese
con
stru
ctio
n
stak
eho
lder
s
hav
e w
idel
y
reco
gn
ized
a
sen
siti
ve
incr
ease
in
dis
pu
tes
and
con
trac
tual
clai
ms.
-
EU
PT
00
02
- In
20
06,
a
stu
dy
on
cust
om
er
sati
sfac
tio
n
in
con
stru
ctio
n
ind
ust
ry
ind
icat
ed
that
pu
bli
c
clie
nts
are
less
sat
isfi
ed
than
pri
vat
e
on
es.
-
EU
UK
00
03
- In
20
06,
a
surv
ey o
n 6
1
con
stru
ctio
n
clie
nts
fo
un
d
ou
t th
at t
hey
had
a
neg
ativ
e
sati
sfac
tio
n
mea
n w
hic
h
mea
ns
the
clie
nts
per
ceiv
ed
that
th
e
per
form
ance
they
rec
eiv
ed
was
no
t u
p t
o
thei
r
exp
ecta
tio
ns.
-
EU
UK
00
03
- In
20
00,
a
surv
ey o
n 4
8
pri
vat
e,3
7
pu
bli
c o
wn
ers,
and
53
con
trac
tors
ind
icat
ed t
hat
the
enti
re
serv
ice
off
ered
by
th
e
con
trac
tors
is
no
t sa
tisf
acto
ry
to m
ost
pro
ject
ow
ner
s.
Ad
dit
ion
ally
,
the
pu
bli
c
off
icia
ls h
ave
a
ver
y p
oo
r
sati
sfac
tio
n
reg
ard
ing
th
e
con
trac
tors
’
per
form
ance
and
hav
e th
e
mo
st
com
pla
ints
.
-
ME
JO0
00
1
- In
20
04,
a st
ud
y
on
450
pri
vat
e
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
po
inte
d o
ut
that
th
e
ow
ner
s'
dis
sati
sfac
tio
n w
ith
the
con
stru
ctio
n
may
be
infl
uen
ced
by
th
e
psy
cho
log
ical
an
d
irri
tati
on
('h
ead
ach
e')
fact
ors
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
th
e
imp
lem
enta
tio
n o
f
var
iou
s d
esig
n,
pro
cure
men
t an
d
imp
lem
enta
tio
n
ph
ases
of
the
pro
ject
, an
d n
ot
sole
ly a
fu
nct
ion
of
tim
e-d
elay
an
d/o
r
cost
in
crea
ses.
-
ME
KW
00
02
- In
20
06,
a
stu
dy
on
57
con
stru
ctio
n
par
tici
pan
ts a
nd
76
pro
ject
s
sug
ges
ted
ow
ner
s an
d
con
trac
tors
wer
e
dis
agre
ein
g
wit
h e
ach
oth
er
wh
en i
t ca
me
to
iden
tifi
cati
on
the
maj
or
sou
rce
of
del
ay
on
pro
ject
s.
Ag
reem
ent
deg
ree
bet
wee
n
ow
ner
s an
d
con
trac
tors
wer
e 5
6.8
%.
-
ME
SA
00
01
- In
20
13,
the
gro
win
g
rate
of
del
ays
in
pro
ject
del
iver
y i
s
con
sid
ered
a
maj
or
crit
icis
m o
f
the
con
stru
ctio
n
com
pan
ies
O
ME
AE
00
01
51
- In
20
10,
a st
ud
y o
n
hig
hw
ay
pro
ject
s
ind
icat
ed
that
co
st
ov
erru
ns
of
hig
hw
ay
pro
ject
s
hav
e a
seri
ou
s
imp
act
on
pro
gra
m
bu
dg
etin
g
fro
m t
he
vie
w o
f th
e
ow
ner
-
OC
AU
00
0
- In
20
15,
a st
ud
y o
n
49
ro
ads
and
bri
dg
es
pro
ject
s
rev
eale
d
that
10
0%
of
them
had
tim
e
ov
erru
n
issu
es a
nd
the
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
38
.88
%
O
ME
SA
00
0
- In
20
04,
a st
ud
y o
n
45
0 p
riv
ate
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
10
0%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d d
elay
and
th
e
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
6.4
%
C,O
,T
ME
KW
00
- In
20
16,
du
rin
g a
CII
An
nu
al
Co
nfe
ren
ce,
the
Pre
sid
ent
and
CO
O o
f
Bec
hte
l
Gro
up
esti
mat
ed
the
ind
ust
ry
has
bee
n
exp
erie
nci
ng
98
% c
ost
ov
erru
ns
or
del
ays,
an
d
80
% a
ver
age
cost
incr
ease
.
Av
erag
e 20
mo
nth
s
pro
ject
du
rati
on
del
ay
NA
US
00
07
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
on
66
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
var
yin
g i
n
nat
ure
sug
ges
ted
that
94
% o
f
thes
e
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ays
wit
h
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
40
%.
Als
o,
abo
ut
66
%
of
thes
e
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d
cost
ov
erru
ns
and
the
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
12
%
O,D
EU
PT
00
01
- In
20
12,
a
stu
dy
on
14
0
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a
fou
nd
ou
t
that
92
% o
f
them
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ay w
ith
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
7.5
%,
and
89
% o
f th
em
face
d c
ost
ov
erru
n
issu
es w
ith
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n r
ate
of
7.5
%
con
trac
t
pri
ce
D,O
,C
AS
MY
00
01
- In
20
06,
a
stu
dy
on
85
com
ple
ted
pro
ject
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
89
% o
f
them
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ays
and
the
del
ay
rate
was
mo
re t
han
20
%.
On
th
e
oth
er h
and
,
46
% o
f th
em
exp
erie
nce
d
cost
ov
erru
n
and
th
e co
st
ov
erru
n r
ate
was
mo
re
than
20
%.
-
AF
NG
00
07
- In
20
08,
a st
ud
y o
n
15
4 r
ail
and
ro
ad
pro
ject
s
com
ple
ted
bet
wee
n
19
85-2
00
1
fou
nd
ou
t
that
mo
re
than
88
.2%
of
them
wer
e
del
ayed
wit
h
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
27.5
%
O,U
AS
KR
00
0
- In
20
01,
a
surv
ey f
rom
72
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
fess
ion
als
sug
ges
ted
th
at
del
ays
occ
urr
ed
on
av
erag
e 85
%
of
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
.
O,C
AF
NG
00
03
52
- In
20
08,
a
case
stu
dy
on
28
infr
astr
uct
ure
and
bu
ild
ing
pro
ject
s
rev
eale
d t
hat
82
% o
f th
ese
pro
ject
s h
ad
tim
e o
ver
run
issu
es w
ith
an
aver
age
del
ay
rate
of
38
%
O,T
,D
ME
KW
00
01
- In
20
00 a
stu
dy
of
13
0
pro
ject
s
wer
e
con
du
cted
and
it
is
fou
nd
th
at
Th
e o
ver
all
del
ays
wer
e
in 1
06
ou
t
of
130
(81
.5%
)
pro
ject
s.
O,C
,D
ME
JO0
00
1
- In
20
12,
a st
ud
y
on
359
pro
ject
s
com
ple
ted
bet
wee
n
19
94
- 2
00
5
var
yin
g i
n s
ize,
pro
cure
men
t
met
ho
ds,
and
th
e
nat
ure
of
wo
rks.
Th
e fi
nd
ing
s w
ere
that
54
.6%
of
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d c
ost
ov
erru
n a
nd
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n r
ate
in
thes
e p
roje
cts
was
2.0
8%
; 7
7.7
% o
f
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d t
ime
del
ay a
nd a
ver
age
del
ay w
as 4
9.7
1%
-
AS
MY
00
02
- in
200
6,
a
stu
dy
on
57
con
stru
ctio
n
par
tici
pan
ts
and
76
pro
ject
s
sug
ges
ted
that
70
% o
f
thes
e
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ays
and
the
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
20
%
O,C
,D,O
ME
SA
00
01
- D
uri
ng
19
70
-
19
99
, o
ut
of
47
gro
un
dw
ater
pro
ject
s, 3
3 (
70
%)
wer
e d
elay
ed a
nd
38
(80
%)
wer
e
ov
erru
ns
in b
ud
get
O,
C,
U
AF
GH
00
01
- In
19
99
Go
ver
nm
e
nt
surv
ey,
pu
bli
c
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d d
elay
s in
70
% o
f
them
an
d
cost
ov
erru
n i
n
73
% o
f
them
.
-
EU
UK
00
0
- In
20
11,
a
stu
dy
on
30
stat
e
pro
ject
s h
ad
iden
tifi
ed
that
60
% o
f
thes
e
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ay m
ore
than
10
% o
f
ori
gin
al
du
rati
on
.
Av
erag
e
del
ay r
ate
was
23
.7%
.
O,C
,T
AS
MY
00
08
- In
20
12,
a
stu
dy
con
du
cted
by
Infr
astr
uct
ure
and
Pro
ject
Mo
nit
ori
ng
Div
isio
n o
f
Min
istr
y o
f
Sta
tist
ics
and
Pro
gra
mm
e
Imp
lem
enta
ti
on
rep
ort
ed
that
ou
t o
f
20
5 o
ng
oin
g
pro
ject
s, 5
7%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d
tim
e o
ver
run
.
Th
e av
erag
e
cost
ov
erru
n
was
18
.1%
-
AS
IN0
00
3
- In
20
12,
a
surv
ey o
n
60
con
stru
ctio
n
par
tici
pan
ts
fou
nd
ou
t
that
mo
re
than
56
% o
f
thei
r
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d
del
ays
D,O
,T,C
AF
TZ
00
01
53
- in
201
2,
the
Min
istr
y
of
Sta
tist
ics
and
Pro
gra
mm
e
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n i
n I
nd
ia
rep
ort
ed
that
ou
t o
f
95
1 p
roje
cts
that
th
ey
had
bee
n
loo
kin
g a
t,
32
.5%
of
them
had
cost
ov
erru
ns,
and
49.8
%
of
them
wer
e b
ehin
d
sch
edu
le
O,C
,D
AS
IN0
00
1
- In
20
04,
Min
istr
y o
f
Sta
tist
ics
and
Pro
gra
m
Imp
lem
enta
t
ion
(MO
SP
I)
sug
ges
ted
that
ou
t o
f
64
6 c
entr
al
sect
or
pro
ject
s th
at
they
are
trac
kin
g,
40
% o
f th
em
wer
e
del
ayed
and
the
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
40
.23
%.
-
AS
IN0
00
5
Co
ntr
acto
rs’
dat
a re
late
d t
o
the
12
6 p
ub
lic
pro
ject
s th
ey
had
und
erta
ken
ind
icat
ed t
hat
thes
e w
ere
com
ple
ted
wit
h
an a
ver
age
del
ay o
f
34
.60
% o
ver
the
aver
age
esti
mat
ed
pro
ject
du
rati
on
. T
he
dat
a o
bta
ined
fro
m p
ub
lic
agen
cies
resu
lted
in
an
aver
age
del
ay
of
43.6
5%
in
the
25
8 p
roje
cts
they
had
con
trac
ted
ou
t.
ME
TR
00
01
- In
20
15,
a st
ud
y o
n
40
pub
lic
pro
ject
s in
the
last
3 y
ears
rep
ort
ed t
hat
38
% o
f
them
wer
en't
com
ple
ted
wit
hin
th
e
pla
nn
ed t
ime.
C,T
ME
OM
00
02
- In
20
10,
a
surv
ey o
n
11
0
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
fess
ion
als
sug
ges
ted
that
a
maj
ori
ty o
f
them
exp
erie
nce
d
tim
e an
d c
ost
ov
erru
n i
n
mo
re t
han
10
% o
f th
eir
pro
ject
s
D,U
,O,T
EU
UK
00
04
- In
20
02,
a st
ud
y o
n
61
pro
ject
s
com
ple
ted
bet
wee
n
19
90
an
d
19
99
esti
mat
ed
that
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
for
thes
e
pro
ject
s
was
92
.6%
and
aver
age
bu
dg
et
ov
erru
n
rate
was
17
.3%
.
-
AF
NG
00
0
- In
20
05,
a
stu
dy
on
25
rail
way
pro
ject
s
com
ple
ted
du
rin
g 1
99
8-
20
02
sug
ges
ted
that
th
ese
pro
ject
s h
ad
an a
ver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
85
% a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
of
25
%
of
the
init
ial
con
trac
t
du
rati
on
an
d
val
ue
resp
ecti
vel
y
-
EU
PT
00
02
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
fro
m
20
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
fro
m I
nd
ia
rep
ort
ed t
hat
thei
r
aver
age
del
ay a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
s w
ere
55
.7%
and
26
.1%
resp
ecti
vel
y
O,T
OT
HR
00
02
54
- In
20
14,
a
stu
dy
on
26
6
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s o
f
Un
iver
sity
of
Min
nes
ota
rep
ort
ed t
hat
thes
e p
roje
cts
had
an
av
erag
e
del
ay r
ate
of
48
.9%
and
co
st
ov
erru
n r
ate
of
3.2
%
O
NA
US
00
02
- In
20
13,
a st
ud
y o
n
30
pro
ject
s
sin
ce 2
00
7
ind
icat
ed
that
th
ey
hav
e an
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
46.5
%
O
AF
UG
00
0
- In
19
85,
a
stu
dy
on
38
4
pro
ject
s w
ith
dif
fere
nt
nat
ure
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
th
ese
pro
ject
s h
ad
an a
ver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
40
% a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
of
44
%
U,T
EU
TR
00
01
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
fro
m
31
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
fro
m
Ban
gla
des
h
rep
ort
ed
that
th
eir
aver
age
del
ay a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
s w
ere
34
.4%
and
8.4
%
resp
ecti
vel
y
O,T
OT
HR
00
02
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
fro
m
19
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
fro
m
Th
aila
nd
rep
ort
ed t
hat
thei
r
aver
age
del
ay a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
s w
ere
32
.7%
and
25
%
resp
ecti
vel
y
O,T
OT
HR
00
02
- In
20
02,
an
inv
esti
gat
i
on
on 1
50
hig
hw
ay
pro
ject
s in
Flo
rid
a
sug
ges
ted
that
th
e
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
25
%
and
th
e
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
2.1
%.
U,D
,O
NA
US
00
0
- In
20
12,
a
surv
ey w
ith
80
con
trac
tors
and
con
sult
ants
ind
icat
ed
that
70
% o
f
them
exp
erie
nce
d
an a
ver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
20
% i
n t
hei
r
pro
ject
s
T,O
,U
ME
PS
00
02
- In
20
07,
a
stu
dy
fro
m
30
pub
lic
pro
ject
s
fro
m C
hin
a
rep
ort
ed t
hat
thei
r
aver
age
del
ay a
nd
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
s w
ere
13
.6%
and
5.4
%
resp
ecti
vel
y
O,T
OT
HR
00
02
- In
20
13,
a
surv
ey o
n 2
5
con
sult
ants
fou
nd
ou
t th
at
they
exp
erie
nce
d
cost
ov
erru
n i
n
10
0%
of
thei
r
pro
ject
s an
d t
he
aver
age
ov
erru
n
rate
was
20
%.
U,T
ME
PS
00
03
55
67
ou
t o
f 7
0,
(95
.7%
),
pu
bli
c
bu
ild
ing
pro
ject
s
inv
esti
gat
ed
in t
he
rese
arch
suff
ered
co
st
ov
erru
n i
n
thei
r
exec
uti
on
.
Fo
r th
ese
pu
bli
c
bu
ild
ing
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s, t
he
aver
age
actu
al c
ost
ov
erru
n w
as
63
%.
AF
ET
00
01
- In
20
04,
a st
ud
y o
n
45
0 p
riv
ate
ho
usi
ng
pro
ject
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
mo
re
than
71
%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d c
ost
ov
erru
n
and
th
e
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
1%
C,O
,T
ME
KW
00
- In
20
13,
a st
ud
y o
n
30
pro
ject
s
sin
ce 2
00
7
ind
icat
ed
that
53
%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d c
ost
ov
erru
ns,
wit
h
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
of
16
.2%
O
AF
UG
00
0
- In
20
04,
a st
ud
y o
n
62
0 r
oad
pro
ject
s
fro
m 1
99
2-
19
95
fou
nd
ou
t
that
52
.42
% o
f
thes
e
pro
ject
s
exp
erie
nce
d c
ost
ov
erru
n
issu
es a
nd
the
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
25
%
EU
NO
00
0
Du
rin
g
20
04-2
00
8,
16
9 r
oad
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
wer
e
anal
yze
d
and
it
was
fou
nd
ou
t
that
24
% o
f
them
exp
erie
nce
d
cost
ov
erru
n
issu
es a
nd
the
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
14
.6%
ME
PS
00
05
- In
19
98,
the
clo
sin
g
of
EX
PO
98
pro
ject
s
rev
eale
d
that
co
st
ov
erru
ns
aver
aged
as m
uch
as
41
%
D,O
EU
PT
00
01
- D
uri
ng
19
85-
19
95
, 2
6
maj
or
mo
torw
ay
pro
ject
s in
the
cou
ntr
y
reac
hed
39
%
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
O,D
EU
PT
00
01
- In
20
09,
an a
nal
ysi
s
on
29
med
ium
-
size
d
pro
ject
s
($5
0M
-
$1
B)
fou
nd
ou
t
that
th
e
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
was
32
.5%
.
-
AS
KR
00
0
- In
20
03,
a
stu
dy
on
25
8
tran
spo
rtat
ion
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
sug
ges
ted
th
at
the
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
fo
r th
ese
pro
ject
s w
as
28
%
-
OT
HR
00
03
- In
20
08,
a su
rvey
wit
h 2
5
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
fess
ion
als
sug
ges
ted
th
at
alm
ost
ev
ery
pro
ject
in
th
e lo
cal
ind
ust
ry f
aced
co
st
ov
erru
n i
ssu
e w
ith
aver
age
rate
at
abo
ut
25
%
U,O
,D,T
ME
PK
00
01
56
- In
20
02,
a
stu
dy
on
78
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s in
Net
her
lan
ds
ind
icat
ed t
hat
tho
se
pro
ject
s h
ad
an a
ver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
of
16
.5%
EU
NL
00
01
- In
20
10,
a st
ud
y o
n 4
dif
fere
nt
pu
bli
c
pro
ject
s in
dic
ated
th
at
10
0%
of
thes
e
pro
ject
s ex
per
ien
ced
del
ays
and
th
e
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
was
21
% (
excl
ud
ing
1
ou
tlie
r).
Als
o,
75
% o
f
them
ex
per
ien
ced
co
st
ov
erru
n i
ssu
es w
ith
an
aver
age
cost
ov
erru
n
rate
of
16
.5%
(ex
clu
din
g 1
ou
tlie
r)
O,T
ME
OM
00
01
- In
20
09,
an
anal
ysi
s o
n 7
meg
a
pro
ject
s
(ov
er $
1B
)
com
ple
ted
in
20
00
s fo
und
ou
t th
at
10
0%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d
cost
ov
erru
n
and
th
e
aver
age
ov
erru
n r
ate
was
12
2.4
%.
Als
o,
10
0%
of
them
exp
erie
nce
d
sch
edu
le
del
ays
and
the
aver
age
tim
e d
elay
s
was
3.6
yea
rs
O,C
,U,T
AS
KR
00
02
- In
20
02,
a
stu
dy
on
4
env
iro
nm
ent
al a
nd
eng
inee
ring
serv
ices
fo
r
road
way
con
stru
ctio
n
has
fo
und
ou
t th
at
thes
e
pro
ject
s h
ad
an a
ver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
69
% a
nd
aver
age
bu
dg
et
ov
erru
n r
ate
of
24.8
%
NA
US
00
05
- In
19
94,
a st
ud
y
on
9 h
igh
way
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
in o
rder
to
fo
reca
st
the
effe
ct o
f
pro
ject
del
ay a
nd
cost
esc
alat
ion
sug
ges
ted
th
ese
pro
ject
s h
ave
an
aver
age
del
ay r
ate
of
188
% a
nd
aver
age
bu
dg
et
ov
erru
n r
ate
of
14
%.
U,D
,O,C
AF
NG
00
02
- In
20
13,
a st
ud
y o
n 9
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
fou
nd
ou
t th
at o
nly
78
% o
f th
em w
ere
del
ayed
and
22
% o
f
them
had
co
st o
ver
run
issu
es.
AF
KE
00
01
- In
19
92,
a st
ud
y o
n
9 p
roje
cts
wit
h t
ota
l
bu
dg
et o
f
$1
.2B
ind
icat
ed
that
rew
ork
cou
ld t
ake
up
to
12
.4%
of
pro
ject
cost
s
D
NA
US
00
0
- In
20
05,
rese
arch
con
du
cted
by
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ind
ust
ry
Inst
itu
te
rep
ort
ed t
hat
aver
age
dir
ect
cost
s
cau
sed
by
rew
ork
are
5%
of
con
stru
ctio
n
cost
s
O,D
OT
HR
00
01
57
- In
20
02,
a
stu
dy
on
7
pro
ject
s in
Sw
eden
fou
nd
ou
t
that
av
erag
e
dir
ect
cost
of
rew
ork
was
4.4
% o
f
con
stru
ctio
n
val
ues
D,C
EU
SE
00
01
- In
20
13,
a
con
stru
ctio
n
exp
ert
esti
mat
ed
the
dir
ect
cost
of
rew
ork
in
UK
was
5%
of
con
stru
ctio
n
val
ue
(aro
und
£2
B)
D
EU
UK
00
01
- In
20
10,
a
rese
arch
on
11
5 c
ivil
infr
astr
uct
ure
pro
ject
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
av
erag
e
rew
ork
co
st
is 1
0%
of
pro
ject
's
con
trac
t
val
ue
-
OC
AU
00
04
- In
20
02,
a
rese
arch
on
16
1
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
rew
ork
con
trib
ute
d
to 5
2%
of
a
pro
ject
's
cost
gro
wth
.
Dir
ect
and
ind
irec
t
rew
ork
co
sts
fou
nd
wer
e
6.4
% a
nd
5.6
% o
f
ori
gin
al
con
trac
t
val
ue
resp
ecti
vel
y
O
OC
AU
00
01
- in
200
0,
a
rese
arch
on
2
pro
ject
, 12
M
and
4.8
M
bu
dg
et, fo
un
d
ou
t th
at t
hey
had
dir
ect
rew
ork
co
sts
of
3.1
5%
and
2.4
% o
f to
tal
bu
dg
et
resp
ecti
vel
y
O
OC
AU
00
03
- In
20
03,
a re
sear
ch
on
a
resi
den
tial
and
a
war
eho
use
pro
ject
wit
h t
ota
l
bu
dg
et o
f
$1
5M
fou
nd
ou
t
that
rew
ork
cost
s w
ere
abo
ut
2.3
% o
f
the
bu
dg
et
O,D
OC
AU
00
0
- In
20
05,
rese
arch
con
du
cted
by
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ind
ust
ry
Inst
itu
te
rep
ort
ed t
hat
aver
age
dir
ect
cost
s
cau
sed
by
rew
ork
are
5%
of
con
stru
ctio
n
cost
s
D
OT
HR
00
01
- In
19
88,
this
pap
er a
ssu
med
po
or
per
form
ance
in
term
s o
f co
sts
in c
on
stru
ctio
n
ind
ust
ry i
n
Nig
eria
wit
h n
o
met
rics
an
d
atte
mp
ted
to
iden
tify
th
e
cau
ses
U,D
,O,C
AF
NG
00
01
- In
20
10,
a st
ud
y
on
53
tele
com
mu
nic
atio
n
pro
ject
s in
Nig
eria
atte
mp
ted
to
iden
tify
th
e ca
use
s
of
cost
ov
erru
n
issu
es i
n t
hes
e
pro
ject
s (n
o
met
rics
)
O,D
,T,U
AF
NG
00
04
58
- In
20
12,
a
stu
dy
on
14
0
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s in
Mal
aysi
a
po
inte
d o
ut
that
sco
pe
chan
ges
and
poo
r
pla
nn
ing s
tag
e
wer
e th
e se
con
d
maj
or
fact
or
that
cau
sed
po
or
per
form
ance
in
tim
e an
d c
ost
and
th
is f
acto
r
con
seq
uen
tly
led
to
maj
or
chan
ges
an
d
rew
ork
in
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s.
O,C
AS
MY
00
01
no
met
rics
C
AS
MY
00
04
- In
20
08,
a st
ud
y
assu
med
co
st a
nd
del
ay i
ssu
es i
n
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
cts
in V
ietn
am (
no
met
rics
) an
d
atte
mp
ted
to
fin
d t
he
cau
ses
by
su
rvey
ing
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
fess
ion
al
O,C
,D,U
AS
VN
00
01
- In
20
04,
a
stu
dy
assu
med
cost
an
d
del
ay i
ssu
es
in
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s in
Vie
tnam
(n
o
met
rics
) an
d
atte
mp
ted
to
fin
d t
he
cau
ses
by
surv
eyin
g
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
fess
ion
al
O,C
,D,U
AS
VN
00
02
- In
20
13,
use
d m
etri
cs
fro
m
ME
SA
00
01
O,C
,T,D
ME
SA
00
05
- In
20
13,
a
surv
ey o
n
25
pub
lic
ow
ner
s
fou
nd
ou
t
that
rew
ork
was
on
e o
f
the
top
con
trib
uto
rs
in p
roje
ct
del
ays.
-
ME
SA
00
05
- In
19
94,
a
stu
dy
of
mo
re
than
800
0
pro
ject
s
con
du
cted
by
the
Sta
nd
ish
Gro
up
fo
und
that
on
ly 1
6
per
cen
t w
ere
able
to
sat
isfy
the
fam
ou
s
trip
le
con
stra
ints
of
pro
ject
man
agem
ent:
to g
et t
he
job
do
ne
on
tim
e,
wit
hin
bu
dg
et, an
d
acco
rdin
g t
o
spec
ific
atio
ns
-
OT
HR
00
07
59
The following table displays the documented issues reported in each publication,
as identified by paper code, and the empirical evidence supporting a responsible party for
the issue.
Em
pir
ical
Ev
iden
ce t
o
Su
pp
ort
Par
ty
Res
po
nsi
ble
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Issu
es R
aw
Pap
er C
od
e
"Acc
ord
ing
to
th
is
surv
ey,
a co
mm
on
feat
ure
of
the
low
sati
sfac
tio
n i
tem
s is
th
at
they
co
me
ou
t in
lat
er
ph
ases
of
the
con
stru
ctio
n p
roje
ct.
Th
is
resu
lt c
ou
ld i
nd
icat
e th
at
the
con
trac
tor
and
cust
om
er h
ave
no
t
pla
nn
ed t
he
com
ple
tio
n
stag
e, o
r th
at i
t h
as b
een
po
orl
y d
esig
ned
"
EU
FI0
00
1
Tab
le 4
: T
op
5 d
elay
fact
ors
: C
han
ge
ord
ers,
Lac
k o
f
cap
abil
ity
of
clie
nt
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e, S
low
dec
isio
n m
akin
g b
y
clie
nt,
Lac
k o
f
exp
erie
nce
of
clie
nt
in c
on
stru
ctio
n,
Po
or
site
man
agem
ent.
To
p 4
cau
ses
are
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
Cli
ent.
ME
AE
00
01
Tab
le 6
:
Res
po
nsi
bil
ity
per
cen
tag
e o
f th
e
cau
ses
of
each
par
ty:
1.
Ow
ner
(53
%)
2.
Co
ntr
acto
r
(27
%)
3.
Co
nsu
ltan
t (1
%)
4.
Oth
er
stak
eho
lder
s
(19
%)
Ow
ner
's r
isk
fact
ors
: 1
. la
nd
acq
uis
itio
n 2
.
Re-
des
ign
ing
3.
Lin
e se
rvic
es
(uti
liti
es a
nd
un
der
gro
un
d
serv
ices
) 4
.
var
iati
on
s in
esti
mat
ing
qu
anti
ties
bet
wee
n
des
ign
er a
nd
GC
ME
SA
00
02
3 m
ost
freq
uen
tly
ob
serv
ed
fact
ors
:
Co
ntr
acto
r-
rela
ted
(2
5%
),
ow
ner
s'
fin
anci
al
dif
ficu
ltie
s
(22
%),
lab
or-
rela
ted
(1
3%
)
ME
KW
00
02
Fig
ure
422
.6:
Maj
or
cau
ses
of
del
ays:
Cli
ent
and
des
ign
resp
on
sib
ilit
y.
Fig
ure
422
.13
:
Maj
or
cau
ses
of
cost
ov
erru
ns:
Des
ign
err
ors
,
dir
ect
chan
ge
ord
ers,
dif
fere
nt
site
co
nd
itio
ns
EU
PT
00
01
60
Tab
le 3
:
Maj
or
cau
ses:
1.
Des
ign
an
d
do
cum
enta
tio
n i
ssu
es 2
.
Del
ay i
n
pay
men
t fo
r
com
ple
ted
wo
rks
3.
Sco
pe
chan
ge
and
poo
r
pla
nn
ing
AS
MY
00
01
Tab
le 3
: 1
.
Ch
ang
es i
n
pro
ject
sco
pe
2.
Del
ay i
n
con
stru
ctio
n 3
.
Po
or
esti
mat
ion
and
ad
just
men
t
of
cost
(lo
w
bid
) 4
. N
o
pra
ctic
al u
se o
f
earn
ed v
alu
e
man
agem
ent
syst
em
AS
KR
00
01
Fig
. 2
Cli
ents
wer
e
resp
on
sib
le f
or
62
% o
f d
elay
s,
Co
ntr
acto
rs w
ere
resp
on
sib
le
for
32
%,
and
oth
er f
acto
rs
wer
e re
spo
nsi
ble
for
6%
.
Cli
ent:
ref
usa
l to
pay
for
mat
eria
ls f
luct
uat
ion
s,
wro
ng
ful
and
ab
rup
t
term
inat
ion
of
the
con
trac
t
bec
ause
of
self
ish
nes
s/g
reed
,
go
ver
nm
ent
po
lici
es a
nd
inst
abil
ity
in
th
e sy
stem
, n
ot
ho
nori
ng
pay
men
t ce
rtif
icat
es
for
com
ple
ted
wo
rks
as a
nd
wh
en d
ue.
Co
ntr
acto
r: i
nco
mp
eten
ce,
del
ays
in c
arry
ing
ou
t
inst
ruct
ion
s o
n s
ites
, p
oo
r
pro
ject
su
per
vis
ion
, st
rik
es b
y
wo
rker
s fo
r im
pro
ved
con
dit
ion
s of
serv
ice.
AF
NG
00
03
Tab
le 7
: M
ost
occ
urr
ed r
isk
fact
ors
: 1
. C
lien
t in
du
ced
add
itio
nal
wo
rk b
eyo
nd t
he
ori
gin
al s
cop
e (8
7%
of
pro
ject
s) 2
. D
elay
s in
go
ver
nm
ent
app
rov
als/
per
mit
s
rela
ted
to
pro
ject
s (7
8%
) 3.
Del
ay i
n p
rep
arat
ion
an
d
app
rov
al i
n v
aria
tio
n o
rder
s
(74
%)
4. C
han
ged
en
gin
eeri
ng
con
dit
ion
s fr
om
th
e co
ntr
act
do
cum
ent
(65
%)
ME
KW
00
01
Tab
le 1
: T
he
maj
or
cau
ses
iden
tifi
ed
wer
e: p
oo
r
des
ign
, ch
ang
e
ord
ers,
wea
ther
, si
te
con
dit
ion
s,
late
del
iver
y,
eco
no
mic
con
dit
ion
s an
d
incr
ease
in
qu
anti
ty.
ME
JO0
00
1
Tab
le 7
: 5
maj
or
sou
rces
of
del
ays:
1.
Ow
ner
2.
Co
ntr
acto
r
3.
Des
ign
team
4.
Lab
or
5.
Co
nsu
ltan
t
ME
SA
00
01
61
Su
rvey
ran
kin
gs
of
maj
or
fact
ors
res
po
nsi
ble
fo
r pro
ject
del
ays
and
co
st o
ver
run
s
acco
rdin
g t
o c
on
trac
tors
,
con
sult
ants
, an
d o
wn
ers:
1.
Mo
nth
ly p
aym
ent
dif
ficu
ltie
s 2
. P
oo
r co
ntr
act
man
agem
ent
3.
Mat
eria
l
pro
cure
men
t 4.
Infl
atio
n 5
.
Co
ntr
acto
r's
fin
anci
al
dif
ficu
ltie
s (n
ot
agre
ed b
y a
ll
3 g
rou
ps)
6.
Esc
alat
ion
of
mat
eria
l p
rice
s
AF
GH
00
01
Tab
le 4
: T
op
5 d
elay
cau
se:
Pra
ctic
e o
f
assi
gn
ing
co
ntr
act
to
low
est
bid
der
,
Co
ntr
acto
r's
po
or
site
man
agem
ent,
Cas
h f
low
and
fin
anci
al d
iffi
cult
ies
face
d b
y c
on
trac
tors
,
Inef
fect
ive
pla
nn
ing
an
d
sch
edu
lin
g b
y
con
trac
tors
, P
rob
lem
s
wit
h s
ub
con
trac
tors
AS
MY
00
08
Tab
le 2
: T
op
5
del
ay c
ause
s: 1
.
des
ign
ch
ang
es
2.
Del
ay i
n
pay
men
ts t
o
con
trac
tors
3.
Info
rmat
ion
del
ays
4.
Fu
nd
ing
pro
ble
ms
5.
po
or
pro
ject
man
agem
ent
AF
TZ
00
01
Tab
le 4
: T
op
5
fact
ors
of
no
n-
per
form
ance
: 1
. la
ck
of
com
mit
men
t fr
om
ow
ner
s an
d
con
trac
tors
2.
Inef
fici
ent
site
man
agem
ent
3.
Po
or
site
co
nd
itio
n 4
.
Imp
rop
er p
lan
nin
g 5
.
lack
of
clar
ity
in
pro
ject
sco
pe
AS
IN0
00
1
Sev
en m
ajo
r fa
cto
rs a
re r
espon
sib
le f
or
pro
ject
del
ay:
(1)
po
or
site
man
agem
ent
and
su
per
vis
ion
by
con
trac
tors
, (2
) pro
ble
ms
wit
h
sub
con
trac
tors
, (3
) in
adeq
uat
e p
lan
nin
g
and
sch
edu
ling
of
pro
ject
s b
y
con
trac
tors
, (4
) po
or
man
agem
ent
of
con
trac
tors
’ sc
hed
ule
s, (
5)
del
ay i
n
del
iver
y o
f m
ater
ials
, (6
) la
ck o
f
effe
ctiv
e co
mm
un
icat
ion
am
on
g
pro
ject
sta
keh
old
ers,
an
d (
7)
po
or
inte
ract
ion
wit
h v
end
ors
in
th
e
eng
inee
ring
an
d p
rocu
rem
ent
stag
es.
ME
OM
00
02
62
Co
ncl
usi
on
s: T
op
5
fact
ors
in
hib
itin
g t
ime
and
co
st c
on
tro
l p
ract
ice
in U
K w
as r
evea
led
as
1.
Des
ign
ch
ang
es 2
. R
isk
s
and
unce
rtai
nti
es 3
.
Inac
cura
te e
val
uat
ion
of
pro
ject
tim
e /
dura
tio
n 4
.
Co
mp
lex
ity
of
wo
rks
5.
No
n-p
erfo
rman
ce o
f
sub
con
trac
tors
EU
UK
00
04
Tab
le 2
: T
op
3
reas
on
s th
at
acco
un
ted
fo
r
del
ay:
1.
Len
gth
y
pro
cedu
re f
or
con
trac
t
eval
uat
ion
and
awar
d 2
.
Pro
cure
men
t
del
ay 3
. C
ivil
wo
rks
and
lan
d
acq
uis
itio
n d
elay
OT
HR
00
02
Tab
le I
I: C
ost
im
pac
ts d
uri
ng
20
05-2
01
1:
Imp
act
by c
lien
t
was
56
.57
% o
f to
tal
cost
ov
erru
n w
hil
e th
e n
ext
big
ges
t im
pac
t w
as
Un
fore
seen
(1
8.7
%).
Tab
le
III:
Sch
edu
le i
mp
acts
du
ring
20
05-2
01
1:
2 l
arg
est
imp
acts
wer
e C
lien
t (3
7.7
9%
) an
d
Oth
er (
23
.77
%),
th
e 3
rd
larg
est
imp
act
was
Des
ign
wh
ich
was
on
ly 1
0.8
6%
NA
US
00
02
Pag
e 4
4:
del
ays
wer
e
mo
st
freq
uen
tly
cau
sed
by
chan
ges
in
th
e
wo
rk s
cop
e
(46
%).
Th
e
seco
nd
mo
st
freq
uen
t ca
use
was
del
ayed
pay
men
ts
(21
%).
AF
UG
00
01
Tab
le 3
: T
op
4 f
acto
rs
that
mad
e up
of
71
.34
%
rela
tiv
e w
eig
hts
fo
r co
st
ov
erru
ns:
1.
Incr
ease
in
mat
eria
l p
rice
s (2
3.0
8%
)
2.
infl
atio
n (
21.8
4%
) 3
.
Dif
ficu
ltie
s in
ob
tain
ing
con
stru
ctio
n m
ater
ials
at
off
icia
l cu
rren
t p
rice
s
(13
.63
%)
4.
Rea
son
s th
at
yie
ld c
on
stru
ctio
n d
elay
s
(12
.79
%)
EU
TR
00
01
Tab
le 2
: T
op
3
reas
on
s th
at
acco
un
ted
fo
r d
elay
:
1.
Len
gth
y
pro
cedu
re f
or
con
trac
t ev
alu
atio
n
and
aw
ard
2.
Pro
cure
men
t d
elay
3.
Civ
il w
ork
s an
d
lan
d a
cqu
isit
ion
del
ay
OT
HR
00
02
63
Tab
le 2
: T
op
3
reas
on
s th
at
acco
un
ted
fo
r d
elay
:
1.
Len
gth
y
pro
cedu
re f
or
con
trac
t ev
alu
atio
n
and
aw
ard
2.
Pro
cure
men
t d
elay
3.
Civ
il w
ork
s an
d
lan
d a
cqu
isit
ion
del
ay
OT
HR
00
02
Tab
le 3
: T
op
4
reas
on
s th
at
resu
ltin
g t
he
mo
st
add
itio
nal
tim
e: 1
.
Su
bsu
rfac
e
con
dit
ion
s 2
.
Arc
hit
ectu
ral
feat
ure
rel
ated
iss
ue
3.
Des
ign
Sta
nd
ard
/
Sp
ec c
han
ge
4.
Lo
cal
go
ver
nm
ent
agre
emen
t
mo
dif
icat
ion
NA
US
00
04
Tab
le 1
4:
To
p 5
del
ay
cau
ses
and
rel
ated
gro
up
s:
1.
Po
liti
cal
situ
atio
n
(Ex
tern
al)
2.
Seg
men
tati
on
of
the
Wes
t B
ank
an
d
lim
ited
mo
vem
ent
bet
wee
n
area
s (E
xte
rnal
) 3
. A
war
d
pro
ject
to
lo
wes
t b
id p
rice
(Pro
ject
) 4
. P
rog
ress
pay
men
t d
elay
by
ow
ner
(Ow
ner
) 5
. S
ho
rtag
e o
f
equ
ipm
ent
(Mat
eria
ls)
ME
PS
00
02
Tab
le 2
: T
op
3
reas
on
s th
at
acco
un
ted
fo
r
del
ay:
1.
Len
gth
y
pro
cedu
re f
or
con
trac
t
eval
uat
ion
and
awar
d 2
.
Pro
cure
men
t
del
ay 3
. C
ivil
wo
rks
and
lan
d
acq
uis
itio
n d
elay
OT
HR
00
02
Tab
le 1
0:
Red
zon
e fa
ctors
and
th
eir
rela
ted
gro
up
s: 1
.
Po
liti
cal
situ
atio
n 2
.
Flu
ctu
atio
n o
f p
rice
s o
f
mat
eria
ls 3
. E
con
om
ic
inst
abil
ity
4.
Cu
rren
cy
exch
ang
e 5
. L
evel
of
com
pet
ito
rs 6
. N
um
ber
of
com
pet
ito
rs 7
. P
rev
iou
s
exp
erie
nce
of
con
trac
t 8
.
Pro
ject
fin
anci
ng 9
.
Infl
atio
nar
y p
ress
ure
10
.
Co
ntr
act
man
agem
ent
ME
PS
00
03
3 m
ain
reas
on
s:
Co
ntr
acto
r-
rela
ted
(25
%),
ow
ner
s'
inex
per
ien
ce
in
con
stru
ctio
n
(22
%),
mat
eria
l-
rela
ted
(1
3%
)
ME
KW
00
02
64
Pag
e 4
3:
Eig
hty
-fo
ur
per
cen
t of
the
cost
ov
erru
ns
wer
e ca
use
d
by
ch
ang
e in
wo
rk
sco
pes
.
AF
UG
00
01
Pag
e 1
25
3:
[co
st
ov
erru
n]
du
e to
des
ign
err
ors
,
om
issi
on
s an
d
inap
pro
pri
ate
op
tio
ns,
in
adeq
uat
e
con
trac
t sy
stem
s
(un
it p
rice
an
d
dir
ect
awar
din
g),
pre
miu
m c
lau
ses,
late
sit
e d
isp
osa
l
and
dir
ect
and
card
inal
ch
ang
es
EU
PT
00
01
Pag
e 1
25
3:
[co
st
ov
erru
n]
du
e to
inco
mp
lete
des
ign
at
the
pro
cure
men
t
ph
ase,
def
icie
nt
con
trac
t d
ocu
men
ts,
card
inal
ch
ang
es d
ue
to t
he
chan
ge
of
sco
pe,
dir
ect
chan
ges
, d
iffe
ren
t
site
co
nd
itio
ns
and
del
ayed
sit
e d
isp
osa
l
EU
PT
00
01
Tab
le 1
: T
op
10 c
ost
ov
erru
n f
acto
rs:
1.
Flu
ctu
atio
n i
n p
rice
s o
f ra
w
mat
eria
ls 2
. U
nst
able
co
st o
f
man
ufa
cture
d m
ater
ials
3.
Hig
h c
ost
of
mac
hin
erie
s 4
. L
ow
est
bid
din
g
pro
cure
men
t m
etho
d 5
. P
oo
r pro
ject
(sit
e) m
anag
emen
t/ P
oor
cost
co
ntr
ol
6.
Lo
ng
per
iod
bet
wee
n d
esig
n a
nd
tim
e o
f b
idd
ing
/ten
der
ing
7. W
ron
g
met
ho
d o
f co
st e
stim
atio
n 8
.
Ad
dit
ion
al w
ork
9.
Imp
rop
er p
lan
nin
g
10
. In
app
rop
riat
e g
ov
ern
men
t p
oli
cies
ME
PK
00
01
Tab
le 8
: 5
maj
or
sourc
es o
f d
elay
and
co
st o
ver
run
in
Om
an:
1.
Ow
ner
in
stru
cts
add
itio
nal
work
s 2
.
Ow
ner
in
stru
cts
mo
dif
icat
ion
to
des
ign
3.
No a
vai
lab
ilit
y o
f
con
stru
ctio
n m
anu
als
and
pro
cedu
res
for
pro
ject
co
nst
ruct
ion
in O
man
4.
No
av
aila
bil
ity
of
eng
inee
ring
lic
ensi
ng
fo
r en
gin
eers
in O
man
to
mai
nta
in t
he
qu
alit
y o
f
con
sult
ancy
ser
vic
es 5
. P
oo
r
com
mu
nic
atio
n b
etw
een
rel
evan
t
go
ver
nm
enta
l un
its
and
th
e ow
ner
ME
OM
00
01
65
Tab
le I
V D
elay
by
fac
tors
by
resp
on
sib
ilit
y:
Ow
ner
gro
up
has
18
fac
tors
,
Co
ntr
acto
r
gro
up
has
5
fact
ors
, an
d
join
-
resp
on
sib
ilit
y
gro
up
has
3
fact
ors
.
AS
KR
00
02
Tab
le 6
- M
ajor
fact
ors
acc
oun
tab
le
for
no
n-p
erfo
rman
ce:
1.
pri
ce
flu
ctu
atio
ns
2.
Fin
anci
ng
an
d p
aym
ent
of
com
ple
ted
wo
rks
3.
Po
or
con
trac
t
man
agem
ent
4.
Del
ays
5.
Ch
ang
e in
site
co
nd
itio
ns
6.
Sh
ort
age
of
mat
eria
ls 7
. In
accu
rate
est
imat
es 8
.
Des
ign
ch
ang
es 9
. A
dd
itio
nal
wo
rk
10
. Im
po
rted
mat
eria
ls a
nd
pla
nt
item
s
11
. S
ub
con
trac
tors
an
d n
om
inat
ed s
ub
sup
pli
ers
12
. W
eath
er 1
3.
Fra
ud
ule
nt
pra
ctic
es a
nd
kic
k b
ack
s
AF
NG
00
02
Del
ay i
n h
on
ori
ng
pay
men
t ce
rtif
icat
es,
Po
or
cash
flo
w i
n p
roje
ct
,Po
or
con
trac
tor
sup
erv
isio
n,
Insu
ffic
ien
t
com
mu
nic
atio
n b
etw
een
par
ties
, D
eLay
in
inst
ruct
ion
,Un
der
esti
mat
ion
of
con
trac
t ti
me,
Po
or
pro
fess
ion
al
man
agem
ent,
Cli
ent
init
iate
d
var
iati
on
s/ch
ang
e o
rder
s,
Inad
equ
ate
skil
l an
d
exp
erie
nce
of
con
trac
tor
staf
f, P
oo
r si
te
man
agem
ent
AF
KE
00
01
Tab
le 5
: D
esig
n
chan
ges
wer
e
resp
on
sib
le f
or
79
% o
f re
wo
rk
cost
s. T
he
sam
e
issu
e h
app
ened
in o
ther
res
earc
h
in l
ater
yea
rs
wh
ich
mea
ns
this
iss
ue
has
bee
n u
naw
are
of
or
dif
ficu
lt t
o f
ix
NA
US
00
01
Tab
le 1
1:
In 2
96
do
mes
tic
(US
A)
pro
ject
s, D
esig
n
erro
rs a
nd
Ow
ner
ch
ang
es
are
the
two
gre
ates
t so
urc
es
that
cau
se
rew
ork
ran
ked
by
co
sts,
bo
th
agre
ed b
y d
ata
fro
m o
wn
ers
and
con
trac
tors
OT
HR
00
01
Des
ign
err
ors
and
pro
du
ctio
n
man
agem
ent
mis
tak
es
(fro
m
con
trac
tors
)
acco
un
ted
fo
r
ov
er 5
0%
of
rew
ork
co
sts
(26
% a
nd
25
%
resp
ecti
vel
y)
EU
SE
00
01
66
Co
nfl
ict
bet
wee
n
spec
ific
atio
n
s an
d
dra
win
gs
rem
ain
ed a
maj
or
issu
e,
acco
un
ted
for
19
% o
f
chan
ge
ord
ers
EU
UK
00
01
Pag
e 2
5:
Do
cum
enta
tio
n
du
e to
des
ign
chan
ges
an
d
om
issi
on
s
init
iate
d b
y
clie
nts
an
d e
nd
use
rs a
pp
ears
to
be
a re
gu
lar
occ
urr
ence
in
Au
stra
lian
pro
ject
s.
Cli
ent
dem
and
s
may
in
flu
ence
the
qu
alit
y o
f
con
trac
t
do
cum
enta
tio
n
pro
du
ced
, as
erro
rs a
nd
om
issi
on
s m
ay
emer
ge
that
can
resu
lt i
n r
ewo
rk
and
th
us
cau
se
cost
an
d
sch
edu
le
ov
erru
ns.
OC
AU
00
01
- P
roje
ct:
des
ign
ch
ang
es,
con
stru
ctio
n c
han
ges
, an
d
des
ign
err
ors
acc
ou
nte
d f
or
92
% o
f re
wo
rk c
ost
, m
ost
of
them
wer
e ca
use
d b
y c
han
ges
req
uir
ed b
y e
nd
-use
rs
- P
roje
ct B
: co
nst
ruct
ion
chan
ges
an
d e
rrors
acc
ou
nte
d
for
50
% o
f re
wo
rk c
ost
s.
Th
ese
chan
ges
wer
e in
itia
ted
by
cli
ent
repre
sen
tati
ve
to
imp
rov
e th
e p
roje
ct
fun
ctio
nal
ity
OC
AU
00
03
Tab
le 4
:
73
% o
f
rew
ork
co
sts
occ
urr
ed
du
rin
g
Des
ign
ph
ase
OC
AU
00
02
Tab
le 1
1:
In 6
4
inte
rnat
ion
al
pro
ject
s, D
esig
n
erro
rs a
re t
he
gre
ates
t so
urc
es
that
cau
se
rew
ork
ran
ked
by
co
sts,
bo
th
agre
ed b
y d
ata
fro
m o
wn
ers
and
con
trac
tors
OT
HR
00
01
Th
ree
mo
st i
mpo
rtan
t
fact
ors
as
agre
ed b
y
arch
itec
ts,
eng
inee
rs,
and
qu
anti
ty s
urv
eyo
rs:
1.
Sh
ort
age
of
mat
eria
ls
(cau
sed
by
flu
ctu
atio
n i
n
avai
lab
ilit
y a
nd
un
awar
enes
s o
f d
esig
ner
on
avai
lab
ilit
y o
f m
ater
ials
) 2
.
Fin
ance
an
d p
aym
ents
fo
r
com
ple
ted
wo
rks
3.
Po
or
con
trac
t m
anag
emen
t (b
y
con
trac
tors
)
AF
NG
00
01
67
Tab
le 3
: C
on
stru
ctio
n-r
elat
ed
item
s b
ein
g t
he
mo
st
do
min
atin
g f
acto
r th
at c
ause
d
cost
ov
erru
ns.
Th
is f
acto
r
incl
ud
es f
oll
ow
ing i
tem
s: 1
.
Fre
qu
ent
des
ign
ch
ang
es 2
.
Fra
ud
ule
nt
pra
ctic
es a
nd
kic
kb
ack
s 3
. A
dd
itio
nal
wo
rks
4.
Co
ntr
act
man
agem
ent
5.
Inad
equ
ate
lab
or
avai
lab
ilit
y 6
. D
ura
tion
of
con
trac
t p
erio
d 7
.
Co
ntr
actu
al p
roce
du
re
AF
NG
00
04
Tab
le 3
dis
cuss
ion
:
"Res
po
nd
ents
bel
iev
e th
at
chan
ges
in
sco
pe
and
in
adeq
uat
e
site
in
ves
tig
atio
n
at t
he
pla
nn
ing
stag
e le
ads
to
maj
or
chan
ges
and
rew
ork
in
con
stru
ctio
n
pro
ject
s."
AS
MY
00
01
In 2
01
3,
a su
rvey
on
26
2
con
stru
ctio
n p
arti
cip
ants
wh
o
wo
rked
on
dif
fere
nt
typ
es o
f
pro
ject
s ra
ng
ing
fro
m $
6M
to
ov
er $
50
M s
ugg
este
d t
hat
top
3 m
ajo
r ca
use
s o
f co
st
ov
erru
ns
wer
e: 1
. F
luct
uat
ion
of
pri
ces
of
mat
eria
ls 2
. C
ash
flo
w a
nd
fin
anci
al d
iffi
cult
ies
face
d b
y c
on
trac
tors
3. p
oo
r
site
man
agem
ent
and
sup
erv
isio
n
AS
MY
00
04
6.1
Ran
kin
g o
f C
ause
s in
Ter
ms
of
Occ
urr
ence
an
d S
ever
ity
: 1
2 m
ajo
r
fact
ors
: 1
. P
oo
r si
te m
anag
emen
t an
d
sup
erv
isio
n 2
. P
oo
r p
roje
ct
man
agem
ent
assi
stan
ce 3
. F
inan
cial
dif
ficu
ltie
s o
f o
wn
ers
4.
Fin
anci
al
dif
ficu
ltie
s o
f co
ntr
acto
rs 5
. D
esig
n
chan
ges
6.
Un
fore
seen
sit
e co
nd
itio
ns
7.
Slo
w p
aym
ent
of
com
ple
ted w
ork
s
8.
Inac
cura
te e
stim
ates
9.
Sh
ort
ages
of
mat
eria
ls 1
0.
Mis
tak
es i
n d
esig
n 1
1.
Po
or
con
trac
t m
anag
emen
t 12
. P
rice
flu
ctu
atio
ns
AS
VN
00
01
Tab
le 7
: 1
.
Inco
mp
eten
t
des
ign
er /
con
trac
tor
2.
Po
or
esti
mat
ion
an
d
chan
ge
man
agem
ent
3.
So
cial
an
d
tech
no
log
ical
issu
es 4
. S
ite
rela
ted
iss
ues
5.
Imp
rop
er
tech
niq
ue
too
ls
AS
VN
00
02
68
Tab
le 3
: T
op
del
ay
con
trib
uto
rs f
rom
ow
ner
s' p
ersp
ecti
ve:
1.
bid
aw
ard
to l
ow
est
pri
ce 2
. P
oo
r
com
mu
nic
atio
n a
nd
con
dit
ion
bet
wee
n
con
stru
ctio
n p
arti
es 3
.
Po
or
site
man
agem
ent
4.
Pay
men
ts d
elay
5.
Po
or
lab
or
pro
du
ctiv
ity
6. re
wo
rk
ME
SA
00
05
