Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

1 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

2
3
4 Data in Brief
5
6
7 journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib
8
9
10
Data Article
11
Q1
12 Data exploration on factors that influences
13 construction cost and time performance on
14
15 construction project sites
16
17 Lekan M. Amusan a,n, Adedeji Afolabi a, Raphael Ojelabi a,
18 Ignatius Omuh a, Hilary I. Okagbue b
19
a
20 Department of Building Technology, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
b
Department of Mathematics, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
21
22
23
24 a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
25
Article history: This data article explores the factors that contribute to maintaining
26 Received 21 December 2017 steady cost projection on construction projects. The data was
27 Received in revised form obtained using structured questionnaire designed in Likert scale.
28 25 January 2018
The responses were solicited from category of construction prac-
29 Accepted 12 February 2018
titioners. Simple random sampling was employed in the distribu-
30 tion of the questionnaires to the respondents. Data samples were
31 Keywords: analysed using severity index, ranking and simple percentages.
32 Likert scale The analysis of the data brought to fore some important data on
Questionnaire
33 factors that causes cost overrun, they include: contractor's inex-
Construction
34 perience, inadequate planning, inflation, incessant variation order,
Cost overrun
35 Severity index and change in project design. They are critical to causing cost
Survey overrun, while project complexity, shortening of project period
36
Statistics and fraudulent practices are found to be responsible. The data fall
37
within the percentages of possible consequences of cost overrun
38 when compared with those available in scientific literature. The
39 data can provide insights on how to mitigate the risks of project
40 deviation from initial cost and as-built project.
41 & 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open
42 access article under the CC BY license
43 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
44
45
46
47
48
49
n
50 Corresponding author.
51 E-mail address: lekan.amusan@covenantuniversity.edu.ng (L.M. Amusan).
52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035
53 2352-3409/& 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
54 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i
 2 L.M. Amusan et al. / Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

55 Specifications Table
56
57 Subject area Building Construction
58 More specific Construction Management
59 subject area
60 Type of data Table, text file.
61 How data was Field survey
62
acquired
63 Data format Raw, filtered and analyzed data
64
Experimental Simple percentages and severity index were used as analytical tool of the
65 factors generated data. SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Science Students) was
66
used in determining the nature, strength and pattern of relationships among
67 the cost determinants and variables. The factors were ranked in order of their
68
degree of severity.
69 Experimental The key method used in data collection structured questionnaire designed in
70
features Likert scale, the questionnaire was designed in such a way that it helps to
71 collate basic information from the respondents. A population size of seventy
72
(70) was selected, and a total sample size of 59 respondents was used in data
73 generation, with questionnaire distributed to construction professionals.
74
Variables pertaining to the above listed targets were identified and incorpo-
75 rated into questionnaires as the primary source of data. The data was collated
76
and analysed, using mean item score ranking, percentages and descriptive
77 statistics.
78
Data source Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
79 location
80
Data accessibility The article is in public repository http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/
81
82
83 Value of the data
84
85 i. The data is useful in research that involves studying cost performance of construction projects.
86 ii. Data presented is useful in studying cost overrun that would help client and professional in project
87 cost planning.
88 iii. The data could be used in development of cost and time models.
89 iv. The data is valuable to construction project professionals and could be used in policy formulation.
90 v. The data could be used as basis of comparison with that of other countries in terms of project
91 management.
92
93
94
95 1. Data
96
97 The data was obtained using structured questionnaire designed in Likert scale. The responses were
98 solicited from category of 70 construction practitioners using survey sampling methodology. The data
99
retrieved from the 70 practitioners are presented as follows: data of professional affiliation of
100
respondents is presented in Table 1, data on years of experience (Table 2), data on economic sector
101
where they belonged (Table 3), data on procurement methods used by the respondents (Table 4) and
102
103 time data on period of cost overrun experienced by them in executing construction projects (Table 5).
104 Furthermore, severity index was used to obtain the ranks of cost-overrun determinants presented
105 in Table 6. The data on impact of cost and time on project performance is shown in Table 7. The cost
106 and time overrun survey information data on residential building projects are shown in Table 8 while
107 the data is in agreement with those available in scientific literature as regards to the consequence of
108 cost overrun.

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i
 L.M. Amusan et al. / Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

109 Table 1
110 Data profession of respondents.
111
Professional cadre of respondents Frequency Percentage
112
113 Architect 20 29.9
114 Builders 15 22.4
115 Engineers 15 22.39
Quantity Surveyor 10 14.9
116 Estate Surveyor 10 10.45
117 Total 70 100
118
119
120 Table 2
121 Data on respondents’ years of experience.
122
Years of experience Frequency Percentage
123
124 Above 10yrs 30 42.8
125 225-10yrs 20 28.6
126 1–5yrs 17 24.3
Missing data 3 4.3
127 Total 70 100
128
129
130 Table 3
Data on economic sector of the respondents.
131
132 Economy Sector Frequency Percentage
133
134 Private sector 47 67.1
135 Public sector 20 28.6
Missing data 3 4.3
136 Total 70 100
137
138
139 Table 4
140 Data of procurement methods used by the respondents.
141
142 Procurement methods Frequency Percentage
143
Traditional method 3 4.3
144 Project management 6 8.5
145 Direct labor 10 14.3
146 Design and build 20 28.6
147 Labor only contract 28 40.0
Missing data 3 4.3
148 Total 70 100
149
150
151 Table 5
152 Data on period of cost overrun experienced on projects.
153
No of Years Frequency Percentage
154
155 Above 2Yrs 0 0.00
156 1–2 years 2 2.9
157 6months-1year 21 30.0
158 Below 6months 39 55.7
Missing data 8 11.4
159 Total 70 100
160
161
162

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i
 4 L.M. Amusan et al. / Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

163 Table 6
164 Data on determinants of cost overrun on construction projects.
165
Cost-overrun determinants C.R. {5} R {4} J.R {3} IRR {2} V.R {1} S.I % R.K
166
167 Contractors Project inexperience 42 22 30 0 0 91.60 1
168 Inadequate planning 45 15 7 0 0 91.34 2
169 Inflation 42 20 5 0 0 91.00 3
Incessant variation order 44 16 6 1 0 90.70 4
170 Change in project design 43 17 7 0 0 90.70 4
171 Project complexity 42 20 3 2 0 90.40 6
172 Shortening of contract period 44 14 9 0 0 90.40 6
173 Fraudulent practices 42 18 7 0 0 90.40 6
Unstable economy 42 25 10 0 0 89.55 9
174
Inaccurate estimate 40 15 12 0 0 88.44 10
175 Overdesign 40 18 6 3 0 88.40 10
176 Project site location 35 25 5 1 1 88.05 12
177 Delay from employer 39 16 11 1 0 87.76 13
178 Force Majeure 30 25 11 1 0 85.10 16
Material Price fluctuations 30 18 19 0 0 83.30 14
179 Site conflicts 30 20 12 3 2 83.00 15
180 Poor workmanship 30 17 20 0 0 83.00 16
181 Inadequate financial provision 29 17 20 0 1 82.1 17
182 Contractors inefficiency 30 20 10 6 1 82.09 18
Unsteady material supply 30 15 20 2 0 81.80 19
183
Unpredictable weather condition 30 17 17 1 0 80.90 19
184 Breach of local regulation 25 22 11 8 1 79.10 20
185 Lack of executive capacity by employer 7 10 20 0 0 58.20 21
186
187 C.R¼ Completely relevant, J ¼ Just relevant, IRR¼ Irrelevant, VR ¼ Very Relevant, R.I¼ Relevant Index.
R.K¼ Ranking
188
189
2. Experimental design, materials and methods
190
191
2.1. Data collection
192
193
Simple random sampling was used in the data collection through carefully structured ques-
194
tionnaire. A population size of seventy (70) was selected, and a total sample size of 59 respondents
195
196 was used in this study, with questionnaire distributed to construction professionals. Variables per-
197 taining to the above listed targets were identified and incorporated into questionnaires as the primary
198 source of data. Some similar methods and contributions can be seen in [1–8].
199
200
201 2.2. Data analysis
202
203 The data was collated and analysed, using mean item score ranking, percentages and the use of
204 descriptive statistics. Cost overrun determinants were ranked in percentages using the severity index.
205 The five-scale in the questionnaire forms the response variables which are mapped with the 23 cost
206 overrun determinants to obtain the severity index. The five-scale response variables are listed with
207 the assigned ranks: completely relevant (CR) is ranked 4, relevant is ranked 3, just relevant is ranked
208 2 and irrelevant is ranked 1. The summary is shown in Table 6.
209 Relative agreement index (RAI) is used to obtain the rank of 15 variables that determine the impact
210
of cost and time on project performance. This is presented in Table 7.
211
The construction practitioners’ experiences on project cost overrun and duration were ranked
212
distinctly and shown in Table 8. This enables for quick comparison and decision making.
213
The data composition is in agreement with those available in scientific literature as regards to the
214
consequence of cost overrun. This is summarized in Table 9. The selected works relevant and similar
215
216 can be found in [9–21].

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i
 L.M. Amusan et al. / Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

217 Table 7
218 Data of impacts of time and cost on project performance.
219
Effects R.A.I Rank
220
221 Time overrun 0.796 1
222 Tied-up Capital 0.772 2
223 Loss of investment 0.756 3
Materials are effectively put to use 0.728 4
224 High tendency for the occurrence of dispute between the clients and contractors. 0.724 5
225 Project abandonment. 0.704 6
226 Excessive increase on the entire project cost. 0.656 7
227 Client's dis-satisfaction 0.640 8
Profit loss. 0.632 9
228
Consultant dissatisfaction 0.632 9
229 Payment delay 0.628 11
230 Good completion time 0.616 12
231 Maximized project profit 0.600 13
232 Reduced building component quality. 0.576 14
High level of material wastage 0.528 15
233
234 R.A.I¼ Relative Agreement Index
235
236
237 Table 8
238 Data of cost and time overrun survey information on residential building projects.
239
Assessment Statements Architect Builder Structural Quantity surveyor
240
241 I have been involved in a building project before 30% 40% 10% 10%
242 I have experienced extension in project delivery time 20% 50% 17% 13%
243 Length Of Extension
1–6 months 0.89(i) 0.87(i) 0.85(ii) 0.86(i)
244 6–12 months 0.84(vi) 0.86(ii) 0.86(i) 0.83(ii)
245 12–18months 0.85(v) 0.85(iii) 0.82(iv) 0.82(iii)
246 18–24 months 0.87(iii) 0.85(iii) 0.84(iii) 0.81(iv)
247 More than 24 months 0.86(iv) 0.83(iv) 0.78(v) 0.82(iii)
I have experienced cost overrun in a building project
248
249 Percentage Of Increase
250 0–15% 0.78(vi) 0.65(vi) 0.66(vi) 0.65(vi)
15–30% 0.79(v) 0.76(iv) 0.73(v) 0.72(v)
251
30–45% 0.80(iv) 0.85(ii) 0.85(ii) 0.89(i)
252 45–60% 0.82(ii) 0.89(i) 0.87(i) 0.88(ii)
253 60–80% 0.81(iii) 0.71(v) 0.78(iii) 0.75(iv)
254 80% and above 0.83(i) 0.75(iii) 0.76(iv) 0.79(iii)
255
256
257
258 Table 9:
259 Data of consequences of cost overrun.

260 Effects of Cost overrun. Percentage

261
262 Tying down of clients capital 80%
263 Company/firms liability to insolvency 50%
Liability of companies or firms to bad debt or bankruptcy 70%
264
Under-utilization of manpower resources 55%
265 Tendency for an increase project cost resulting from payments for idle and unproductive time arising out of 93%
266 contractors claims.
267 Tendency for an increase project cost resulting from payments for idle and unproductive time 90%
268 Projects abandonment 60%
Under-utilization of plants and equipment 93%
269
270

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i
 6 L.M. Amusan et al. / Data in Brief ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

271 Acknowledgements
272
273 Q2 The support of Covenant University Centre for Research and Innovation (CUCRID), Covenant
274 Q3 University is acknowledged for sponsoring this research.
275
276
277 Transparency document. Supporting information
278
279 Transparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/
280 10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035.
281
282
283 References
284
285 [1] L.M. Amusan, D. Dosunmu, J. Opeyemi, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 8 (10) (2017) 918–927.
286 [2] K.T. Odusami, O.O. Olusanya, Clients contribution to delays on completion cost of housing projects in Nigeria, Quant. Surv.
30 (2000) 31–44.
287 [3] D.R. Ogunsemi, G.O. Jagboro, Time-cost model for building projects in Nigeria, J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2006) 253–258.
288 [4] H.I. Okagbue, A.A. Opanuga, M.O. Adamu, P.O. Ugwoke, E.C.M. Obasi, G.A. Eze, Personal name in Igbo Culture: a dataset on
289 randomly selected personal names and their statistical analysis, Data Brief. 15 (2017) 72–80.
[5] S.A. Bishop, E.A. Owoloko, H.I. Okagbue, P.E. Oguntunde, O.A. Odetunmibi, A.A. Opanuga, Survey datasets on the externa-
290
lizing behaviors of primary school pupils and secondary school students in some selected schools in Ogun State, Nigeria,
291 Data Brief. 13 (2017) 469–479.
292 [6] C.O. Iroham, H.I. Okagbue, O.A. Ogunkoya, J.D. Owolabi, Survey data on factors affecting negotiation of professional fees
between Estate Valuers and their clients when the mortgage is financed by bank loan: a case study of mortgage valuations
293
in Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria, Data Brief. 12 (2017) 447–452.
294 [7] S.I. Popoola, A.A. Atayero, N. Faruk, J.A. Badejo, Data on the key performance indicators for quality of service of GSM
295 networks in Nigeria, Data Brief. 16 (2018) 914–928.
296 [8] P.F. Tunji-Olayeni, O.P. Lawal, L.M. Amusan, Developing infrastructure in Nigeria: why is the cost so high? Medit. J. Soc. Sci. 3
(12) (2013) 257–263.
297 [9] A. Ashworth, Cost Studies of Building, Second ed., Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow. England, 1994.
298 [10] P.E. Bathurst, D.A. Butler, Building Cost Control Techniques and Economics, Second Edition, Heinemann, London, 1980.
299 [11] S.M. Dissanayaka, M.M. Kumaransammy, Comparing Contributory Time and Cost Performance in building projects, Build.
Environ. 31 (6) (1999) 569–578.
300 [12] D.J. Ferry, P.S. Brandon, J.D. Ferry, Cost Planning of Building, Seventh ed., Blackwell Science Limited, Hosney Mead. London,
301 1998.
302 [13] J.O. Harris, R. MacCaffer, Modern Construction Management. Iowa State Press, Fifth ed., Blackwell Publishing Company,
Ames, Iowa.USA, 2005.
303 [14] G.O. Jagboro, An evaluation of the factors that cause delays on construction project in Nigeria, Afr. J. Dev. Stud. 1 (1-2)
304 (1998) 105–114.
305 [15] H.C. Kerzner, Project Management, Sixth ed., John Wiley and Sons. Incorporated, Canada, 1998.
[16] P.E.D. Love, R.Y.C. Tse, D.J. Edwards, Time-Cost relationship in Australian building construction projects, Niger. J. Constr.
306 Manag. 2 (1) (2005) 81–86.
307 [17] M.Z.A. Majid, Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractor's performance, J. Magt. Enginee 14 (3) (1998)
308 42–44.
[18] M. Mawdesley, W. Askew, M. O’Reilly, Planning and Controlling Construction Projects, Longman Publishers, Berkshire.
309
London, 1997.
310 [19] J.K. Mbachu, G.S. Olaoye, Analysis of major delay factors in building project execution, Niger. J. Constr. Manag. 2 (1) (1999)
311 81–86.
312 [20] R. Pilcher, Preicioles of Construction Management, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Books Company, Berkshire. England, 1992.
[21] R.M. Skitmore, S.T. Ng, Forecast model for actual construction time and cost, Build. Environ. 8 (8) (2003) 1075–1089.

Please cite this article as: L.M. Amusan, et al., Data exploration on factors that influences
construction cost and time performance on construction project sites, Data in Brief (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.035i