Factors contributing to time overrun

8/10/2019 Factors contributing to time overrun

1/21

Factors contributing to projecttime and hence cost overrun in theMalaysian construction industry

Zayyana Shehu and Intan R. Endut Malaysia Institute of Transport, Universiti Teknologi MARA,

Shah Alam, Malaysia, and

Akintola AkintoyeSchool of Built and Natural Environment,

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

AbstractPurpose The delivery of construction projects in Malaysia is plagued by time overruns, whichturns what should have been successful projects into those incurring additional costs, ormoney-losing ventures; as well as leading to various other unexpected negative effects and faute demieux situations. The purpose of this research is to assess those factors leading to time overrun inMalaysian construction projects. The perceptions of public and private sectors, contractors, clients,and consultants are compared relative to a list of factors derived from the review of extant literaturein project delay.Design/methodology/approach The research data were collected through an industry-widequestionnaire survey circulated across the Malaysian construction industry. The research develops a listof 84 time overrun factors. Responses were collected from 49 clients, 51 contractors, and 105 consultants,to explore and analyse the major factors that are responsible for causing time overrun based on sectors(public and private), organisations (clients, contractors and consultants) and professional roles.Findings Project delays beyond contract dates are predominantly caused by contractors and areusually associated with nancial factors. Cash ow problems faced by the contractors was found themajor factor, which contributed to project delays, whereas storage on site was seen as the leastsignicant factor.Practical implications It is noteworthy that the ndings in this research have a regional focus; itis, therefore, suggested that readers from other sections of the world exercise caution in applying thendings. As it is believed that every construction industry has its nature, culture and regulations,these factors can change as a result of such differences.Originality/value This research provides stakeholders with information on factors, which, if properly understood, can make project delays less likely.

Keywords Malaysia, Construction industry, Construction projects, Cost overrun, Delays, Time overrunPaper type Research paper

IntroductionThe Malaysian construction industry acts as the countrys epicenter of growth(Memon et al., 2013) and has been propelled by demand for projects (Endut, 2008).Hence, it offers a signicant contribution towards developing the nation (Sambasivanand Soon, 2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012), but the industry is plagued with delays inproject delivery. Delays in construction projects have been a research topic for decades(Doloi et al., 2012). Time overrun occurs when the contract date is exceeded or when theexecution of the project extends beyond the date, which the parties had agreed upon for

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1366-4387.htm

Journal o f Financial Management of Property and Construction

Vol. 19 No. 1, 2014pp. 55-75

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1366-4387

DOI 10.1108/JFMPC-04-2013-0009

Project time andcost overrun

55


2/21

the delivery of that project (Endut et al., 2006; Marzouk and El-Rasas, 2014). There aremany reasons why time overruns occur (Sweis et al., 2008). It is clear that delays are afrequent problem in construction industries across many developed and developingcountries (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Enshassi et al., 2009), which arise mainly froma lack of adequate information or experience (Endut, 2008; Sweis et al., 2008).

Time overrun has been established as one of the major sources of failure Malaysianin construction projects (Elinwa and Buba, 1993; Al-Momani, 2000). Successful projectsare the ones which offer value for money in terms of aesthetics, minimal defects, timelycompletion, and which are t for purpose (Latham, 1994). Chan and Kumaraswamy(1997) highlighted that a successful project should be supported by worthwhileguarantees, reasonable completion costs and be of satisfactory quality.

The rst objective of this research is to identify signicant factors responsible fortime overrun; this entails establishing the importance levels of such factors. Thesecond objective is to evaluate the importance of the factors based on sectors that is,both public and private sectors. This includes comparing response data in order toassess any signicant statistical differences in the opinions of respondents. The thirdobjective is to assess the signicance of the factors based on organisations (client,contractor and consultants). The fourth objective is to establish importance based onthe respondents professional roles (architects, civil and structural engineers, electricaland mechanical engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers).

Literature reviewAccording to Ramanathan et al. (2012), it is not uncommon to experience poor timeperformance in the Malaysian construction industry, but it has now become even morecritical given that most projects in Malaysia are reported as being late (Ying, 2005;Abu Samah, 2005; Ting et al., 2007). Four recent studies focusing on delays in Malaysianconstruction projects (Othman et al., 2006; Alaghbari et al., 2007; Sambasivan and Soon,2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012) have all examined and subsequently agreed that timeperformance is a central concern in the construction industry, and that morestakeholders are not only aware but are concerned about the problem.

Several studies reasons for delays in Turkey (Arditi et al., 1985); time overrun inHong Kong projects (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997); delays in fast growing economies(Ogunlana et al., 1996); causes of project delays in Lebanon (Mezher and Tawil, 1998;Bordoli and Baldwin, 1998); delays in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia (Al-Khaliland Al-Ghay, 1999); constructions delays (Al-Momani, 2000; Shi et al., 2001) delaysin Nigerian construction projects (Elinwa and Joshua, 2001; Aibinu and Jagboro, 2002),delays in ground water projects in Ghana (Frimpong et al., 2003) have all contributed tobetter understanding of the causes of time overruns in construction projects. They allindicate that project delays or time overruns are common, and costly; which is perhapswhy understanding and analysing construction time overruns has become an importantaspect of effective project management.

In Malaysia, the construction industry serves as the engine of growth (Memon et al.,2013) and, at the same time, the highest contributor to economic expansion (Doloi et al.,2012). The government is the biggest consumer of the construction industry via publicworks projects (Ramanathan et al., 2012). The industry has contributed 3-5 per cent to theGDP over the past 20 years and has played a vital role in the countrys development(Rashid, 1996; Wong et al., 2007). This growth is propelled by residential needs and the

JFMPC19,1

56


3/21

governments decision to inject up to RM40 billion (8.4 billion) in the 8th, 9th and 10thMalaysian Plan (Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), 2005; NMP for2006-2010, 2007). However, the construction industrys contributions are beingthreatened by escalating cost and time overruns. Most construction projects inMalaysia experience project delivery delays and hence, cost overruns (Ofori, 1991, 1993;Kaming et al., 1997; Ting et al., 2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012). Mohamad (2005) explainsthat, out of 16 projects undertaken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), 15 were deliveredlate. It was further highlighted by the Malaysian Minister of Works that 70 per cent of government contracts (value RM9.5 billion) awarded to private contractors in 2002 werealso delivered late (Yap and Suithuruka, 2003). This conrms that even the government,as the largest client of the Malaysian construction industry (Ramanathan et al., 2012), isaffected by this unfortunate trend of cost and time overruns.

Other researchers (Koushki and Kartam, 2004; Koushki et al., 2005; Abdul-Muhid,2006; Ramanathan et al., 2012) have additionally reported that many construction clientsin Malaysia have suffered from either cost and/or time overruns. This is emphasisedfurther by others (Abdullah and Tawie, 2006; Abu Bakar, 2006; Pereira, 2006). However,they have all agreed that factors underpinning this are created by stakeholders withinthe construction industry, such as owners, contractors, consultants, suppliers, nancialcompanies and government authorities (Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990; Winch, 2002).

As a result of this situation, the construction industry, its clients and stakeholders, arecontinuously experiencing nancial waste, losses in quality and other inconveniencesassociated with delays (Ramanathan et al., 2012). In addition, the effects of time overruninclude cost overrun (Endut, 2008), dispute and arbitrations, litigations, and in theextreme, total project abandonment (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). Project delays affectmicro and macro levels of the economy (Enshassi et al., 2009). At macro level delays leadto a negative rate of national growth and monetary loss, while at micro level they canlead to cost overruns, dispute arbitrations or project abandonment (Sambasivan and

Soon, 2007; Enshassi et al., 2009).Although delay factors vary considerably from project to project, it is important tohighlight those factors in order to be able address them (Enshassi et al., 2009). Thus,the current research seeks to explore, analyse, understand and document these factorsin the specic context of the Malaysian construction industry. These factors, if properly understood, can help projects to complete on time, and budget.

Research methodFollowing a critical review of the literature in relation to time overrun covering a periodof two decades, this research developed a list of 84 major causes of time overruns inconstruction projects which forms the focal point of the research.

The research conducted a postal questionnaire survey inviting respondents (Table I)to assess factors that they deemed to be major causes of time overrun in constructionprojects, from the perspective of contractors, consultants and clients. Questionnairesare most convenient when a research, such as this one, covers different geographicalareas and multiple respondents (Dillman, 1972, 2007). The questionnaire consisted of two sections: the rst section requested characteristics of the respondents assummarised in Table I. The second focused on the factors responsible for delays. Thesefactors were measured by using a series of Likert items (described later) to measureresponses on a scale of 1-5 inclusive. Eighty-four factors derived from literature were


57


4/21

randomly arranged and presented for assessment in this way to determine which of them has the highest cause to time overrun.

According to Denscombe (2007), a questionnaire survey has certain advantages,which include wide coverage, cost-efciency, pre-coded data and elimination of the effectof personal interaction with the researcher. Prior to distributing the questionnaires,a pilot study was conducted with ten consultants, ten clients, ten contractors andten academicians. The purpose of the pilot study was to verify the completeness(Sambasivan and Soon, 2007), content and face validity of the research instrument (Fanand Yan, 2010).

The sampling method used in this research was non-probability conveniencesampling. This method is preferred when it is difcult to acquire responses fromstatistical sampling (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Denscombe, 2010). The list of respondents was acquired from the CIDB Malaysia. The board is responsible for theregistration and licencing of all contractors and projects in the country. A total of 205 useable responses (15.7 per cent of 1,301) were received from the respondents (fromboth the public and private sectors) and they were subsequently analysed using SPSS20. Forty-seven responses were from the public sector, while 158 were received fromprivate sector. Respondents were involved with 52 residential, 139 infrastructure,13 commercial, 29 ofce, 111 educational, 11 health and four undisclosed projects. Thisadds to a total of 359 projects, comprising 301 new build projects and 58 refurbishment

Profession Response received (%)Civil and structural engineers 69 33.7Architects 49 23.9Quantity surveyors 41 20.0Project managers 41 20.0Mechanical engineers 5 2.4Total 205 100Types of organisations Response received (%)Clients 49 23.9Contractors 51 24.9Consultants 105 51.2Total 205 100Years of experience Frequency (%)0-5 12 5.96-11 51 24.912-15 29 14.116-20 40 19.5

21-25 40 19.526-30 22 10.7Over 30 11 5.4Total 205 100Contract value Frequency (%)(RM) million GBP () millionUp to RM25 Up to 5.23 119 58RM25-RM50 5.23-10.46 27 13.2RM50-RM100 10.46-20.93 12 5.9RM100-RM250 20.93-52.33 12 5.9Over RM250 Over 52.33 35 17.1Total 205 100

Table I.Response rate anddemographic data

JFMPC19,1

58


5/21

projects (83.8 and 16.2 per cent, respectively). Table I presents the responses receivedbased on professions, types of organisations, years of experience, and contract values,respectively.

According to the literature (Ogunlana et al., 1996), there are ve major groups(parties) involved in construction:

(1) clients;(2) consultants;(3) contractors;(4) nominated sub-contractors or suppliers; and(5) external party(ies).

Statistical analyses were conducted to facilitate the determination of the major factorsresponsible for causing time overrun, which include reliability, normality mean valueanalysis, and Kruskal Walis. The reliability test conducted reveals that the internalconsistency of the scale used is (Cronbachs coefcient a ) is 0.978, the value beingcloser to 1.0 indicates higher internal consistency. Normality is used to describe asymmetrical, bell-shaped curve, which has the greatest frequency of scores in themiddle, with smaller frequencies towards the extremes (Bryman and Cramer, 2005;Pallant, 2010). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicates the data is not a normaldistribution ( p # 0.05); hence, non-parametric tests are applicable to the data in thisresearch (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2010).

This research ranked the mean values based on criticality of factors that contributeto time overrun as perceived by:

(1) the public and private sectors;(2) types of organisation; and(3) professional roles.

The last category includes architects, civil and structural engineers, electrical andmechanical engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers. Equation (1) presentsthe mean formula used for the ranking of the factors:

Mean P 5i 2 1W i X i

P 5i 2 1 X i 1

where: i responses category 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Likert scale); Wi is the weight assignedto i th response (5 high cause, 4 slightly high cause, 3 average cause, 2 slightly lowcause, 1 low cause); and X i frequency of the i th response (Enshassi et al., 2009; Odehand Battaineh, 2002). Hence, factors with mean values between 4 and 5 are consideredto have high signicance to causing time overrun.

According to Gliem and Gliem (2003), information gathered in the social sciencesoften involves the use of Likert-type scales. The Likert scale is an invention of Likert(1931), who described this technique for the assessment of attitudes. The currentresearch used a ve point Likert scale to assess the inuence of the listed factors onproject time overruns with values on the scale as follows: 1 as low, 2 as slightly low,3 as average, 4 as slightly high and 5 as high. Hence, factors with mean valuesbetween 4 and 5 are considered as having high inuence on time overrun.


59


6/21

A Kruskal Walis analysis was conducted to ascertain if there exists any statisticalvariation between the mean values (between the public and private sector and theprofessions involved) computed. The results are given later. A Mann-Whitney U test of the factors that yield signicant differences from the Kruskal Walis tests are alsopresented in the analyses that follow.

In the initial Kruskal Walis analysis conducted on the factors ranked based on theperception of the public and private sectors it was established that there wassignicant statistical differences between the opinions of the two groups in 20 factors(Table II) with sig. p-values less than 0.05 (marked with asterisk). Those factors werefurther subjected to Mann-Witney U test to conrm if those differences exist and itwas subsequently observed that only eight factors out of 20 factors appear to havesignicant statistical differences (Table III). In essence, the ndings imply that the twosectors (public and private) have different perceptions regarding those eight factors(Table III). Table II presents the ranking according to the sector public or private andTable III presents the group differences test using Mann-Whitney U test of private andpublic sectors.

Subsequently, the Kruskal Walis test conducted to check for statistical differencesbetween clients, contractors and consultants also indicates that 19 factors out of 84have signicant statistical differences (Table IV). Approaching it in the same manneras in the latter assessment, a Mann-Whitney test was conducted (Table V) on the 19factors. The results conrm that there are only four under client to contractor; threeunder client to consultants and seven factors between contractors to consultants nowhave statistical differences as highlighted in Table V.

Analyses-based sectors (public and private sector)With the mean values ranging from 2.362 (moderate) to 4.213 (very critical) (Endut,2008). The number of respondents comprised 47 from the public sector and 155 from

the private sector.According to public sector opinion, ve factors are seen as very critical, and theyare as follows:

(1) Cash ow problem faced by the contractor (4.21).(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractors (4.15).(3) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.09).(4) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors (4.06).(5) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.00).

Public sector opinion showed that very critical factors contributing to time overrunsare related to contractors, as the rst three factors all relate to contractors nancialproblems. This nding supports the literature (Kaming et al., 1997; Enshassi et al.,2009). However, all ve factors are inter-related. The other 75 factors were categorisedas critical factors, and ve factors were categorised as moderate. No factors werecategorised as low (Table II).

The private sector perception towards time overrun in construction projects alsoshows that the three most critical factors are related to contractors. The public andprivate sectors shared two highest most critical factors. The three most criticalfactors are:

JFMPC19,1

60


7/21

O v e r a l l

P u b l i c

s e c t o r

P r i v a t e

s e c t o r

T i m e o v e r r u n f a c t o r s

M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k

K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p

C a s h o w p r o b l e m s f a c e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

4 . 2 1

1

4 . 2 1

1

4 . 2 1

1

0 . 7 2

L a t e p a y m e n t f r o m c o n t r a c t o r t o s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s o r s u p p l i e r s

4 . 1 1

2

4 . 1 5

2

4 . 1 0

2

0 . 1 3

P r o b l e m s b e t w e e n t h e c o n t r a c t o r a n d h i s s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s w i t h r e g a r d s t o p a y m e n t s

4 . 0 2

3

4 . 0 6

4

4 . 0 1

3

0 . 0 0 1 *

I n e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g a n d s c h e d u l i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 9 5

4

4 . 0 0

5

3 . 9 3

5

0 . 0 0 6 *

D i f c u l t i e s i n n a n c i n g t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 9 5

5

4 . 0 9

3

3 . 9 0

8

0 . 5 1

I n e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o j e c t p r o g r e s s b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 8 7

6

3 . 9 4

6

3 . 8 5

9

0 . 0 7

L a t e p a y m e n t f r o m c l i e n t t o c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 8 2

7

3 . 2 6

5 2

3 . 9 9

4

0 . 0 0 8 *

B u r e a u c r a c y i n g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s

3 . 8 1

8

3 . 4 7

3 4

3 . 9 1

7

0 . 0 0 6 *

S l o w p e r m i t s b y l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s

3 . 7 8

9

3 . 6 0

1 6

3 . 8 4

1 0

0 . 0 6

D e l a y i n p r o g r e s s p a y m e n t s b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 7 8

1 0

3 . 3 4

4 1

3 . 9 1

6

0 . 0 3 9 *

S l o w d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b y

t h e c l i e n t

3 . 7 6

1 1

3 . 5 5

2 1

3 . 8 3

1 1

0 . 1 3

S h o r t a g e o f m a t e r i a l s

3 . 7 4

1 2

3 . 6 6

1 1

3 . 7 6

1 2

0 . 4 8

C o n t r a c t o r s p o o r c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 7 3

1 3

3 . 8 5

7

3 . 6 9

1 5

0 . 0 0 9 *

I m p r o p e r t e c h n i c a l s t u d y b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r d u r i n g t h e b i d d i n g s t a g e

3 . 7 2

1 4

3 . 6 8

1 0

3 . 7 4

1 3

0 . 1 5

S l o w p e r m i t s b y t o w n p l a n n i n g d e p a r t m e n t

3 . 6 9

1 5

3 . 5 5

2 2

3 . 7 3

1 4

0 . 1 2

S h o r t a g e o f s k i l l e d m a n p o w e r

3 . 6 7

1 6

3 . 6 2

1 4

3 . 6 8

1 6

0 . 0 1 9 *

D e l a y i n m a t e r i a l s d e l i v e r y

3 . 6 2

1 7

3 . 6 6

1 2

3 . 6 1

2 0

0 . 8 2

D u r a t i o n o f o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t t o o s h o r t

3 . 6 2

1 8

3 . 5 3

2 6

3 . 6 4

1 9

0 . 4 4

I n e f c i e n t q u a l i t y c o n t r o l b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 6 1

1 9

3 . 6 2

1 5

3 . 6 0

2 1

0 . 0 0 2 *

S l o w p e r m i t s b y d r a i n a g e a n d i r r i g a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t

3 . 5 9

2 0

3 . 3 0

4 5

3 . 6 8

1 7

0 . 0 1 6 *

S l o w p e r m i t s b y p u b l i c w o r k d e p a r t m e n t

3 . 5 9

2 1

3 . 2 8

5 0

3 . 6 8

1 8

0 . 0 1 5 *

I m p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n m e t h o d i m p l e m e n t e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 5 8

2 2

3 . 6 0

1 7

3 . 5 8

2 4

0 . 3 6

P o o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r w i t h t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 5 8

2 3

3 . 6 4

1 3

3 . 5 6

2 5

0 . 0 3 8 *

C h a n g e s i n m a t e r i a l s p r i c e

3 . 5 7

2 4

3 . 4 9

3 2

3 . 5 9

2 2

0 . 5 0

D e l a y i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f c o n t r a c t o r c l a i m s b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 5 2

2 5

3 . 3 0

4 6

3 . 5 8

2 3

0 . 1 0

S u b s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s ( u t i l i t i e s l i n e s , w

a t e r t a b l e , t r a f c c o n t r o l a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t h e j o b s i t e ) 3 . 5 0

2 6

3 . 7 2

8

3 . 4 4

3 4

0 . 6 1

S h o r t a g e o f t e c h n i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n t h e c o n t r a c t o r s o r g a n i s a t i o n

3 . 5 0

2 7

3 . 4 0

3 8

3 . 5 3

2 6

0 . 0 0 6 *

P o o r c o n t r a c t m a n a g e m e n t

3 . 4 9

2 8

3 . 4 5

3 5

3 . 5 0

2 7

0 . 3 9

C h a n g e s i n t h e s c o p e o f p r o j e c t

3 . 4 8

2 9

3 . 6 0

1 8

3 . 4 5

3 2

0 . 6 0

U n e x p e c t e d s o i l c o n d i t i o n

3 . 4 8

3 0

3 . 5 5

2 3

3 . 4 6

3 1

0 . 8 7

( c o n t i n u e d )

Table II.Ranking for the time

overrun factors based onsectors


61


8/21

O v e r a l l

P u b l i c

s e c t o r

P r i v a t e

s e c t o r



K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p

P o o r q u a l i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t o r s t e c h n i c a l s t a f f a s s i g n e d t o

t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 4 8

3 1

3 . 5 3

2 7

3 . 4 6

3 0

0 . 0 0 6 *

A m b i g u i t i e s , m

i s t a k e s , a n d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n s p e c i c a t i o n a n d

d r a w i n g s

3 . 4 7

3 2

3 . 7 2

9

3 . 4 0

4 0

0 . 3 5

C h a n g e s i n i n i t i a l d e s i g n

3 . 4 7

3 3

3 . 5 7

1 9

3 . 4 4

3 5

0 . 2 9

W o r k i n t e r f e r e n c e b e t w e e n v a r i o u s c o n t r a c t o r s

3 . 4 6

3 4

3 . 5 1

3 0

3 . 4 4

3 3

0 . 8 3

I n e f f e c t i v e c o n t r a c t o r h e a d o f c e i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 4 5

3 5

3 . 5 7

2 0

3 . 4 1

3 8

0 . 0 5

C h a n g e s i n t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 4 4

3 6

3 . 5 1

3 1

3 . 4 2

3 7

0 . 8 2

S l o w r e s p o n s e f r o m t h e c o n s u l t a n t e n g i n e e r t o c o n t r a c t o r i n q u i r i e s

3 . 4 1

3 7

3 . 5 5

2 4

3 . 3 7

4 2

0 . 1 2

C h a n g e o r d e r b y t h e c l i e n t

3 . 4 1

3 8

3 . 1 5

6 0

3 . 4 9

2 8

0 . 3 0

E x c e s s i v e b u r e a u c r a c y i n

t h e o w n e r s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

3 . 4 0

3 9

3 . 4 5

3 6

3 . 3 9

4 1

0 . 8 2

D e l a y i n t h e a p p r o v a l o f c o n t r a c t o r s u b m i s s i o n s b y t h e e n g i n e e r

3 . 3 7

4 0

3 . 1 9

5 6

3 . 4 2

3 6

0 . 2 1

D e l a y i n i s s u a n c e o f c h a n g e o r d e r s b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 3 7

4 1

3 . 4 9

3 3

3 . 3 3

4 4

0 . 1 5

G o v e r n m e n t t e n d e r i n g s y s t e m r e q u i r e m e n t o f s e l e c t i n g t h e l o w e s t b i d d e r c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 3 6

4 2

2 . 9 6

7 4

3 . 4 8

2 9

0 . 0 1 9 *

P o o r c o o r d i n a t i o n b y t h e c o n s u l t a n t e n g i n e e r w i t h o t h e r p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d

3 . 3 5

4 3

3 . 5 3

2 8

3 . 2 9

4 9

0 . 1 2

U n c o o p e r a t i v e o w n e r s w i t h c o n t r a c t o r c o m p l i c a t i n g c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

3 . 3 4

4 4

3 . 1 3

6 2

3 . 4 0

3 9

0 . 4 1

P o o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w

e e n t h e c o n s u l t a n t e n g i n e e r a n d o t h e r p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d

3 . 3 3

4 5

3 . 4 5

3 7

3 . 2 9

5 0

0 . 2 7

D e l a y i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n s o f c o n t r a c t o r s u b m i s s i o n s

3 . 3 2

4 6

3 . 5 3

2 9

3 . 2 6

5 3

0 . 0 0 0 *

C o m m e r c i a l p r e s s u r e

3 . 3 1

4 7

3 . 1 9

5 7

3 . 3 4

4 3

0 . 2 9

O w n e r s p o o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p a r t i e s a n d

g o v e r n m e n t a u t h o r i t i e s

3 . 3 1

4 8

3 . 2 6

5 3

3 . 3 2

4 5

0 . 0 4 *

O w n e r s f a i l u r e t o c o o r d i n a t e w i t h g o v e r n m e n t a u t h o r i t i e s d u r i n g p l a n n i n g

3 . 3 0

4 9

3 . 3 0

4 7

3 . 3 0

4 6

0 . 0 1 *

S h o r t a g e o f c o n t r a c t o r s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n n e l

3 . 2 8

5 0

3 . 2 8

5 1

3 . 2 8

5 1

0 . 0 1 *

D e l a y i n m o b i l i s a t i o n

3 . 2 7

5 1

3 . 5 5

2 5

3 . 1 9

6 1

0 . 0 2 *

P o o r i n f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n o f c o n t r a c t

3 . 2 7

5 2

3 . 1 9

5 8

3 . 2 9

4 8

0 . 6 3

C h a n g e i n f o u n d a t i o n

3 . 2 5

5 3

3 . 3 4

4 2

3 . 2 3

5 7

0 . 8 5

L o w s k i l l o f m a n p o w e r

3 . 2 4

5 4

3 . 3 2

4 3

3 . 2 1

5 9

0 . 3 1

C h a n g e s i n g o v e r n m e n t r e g u l a t i o n s a n d l a w s

3 . 2 3

5 5

3 . 0 0

7 1

3 . 3 0

4 7

0 . 1 4

P o o r q u a l i c a t i o n o f c o n s u l t a n t e n g i n e e r s s t a f f a s s i g n e d t o t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 2 2

5 6

3 . 0 4

6 6

3 . 2 7

5 2

0 . 5 0

I m p o r t e d m a t e r i a l s

3 . 1 9

5 7

3 . 0 9

6 5

3 . 2 3

5 6

0 . 5 8

P o o r c o o r d i n a t i o n b y t h e o w n e r w i t h t h e v a r i o u s p a r t i e s d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n

3 . 1 8

5 8

3 . 3 2

4 4

3 . 1 4

6 5

0 . 0 0 *

D e l a y i n p e r f o r m i n g i n s p e c t i o n a n d t e s t i n g b y t h e c o n s u l t a n t e n g i n e e r

3 . 1 8

5 9

3 . 3 8

3 9

3 . 1 2

6 9

0 . 0 6

I n t e r f e r e n c e b y t h e o w n e r i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o p e r a t i o n s

3 . 1 8

6 0

3 . 0 2

6 8

3 . 2 2

5 8

0 . 1 9


Table II.

JFMPC19,1

62


9/21

O v e r a l l

P u b l i c

s e c t o r

P r i v a t e

s e c t o r



K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p

S h o r t a g e o f e q u i p m e n t r e q u i r e d

3 . 1 7

6 1

3 . 1 1

6 3

3 . 1 9

6 0

0 . 7 4

I n e f f e c t i v e d e l a y p e n a l t y

3 . 1 7

6 2

2 . 9 6

7 5

3 . 2 3

5 5

0 . 2 8

S u s p e n s i o n o f w o r k b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 1 7

6 3

2 . 9 2

7 8

3 . 2 5

5 4

0 . 1 1

D e l a y i n e l d s u r v e y b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 1 7

6 4

3 . 3 6

4 0

3 . 1 1

7 0

0 . 1 2

N o t f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n o f c o n t r a c t

3 . 1 5

6 5

3 . 2 1

5 5

3 . 1 3

6 8

0 . 4 9

D e l a y t o f u r n i s h a n d d e l i v e r t h e s i t e t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 1 4

6 6

3 . 0 2

6 9

3 . 1 8

6 3

0 . 1 3

C h a n g e s i n g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y

3 . 1 4

6 7

2 . 9 8

7 3

3 . 1 8

6 2

0 . 2 9

C h a n g e s i n m a t e r i a l s s p e c i c a t i o n

3 . 1 3

6 8

3 . 1 5

6 1

3 . 1 3

6 6

0 . 5 9

S i z e o f t h e p r o j e c t s

3 . 1 3

6 9

3 . 3 0

4 8

3 . 0 8

7 1

0 . 4 4

I n a d e q u a t e e q u i p m e n t u s e d f o r t h e w o r k s

3 . 1 2

7 0

2 . 9 4

7 7

3 . 1 7

6 4

0 . 1 3

L o o s e s a f e t y r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o n t r a c t o r s o r g a n i s a t i o n

3 . 1 1

7 1

3 . 2 6

5 4

3 . 0 7

7 2

0 . 0 8

S h o r t a g e o f s u p e r v i s i o n p e r s o n n e l f r o m c l i e n t

3 . 0 8

7 2

3 . 1 7

5 9

3 . 0 6

7 3

0 . 2 8

N o i n c e n t i v e t o c o n t r a c t o r s f o r e a r l y c o m p l e t i o n

3 . 0 7

7 3

2 . 8 5

8 0

3 . 1 3

6 7

0 . 1 9

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s

3 . 0 1

7 4

2 . 9 6

7 6

3 . 0 2

7 5

0 . 6 4

L o w q u a l i t y o f m a t e r i a l s

3 . 0 0

7 5

3 . 3 0

4 9

2 . 9 1

7 7

0 . 3 1

T y p e s o f p r o c u r e m e n t m e t h o d s

2 . 9 9

7 6

2 . 8 3

8 1

3 . 0 4

7 4

0 . 1 1

F a i l u r e o f e q u i p m e n t

2 . 9 9

7 7

3 . 0 0

7 2

2 . 9 9

7 6

0 . 9 1

L o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t

2 . 9 4

7 8

3 . 1 1

6 4

2 . 8 9

7 8

0 . 1 8

S h o r t a g e o f u n - s

k i l l e d m a n p o w e r

2 . 8 7

7 9

3 . 0 4

6 7

2 . 8 1

7 9

0 . 6 8

J o i n t o w n e r s h i p o f p r o j e c t

2 . 8 0

8 0

3 . 0 2

7 0

2 . 7 3

8 2

0 . 1 6

S h o r t a g e o f s u p p o r t i n g a n d s h o r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n s

2 . 7 8

8 1

2 . 6 6

8 3

2 . 8 1

8 0

0 . 7 4

C h a n g e s i n b u i l d i n g c o d e s

2 . 7 8

8 2

2 . 7 9

8 2

2 . 7 7

8 1

0 . 3 7

P o o r s u p e r v i s i o n b y t h e c l i e n t

2 . 6 9

8 3

2 . 8 7

7 9

2 . 6 4

8 3

0 . 2 5

S t o r a g e o n s i t e

2 . 4 4

8 4

2 . 3 6

8 4

2 . 4 7

8 4

0 . 7 0

N o t e : T h e m e a n d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i c a n t a t :

* p , 0 . 0 5 l e v e l

Table II.


63


10/21

(1) Cash ow problem faced by the contractor (4.21).(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor (4.104).

(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors (4.01).(4) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (3.93).(5) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (3.90).

All other factors were categorised as critical (70), and moderate (9) factors (Table II).The literature supports the assertion that payment problems between clients andcontractors is one of the highest causes of project time overruns (Abd El-Razek et al.,2008). Memon et al. (2013) also indicated that money is one of the most importantresources in the construction industry, and cash ow affects the progress of construction.

A further analysis was conducted to determine the signicance in the differences inopinion between these two sectors. The results of the Kruskal Walis test for ak-independent sample shows that the respondent groups had different opinions on 19out of 84 variables at the 5 per cent ( p , 0.05) signicance level, as shown in Table II.

A further non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test of two independent samples shows astatistically signicant difference in opinion between the public and private sector for:

. late payment from client to contractor (0.00);

. bureaucracy in government agencies (0.01);

. slow permits by drainage and irrigation department (0.021);

Time overrun factorsPublic/private

Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor 0.69Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments 0.72Late payment from client to contractor 0.00 *Bureaucracy in government agencies 0.01 *Delay in progress payments by the owner 0.07Shortage of materials 0.29Contractors poor coordination with the parties involved in the project 0.33Shortage of skilled manpower 0.29Inefcient quality control by the contractor 0.76Slow permits by drainage and irrigation department 0.02 *Slow permits by public work department 0.02 *Poor communication by the contractor with the parties involved in the project 0.77Shortage of technical professionals in the contractors organisation 0.29Poor qualication of the contractors technical staff assigned to the project 0.66

Government tendering system requirement of selecting the lowest bidder contractor 0.01*

Delay in the preparations of contractor submissions 0.04 *Owners poor communication with the construction parties and government authorities 0.02 *Owners failure to coordinate with government authorities during planning 0.99Shortage of contractors administrative personnel 0.68Delay in mobilisation 0.01 *Poor coordination by the owner with the various parties during construction 0.30

Note: The mean difference is signicant at: * p , 0.05 level

Table III.Group differences testusing Mann-WhitneyU test of private andpublic sectors

JFMPC19,1

64


11/21

T i m e o v e r r u n f a c t o r

M e a n R a n k M e a n

R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k

K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p

O v e r a l l

( n

2 0 3 )

C l i e n t

( n

4 9 )

C o n t r a c t o r

( n

5 1 )

C o n s u l t a n t

( n

1 0 3 )


4 . 2 0

1

4 . 2 5

1

4 . 1 2

1

4 . 2 3

1

0 . 5 1


4 . 0 2

2

4 . 0 6

3

4 . 0 6

2

3 . 9 3

8

0 . 7 2

L a t e p a y m e n t f r o m c o n t r a c t o r t o s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s o r s u p p l i e r s

4 . 0 0

3

3 . 9 0

6

3 . 9 0

5

4 . 1 9

2

0 . 0 1 *


3 . 9 6

4

4 . 0 0

4

4 . 0 0

3

3 . 8 7

1 0

0 . 1 9

D i f c u l t i e s i n n a n c i n g t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 9 5

5

4 . 0 8

2

3 . 8 2

7

3 . 9 4

7

0 . 3 6


3 . 8 9

6

3 . 9 0

5

3 . 9 0

4

3 . 8 5

1 2

0 . 2 5

I n e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g a n d s c h e d u l i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 8 8

7

3 . 9 0

7

3 . 6 1

2 2

4 . 1 4

4

0 . 1 5

I n e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o j e c t p r o g r e s s b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 8 2

8

3 . 8 8

8

3 . 5 5

2 6

4 . 0 2

6

0 . 1 2


3 . 8 1

9

3 . 7 1

1 6

3 . 7 1

1 4

4 . 0 2

5

0 . 0 2 *

S l o w d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b y t h e c l i e n t

3 . 8 0

1 0

3 . 7 5

1 1

3 . 7 5

9

3 . 9 0

9

0 . 3 0

P r o b l e m s b e t w e e n t h e c o n t r a c t o r a n d h i s s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s w i t h r e g a r d s t o p a y m e n t s

3 . 7 8

1 1

3 . 5 9

2 9

3 . 5 9

2 3

4 . 1 8

3

0 . 1 3


3 . 7 7

1 2

3 . 7 7

1 0

3 . 7 7

8

3 . 7 7

1 6

0 . 0 6


3 . 7 5

1 3

3 . 6 7

1 9

3 . 8 8

6

3 . 7 0

2 1

0 . 4 8

S l o w p e r m i t s b y d r a i n a g e a n d i r r i g a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t

3 . 7 1

1 4

3 . 7 1

1 5

3 . 7 1

1 3

3 . 7 3

1 9

0 . 0 2 *

S l o w p e r m i t s b y p u b l i c w o r k d e p a r t m e n t

3 . 7 1

1 5

3 . 7 1

1 4

3 . 7 1

1 2

3 . 7 3

1 8

0 . 1 2

C o n t r a c t o r s p o o r c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 6 9

1 6

3 . 8 6

9

3 . 3 7

4 4

3 . 8 4

1 4

0 . 0 4 *

I m p r o p e r t e c h n i c a l s t u d y b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r d u r i n g t h e b i d d i n g s t a g e

3 . 6 8

1 7

3 . 5 9

2 8

3 . 5 7

2 4

3 . 8 6

1 1

0 . 0 1 *

D e l a y i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f c o n t r a c t o r c l a i m s b y t h e o w n e r

3 . 6 5

1 8

3 . 7 1

1 2

3 . 7 1

1 0

3 . 5 2

2 8

0 . 1 3


3 . 6 4

1 9

3 . 6 9

1 7

3 . 6 7

1 7

3 . 5 6

2 7

0 . 8 2

O v e r a l l

C l i e n t

C o n t r a c t o r

C o n s u l t a n t

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s

3 . 0 1

7 6

3 . 1 0

7 3

2 . 9 2

7 3

3 . 0 0

7 5

0 . 6 4

F a i l u r e o f e q u i p m e n t

2 . 9 8

7 7

2 . 9 4

7 8

3 . 0 0

7 0

3 . 0 1

7 3

0 . 5 8

L o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t

2 . 9 8

7 8

3 . 0 6

7 5

3 . 0 4

6 8

2 . 8 4

8 0

0 . 4 4



2 . 8 7

7 9

2 . 9 8

7 7

2 . 7 8

8 1

2 . 8 5

7 9

0 . 0 2 *


2 . 8 1

8 0

2 . 8 0

8 1

2 . 8 0

8 0

2 . 8 1

8 1

0 . 2 9


2 . 8 0

8 1

2 . 8 6

7 9

2 . 8 6

7 8

2 . 6 7

8 2

0 . 4 1


2 . 7 4

8 2

2 . 7 1

8 3

2 . 6 3

8 3

2 . 8 8

7 8

0 . 9 1


2 . 6 9

8 3

2 . 7 5

8 2

2 . 7 5

8 2

2 . 5 7

8 3

0 . 8 2


2 . 4 5

8 4

2 . 3 9

8 4

2 . 5 4

8 4

2 . 4 2

8 4

0 . 4 9

N o t e : T h e m e a n d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i c a n t a t :

* p , 0 . 0 5 l e v e l

Table IV.Ranking based on types

of organisation


65


12/21

. slow permits by public work department (0.02); and

. delay in the preparations of contractor submission (0.04) (Table III).

Ranking according to types of organisationThe three types of organisation considered in this study were client, contractor andconsultant organisations (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997). Results showed that all threeparties agreed that cash ow problems faced by the contractor is the highest rankingbased on the mean values (client 4.25, contractor 4.12, and consultant 4.23). Thisnding conrms the literature that cash ow problems cause delay and time overrun inconstruction projects (Arditi et al., 1985; Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990; Abd El-Razek et al.,2008). Table IV presents the ranking of time overrun factors based on types of organisations.

According to the overall mean value ranking: (1) cash ow problems faced by thecontractors (4.20), (2) late payment from client to contractor (4.02) and (3) late paymentfrom contractor to sub-contractors or suppliers (4.00) are the three signicant factorsthat contribute to time overrun based on assessment of clients, contractors andconsultants. Whereas shortage of supporting and shoring installations (2.74), poor

Time overrun factorsClient/

contractorClient/

consultantContractor/consultant

Late payment from contractor to sub-contractors or suppliers 0.111 0.985 0.053Bureaucracy in government agencies 0.271 0.002 * 0.059Contractors poor coordination with the parties involved in theproject 0.012 * 0.829 0.004*Improper technical study by the contractor during thebidding stage 0.957 0.077 0.153Slow permits by drainage and irrigation department 0.021 * 0.006 0.974Improper construction method implemented by thecontractor 0.533 0.489 0.16Shortage of technical professionals in the contractorsorganisation 0.344 0.039 * 0.003 *Ineffective contractor head ofce involvement in the project 0.102 0.51 0.017 *Excessive bureaucracy in the owners administration 0.562 0.594 0.875Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by the

engineer 0.212 0.705 0.051Delay in the preparations of contractor submissions 0.001 * 0.584 0.000*Owners poor communication with the construction partiesand government authorities 0.054 0.978 0.013 *Changes in government regulations and laws 0.256 0.052 0.427Poor coordination by the owner with the various partiesduring construction 0.098 0.024 * 0.000 *Ineffective delay penalty 0.289 0.711 0.114Delay in eld survey by the contractor 0.133 0.71 0.044 *Loose safety rules and regulations within the contractorsorganisation 0.032 * 0.666 0.059Shortage of supervision personnel from client 0.113 0.458 0.282Shortage of un-skilled manpower 0.386 0.488 0.793

Note: The mean difference is signicant at: *

p,

0.05 level

Table V.Group differences testusing Mann-Whitney U

test of two independents

JFMPC19,1

66


13/21

supervision by the client (2.69) and storage on site (2.45) form the least signicantfactors causing project time overrun. According to Alaghbari et al. (2007), in addition tothe problems related to coordination and materials, nancial factors have the largestinuence on delays to construction projects. It has, however, been observed that theduration required to complete the construction of public and private projects isnormally greater than the time specied in the contract (Al-Momani, 2000;Enshassi et al., 2009; Ramanathan et al., 2012).

The client considers four factors critical (Table IV). These factors are:(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.25).(2) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.08).(3) Late payment from client to contractor (4.06).(4) Delay in progress payments by the owner (4.00).

This represents the opinion of some authors (Arditi et al., 1985; Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990;Mohamad et al., 2007; Abd El-Razek et al., 2008). All four factors are related to nancialdifculties in the contractors organisation, this supports Enshassi et al. (2009).

The contractors opinions show that there are only three most critical (Table IV)factors. Besides, cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.12), the other twofactors are: late payment from client to contractor (4.06), and delay in progresspayments by the owner (4.00). Elinwa and Joshua (2001) also agreed that late paymentfrom client to contractor is one of the main factors contributing to time overrun.

Consultants identied six most critical factors that contribute to time overrun,which are:

(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.23).(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.19).(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to

payments (4.18).(4) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.14).(5) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.02).(6) Bureaucracy in government agencies, and ineffective control of the project

progress by the contractor (4.02).

The consultants also consider that factors related to contractors nancial problemswere the most critical. However, ineffective planning also appeared as a major causeof project delays (Frimpong et al., 2003; Hanna et al., 2005).

The results on the right-hand side of Table IV present the comparison test betweenthe opinions of the clients, contractors and consultants to determine if any signicantdifferences in opinion exist between the three organisations. The results of the KruskalWalis test for a k-independent sample show that the respondent groups had differentopinions on 19 out of 84 variables at the 5 per cent ( p , 0.05). Subsequently,Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to check differences between:

. clients to contractors;

. clients to consultants; and

. contractors to consultants.


67


14/21

Table V presents group difference test using Mann-Whitney U test of independentsamples.

The data analyses conrmed four factors experience differences betweencontractors to consultants, three factors between clients to consultants and, sevenfactors between contractors to consultants.

Having discussed and ranked factors based on sectors and organisations, thissection furthers ranks the factors based on the professional roles of participants(architects, civil and structural engineers, electrical and mechanical engineers, quantitysurveyors and project managers).

Time overrun factors ranking based on construction practitionersThere are ve parties that participated in this research:

(1) architects;(2) civil and structural engineers;(3) electrical and mechanical engineers;(4) quantity surveyors; and(5) project managers.

Table VI presents the ranking of time overrun factors based on professional roles.According to theoverall mean ranking, (1)cash ow problems faced by thecontractors

(4.22), (2) late payment from client to contractor (4.13), (3) problems between maincontractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments (4.02) and (4) difcultiesinnancing projects by the contractor (4.01)are the four signicant factors that contributeto timeoverrun based on assessmentof theprofessionals.Whereas shortage of supportingand shoring installations (2.74), poor supervision by the client (2.69) and storage on site(2.45) remain the least signicant factors causing project time overrun.

Four out of ve parties agreed that cash ow problems faced by the contractor architects (4.29), civil and structural engineers (4.12), quantity surveyors (4.23) andproject managers (4.25), respectively as the most important factor causing timeoverrun. However, electrical and mechanical engineers suggest that ineffective controlof the project by the contractor was the highest factor contributing to time overrun.However, there were only ve respondents from this group, therefore, this may affectthe ndings and their views cannot be taken as representative of the electrical andmechanical engineering population as a whole.

The architects who participated in this research identied six most critical factorsthat contribute to time overrun:

(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.29).(2) Problems the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments (4.27).(3) Bureaucracy in government agencies (4.21).(4) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.20).(5) Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor (4.16).(6) Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor (4.08).

Researchers (Walker, 1995; Ogunlana et al., 1996; Mezher and Tawil, 1998; Elinwaand Joshua, 2001; Dulaimi et al., 2002) reported that architects ranked the mode of

JFMPC19,1

68


15/21

O v e r a l l

1

2

3

4

5

F a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t i m e o v e r r u n

M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n


K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p


4 . 2 2

1

4 . 2 9

1

4 . 1 2

1

4 . 2 0

2

4 . 2 3

1

4 . 2 5

1

0 . 7 9

L a t e p a y m e n t f r o m c o n t r a c t o r t o s u b - c o n t r a c t o r s o r

s u p p l i e r s

4 . 1 3

2

4 . 2 0

4

4 . 0 6

2

4 . 2 0

3

4 . 0 8

2

4 . 1 3

2

0 . 9 7

P r o b l e m s b e t w e e n t h e c o n t r a c t o r a n d h i s s u b -

c o n t r a c t o r s w i t h r e g a r d s t o p a y m e n t s

4 . 0 2

3

4 . 2 7

2

3 . 9 1

3

4 . 0 0

1 1

4 . 0 8

3

3 . 8 5

9

0 . 3 0

D i f c u l t i e s i n n a n c i n g t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e

c o n t r a c t o r

4 . 0 1

4

3 . 9 4

1 0

3 . 8 4

5

4 . 2 0

4

4 . 0 0

4

4 . 0 5

3

0 . 8 0

I n e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o j e c t p r o g r e s s b y t h e

c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 9 6

5

4 . 0 8

6

3 . 7 8

6

4 . 4 0

1

3 . 9 0

6

3 . 6 5

3 2

0 . 2 9

I n e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g a n d s c h e d u l i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t

b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r

3 . 9 5

6

4 . 1 6

5

3 . 9 1

4

4 . 0 0

1 2

3 . 8 8

7

3 . 8 0

1 7

0 . 3 8

S l o w d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b y

t h e c l i e n t

3 . 8 6

7

3 . 8 8

1 3

3 . 5 7

1 5

4 . 2 0

6

3 . 8 0

9

3 . 8 5

1 0

0 . 4 3


3 . 8 3

8

3 . 8 4

1 5

3 . 7 1

8

3 . 8 0

1 9

3 . 9 3

5

3 . 8 8

6

0 . 9 1

I m p r o p e r t e c h n i c a l s t u d y b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r d u r i n g

t h e b i d d i n g s t a g e

3 . 8 2

9

3 . 8 4

1 4

3 . 5 9

1 2

4 . 2 0

5

3 . 6 0

1 7

3 . 8 8

7

0 . 2 8

C o n t r a c t o r s p o o r c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h t h e p a r t i e s

i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o j e c t

3 . 7 9 1 0

3 . 8 1

1 8

3 . 6 1

1 0

4 . 0 0

1 4

3 . 7 3

1 0

3 . 8 0

1 8

0 . 8 0


3 . 7 9 1 1

4 . 2 1

3

3 . 5 8

1 3

3 . 6 0

2 6

3 . 7 3

1 2

3 . 8 3

1 2

0 . 0 2 *


3 . 7 8 1 2

3 . 6 5

2 6

3 . 7 8

7

4 . 0 0

1 3

3 . 6 5

1 5

3 . 8 3

1 3

0 . 8 9


3 . 7 8 1 3

3 . 9 6

8

3 . 5 1

2 1

3 . 6 0

2 9

3 . 8 5

8

3 . 9 8

4

0 . 1 8


3 . 7 7 1 4

3 . 9 6

9

3 . 5 9

1 1

3 . 6 0

2 5

3 . 7 3

1 1

3 . 9 8

5

0 . 1 7


3 . 7 3 1 5

3 . 6 7

2 5

3 . 5 2

1 8

4 . 2 0

7

3 . 4 8

2 6

3 . 8 0

1 9

0 . 4 2

S h o r t a g e o f s k i l l e d m a n p o w e r

3 . 6 9 1 6

3 . 9 4

1 1

3 . 5 8

1 4

3 . 8 0

2 0

3 . 5 8

1 8

3 . 5 8

3 6

0 . 2 5


Table VI.Ranking based on

professional role


69


16/21

O v e r a l l

1

2

3

4

5

F a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t i m e o v e r r u n

M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n R a n k M e a n


K r u s k a l

W a l i s s i g . p


3 . 6 9 1 7

3 . 8 3

1 7

3 . 5 1

2 2

3 . 6 0

3 0

3 . 6 8

1 4

3 . 8 5

1 1

0 . 2 0

D u r a t i o n o f o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t t o o s h o r t

3 . 6 6 1 8

3 . 7 1

2 3

3 . 4 9

2 3

3 . 8 0

2 1

3 . 5 8

1 9

3 . 7 3

2 7

0 . 6 7

U n e x p e c t e d s o i l c o n d i t i o n

3 . 6 4 1 9

3 . 2 7

4 8

3 . 3 3

3 5

4 . 2 0

8

3 . 6 8

1 3

3 . 7 0

2 9

0 . 1 3

L o w q u a l i t y o f m a t e r i a l s

2 . 9 8 7 6

2 . 9 2

7 3

3 . 1 9

5 7

3 . 0 0

7 1

2 . 7 8

7 8

3 . 0 0

7 8

0 . 2 7

T y p e s o f p r o c u r e m e n t m e t h o d s

2 . 9 6 7 7

3 . 0 2

7 0

2 . 9 7

7 7

2 . 8 0

8 0

2 . 7 5

7 9

3 . 2 5

6 0

0 . 2 4

N o i n c e n t i v e t o c o n t r a c t o r s f o r e a r l y c o m p l e t i o n

2 . 9 3 7 8

3 . 0 6

6 7

2 . 9 9

7 5

2 . 2 0

8 3

3 . 1 5

6 1

3 . 2 3

6 3

0 . 3 4


2 . 9 0 7 9

2 . 6 1

8 2

2 . 8 8

8 1

3 . 4 0

5 6

2 . 5 8

8 2

3 . 0 3

7 6

0 . 2 0



2 . 8 8 8 0

2 . 6 3

8 0

3 . 0 0

7 2

3 . 0 0

7 6

3 . 2 3

5 1

2 . 5 5

8 4

0 . 0 2 *


2 . 8 1 8 1

2 . 8 8

7 6

2 . 7 7

8 2

3 . 0 0

7 7

2 . 6 9

8 0

2 . 7 3

8 1

0 . 9 5


2 . 7 8 8 2

2 . 8 5

7 7

2 . 7 7

8 3

2 . 8 0

8 1

2 . 6 3

8 1

2 . 8 5

7 9

0 . 8 4


2 . 7 1 8 3

2 . 2 5

8 4

3 . 1 0

6 8

3 . 0 0

7 4

2 . 4 8

8 3

2 . 7 0

8 2

0 . 0 0 *


2 . 4 0 8 4

2 . 4 6

8 3

2 . 4 5

8 4

2 . 2 0

8 4

2 . 3 0

8 4

2 . 5 9

8 3

0 . 9 2

N o t e s : T h e m e a n d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i c a n t a t : * p , 0 . 0 5 l e v e l ; 1

a r c h i t e c t s , 2 c i v i l a n d s t r u c t u r e e n g i n e e r s , 3 e l e c t r i c a l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r s ,

4 q u a n t i t y s u r v e y o r s , 5 p r o j e c t m a n a g e r s

Table VI.

JFMPC19,1

70


17/21

nancing and paying for completed work as the highest factor contributing to timeoverruns. The architects categorised 73 factors as critical and seven factors asmoderate.

The civil and structural engineers also ranked cash ow problems faced by thecontractor (4.12) as the highest and most critical factor, beside the late payment fromcontractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.06). There were 70 factors categorised ascritical and 12 factors categorised as moderate.

According to the quantity surveyors, there are four most critical factors:(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.23).(2) Late payment from contractors to sub-contractors or suppliers (4.08).(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to

payments (4.08).(4) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.00).

They categorised 65 factors as critical and 15 factors as moderate.The project managers categorised three factors as most critical: cash ow problems

faced by the contractor (4.25), late payment from contractor to sub-contractors orsuppliers (4.08) and, difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.05). Thesewere followed by 75 factors categorised as critical and six as moderate.

ConclusionAs highlighted by Dlakwa and Culpin (1990), construction activity requires majorinvestment outlays in most developing countries, yet most construction projects inthese countries are characterized by overruns in time. Therefore, it is not a coincidencethat time overrun remains a major problem in the Malaysian construction industry.From the study, it can be see that the sectors (public and private), the main parties,

and the professionals, all agree that the major factors contributing to time overrun inthe Malaysian construction sector are: cash ow problems faced by the contractors isthe highest factor (4.21) followed by late payment from contractors to sub-contractorsor suppliers (4.11). On the other hand, the analysis, based on type of organisation,revealed the major factors to be cash ow problems faced by the contractors (4.20) andlate payment from client to contractors (4.02). Whereas, analysis based on professionalroles shows that cash ow problems faced by the contractors (4.22), late paymentfrom client to contractors (4.13), problems between the contractors and theirsub-contractors with regards to payment (4.02) and difculties in nancing projects bycontractors (4.01) appear the important factors. The consensus of opinion is that thecontractors cash ow is essential regardless of the project sector, organisation, orprofessional role. On the other hand, all of the analyses conrm that poor supervisionby clients and poor storage on site were the least signicant factors.

It can be observed that all the major causes of project delays are related tocontractors and are nancial in nature. Therefore, it can be concluded that in Malaysia,the contractors nancial factors are the major cause of current project delays.

As highlighted (Enshassi et al., 2009), any shortage of cash for contractors willcause many problems such as slow progress, decline in productivity and inability topurchase materials, equip

Factors contributing to time overrun

Documents

Transcript of Factors contributing to time overrun