Delays in construction projects: The case of Jordan

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

Delays in construction projects: The case of Jordan

G. Sweis a,*, R. Sweis b, A. Abu Hammad c, A. Shboul d

a Department of Civil Engineering, University of Jordan, Jordanb Department of Business Administration, Amman – Ahlyah University, Jordan

c Department of Civil Engineering, Applied Science University, Jordand Department of Architecture Engineering, University of Jordan, Jordan

Received 29 April 2007; received in revised form 22 August 2007; accepted 25 September 2007

Abstract

The construction industry is a major player in the economy, generating both, employment and wealth. However many projects expe-rience extensive delays and thereby exceed initial time and cost estimates. A host of causes of construction delays in residential projectswere identified and classified according to Drewin’s Open Conversion System. The most common causes were evaluated by using both,the data collected in a survey conducted to residential projects consultant engineers, contractors, and owners, and interviews with seniorprofessionals in the field. Most correspondents agreed that, financial difficulties faced by the contractor and too many change orders bythe owner are the leading causes of construction delay. Severe weather conditions and changes in government regulations and lawsranked among the least important causes.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Construction delays; Residential construction projects; Jordanian construction industry

1. Introduction

Stumpf [1] defined delay as an act or event that extendsthe time required to perform the tasks under a contract. Itusually shows up as additional days of work or as a delayedstart of an activity. He showed, in his article, that delaydoes matter, and that different methods for analyzing sche-dule delay lead to different results for the owner andcontractor.

Construction delays became an integral part of the pro-ject’s construction life. Even with today’s advanced tech-nology, and management understanding of projectmanagement techniques, construction projects continueto suffer delays and project completion dates still getpushed back [1].

There are many reasons why delays occur. They may bedue to strikes, rework, poor organization, material short-age, equipment failure, change orders, act of God and so

0263-7863/$30.00 � 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.009

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 6 535 5000; fax: +962 6 535 5580.E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Sweis).

on. In addition, delays are often interconnected, makingthe situation even more complex [2].

Recent events in the Middle East region coupled withrestructuring of economies, emergence of the World TradeOrganization and the rising price of oil are expected toyield an unprecedented growth in construction activities,especially in the tourism and the residential sectors. Conse-quently, a huge number of large-scale projects are currentlyunder construction or in the planning and contract-award-ing phase. Recently, the Jordanian construction industryhas been undergoing a boom. One major question of con-cern however arises: what are the major causes of delays inthe Jordanian construction industry and their relativeimportance?

2. Problem statement and study objectives

Delays in construction projects are common in the Jor-danian construction industry. Construction delays areoften responsible for turning profitable projects into loos-ing ventures. These delays can be avoided or reduced

mailto:[email protected]

666 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

provided the major causes of such delays can be identifiedand dealt with in a timely fashion. Therefore the studyobjectives are (a) to identify the major causes of delay inthe Jordanian residential construction sector; and (b) toasses the relative importance of these causes from the pointof view of residential projects consultant engineers, con-tractor, and owners.

3. Literature review

Delays happen in most construction projects, whethersimple or complex. Construction delay could be definedas the time overrun either beyond the contract date orbeyond the date that the parties agreed upon for deliveryof a project [11].

Odeh and Battaineh [8], Kaming et al. [13] andAlaghbari et al. [14] stressed the importance of earlyidentification of construction delays and suggested majordelay-reducing remedies.

Analyses of delays are characterized as complex and dif-ficult due to the large number of activities that have to bedealt with in any construction project [25]. Researchershave studied the numerous causes of delay in constructionprojects; Baldwin et al. [16], Arditi et al.[17], Okpala andAniekwu [18], Dlakwa and Culpin [19], Mansfield et al.

Table 1Summary of previous studies of the causes of delay in construction projects (m

Country Researchers

Saudi Arabia Assaf et al. [3]

Lebanon Mezher et al. [4]

Saudi Arabia Al-Khal and Al-Ghafly [5]

Jordan Al-Moumani [7]

Kuwait Koushki et al. [6]

United Arab Emirates (UAE) Faridi and El-Sayegh [15]

Saudi Arabia Assaf and Al-Hejji [13]

[20], Semple et al. [21], Ogunlana et al. [22], Lo et al.[23], Chan and Kumaraswamy [24], and Aibinu and Odey-inka [9] cited many significant causes of delays as: inclem-ent weather, shortages of resources, financial difficultiesfaced by public agencies and contractors, poor contractmanagement, shortages of materials, and inadequateresources. Their overall ranking of delay causes indicatedareas of construction industry practices that requireimprovement. However, they still differed in their percep-tions as to what should be emphasized most among the dif-ferent construction delay causes.

Few studies have been conducted in Jordan as well asthe Middle East region on the subject of constructiondelays. Such studies are found in different countries likeSaudi Arabia [5,11,3], Lebanon [4], and Kuwait [6]. Table1 shows a summary of previous studies on constructiondelays in the Middle East.

There is no consensus in the literature on the identifica-tion of factors which affect construction times of buildings.One reason for this is that researchers have largely viewedthe subject from diverse perspectives. Even most recentresearch in construction delay is characterized by diversi-fied views on what should constitute a major delay causein construction projects [27–34]. This study seeks to buildon prior research by ranking each individual cause of con-

iddle east region)

Major causes of delay

� Slow preparation and approval of shop drawings� Delays in payments to contractors� Changes in design/design error� Shortages of labor supply� Poor workmanship� Owner had more concerns with regard to financial issues� Contractors regarded contractual relationships the most important� Consultants considered project management issues to be the most

important causes of delay� Cash flow problems/financial difficulties� Difficulties in obtaining permits� ‘‘Lowest bid wins’’ system� Poor design� Changes in orders/design� Weather� Unforeseen site conditions� Late deliveries� Changing orders� Owners’ financial constraints� Owners’ lack of experience in the construction business� Slow preparation and approval of drawings� Inadequate early planning of the project� Slowness of owner’s decision making� Shortage of manpower� Poor site management and supervision� Low productivity of manpower� Change in orders by the owner during construction� Delay in progress payment� Ineffective planning and scheduling� Shortage of labor� Difficulties in financing on the part of the contractor

Input Factors Output Factors

Feed Back Feed Back

Disturbance Disturbance

Disturbance Disturbance

Labor

Capital

Energy

Material

Equipment

Exogeneous Factors such as: Weather, Economic Conditions, Unions, Government Regulations, Public, etc.

ProductsandProjects

Rework

Internal Environment, Organizational Structure, Supervision, Management, Span of Control, Work Rules, etc.

InputMechanism

OutputMechanism

ConversionTechnology

Fig. 1. Drewin’s open conversion system.

G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674 667

struction delay from the viewpoints of the consultant engi-neer, the residential contractor, and the owner in the con-text of Drewin’s Open Conversion System.

4. Research design and survey methodology

The design of the questionnaire has been based on theOpen Conversion System proposed by Drewin [10].According to Drewin, the conversion process associatedwith construction is complex, influenced by technologyand by many externalities such as government regulations,weather, unions, economic conditions, etc., and by variousinternal environment components (Fig. 1). This research,hence synthesizes potential delay causes identified in previ-ous research [5] and the factors presented in the Drewin’sOpen Conversion System to arrive at a clearly structuredquestionnaire. Finally, 40 potential delay causes were sum-marized into three major categories:

Input Factors (IF)

1 Contractors hired by the owner.

Labor (L)Materials (M)Equipment (E)

Internal Environment (IE)ContractorOwnerConsultant

Exogenous Factors (EF)WeatherGovernment Regulations

Due to the dearth of real data relating to delays in res-idential construction, the researchers developed a surveyquestionnaire to assess the perceptions of the consultants,contractors, and owners of the relative importance of con-

struction delay causes and measure differences in collectiveperspectives and any possible popular misconceptions orprejudices.

Next, the questionnaire was distributed to a randomsample of consultants, contractors,1 and owners, in thefield of residential building projects in Jordan. Responsesto the questionnaire were then collected and analyzed.

The analysis of the questionnaire included ranking ofthe different responses according to their frequency forconsultants, contractors, and owners (Appendix A). Fur-thermore, a one-way ANOVA was carried out among themeans of responses of the three groups for each individualdelay cause to measure for any significant differencesamong the respondents’ perceptions. Discussion of theresults was based on personal interviews that were con-ducted to clarify responses. Interviewees were experts fromthe Association of Construction Contractors and the Min-istry of Housing and Public Works.

The scope of this research includes residential buildingsin Jordan. Sampling in this research was necessary becauseit would be practically impossible to conduct a census torank delay causes by all elements of the population. Thepopulation consists of all the consultants, contractors,and owners in the Municipality of Amman who are activelyinvolved in residential buildings at the time the study wasconducted. The researchers chose to follow a simple ran-dom sampling to assure that each element in the popula-tion has an equal chance of being included in the sample.This technique was deemed most appropriate given the rel-atively large size of the population of consultants, contrac-tors, and owners. The sample size was selected based on thejudgment of the researchers taking into consideration the

Table 2Frequency weighting scale in the research survey

Frequency Scale

Continual Frequent Occasional Rare Never5 4 3 2 1


low variance or homogeneity of the different elements ofthe population [26]. Finally a sample of 30 consultants,50 contractors, and 30 owners were drawn that was pro-portional to the relative population size [12].

Returned questionnaires consisted of 29 consultants, 36contractors, and 26 clients. The respondents were asked toexpress their perception, in terms of frequency of the delaycauses stated in the questionnaire. The questionnaire wasconstructed based on the compiled list of causes. Therespondents were asked to give their opinion on the fre-quency of each delay cause based on a five-point Likertscale. The scale and the weight given to each response areshown in Table 2.

5. Data analysis and results

The ranking of delay causes was determined by takingthe respective average score of the reported data for allthe respondents. The resulting averages and correspondingranks are presented in Appendix A.

All average values above 3 are considered ‘‘acceptedresults’’, which basically indicated that the correspondingdelay result is a critical cause of delay to the group in ques-tion. The values are ranked according to their averages in adescending order according to the highest average in thegroup response.

– The consultants’ responses classified the following threedelay causes as the most critical:1. Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the

contractor2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor3. Too many change orders from owner

– The contractor accepted the following as critical topthree delay causing factors:1. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor2. Too many change orders from owner3. Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled,

unskilled labor)
– The owners viewed the following three delay causes as
most critical:1. Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the

contractor2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor3. Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project

6. Discussion of the results

The following discussion will emphasize on the mostimportant causes of delay by each of the three parties

and by the consensus justification as provided by theexperts during post-results interviews.

� Financial difficulties faced by the contractorFinancialdifficulties faced by the contractor were considered tobe the first and most frequent causes of delay in build-ing projects in Jordan from the viewpoint of the con-tractor and second most important according to boththe owner and the consultant.Most expert intervieweesclaim that financial difficulties faced by the contractorare a natural result of the competitive nature of theindustry. Furthermore, most Jordanian residential con-tractors are independent, small in size, and often resortsto underbidding rivals to win contracts. Also contrac-tors in Jordan have little access to credit facilities.The causes mentioned above provide for a certain rec-ipe for cash flow problems later.It is obvious that boththe owner and the consultant support the contractor’sclaim with respect to the contractor’s financial difficul-ties by ranking it second most important cause. More-over, the contractor indirectly blames his/her financialdifficulties on the owner by ranking ‘‘delay in progresspayments by the owner’’ 5th most important cause ofdelay.� Too many change orders by the ownerHaving to deal

with too many change orders ranked as the secondmost important delay cause from the viewpoint of thecontractor and third most important according to theconsultant. In fact, many experts agree that excessivechange orders have a tremendous effect on the financialperformance of a construction project. Change orderscan make or break a job. The average cost of changeorders on construction, as a percentage of the originalproject budget, is 5–10%, according to many expertinterviewees.It is clear that the contractors supporttheir opinion regarding change orders as a major delaycause by ranking ‘‘Interference in the constructionoperation’’ as eighth highest among the delay causes.Furthermore, the contractor partially blames the con-sultant for the extensive change orders. This is mani-fested by the relatively high rank (9th) given to thedelay cause ‘‘Ambiguities, mistakes, and inconsistenciesin specifications and drawings’’. On the other hand, wenotice that the views of both consultant and owner areleaning toward blaming excessive change order partiallyon the contractor’s shortage of technical professionalsin the contractor’s organization ranking it 4th and5th respectively.� Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the

contractorBoth the owner and the consultant rankedthis major delay cause as most important. The criticalimportance of this cause can be seen clearly by notic-ing the relatively high ranks given by both the consul-tant and the owner for the following delay causesrelating both directly and indirectly to ‘‘poor planningand scheduling of the project by the contractor’’(Table 3).

Table 3Highly ranked factors relevant to poor planning and scheduling

Delay cause Rank byconsultant

Rank byowner

Shortage of technical professionals in thecontractor’s organization

4th 5th

Insufficient coordination among the partiesby the contractor

5th 10th

Ineffective quality control by the contractor 7th 9th


� Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilledlabor)Manpower shortage was ranked third most impor-tant delay cause from the viewpoint of the contractor.Manpower shortage, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled,has been a serious delay cause for residential construc-tion projects in Jordan. Recently, the Middle East regionhas been experiencing a boom in construction due towars as well as the high prices of oil resulting in accessliquidity and thus a higher demand for investmentopportunities. The Jordanian residential constructionboom has been accompanied by shortages in foreignmanpower leading to higher wages and thus adding tothe financial burden on the contractor. This explainsthe contractor’s reliance on cheap, unskilled labor. Addi-tionally, this fact is very revealing in that it ties with thehigh ranks given by the consultant and the owner to‘‘Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the con-tractor’’ and ‘‘Incompetent technical staff assigned to theproject’’ respectively.

Source DF SS MS F P Type 2 0.189 0.095 0.17 0.840 Error 87 47.100 0.541 Total 89 47.289

S = 0.7358 R-Sq = 0.40% R-Sq(adj) = 0

Individua Pooled St

Level N Mean StDev ---+-----Consultant 28 4.3214 0.6696 (---Contractor 37 4.3514 0.7156 Owner 25 4.2400 0.8307 (--------

---+----- 4.00

Pooled StDev = 0.7358

Fig. 2. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Financial

7. Difference in perception among the three groups

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted amongthe means of responses from the three groups to checkfor any significant differences among the groups’ percep-tions regarding the importance of the various delay causes.The mean values under the three groups, F statistics, andthe P values at which hypothesis of equality of mean valuesacross different groups could be rejected were calculated(Appendix B). From the analysis, it was found that therewere statistically non-significant differences among therespondent groups over the following causes:

1. Changes in Government regulations and laws.2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor.3. Severe weather conditions on the job site.

The results of the ANOVA analysis (Figs. 2–4) showthat the means of the different groups are not significantlydifferent from one another (measured F’s = 0.17, 0.73,0.07) while the tabular critical F value at the 0.05 levelfor 2� and 87� of freedom is approximately (3.10), indicat-ing a strong agreement among the three groups. Conse-quently, there is no need to carry out the analysis anyfurther by using Duncan Multiple Range Test or Scheffe’sTest to detect where exactly the mean differences lie sincedifferences are negligible.

Combining the above result with the highest-rankingcauses according to the mean of the averages of the three

.00%

l 95% CIs For Mean Based on Dev ----+---------+---------+----------------*-------------)(-----------*-----------)------*--------------)----+---------+---------+------ 4.20 4.40 4.60

difficulties faced by the contractor’’.


S = 0.7452 R-Sq = 1.65% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDevLevel N Mean StDev --------+---------+---------+---------+-Consultant 28 1.7143 0.6587 (-------------*-------------)Contractor 37 1.9189 0.7951 (-----------*-----------)Owner 25 1.9200 0.7594 (--------------*--------------)

--------+---------+---------+---------+- 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20


Fig. 3. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Severe weather conditions on the job site’’.


S = 0.7605 R-Sq = 0.17% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDevLevel N Mean StDev ---+---------+---------+---------+------Consultant 28 1.8214 0.6696 (-------------*-------------)Contractor 37 1.8919 0.8091 (------------*-----------)Owner 25 1.8800 0.7810 (--------------*--------------)

---+---------+---------+---------+------ 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20


Fig. 4. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Changes in government regulations and laws’’.


groups (Appendix A), namely, ‘‘Financial difficulties facedby the contractor’’, ‘‘Too many change orders from owner’’,and ‘‘Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the con-tractor’’, it becomes clear that ‘‘financial difficulties faced by

the contractor’’ is by consensus of all respondents the lead-ing cause of construction delay in the Jordanian residentialconstruction sector (Fig. 2). In addition, we notice a strongagreement among the respondents on the two lowest scoring


causes namely, severe weather conditions on the job site(Fig. 3) and changes in government regulations and laws(Fig. 4).

8. Conclusion

The findings of this research are discussed below empha-sizing the most important delay causes according to Dre-win’s Open Conversion System. In addition, thediscussion will emphasize the relation between the researchfindings and other comparable research in the field.

� Internal environmentWithin the contractor’s internalenvironment, ‘‘financial difficulties’’ is the first mostimportant delay cause. Moreover, all three groups ofrespondents agree on the severity of this cause therebymaking it one of the most critical delay causes in theJordanian residential construction sector. Both theowner and the consultant ranked ‘‘poor planning andscheduling’’ of the project by the contractor as mostimportant delay cause. Additionally it was rankedthird most important according to the mean of theoverall averages of the three groups of respon-dents.Within the owner’s internal environment, ‘‘toomany change orders’’ is viewed as the second mostimportant delay cause from the perspective of the con-tractor and third most important from the perspectiveof the consultant. Also this delay cause ranked as sec-ond most important according to the mean of theaverage ranking of all three groups of respondents.However, there are no significant delay factors accord-ing to the mean of the overall averages of the threegroups of respondents concerning the consultant’sinternal environment.� Exogenous factorsThe least ranked causes, according to

the perception of all three parties, were severe weatherconditions on the job site and changes in governmentregulations and laws. There are no significant differencesamong all respondents’ perceptions regarding thesedelay causes.Generally speaking, there is a shared senseamong the respondents that weather and the govern-ment are not major contributors to residential construc-tion delays in Jordan. The consensus is that, in Jordan,contact with the government is basically to obtain cer-tain permits and this is usually done at both early andlate stages of the project and consequently not havingany major impact as a delay cause.� Input factorsAmong the Input factors, labor appears to

be most significant. Shortage of manpower (skilled,semi-skilled, unskilled labor was ranked 3rd highest bythe contractor and 15th highest from the perspectiveof the consultant while the owner’s rank of this causecame very low. Whereas equipment and material wereranked very low according to all respondents.

The result of this study indicated that financial difficul-ties faced by the contractor, too many change orders from

owner, and poor planning and scheduling of the projectby the contractor continue to be the major sources of res-idential project delays in Jordan. Using the terminologyof the Drewin’s Open Conversion System, it can beclearly argued that major delay causes are related to theinternal environment of the system especially that of thecontractor, and the Input factors relating to labor, whilethe exogenous factors have very little or negligible effecton project delay.

9. How does the outcome of this research compare with

outcomes of previous research conducted in the Middle East?

In this study, the contractors, consultants, and ownerswere shown to agree statistically on the relative impor-tance ranking of the causes of delay. Among the mostimportant causes found are financial difficulties facedby the contractor and too many change orders. Theseresults are in agreement with outcomes of research con-ducted in Saudi Arabia by Assaf et al. [3], Al-Khaliland Al-Ghafly [5], and Assaf and Al-Hejji [11], Jordan,Al-Momani [7] and Kuwait, Koushki et al. [6]. However,there is a clear disagreement with regard to the signifi-cance of certain delay causes i.e., exogenous factors (gov-ernment and the weather) were very insignificant in thisresearch while Al-Momani [7] ranked the weather as amajor delay-causing factor in the Jordanian constructionindustry.

10. Implications and future research and developments

This study assessed the factors contributing to delays inthe Jordanian residential sector by grouping the variousfactors according to Drewin’s Open Conversion System.The results have clear implications for the residential con-struction sector in Jordan and the construction industry atlarge. By ranking the various delay causes from the per-spectives of consultants, contractors, and owners, thestudy provides a fresh perspective on an old chronic prob-lem in the construction sector. This study has providedevidence on the most significant delay causes in the Jorda-nian residential construction as well as those least signifi-cant causes.

Finally, although this study is specific to the country ofJordan, its results can be applicable to other developingcountries facing similar problems in their residential con-struction sectors. This research could be used as an avenuefor other researchers to conduct additional studies on con-struction delay. Several aspects of this research could beimproved, including the following:

� Expanding the research to other types of projects suchas public projects.� Applying the methodology used in this research to other

developing countries, thereby increasing the data avail-ability for future comparison among different delaycauses.


Appendix A

Average(consultant)

Average(contractor)

Average(owner)

Overallaverage

Labor (L)
1 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled
labor)
3.50 4.16 2.52 3.39
2
Presence of unskilled labor 3.96 3.19 4.08 3.74
Material (M)

3
Shortage of materials 3.11 2.97 2.88 2.99
4
Delay in materials delivery 2.71 3.08 2.96 2.92
5
Materials price fluctuations 2.82 2.65 2.16 2.54
6
Modifications in materials specifications 2.04 2.59 2.24 2.29
Equipment (E)

7
Shortage of equipments 3.04 2.89 3.32 3.08
8
Failure of equipments 2.93 2.62 2.76 2.77
9
Insufficient equipments 2.50 2.46 3.12 2.69
Internal Environment (IE)

Contractor
10 Lack of contractor’s administrative personnel 3.39 2.49 3.36 3.08
11
Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’sorganization
4.18
2.92 4.04 3.71
12
Insufficient coordination among the parties by thecontractor
4.07
2.59 3.8 3.49
13
Delay in mobilization 2.64 2.49 2.32 2.48
14
Safety rules and regulations are not followed within thecontractor’s organization
3.93
2.19 3.96 3.36
15
Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project 3.82 2.86 4.12 3.60
16
Improper technical study by the contractor during thebidding stage
3.89
2.81 3.88 3.53
17
Poor planning and scheduling of the project by thecontractor
4.39
2.95 4.32 3.89
18
Improper handling of the project progress by thecontractor
2.86
2.32 2.76 2.65
19
Ineffective quality control by the contractor 3.96 2.76 3.84 3.52
20
Use of unacceptable construction techniques by thecontractor
2.75
2.11 2.84 2.57
21
Financial difficulties faced by the contractor 4.32 4.35 4.24 4.30 22 Delays in contractor’s payments to subcontractors 3.75 2.73 3.92 3.47
Owner
23 Delays in site preparation 1.96 2.57 2.24 2.26
24
Delay in contractor’s claims settlements 2.54 3.81 2.72 3.02
25
Work suspension by the owner 1.89 2.30 2.48 2.22
26
Too many change orders from owner 4.21 4.24 3.64 4.03
27
Slow decision making from owner 3.86 3.81 2.88 3.52 28 Inference by the owner in the construction operations 3.68 3.76 2.28 3.24
29
Delay in progress payments by the owner 3.43 4.03 2.84 3.43
30
Financial constraints faced by the owner 3.54 2.89 3.32 3.25
31
Insufficient coordination among the parties bythe Owner
3.07
2.70 3.24 3.00


Appendix A (continued)

Average(consultant)

Average(contractor)

Average(owner)

Overallaverage

Consultant
32 Ambiguities and mistakes in specifications and drawings 2.43 3.46 2.76 2.88
33
Poor qualification of consultant engineer’s staff assignedto the project
2.89
3.11 2.88 2.96
34
Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by theengineer
2.68
4.11 3.08 3.29
35
Poor coordination by the consultant engineer with theparties involved
2.46
2.92 2.72 2.70
36
Slow response by the consultant engineer regardingtesting and inspection
2.61
3.05 2.76 2.81
37
Slow response by the consultant engineer to contractorinquiries
2.79
3.30 3.04 3.04
Exogeneous factors (EF)

Weather
38 Severe weather conditions on the job site 1.71 1.92 1.92 1.85
Government regulations
39 Difficulties in obtaining work permits 2.11 2.00 2.44 2.18
40
Changes in Government regulations and laws 1.82 1.89 1.88 1.86
Appendix B

Labor (L)
Overallaverage
F-Values
P-Values
1
Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled labor) 3.39 30.04 0.000 2 Presence of unskilled labor 3.74 10.24 0.000 3 Shortage of materials 2.99 0.44 0.643 4 Delay in materials delivery 2.92 1.36 0.262 5 Materials price fluctuations 2.54 3.65 0.030 6 Modifications in materials specifications 2.29 3.52 0.034 7 Shortage of equipments 3.08 1.71 0.187 8 Failure of equipments 2.77 0.87 0.423 9 Insufficient equipments 2.69 4.36 0.016 10 Lack of contractor’s administrative personnel 3.08 9.00 0.000 11 Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s organization 3.71 26.30 0.000 12 Insufficient coordination among the parties by the contractor 3.49 31.12 0.000 13 Delay in mobilization 2.48 0.89 0.413 14 Safety rules and regulations are not followed within the contractor’s
organization
3.36 51.64 0.000
15
Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project 3.60 20.90 0.000 16 Improper technical study by the contractor during the bidding stage 3.53 13.22 0.000 17 Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor 3.89 32.65 0.000 18 Improper handling of the project progress by the contractor 2.65 3.59 0.032 19 Ineffective quality control by the contractor 3.52 22.05 0.000 20 Use of unacceptable construction techniques by the contractor 2.57 8.28 0.001 21 Financial difficulties faced by the contractor 4.30 0.17 0.840 22 Delays in contractor’s payments to subcontractors 3.47 19.28 0.000 23 Delays in site preparation 2.26 3.62 0.031 24 Delay in contractor’s claims settlements 3.02 19.48 0.000
(continued on next page)


Appendix B (continued)

Labor (L)
Overallaverage
F-Values
P-Values
25
Work suspension by the owner 2.22 3.41 0.038 26 Too many change orders from owner 4.03 4.63 0.012 27 Slow decision making from owner 3.52 11.16 0.000 28 Inference by the owner in the construction operations 3.24 21.59 0.000 29 Delay in progress payments by the owner 3.43 13.01 0.000 30 Financial constraints faced by the owner 3.25 3.72 0.028 31 Insufficient coordination among the parties by the Owner 3.00 3.13 0.049 32 Ambiguities and mistakes in specifications and drawings 2.88 11.49 0.000 33 Poor qualification of consultant engineer’s staff assigned to the project 2.96 0.68 0.512 34 Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by the engineer 3.29 26.05 0.000 35 Poor coordination by the consultant engineer with the parties involved 2.70 1.87 0.161 36 Slow response by the consultant engineer regarding testing and inspection 2.81 2.00 0.141 37 Slow response by the consultant engineer to contractor inquiries 3.04 2.63 0.078 38 Severe weather conditions on the job site 1.85 0.73 0.485 39 Difficulties in obtaining work permits 2.18 1.83 0.166 40 Changes in Government regulations and laws 1.86 0.07 0.929
References

[1] Stumpf G. Schedule delay analysis. Cost Eng J 2000;42(7):32–43.[2] Alkass S, Mazerolle M, Harris F. Construction delay analysis

techniques. Constr Manage Econ 1996;14(5):375–94.[3] Assaf SA, Al-Khalil M, Al-Hazmi M. Causes of delay in large

building construction projects. J Manage Eng 1995;11(2):45–50.[4] Mezher T, Tawil W. Causes of delays in the construction industry in

Lebanon. Eng Constr Arch Manage J 1998;5(3):252–60.[5] Al-Khalil M, Al-Ghafly M. Important causes of delay in public utility

projects in Saudi Arabia. Constr Manage Econ 1999;17(5):647–55.[6] Koushki PA, Al-Rashid K, Kartam N. Delays and cost increases in

construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Constr ManageEcon 2005;23(3):285–94.

[7] Al-Moumani A. Construction delays: a quantitative analysis. Int JProject Manage 2000;18(4):51–9.

[8] Odeh AM, Battaineh HT. Causes of construction delay: traditionalcontracts. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):67–73.

[9] Aibinu A, Odeyinka H. Construction delays and their causativefactors in Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manage 2006;132(7):667–77.

[10] Drewin FJ. Construction productivity: measurement and improve-ment through work study. Elsevier; 1985.

[11] Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S. Causes of delay in large construction projects.Int J Project Manage 2006;24(4):349–57.

[12] Zikmund W. Business research methods (Thomson-South-Western);2003. p. 388–89.

[13] Kaming P, Olomolaiye P, Holt G, Harris F. Factors influencingconstruction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indone-sia. Constr Manage Econ 1997;15(1):83–94.

[14] Alaghbari W, Razali M, Kadir S, Ernawat G. The significant factorscausing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia. EngConstr Arch Manage 2007;14(2):192–206.

[15] Faridi AS, El-Sayegh SM. Significant factors causing delay in the UAEconstruction industry. Constr Manage Econ 2006;24(11):1167–76.

[16] Baldwin JR, Mathei JM, Rothbart H, Harris RB. Causes of delay in theconstruction industry. J Constr Division, ASCE 1971;97(2):177–87.

[17] Arditi D, Akan GT, Gurdamar S. Reasons for delays in publicprojects in Turkey. Constr Manage Econ 1985;3:171–81.

[18] Okpala DC, Aniekwu AN. Causes of high costs of construction inNigeria. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE 1988;114(2):233–44.

[19] Dlakwa MM, Culpin MF. Reasons for overrun in public sectorconstructionprojects inNigeria. IntJProjectManage1990;8(4):237–41.

[20] Mansfield NR, Ugwu OO, Doran T. Causes of delay and costoverruns in Nigerian construction projects. Int J Project Manage1994;12(4):254–60.

[21] Semple C, Hartman FT, Jergeas G. Construction claims and disputes:causes and cost/time overruns. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE1994;120(4):785–95.

[22] Ogunlana SO, Promkuntong K, Jearkjirm V. Construction delays in afast-growing economy: comparing Thailand with other economies.Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):37–45.

[23] Lo TY, Fung IWH, Tung KCF. Construction delays in Hong Kongcivil engineering projects. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE2006;132(6):636–49.

[24] Chan DWM, Kumaraswamy MM. Reasons for delay in civilengineering projects—the case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong InstitEng Trans 1996;2(3):1–8.

[25] Shi J, Cheung S, Arditi D. Construction delay computation method. JConstr Eng Manage, ASCE 2001;127(1):60–5.

[26] Seymour Sudman. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press;1976. p. 86–7.

[27] Hegab MY, Smith JR. Delay time analysis in microtunnelingprojects. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE 2007;133(2):191–5.

[28] Abdul-Rahman H, Berawi MA, Berawi AR, Mohamed O, OthmanM, Yahya IA. Delay mitigation in the Malaysian constructionindustry. J Constr Eng Manage 2006;132(2):125–33.

[29] Youngjae K, Kyungrai K, Dongwoo S. Delay analysis method usingdelay section. J Constr Eng Manage 2005;131(11):1155–64.

[30] Yates JK, Epstein A. Avoiding and minimizing construction delayclaim disputes in relational contracting. J Profl Issues Eng Educ Pract2006;132(2):168–79.

[31] Sambasivan M, Wen Soon Y. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysianconstruction industry. Int J Project Manage 2007;25(5):517–26.

[32] Zaneldin EK. Construction claims in United Arab Emirates: types,causes, and frequency. Int J Project Manage 2006;24(5):453–9.

[33] Zwikael O, Cohen Y, Sadeh A. Non-delay scheduling as a managerialapproach for managing projects. Int J Project Manage2006;24(4):330–6.

[34] Arditi D, Pattanakitchamroon T. Selecting a delay analysis method inresolving construction claims. Int J Constr Manage 2006;24(2):145–55.

Delays in construction projects: The case of Jordan

Documents

Transcript of Delays in construction projects: The case of Jordan