Factors contributing to project

time and hence cost overrun in the

Malaysian construction industry
Zayyana Shehu and Intan R. Endut
Malaysia Institute of Transport, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Shah Alam, Malaysia, and
Akintola Akintoye
School of Built and Natural Environment,
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
Abstract
Purpose The delivery of construction projects in Malaysia is plagued by time overruns, which
turns what should have been successful projects into those incurring additional costs, or
money-losing ventures; as well as leading to various other unexpected negative effects and faute de
mieux situations. The purpose of this research is to assess those factors leading to time overrun in
Malaysian construction projects. The perceptions of public and private sectors, contractors, clients,
and consultants are compared relative to a list of factors derived from the review of extant literature
in project delay.
Design/methodology/approach The research data were collected through an industry-wide
questionnaire survey circulated across the Malaysian construction industry. The research develops a list
of 84 time overrun factors. Responses were collected from 49 clients, 51 contractors, and 105 consultants,
to explore and analyse the major factors that are responsible for causing time overrun based on sectors
(public and private), organisations (clients, contractors and consultants) and professional roles.
Findings Project delays beyond contract dates are predominantly caused by contractors and are
usually associated with nancial factors. Cash ow problems faced by the contractors was found the
major factor, which contributed to project delays, whereas storage on site was seen as the least
signicant factor.
Practical implications It is noteworthy that the ndings in this research have a regional focus; it
is, therefore, suggested that readers from other sections of the world exercise caution in applying the
ndings. As it is believed that every construction industry has its nature, culture and regulations,
these factors can change as a result of such differences.
Originality/value This research provides stakeholders with information on factors, which, if
properly understood, can make project delays less likely.
Keywords Malaysia, Construction industry, Construction projects, Cost overrun, Delays, Time overrun
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The Malaysian construction industry acts as the countrys epicenter of growth
(Memon et al., 2013) and has been propelled by demand for projects (Endut, 2008).
Hence, it offers a signicant contribution towards developing the nation (Sambasivan
and Soon, 2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012), but the industry is plagued with delays in
project delivery. Delays in construction projects have been a research topic for decades
(Doloi et al., 2012). Time overrun occurs when the contract date is exceeded or when the
execution of the project extends beyond the date, which the parties had agreed upon for
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-4387.htm
Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2014
pp. 55-75
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1366-4387
DOI 10.1108/JFMPC-04-2013-0009
Project time and
cost overrun
55
the delivery of that project (Endut et al., 2006; Marzouk and El-Rasas, 2014). There are
many reasons why time overruns occur (Sweis et al., 2008). It is clear that delays are a
frequent problem in construction industries across many developed and developing
countries (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Enshassi et al., 2009), which arise mainly from
a lack of adequate information or experience (Endut, 2008; Sweis et al., 2008).
Time overrun has been established as one of the major sources of failure Malaysian
in construction projects (Elinwa and Buba, 1993; Al-Momani, 2000). Successful projects
are the ones which offer value for money in terms of aesthetics, minimal defects, timely
completion, and which are t for purpose (Latham, 1994). Chan and Kumaraswamy
(1997) highlighted that a successful project should be supported by worthwhile
guarantees, reasonable completion costs and be of satisfactory quality.
The rst objective of this research is to identify signicant factors responsible for
time overrun; this entails establishing the importance levels of such factors. The
second objective is to evaluate the importance of the factors based on sectors that is,
both public and private sectors. This includes comparing response data in order to
assess any signicant statistical differences in the opinions of respondents. The third
objective is to assess the signicance of the factors based on organisations (client,
contractor and consultants). The fourth objective is to establish importance based on
the respondents professional roles (architects, civil and structural engineers, electrical
and mechanical engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers).
Literature review
According to Ramanathan et al. (2012), it is not uncommon to experience poor time
performance in the Malaysian construction industry, but it has now become even more
critical given that most projects in Malaysia are reported as being late (Ying, 2005;
Abu Samah, 2005; Ting et al., 2007). Four recent studies focusing on delays in Malaysian
construction projects (Othman et al., 2006; Alaghbari et al., 2007; Sambasivan and Soon,
2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012) have all examined and subsequently agreed that time
performance is a central concern in the construction industry, and that more
stakeholders are not only aware but are concerned about the problem.
Several studies reasons for delays in Turkey (Arditi et al., 1985); time overrun in
Hong Kong projects (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997); delays in fast growing economies
(Ogunlana et al., 1996); causes of project delays in Lebanon (Mezher and Tawil, 1998;
Bordoli and Baldwin, 1998); delays in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia (Al-Khalil
and Al-Ghay, 1999); constructions delays (Al-Momani, 2000; Shi et al., 2001) delays
in Nigerian construction projects (Elinwa and Joshua, 2001; Aibinu and Jagboro, 2002),
delays in ground water projects in Ghana (Frimpong et al., 2003) have all contributed to
better understanding of the causes of time overruns in construction projects. They all
indicate that project delays or time overruns are common, and costly; which is perhaps
why understanding and analysing construction time overruns has become an important
aspect of effective project management.
In Malaysia, the construction industry serves as the engine of growth (Memon et al.,
2013) and, at the same time, the highest contributor to economic expansion (Doloi et al.,
2012). The government is the biggest consumer of the construction industry via public
works projects (Ramanathan et al., 2012). The industry has contributed 3-5 per cent to the
GDP over the past 20 years and has played a vital role in the countrys development
(Rashid, 1996; Wong et al., 2007). This growth is propelled by residential needs and the
JFMPC
19,1
56
governments decision to inject up to RM40 billion (8.4 billion) in the 8th, 9th and 10th
Malaysian Plan (Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), 2005; NMP for
2006-2010, 2007). However, the construction industrys contributions are being
threatened by escalating cost and time overruns. Most construction projects in
Malaysia experience project delivery delays and hence, cost overruns (Ofori, 1991, 1993;
Kaming et al., 1997; Ting et al., 2007; Ramanathan et al., 2012). Mohamad (2005) explains
that, out of 16 projects undertaken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), 15 were delivered
late. It was further highlighted by the Malaysian Minister of Works that 70 per cent of
government contracts (value RM9.5 billion) awarded to private contractors in 2002 were
also delivered late (Yap and Suithuruka, 2003). This conrms that even the government,
as the largest client of the Malaysian construction industry (Ramanathan et al., 2012), is
affected by this unfortunate trend of cost and time overruns.
Other researchers (Koushki and Kartam, 2004; Koushki et al., 2005; Abdul-Muhid,
2006; Ramanathan et al., 2012) have additionally reported that many construction clients
in Malaysia have suffered from either cost and/or time overruns. This is emphasised
further by others (Abdullah and Tawie, 2006; Abu Bakar, 2006; Pereira, 2006). However,
they have all agreed that factors underpinning this are created by stakeholders within
the construction industry, such as owners, contractors, consultants, suppliers, nancial
companies and government authorities (Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990; Winch, 2002).
As a result of this situation, the construction industry, its clients and stakeholders, are
continuously experiencing nancial waste, losses in quality and other inconveniences
associated with delays (Ramanathan et al., 2012). In addition, the effects of time overrun
include cost overrun (Endut, 2008), dispute and arbitrations, litigations, and in the
extreme, total project abandonment (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). Project delays affect
micro and macro levels of the economy (Enshassi et al., 2009). At macro level delays lead
to a negative rate of national growth and monetary loss, while at micro level they can
lead to cost overruns, dispute arbitrations or project abandonment (Sambasivan and
Soon, 2007; Enshassi et al., 2009).
Although delay factors vary considerably from project to project, it is important to
highlight those factors in order to be able address them (Enshassi et al., 2009). Thus,
the current research seeks to explore, analyse, understand and document these factors
in the specic context of the Malaysian construction industry. These factors, if
properly understood, can help projects to complete on time, and budget.
Research method
Following a critical reviewof the literature in relation to time overrun covering a period
of two decades, this research developed a list of 84 major causes of time overruns in
construction projects which forms the focal point of the research.
The research conducted a postal questionnaire survey inviting respondents (Table I)
to assess factors that they deemed to be major causes of time overrun in construction
projects, from the perspective of contractors, consultants and clients. Questionnaires
are most convenient when a research, such as this one, covers different geographical
areas and multiple respondents (Dillman, 1972, 2007). The questionnaire consisted of
two sections: the rst section requested characteristics of the respondents as
summarised in Table I. The second focused on the factors responsible for delays. These
factors were measured by using a series of Likert items (described later) to measure
responses on a scale of 1-5 inclusive. Eighty-four factors derived from literature were
Project time and
cost overrun
57
randomly arranged and presented for assessment in this way to determine which of
them has the highest cause to time overrun.
According to Denscombe (2007), a questionnaire survey has certain advantages,
which include wide coverage, cost-efciency, pre-coded data and elimination of the effect
of personal interaction with the researcher. Prior to distributing the questionnaires,
a pilot study was conducted with ten consultants, ten clients, ten contractors and
ten academicians. The purpose of the pilot study was to verify the completeness
(Sambasivan and Soon, 2007), content and face validity of the research instrument (Fan
and Yan, 2010).
The sampling method used in this research was non-probability convenience
sampling. This method is preferred when it is difcult to acquire responses from
statistical sampling (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; Denscombe, 2010). The list of
respondents was acquired from the CIDB Malaysia. The board is responsible for the
registration and licencing of all contractors and projects in the country. A total of
205 useable responses (15.7 per cent of 1,301) were received from the respondents (from
both the public and private sectors) and they were subsequently analysed using SPSS
20. Forty-seven responses were from the public sector, while 158 were received from
private sector. Respondents were involved with 52 residential, 139 infrastructure,
13 commercial, 29 ofce, 111 educational, 11 health and four undisclosed projects. This
adds to a total of 359 projects, comprising 301 new build projects and 58 refurbishment
Profession Response received (%)
Civil and structural engineers 69 33.7
Architects 49 23.9
Quantity surveyors 41 20.0
Project managers 41 20.0
Mechanical engineers 5 2.4
Total 205 100
Types of organisations Response received (%)
Clients 49 23.9
Contractors 51 24.9
Consultants 105 51.2
Total 205 100
Years of experience Frequency (%)
0-5 12 5.9
6-11 51 24.9
12-15 29 14.1
16-20 40 19.5
21-25 40 19.5
26-30 22 10.7
Over 30 11 5.4
Total 205 100
Contract value Frequency (%)
(RM) million GBP () million
Up to RM25 Up to 5.23 119 58
RM25-RM50 5.23-10.46 27 13.2
RM50-RM100 10.46-20.93 12 5.9
RM100-RM250 20.93-52.33 12 5.9
Over RM250 Over 52.33 35 17.1
Total 205 100
Table I.
Response rate and
demographic data
JFMPC
19,1
58
projects (83.8 and 16.2 per cent, respectively). Table I presents the responses received
based on professions, types of organisations, years of experience, and contract values,
respectively.
According to the literature (Ogunlana et al., 1996), there are ve major groups
(parties) involved in construction:
(1) clients;
(2) consultants;
(3) contractors;
(4) nominated sub-contractors or suppliers; and
(5) external party(ies).
Statistical analyses were conducted to facilitate the determination of the major factors
responsible for causing time overrun, which include reliability, normality mean value
analysis, and Kruskal Walis. The reliability test conducted reveals that the internal
consistency of the scale used is (Cronbachs coefcient a) is 0.978, the value being
closer to 1.0 indicates higher internal consistency. Normality is used to describe a
symmetrical, bell-shaped curve, which has the greatest frequency of scores in the
middle, with smaller frequencies towards the extremes (Bryman and Cramer, 2005;
Pallant, 2010). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicates the data is not a normal
distribution ( p # 0.05); hence, non-parametric tests are applicable to the data in this
research (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2010).
This research ranked the mean values based on criticality of factors that contribute
to time overrun as perceived by:
(1) the public and private sectors;
(2) types of organisation; and
(3) professional roles.
The last category includes architects, civil and structural engineers, electrical and
mechanical engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers. Equation (1) presents
the mean formula used for the ranking of the factors:
Mean
P
5
i21
W
i
X
i
P
5
i21
X
i
1
where: i responses category 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (Likert scale); W
i
is the weight assigned
to ith response (5 high cause, 4 slightly high cause, 3 average cause, 2 slightly low
cause, 1 low cause); and X
i
frequency of the ith response (Enshassi et al., 2009; Odeh
and Battaineh, 2002). Hence, factors with mean values between 4 and 5 are considered
to have high signicance to causing time overrun.
According to Gliem and Gliem (2003), information gathered in the social sciences
often involves the use of Likert-type scales. The Likert scale is an invention of Likert
(1931), who described this technique for the assessment of attitudes. The current
research used a ve point Likert scale to assess the inuence of the listed factors on
project time overruns with values on the scale as follows: 1 as low, 2 as slightly low,
3 as average, 4 as slightly high and 5 as high. Hence, factors with mean values
between 4 and 5 are considered as having high inuence on time overrun.
Project time and
cost overrun
59
A Kruskal Walis analysis was conducted to ascertain if there exists any statistical
variation between the mean values (between the public and private sector and the
professions involved) computed. The results are given later. A Mann-Whitney U test of
the factors that yield signicant differences from the Kruskal Walis tests are also
presented in the analyses that follow.
In the initial Kruskal Walis analysis conducted on the factors ranked based on the
perception of the public and private sectors it was established that there was
signicant statistical differences between the opinions of the two groups in 20 factors
(Table II) with sig. p-values less than 0.05 (marked with asterisk). Those factors were
further subjected to Mann-Witney U test to conrm if those differences exist and it
was subsequently observed that only eight factors out of 20 factors appear to have
signicant statistical differences (Table III). In essence, the ndings imply that the two
sectors (public and private) have different perceptions regarding those eight factors
(Table III). Table II presents the ranking according to the sector public or private and
Table III presents the group differences test using Mann-Whitney U test of private and
public sectors.
Subsequently, the Kruskal Walis test conducted to check for statistical differences
between clients, contractors and consultants also indicates that 19 factors out of 84
have signicant statistical differences (Table IV). Approaching it in the same manner
as in the latter assessment, a Mann-Whitney test was conducted (Table V) on the 19
factors. The results conrm that there are only four under client to contractor; three
under client to consultants and seven factors between contractors to consultants now
have statistical differences as highlighted in Table V.
Analyses-based sectors (public and private sector)
With the mean values ranging from 2.362 (moderate) to 4.213 (very critical) (Endut,
2008). The number of respondents comprised 47 from the public sector and 155 from
the private sector.
According to public sector opinion, ve factors are seen as very critical, and they
are as follows:
(1) Cash ow problem faced by the contractor (4.21).
(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractors (4.15).
(3) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.09).
(4) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors (4.06).
(5) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.00).
Public sector opinion showed that very critical factors contributing to time overruns
are related to contractors, as the rst three factors all relate to contractors nancial
problems. This nding supports the literature (Kaming et al., 1997; Enshassi et al.,
2009). However, all ve factors are inter-related. The other 75 factors were categorised
as critical factors, and ve factors were categorised as moderate. No factors were
categorised as low (Table II).
The private sector perception towards time overrun in construction projects also
shows that the three most critical factors are related to contractors. The public and
private sectors shared two highest most critical factors. The three most critical
factors are:
JFMPC
19,1
60
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
c
t
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
T
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
C
a
s
h

o
w
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
f
a
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4
.
2
1
1
4
.
2
1
1
4
.
2
1
1
0
.
7
2
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
t
o
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
4
.
1
1
2
4
.
1
5
2
4
.
1
0
2
0
.
1
3
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
h
i
s
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
4
.
0
2
3
4
.
0
6
4
4
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
0
1
*
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
9
5
4
4
.
0
0
5
3
.
9
3
5
0
.
0
0
6
*
D
i
f

c
u
l
t
i
e
s
i
n

n
a
n
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
9
5
5
4
.
0
9
3
3
.
9
0
8
0
.
5
1
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
8
7
6
3
.
9
4
6
3
.
8
5
9
0
.
0
7
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
8
2
7
3
.
2
6
5
2
3
.
9
9
4
0
.
0
0
8
*
B
u
r
e
a
u
c
r
a
c
y
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
3
.
8
1
8
3
.
4
7
3
4
3
.
9
1
7
0
.
0
0
6
*
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
l
o
c
a
l
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
3
.
7
8
9
3
.
6
0
1
6
3
.
8
4
1
0
0
.
0
6
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
7
8
1
0
3
.
3
4
4
1
3
.
9
1
6
0
.
0
3
9
*
S
l
o
w
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
3
.
7
6
1
1
3
.
5
5
2
1
3
.
8
3
1
1
0
.
1
3
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
7
4
1
2
3
.
6
6
1
1
3
.
7
6
1
2
0
.
4
8
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
p
o
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
7
3
1
3
3
.
8
5
7
3
.
6
9
1
5
0
.
0
0
9
*
I
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
i
d
d
i
n
g
s
t
a
g
e
3
.
7
2
1
4
3
.
6
8
1
0
3
.
7
4
1
3
0
.
1
5
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
t
o
w
n
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
6
9
1
5
3
.
5
5
2
2
3
.
7
3
1
4
0
.
1
2
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
3
.
6
7
1
6
3
.
6
2
1
4
3
.
6
8
1
6
0
.
0
1
9
*
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
3
.
6
2
1
7
3
.
6
6
1
2
3
.
6
1
2
0
0
.
8
2
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
t
o
o
s
h
o
r
t
3
.
6
2
1
8
3
.
5
3
2
6
3
.
6
4
1
9
0
.
4
4
I
n
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
6
1
1
9
3
.
6
2
1
5
3
.
6
0
2
1
0
.
0
0
2
*
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
5
9
2
0
3
.
3
0
4
5
3
.
6
8
1
7
0
.
0
1
6
*
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
w
o
r
k
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
5
9
2
1
3
.
2
8
5
0
3
.
6
8
1
8
0
.
0
1
5
*
I
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
5
8
2
2
3
.
6
0
1
7
3
.
5
8
2
4
0
.
3
6
P
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
5
8
2
3
3
.
6
4
1
3
3
.
5
6
2
5
0
.
0
3
8
*
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
p
r
i
c
e
3
.
5
7
2
4
3
.
4
9
3
2
3
.
5
9
2
2
0
.
5
0
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
c
l
a
i
m
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
5
2
2
5
3
.
3
0
4
6
3
.
5
8
2
3
0
.
1
0
S
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
l
i
n
e
s
,
w
a
t
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
,
t
r
a
f

c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
j
o
b
s
i
t
e
)
3
.
5
0
2
6
3
.
7
2
8
3
.
4
4
3
4
0
.
6
1
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
5
0
2
7
3
.
4
0
3
8
3
.
5
3
2
6
0
.
0
0
6
*
P
o
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
3
.
4
9
2
8
3
.
4
5
3
5
3
.
5
0
2
7
0
.
3
9
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
4
8
2
9
3
.
6
0
1
8
3
.
4
5
3
2
0
.
6
0
U
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
8
3
0
3
.
5
5
2
3
3
.
4
6
3
1
0
.
8
7
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Ranking for the time
overrun factors based on
sectors
Project time and
cost overrun
61
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
c
t
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
T
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
P
o
o
r
q
u
a
l
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
f
f
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
4
8
3
1
3
.
5
3
2
7
3
.
4
6
3
0
0
.
0
0
6
*
A
m
b
i
g
u
i
t
i
e
s
,
m
i
s
t
a
k
e
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
i
e
s
i
n
s
p
e
c
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
3
.
4
7
3
2
3
.
7
2
9
3
.
4
0
4
0
0
.
3
5
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
3
.
4
7
3
3
3
.
5
7
1
9
3
.
4
4
3
5
0
.
2
9
W
o
r
k
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
3
.
4
6
3
4
3
.
5
1
3
0
3
.
4
4
3
3
0
.
8
3
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
h
e
a
d
o
f

c
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
4
5
3
5
3
.
5
7
2
0
3
.
4
1
3
8
0
.
0
5
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
4
4
3
6
3
.
5
1
3
1
3
.
4
2
3
7
0
.
8
2
S
l
o
w
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
i
n
q
u
i
r
i
e
s
3
.
4
1
3
7
3
.
5
5
2
4
3
.
3
7
4
2
0
.
1
2
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
r
d
e
r
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
3
.
4
1
3
8
3
.
1
5
6
0
3
.
4
9
2
8
0
.
3
0
E
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
b
u
r
e
a
u
c
r
a
c
y
i
n
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
0
3
9
3
.
4
5
3
6
3
.
3
9
4
1
0
.
8
2
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
3
.
3
7
4
0
3
.
1
9
5
6
3
.
4
2
3
6
0
.
2
1
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
r
d
e
r
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
3
7
4
1
3
.
4
9
3
3
3
.
3
3
4
4
0
.
1
5
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
t
e
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
s
t
b
i
d
d
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
3
6
4
2
2
.
9
6
7
4
3
.
4
8
2
9
0
.
0
1
9
*
P
o
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
3
.
3
5
4
3
3
.
5
3
2
8
3
.
2
9
4
9
0
.
1
2
U
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
3
4
4
4
3
.
1
3
6
2
3
.
4
0
3
9
0
.
4
1
P
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
3
.
3
3
4
5
3
.
4
5
3
7
3
.
2
9
5
0
0
.
2
7
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
3
.
3
2
4
6
3
.
5
3
2
9
3
.
2
6
5
3
0
.
0
0
0
*
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
3
.
3
1
4
7
3
.
1
9
5
7
3
.
3
4
4
3
0
.
2
9
O
w
n
e
r
s
p
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
3
.
3
1
4
8
3
.
2
6
5
3
3
.
3
2
4
5
0
.
0
4
*
O
w
n
e
r
s
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
t
o
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
3
.
3
0
4
9
3
.
3
0
4
7
3
.
3
0
4
6
0
.
0
1
*
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
3
.
2
8
5
0
3
.
2
8
5
1
3
.
2
8
5
1
0
.
0
1
*
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
m
o
b
i
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
7
5
1
3
.
5
5
2
5
3
.
1
9
6
1
0
.
0
2
*
P
o
o
r
i
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
3
.
2
7
5
2
3
.
1
9
5
8
3
.
2
9
4
8
0
.
6
3
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
5
5
3
3
.
3
4
4
2
3
.
2
3
5
7
0
.
8
5
L
o
w
s
k
i
l
l
o
f
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
3
.
2
4
5
4
3
.
3
2
4
3
3
.
2
1
5
9
0
.
3
1
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
l
a
w
s
3
.
2
3
5
5
3
.
0
0
7
1
3
.
3
0
4
7
0
.
1
4
P
o
o
r
q
u
a
l
i

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

s
s
t
a
f
f
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
2
2
5
6
3
.
0
4
6
6
3
.
2
7
5
2
0
.
5
0
I
m
p
o
r
t
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
1
9
5
7
3
.
0
9
6
5
3
.
2
3
5
6
0
.
5
8
P
o
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
8
5
8
3
.
3
2
4
4
3
.
1
4
6
5
0
.
0
0
*
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
3
.
1
8
5
9
3
.
3
8
3
9
3
.
1
2
6
9
0
.
0
6
I
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
.
1
8
6
0
3
.
0
2
6
8
3
.
2
2
5
8
0
.
1
9
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
JFMPC
19,1
62
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
c
t
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
T
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
3
.
1
7
6
1
3
.
1
1
6
3
3
.
1
9
6
0
0
.
7
4
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
p
e
n
a
l
t
y
3
.
1
7
6
2
2
.
9
6
7
5
3
.
2
3
5
5
0
.
2
8
S
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
w
o
r
k
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
1
7
6
3
2
.
9
2
7
8
3
.
2
5
5
4
0
.
1
1
D
e
l
a
y
i
n

e
l
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
1
7
6
4
3
.
3
6
4
0
3
.
1
1
7
0
0
.
1
2
N
o
t
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
3
.
1
5
6
5
3
.
2
1
5
5
3
.
1
3
6
8
0
.
4
9
D
e
l
a
y
t
o
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
1
4
6
6
3
.
0
2
6
9
3
.
1
8
6
3
0
.
1
3
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
3
.
1
4
6
7
2
.
9
8
7
3
3
.
1
8
6
2
0
.
2
9
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
p
e
c
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
3
6
8
3
.
1
5
6
1
3
.
1
3
6
6
0
.
5
9
S
i
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
3
.
1
3
6
9
3
.
3
0
4
8
3
.
0
8
7
1
0
.
4
4
I
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
s
3
.
1
2
7
0
2
.
9
4
7
7
3
.
1
7
6
4
0
.
1
3
L
o
o
s
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
r
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
1
7
1
3
.
2
6
5
4
3
.
0
7
7
2
0
.
0
8
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
3
.
0
8
7
2
3
.
1
7
5
9
3
.
0
6
7
3
0
.
2
8
N
o
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
e
a
r
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
3
.
0
7
7
3
2
.
8
5
8
0
3
.
1
3
6
7
0
.
1
9
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
0
1
7
4
2
.
9
6
7
6
3
.
0
2
7
5
0
.
6
4
L
o
w
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
0
0
7
5
3
.
3
0
4
9
2
.
9
1
7
7
0
.
3
1
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
2
.
9
9
7
6
2
.
8
3
8
1
3
.
0
4
7
4
0
.
1
1
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
.
9
9
7
7
3
.
0
0
7
2
2
.
9
9
7
6
0
.
9
1
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
9
4
7
8
3
.
1
1
6
4
2
.
8
9
7
8
0
.
1
8
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
u
n
-
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
2
.
8
7
7
9
3
.
0
4
6
7
2
.
8
1
7
9
0
.
6
8
J
o
i
n
t
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
8
0
8
0
3
.
0
2
7
0
2
.
7
3
8
2
0
.
1
6
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
.
7
8
8
1
2
.
6
6
8
3
2
.
8
1
8
0
0
.
7
4
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
2
.
7
8
8
2
2
.
7
9
8
2
2
.
7
7
8
1
0
.
3
7
P
o
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
2
.
6
9
8
3
2
.
8
7
7
9
2
.
6
4
8
3
0
.
2
5
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
s
i
t
e
2
.
4
4
8
4
2
.
3
6
8
4
2
.
4
7
8
4
0
.
7
0
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
m
e
a
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
:
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
l
e
v
e
l
Table II.
Project time and
cost overrun
63
(1) Cash ow problem faced by the contractor (4.21).
(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor (4.104).
(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors (4.01).
(4) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (3.93).
(5) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (3.90).
All other factors were categorised as critical (70), and moderate (9) factors (Table II).
The literature supports the assertion that payment problems between clients and
contractors is one of the highest causes of project time overruns (Abd El-Razek et al.,
2008). Memon et al. (2013) also indicated that money is one of the most important
resources in the construction industry, and cash ow affects the progress of
construction.
A further analysis was conducted to determine the signicance in the differences in
opinion between these two sectors. The results of the Kruskal Walis test for a
k-independent sample shows that the respondent groups had different opinions on 19
out of 84 variables at the 5 per cent ( p , 0.05) signicance level, as shown in Table II.
A further non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test of two independent samples shows a
statistically signicant difference in opinion between the public and private sector for:
.
late payment from client to contractor (0.00);
.
bureaucracy in government agencies (0.01);
.
slow permits by drainage and irrigation department (0.021);
Time overrun factors
Public/
private
Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor 0.69
Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments 0.72
Late payment from client to contractor 0.00
*
Bureaucracy in government agencies 0.01
*
Delay in progress payments by the owner 0.07
Shortage of materials 0.29
Contractors poor coordination with the parties involved in the project 0.33
Shortage of skilled manpower 0.29
Inefcient quality control by the contractor 0.76
Slow permits by drainage and irrigation department 0.02
*
Slow permits by public work department 0.02
*
Poor communication by the contractor with the parties involved in the project 0.77
Shortage of technical professionals in the contractors organisation 0.29
Poor qualication of the contractors technical staff assigned to the project 0.66
Government tendering system requirement of selecting the lowest bidder contractor 0.01
*
Delay in the preparations of contractor submissions 0.04
*
Owners poor communication with the construction parties and government authorities 0.02
*
Owners failure to coordinate with government authorities during planning 0.99
Shortage of contractors administrative personnel 0.68
Delay in mobilisation 0.01
*
Poor coordination by the owner with the various parties during construction 0.30
Note: The mean difference is signicant at:
*
p , 0.05 level
Table III.
Group differences test
using Mann-Whitney
U test of private and
public sectors
JFMPC
19,1
64
T
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
(
n

2
0
3
)
C
l
i
e
n
t
(
n

4
9
)
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
(
n

5
1
)
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
(
n

1
0
3
)
C
a
s
h

o
w
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
f
a
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4
.
2
0
1
4
.
2
5
1
4
.
1
2
1
4
.
2
3
1
0
.
5
1
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4
.
0
2
2
4
.
0
6
3
4
.
0
6
2
3
.
9
3
8
0
.
7
2
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
t
o
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
4
.
0
0
3
3
.
9
0
6
3
.
9
0
5
4
.
1
9
2
0
.
0
1
*
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
9
6
4
4
.
0
0
4
4
.
0
0
3
3
.
8
7
1
0
0
.
1
9
D
i
f

c
u
l
t
i
e
s
i
n

n
a
n
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
9
5
5
4
.
0
8
2
3
.
8
2
7
3
.
9
4
7
0
.
3
6
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
l
o
c
a
l
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
3
.
8
9
6
3
.
9
0
5
3
.
9
0
4
3
.
8
5
1
2
0
.
2
5
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
8
8
7
3
.
9
0
7
3
.
6
1
2
2
4
.
1
4
4
0
.
1
5
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
8
2
8
3
.
8
8
8
3
.
5
5
2
6
4
.
0
2
6
0
.
1
2
B
u
r
e
a
u
c
r
a
c
y
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
3
.
8
1
9
3
.
7
1
1
6
3
.
7
1
1
4
4
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
2
*
S
l
o
w
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
3
.
8
0
1
0
3
.
7
5
1
1
3
.
7
5
9
3
.
9
0
9
0
.
3
0
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
h
i
s
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
3
.
7
8
1
1
3
.
5
9
2
9
3
.
5
9
2
3
4
.
1
8
3
0
.
1
3
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
t
o
w
n
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
7
7
1
2
3
.
7
7
1
0
3
.
7
7
8
3
.
7
7
1
6
0
.
0
6
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
7
5
1
3
3
.
6
7
1
9
3
.
8
8
6
3
.
7
0
2
1
0
.
4
8
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
7
1
1
4
3
.
7
1
1
5
3
.
7
1
1
3
3
.
7
3
1
9
0
.
0
2
*
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
w
o
r
k
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
7
1
1
5
3
.
7
1
1
4
3
.
7
1
1
2
3
.
7
3
1
8
0
.
1
2
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
p
o
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
6
9
1
6
3
.
8
6
9
3
.
3
7
4
4
3
.
8
4
1
4
0
.
0
4
*
I
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
i
d
d
i
n
g
s
t
a
g
e
3
.
6
8
1
7
3
.
5
9
2
8
3
.
5
7
2
4
3
.
8
6
1
1
0
.
0
1
*
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
c
l
a
i
m
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
6
5
1
8
3
.
7
1
1
2
3
.
7
1
1
0
3
.
5
2
2
8
0
.
1
3
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
3
.
6
4
1
9
3
.
6
9
1
7
3
.
6
7
1
7
3
.
5
6
2
7
0
.
8
2
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
C
l
i
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
0
1
7
6
3
.
1
0
7
3
2
.
9
2
7
3
3
.
0
0
7
5
0
.
6
4
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
.
9
8
7
7
2
.
9
4
7
8
3
.
0
0
7
0
3
.
0
1
7
3
0
.
5
8
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
9
8
7
8
3
.
0
6
7
5
3
.
0
4
6
8
2
.
8
4
8
0
0
.
4
4
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
u
n
-
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
2
.
8
7
7
9
2
.
9
8
7
7
2
.
7
8
8
1
2
.
8
5
7
9
0
.
0
2
*
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
2
.
8
1
8
0
2
.
8
0
8
1
2
.
8
0
8
0
2
.
8
1
8
1
0
.
2
9
J
o
i
n
t
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
8
0
8
1
2
.
8
6
7
9
2
.
8
6
7
8
2
.
6
7
8
2
0
.
4
1
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
.
7
4
8
2
2
.
7
1
8
3
2
.
6
3
8
3
2
.
8
8
7
8
0
.
9
1
P
o
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
2
.
6
9
8
3
2
.
7
5
8
2
2
.
7
5
8
2
2
.
5
7
8
3
0
.
8
2
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
s
i
t
e
2
.
4
5
8
4
2
.
3
9
8
4
2
.
5
4
8
4
2
.
4
2
8
4
0
.
4
9
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
m
e
a
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
:
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
l
e
v
e
l
Table IV.
Ranking based on types
of organisation
Project time and
cost overrun
65
.
slow permits by public work department (0.02); and
.
delay in the preparations of contractor submission (0.04) (Table III).
Ranking according to types of organisation
The three types of organisation considered in this study were client, contractor and
consultant organisations (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997). Results showed that all three
parties agreed that cash ow problems faced by the contractor is the highest ranking
based on the mean values (client 4.25, contractor 4.12, and consultant 4.23). This
nding conrms the literature that cash owproblems cause delay and time overrun in
construction projects (Arditi et al., 1985; Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990; Abd El-Razek et al.,
2008). Table IV presents the ranking of time overrun factors based on types of
organisations.
According to the overall mean value ranking: (1) cash ow problems faced by the
contractors (4.20), (2) late payment from client to contractor (4.02) and (3) late payment
from contractor to sub-contractors or suppliers (4.00) are the three signicant factors
that contribute to time overrun based on assessment of clients, contractors and
consultants. Whereas shortage of supporting and shoring installations (2.74), poor
Time overrun factors
Client/
contractor
Client/
consultant
Contractor/
consultant
Late payment from contractor to sub-contractors or suppliers 0.111 0.985 0.053
Bureaucracy in government agencies 0.271 0.002
*
0.059
Contractors poor coordination with the parties involved in the
project 0.012
*
0.829 0.004
*
Improper technical study by the contractor during the
bidding stage 0.957 0.077 0.153
Slow permits by drainage and irrigation department 0.021
*
0.006 0.974
Improper construction method implemented by the
contractor 0.533 0.489 0.16
Shortage of technical professionals in the contractors
organisation 0.344 0.039
*
0.003
*
Ineffective contractor head ofce involvement in the project 0.102 0.51 0.017
*
Excessive bureaucracy in the owners administration 0.562 0.594 0.875
Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by the
engineer 0.212 0.705 0.051
Delay in the preparations of contractor submissions 0.001
*
0.584 0.000
*
Owners poor communication with the construction parties
and government authorities 0.054 0.978 0.013
*
Changes in government regulations and laws 0.256 0.052 0.427
Poor coordination by the owner with the various parties
during construction 0.098 0.024
*
0.000
*
Ineffective delay penalty 0.289 0.711 0.114
Delay in eld survey by the contractor 0.133 0.71 0.044
*
Loose safety rules and regulations within the contractors
organisation 0.032
*
0.666 0.059
Shortage of supervision personnel from client 0.113 0.458 0.282
Shortage of un-skilled manpower 0.386 0.488 0.793
Note: The mean difference is signicant at:
*
p , 0.05 level
Table V.
Group differences test
using Mann-Whitney U
test of two independents
JFMPC
19,1
66
supervision by the client (2.69) and storage on site (2.45) form the least signicant
factors causing project time overrun. According to Alaghbari et al. (2007), in addition to
the problems related to coordination and materials, nancial factors have the largest
inuence on delays to construction projects. It has, however, been observed that the
duration required to complete the construction of public and private projects is
normally greater than the time specied in the contract (Al-Momani, 2000;
Enshassi et al., 2009; Ramanathan et al., 2012).
The client considers four factors critical (Table IV). These factors are:
(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.25).
(2) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.08).
(3) Late payment from client to contractor (4.06).
(4) Delay in progress payments by the owner (4.00).
This represents the opinion of some authors (Arditi et al., 1985; Dlakwa and Culpin, 1990;
Mohamad et al., 2007; Abd El-Razek et al., 2008). All four factors are related to nancial
difculties in the contractors organisation, this supports Enshassi et al. (2009).
The contractors opinions show that there are only three most critical (Table IV)
factors. Besides, cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.12), the other two
factors are: late payment from client to contractor (4.06), and delay in progress
payments by the owner (4.00). Elinwa and Joshua (2001) also agreed that late payment
from client to contractor is one of the main factors contributing to time overrun.
Consultants identied six most critical factors that contribute to time overrun,
which are:
(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.23).
(2) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.19).
(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to
payments (4.18).
(4) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.14).
(5) Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor (4.02).
(6) Bureaucracy in government agencies, and ineffective control of the project
progress by the contractor (4.02).
The consultants also consider that factors related to contractors nancial problems
were the most critical. However, ineffective planning also appeared as a major cause
of project delays (Frimpong et al., 2003; Hanna et al., 2005).
The results on the right-hand side of Table IV present the comparison test between
the opinions of the clients, contractors and consultants to determine if any signicant
differences in opinion exist between the three organisations. The results of the Kruskal
Walis test for a k-independent sample show that the respondent groups had different
opinions on 19 out of 84 variables at the 5 per cent ( p , 0.05). Subsequently,
Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to check differences between:
.
clients to contractors;
.
clients to consultants; and
.
contractors to consultants.
Project time and
cost overrun
67
Table V presents group difference test using Mann-Whitney U test of independent
samples.
The data analyses conrmed four factors experience differences between
contractors to consultants, three factors between clients to consultants and, seven
factors between contractors to consultants.
Having discussed and ranked factors based on sectors and organisations, this
section furthers ranks the factors based on the professional roles of participants
(architects, civil and structural engineers, electrical and mechanical engineers, quantity
surveyors and project managers).
Time overrun factors ranking based on construction practitioners
There are ve parties that participated in this research:
(1) architects;
(2) civil and structural engineers;
(3) electrical and mechanical engineers;
(4) quantity surveyors; and
(5) project managers.
Table VI presents the ranking of time overrun factors based on professional roles.
According to the overall mean ranking, (1) cash owproblems faced by the contractors
(4.22), (2) late payment from client to contractor (4.13), (3) problems between main
contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments (4.02) and (4) difculties
innancing projects bythe contractor (4.01) are the four signicant factors that contribute
to time overrunbasedon assessment of the professionals. Whereas shortage of supporting
and shoring installations (2.74), poor supervision by the client (2.69) and storage on site
(2.45) remain the least signicant factors causing project time overrun.
Four out of ve parties agreed that cash ow problems faced by the contractor
architects (4.29), civil and structural engineers (4.12), quantity surveyors (4.23) and
project managers (4.25), respectively as the most important factor causing time
overrun. However, electrical and mechanical engineers suggest that ineffective control
of the project by the contractor was the highest factor contributing to time overrun.
However, there were only ve respondents from this group, therefore, this may affect
the ndings and their views cannot be taken as representative of the electrical and
mechanical engineering population as a whole.
The architects who participated in this research identied six most critical factors
that contribute to time overrun:
(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.29).
(2) Problems the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to payments (4.27).
(3) Bureaucracy in government agencies (4.21).
(4) Late payment from contractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.20).
(5) Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor (4.16).
(6) Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor (4.08).
Researchers (Walker, 1995; Ogunlana et al., 1996; Mezher and Tawil, 1998; Elinwa
and Joshua, 2001; Dulaimi et al., 2002) reported that architects ranked the mode of
JFMPC
19,1
68
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
1
2
3
4
5
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
C
a
s
h

o
w
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
f
a
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4
.
2
2
1
4
.
2
9
1
4
.
1
2
1
4
.
2
0
2
4
.
2
3
1
4
.
2
5
1
0
.
7
9
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
t
o
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
4
.
1
3
2
4
.
2
0
4
4
.
0
6
2
4
.
2
0
3
4
.
0
8
2
4
.
1
3
2
0
.
9
7
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
h
i
s
s
u
b
-
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
4
.
0
2
3
4
.
2
7
2
3
.
9
1
3
4
.
0
0
1
1
4
.
0
8
3
3
.
8
5
9
0
.
3
0
D
i
f

c
u
l
t
i
e
s
i
n

n
a
n
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4
.
0
1
4
3
.
9
4
1
0
3
.
8
4
5
4
.
2
0
4
4
.
0
0
4
4
.
0
5
3
0
.
8
0
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
9
6
5
4
.
0
8
6
3
.
7
8
6
4
.
4
0
1
3
.
9
0
6
3
.
6
5
3
2
0
.
2
9
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
9
5
6
4
.
1
6
5
3
.
9
1
4
4
.
0
0
1
2
3
.
8
8
7
3
.
8
0
1
7
0
.
3
8
S
l
o
w
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
3
.
8
6
7
3
.
8
8
1
3
3
.
5
7
1
5
4
.
2
0
6
3
.
8
0
9
3
.
8
5
1
0
0
.
4
3
L
a
t
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
3
.
8
3
8
3
.
8
4
1
5
3
.
7
1
8
3
.
8
0
1
9
3
.
9
3
5
3
.
8
8
6
0
.
9
1
I
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
i
d
d
i
n
g
s
t
a
g
e
3
.
8
2
9
3
.
8
4
1
4
3
.
5
9
1
2
4
.
2
0
5
3
.
6
0
1
7
3
.
8
8
7
0
.
2
8
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
p
o
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
.
7
9
1
0
3
.
8
1
1
8
3
.
6
1
1
0
4
.
0
0
1
4
3
.
7
3
1
0
3
.
8
0
1
8
0
.
8
0
B
u
r
e
a
u
c
r
a
c
y
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
3
.
7
9
1
1
4
.
2
1
3
3
.
5
8
1
3
3
.
6
0
2
6
3
.
7
3
1
2
3
.
8
3
1
2
0
.
0
2
*
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3
.
7
8
1
2
3
.
6
5
2
6
3
.
7
8
7
4
.
0
0
1
3
3
.
6
5
1
5
3
.
8
3
1
3
0
.
8
9
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
3
.
7
8
1
3
3
.
9
6
8
3
.
5
1
2
1
3
.
6
0
2
9
3
.
8
5
8
3
.
9
8
4
0
.
1
8
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
l
o
c
a
l
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
3
.
7
7
1
4
3
.
9
6
9
3
.
5
9
1
1
3
.
6
0
2
5
3
.
7
3
1
1
3
.
9
8
5
0
.
1
7
D
e
l
a
y
i
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
3
.
7
3
1
5
3
.
6
7
2
5
3
.
5
2
1
8
4
.
2
0
7
3
.
4
8
2
6
3
.
8
0
1
9
0
.
4
2
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
3
.
6
9
1
6
3
.
9
4
1
1
3
.
5
8
1
4
3
.
8
0
2
0
3
.
5
8
1
8
3
.
5
8
3
6
0
.
2
5
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table VI.
Ranking based on
professional role
Project time and
cost overrun
69
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
1
2
3
4
5
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
i
m
e
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
M
e
a
n
R
a
n
k
K
r
u
s
k
a
l
W
a
l
i
s
s
i
g
.
p
S
l
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
b
y
t
o
w
n
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
3
.
6
9
1
7
3
.
8
3
1
7
3
.
5
1
2
2
3
.
6
0
3
0
3
.
6
8
1
4
3
.
8
5
1
1
0
.
2
0
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
t
o
o
s
h
o
r
t
3
.
6
6
1
8
3
.
7
1
2
3
3
.
4
9
2
3
3
.
8
0
2
1
3
.
5
8
1
9
3
.
7
3
2
7
0
.
6
7
U
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
3
.
6
4
1
9
3
.
2
7
4
8
3
.
3
3
3
5
4
.
2
0
8
3
.
6
8
1
3
3
.
7
0
2
9
0
.
1
3
L
o
w
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
2
.
9
8
7
6
2
.
9
2
7
3
3
.
1
9
5
7
3
.
0
0
7
1
2
.
7
8
7
8
3
.
0
0
7
8
0
.
2
7
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
2
.
9
6
7
7
3
.
0
2
7
0
2
.
9
7
7
7
2
.
8
0
8
0
2
.
7
5
7
9
3
.
2
5
6
0
0
.
2
4
N
o
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
e
a
r
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
2
.
9
3
7
8
3
.
0
6
6
7
2
.
9
9
7
5
2
.
2
0
8
3
3
.
1
5
6
1
3
.
2
3
6
3
0
.
3
4
J
o
i
n
t
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
9
0
7
9
2
.
6
1
8
2
2
.
8
8
8
1
3
.
4
0
5
6
2
.
5
8
8
2
3
.
0
3
7
6
0
.
2
0
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
u
n
-
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
2
.
8
8
8
0
2
.
6
3
8
0
3
.
0
0
7
2
3
.
0
0
7
6
3
.
2
3
5
1
2
.
5
5
8
4
0
.
0
2
*
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
2
.
8
1
8
1
2
.
8
8
7
6
2
.
7
7
8
2
3
.
0
0
7
7
2
.
6
9
8
0
2
.
7
3
8
1
0
.
9
5
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
o
f
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
.
7
8
8
2
2
.
8
5
7
7
2
.
7
7
8
3
2
.
8
0
8
1
2
.
6
3
8
1
2
.
8
5
7
9
0
.
8
4
P
o
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
2
.
7
1
8
3
2
.
2
5
8
4
3
.
1
0
6
8
3
.
0
0
7
4
2
.
4
8
8
3
2
.
7
0
8
2
0
.
0
0
*
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
s
i
t
e
2
.
4
0
8
4
2
.
4
6
8
3
2
.
4
5
8
4
2
.
2
0
8
4
2
.
3
0
8
4
2
.
5
9
8
3
0
.
9
2
N
o
t
e
s
:
T
h
e
m
e
a
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
:
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
l
e
v
e
l
;
1

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
,
2

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

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
4

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
s
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
s
,
5

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
Table VI.
JFMPC
19,1
70
nancing and paying for completed work as the highest factor contributing to time
overruns. The architects categorised 73 factors as critical and seven factors as
moderate.
The civil and structural engineers also ranked cash ow problems faced by the
contractor (4.12) as the highest and most critical factor, beside the late payment from
contractor to sub-contractor or suppliers (4.06). There were 70 factors categorised as
critical and 12 factors categorised as moderate.
According to the quantity surveyors, there are four most critical factors:
(1) Cash ow problems faced by the contractor (4.23).
(2) Late payment from contractors to sub-contractors or suppliers (4.08).
(3) Problems between the contractor and his sub-contractors with regards to
payments (4.08).
(4) Difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.00).
They categorised 65 factors as critical and 15 factors as moderate.
The project managers categorised three factors as most critical: cash owproblems
faced by the contractor (4.25), late payment from contractor to sub-contractors or
suppliers (4.08) and, difculties in nancing the project by the contractor (4.05). These
were followed by 75 factors categorised as critical and six as moderate.
Conclusion
As highlighted by Dlakwa and Culpin (1990), construction activity requires major
investment outlays in most developing countries, yet most construction projects in
these countries are characterized by overruns in time. Therefore, it is not a coincidence
that time overrun remains a major problem in the Malaysian construction industry.
From the study, it can be see that the sectors (public and private), the main parties,
and the professionals, all agree that the major factors contributing to time overrun in
the Malaysian construction sector are: cash ow problems faced by the contractors is
the highest factor (4.21) followed by late payment from contractors to sub-contractors
or suppliers (4.11). On the other hand, the analysis, based on type of organisation,
revealed the major factors to be cash ow problems faced by the contractors (4.20) and
late payment from client to contractors (4.02). Whereas, analysis based on professional
roles shows that cash ow problems faced by the contractors (4.22), late payment
from client to contractors (4.13), problems between the contractors and their
sub-contractors with regards to payment (4.02) and difculties in nancing projects by
contractors (4.01) appear the important factors. The consensus of opinion is that the
contractors cash ow is essential regardless of the project sector, organisation, or
professional role. On the other hand, all of the analyses conrm that poor supervision
by clients and poor storage on site were the least signicant factors.
It can be observed that all the major causes of project delays are related to
contractors and are nancial in nature. Therefore, it can be concluded that in Malaysia,
the contractors nancial factors are the major cause of current project delays.
As highlighted (Enshassi et al., 2009), any shortage of cash for contractors will
cause many problems such as slow progress, decline in productivity and inability to
purchase materials, equipment or procure labour for the project. Hence, both
contractors and suppliers are advised to be aware of their clients nancial position
Project time and
cost overrun
71
prior to entering into any construction projects. Therefore, these factors, if properly
addressed, are likely to reduced or completely eliminate delays.
It is noteworthy that the ndings in this research have a regional focus; it is
therefore, suggested that readers from other sections of the world exercise caution in
applying the ndings. As it is believed that every construction industry has its nature,
culture and regulations; these factors can change as a result of such differences.
References
Abd 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 Management,
Vol. 134 No. 11, pp. 831-841.
Abdullah, F. and Tawie, S. (2006), Abdullah peeved over delayed prisons projects, New Straits
Times, Vol. 2, available at: http://rakan.jkr.gov.my/ups/krtnAkhbar/pdfAkhbar/NST%
2018%20APR.pdf (accessed 9 November 2011).
Abdul-Muhid, N. (2006), Lagi sekolah gagal disiapkan, available at: www.utusan.com.my/
utusan_Malaysia&secMuka_Hadapan&pgmh_02.htm (assessed 18 June 2013).
Abu Bakar, A. (2006), Radah calls for thorough probe, New Straits Times, p. 58.
Abu Samah, B. (2005), Bayaran terus kepada kontraktor kecil, Utusan, available at: www.utusan.
com.my/utusan/info.asp?y2005&dt0411&pubutusan_malaysia&secEkonomi&
pgek_01.htm (accessed 14 May 2013).
Aibinu, A.A. and Jagboro, G.O. (2002), The effects of construction delays on project delivery
in Nigerian construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20,
pp. 593-599.
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.
Alaghbari, W.A.-K., Kadir, M.R., Salim, A. and Ernawati (2007), The signicant factors causing
delay of building construction projects in Malaysia, Engineering Construction
& Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 192-206.
Al-Khalil, M.I. and Al-Ghay, M.A. (1999), Delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 101-106.
Al-Momani, A.H. (2000), Construction delay: a quantitative analysis, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 18, pp. 51-59.
Arditi, D., Akan, G.T. and Gurdamar, S. (1985), Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey,
Constrution Management and Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 171-181.
Bordoli, D.W. and Baldwin, A.N. (1998), A methodology for assessing construction projects
delays, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 327-337.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2005), Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A Guide for
Social Scientists, Routledge, London.
Chan, D.W. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), A comparative study of causes of time overruns
in Hong Kong construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 55-63.
CIDB (2005), The Construction Industry Directory, Construction Industry Development Board
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Denscombe, M. (2007), The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 3rd ed.,
Open University Press, Maidenhead.
JFMPC
19,1
72
Denscombe, M. (2010), The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th ed.,
Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Dillman, D.A. (1972), Increasing mail questionnaire response in large sample of the general
public, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, Summer, pp. 254-257.
Dillman, D.A. (2007), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Dlakwa, M. and Culpin, M.F. (1990), Reasons for overrun in public sector construction projects
in Nigeria, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 237-241.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C.B. and Rentala, S. (2012), Analysing factors affecting delays
in Indian construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 479-489.
Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y., Ofori, G. and Silva, N.D. (2002), Enhancing integration and
innovation in construction, Building Research & Information, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 237-247.
Elinwa, A.U. and Buba, S.A. (1993), Construction cost factors in Nigeria, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 119 No. 4, pp. 698-713.
Elinwa, A.U. and Joshua, M. (2001), Time-overrun factors in Nigerian construction industry,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, September/October, pp. 419-425.
Endut, I.R. (2008), Framework for minimising time overruns of Malaysian construction
projects, thesis submitted to Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Endut, I.R., Akintoye, A. and Kelly, J. (2006), Relationship between duration and cost of
Malaysian construction projects, paper presented at the International Conference in the
Built Environment in the 21st Century (ICiBE 2006), Kuala Lumpur, 13-15 June.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2009), Delays and cost overruns in the
construction projects in the Gaza Strip, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-151.
Fan, W. and Yan, Z. (2010), Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic
review, Computers in Human Behaviour, No. 26, pp. 132-139.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 321-326.
Gliem, J.A. and Gliem, R.R. (2003), Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbachs alpha
reliability coefcient for Likert-type scales, paper presented at the Midwest
Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 8-10 October.
Hanna, A.S., Taylor, C.S. and Sullivan, K.T. (2005), Impact of extended overtime on construction
labor productivity, J. Constr. Eng. Manage., Vol. 131 No. 6, pp. 734-739.
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), Factors inuencing construction
time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia, Construction Management and
Economics, No. 15, pp. 83-94.
Koushki, P.A., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), Delays and cost increases in the construction
of private residential projects in Kuwait, Journal of Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 285-294.
Koushki, P.K. and Kartam, N. (2004), Impact of construction materials on project time and cost
in Kuwait, Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 126-132.
Project time and
cost overrun
73
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.
Likert, R. (1931), A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes: Archives of Psychology,
Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Marzouk, M.M. and El-Rasas, T.I. (2014), Analyzing 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, pp. 6-15 (Mathematical Applications in Engineering).
Mezher, T.M. and Tawil, W. (1998), Causes of delay in the construction industry in Lebanon,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 252-260.
Mohamad, M.I., Mohamad-Zin, R. and Tee, D.C.B. (2007), Guidelines for the Preparation and
Submission of Work Schedule for Construction Project, available at: http://eprints.utm.my/
579/1/cm_14%5B1%5D_Guidelines_preparation_Rosli.pdf (accessed 13 March 2013).
Mohamad, Z. (2005), 15 projeck ATM terbengkalai Kementerian Pertahanan kecewa
permodenan terbantut, Utusan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
NMP for 2006-2010 (2007), Ninth Malaysian Plan, available at: www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/html/
english.htm (assessed 10 August 2007).
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 and Construction, Vol. 2, pp. 31-44.
Ofori, G. (1991), Programmes for improving the performance of contracting rms in developing
countries: a review of approaches and appropriate options, Journal of Management and
Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 19-38.
Ofori, G. (1993), Research on construction industry development at the crossroads, Journal of
Management and Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 175-185.
Ogunlana, S.O., Promkuntong, K. and Jearkjirm, V. (1996), Construction delays in fast-growing
economy: comparing Thailand with other economies, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Othman, A.A., Torrance, J.V. and Hamid, M.A. (2006), Factors inuencing the construction time
of civil engineering projects in Malaysia, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 481-501.
Pallant, J. (2010), SPSS Survival Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pereira, B. (2006), A monument to sweet deals, New Straits Times, May, p. 12.
Ramanathan, C., Potty, N.S. and Arazi, B. (2012), Analysis of time and cost overrun in
Malaysian construction, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 452/453, pp. 1002-1008,
24 January, available at: www.scientic.net
Rashid, A. (1996), Developing world-beating contractors through procurement policies: the case
of Malaysia, CIB W92 North Meets South Procurement Systems Symposium, Durban,
South Africa, pp. 1-2.
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.
Shi, J.J., Cheung, S.O. and Arditi, D. (2001), Construction delay computation method, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 60-65.
JFMPC
19,1
74
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, pp. 665-674.
Ting, S.N., Khoo, H.K. and Wong, S.B. (2007), Project Management Development inMalaysia: ACase
Study, available at: www.debtventurescom/images/default/Project%20management%
20Development%20in%20Malaysia%20-%20A%20%case%20study.pdf (accessed
19 December 2007).
Walker, D.H.T. (1995), An investigation into construction time performance, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 263-274.
Winch, G.M. (2002), Managing Construction Projects, 5th ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Wong, C.H., Holt, G.D. and Cooper, P.A. (2007), Project Feasibility Studies Their Role in
Promoting Better Practice: A UK and Malaysian Comparison, available at: http://buildnet.
csir.co.za/cdcproc/docs/1st/wong_ch.pdf (assessed 14 January 2013).
Yap, L.H. and Suithuruka, K. (2003), RM9.5 Billion Government Contracts Delayed, The Star,
Kuala Lumpur, p. 16.
Ying, Y.L. (2005), Kelewatan projek perumahan PDRM cetus dilema, Utusan, available
at: www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y2005&dt0614&pubutusan_malaysia&
secRencana&pgre_05.htm (assessed 17 June 2013).
Further reading
Flanagan, R. and Norman, G. (1993), Risk Management and Construction, Blackwell, London.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Chan, D.W. (1998), Contributors to construction delays, Journal of
Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 17-29.
Manseld, N., Ugwu, O. and Doran, T. (1994), Caused of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 245-260.
Mustafa, M.A. and Al-Bahar, J.F. (1991), Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy
process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46, pp. 48-50.
Nkado, R.N. (1995), Construction time-inuencing factors: the contractors perspective, Journal
of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 81-89.
Scott, S. (1993), Dealing with delay claims: a survey, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 143-153.
Utusan Online (2005), available at: www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y2004&dt (accessed
January 2005).
Williams, T. (2003), Assessing extension of time delays on major projects, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 19-26.
Zhi, H. (1995), Risk management for overseas construction projects, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 231-237.
Corresponding author
Intan R. Endut can be contacted at: z_intan@yahoo.com
Project time and
cost overrun
75
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints