Searching: Business Source Premier

AN 253021

Choose Databases in Select a Field (optional) in Select a Field (optional) in Select a Field (optional)

AND AND
Add Row Basic Search Advanced Search

Visual Search

Search History

Contributors to construction delays.

Authors: Kumaraswamy, Mohan M.1 Chan, Daniel W. M.1 Source: Construction Management & Economics; Jan1998, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p17-29, 13p, 1 Diagram, 14 Charts, 1 Graph Document Article Type: Subject Terms: *CONSTRUCTION industry *PROJECT management *INDUSTRIAL engineering *INDUSTRIAL productivity *QUESTIONNAIRES Geographic HONG Kong (China) Terms: CHINA Author- delay Supplied Hong Kong Keywords: Hong Kong. PRODUCTIVITY project management time Abstract: Projects can be delayed for a large number of reasons. The third phase of an investigation into such factors focused on the causes of construction delays in Hong Kong. A questionnaire was based on 83 factors identified in previous phases

of the investigation. Analysis of the responses reveals differences in perceptions of the relative significance of factors between clients, consultants and contractors. There was general agreement about the relative importance of delay factors such as unforeseen ground conditions. Improving productivity is a useful approach to controlling delays. Important factors affecting productivity itself are thus examined in more depth, with a view to enhancing productivity and reducing delays. The conclusions of this phase of the investigation include a ranking of factors and factor categories that are perceived by different groups of project participants to contribute to delays. For example, higher-ranking factors, such as unforeseen ground conditions, and factor categories such as project-related factors, are found to merit special management attention in countering construction delays. The high degree of disagreement as discerned between the groups of clients, consultants and contractors is indicative of their experiences, possible prejudices and lack of effective communication. It is also confirmed that productivity and other non-scope factors such as effective communications should supplement the project scope factors incorporated into the construction time prediction models that were proposed in the previous phases of this investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Construction Management & Economics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) Author 1Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Affiliations: Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. Full Text Word 6285 Count: ISSN: 0144-6193 DOI: 10.1080/014461998372556 Accession 253021 Number: Database: Business Source Premier Publisher Logo:

CONTRIBUTORS TO CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Received 26 October 1995; accepted 8 July 1996 Projects can be delayed for a large number of reasons. The third phase of an investigation into such factors focused on the causes of construction delays in Hong Kong. A questionnaire was based on 83 factors identified in previous phases of the investigation. Analysis of the responses reveals differences in perceptions of the relative significance of factors between clients, consultants and contractors. There was general agreement about the relative importance of delay factors such as unforeseen ground conditions. Improving productivity is a useful approach to controlling delays. Important factors affecting productivity itself are thus examined in more depth, with a view to enhancing productivity and reducing delays. The conclusions of this phase of the investigation include a ranking of factors and factor categories that are perceived by different groups of project participants to contribute to delays. For example, higher-ranking factors, such as unforeseen ground conditions, and factor categories such as project-related factors, are found to merit special management attention in countering construction delays. The high degree of disagreement as discerned between the groups of clients, consultants and contractors is indicative of their experiences, possible prejudices and lack of effective communication. It is also confirmed that productivity and other non-scope factors such as effective communications should supplement the project scope factors incorporated into the construction time prediction models that were proposed in the previous phases of this investigation. Keywords: productivity, project management, delay, time, Hong Kong Background and introduction The first two phases of an ongoing investigation into factors affecting construction durations in Hong Kong (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995) focused on project scope variables such as project cost, floor area and number of floors in buildings. The results were similar to those previously derived by Bromilow et al. (1988) in Australia and Kaka and Price (1991) in the UK, in respect of the types of relationship and the correlation between project time and cost. The previous investigation also indicated the probable impact on construction durations of non-scope factors such as external and management variables, in line with the conclusions from a recent study in Australia (Walker, 1995a). Previous reports on the ongoing study into construction time performance in Hong Kong noted that: (a) productivity was a key factor needing further study (Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1995); and (b) site organization variables also merited further investigation, in relation to project durations (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995). Furthermore, the second phase of the Hong Kong investigation also incorporated a case study on construction plant and labour productivity. This indicated the contribution of productivity levels to activity times, overall construction project durations and construction delays, for example through different utilization/idling patterns. This paper highlights the principal findings of the third phase of the Hong Kong investigation, in respect of the main factors causing delays, as perceived by different industry subsectors: clients, consultants

and contractors. The degree of agreement/disagreement between the subsectors as to the importance of these factors is also indicated, to illustrate differences in collective perspectives and any possible popular misconceptions or prejudices. The resulting sectoral and combined rankings of the main causes of construction delays suggest suitable priorities in devising and focusing strategies to counteract such critical contributors to delays in future projects. In developing such counter-delay strategies, a focus on productivity is justified by the main findings of the questionnaire and literature surveys, both of which indicate a general perception of the significance of 'non-scope' factors that either directly or indirectly affect productivity levels and project durations. Lower productivity than planned is thus identified as a key contributor to (or a root cause of) delays, which therefore merits special attention. The findings of this phase of the investigation are framed within the context of relevant results of recent research into construction productivity and other factors affecting construction durations and construction delays in other countries, in order to consider the general applicability of the conclusions. Productivity, project durations and delays Because productivity levels were found to be a principal determinant of project durations (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995), lowered productivity could feasibly contribute significantly to project delays. The potential for improvement is reflected in the finding that 'productivity rates in the United Kingdom varied between one site and another by as much as three to one' (NEDO, 1989). Enhanced productivity is evidently a necessary but not sufficient condition for reducing project durations. While the productivity of each type of resource (factor), such as labour, may be increased, by motivation for example, the overall (total factor) productivity will not be correspondingly enhanced unless a proper balance and appropriate synergy is achieved. This requires effective management of the resources and their interactions within the project, as well as their interactions with the external environment. Conversely, project durations have been reduced in practice, despite lower productivity levels, for example by mobilizing more resources. Seemingly impossible target dates have been achieved by such deployment of additional resources and/or a sudden surge of synergistic 'partnering' type teamwork by all project participants who needed to meet a critical deadline. Similarly, project delays have also been caused by factors other than lowered productivity levels. For the purposes of the third phase of this investigation, potential delay factors were identified from a literature review and the observations from the first two phases of the investigation. These were classified into eight factor categories as follows: project-related; client-related; design team-related; contractor-related; materials-related;

labour-related; plant/equipment-related; external factors. Although a certain degree of overlap may be anticipated between these categories, this was minimized during the specific allocations of the 83 factors. It was noted that: (a) there may be interactions between the factor categories, for example in one affecting the other either positively or negatively; and (b) achieved (vs planned) productivity levels can affect many of the categories (as a common root cause), for example in design team productivity, contractors' organizational productivity, labour productivity and plant productivity. Projects can be delayed by the impact of such factor categories; it was also noted that these may interact to produce 'multiplier' effects, where problems in one category may trigger further problems in another. For example, weak contractor management may lower labour morale, and decrease plant productivity as well. Survey methodology The survey questionnaire was designed on the basis of 83 previously identified delay-causing factors divided into the foregoing eight factor categories. Respondents were requested to rate the significance of each factor as either extremely significant, very significant, moderately significant, slightly significant or not significant. The first page of the five-page questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 1. This questionnaire was sent to 400 clients, consultants and contractors in Hong Kong in December 1994, requesting responses based on projects completed between 1990 and 1994. Follow-up communications led to the return of 147 completed questionnaires. The distribution of the respondents, as classified according to their industry grouping (clients, consultants or contractors) and their main works type (buildings or civil engineering) is indicated in Appendix 2. The profile of the respondents in terms of their average work experience in each such group, as indicated in Appendix 3, confirms the considerable experience on which the responses are based. It is noted that the subjective and general nature of the responses required would be less reliable than more quantifiable information, or that obtained from specific projects. However, it must be also noted that this survey supplements (and is supplemented by) a previous survey, which derived such quantifiable data from specific projects (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995), but which also indicated the need for wider experience-based assessments of factors causing delays. The questionnaire survey was supplemented by follow-up interviews to clarify some of the responses. Survey findings Observations and analysis Table 1 presents a profile of the magnitudes of time overruns, as observed on different types of projects during the first survey in 1993/94. This profile indicates that project delays are fairly common in Hong Kong. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the responses in respect of the 20 most important factors causing delays

as perceived by two of the six groups surveyed: contractors on building projects and consultants on civil engineering projects, respectively. Four more of such summarized response sheets were obtained for the other groups surveyed, but are not reproduced here, to save space. However, the consolidated summaries that are presented later (in Tables 4, 5 and 8) reflect the comparative results from the other groups as well. The relative importance index (RII) derived to summarize the importance of each 'factor' was computed as Multiple line equation(s) cannot be converted to ASCII text where: w = weighting as assigned by each respondent in a range from 1 to 5, where 1 implies 'not significant' and 5 implies 'extremely significant'; A = the highest weight (5); N = the total number in the sample. The relative rankings of the factors within each group from 1 to 20 are also indicated in Tables 2 and 3. These were assigned on the basis of the factor RIIs. Where the RIIs were the same for two or more factors, rank differentiation was achieved by examining the distribution of the ratings against such factors. For example, if more respondents had ranked one of the factors as either 'extremely significant' or 'very significant' (i.e. more ranks of 4 or 5, than assigned to another factor), then the former was assigned the higher rank. The next step distinguished between building works and civil engineering works, thereby dividing each of the three participant groups into two such work types, with each work type containing the three groups of clients, consultants and contractors. The weighted average of the RIIs for each of the previously selected 20 factors from each group was next computed within each work type, by combining it with the RIIs from the other two groups. This combination of three RIIs to find the weighted average for each factor within each work type was achieved by adding the products of (a) the RII for each group and (b) the proportion of respondents from the corresponding group (as a proportion of the total respondents, as can be derived from Appendix 2). For example, the weighted average of the factor 'poor site management and supervision' in the 'building works' type, as in Table 4, was computed as 0.800 x (27/78) + 0.858 x (24/78) + 0.822 x (27/78) = 0.825, as appears in Table 4. The ten factors with the highest weighted averages in the 'buildings works' and 'civil engineering works' types are shown in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Figures 1 and 2 facilitate a visual comparison of the RIIs, (as derived from the perceptions of the different groups) of the ten most significant factors in respect of the 'building works' and 'civil engineering works' types respectively. The overall RIIs for each of the eight factor categories were next determined for each group in turn, by taking the mean of all factor RIIs in that category. The weighted averages of these overall RIIs from the factor categories were obtained for three building works groups as in Table 6; and for the three civil engineering works groups as in Table 7.

The rank agreement factors (RAFs) were next computed using the formula and methodology described by Okpala and Aniekwu (1988) to measure the agreement in ranking between groups of project participants. The RAF can range from 0, indicating perfect agreement, to higher values indicating increasing disagreement. The percentage disagreement and the percentage agreement (PA) were computed from the RAF, also using the prescribed formulae. Table 8 records the RAFs and PAs as computed for the ten most significant factors causing delays, as perceived by the different groups. Table 9 records the RAFs and PAs in respect of the relative importance of the eight factor categories themselves, as perceived by the different groups. A further overall comparison between the building works and civil engineering works as a whole yields a RAF of 0.50 and a PA of 87.5%, indicating a high overall correlation. Figure 3 illustrates the proportions of agreement between the different groups based on the PAs in Tables 8 and 9. Specific conclusions from the survey While the detailed results as indicated in Tables 2-9 and Figures 1-3 contain a wealth of information, the following specific conclusions are relevant to the focus of this paper. There is a fair degree of agreement between the groups in their ranking of the factor categories, particularly between clients and consultants. However, there is an apparent divergence in perceptions between clients and contractors, or even between consultants and contractors, on many specific factors themselves: this is reflected in the percentage agreements (PAs) in Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 3. For example, the clients and consultants appear to agree on the significance of the contractor-related factor category in contributing to delays in both building works and civil engineering works, as per Tables 6 and 7. However, an examination of the significant 'factors' so identified does not appear to reflect this general perception to a corresponding extent in the case of the specific factors in Tables 4 and 5. This apparent anomaly could perhaps be explained, for example, as a general 'conditioning' of one group (such as consultants) vis-a-vis another (such as contractors), which may manifest itself in a random distribution of adverse responses relating to the latter group in general, i.e. within the relevant factor category, despite a lack of agreement on specific factors. The top ten significant factors as isolated separately for building works and civil engineering works, as identified in Tables 4 and 5 respectively, yield six common factors, as listed in Table 10. Of the remaining four significant factors from building works, two are contractor related, one is project related, and the other is design-team related. On the other hand, three of the four remaining factors from civil engineering works are contractor related, with the other -classified as labour related - also usually being within the purview of the contractor. It is evident that there are differences in the perceptions of different groups as to the causes of construction delays. Such perceptions may be attributed to a certain degree of group bias, arising either from some specific experiences, from limited exposure, and/or from conditioning by colleagues. Even though the recorded experience levels of the survey respondents seem sufficiently high, and not

dissimilar between groups as in Appendix 3, some bias is evident in the group perceptions. Perhaps the wording of the factors and the classification of the factor categories in the questionnaire itself may also be re-examined to minimize any defensive posturing or 'buck passing' by different groups; but a residual bias is apparent even if allowances are made for this possible distortion. Unfortunately, such biases may be counterproductive: for example, when blaming other groups, rather than examining the real causes of delays. Such differences of perception and their consequences can also lead to claims for extension of time that generate further pressures to direct or deflect blame, rather than seek root causes and solutions. A re-examination of Tables 6 and 7 relating to significant factor categories indicates that projectrelated factor categories rank only fifth in significance, whereas contractor-related, design-teamrelated and labour-related factor categories rank first, second and third respectively. This suggests that project- (or scope-) related factors are not that significant in the context of delays (although they are important in establishing the project durations at the outset), in comparison with the aforementioned first three factor categories, and even the fourth (external conditions). Furthermore, case studies and interviews during this investigation indicated the importance of productivity levels of the contractor, of the design team, and of the labour itself, in contributing to the significance of the first three (as ranked) aforementioned factor categories. It was also noted that the wide variations possible in such productivity levels could well contribute to project delays (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995). The foregoing conclusion re-confirms previous findings, from this investigation and from the literature, as to the significance of productivity in determining project durations and in contributing to delays. This also suggests a re-examination of methods of measuring and improving productivity levels in construction projects, as one important approach to avoiding or minimizing delays. A re-examination of aspects of construction productivity that contribute to project delays Concept and classifications Commencing with the basic conceptualization of productivity as output/input, Prokopenko (1987) identified three main productivity factor groups as: job related; resource related; environment related. He also distinguished between (a) external (non-controllable) and (b) internal (controllable) factors, further subdividing the latter into hard factors (those related to product, plant and equipment, technology, materials and energy) and soft factors (people, organization and systems, work methods and management styles). The importance of total factor productivity as against single factor productivity -- to construction organizations and to the industry itself -- has been reported previously (Ganesan, 1984). The former takes into account all input resources (factors), whereas the latter is usually useful only in the case of

a critical or scarce resource, such as skilled labour. Improving productivity levels The observations from the Hong Kong survey in the current investigation indicated the perceived importance of contractor-related, design-team-related and labour-related factor categories. This appears to: (a) align with the concept of increasing total factor productivity and of synergizing the inputs to optimize the outputs; and (b) provide a reminder of the importance of organizational variables in both contractors and design organizations. For example, the rapid response and constructive inputs of design teams to site problems enhance productivity and reduce delays. Special work study techniques such as multiple-activity charts and activity sampling have been adapted and developed for measuring and improving construction productivity (Heap, 1987; McCaffer and Harris, 1995), but there is little evidence as yet of their popular usage in the industry, for example in structured and scientific approaches to developing improved work methods and in establishing and improving work norms. Such techniques and tools can be useful to organizations with a longer-term perspective: i.e. those prepared to invest in improved productivity despite short-term pressures or priorities. Their usefulness is underlined by the significantly variable construction productivity levels indicated by the literature (NEDO, 1989); and by the previous (second) phase of this investigation (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995), which indicated potential improvements through better plant and labour utilization and appropriate methodologies, for example in concreting. Factors affecting productivity and project durations Lim and Price (1995) cited (a) the following seven factors identified as affecting overall construction productivity in Singapore: buildability; structure of the industry; training; mechanization and automation; foreign labour; standardization; building controls. and (b) the following ten factors identified as affecting labour productivity: quality, number and balance of labour force; motivation of labour force; degree of mechanization; continuity of work as affected by supply of materials, performance of other contractors or subcontractors, availability and adequacy of technical information, and variations;

complexity of project; required quality of finished work; method of construction; type of contract; quality and number of managers; weather. The apparent complexity is magnified when considering: (a) the possibilities of interactions between such factors affecting labour productivity, and (b) the fact that similarly complex networks of factors may simultaneously affect other factor productivities, such as that of equipment. The consequential impacts on project activities could well lead to project delays. It is thus necessary to focus on critical factors affecting overall (or total factor) productivity. Maloney (1983) confirmed that labour has a significant influence on construction productivity, and that management in turn has a major impact on labour productivity. He identified sets of specific driving, induced and restraining forces acting positively and negatively on productivity levels, and formulated approaches based on such forces to facilitate productivity improvements. Motivation of both management and labour can be hypothesized as a key contributor to productivity. Methods of motivating personnel to increase productivity have been demonstrated by Khan (1993), through applications of different human relations theories of motivation. Such enhancement of productivity could help to counteract delays induced by other causes. Conversely, a lack of proper management can, even 'by default', mobilize factors that adversely affect productivity and lead to project delays. Other factors affecting construction time performance The literature review of recent research also revealed many factors that were found to affect construction time performance, apart from those factors that achieved such effects through their initial impact on productivity levels. For example, Nkado (1995) demonstrated the prioritization of construction-time-influencing factors that can be incorporated in an information system, which could then help in planning project durations. He used 12 scope-related variables, such as gross floor area, to develop this particular model, but had also previously examined a total of 33 time-influencing factors that had been identified from the literature. From the latter, he identified the ten most important factors, including for example client and designer's priority on construction time. He also identified the ten least important factors from this set of 33, including for example the form of contract and its suitability for the project. In a similar context, an investigation of the relationship between the building team, procurement method and project performance by Naoum and Mustapha (1995) did not yield enough evidence to confirm the claim that alternative procurement methods shorten construction times. Parallels can thus be drawn with the work of Walker (1995b) in Australia, which 'revealed that contract type does not

affect the speed of construction', and that several client-related factors proved more significant, particularly as to 'how well the clients or their representatives relate to the project team'. Walker (1995a) also found that the 'four factors affect(ing) construction time performances and best practice worldwide were: construction management effectiveness; the sophistication of the client and the client's representative in terms of creating and maintaining positive project team relationships with the construction management and design team; design team effectiveness in communicating with construction management and client's representative teams; a small number of factors describing project scope and complexity. Such findings collaborate the results of the questionnaire survey in Hong Kong, as to the relative significance of non-scope factor categories, such as 'contractor related', 'design team related' and 'labour related' in contributing the construction delays. Specific factors also highlighted as significant in this study included poor site management and supervision, low speed of decision making involving all project teams, delays in design information, and lack of communication between consultant and contractor. Concluding observations The third phase of this investigation into factors affecting construction durations led to the identification of some major causes of construction project delays. Both the questionnaire survey results in Hong Kong and the review of recent relevant research revealed the significance of non-scope contributors such as project participant priorities and relationships. Such contributors affect project durations both directly, and indirectly through their effects on productivity levels. For example, the questionnaire survey indicated the perceived importance of the impact on construction delays of the contractor-related, design-team-related and labour-related factor categories. The particular contribution of variable productivity levels to these significant factor categories was noted, leading to an examination of factors affecting productivity itself and of how productivity could be considerably enhanced and delays minimized, through techniques such as work study. Another aspect of consistently increased productivity levels, although not explored in this paper, is the possibility of reductions in the planned project durations themselves, in the first instance. An integration of these findings with those from the previous phases of the ongoing study (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995) confirms that productivity is one of the key factors in determining both planned and achieved project durations, and that while project scope factors must be used to model the planned project durations, other non-scope factors need to be incorporated in the model, in setting the baselines and in adjusting for particular priorities, capabilities and motivations of the interacting project participants. The questionnaire survey in this investigation also revealed differences in perceptions as to causes of delays by different groups of project participants: clients, consultants and contractors in building works as well as in civil engineering works. It is suggested that these apparent collective biases of different

industry groups may often direct blame for delays to other groups, and discourage a search for the root causes of delays and solutions to same. The origin of such biases may be traced to group conditioning, as well as to the present adversarial nature of the contractual systems, including the clashes, blame allocation and defensive postures induced by the not uncommon 'extension of time' claims and associated costs in construction contracts. Studies on causes of project delays must thus make allowances for such biases when verifying the real reasons, whether through interviews or through selected project documents. Furthermore, special efforts must be made to overcome such biases, as well as to analyse and address the factors and factor categories identified in this study and the literature, as significant contributors to project delays. Particular strategies may be designed to address the significant factors, such as unforeseen ground conditions, poor site management and supervision, and delays in design information. As a general principle, for example, more intensive site investigations and stronger management are probably warranted in projects where delays can be crucial. Of course, such principles need to be translated into practice through appropriate guidelines and project-specific procedures. This study thus provides pointers to appropriate strategies and particular measures that may be adopted to avoid and/or mitigate project delays by focusing on the direct and indirect common contributors to same, such as delays in design information and productivity levels. While the present survey was based in Hong Kong, the international literature revealed general similarities that may merit detailed comparative investigations elsewhere. Table 1 Percentage of time overruns in the three project samples in the previous survey in Hong Kong Legend for Chart: A B C D A 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Mean percentage of time overrun Sample size Actual percentage of time overrun Government building projects (%) Private building projects (%) Civil engineering projects (%) B 40 27 11 14 5 3 0 9 37 C 25 28 17 11 1 0 8 17 36 D 34 21 21 13 15 3 3 14 38

Table 2 Contractors' responses and ranking of the significance of factors causing delays in building

projects (sample size = 27) Legend for Chart: A B C D E F A Hypothesized factors (1) Percentage of respondents scoring: >/=4 (2) Percentage of respondents scoring: 3 (3) </=2 (4) Relative importance index (5) Rank (6) B D C E F 7.41 0.889 1

Delays in design information

88.89 3.70

Long waiting time for approval of drawings

85.19 3.70

11.11 0.822 2 14.82 0.822 3

Poor site management and supervision

81.48 3.70

Unrealistic contract durations imposed by client

75.00 0.00

25.00 0.817 4

Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents

81.48 3.70

14.82 0.815 5

Long waiting time for approval of test samples of materials

77.78 3.70

18.52 0.815 6

Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking all project teams

66.67 3.70

29.63 0.807 7 11.11 0.8 8

Inadequate design team experience

81.48 7.41

Lack of communication between consultant and contractor

74.07 3.70

22.23 0.8 9

Low speed of decision making involving all project teams

74.07 11.11

14.82 0.8 10 26.92 0.792 11 33.34 0.785 12 22.23 0.778 13 14.81 0.770 14

Delays in subcontractors' work

69.23 3.85

Inadequate contractor experience

62.96 3.70

Necessary variations

74.07 3.70

Disputes/conflicts

77.78 7.41

Low speed of decision making within each project team

70.37 7.41

22.22 0.770 15

Lack of communication between client and consultant

66.67 11.11

22.22 0.770 16 25.93 0.770 17 22.23 0.763 18 25.92 0.756 19

Shortage of materials in markets

62.96 11.11

Client-initiated variations

74.07 3.70

Unforeseen ground conditions

66.67 7.41

Slow information flow between project team members

62.96 0.00

37.04 0.756 20

Table 3 Consultants' responses and ranking of the significance of factors causing delays in civil engineering projects (sample size = 25) Legend for Chart: A B C D E F A Hypothesized factors (1) Percentage of respondents scoring: >/=4 (2) Percentage of respondents scoring: 3 (3) </=2 (4) Relative importance index (5) Rank (6) B D C E F 12.00 0.816 1 16.00

Unforeseen ground conditions

80.00 8.00

Inadequate contractor experience

80.00

4.00

0.8 2 28.00 0.792 3 13.04 0.791 4

Poor site management and supervision

68.00 4.00

Inappropriate type of foundations

78.26 8.70

Low speed of decision making involving all project teams

75.00 12.50

12.50 0.783 5 24.00 0.776 6 16.00 0.768 7

Necessary variations

72.00 4.00

Client-initiated variations

76.00 8.00

Deficiencies in planning and scheduling at preconstruction stage

72.00 16.00

12.00 0.76 8

Unsuitable leadership style of contractor's construction manager

68.00 12.00

20.00 0.76 9

Improper control over site resource allocation

56.00 8.00

36.00 0.76 10

Slow information flow between project team members

70.83 12.50

16.67 0.758

11 Shortage of plant/equipment 68.00 12.00 20.00 0.752 12

Unsuitable management structure and style

68.00 12.00

20.00 0.752 13

Low speed of decision making within each project team

62.50 4.17

33.33 0.75 14 28.00 0.736 15 32.00 0.736 16 20.83 0.733 17

Inadequate managerial skills

64.00 8.00

Shortage of skilled labour

60.00 8.00

Inappropriate type of main construction

70.83 8.34

Small extent of design information available at construction start

66.66 16.67

16.67 0.733 18

Shortage of managerial and supervisory personnel

72.00 16.00

12.00 0.728 19 32.00 0.728 20

Delays in subcontractors' work

60.00 8.00

Table 4 Relative importance indices (RII) of the ten most significant factors causing delays in building

works (in descending order of significance) Legend for Chart: A B C D E F A B C E D F Hypothesized factor Factor category Clients (RII) Consultants (RII) Contractors (RII) Weighted average

Poor site management and supervision related Contractor 0.800 0.822 0.858 0.825

Unforeseen ground conditions Project related 0.763 0.756 0.842 0.814

Delays in design information Design team related 0.689 0.889 0.742 0.775

Lack of communication between consultant and contractor Project related 0.741 0.8 0.783 0.774

Inadequate contractor experience Contractor related 0.763 0.785 0.765 0.771

Low speed of decision making

involving all project teams Project related 0.733 0.800 0.808 0.761

Client-initiated variations Client related 0.741 0.763 0.808 0.757

Necessary variations of works Project related 0.756 0.778 0.783 0.756

Delays in subcontractors's work Contractor related 0.708 0.792 0.767 0.755

Improper control over site resource allocation Contractor related 0.769 0.719 0.775 0.754

Table 5 Relative importance indices (RII) of the ten most significant factors causing delays in civil engineering works (in descending order of significance) Legend for Chart: A B C D E F A Hypothesized factor Factor category Clients (RII) Consultants (RII) Contractors (RII) Weighted average B C E D F

Unforeseen ground conditions

Project related

0.826 0.8

0.816 0.814

Poor site management and supervision Contractor related 0.878 0.710 0.792 0.796

Low speed of decision making involving all project teams Project related 0.755 0.743 0.783 0.761

Client-initiated variations Client related 0.757 0.743 0.768 0.757

Necessary variations of works Project related 0.678 0.733 0.776 0.756

Inadequate contractor experience Contractor related 0.817 0.632 0.8 0.755

Unsuitable management structure and style of contractor Contractor related 0.773 0.7 0.752 0.743

Contractor's deficiencies in planning and scheduling at preconstruction stage Contractor related 0.8 0.648 0.76 0.739

Shortage of managerial and supervisory

personnel Contractor related 0.765 0.695 0.728 0.730

Unsuitable leadership style of contractor's construction manager Contractor related 0.752 0.67 0.76 0.730

Table 6 Relative importance indices (RII) and ranks (R) for different factor categories, and by different survey respondents in the building works grouping Legend for Chart: A B C D E F G H I A Factor category Client: RII Client: R Consultant: RII Consultant: R Contractor: RII Contractor: R Weighted average: RII Weighted average: R B E C F H 6 0.672 0.635 8 0.649 0.610 3 0.778 0.700 2 D G I 0.645 5 5 0.609 7 8 0.677 1 2 0.711

Project related

0.588 4

Client related

0.572 7

Design team related

0.641 3

Contractor related

0.708

0.699 0.706 4 0.681 0.630 1 0.662 0.687 7 0.634 0.615 5 0.746 0.660

3 1 0.600 4 6 0.682 6 3 0.636 8 7 0.632 2 4

Materials

0.606 8

Labour

0.717 2

Plant/equipment

0.577 5 0.598 6

External

Table 7 Relative importance indices (RII) and ranks (R) for different factor categories, and by different survey respondents in the civil engineering grouping Legend for Chart: A B C D E F G H I A Factor category Client: RII Client: R Consultant: RII Consultant: R Contractor: RII Contractor: R Weighted average: RII Weighted average: R B E C F H 4 0.615 0.628 7 0.571 D G I 0.646 5 5 0.610 7

Project related

0.619 4

Client related

0.526 7

0.570 Design team related 0.639 2 3 0.677 0.666 1 0.632 0.680 8 0.555 0.556 2 0.643 0.665 6 0.574 0.610 5 0.672 0.630

7 0.681 1 2 0.701 4 1 0.591 8 8 0.680 3 3 0.645 6 6 0.618 2 4

Contractor related

0.701 1

Materials

0.520 8

Labour

0.665 3

Plant/equipment

0.604 5

External

0.605 6

Table 8 Cross-comparison of the relative importance of the ten most significant factors causing delays as perceiver by the different groups of respondents Legend for Chart: A B C D E A Clients and consultants Consultants and contractors Clients and contractors Project participant Rank agreement factor: Building Rank agreement factor: Civil Percentage agreement: Building Percentage agreement: Civil B 2.0 3.4 4.2 C 2.6 2.4 3.6 D 60 32 16 E 48 52 28

Table 9 Cross-comparison of the relative importance of factor categories causing delays as

perceived by the different groups of respondents Legend for Chart: A B C D E A Clients and consultants Consultants and contractors Clients and contractors Project participant Rank agreement factor: Building Rank agreement factor: Civil Percentage agreement: Building Percentage agreement: Civil B 1.50 2.50 1.75 C 0.50 1.25 1.25 D 62.5 37.5 56.25 E 87.5 68.75 68.75

Table 10 The six common significant factors from both building works and civil engineering works Factor Unforeseen ground conditions Poor site management and supervision Low speed of decision making involving all project teams Client-initiated variations Necessary variations of works Inadequate contractor experience Factor category Project related Contractor related

Project related

Client related Project related Contractor related

GRAPH: Figure 1 Comparison of the relative importance indices (RIIs) of the factors considered most significant by clients, consultants and contractors of building works (as in Table 4): 1. poor site management and supervision; 2. unforeseen ground conditions; 3. delays in design information; 4. lack of communication between consultant and contractor; 5. inadequate contractor experience; 6. Low speed of decision making involving all project teams; 7. client-initiated variations; 8. necessary variations of works; 9. delays in subcontractors' work; 10. improper control over site resource allocation GRAPH: Figure 2 Comparison of the relative importance indices (RIIs) of the factors considered most significant by clients, consultants and contractors of civil engineering works (as in Table 5): 1. unforeseen ground conditions; 2. poor site management and supervision; 3. low speed of decision

making involving all project teams; 4. client-initiated variations; 5. necessary variations of works; 6. inadequate contractor experience; 7. unsuitable management structure and style of contractor; 8. contractor's deficiencies in planning and scheduling at preconstruction stage; 9. shortage of managerial and supervisory personnel; 10. unsuitable leadership style of contractor's construction manager GRAPH: Figure 3 Percentage agreement (PA) between different groups as to (a) factors and (b) factor categories contributing to project delays; based on Tables 8 and 9 respectively References Bromilow, F.J., Hinds, M.F. and Moody N.F. (1988) The time and cost performance of building contracts 1976-1986. The Building Economist, 27, September 4. Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy M.M. (1995) A study of the factors affecting construction durations in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 13(4), 319-33. Ganesan, S. (1984) Construction productivity. Habitat International, 8(34), 29-42. Heap, A. (1987) Improving Site productivity. ILO, Geneva. Kaka, A. and Price, A.D.F. (1991) Relationship between value and duration of construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 9(4), 383-400. Khan, M.S. (1993) Methods of motivating for increased productivity. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(2), 148-56. Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Chan, D.W.M. (1995) Determinants of construction duration. Construction Management and Economics, 13(3), 209-17. Lim, E.C. and Price, A.D.F. (1995) Construction productivity measurements for residential buildings in Singapore, Proceedings of First International Conference on Construction Project Management, Singapore, January, pp. 605-12. Maloney, W.F. (1983) Productivity improvement: the influence of labour. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 109(3), 321-34. McCaffer, R. and Harris, F.C. (1995) Modern Construction Management. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Naoum, S.G. and Mustapha, F.H. (1995) Relationship between the building team, procurement methods and project performance. Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(1), 38-49. NEDO (1989) Promoting Productivity in the Construction Industry. National Economic Development Office, U.K. Nkado, R.N. (1995) A model for predicting and planning construction times at early design stages, Proceedings of Eleventh Annual ARCOM Conference, ARCOM, September, pp. 298-307.

Okpala, D.C. and Aniekwu, A.N. (1988) Causes of high costs of construction in Nigeria. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(2), 233-44. Prokopenko, J. (1987) Productivity Management. ILO, Geneva. Walker, D.H.T. (1995a) An investigation into construction time performance. Construction Management and Economics, 13(3), 263-74. Walker, D.H.T. (1995b) The influence of client and project team relationships upon construction time performance. Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(1), 4-20. Appendix 1: First page of five-page questionnaire for research project SECTION A: GENERAL ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Date information collected Name of organization Major type of work involved (e.g. buildings, roads or others) Contact person and designation Relevant working experience year(s) Contact address Contact phone No. Contact Fax. No. SECTION B: FACTORS INCREASING CONSTRUCTION DURATIONS OF PROJECTS COMPLETED DURING 1990-1994 IN HONG KONG Please indicate the significance of each factor by ticking the appropriate boxes. Add any remarks relating to each factor on the last column e.g. as to the reasons, the critical factors or the solutions. E.S. = extremely significant (100) M.S. = moderately significant (50) N.S. = not significant (0) V.S. = very significant (75) S.S. = slightly significant (25) Hypothesized E.S. V.S. factors (100) (75) 1. Project-related factors Necessary variations Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g. traditional, design-and-build, etc.)

M.S. (50)

S.S. (25)

N.S. Remarks (0)

Type of project (e.g. building or civil) End use of product (e.g. housing, office or bridge) Work type (e.g. new, refurbished, mixed, etc.) Large gross floor area of building Appendix 2: Distribution profile of respondents to the survey questionnaire Legend for Chart: A B C D E A Building works Civil works Total Project category Clients Consultants Contractors Total B 27 23 50 C 24 25 49 D 27 21 48 E 78 69 147

Appendix 3: Work experience profile (in years) of respondents to the survey questionnaire Legend for Chart: A B C D E A Building works Civil works Project category Clients Consultants Contractors Mean B 15.2 13.9 C 15.0 17.4 D 13.2 18.8 E 14.4 16.7

~~~~~~~~ By Mohan M. Kumaraswamy and Daniel W. M. Chan

Copyright of Construction Management & Economics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

EBSCO Support Site New: EBSCOhost iPhone/iPod Touch Application Copyright

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

2011 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.