payment
Maddy007
5.pdf
Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction Understanding delays in housing construction: evidence from Northern Ireland J. McCord, M. McCord, P.T. Davis, M. Haran, W.J. Rodgers,
Article information: To cite this document: J. McCord, M. McCord, P.T. Davis, M. Haran, W.J. Rodgers, (2015) "Understanding delays in housing construction: evidence from Northern Ireland", Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 20 Issue: 3, pp.286-319, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-07-2015-0028 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-07-2015-0028
Downloaded on: 02 September 2018, At: 23:16 (PT) References: this document contains references to 107 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 820 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2007),"The significant factors causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 192-206 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/09699980710731308">https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980710731308</a> (2015),"Analysing delay causes and effects in Ghanaian state housing construction projects", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 198-214 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2014-0035">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2014-0035</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:131740 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Understanding delays in housing construction: evidence from
Northern Ireland J. McCord
School of Law, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK, and
M. McCord, P.T. Davis, M. Haran and W.J. Rodgers School of the Built Environment, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate delay factors within private housing construction in Northern Ireland. Delays are inherent throughout the construction industry and create major difficulties in terms of project performance and client satisfaction. Whilst a voluminous body of international literature has investigated pertinent delay factors within construction projects, there is a relative paucity of research which offers a more delineated exploration of delay factors affecting private housing development schemes, particularly in the UK context. Design/methodology/approach – This study applies questionnaire survey research to examine the relative importance of 75 delay attribute factors for housing construction projects in Northern Ireland. The approach applies both a relative rank and principal component analysis to distil the key factors impinging upon the delay process in housing construction. Findings – The key finding from this research is that delays within the housing construction sector in Northern Ireland can be attributed to deficiencies in site management, ineffective communication strategies and a lack of coordination between key stakeholders involved in the construction process. Originality/value – The study adds to the existing knowledge base and provides stakeholders with information on factors, which, if properly risk assessed and understood, can improve housing construction performance. The findings are of relevance to construction industry practitioners, policy makers and researchers with lessons learned serving as a basis for future policy development as well as affording an information platform for improving the efficiency and expediency of housing provision internationally.
Keywords Delay, Housing construction, Principal component analysis, Relative importance index
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction The construction industry is dynamic, complex in nature and characterised by uncertainty. Construction projects comprise a large number of actors and differ in size, duration, objectives and other dimensions with success generally predicated on time and cost parameters relative to contract specifications and stakeholder satisfaction (Lu et al. 2008; Dadzie et al., 2012; Ahiaga-Dagbui and Smith, 2014). For this reason, delays in construction projects have been a research topic for decades (Doloi et al., 2012) with project delays observed to affect the macro and micro levels of the economy (Enshassi et al., 2009) and inherently result in financial waste and cost overruns (Endut, 2008; Ramanathan et al., 2012); late completion (Mahamid et al., 2011; Doloi et al., 2012); dispute, arbitration and litigation (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Love et al., 2010) project
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-4387.htm
JFMPC 20,3
286
Received 24 July 2015 Revised 20 August 2015 Accepted 22 August 2015
Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction Vol. 20 No. 3, 2015 pp. 286-319 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1366-4387 DOI 10.1108/JFMPC-07-2015-0028
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
abandonment (Enshassi et al., 2009; Ahiaga-Dagbui and Smith, 2014); and other consequent problems.
In recent years, there has been protracted debate and interest relating to construction project cost overruns and the dichotomous interpretation of reasons for poor performance (Akintoye et al., 2014). Indeed, poor project performance constituting time delays and cost overruns is not uncommon in construction industries across many developed and developing countries (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Shehu et al., 2014) due to a complex matrix of influencing and often uncertain project-specific variables (Jennings, 2012), including, inter alia, finance, lack of information or experience, design and scope changes, lack of coordination and management and bureaucracy (Lo et al., 2006; Ahiaga-Dagbui and Smith, 2014; Shehu et al., 2014). Such difficulties within the construction industry have attracted the attention of researchers worldwide who have investigated the conventional causes of delay from various perspectives. Consequently, there is a vast and growing body of peer-reviewed literature on delays in construction projects (Cheung et al., 2004; Iyer and Jha 2005; Love et al., 2005; Enshassi et al., 2009; Hwang et al., 2013) which identify a multiplicity of potential delay factors, of varying dimensions and constructs, which can affect construction performance.
Despite the proliferation of international studies on causes and factors affecting construction delays, the vast majority of studies are not housing construction specific, and there is a relative paucity of research which explores the unique risks and challenges which can serve to inhibit and delay residential housing construction activity. Indeed, idiosyncrasies in housing regulation as well as the planning and policy landscape pertaining to the future of housing supply can promulgate peculiar difficulties and complexity. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that housing construction in Northern Ireland suffers from many acute problems and complex issues associated with different types of delay attributed to the “local” environment. Paradoxically, the provision of suitable housing remains one of the biggest problems facing Northern Ireland. The ageing and increasing population demographics allied with a sustained under build of new housing provision, exacerbated by the economic crisis, have resulted in a pressing need for a marked increase in the levels of housing provision in the private and public sectors (NIHE, 2013). In essence, housing construction activity has not kept pace with housing need indicators, and as such, this study of housing construction delay factors can assist in identifying current issues and complexities associated with construction productivity within the housing sector.
There is a clear need to identify critical factors that affect the performance of local housing construction. This is crucial to improve knowledge of delays within a sector experiencing pronounced delivery pressures to inform evidence-based policy development and strategy. To achieve this, the paper distinguishes and disentangles the causes of delay in the construction of housing within Northern Ireland. The paper’s implicit value is that it empirically identifies a number of salient thematic issues and complexities. This can improve understanding and knowledge for key industry stakeholders to inform and guide improvements to policy at a local level as well as serving to inform industry practice at regional, national and international levels. The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 offers a general review of literature related to delays in construction sector; Section 3 provides an overview of the methodological framework used in the study; Section 4 presents and discusses the findings and policy implications, with conclusions offered in Section 5.
287
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
2. Literature review A large volume of international research evidence exists relating to delays within the construction sector. Various studies, in both developed and emerging economies, have investigated the reasons for delays, identifying there to be a number of general categories of delays, which are populated by heterogeneous delay attributes, often discipline or topic specific. The burgeoning body of evidence highlights that delay factors can be location specific and unique to jurisdiction conditions, economic climate and levels of industrialisation (Table I).
Despite the voluminous catalogue of evidence from the construction sector, housing construction projects have not received sufficient research attention – most likely due to their relative magnitude and scope. Nonetheless, a small number of research studies have identified a number of prevalent factor groups and delay attributes that contribute to delays in the housing context. Odeyinka and Yusif (1997) reviewed the causes of delays in housing projects in Nigeria and identified four main categories to affect delays: client, consultant, contractor-caused and extraneous. In this regard, client-related delays included variation orders, slow decision making and cash flow problems whilst contractor-related delays included attributes such as financial difficulties, material management problems, planning and scheduling problems, inadequate site inspection, equipment management problems and shortage of manpower. Extraneous causes of delay identified were inclement weather, acts of God, labour disputes and strikes. Walker and Vines (2000) also investigated construction time performance in multi-unit residential construction projects in Australia. Their results suggested that team communication effectiveness and teamwork factors are essential factors influencing performance. Other factors found to affect time performance included the design team’s management style, intra-team working relationships and the degree of experience and expertise for the same type and size of project. A study conducted by Koushki et al. (2005) investigated delays in the construction of the private residential buildings in Kuwait. This found the three main causes of time delays to be changing orders, owners’ financial constraints and owners’ lack of experience in the construction environment. Furthermore, the findings also identified contractor- and material-related problems to incur cost overruns. Overall, the authors concluded that the availability of adequate funds, allocation of sufficient time and money at the design phase and selection of competent consultants and a reliable contractor to carry out the work were of the utmost importance.
Abdul-Kadir et al. (2005) further investigated and ranked the importance, frequency and severity of project delays for Malaysian residential construction projects. The findings revealed that, out of 50 delay factors, the most significant attributes are material shortage at site, non-payment to suppliers causing the stoppage of material delivery to site, change order by consultants, late issuance of construction drawing by consultants and incapability of contractors’ site management to organise site activities. El-Razek et al. (2008) also proposed 32 causes of delays of housing construction projects in Egypt, comprising 10 major categories. They found that delayed payments, coordination difficulty and poor communication were the most important causes of delay. More recently, Hwang et al. (2013) conducted research into identifying the critical factors affecting schedule performance of public housing projects in Singapore. They identified 18 factors with industry experts revealing that lack of site management, lack
JFMPC 20,3
288
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table I Summary of research
evidence
A ut
ho r(
s) Y
ea r
C ou
nt ry
T yp
e O
ve rv
ie w
of id
en ti
fi ed
is su
es
B al
dw in
an d
M an
th ei
(1 97
1) U
SA C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
W ea
th er
,l ab
ou r
su pp
ly an
d su
bc on
tr ac
to rs
A rd
it ie
t al
.( 19
85 )
T ur
ke y
P ub
lic pr
oj ec
ts Sh
or ta
ge s
of so
m e
re so
ur ce
s, pu
bl ic
ag en
ci es
’a nd
co nt
ra ct
or s’
fi na
nc ia
ld if
fi cu
lt ie
s, or
ga ni
za ti
on al
de fi
ci en
ci es
,d el
ay s
in de
si gn
w or
k, fr
eq ue
nt ch
an ge
or de
rs an
d co
ns id
er ab
le ex
tr a
w or
k Su
lli va
n an
d H
ar ri
s (1
98 6)
U K
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts W
ai ti
ng fo
r in
fo rm
at io
n fr
om th
e cl
ie nt
,c ha
ng e
or de
rs ,g
ro un
d pr
ob le
m s/
si te
in sp
ec ti
on ,b
ad w
ea th
er an
d de
si gn
co m
pl ex
it y
A ss
af et
al .(
19 95
) E
gy pt
L ar
ge bu
ild in
g co
ns tr
uc ti
on pr
oj ec
ts D
es ig
n dr
aw in
gs ,d
el ay
s in
pa ym
en t
to co
nt ra
ct or
s an
d th
e re
su lt
in g
ca sh
fl ow
pr ob
le m
s du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
,d es
ig n
ch an
ge s,
co nfl
ic ts
in su
bc on
tr ac
to r
w or
k sc
he du
le s,
sl ow
de ci
si on
m ak
in g,
ex ec
ut iv
e bu
re au
cr ac
y in
ow ne
rs ’o
rg an
iz at
io ns
an d
de si
gn er
ro rs
M an
sfi el
d et
al .(
19 94
) N
ig er
ia C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
F in
an ci
ng an
d pa
ym en
t of
co m
pl et
ed w
or ks
,p oo
r co
nt ra
ct m
an ag
em en
t ch
an ge
in si
te co
nd it
io ns
,a nd
sh or
ta ge
of m
at er
ia ls
A m
er (1
99 4)
E gy
pt C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
P oo
r co
nt ra
ct m
an ag
em en
t, un
re al
is ti
c sc
he du
lin g,
la ck
of ow
ne r’
s fi
na nc
in g/
pa ym
en t
fo r
co m
pl et
ed w
or k,
de si
gn m
od ifi
ca ti
on s
du ri
ng co
ns tr
uc ti
on an
d sh
or ta
ge s
in m
at er
ia ls
O gu
nl an
a et
al .(
19 96
) T
ha ila
nd C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
M at
er ia
ls pr
oc ur
em en
t, w
ai ti
ng fo
r in
fo rm
at io
n, la
bo ur
er s/
tr ad
es m
en sh
or ta
ge s,
po or
co nt
ra ct
or m
an ag
em en
t an
d pl
an ni
ng an
d sc
he du
lin g
de fi
ci en
ci es
C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) H
on g
K on
g C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
P oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n, un
fo re
se en
gr ou
nd co
nd it
io ns
,l ow
sp ee
d of
de ci
si on
m ak
in g
in vo
lv in
g al
lp ro
je ct
te am
s, cl
ie nt
-in it
ia te
d va
ri at
io ns
an d
ne ce
ss ar
y va
ri at
io ns
of w
or ks
K am
in g
et al
.( 19
97 )
In do
ne si
a H
ig h-
ri se
pr oj
ec ts
D es
ig n
ch an
ge s,
po or
la bo
ur pr
od uc
ti vi
ty ,i
na de
qu at
e pl
an ni
ng ,m
at er
ia ls
sh or
ta ge
an d
in ac
cu ra
cy of
m at
er ia
ls es
ti m
at e
O de
yi nk
a an
d Y
us if
(1 99
7) N
ig er
ia P
ub lic
ho us
in g
pr oj
ec ts
C lie
nt -r
el at
ed de
la ys
id en
ti fi
ed in
cl ud
e va
ri at
io n
or de
rs ,s
lo w
de ci
si on
m ak
in g
an d
ca sh
fl ow
pr ob
le m
s; co
nt ra
ct or
-r el
at ed
de la
ys in
cl ud
e fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s,
m at
er ia
lm an
ag em
en t
pr ob
le m
s, pl
an ni
ng an
d sc
he du
lin g
pr ob
le m
s, in
ad eq
ua te
si te
in sp
ec ti
on ,e
qu ip
m en
t m
an ag
em en
t pr
ob le
m s
an d
sh or
ta ge
of m
an po
w er
;a nd
ex tr
an eo
us ca
us es
of de
la y
id en
ti fi
ed w
er e
in cl
em en
t w
ea th
er ,
ac ts
of G
od ,l
ab ou
r di
sp ut
es an
d st
ri ke
s B
or do
li an
d B
al dw
in (1
99 8)
U ni
te d
St at
es C
on st
ru ct
io n
W ea
th er
,l ab
ou r
su pp
ly ,s
ub -c
on tr
ac to
rs
M ez
he r
an d
T aw
il (1
99 8)
L eb
an on
C on
st ru
ct io
n C
as h
pr ob
le m
s du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
,d es
ig n
ch an
ge by
ow ne
r, pr
ep ar
at io
n of
sh op
dr aw
in gs
, pr
ep ar
at io
n of
sc he
du lin
g w
or k
an d
la ck
of pe
rs on
ne lt
ra in
in g
an d
m an
ag em
en t
su pp
or t (c on
ti nu
ed )
289
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table I
A ut
ho r(
s) Y
ea r
C ou
nt ry
T yp
e O
ve rv
ie w
of id
en ti
fi ed
is su
es
A l-K
ha lil
an d
A l-
G ha
fl y
(1 99
9) Sa
ud i
A ra
bi a
P ub
lic ut
ili ty
pr oj
ec ts
D el
ay in
pr og
re ss
pa ym
en ts
by th
e ow
ne r,
di ffi
cu lt
ie s
in ob
ta in
in g
w or
k pe
rm it
s, de
la y
in th
e se
tt le
m en
t of
co nt
ra ct
or cl
ai m
s by
th e
ow ne
r, ef
fe ct
s of
su bs
ur fa
ce co
nd it
io ns
(t yp
e of
so il,
ut ili
ty lin
es an
d w
at er
ta bl
e) an
d ca
sh fl
ow pr
ob le
m s
fa ce
d by
th e
co nt
ra ct
or W
al ke
r an
d V
in es
(2 00
0) A
us tr
al ia
R es
id en
ti al
co ns
tr uc
ti on
C on
st ru
ct io
n m
an ag
em en
t ef
fe ct
iv en
es s,
te am
co m
m un
ic at
io n
ef fe
ct iv
en es
s an
d te
am w
or k,
de si
gn te
am ’s
m an
ag em
en t
st yl
e, In
tr a-
te am
w or
ki ng
re la
ti on
sh ip
s an
d pr
oc ur
em en
t m
et ho
d A
ym an
(2 00
0) Jo
rd an
P ub
lic pr
oj ec
ts D
es ig
n, ch
an ge
or de
rs ,w
ea th
er ,s
it e
co nd
it io
ns ,l
at e
de liv
er ie
s, ec
on om
ic co
nd it
io ns
an d
in cr
ea se
in qu
an ti
ty A
l-M om
an i(
20 00
) Jo
rd an
13 0
co ns
tr uc
ti on
pr oj
ec ts
P oo
r de
si gn
an d
ne gl
ig en
ce of
th e
ow ne
r, ch
an ge
or de
rs ,w
ea th
er co
nd it
io ns
,s it
e co
nd it
io ns
,l at
e de
liv er
y, ec
on om
ic co
nd it
io ns
an d
in cr
ea se
s in
qu an
ti ti
es F
ri m
po ng
et al
.( 20
03 )
G ha
na G
ro un
dw at
er pr
oj ec
ts M
on th
ly pa
ym en
t di
ffi cu
lt ie
s, po
or co
nt ra
ct m
an ag
em en
t, m
at er
ia lp
ro cu
re m
en t,
in fl
at io
n, an
d co
nt ra
ct or
’s fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s
K ou
sh ki
et al
.( 20
05 )
K uw
ai t
P ri
va te
re si
de nt
ia lp
ro je
ct s
C ha
ng e
or de
rs ,fi
na nc
ia lc
on st
ra in
ts ,o
w ne
r’ s
la ck
of ex
pe ri
en ce
,m at
er ia
ls an
d w
ea th
er A
bd ul
-K ad
ir et
al .
(2 00
5) M
al ay
si a
R es
id en
ti al
P ro
je ct
s M
at er
ia ls
ho rt
ag e
at pr
oj ec
t si
te ,n
on -p
ay m
en t
(fi na
nc ia
lp ro
bl em
)t o
su pp
lie rs
ca us
in g
th e
st op
pa ge
of m
at er
ia ld
el iv
er y
to si
te ,c
ha ng
e or
de r
by co
ns ul
ta nt
s ca
us in
g pr
oj ec
t de
la y,
la te
is su
an ce
of co
ns tr
uc ti
on dr
aw in
g by
co ns
ul ta
nt s
an d
in ca
pa bi
lit y
of co
nt ra
ct or
’s si
te m
an ag
em en
t to
or ga
ni se
si te
ac ti
vi ti
es L
ov e
et al
.( 20
05 )
A us
tr al
ia B
ui ld
in g
co ns
tr uc
ti on
pr oj
ec ts
L ac
k of
co m
m it
m en
t, in
ef fi
ci en
t si
te m
an ag
em en
t, po
or si
te co
or di
na ti
on ,i
m pr
op er
pl an
ni ng
,l ac
k of
cl ar
it y
in pr
oj ec
t sc
op e,
la ck
of co
m m
un ic
at io
n an
d su
bs ta
nd ar
d co
nt ra
ct L
o et
al .(
20 06
) H
on g
K on
g C
iv il
en gi
ne er
in g
co ns
tr uc
ti on
In ad
eq ua
te re
so ur
ce s
du e
to la
ck of
ca pi
ta l,
un fo
re se
en gr
ou nd
co nd
it io
ns ,e
xc ep
ti on
al ly
lo w
bi ds
, in
ex pe
ri en
ce d
co nt
ra ct
or an
d w
or ks
in co
nfl ic
t w
it h
ex is
ti ng
ut ili
ti es
Iy er
an d
Jh a
(2 00
5) In
di a
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts C
om m
it m
en t
of pr
oj ec
t pa
rt ic
ip an
ts ,o
w ne
r’ s
co m
pe te
nc e
an d
co nfl
ic ts
am on
gs t
pr oj
ec t
pa rt
ic ip
an ts
F ar
id ia
nd E
l-S ay
eg h
(2 00
6) U
ni te
d A
ra b
E m
ir at
es
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts P
re pa
ra ti
on an
d ap
pr ov
al of
dr aw
in gs
,i na
de qu
at e
ea rl
y pl
an ni
ng of
th e
pr oj
ec t,
sl ow
ne ss
of th
e ow
ne r’
s de
ci si
on -m
ak in
g pr
oc es
s, sh
or ta
ge of
m an
po w
er an
d po
or su
pe rv
is io
n an
d po
or si
te m
an ag
em en
t A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) Sa
ud i
A ra
bi a
L ar
ge co
ns tr
uc ti
on pr
oj ec
ts Sh
or ta
ge of
la bo
ur s,
de la
y in
pr og
re ss
pa ym
en ts
by ow
ne r,
ty pe
of pr
oj ec
t bi
dd in
g an
d aw
ar d,
un qu
al ifi
ed w
or k
fo rc
e an
d la
te in
re vi
ew in
g an
d ap
pr ov
in g
de si
gn do
cu m
en ts
by ow
ne r
A ib
in u
an d
O de
yi nk
a (2
00 6)
N ig
er ia
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts C
on tr
ac to
rs ’fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s,
cl ie
nt s’
ca sh
fl ow
pr ob
le m
,a rc
hi te
ct s’
in co
m pl
et e
dr aw
in g,
su bc
on tr
ac to
r’ s
sl ow
m ob
ili za
ti on
an d
eq ui
pm en
t br
ea kd
ow n
an d
m ai
nt en
an ce
pr ob
le m
Sa m
ba si
va n
an d
So on
(2 00
7) M
al ay
si a
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts Im
pr op
er pl
an ni
ng ,s
it e
m an
ag em
en t,
in ad
eq ua
te co
nt ra
ct or
ex pe
ri en
ce ,fi
na nc
e an
d pa
ym en
ts of
co m
pl et
ed w
or k
an d
su bc
on tr
ac to
rs A
la gh
ba ri
et al
.( 20
07 )
M al
ay si
a C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
F in
an ci
al pr
ob le
m s
an d
co or
di na
ti on
pr ob
le m
s (c
on ti
nu ed
)
JFMPC 20,3
290
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table I
A ut
ho r(
s) Y
ea r
C ou
nt ry
T yp
e O
ve rv
ie w
of id
en ti
fi ed
is su
es
Sw ei
s et
al .(
20 08
) Jo
rd an
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts P
oo r
pl an
ni ng
an d
sc he
du lin
g of
th e
pr oj
ec t
by th
e co
nt ra
ct or
,fi na
nc ia
ld if
fi cu
lt ie
s fa
ce d
by th
e co
nt ra
ct or
,t oo
m an
y ch
an ge
or de
rs fr
om ow
ne r,
sh or
ta ge
of m
an po
w er
an d
in co
m pe
te nt
te ch
ni ca
ls ta
ff as
si gn
ed to
th e
pr oj
ec t
L on
g et
al .(
20 08
) V
ie tn
am L
ar ge
co ns
tr uc
ti on
pr oj
ec ts
P oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n, po
or pr
oj ec
t m
an ag
em en
t as
si st
an ce
,fi na
nc ia
ld if
fi cu
lt ie
s of
ow ne
rs ,fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s
of co
nt ra
ct or
an d
de si
gn ch
an ge
s E
l-R az
ek et
al .(
20 08
) E
gy pt
H ou
si ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
F in
an ci
ng by
co nt
ra ct
or du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
,d el
ay s
in co
nt ra
ct or
’s pa
ym en
t by
ow ne
r, de
si gn
ch an
ge s
by ow
ne r
or hi
s ag
en t
du ri
ng co
ns tr
uc ti
on ,p
ar ti
al pa
ym en
ts du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
an d
no n-
ut ili
za ti
on of
pr of
es si
on al
co ns
tr uc
ti on
/c on
tr ac
tu al
m an
ag em
en t
A zh
ar et
al .(
20 08
) P
ak is
ta n
C on
st ru
ct io
n M
ac ro
ec on
om ic
fa ct
or s,
m an
ag em
en t
fa ct
or s
an d
bu si
ne ss
an d
re gu
la to
ry en
vi ro
nm en
t E
ns ha
ss ie
t al
.( 20
09 )
G az
a St
ri p
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts St
ri ke
s, ex
te rn
al or
in te
rn al
m ili
ta ry
ac ti
on an
d bo
rd er
cl os
ur es
;l ac
k of
m at
er ia
ls in
m ar
ke ts
; sh
or ta
ge of
co ns
tr uc
ti on
m at
er ia
ls on
si te
;d el
ay of
m at
er ia
ld el
iv er
y to
si te
;a nd
ca sh
pr ob
le m
s du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
A l-K
ha ra
sh ia
nd Sk
it m
or e
(2 00
9) Sa
ud i
A ra
bi a
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts M
on th
ly pa
ym en
t di
ffi cu
lt ie
s, po
or co
nt ra
ct m
an ag
em en
t, m
at er
ia lp
ro cu
re m
en t,
in fl
at io
n an
d co
nt ra
ct or
’s fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s
K al
ib a
et al
.( 20
09 )
Z am
bi a
R oa
d co
ns tr
uc ti
on D
el ay
pa ym
en t,
fi na
nc e
pr oc
es s,
F in
an ci
al di
ffi cu
lt ie
s, co
nt ra
ct m
od ifi
ca ti
on ,e
co no
m ic
pr ob
le m
s, m
at er
ia lp
ro cu
re m
en t,
ch an
ge s
dr aw
in gs
,s ta
ffi ng
pr ob
le m
s, eq
ui pm
en t
un av
ai la
bi lit
y, po
or su
pe rv
is io
n, po
or co
or di
na ti
on on
si te
,c ha
ng es
in sp
ec ifi
ca ti
on s
an d
la bo
ur di
sp ut
es an
d st
ri ke
s O
la w
al e
an d
Su n
(2 01
0) U
K C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
P oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n, po
or pr
oj ec
t m
an ag
em en
t as
si st
an ce
,fi na
nc ia
ld if
fi cu
lt ie
s of
ow ne
rs ,fi
na nc
ia ld
if fi
cu lt
ie s
of co
nt ra
ct or
an d
de si
gn ch
an ge
s M
ah am
id et
al .(
20 11
) W
es t
B an
k C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
P ol
it ic
al si
tu at
io n,
se gm
en ta
ti on
of th
e W
es t
B an
k an
d lim
it ed
m ov
em en
t be
tw ee
n ar
ea s,
aw ar
d pr
oj ec
t to
lo w
es t
bi d
pr ic
e, pr
og re
ss pa
ym en
ts de
la y
by ow
ne r
an d
sh or
ta ge
in eq
ui pm
en t
D ol
oi et
al .(
20 12
) In
di a
C on
st ru
ct io
n pr
oj ec
ts L
ac k
of co
m m
it m
en t,
in ef
fi ci
en t
si te
m an
ag em
en t,
po or
si te
co -o
rd in
at io
n, im
pr op
er pl
an ni
ng ,
la ck
of cl
ar it
y in
pr oj
ec t
sc op
e, la
ck of
co m
m un
ic at
io n
an d
su bs
ta nd
ar d
co nt
ra ct
K az
az et
al .(
20 12
) T
ur ke
y C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
F in
an ci
al fa
ct or
s m
os t
im po
rt an
t fa
ct or
gr ou
p. D
el ay
ca us
es ,d
es ig
n an
d m
at er
ia lc
ha ng
es ,d
el ay
of pa
ym en
ts an
d ca
sh fl
ow H
w an
g et
al .(
20 13
) Si
ng ap
or e
P ub
lic ho
us in
g Si
te m
an ag
em en
t co
or di
na ti
on am
on gs
t va
ri ou
s pa
rt ie
s, de
si gn
ch an
ge s
by ow
ne r
du ri
ng co
ns tr
uc ti
on ,a
va ila
bi lit
y of
la bo
ur er
s on
si te
,a va
ila bi
lit y
of m
at er
ia ls
an d
av ai
la bi
lit y
of st
af f
to m
an ag
e pr
oj ec
ts M
ar zo
uk an
d E
l-R as
as (2
01 4)
E gy
pt C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
In ef
fe ct
iv e
pl an
ni ng
an d
sc he
du lin
g of
pr oj
ec t,
di ffi
cu lt
ie s
in fi
na nc
in g
pr oj
ec t,
va ri
at io
n or
de rs
/ ch
an ge
s of
sc op
e by
ow ne
r du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
,p oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n, sl
ow de
ci si
on m
ak in
g, la
te in
re vi
si ng
an d
ap pr
ov in
g de
si gn
do cu
m en
ts by
ow ne
r, ow
ne r
in te
rf er
en ce
, m
is ta
ke s
an d
di sc
re pa
nc ie
s in
de si
gn do
cu m
en t
an d
ef fe
ct s
of su
bs ur
fa ce
co nd
it io
ns Sh
eh u
et al
.( 20
14 )
M al
ay si
a C
on st
ru ct
io n
pr oj
ec ts
C as
h fl
ow ,p
ro je
ct fi
na nc
in g,
pa ym
en ts
,i ne
ff ec
ti ve
pl an
ni ng
an d
sc he
du lin
g an
d bu
re au
cr ac
y in
go ve
rn m
en t
ag en
ci es
291
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
of coordination between various parties and the availability of labourers on site were the most significant factors affecting schedule performance.
Overall, review of construction literature relating to housing projects suggests that the client, design and contractor categories are the prevalent factor groups causing delay in housing construction. Moreover, in the context of specific delay elements, the literature suggests that issues relating to finance difficulties, experience, decision making, design and variation, management and scheduling problems and exogenous issues are key characteristics of delay.
3. Research methodology 3.1 Questionnaire design Following critical review of the literature in relation to construction delays and interviews with housing construction experts, a list of 75 construction delay attributes were identified under 10 broad categories (Table II). In addition, supplementary questions were asked to obtain any additional delay factors which participants considered to extend the construction duration of housing projects. A six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 5 (0 � no importance, 1 � very low, 2 � low, 3 � average, 4 � high and 5 � very high importance) was adopted. The questionnaire was piloted with three local experts to identify ambiguity, verify completeness and validity and streamlinfe content of the research instrument (Fan and Yan, 2010). The principal alterations from the pilot responses were mainly cosmetic adjustments to the layout of the questionnaire and changes to the terminology. Respondents were asked to rank the importance and impact of a particular attribute on delay in housing construction. Supplementary questions were asked to permit the identification of any additional factors that were not included in the questionnaire.
3.2 Participant engagement A purposive sampling framework was adopted to elicit expert opinion and harness professional experience and knowledge from stakeholders in the Northern Ireland construction industry. As the heterogeneity of respondents is an important criteria in capturing the impact of various attributes on construction delay (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007), the sampling frame was diverse including contractors, clients, consultants and academics to ensure that the selected group of respondents represented the key groups across the housing construction sector within Northern Ireland. Furthermore, an inclusion criteria was adopted whereby the targeted participant would have at least 10 years’ experience and membership of a relevant professional or housing construction body, including National House Building Council, Construction Employers Federation, Federation of Master Builders, Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations, Royal Society of Ulster Architects and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Overall, questionnaires were distributed to 93 purposively selected participants. The data collection effort produced 49 completed questionnaires, yielding an overall response rate of 53 per cent, falling comfortably within the parameters of 25-60 per cent expected for a survey of this kind (Nulty, 2008). Though the sample size is relatively small, the quality of the responses was considered to be highly reliable for the analysis due to the purposive nature of the sampling which targeted relevant industry experiences, the understanding of the questionnaires by participants (Vaus, 2001) and the comparatively small size of the jurisdiction under investigation. Moreover, the mix
JFMPC 20,3
292
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table II. Identification of
category, source and delay attributes
C at
eg or
y So
ur ce
A tt
ri bu
te af
fe ct
in g
de la
y
C lie
nt re
la te
d A
rd it
ie t
al .(
19 85
), Su
lli va
n an
d H
ar ri
s (1
98 6)
,A ss
af et
al .(
19 95
), O
gu nl
an a
et al
.( 19
96 ),
O de
yi nk
a an
d Y
us if
(1 99
7) ,O
de h
an d
B at
ta in
eh (2
00 2)
,L on
g et
al .(
20 04
), K
ou sh
ki et
al .
(2 00
5) ,L
ov e
et al
.( 20
05 ),
A ss
af an
d A
l-H ej
ji (2
00 6)
,S w
ei s
et al
.( 20
08 ),
O la
w al
e an
d Su
n (2
01 0)
,K az
az et
al .(
20 12
), M
ar zo
uk an
d E
l-R as
as (2
01 4)
,S he
hu et
al .(
20 14
)
C ha
ng e
or de
rs by
ow ne
rs du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
D el
ay in
si te
de liv
er y
to co
nt ra
ct or
by ow
ne r
L ac
k of
ex pe
ri en
ce of
ow ne
rs in
co ns
tr uc
ti on
pr oj
ec ts
L at
e in
re vi
si ng
an d
ap pr
ov in
g de
si gn
do cu
m en
ts O
w ne
rs sl
ow de
ci si
on m
ak in
g P
oo r
co m
m un
ic at
io n
an d
co or
di na
ti on
w it
h ot
he r
pa rt
ie s
P ro
je ct
fi na
nc in
g Su
sp en
si on
of w
or k
by ow
ne r
U nr
ea lis
ti c
co nt
ra ct
du ra
ti on
s im
po se
d by
cl ie
nt C
on su
lt an
t re
la te
d A
rd it
ie t
al .(
19 85
), A
ss af
et al
.( 19
95 ),
C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,A
l-M om
an i
(2 00
0) ,O
de h
an d
B at
ta in
eh (2
00 2)
,L on
g et
al .(
20 04
), A
bd ul
-K ad
ir et
al .(
20 05
), A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,O
la w
al e
an d
Su n
(2 01
0) ,K
az az
et al
.( 20
12 )
A va
ila bi
lit y
of st
af f
to m
an ag
e pr
oj ec
ts C
on fl
ic ts
be tw
ee n
co ns
ul ta
nt an
d de
si gn
en gi
ne er
D el
ay in
pe rf
or m
in g
in sp
ec ti
on te
st in
g L
ac k
of ex
pe ri
en ce
of co
ns ul
ta nt
L at
e in
re vi
ew in
g an
d ap
pr ov
in g
de si
gn do
cu m
en ts
P oo
r co
m m
un ic
at io
n an
d co
or di
na ti
on w
it h
ot he
r pa
rt ie
s C
on tr
ac to
r re
la te
d B
al dw
in an
d M
an th
ei (1
97 1)
,A rd
it ie
t al
.( 19
85 ),
C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,
O gu
nl an
a et
al .(
19 96
), O
de yi
nk a
an d
Y us
if (1
99 7)
,B or
do li
an d
B al
dw in
(1 99
8) ,M
aj id
an d
M cC
af fe
r (1
99 8)
,W al
ke r
an d
V in
es (2
00 0)
,O de
h an
d B
at ta
in eh
(2 00
2) ,F
ri m
po ng
et al
.( 20
03 ),
L on
g et
al .(
20 04
), Iy
er an
d Jh
a (2
00 5)
,A ss
af an
d A
l-H ej
ji (2
00 6)
,F ar
ad ia
nd E
l-S ay
eg h
(2 00
6) ,S
am ba
si va
n an
d So
on (2
00 7)
,E l-R
az ek
et al
.( 20
08 ),
A l-K
ha ra
sh ia
nd Sk
it m
or e
(2 00
9) ,O
la w
al e
an d
Su n
(2 01
0) ,D
ol oi
et al
.( 20
12 ),
Sh eh
u et
al .(
20 14
)
C on
fl ic
ts /d
el ay
s in
su b-
co nt
ra ct
in g
w or
k C
on tr
ac to
r F
in an
ci ng
F re
qu en
t ch
an ge
of su
b- co
nt ra
ct or
s du
e to
in ef
fi ci
en t
w or
k Im
pr op
er co
ns tr
uc ti
on m
et ho
ds im
pl em
en te
d Im
pr op
er co
nt ro
lo ve
r si
te re
so ur
ce al
lo ca
ti on
In ad
eq ua
te co
nt ra
ct or
ex pe
ri en
ce In
ad eq
ua te
co nt
ra ct
or ’s
w or
k In
ef fe
ct iv
e pr
oj ec
t pl
an ni
ng an
d sc
he du
le P
oo r
co m
m un
ic at
io n
an d
co or
di na
ti on
P oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n R
ew or
k du
e to
co ns
tr uc
ti on
er ro
r D
es ig
n re
la te
d Su
lli va
n an
d H
ar ri
s (1
98 6)
,A ss
af et
al .(
19 95
), Sa
ty an
ar ay
an a
an d
Iy er
(1 99
6) ,C
ha n
an d
K um
ar as
w am
y (1
99 7)
,K am
in g
et al
.( 19
97 ),
M ez
he r
an d
T aw
il (1
99 8)
,A bd
ul -K
ad ir
et al
.( 20
05 ),
Iy er
an d
Jh a
(2 00
5) ,A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,E
l-R az
ek et
al .(
20 08
), O
la w
al e
an d
Su n
(2 01
0) ,K
az az
et al
.( 20
12 ),
H w
an g
et al
.( 20
13 )
C om
pl ex
it y
of pr
oj ec
t de
si gn
D el
ay s
in pr
od uc
in g
de si
gn do
cu m
en ts
D es
ig n
ch an
ge s
du ri
ng co
ns tr
uc ti
on In
ad eq
ua te
ex pe
ri en
ce of
de si
gn te
am In
su ffi
ci en
t da
ta co
lle ct
io n
an d
su rv
ey be
fo re
de si
gn M
is ta
ke s
an d
di sc
re pa
nc ie
s in
de si
gn do
cu m
en ts
/d ra
w in
gs M
is un
de rs
ta nd
in g
of ow
ne r’
s re
qu ir
em en
ts by
de si
gn en
gi ne
er P
oo r
us e
of ad
va nc
ed en
gi ne
er in
g de
si gn
so ft
w ar
e (c
on ti
nu ed
)
293
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table II.
C at
eg or
y So
ur ce
A tt
ri bu
te af
fe ct
in g
de la
y
E qu
ip m
en t
re la
te d
C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,O
gu nl
an a
et al
.( 19
96 ),
O de
yi nk
a an
d Y
us if
(1 99
7) ,
M aj
id an
d M
cC af
fe r
(1 99
8) ,O
de h
an d
B at
ta in
eh (2
00 2)
,L on
g et
al .(
20 04
), A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,A
ib in
u an
d O
de yi
nk a
(2 00
6) ,K
al ib
a et
al .(
20 09
), M
ah am
id et
al .(
20 11
)
E qu
ip m
en t
br ea
kd ow
ns Im
pr op
er eq
ui pm
en t
L ac
k of
hi gh
-t ec
hn ol
og y
m ec
ha ni
ca le
qu ip
m en
t L
ow pr
od uc
ti vi
ty an
d ef
fi ci
en cy
of eq
ui pm
en t
Sh or
ta ge
of eq
ui pm
en t
E xt
er na
lr el
at ed
B al
dw in
an d
M an
th ei
(1 97
1) ,S
ul liv
an an
d H
ar ri
s (1
98 6)
,M an
sfi el
d et
al .(
19 94
), A
ss af
et al
.( 19
95 ),
O gu
nl an
a et
al .(
19 96
), Sa
ty an
ar ay
an a
an d
Iy er
(1 99
6) ,O
de yi
nk a
an d
Y us
if (1
99 7)
,C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,B
or do
li an
d B
al dw
in (1
99 8)
,A l-K
ha lil
an d
A l-
G ha
fl y
(1 99
9) ,A
l-M om
an i(
20 00
), A
ym an
(2 00
0) ,O
de h
an d
B at
ta in
eh (2
00 2)
,L on
g et
al .
(2 00
4) ,I
ye r
et al
., 20
05 ,K
ou sh
ki et
al .(
20 05
), A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,L
o et
al .(
20 06
), A
zh ar
et al
.( 20
08 ),
K al
ib a
et al
.( 20
09 ),
E ns
ha ss
ie t
al .(
20 09
), M
ah am
id et
al .(
20 11
), M
ar zo
uk an
d E
l-R as
as (2
01 4)
,S he
hu et
al .(
20 14
)
A cc
id en
ts du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
C ha
ng es
in go
ve rn
m en
t re
gu la
ti on
s an
d la
w s
D el
ay in
ob ta
in in
g pe
rm it
s fr
om m
un ic
ip al
it y
D el
ay in
pe rf
or m
in g
fi na
li ns
pe ct
io n
an d
ce rt
ifi ca
ti on
by a
th ir
d pa
rt y
D el
ay in
pr ov
id in
g se
rv ic
es fr
om ut
ili ti
es (w
at er
an d
el ec
tr ic
it y)
L oc
al re
si de
nt s
N at
ur al
di sa
st er
s P
ri ce
fl uc
tu at
io ns
T ra
ffi c
co nt
ro la
nd re
st ri
ct io
n at
jo b
si te
U ne
xp ec
te d
su rf
ac e
an d
su bs
ur fa
ce co
nd it
io ns
U nf
av ou
ra bl
e w
ea th
er co
nd it
io ns
L ab
ou r
re la
te d
B al
dw in
an d
M an
th ei
(1 97
1) ,A
ss af
et al
.( 19
95 ),
O gu
nl an
a et
al .(
19 96
), C
ha n
an d
K um
ar as
w am
y (1
99 7)
,O de
yi nk
a an
d Y
us if
(1 99
7) ,M
aj id
an d
M cC
af fe
r (1
99 8)
,B or
do li
an d
B al
dw in
(1 99
8) ,A
l-K ha
lil an
d A
l-G ha
fl y
(1 99
9) ,O
de h
an d
B at
ta in
eh (2
00 2)
,F ar
id i
an d
E l-S
ay eg
h (2
00 6)
,A ss
af an
d A
l-H ej
ji (2
00 6)
,S w
ei s
et al
.( 20
08 ),
K al
ib a
et al
.( 20
09 ),
E ns
ha ss
ie t
al .(
20 09
), H
w an
g et
al .(
20 13
)
L ab
ou r
sh or
ta ge
s L
ow pr
od uc
ti vi
ty le
ve lo
f la
bo ur
er s
L ow
w or
ke r
m ot
iv at
io n
an d
m or
al e
P er
so na
lc on
fl ic
ts am
on gs
t w
or ke
rs U
nq ua
lifi ed
/i ne
xp er
ie nc
ed w
or kf
or ce
(c on
ti nu
ed )
JFMPC 20,3
294
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table II.
C at
eg or
y So
ur ce
A tt
ri bu
te af
fe ct
in g
de la
y
M an
ag em
en t
re la
te d
O gu
nl an
a et
al .(
19 96
), C
ha n
an d
K um
ar as
w am
y (1
99 7)
,O de
yi nk
a an
d Y
us if
(1 99
7) ,
M ez
he r
an d
T aw
il (1
99 8)
,W al
ke r
an d
V in
es (2
00 0)
,O de
h an
d B
at ta
in eh
(2 00
2) ,
F ri
m po
ng et
al .(
20 03
), L
on g
et al
.( 20
04 ),
K ou
sh ki
et al
.( 20
05 ),
A bd
ul -K
ad ir
et al
.( 20
05 ),
L ov
e et
al .(
20 05
), A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,F
ar id
ia nd
E l-S
ay eg
h (2
00 6)
,L o
et al
. (2
00 6)
,S am
ba si
va n
an d
So on
(2 00
7) ,A
la gh
ba ri
et al
.( 20
07 ),
Sw ei
s et
al .(
20 08
), L
on g
et al
.( 20
04 ),
K al
ib a
et al
.( 20
09 ),
D ol
oi et
al .(
20 12
), H
w an
g et
al .(
20 13
), M
ar zo
uk an
d E
l-R as
as (2
01 4)
A va
ila bi
lit y
of st
af f
to m
an ag
e pr
oj ec
ts E
m pl
oy ee
s m
ot iv
at io
n P
oo r
co or
di na
ti on
am on
gs t
pa rt
ie s
P oo
r or
ga ni
sa ti
on al
st ru
ct ur
e fo
r cl
ie nt
/c on
su lt
an t
P oo
r si
te m
an ag
em en
t an
d su
pe rv
is io
n
M at
er ia
lr el
at ed
M an
sfi el
d et
al .(
19 94
), A
m er
(1 99
4) ,O
gu nl
an a
et al
.( 19
96 ),
K am
in g
et al
.( 19
97 ),
C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,O
de yi
nk a
an d
Y us
if (1
99 7)
,M aj
id an
d M
cC af
fe r
(1 99
8) ,
O de
h an
d B
at ta
in eh
(2 00
2) ,F
ri m
po ng
et al
.( 20
03 ),
A bd
ul -K
ad ir
et al
.( 20
05 ),
K ou
sh ki
et al
.( 20
05 ),
W ig
un a
an d
Sc ot
t (2
00 5)
,A ss
af an
d A
l-H ej
ji (2
00 6)
,K al
ib a
et al
.( 20
09 ),
E ns
ha ss
ie t
al .(
20 09
), H
w an
g et
al .(
20 13
)
C ha
ng es
in m
at er
ia lt
yp es
an d
sp ec
ifi ca
ti on
s D
am ag
e of
so rt
ed m
at er
ia lw
hi ch
ne ed
ed ur
ge nt
ly D
el ay
in m
an uf
ac tu
ri ng
bu ild
in g
m at
er ia
ls E
sc al
at io
n of
m at
er ia
lp ri
ce s
L at
e de
liv er
y of
m at
er ia
ls P
oo r
pr oc
ur em
en t
of co
ns tr
uc ti
on m
at er
ia ls
P oo
r qu
al it
y of
co ns
tr uc
ti on
m at
er ia
ls Sh
or ta
ge of
co ns
tr uc
ti on
m at
er ia
ls P
ro je
ct re
la te
d M
an sfi
el d
et al
.( 19
94 ),
Se m
pl e
et al
.( 19
94 ),
Sa ty
an ar
ay an
a an
d Iy
er (1
99 6)
,C ha
n an
d K
um ar
as w
am y
(1 99
7) ,H
an (2
00 5)
,L ov
e et
al .(
20 05
), A
ss af
an d
A l-H
ej ji
(2 00
6) ,D
ik m
en et
al .(
20 07
), Sa
m ba
si va
n an
d So
on (2
00 7)
,A l-K
ha ra
sh ia
nd Sk
it m
or e
(2 00
9) ,D
ol oi
et al
. (2
01 2)
,H w
an g
et al
.( 20
13 ),
Sh eh
u et
al .(
20 14
)
C om
pl ex
it y
of th
e pr
oj ec
t In
ad eq
ua te
de fi
ni ti
on of
su bs
ta nt
ia lc
om pl
et io
n In
ef fe
ct iv
e de
la y
pe na
lt ie
s P
oo r
co m
m un
ic at
io n
an d
di sp
ut es
be tw
ee n
pr oj
ec t
pa rt
ie s
Si te
sa fe
ty co
ns id
er at
io ns
T yp
e of
co ns
tr uc
ti on
co nt
ra ct
U nr
ea lis
ti c
ti m
e sc
he du
le im
po se
d in
co nt
ra ct
295
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
of disciplines was well-proportioned. The highest proportions of participants in the sample were contractors (40 per cent), followed by consultants (24 per cent), clients (18 per cent) and academics (16 per cent) (Table III).
3.3 Questionnaire analysis Descriptive analysis is an important measure for ranking attributes to investigate the trends of perceptions of industry stakeholders. A number of academics (Assaf et al., 1995; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Iyer and Jha, 2005; Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1998; Holt, 2014) argue that simple measures of central tendency such as the mean and standard deviation of each individual factor are not a suitable measures to assess overall rankings, as they do not reflect relationships between variables. A number of survey techniques were considered for analysis, including the Delphi approach, which has been utilised widely within built environment research (Powell, 2003), and the relative importance index (RII), which has been used frequently to highlight the relative importance of various delay attributes on construction projects (Kometa et al., 1994; Assaf et al., 1995; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Iyer and Jha, 2005; Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1998; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Holt, 2014). The RII was selected and has been computed according to guidelines as advocated by Holt (2014)[1] for each of attributes using the expression:
RII � �W
(A � N) (1)
where W is the weight given to each factor by the respondents and ranges from 0 to 5, A � the highest weight � 5 and N � the total number of respondents. The six-point scale mentioned earlier was transformed to relative importance indices for each attribute, to determine the ranks of the categories and attributes as perceived by participants. The category groups and 75 attributes are arranged in ascending order of ranks with the highest RII or rank indicating the maximum impact on delay. The results are tabulated in Table IV.
3.4 Agreement between the participant groups Within RII analysis, there are a number of approaches which can be applied to analyse the agreement in ranking between different groups. To determine whether there is a significant degree of agreement amongst the four groups of respondents (clients, academics, contractors and consultants), Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used as a measure of agreement amongst participants and indicates the degree of agreement on a 0-1 scale. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance is computed by the following equation (Moore et al., 2003; Frimpong et al., 2003):
Table III. Response rates for groups
Group Sent Response Response rate (%) % of sample
Contractor 36 20 56 41 Client 15 9 60 18 Consultant 23 12 52 24 Academic 18 8 44 16 Overall 92 49 53 100
JFMPC 20,3
296
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table IV. Ranking of delay
attributes
D el
ay fa
ct or
s A
ca de
m ic
C lie
nt C
on su
lt an
t C
on tr
ac to
r W
ei gh
te d
av er
ag e
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k
C lie
nt -r
el at
ed de
la y
fa ct
or s
C ha
ng e
or de
rs by
ow ne
rs du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
0. 65
7 15
0. 55
6 49
0. 66
0 38
0. 57
3 17
0. 60
5 27
D el
ay in
si te
de liv
er y
to co
nt ra
ct or
by ow
ne r
0. 60
0 32
0. 57
8 43
0. 70
0 23
0. 44
0 61
0. 56
1 49
L ac
k of
ex pe
ri en
ce of
ow ne
rs in
co ns
tr uc
ti on
pr oj
ec ts
0. 45
7 68
0. 66
7 18
0. 74
0 15
0. 56
0 20
0. 61
0 23
L at
e in
re vi
si ng
an d
ap pr
ov in
g de
si gn
do cu
m en
ts 0.
71 4
7 0.
73 3
4 0.
68 0
30 0.
61 3
9 0.
67 3
8 O
w ne
rs sl
ow de
ci si
on m
ak in
g 0.
77 1
4 0.
66 7
18 0.
78 0
9 0.
64 0
7 0.
70 2
4 P
oo r
co m
m un
ic at
io n
an d
co or
di na
ti on
w it
h ot
he r
pa rt
ie s
0. 77
1 4
0. 71
1 7
0. 74
0 15
0. 57
3 17
0. 67
8 7
P ro
je ct
fi na
nc in
g 0.
91 4
2 0.
80 0
1 0.
86 0
3 0.
77 3
1 0.
82 4
1 Su
sp en
si on
of w
or k
by ow
ne r
0. 51
4 54
0. 53
3 56
0. 88
0 1
0. 49
3 38
0. 60
0 30
U nr
ea lis
ti c
co nt
ra ct
du ra
ti on
s im
po se
d by
cl ie
nt 0.
60 0
32 0.
62 2
34 0.
76 0
11 0.
58 7
13 0.
63 9
18
C on
su lta
nt -r
el at
ed de
la y
fa ct
or s
A va
ila bi
lit y
of st
af f
to m
an ag
e pr
oj ec
ts 0.
51 4
54 0.
57 8
43 0.
70 0
23 0.
44 0
61 0.
54 6
54 C
on fl
ic ts
be tw
ee n
co ns
ul ta
nt an
d de
si gn
en gi
ne er
0. 57
1 40
0. 53
3 56
0. 54
0 63
0. 42
7 66
0. 50
2 62
D el
ay in
pe rf
or m
in g
in sp
ec ti
on te
st in
g 0.
54 3
47 0.
40 0
74 0.
58 0
52 0.
38 7
70 0.
46 3
70 L
ac k
of ex
pe ri
en ce
of co
ns ul
ta nt
0. 54
3 47
0. 66
7 18
0. 66
0 38
0. 48
0 45
0. 57
6 42
L at
e in
re vi
ew in
g an
d ap
pr ov
in g
de si
gn do
cu m
en ts
0. 57
1 40
0. 66
7 18
0. 66
0 38
0. 50
7 34
0. 59
0 32
P oo
r co
m m
un ic
at io
n an
d co
or di
na ti
on w
it h
ot he
r pa
rt ie
s 0.
71 4
7 0.
66 7
18 0.
78 0
9 0.
53 3
25 0.
65 4
13
C on
tr ac
to r-
re la
te d
de la
y fa
ct or
s C
on fl
ic ts
/d el
ay s
in su
b- co
nt ra
ct in
g w
or k
0. 60
0 32
0. 55
6 49
0. 84
0 4
0. 46
7 49
0. 60
0 28
C on
tr ac
to r
fi na
nc in
g 0.
94 3
1 0.
68 9
13 0.
68 0
30 0.
72 0
3 0.
74 1
2 F
re qu
en t
ch an
ge of
su b-
co nt
ra ct
or s
du e
to in
ef fi
ci en
t w
or k
0. 57
1 40
0. 57
8 43
0. 72
0 19
0. 45
3 55
0. 56
6 45
Im pr
op er
co ns
tr uc
ti on
m et
ho ds
im pl
em en
te d
0. 54
3 47
0. 66
7 18
0. 70
0 23
0. 44
0 61
0. 57
1 44
Im pr
op er
co nt
ro lo
ve r
si te
re so
ur ce
al lo
ca ti
on 0.
45 7
68 0.
55 6
49 0.
70 0
23 0.
45 3
55 0.
53 7
56 In
ad eq
ua te
co nt
ra ct
or ex
pe ri
en ce
0. 62
9 24
0. 71
1 7
0. 80
0 6
0. 52
0 30
0. 64
9 14
In ad
eq ua
te co
nt ra
ct or
’s w
or k
0. 54
3 47
0. 66
7 18
0. 76
0 11
0. 50
7 34
0. 61
0 23
In ef
fe ct
iv e
pr oj
ec t
pl an
ni ng
an d
sc he
du le
0. 68
6 11
0. 73
3 4
0. 68
0 30
0. 53
3 25
0. 63
9 20
P oo
r co
m m
un ic
at io
n an
d co
or di
na ti
on 0.
74 3
6 0.
68 9
13 0.
70 0
23 0.
54 7
21 0.
64 9
14 P
oo r
si te
m an
ag em
en t
an d
su pe
rv is
io n
0. 62
9 24
0. 71
1 7
0. 72
0 19
0. 54
7 21
0. 63
9 18
R ew
or k
du e
to co
ns tr
uc ti
on er
ro r
0. 62
9 24
0. 60
0 38
0. 70
0 23
0. 53
3 25
0. 60
5 26
(c on
ti nu
ed )
297
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table IV.
D el
ay fa
ct or
s A
ca de
m ic
C lie
nt C
on su
lt an
t C
on tr
ac to
r W
ei gh
te d
av er
ag e
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k
D es
ig n-
re la
te d
de la
y fa
ct or
s C
om pl
ex it
y of
pr oj
ec t
de si
gn 0.
54 3
47 0.
64 4
27 0.
64 0
45 0.
46 7
49 0.
56 1
49 D
el ay
s in
pr od
uc in
g de
si gn
do cu
m en
ts 0.
62 9
24 0.
68 9
13 0.
80 0
6 0.
58 7
13 0.
66 8
9 D
es ig
n ch
an ge
s du
ri ng
co ns
tr uc
ti on
0. 65
7 15
0. 75
6 3
0. 68
0 30
0. 61
3 9
0. 66
8 9
In ad
eq ua
te ex
pe ri
en ce
of de
si gn
te am
0. 62
9 24
0. 73
3 4
0. 80
0 6
0. 53
3 25
0. 65
9 12
In su
ffi ci
en t
da ta
co lle
ct io
n an
d su
rv ey
be fo
re de
si gn
0. 62
9 24
0. 60
0 38
0. 70
0 23
0. 54
7 21
0. 61
0 23
M is
ta ke
s an
d di
sc re
pa nc
ie s
in de
si gn
do cu
m en
ts /d
ra w
in gs
0. 71
4 7
0. 77
8 2
0. 72
0 19
0. 66
7 6
0. 71
2 3
M is
un de
rs ta
nd in
g of
ow ne
r’ s
re qu
ir em
en ts
by de
si gn
en gi
ne er
0. 65
7 15
0. 64
4 27
0. 48
0 71
0. 53
3 25
0. 56
6 45
P oo
r us
e of
ad va
nc ed
en gi
ne er
in g
de si
gn so
ft w
ar e
0. 57
1 40
0. 57
8 43
0. 46
0 74
0. 45
3 55
0. 50
2 62
E qu
ip m
en t-
re la
te d
de la
y fa
ct or
s E
qu ip
m en
t br
ea kd
ow ns
0. 37
1 72
0. 44
4 68
0. 48
0 71
0. 41
3 69
0. 42
9 74
Im pr
op er
eq ui
pm en
t 0.
34 3
74 0.
48 9
64 0.
46 0
74 0.
42 7
66 0.
43 4
73 L
ac k
of hi
gh -t
ec hn
ol og
y m
ec ha
ni ca
le qu
ip m
en t
0. 42
9 71
0. 48
9 64
0. 56
0 59
0. 37
3 71
0. 45
4 71
L ow
pr od
uc ti
vi ty
an d
ef fi
ci en
cy of
eq ui
pm en
t 0.
48 6
62 0.
44 4
68 0.
56 0
59 0.
37 3
71 0.
45 4
71 Sh
or ta
ge of
eq ui
pm en
t 0.
34 3
74 0.
44 4
68 0.
66 0
38 0.
46 7
49 0.
48 8
65
E xt
er na
l-r el
at ed
de la
y fa
ct or
s A
cc id
en ts
du ri
ng co
ns tr
uc ti
on 0.
60 0
32 0.
60 0
38 0.
56 0
59 0.
52 0
30 0.
56 1
49 C
ha ng
es in
go ve
rn m
en t
re gu
la ti
on s
an d
la w
s 0.
60 0
32 0.
60 0
38 0.
84 0
4 0.
57 3
17 0.
64 9
14 D
el ay
in ob
ta in
in g
pe rm
it s
fr om
m un
ic ip
al it
y 0.
60 0
32 0.
71 1
7 0.
72 0
19 0.
68 0
4 0.
68 3
6 D
el ay
in pe
rf or
m in
g fi
na li
ns pe
ct io
n an
d ce
rt ifi
ca ti
on 0.
57 1
40 0.
51 1
60 0.
88 0
1 0.
61 3
9 0.
64 9
17 D
el ay
in pr
ov id
in g
se rv
ic es
fr om
ut ili
ti es
(w at
er an
d el
ec tr
ic it
y) 0.
65 7
15 0.
71 1
7 0.
58 0
52 0.
77 3
1 0.
69 3
5 L
oc al
re si
de nt
s 0.
51 4
54 0.
64 4
27 0.
48 0
71 0.
37 3
71 0.
48 3
68 N
at ur
al di
sa st
er s
0. 45
7 68
0. 33
3 75
0. 52
0 66
0. 26
7 75
0. 37
6 75
P ri
ce fl
uc tu
at io
ns 0.
48 6
62 0.
42 2
72 0.
62 0
48 0.
48 0
45 0.
50 2
62 T
ra ffi
c co
nt ro
la nd
re st
ri ct
io n
at jo
b si
te 0.
37 1
72 0.
44 4
68 0.
74 0
15 0.
45 3
55 0.
50 7
60 U
ne xp
ec te
d su
rf ac
e an
d su
bs ur
fa ce
co nd
it io
ns 0.
51 4
54 0.
64 4
27 0.
66 0
38 0.
49 3
38 0.
57 1
43 U
nf av
ou ra
bl e
w ea
th er
co nd
it io
ns 0.
51 4
54 0.
57 8
43 0.
52 0
66 0.
68 0
4 0.
59 0
36 (c
on ti
nu ed
)
JFMPC 20,3
298
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table IV.
D el
ay fa
ct or
s A
ca de
m ic
C lie
nt C
on su
lt an
t C
on tr
ac to
r W
ei gh
te d
av er
ag e
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k R
II R
an k
R II
R an
k
L ab
ou r-
re la
te d
de la
y fa
ct or
s L
ab ou
r sh
or ta
ge s
0. 48
6 62
0. 55
6 49
0. 50
0 69
0. 49
3 38
0. 50
7 60
L ow
pr od
uc ti
vi ty
le ve
lo f
la bo
ur er
s 0.
54 3
47 0.
51 1
60 0.
54 0
63 0.
49 3
38 0.
51 7
58 L
ow w
or ke
r m
ot iv
at io
n an
d m
or al
e 0.
48 6
62 0.
51 1
60 0.
50 0
69 0.
46 7
49 0.
48 8
65 P
er so
na lc
on fl
ic ts
am on
gs t
w or
ke rs
0. 48
6 62
0. 48
9 64
0. 60
0 51
0. 37
3 71
0. 47
3 69
U nq
ua lifi
ed /i
ne xp
er ie
nc ed
w or
kf or
ce 0.
51 4
54 0.
68 9
13 0.
62 0
48 0.
45 3
55 0.
55 6
52
M an
ag em
en t-
re la
te d
de la
y fa
ct or
s A
va ila
bi lit
y of
st af
f to
m an
ag e
pr oj
ec ts
0. 60
0 32
0. 64
4 27
0. 58
0 52
0. 49
3 38
0. 56
6 45
E m
pl oy
ee s
m ot
iv at
io n
0. 51
4 54
0. 51
1 60
0. 62
0 48
0. 45
3 55
0. 51
7 58
P oo
r co
or di
na ti
on am
on gs
t pa
rt ie
s 0.
60 0
32 0.
64 4
27 0.
64 0
45 0.
49 3
38 0.
58 0
39 P
oo r
or ga
ni sa
ti on
al st
ru ct
ur e
fo r
cl ie
nt /c
on su
lt an
t 0.
57 1
40 0.
64 4
27 0.
74 0
15 0.
46 7
49 0.
59 0
32 P
oo r
si te
m an
ag em
en t
an d
su pe
rv is
io n
0. 65
7 15
0. 71
1 7
0. 58
0 52
0. 49
3 38
0. 59
0 32
M at
er ia
l-r el
at ed
de la
y fa
ct or
s C
ha ng
es in
m at
er ia
lt yp
es an
d sp
ec ifi
ca ti
on s
0. 71
4 7
0. 62
2 34
0. 58
0 52
0. 50
7 34
0. 58
5 37
D am
ag e
of so
rt ed
m at
er ia
lw hi
ch ne
ed ed
ur ge
nt ly
0. 62
9 24
0. 55
6 49
0. 58
0 52
0. 48
0 45
0. 54
6 54
D el
ay in
m an
uf ac
tu ri
ng bu
ild in
g m
at er
ia ls
0. 48
6 62
0. 55
6 49
0. 52
0 66
0. 61
3 9
0. 55
6 52
E sc
al at
io n
of m
at er
ia lp
ri ce
s 0.
54 3
47 0.
42 2
72 0.
68 0
30 0.
58 7
13 0.
56 6
48 L
at e
de liv
er y
of m
at er
ia ls
0. 62
9 24
0. 60
0 38
0. 68
0 30
0. 58
7 13
0. 62
0 22
P oo
r pr
oc ur
em en
t of
co ns
tr uc
ti on
m at
er ia
ls 0.
80 0
3 0.
55 6
49 0.
56 0
59 0.
54 7
21 0.
59 5
31 P
oo r
qu al
it y
of co
ns tr
uc ti
on m
at er
ia ls
0. 68
6 11
0. 62
2 34
0. 58
0 52
0. 52
0 30
0. 58
5 37
Sh or
ta ge
of co
ns tr
uc ti
on m
at er
ia ls
0. 65
7 15
0. 53
3 56
0. 68
0 30
0. 50
7 34
0. 58
0 39
P ro
je ct
-r el
at ed
de la
y fa
ct or
s C
om pl
ex it
y of
th e
pr oj
ec t
0. 65
7 15
0. 66
7 18
0. 66
0 38
0. 44
0 61
0. 58
0 39
In ad
eq ua
te de
fi ni
ti on
of su
bs ta
nt ia
lc om
pl et
io n
0. 57
1 40
0. 46
7 67
0. 54
0 63
0. 42
7 66
0. 48
8 65
In ef
fe ct
iv e
de la
y pe
na lt
ie s
0. 51
4 54
0. 53
3 56
0. 66
0 38
0. 44
0 61
0. 52
7 57
P oo
r co
m m
un ic
at io
n an
d di
sp ut
es be
tw ee
n pr
oj ec
t pa
rt ie
s 0.
65 7
15 0.
66 7
18 0.
68 0
30 0.
48 0
45 0.
60 0
28 Si
te sa
fe ty
co ns
id er
at io
ns 0.
68 6
11 0.
57 8
43 0.
64 0
45 0.
52 0
30 0.
59 0
32 T
yp e
of co
ns tr
uc ti
on co
nt ra
ct 0.
68 6
11 0.
68 9
13 0.
76 0
11 0.
46 7
49 0.
62 4
21 U
nr ea
lis ti
c ti
m e
sc he
du le
im po
se d
in co
nt ra
ct 0.
65 7
15 0.
62 2
34 0.
76 0
11 0.
62 7
8 0.
66 3
11
299
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
W � 12U � 3m 2n(n � 1)2
m 2n(n � 1) (2)
where:
U � � i�1
n
(�R)2
where n � number of factors, m � number of groups, j � the factors 1, 2 […] and N. This requires the null hypothesis:
H0. There is an insignificant degree of agreement amongst participants, with the alternative hypothesis.
H1. There is a statistically significant degree of agreement amongst participants.
Therefore, the research applies Kendall’s coefficient to identify agreement between participant groups. The results are presented in Table V.
3.5 Principal component analysis (PCA) The data analysis through the RII method does not examine the relationship between the various attributes and does not permit meaningful outcomes in terms of understanding the clustering effects of similar attributes. Further analysis was therefore required to reduce the attributes into much fewer underlying constructs to gain greater insight. Multivariate techniques have a prominent role to play in data exploration and analysis. These techniques investigate the possible patterns which exist in datasets, enabling composite inter-relationships to be represented, and provide a mechanism for reducing the dimensionality of data for further analysis. Principal component analysis (PCA) is one of the most established and best known of the techniques of multivariate analysis (Jolliffe, 1986), the essence of the approach is to calculate the eigenvalue decomposition (spectral decomposition) which is the factorisation of a matrix into a canonical state, of which the results are expressed as scores and loadings, thereby decomposing an original dataset into a set of linear variates (Field, 2013).
Table V. Ranking of groups
Group of factors Academic Client Consultant Contractor
Weighted average
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Client related 0.829 1 0.689 2 0.660 2 0.667 2 0.698 2 Consultant related 0.514 7 0.622 6 0.500 7 0.480 7 0.522 8 Contractor related 0.571 6 0.644 4 0.640 3 0.493 6 0.576 4 Design related 0.686 3 0.689 2 0.640 3 0.547 3 0.624 3 Equipment related 0.457 8 0.400 10 0.380 10 0.347 10 0.385 10 External related 0.714 2 0.756 1 0.820 1 0.693 1 0.741 1 Labour related 0.429 9 0.556 9 0.420 9 0.413 8 0.449 9 Management related 0.657 4 0.578 8 0.580 5 0.400 9 0.527 6 Material related 0.429 9 0.644 4 0.480 8 0.533 4 0.527 6 Project related 0.629 5 0.622 6 0.560 6 0.507 5 0.566 5
JFMPC 20,3
300
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
PCA is only concerned with the establishment of linear components which exist within the data emphasising the contribution a specific variable makes to a component. Components are derived directly from the correlation matrix2 which explains all the variance held within the matrix (Kline, 1994). Hence, PCA maximises the variance (sum of the squared loadings) explained for any number of factors and detects a structure in the relationships between the variables. This technique requires that the correlation matrix R � (R[Rmm]) is obtained through the transformation of the data matrix X � (X[mn]) into a matrix of standardised scores [Z] which are computed using the mean and standard deviation for each row m of the data matrix where m is the number of elements (variables) and n is the number of observations (column vectors) in the dataset. This is represented by the following formula:
YT � XTW � V� T(X) (3) where the matrix � is a diagonal [m x n] diagonal matrix with non-negative real numbers on the diagonal and W � VT is the singular value decomposition of X. The factor scores [Snp] for the original n observation, on each p component are calculated by the following formula:
Snp � (Zmn� LTpm)(X) (4)
In essence, PCA decomposes the correlation matrix with ones on the diagonals. The variance is equal to the trace of the matrix, the sum of the diagonals or the number of observed variables in the analysis, minimising the sum of the squared perpendicular distance to the component axis (Truxillo, 2003).
3.6 Application of PCA To identify the number of PCs to be retained, the analysis applies a prior criteria to select the number of principal components that explain the maximum amount of variance is utilised. The eigenvalue criteria of �1 along with the Scree test and the interpretability of each component is applied. Criteria are that each principal component explains at least 5 per cent of the variance and, cumulatively, 75 per cent of variance. Variables with absolute scoring coefficients �0.5 were considered important contributors to a pattern. This logic is premised on Steven’s (2002) suggestion that loadings greater than 0.5 represent substantive values which are appropriate for interpretative purposes.
4. Research findings The collected data were analysed through the RII method. The analysis included ranking the different attributes according to the relative importance indices. The contribution of each of the factors to overall delay was examined and the distribution pattern of the factors conducted. Table IV summarises the computed RIIs and their overall ranks as perceived by the four responding groups. The weighted average for each delay factor and rank is also presented.
4.1 Ranking of groups As evidenced in Table V, the external-related delay factor group is ranked first with a weighted average RII of (0.741). The client (RII � 0.756), consultant (RII � 0.820) and
301
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
contractor (RII � 0.693) groups all ranked this category first, with academics (RII � 0.714) ranking it second. This indicates this category is considered most important for those involved in the housing construction process and inferentially suggests that issues outside of the process and stakeholder control are critical to delays in housing construction, and there is a pressing need to mitigate or minimise their impact on housing construction performance. There was consensus across the client, contractor and consultant groups relating to the ranking of the client-related factor group. This group was overall ranked second (RII WA � 0.698) and is considered important because client-related difficulties are often perceived to be crucial to project performance and completion. The results are arguably traced to client financing and liquidity and the difficult financial circumstances surrounding the property market in recent years. Indeed, lending constraints from financial institutions have resulted in private housing construction projects suffering from complex problems, and in more extreme cases, projects have been “moth-balled”. Also, the results highlight that client’s actions in relation to decision making; communication and approval of design documents are important causes of delay. Similarly, there was also consensus across the participant groups relating to designed-related factor. Academics, consultants, contractors all ranked this as the third most important aspect causing delays, with client’s ranking this equal second. The ranking of delay factors within this category indicates that in the housing construction industry, similar to other types of construction activity, the accuracy and timeliness of construction drawings/plans and communication of design changes is essential to avoid delays and unnecessary expense.
Figure 1 shows the relative importance indices for each of the groups, together with the overall weighted average. The results exhibit wider variation in rankings across the participant groups for the contractor management and material-related groups. Notably, the trends also indicate that the academic results show a higher degree of variance across many of the factor groups.
In general, these findings are consistent with other research studies which have consistently found that client-, design- and contractor-related delays are the prevalent factor groups causing delay in housing construction (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997; Walker
Figure 1. Relative importance scores for groups by respondent groups
JFMPC 20,3
302
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
and Vines, 2000; Koushki et al., 2005; Abdul-Kadir et al., 2005; El-Razek et al., 2008; Hwang et al., 2013). Pertinently, whilst the key group-related issues are consistent with housing construction delays in other locations, the results also reveal that the external-related group was considered the most important group to cause delays. Notably, this finding deviates from traditional construction literature such as Chan and Kumaraswamy (1996); Kazaz et al. (2012) and Gunduz et al. (2013) where external factors were ranked low or last. The results illustrate that external factors related to planning and regulation are key delay factors in Northern Ireland, highlighting that the local housing construction sector has acute and unique challenges which are causing delay and inhibiting housing supply.
4.2 Agreement between participants To determine if there is a significant degree of agreement amongst the four groups, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance is applied as a measure of agreement amongst the experts (Table VI). Across the respondent groups, for all factor groups, where the p values are less than 0.05, the H0, is rejected and the alternative H1, is accepted. Therefore, it can be said that there is a significant degree of agreement. Conversely, where the p values are greater than 0.05, we do not reject H0. Therefore, it can be said that there is insufficient evidence to support the alternative H1. Consequently, there is an insignificant degree of agreement amongst the academic and client respondents regarding factors affecting the performance of housing construction projects.
4.3 The highest ranked attributes Table V identifies the top 20 weighted attributes considered by the participants to have the most impact on delay in the construction of residential properties. The ranking results reveal that 90 per cent of the variables emanate from four actor groups, specifically the client (5), contractor (5), external (4) and design (4) groupings. This indicates that it is primarily factors associated with these groups that lead to delays in housing construction projects. Furthermore, the weighted variables also indicate the relative importance of delay attributes by participants. In this context, it was also notable that issues relating to finance were ranked highest followed by inadequate experience of contractors, designers and clients, regulation delays, poor site management and coordination and inefficient planning and communications and design issues. Although this provides a degree of insight, the ranking of the delay factors does
Table VI. Kendall’s coefficient
of concordance showing agreement/
disagreement between participants
Group Academic Client Contractor Consultant
Academic 0.489 0.659** 0.750** 0.056 0.009 0.003
Client 0.489 0.861** 0.721** 0.056 0.001 0.005
Contractor 0.659** 0.861** 0.886** 0.009 0.001 0
Consultant 0.750** 0.721** 0.886** 0.003 0.005 0
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
303
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
not identify or describe the relationship between the attributes. Indeed, the ranking profile indicates that many of the attributes are similar and possibly describing the same underlying latent constructs (Table VII).
4.4 Principal component extraction Initial testing of the data relationships revealed a number of indicators to have low correlations and statistically insignificant; thus, these were purged from further analysis. In total, 39 attributes were included in the analysis. For reliability and accuracy, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were applied to ensure that the PCA presents reliable findings. In line with Kaiser (1974), coefficients � 0.5 are suppressed. Based on the guidelines suggested by Kaiser (1974) and Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999), the KMO value of 0.591 is satisfactory with the Bartlett measure highly significant (p � 0.001) showing that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Overall, both tests indicate that PCA is appropriate for the data. The anti-image matrix further revealed that the diagonal elements are all above the minimum threshold of 0.5, with the off-diagonal values also revealing that the partial correlations are relatively small, therefore confirming the KMO statistic.
Scrutiny of communalities post-extraction reveals the common variance, that is the proportion of variance of a particular variable that is due to common factors. For example, the analysis shows that 90 per cent of the variance associated with project
Table VII. Top 20 ranked delay attributes
Delay factors Factor group RII Rank
Project financing Client related 0.824 1 Contractor financing Contractor related 0.741 2 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents/drawings Design related 0.712 3 Owners slow decision making Client related 0.702 4 Delay in providing services from utilities (water and electricity) External related 0.693 5 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality External related 0.683 6 Poor communication and coordination with other parties Client related 0.678 7 Late in revising and approving design documents Client related 0.673 8 Delays in producing design documents Design related 0.668 9 Design changes during construction Design related 0.668 9 Unrealistic time schedule imposed in contract Project related 0.663 11 Inadequate experience of design team Design related 0.659 12 Poor communication and coordination with other parties Consultant related 0.654 13 Inadequate contractor experience Contractor related 0.649 14 Poor communication and coordination Contractor related 0.649 14 Changes in government regulations and laws External related 0.649 14 Delay in performing final inspection and certification External related 0.649 17 Unrealistic contract durations imposed by client Client related 0.639 18 Poor site management and supervision Contractor related 0.639 18 Ineffective project planning and schedule Contractor related 0.639 20
JFMPC 20,3
304
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
financing is common, or shared, variance, with lack of experience indicating 83.5 per cent of common factor space. All but four (10.2 per cent) of the extracted communalities are higher than the 0.7 threshold suggested by Jolliffe (1972, 1986), indicating that the extraction of these factors is tenable. The extraction of the principal components reveals that seven components have eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table VIII). The proportion of variance explained by the seven eigenvalues equates to 78.78 per cent, with the first eigenvalue explaining 30.39 per cent. The seventh component was marginally above the eigenvalue threshold, but below the explained variance, thus required further consideration. The components meet the proportion of variance accounted for rule and interpretability criteria at the sixth component. Examination of the rotated loadings showed the seventh component to present a mixed effect and was previously captured in Component 1. After careful consideration, it was decided that this component should be removed.
To further verify the “fit” of the model, the reproduced correlation matrix was analysed, as it contains the correlation coefficients between all of the variables based upon the component model. The differences between the observed correlations and the model correlations are relatively small, with the correlation model summary revealing that 12.0 per cent of non-redundant residuals comprise an absolute value greater than 0.05 – indicating that of a satisfactory model. The rotation of the component structures applying the orthogonal (varimax) solution is observed in Table IX. In total, of the initial 75 attributes, 38 were retained and a total of 6 principal components were evolved, explaining 75.68 per cent of total variance.
4.5 Discussion of extracted principal components In total, six principal components were extracted relating to a number of latent aspects of the housing construction delay process. Generally speaking, the extracted components are consistent with previous construction literature related to housing which detail finance difficulties, experience, decision making, design and variation, management and scheduling problems and exogenous issues to be cardinal issues affecting the delay process (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997; Walker and Vines, 2000; Koushki et al., 2005; Abdul-Kadir et al., 2005; El-Razek et al., 2008; Hwang et al., 2013). Moreover, in the UK context, the results are similar to those identified by Sullivan and Harris (1986) and more recently by Olawale and Sun (2010) who identify communication
Table VIII. Extraction variance
Components
Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total (%) of
variance Cumulative
(%) Total (%)
variance Cumulative
(%)
1 19.541 50.105 50.105 11.853 30.393 30.393 2 2.626 6.734 56.838 4.770 12.231 42.625 3 2.441 6.258 63.097 4.129 10.586 53.211 4 1.925 4.936 68.032 3.475 8.909 62.120 5 1.605 4.116 72.149 2.780 7.129 69.249 6 1.380 3.537 75.686 2.250 5.813 75.061 7 1.209 3.101 78.787 1.570 4.026 79.087
Note: Extraction method � principal component analysis
305
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Table IX. Rotated loadings of the principal components
Delay ID Description/factor name Factor loading
Variance explained (%)
Factor 1: Inefficient project management, communication and experience 30.39 Q72 Poor site management and supervision 0.827 Q36 Poor communication and coordination 0.811 Q42 Inadequate experience of design team 0.79 Q35 Ineffective project planning and schedule 0.777 Q70 Poor coordination amongst parties 0.773 Q37 Poor site management and supervision 0.769 Q81 Complexity of the project 0.762 Q84 Poor communication and disputes between project parties 0.741 Q33 Inadequate contractor experience 0.737 Q34 Inadequate contractor’s work 0.727 Q44 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents/drawings 0.712 Q40 Delays in producing design documents 0.689 Q39 Complexity of project design 0.684 Q41 Design changes during construction 0.636 Q26 Late in reviewing and approving design documents 0.634 Q43 Insufficient data collection and survey before design 0.599 Q77 Late delivery of materials 0.599 Q78 Poor procurement of construction materials 0.588 Q73 Changes in material types and specifications 0.522 Q87 Unrealistic time schedule imposed in contract 0.518 Q45 Misunderstanding of owner’s requirements by design engineer 0.507
Factor 2: Poor owner/client management and competence 12.23 Q17 Owners slow decision making 0.829 Q16 Late in revising and approving design documents 0.78 Q18 Poor communication and coordination with other parties 0.702 Q15 Lack of experience of owners in construction projects 0.701 Q21 Unrealistic contract durations imposed by client/owner 0.6
Factor 3: Regulation, bureaucracy and red tape 10.59 Q54 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality 0.882 Q56 Delay in providing services from utilities (water and electricity) 0.86 Q55 Delay in performing final inspection and certification by a third
party 0.804
Q53 Changes in government regulations and laws 0.698
Factor 4: Poor project clarity, rework and safety 8.90 Q13 Change orders by owners during construction 0.773 Q85 Site safety considerations 0.709 Q38 Rework due to construction error 0.534
Factor 5: Finance 7.12 Q19 Project financing 0.863 Q29 Contractor financing 0.848
Factor 6: Exogenous conditions 5.81 Q62 Unfavourable weather conditions 0.91 Q61 Unexpected surface and subsurface conditions 0.606
Notes: Extraction method � principal component analysis; rotation method � varimax with kaiser normalisation; rotation converged in seven iterations
JFMPC 20,3
306
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
effectiveness, coordination effectiveness, decision making, team experience, finance and external factors to be substantive barriers to the timely delivery of UK construction projects.
4.5.1 Factor 1: inefficient project management, communication and experience. The dimensions of construction delays discern that 21 indicators can be collapsed into one principal component (Factor 1: inefficient site management, communication and experience) which explains 30.39 per cent of total variance of the linear component. The first component can be regarded as generic inefficiencies, site management, communication, coordination and experience across all parties involved in the construction process. The constructs which load highly into Component 1 all seemingly relate to effective management of project delivery which is identified by both Kadir et al. (2005) and Doloi et al. (2012) to be one of the top five reasons for construction delay.
Efficient site management and effective supervision is one of the vital factors for achieving success. Site management includes project planning, monitoring and communication between parties (Enshassi et al., 2009). A number of research studies have found ineffective site management and supervision to be the most important cause of delay. Long et al. (2008) found that poor site management and supervision was the most important cause of construction delay, with Doloi et al. (2012) finding that inefficient site management and poor site coordination were ranked highly. This is also consistent with a number of previous studies which have consistently demonstrated that project planning and scheduling deficiencies are ranked within top five causes of delay (Arditi et al., 1985; Ogunlana et al., 1996; Kaming et al., 1997; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Sweis et al., 2008; Long et al., 2008; Doloi et al., 2012). Also, Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) identified poor site management and supervision as the most important cause of time overruns in housing construction projects in Hong Kong. Similarily, Hwang et al. (2013) found site management to be the most important delay cause in public housing construction in Singapore. Furthermore, other studies have found poor site supervision and management to fall within the top ten ranked causes of delay in construction (Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Kaliba et al., 2009) and housing (Abdul-Kadir et al., 2005).
Research shows that construction management effectiveness is essential for housing construction projects (Ogunlana et al., 1996; Walker and Vines, 2000). Delays have strong relationship with failure and ineffective performance of contractors which may lead to improper site management, misinterpretation and confusion (Ubaid, 1991). Sambasivan and Soon (2007) revealed that inadequate contractor experience was the third most important cause of construction project delay. The experience of contractors will also impact on project effectiveness and also the selection of construction methods; also, the experience of consultants is often crucial and may result in late issuance of construction drawings, delay in work approval, poor communication and change orders, which are likely to cause construction delay and unnecessary expense.
Related to management effectiveness, cooperation and coordination amongst different parties involved in a construction project facilitates completion on time (Iyer and Jha, 2005). The findings from this study reveal that poor knowledge, communication and coordination problems pose a major impediment to the efficiency of housing construction, a finding consistent in other studies. Several research studies have stated that design-related causes are one of the main major factor groups in causing delay in construction (Madni and Reed, 2001; Hsieh et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2004). The present
307
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
findings are consistent with this growing body of construction research which has found that the preparation, timeliness and the expediency in which design changes are communicated are all important factors which cause delays. The results show that complexities and difficulties associated with design factors are clearly causing problems in the housing construction sector, consistent with previous research (Walker and Vines, 2000; Abdul-Kadir et al., 2005; El-Razek et al., 2008). Pertinently, numerous contractors stated that the designers’ inability to understand modern construction methods caused inappropriate and unnecessary designs. Both clients and contractors also stated, in agreement, that improper design is an issue which is largely caused by law and regulation change. In this context, this proves a need for design consultants to be up-to-date with modern construction methods and the need for a healthy relationship between the construction industry and regulatory bodies.
4.5.2 Factor 2: poor owner/client management and competence. The second component comprises five attributes and can be referred to as poor owner/client management explaining 12.23 per cent of total variance. The findings show that delay attributes arising from slow decision making, poor communication, lack of experience and unrealistic duration imposed (Q17 � 0.829; Q16 � 0.780; Q18 � 0.702; Q15 � 0.701, Q21 � 0.60) all load highly into this construct. This suggests that inactive decision making by the owner indicates overly exercised bureaucracy within the project development environment (Doloi et al., 2012) and lack of appropriate coordination and quality control processes. Slowness of decision making often results in construction time overruns, particularly where there is an inadequate communication. As a result, research shows that time and costs overruns occur whilst owners/clients to decide on issues such as materials and suppliers, and provision of information on required changes (Ogunlana et al., 1996). In the housing context, research consistently shows that slow decision making is significant delay factor (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997; Koushki et al., 2005; Hwang et al., 2013) supporting the current findings.
The contractual framework can also be problematic where provisions relating to cost and duration are impractical and unrealistic resulting in time and cost overruns. Stipulation of unrealistic schedules is often due to lack of coordination between client and contractor about the underlying complexities of the development site (Satyanarayana and Iyer, 1996). Furthermore, where a substandard contract is not administered properly, this can result in misinterpretation, conflict and ultimately litigation. Furthermore, the results are supported by additional research which reveals that the substandard contract (Doloi et al., 2012), contract modification and management (Mansfield et al., 1994; Kaliba et al., 2009) and effective administration (Satyanarayana and Iyer, 1996) are essential to avoid delay through unrealistic contract terms. The results therefore suggest that owners/clients should set project duration after proper consideration of all relevant factors of a project. A number of participants surveyed by the research further stated that complex or inappropriate contract forms are chosen for projects within the Northern Ireland housing sector. It is argued that this procedure adds to the unnecessary red tape for the project and only creates further work for members of the project which will possibly cause for delays.
4.5.3 Factor 3: regulation, bureaucracy and red tape. The third factor regulation, bureaucracy and red tape explains that 10.59 per cent of total variance of the linear component contains four attributes. Delays attributed to planning and legal regulation, specifically obtaining permits and certification from municipal bodies and government
JFMPC 20,3
308
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
agencies and untimely nature of infrastructure or utility service provision load highly (Q54 � 0.882; Q56 � 0.860; Q55 � 0.804; Q53 � 0.698) suggesting that bureaucracy, red tape and local authorities requirements remain key barriers. Within the housing context, this relates to the planning process and infrastructure provision. The planning process can cause excessive time, cost and uncertainty prior to and during housing construction. Indeed, obtaining permissions from local authorities can be procedurally slow, expensive and fraught with misinterpretation, poor communication and legal complications. Moreover, in many instances, where housing construction has been completed, inspection and certification can lead to delays in housing being legally completed and therefore adding to perceived time delays.
The results clearly indicate that planning and regulation is a critical localised issue, finding credence with Williams (2000) and Azhar et al. (2008) who found that the regulatory environment and changes in government legislation and regulation in relation to planning, environment, health and safety and employment can lead to project change and therefore delay. Also, Shehu et al. (2014) found that bureaucracy in government agencies was an important factor in construction projects. Fundamentally, the findings from this research point to difficulties in the planning pathway, excessive regulation and “red tape” which exacerbates client-related legal costs and makes it difficult to release financing for projects. Pertinently, the findings also observed that numerous contractors stated that the most important delay factor to housing construction in Northern Ireland is obtaining planning permission. Contractors suggest that delays in planning are caused as a result of apathy, inefficiency and a culture of tolerance of low productivity targets within the statutory consulting bodies and not with the planning service itself – suggesting that the planning aspect of housing construction in Northern Ireland must be reviewed in terms of both the statutory consulting bodies and the planning service itself to ensure that delays are minimised and the process is efficient and effective for all parties. The impending devolution of planning powers from regional to local district councils under the Review of Public Administration has the potential to exacerbate this aspect due to an inevitable learning curve and the concerns regarding the competence of the reformatted local government bodies.
4.5.4 Factor 4: project variation, rework and safety. Factor 4 (project variation, rework and safety) accounts for 8.90 per cent of explained variance. The findings show that delay attributes arising from design variation in projects from change orders, site safety considerations are important (Q13 � 0.773; Q85 � 0.709;) with rework due to construction error (Q38 � 0.534) also explaining this construct. Literature highlights that owners/clients make design changes according to economic conditions and customer requirements (Hsieh et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2004). Such alterations can significantly affect the scheduling and plans of contractors and may even require extensive redesign (Ogunlana et al., 1996). Notably, the current findings are consistent with previous research evidence which indicates that design changes by owners/clients were amongst the top ten important causes of construction delay across a wealth of construction-related literature. In the context of housing construction, research also shows that owner-/client-initiated changes are a common cause of significant delay factors in housing (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997; Koushki et al., 2005; Hwang et al., 2013), supporting the current findings. Moreover, research by Sullivan and Harris (1986) and Olawale and Sun (2010) found that information delay and change orders from owners/ clients were amongst the principal causes of delay across the wider UK.
309
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Furthermore, stipulation of design variation can also promulgate unrealistic schedules, often due to lack of coordination between client and contractor in relation to the likely difficulties site conditions (Satyanarayana and Iyer, 1996). In many instances, this results in contractors compromising on construction quality, which leads to errors and reworks, supporting the current findings. Such considerations may be heightened by exogenous factors relating to weather and site conditions.
4.5.5 Factor 5: finance. The fifth factor relates to the financial environment (Factor 5: finance) representing 7.12 per cent of explained total variance. This component was comprised of two attributes relating to project financing and contractor financing (Q19 � 0.863; Q29 � 0.848). Memon et al. (2013) indicate that finance is one of the most important resources in the construction industry, and cash flow affects the progress of construction. Project financing by owners during construction ensures the progress payment for completed work, and delays in this regard can affect contractor liquidity and cash flow and ultimately payment to workers and suppliers. This causes detrimental effects on workers’ motivation, potential industrial action and litigation and credibility with suppliers’ for advance ordering of material. These results are wholly consistent with previous research literature which indicates that financing and liquidity during construction are the most significant causes of delay (Mansfield et al., 1994; Lo et al., 2006; Enshassi et al., 2009). Moreover, there is a body of research related specifically to project financing by the client. Overall, research consistently shows that financing by the client falls within the top three most important factors across a number of construction projects (Arditi et al., 1985; Aibinu and Odeyinka, 2006; Long et al., 2008; Mahamid et al., 2011). Financing by contractors was also identified by a number of other research studies to be within the five most factors causing delay (Hatush and Skitmore, 1997; Frimpong et al., 2003; Long et al., 2008).
Significantly, the results also sit well with research literature on housing construction which has revealed that client- and contractor-related financial constraints and difficulties are key issues which affect housing construction where cash flow problems and contractor-related financial difficulties impact on the delay process. The findings further showed that, across the participant groups of the study, there was agreement that a proper feasibility study should being carried out at the inception of the project, as the lack of scrutiny was a factor causing delays arising further into the life cycle of the project. It was suggested that whilst this feasibility study at the inception should thoroughly scrutinise the project in all aspects, ensuring that it is viable in terms of its finances is of paramount importance.
4.5.6 Factor 6: exogenous conditions. Factor 6, exogenous conditions, explains 5.81 per cent of total variance. Under this component, unfavourable weather conditions loaded highly (0.910) with unexpected surface and sub-surface conditions also identified as a significant attribute (0.601). With regards to weather, a considerable proportion of on-site construction is typically carried out in the external environment and is therefore at the mercy of variations in climatic conditions. According to Hsieh et al. (2004), climate conditions can be difficult to predict, meaning sudden extremes can slow down or stop normal operation of plant, equipment and people. As a result, research consistently points to climate and weather conditions as a major external cause of construction delays and unscheduled changes (Sullivan and Harris, 1986; Semple et al., 1994; Al-Momani, 2000; El-Rayes and Moselhi, 2001). In relation to housing construction,
JFMPC 20,3
310
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Koushki et al. (2005) found that weather was the fifth most important factor in private residential construction projects.
Research literature has also highlighted difficulties associated with ground and site conditions (Al-Momani, 2000; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997), illustrating that sub-surface conditions related to soil and water tables were a significant cause of delay. Pertinently, inadequate soil condition survey and unknown geological conditions can result in amendment to design and remedial actions to building work which have significant time and cost implication (Frimpong et al., 2003). The findings therefore suggest that extreme weather fluctuations and sub-surface conditions need to be adequately considered in relation to project planning and scheduling and where possible alternative measures and contingency used.
5. Conclusions Every construction sector has its nature, culture and regulations which mean that delay factors, whilst inherent, can change as a result of regional differentiation. The research presented is predicated on construction delay factors within housing construction in Northern Ireland. As such, the findings depict “sector-specific” connotations which may not be wholly transferable to other forms of construction projects. Additionally, the research reflects a number of indigenous variables which characterise the housing construction process within Northern Ireland – not all jurisdictions will be subjected to comparable legislative structures or policy frameworks. This research, for example, identifies “external” factors as key delay variables in the delivery of housing projects within Northern Ireland. This divergence is perhaps attributable to the idiosyncratic nature of the planning policy frameworks within Northern Ireland and the acute and unique challenges inhibiting housing supply. As such, we encourage readers to interpret the findings relative to the conditions in which they have been collated. That said, it is apparent that many of the delay factors considered significant within the confines of this research have cross-jurisdictional applicability. The insights garnered from multi-stakeholder perspectives serve to deepen understanding and appreciation of delay factors not just within housing projects but also the wider construction sector. Moreover, the methodological framework comprising the adaptation of a RII and the categorisation of delay variables via PCA affords a robust, credible and timely contribution to the existing international body of knowledge on delay factors within the construction process.
Unfortunately the construction sector in the UK has become synonymous with project delays – to the extent that this has almost come to be accepted as the “norm”. No other “primary” sector of economic productivity is characterised by such pronounced levels of inefficiency. Whilst many of the factors which culminate in construction delays such as weather, legislative frameworks and policy developments are beyond the direct control of the industry, many of the delay factors identified in this research can, and must be addressed, if the construction sector is to fulfil its remit as a mainstay of economic productivity. This is not to say that the UK construction sector is wholly inefficient – there are a number of noteworthy projects which serve as “exemplars” for innovation in terms of project design, “leanness” of the procurement process, key stakeholder consultation, process development and material application. The problem is that such projects are just that “exemplars” and are not representative of the construction industry as a whole. In truth, the construction sector has “in the main” been
311
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
changed resistant with an unwillingness to fully embrace (or to the extent which other sectors of industry have derived direct efficiency benefits) technological advancement, process and product innovation and financial evolution.
The key finding from this research is that delays within the housing construction sector in Northern Ireland can be attributed to deficiencies in site management, ineffective communication strategies and a lack of co-ordination between key stakeholders involved in the construction process. More concerning perhaps is the fact that the findings are indicative of the wider UK construction industry which as a whole continues to underachieve relative to other sectors in terms of profitability and integration of the value chain. The construction sector is fragmented (relative to other sectors of industry) in terms of the number of “actors” with “complex” contractual frameworks which culminate in inefficiencies and cost extenuation. Moreover, the disaggregated nature of the construction supply chain necessitates successful coordination of activities both on-site and off-site by project managers in the supply chain.
The findings from this research also point to a need for “reinvention” centred not just on the construction value chain, but in light of the construction sectors inter-dependence with other sectors of industry, the objective must be to explore potential efficiencies and opportunities for innovation across the wider “value system”. At present, too many of the processes and procedures – for example the horizontal and vertical links in the construction value chain – are not fully integrated. As an illustrative example, the construction process is heavily dependent upon logistics in terms of movement of machinery, materials labour, etc. Relative to the construction sector, the logistics value chain is well-defined and streamlined, but for the most part, construction companies have failed to fully realise the potential cost savings and efficiency gains that could be derived by implementing an integrated “system-of-systems” approach to value chain management.
Financial attributes emerged as a key delay factor. The pronounced contraction in bank debt – the conventional form of construction project finance – had a profound impact on the project pipeline within the UK. The continued risk aversion on the part of the banking sector allied with reduced capacity, new governance structures in the form of Basel III allied the marked increase in the cost of finance continues to impinge upon financial liquidity within the construction sector. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) served to expose the over reliance of the construction sector on conventional bank lending; nonetheless, this serves to “mask-over” what constitutes underlying structural weaknesses in financial management and a lack of willingness to embrace financial innovation and to explore new/alternative sources of project finance – including public sector initiatives. Presently, the construction sector has failed to fully explore new and innovative sources and forms of finance which could serve to reduce the cost of capital, improve risk sharing as well as ensuring better alignment of financial frameworks relative to project deliverables/outputs. Financial liquidity remains a key issue in providing stability to the construction project pipeline. Moreover, at corporate level, effective cash flow management systems are instrumental in ensuring projects run in accord with projected timelines, and unnecessary delays are avoided.
The challenge to the UK construction industry (but a challenge applicable in many other countries as well) is to commit itself to change, to embrace innovation and to learn from other sectors of industry which have been required to revolutionise themselves to
JFMPC 20,3
312
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
attain prosperity. The viewpoint advocated in many quarters that the construction process is “unique” and cannot conform to the same “idealist” and “streamlined” working practices as other sectors of industry is frankly outmolded and outdated. Indeed, such viewpoints serve to strengthen the philosophy that the construction sector continues to cling forlornly to its traditionalist values with the absence of a modernist approach serving to undermine the position of the sector within the wider economic framework. As the UK construction sector continues to recover from the GFC and ensuing economic recession, there is an onus on the sector as a whole to embrace innovation and make a more concerted commitment to R&D activities. Up-skilling will be essential to cope with the challenges presented by the new financial and economic paradigms where client expectations continue to expand alongside marked contractions in budgetary capacities. The construction sector as a whole must improve its flexibility and adaptability to bolster resilience to “pinch-points” in the financial and economic cycles and more effectively conform to client expectations.
Too many construction firms in the UK have been guilty of “conformance” innovation and adaptation. Allied with the prevailing economic up-cycle construction, firms must embrace innovation and implement change management from a pro-active rather than a conformist viewpoint. The increased adaptation of “lean thinking processes”, business modelling and a marked increase in modular/off-site construction demonstrates new found willingness to embrace innovation and implement new processes and practices aimed at enhancing productivity and bolstering profitability within the sector. Perhaps and significantly, Governments must recognise that “over regulation” not only stifles innovation and incurs significant additional costs for construction firms but also has the propensity to inhibitive to the construction pipeline and to detract from overall economic growth over the long term.
Note 1. For a full discussion, see Holt (2014) Asking questions, analysing answers: relative
importance revisited, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
References Abdul-Kadir, M.R., Lee, W., Jaafar, M., Sapuan, S. and Ali, A. (2005), “Factors affecting
construction labour productivity for Malaysian residential projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D. and Smith, S.D. (2014), “Rethinking construction cost overruns: cognition, learning and estimation”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Aibinu, A.A. and Odeyinka, H.A. (2006), “Construction delays and their causative factors in Nigeria”, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 132 No. 7, pp. 667-677.
Akintoye, A., Davis, P.T. and Holt, G. (2014), “Editorial”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 2-3.
Akintoye, A.S. and Macleod, M.J. (1997), “Risk analysis and management in construction”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Al-Khalil, M.I. and Al-Ghafly, M.A. (1999), “Important causes of delays in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 647-655.
Al-Kharashi, A. and Skitmore, M. (2009), “Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
313
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Al-Momani, A. (2000), “Construction delay: a quantitative analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Alaghbari, W., Kadir, M.R.A., Salim, A. and Ernawati (2007), “The significant factors causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 192-206.
Amer, W.H. (1994), Analysis and Evaluation of Delays in Construction Projects in Egypt, Zagazig University, Egypt.
Arditi, D., Akan, G.T. and Gurdamar, S. (1985), “Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006), “Causes of delay in large construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-357.
Assaf, S.A., Al-Khalil, M. and A-Hazmi, M. (1995), “Causes of delay in large building construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45-50.
Ayman, H. (2000), “Construction delay: a quantitative analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Azhar, N., Farooqui, R.U. and Ahmed, S.M. (2008), “Cost overrun factors in construction industry of Pakistan”, First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, Karachi.
Baldwin, J. and Manthei, J. (1971), “Causes of delay in the construction industry”, Journal of Construction Division ASCE, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 177-187.
Bordoli, D.W. and Baldwin, A.N. (1998), “A methodology for assessing construction project delays”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-337.
Chan, D.W. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), “A comparative study of causes of time delays in Hong Kong construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-63.
Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1996), “An evaluation of construction time performance in the building industry”, Building and Environment, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 569-578.
Cheung, S.O., Suen, H.C.H. and Cheung, K.K.W. (2004), “PPMS: a web-based construction project performance monitoring system”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 361-376.
Dadzie, J., Abdul-Aziz, A.R. and Kwame, A. (2012), Performance of Consultants on Government projects in Ghana: Client and Contractor Perspectives, International Journal of Business and Social Research, Kumasi.
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. and Han, S. (2007), “Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 494-505.
Doloi, H., Sawney, A., Lyer, K.C. and Rentala, S. (2012), “Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 479-489.
El-Rayes, K. and Moselhi, O. (2001), “Impact of rainfull on the productivity of highway construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 125-131.
El-Razek, M.E., Bassioni, H.A. and Mobarak, A.M. (2008), “Causes of delay in building construction projects in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 11, pp. 831-841.
JFMPC 20,3
314
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Endut, I.R. (2008), “Framework for minimising time overruns of Malaysian construction projects”, Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abushaban, S. (2009), “Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 269-280.
Fan, W. and Yan, Z. (2010), “Factors affecting response rates of the wed survey: a systematic review”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 132-139.
Faridi, A.S. and El-Sayegh, S.M. (2006), “Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1167-1176.
Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed., SAGE, London. Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in developing countries: Ghana as a case study”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 321-326.
Gündüz, M., Nielsen, Y. and Özdemir, M. (2013), “Quantification of delay factors using the relative importance index method for construction projects in Turkey”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 133-139.
Han, S. (2005), “Estimation of cost overrun risk in international projects by using fuzzy set theory”, Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. (1997), “Assessment and evaluation of contractor data against client goals using PERT approach”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 327-340.
Holt, D. (2014), “Asking questions, analysing answers: relative importance revisited”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
Hsieh, T., Lu, S. and Wu, C. (2004), “Statistical analysis of causes for change orders in metropolitan public works”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 679-686.
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999), The Multivariate Social Scientist, Sage, London. Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Ng, S.Y. (2013), “Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule
performance of public housing projects”, Habitat International, Vol. 38 (April), pp. 214-220. Iyer, K.C. and Jha, K.N. (2005), “Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Jennings, W. (2012), “Why costs overrun: risk, optimism and uncertainty in budgeting for the London 2012 Olympic games”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 455-462.
Jollife, I.T. (1972), “Discarding variables in a principal component analysis. I: artificial data”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Jolliffe, I.T. (1986), Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York. Kadir, M.R.A., Lee, W.P., Jaafar, M.S., Sapuan, S.M. and Ali, A.A.A. (2005), “Factors affecting
construction labour productivity for Malaysian residential projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36. Kaliba, C., Muya, M. and Mumba, K. (2009), “Cost escalation and schedule delays in road
construction projects in Zambia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 522-531.
315
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), “Factors influencing construction time and cost in Indonesia construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S. and Avcioglu, N. (2012), “Causes of delays in construction projects in Turkey”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 426-435.
Kline, P. (1994), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, London. Kometa, S.T., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Harris, F.C. (1994), “Attributes of UK construction clients
influencing project consultants’ performance”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 433-443.
Koushki, P.A., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), “Delays and cost increase in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 285-294.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Chan, D.W.M. (1998), “Contributors to construction delays”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Lo, T.Y., Fung, I.W.H. and Tung, K.C.F. (2006), “Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 6, pp. 636-649.
Long, D.N., Ogunlana, S.O., Quang, T. and Lam, K.C. (2004), “Large construction projects in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 553-561.
Long, L.-H., Lee, Y.D. and Lee, J.Y. (2008), “Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 367-377.
Love, P.E.D., Davis, P., Ellis, J. and Cheung, S.O. (2010), “Dispute causation: identification of pathogenic influences in construction”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 404-423.
Love, P.E.D., Tse, R.Y.C. and Edwards, D.J. (2005), “Time-cost relationships in Australian building construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 2, pp. 187-194.
Lu, W., Shen, L. and Yam, M. (2008), “Critical success factors for competitiveness of contractors: China study”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 12, pp. 972-982.
Madni, I.K. and Reed, J.M. (2001), “Lookout for change orders”, Construction Engineering, Vol. 43 No. 4, p. 16.
Mahamid, I., Bruland, A. and Dmaidi, N. (2011), “Delay causes in road construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 300-310.
Majid, M.A. and McCaffer, R. (1998), “Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractors’ performance”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 42-49.
Mansfield, N.R., Ugwu, O.O. and Doran, T. (1994), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 254-260.
Marzouk, M.M. and El-Rasas, T.I. (2014), “Analysing delay causes in Egyptian construction projects”, Journal of Advanced Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-55.
Memon, A.H., Ismail, A.R., Ade Asmi, A. and Nor Hazana, A. (2013), “Using structural equation modelling to assess effects of construction resource related factors on cost overrun”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 6-15.
JFMPC 20,3
316
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Mezher, T.M. and Tawil, W. (1998), “Causes of delays in the construction industry in Lebanon”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 251-260.
Moore, D., McCabe, G., Duckworth, W. and Sclove, S. (2003), The Practice of Business Statistics, Freeman, New York, NY.
Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2013), Northern Ireland Housing Market Review & Perspectives 2013-2016, NIHE, Belfast.
Nulty, D.D. (2008), “The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33, pp. 301-314.
Odeh, A.M. and Battaineh, H.T. (2002), “Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-73.
Odeyinka, H.A. and Yusif, A. (1997), “The causes and effects of construction delays on completion cost of housing projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of Property Construction, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 31-44.
Ogunlana, S.O., Promkuntong, K. and Jearkjirm, V. (1996), “Construction delays in a fast growing economy: comparing Thailand with other economies”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Olawale, Y.A. and Sun, M. (2010), “Cost and time control of construction projects: inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 509-526.
Powell, C. (2003), “The Delphi technique: myths and realities”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 376-382.
Ramanathan, C., Potty, N.S. and Arazi, B. (2012), “Analysis of time and cost overrun in Malaysian construction”, Advanced Materials Research, Vols 452/453 (January), pp. 1002-1008.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007), “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 517-526.
Satyanarayana, K.N. and Iyer, K.C. (1996), “Evaluation of delays in Indian construction contracts”, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Vol. 77 (September), pp. 14-22.
Semple, C., Hartman, F.T. and Jergeas, G. (1994), “Construction claims and disputes: causes and cost/time overruns”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 4, pp. 785-795.
Shehu, Z., Endut, E.R. and Akintoye, A. (2014), “Factors contributing to project time and hence cost overrun in the Malaysian construction industry”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Stevens, J.P. (2002), Applied multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Sullivan, A. and Harris, F. (1986), “Delays on large construction projects”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008), “Delays in construction projects: the case of Jordan”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 665-674.
Truxillo, C. (2003), Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Research Applications Course Notes, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Ubaid, A. (1991), “Factors affecting contractor performance”, Master’s thesis, CEM Department, KFUPM, Dhahran.
Vaus, D.A. (2001), Research Design in Social Science, Sage Publications, London.
317
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Walker, D.H.T. and Vines, M.W. (2000), “Australian multi-unit residential project construction time performance factors”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 278-284.
Wiguna, I.P.A and Scott, S. (2005), “Nature of the critical risk factors affecting project performance in Indonesian building contracts”, in Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed.), 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September, SOAS, University of London, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 1, pp. 225-235.
Williams, T.M. (2000), “Safety regulation changes during projects: the use of system dynamics to quantify the effects of change”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-31.
Wu, C., Hsieh, T., Lu, S. and Cheng, W. (2004), “Grey relation analysis of causes for change orders in highway construction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 509-520.
Further reading Ahmed, S.M., Azhar, S., Kappagntula, P. and Gollapudil, D. (2003), “Delays in construction: a brief
study of Florida construction industry”, Proceedings of the 39th Annual ASC Conference, Clemson University, Clemson, pp. 257-266.
Bank of England (2013), Trends in lending, Bank of England, July. BDRC (2013), SME Finance Monitor, BDRC, Q2. BIS (2011), Analysis of Innovation, Skills and Performance in the Economic Downturn,
Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), London. BIS (2013), UK Construction: An Economic Analysis of the Sector, Department for Business
Innovation and Skills (BIS), London. Bramble, B.B. and Callahan, M.T. (1992), Construction Delay Claims, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York,
NY. De Vos, A.S. (2002), “Qualitative data analysis and interpretation”, in de Vos, A.S. (Ed.), Research
at Grass Roots: For the Social Sciences and Human Service Professions, 2nd ed., Van Schaike, Pretoria.
Descombe, M. (2010), The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th ed., Open University Press, Maidenhead.
EC Harris (2013), Supply Chain Analysis into the UK Construction Sector, Report for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), London.
Jolliffe, I.T. (1987), “Rotation of principal components: some comments”, Journal of Climatology, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 507-510.
Kim, H., Soibelman, L. and Groblera, F. (2008), “Factor selection for delay analysis using knowledge discovery in databases”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 550-560.
Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Kumar, R. (2014), Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 4th edn., SAGE
Publications, London. Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q. and Lim, H.H. (2009), “Key project management practices
affecting Singaporean firms’ project performance in China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Luu, V., Kim, S., Van Tuan, N. and Ogunlana, S. (2009), “Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
JFMPC 20,3
318
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
Majid, I.A. (2006), “Causes and effect of delays in Aceh construction industry”, Master’s thesis, University of Technology Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Mustafa, M.A. and Al-Bahar, J.F. (1991), “Project risk analytic assessment using the hierarchy process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 4.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2011), Research and Development in UK Businesses, ONS, London.
Punch, K.F. (2013), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, SAGE Publications, London.
Ugwu, O.O. and Haupt, T.C. (2007), “Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability – a South African construction industry perspective”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 665-680.
Corresponding author J. McCord can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
319
Delays in housing
construction
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Yue Choong Kog. 2018. Major Construction Delay Factors in Portugal, the UK, and the US. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 23:4, 04018024. [Crossref]
2. K.V. Prasad, V. Vasugi, R. Venkatesan, Nikhil S. Bhat. 2018. Critical causes of time overrun in Indian construction projects and mitigation measures. International Journal of Construction Education and Research 18, 1-23. [Crossref]
3. Nini Xia, Patrick X.W. Zou, Mark A. Griffin, Xueqing Wang, Rui Zhong. 2018. Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. International Journal of Project Management 36:5, 701-715. [Crossref]
4. Agyekum-MensahGeorge, George Agyekum-Mensah, KnightAndrew David, Andrew David Knight. 2017. The professionals’ perspective on the causes of project delay in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 24:5, 828-841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 23
:1 6
02 S
ep te
m be
r 20
18 (
P T
)
- Understanding delays in housing construction: evidence from Northern Ireland
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Literature review
- 3. Research methodology
- 4. Research findings
- 5. Conclusions
- References
